Geologist: ''Jesus was married with a child and tomb found''

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: yorkshirelad

Seriously, if a Science Fiction author can invent a religion in this day and age then get enough members and power to become recognized as an actual religion, then any beliefs are possible.

all glory and praise to L Ron HubBored

I also recall the Planet of the Apes series of flicks once had them worshipping a nuclear warhead missile

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Pardon my writing. That was my mistake.
But following the Hebrew language, they only use consonants no vowels.
So Jesus will be something like: (if we use English)
JSH - that can mean anything.

a reply to: Abednego

Unless they were put there deliberately somewhen, for example 200AD?

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: Abednego

Unless they were put there deliberately somewhen, for example 200AD?

Who knows...
Who are you thinking?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is ridiculous, of coarse Jesus existed. How much research have you put into the topic to claim such things. Did you just hear one persons opinion on the topic and run with it? There have been plenty of publications that show Jesus was in fact here, but the question for many is ,was he the Son of God.

Even Jews and Muslims acknowledge He was here, but for them he was just a profit and not the Son of God.

To say Jesus did not exist is as ignorant to me as those who claim the Holocaust did not happen...IMO.

I am very interested in how you can prove that Jesus DID not exist, imo it is up to to the people that deny his existence to prove it not the other way around.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is ridiculous, of coarse Jesus existed. How much research have you put into the topic to claim such things. Did you just hear one persons opinion on the topic and run with it? There have been plenty of publications that show Jesus was in fact here, but the question for many is ,was he the Son of God.

I've done quite a bit of research into this topic. Thank you very much. I know of the two sources that are commonly used to cite Jesus' existence, but I am also aware of the flaws in those writings. Be careful, don't follow a bandwagon appeal just because it sounds good. Jesus belief is a primary example of a bandwagon appeal. Because people's decision of existence is SOOO ingrained into their heads, they have trouble actually researching the topic seriously.

I'm not saying that he didn't exist, but from what I've seen historians are a LONG way off from proving he lived as well.

Even Jews and Muslims acknowledge He was here, but for them he was just a profit and not the Son of God.

To say Jesus did not exist is as ignorant to me as those who claim the Holocaust did not happen...IMO.

Yea yea. I've heard this before. Next you are going to tell me that 90% of the archaeologists (or some other percentage made up on the spot) believe that he is real as well. Never mind that many of those archaeologists are also Christian. At the end of the day, the only reason to say that Jesus existed is because everyone else says it is so.

a reply to: Abednego

It was just a suggestion.

There are suggestions of tombs being manipulated as 'Jesus's house' etc so it could be something like that.

Well, if I was one of Jesus's disciples, I would make a deal with Judas to have him pick me so that Jesus would go on and the people after him would think he was dead. Any one of his disciples would probably do that for him.

So maybe Jesus just changed who he was after that and kept on preaching.

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That is ridiculous, of coarse Jesus existed. How much research have you put into the topic to claim such things. Did you just hear one persons opinion on the topic and run with it? There have been plenty of publications that show Jesus was in fact here, but the question for many is ,was he the Son of God.

Even Jews and Muslims acknowledge He was here, but for them he was just a profit and not the Son of God.

I doubt the existence of the historical Jesus for various reasons:
1) All accounts of Jesus from other people not in the Bible were all just hearsay, nobody witnessed his existence.
2) The Romans were amazing at keeping records and yet there are no records of a Jesus being executed by Pontius Pilatus.
3) There are no contemporaries writings that mention Jesus (not Jewish, not Roman)....no contemporaries, all written well after his death.

And no, the Bible is not proof of historic records, Jewish contemporary never mentioned him and the Muslims did 700 years later because it was convenient to prove their own prophet.

a reply to: rickymouse

There is quite compelling evidence that this is just exactly what happened...and that he left the area with a bounty on his head, and went to Kashmir and lived out his life. He was known as Issa there. The Muslims today still call him Isa, I believe.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The article was written on the anniversary of the true Resurrection date. I find that a little odd. Sounds to me like they're trying to resurrect some old propaganda.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: rickymouse

There is quite compelling evidence that this is just exactly what happened...and that he left the area with a bounty on his head, and went to Kashmir and lived out his life. He was known as Issa there. The Muslims today still call him Isa, I believe.

This is interesting, I will have to do a little research on Issa.

Found this, it is pretty interesting. But this is about his younger years I think. reluctant-messenger.com...

a reply to: rickymouse

Here's a starter volume that I've read....but there are tons more.
The Fifth Gospel: New Evidence from the Tibetan, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian and Urdu Sources About the Historical Life of Jesus Christ After the Crucifixion

originally posted by: ISeekTruth101
I am very interested in how you can prove that Jesus DID not exist, imo it is up to to the people that deny his existence to prove it not the other way around.

Can you prove King Arthur didn't exist? Merlin? Robin Hood? (there is potential historical evidence for just such an outlaw).

What about Hercules (he was also the son of god)? Horus? At one time people believed they existed as historical figures. So they obviously were until you prove otherwise?

What about Romulus? There was a city and a whole empire named after him. He was born when a god impregnated a virgin, after all (sound familiar?). Looks like they've even found the "lupercale". Surely Plutarch wouldn't have written about it if he wasn't real?

What they all have in common with Jesus is a strong element of mythology and absolutely no genuine historical evidence to suggest they really existed (with the possible exception of Robin Hood). Going by your logic, Xenu also existed, until it is proven that he didn't.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Abednego

Wait. If Yosef is written for Joseph? Then why isn't Yeshua written for Jesus? It's common knowledge that Jesus was actually named Joshua.

Someone forged the names on the tomb apparently if thats the case. The guy is going for soemthing most will believe but not everyone.

When i read your title "Jesus was married with a child and tomb found" i thought: "oh no a pedophile and his young "servant" had to die with him". But just a Jhs from Nazareth with his child...
You can never ever prove if it is THE jesus, because you wouldn't have any samples to counter check. Or would there be neon letters, because it is jesus with "Son of God" written all over his DNA?

I agree with those that said that Jesus under whatever name was used in the time of life in earth did existed, with all the flaws of goods of human nature.

But that ends there, the Jesus of the bible and the links of been the son of a God is a church man made idol to attract the masses, a fantastical story that help humanity become the sole master over other creatures in earth and a way for those that called themselves emissaries of God reap all the power and make all the money.

And the fallacy still works and is still very much worshiped to this days.

originally posted by: Aleister
Just wondering how the geologist knows that the body was Jesus? I know the inscription on James' box is disputed (with evidence on both sides of the dispute). Now Jesus has been found in the tomb? No DNA to play with (I assume), so how would he point to a particular thing and call it Jesus' remains?

Simple....... the guy is trying to get paid... in cash over a subject matter that is highly diverse to some and not to others.

No one today can call him out as "liar" and he knows this .... so why not get paid?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Krazysh0t

If Jesus never existed, what impact would that have on Christianity?

Somehow I feel it would have zero impact. They'd just deny whatever evidence proved Jesus didn't exist and go on believing.

Exactly.

Considering the strength of the evidence on which they've established their beliefs, it's clear that "evidence" and "proof" are irrelevant to the continuation of said beliefs.