Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals:Names, Testimonies of First Christians

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Yes proof can be denied, but I am not denying proof, because there is none. I am stating that there is a lack of proof.

I am saying that proof is not necessarily definitive. People are going to differentiate between the weight of evidence vs. proof. To me there is 'proof' Jesus existed because I have researched the evidence extensively. Then there are those who claim there is not even 'a shred of evidence.' That is the point I am making.

Again I am forced to ask, what 'PROOF' would seal the deal for you. And if you say archaeological evidence, what would it take to confirm that piece was Jesus', created by Jesus, associated with Jesus, etc. Truly there is nothing that would be 'PROOF, PROOF, PROOF' for the hardcore skeptic. Not for any figure in antiquity, as I gave a loose analogy above. It can all be refuted, totally debunked, or have alternate explanations provided. It would require sticking our fingers in our ears while saying 'LALALA' like many do with Jesus' historical existence but it can be done. So what is the PROOF?

Let's take another well known figure, let's say Tiberius Caesar. His coins depicted the image of an imaginary being just like the Zeus coins so that goes bye-bye, the eye witness accounts of his life cannot be considered reliable since eye witness accounts can be faulty (as was stated in this thread concerning Jesus), PROVE to me he said the words he did and did the things he did, PROVE to me his writings are His own, his body is his, dismiss everything written about him after his death (including his death because I want it ALL written about him during his life), etc. I would be looking pretty foolish right now to you if I actually demanded such things. You'd be thinking, 'Get a grip, Ash. Caesar existed.' That is precisely how people who deny Jesus' existence come across to me. Although the evidence for Him is different than Tiberius or Alexander, evidence for Jesus' existence does exist.

That is what I was implying but it looked like the point was missed. As they say, 'For the skeptic, no proof is never enough.' Proof can be denied and is not definitive. So what seal the deal for you?

Originally posted by AshleyD
Yes I get the point, but you don't seem to understand one thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The story of Alexander the Great is logical, makes sense, and fits in the timeline. The story of Jesus is based on miracles and is intertwined with fairytale elements.

If someone says that they saw 'person A', you would have no reason to doubt them, correct?
If the same person says they saw a ghost, you would be more skeptical and would need evidence in order to believe, correct?

This is the difference between Alexander the Great and Jesus. And it's a difference that many creationists who use this argument do not understand. I never said that Alexander the Great is 100% likely to have existed. However, his story is FAR more probable to be true, just as 'person A' is far more likely to have existed than the ghost, even given the same amount of evidence, or lack thereof.

I have already addressed this issue. There was also A LOT of weird supernatural stuff written about Alexander. However, unlike Jesus, historians can separate fact from fiction. They can agree that He did certain things that the historians record but not other 'supernatural' things- even when the accounts go up to five centuries after his life. Not just that he existed but what he did, who he was, what he was like, what he said, etc.

However, hardcore skeptics will dismiss the excerpt from Tacitus, for example, that mentions nothing about Jesus on a spiritual level but simply records historical events of Jesus' death. They can't even accept the fact and dismiss the supernatural like intellectually honest scholars do with Alex. THAT is the point. And Alex's accounts ARE 'intertwined with fairytale elements' but modern historians dismiss those accounts and simply accept the other things. I understand evidence of Alex and Jesus are two different ball games but the textual evidence is on the same level. Alex: Dismiss the supernatural and accept the historical. Jesus: Just dismiss it all because there are supernatural elements.

Directly after he prays to God, alone, he is taken to be crucified. When would he have the chance to tell anyone his exact words of prayer? It's possible that he could have gotten the message to his disciples but it's not likely. It doesn't fit. I never argued that it's impossible, just that the story is written as a story and NOT as the eyewitness testimony you and others claim it to be.

Ya. Psst. Come here. He came back and stayed with them until His ascension. Sorry but your objection is silly so my reply is, too. And being an ex Christian I am sure you know about the 'God breathed' passage.

Originally posted by AshleyD
That IS a possible scenario. However, what most likely happened is that early Christians believed the stories they heard about Christ and did not check for any evidence. Is the scenario I present also possible? If it is, then you can not use that argument as evidence as it could swing either way.

'Most likely?' On what authority or information do you make such a claim? I'm sorry but again logic demands those closer to the events would have known more about the facts than those of us living 2,000 years later. Not to mention Heggissipus as one example is someone who DID travel extensively throughout Asia Minor investigating the Gospel story. He was nobody's fool and dug around. Or the Bereans who researched everything before acceptance. So, sorry but the objection that people in antiquity were total gullible morons or who weren't privy to more information than we have today is silly, in my very humble opinion.

This is an assumption, again you have no evidence that these people knew Jesus was a historical figure. You claim that there were records of Jesus during his lifetime. Of course they were destroyed. How convenient.

They were not necessarily destroyed- I simply said they did not survive until our time, sadly. I have no idea what happened to them. They could have been destroyed during the destruction of the Library of Alexandria for all I know or were lost after the fall of the Roman Empire. Not that even that would convince the hardcore skeptic had they existed until our time. Surely it would have been said, 'Oh- His name was common for that area and era so it could be anybody.'

Again, proof is not necessarily definitive. People will always wiggle around something if they truly want to.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Again I am forced to ask, what 'PROOF' would seal the deal for you.

A believable story that fits in the timeline and made sense would be enough for me. It would not be proof, but I would have no reason to doubt it.
Instead, the gospels make claim to things that were not recorded at the time that would have been. Herod killing the first born, multitudes of people following Jesus but no one writting about him, signs and wonders witnessed by thousands which were recorded no where else but the gospels.

Originally posted by AshleyD
It can all be refuted, totally debunked, or have alternate explanations provided. It would require sticking our fingers in our ears while saying 'LALALA' like many do with Jesus' historical existence but it can be done. So what is the PROOF?

The difference between me and you is that I don't claim to know 100% that Jesus didn't exist, I just believe that it's very unlikely that he did given what we know. You on the other hand believe 100% that he exists. You are already biased based on your religion. You would never state that it is even possible that he didn't exist. I'm willing to look at both sides, and I conclude that there is no historical evidence for Jesus.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Let's take another well known figure, let's say Tiberius Caesar. His coins depicted the image of an imaginary being just like the Zeus coins so that goes bye-bye, the eye witness accounts of his life cannot be considered reliable since eye witness accounts can be faulty (as was stated in this thread concerning Jesus), PROVE to me he said the words he did and did the things he did, PROVE to me his writings are His own, his body is his, dismiss everything written about him after his death (including his death because I want it ALL written about him during his life), etc. I would be looking pretty foolish right now to you if I actually demanded such things. You'd be thinking, 'Get a grip, Ash. Caesar existed.' That is precisely how people who deny Jesus' existence come across to me. Although the evidence for Him is different than Tiberius or Alexander, evidence for Jesus' existence does exist.

I am not saying prove to me that Jesus existed, I am stating that there is no proof. There also isn't proof that Alexander the Great existed. However, there is evidence. The coins alone mean nothing. The account of Alexander the Great alone mean nothing. You take his story, and put it together with the coins, and it makes sense, as his position would warrent coins in his image. You take the story of Zeus, however, and put it together with coins, and you see that they made coins of a God which can not be proven.
Neither Zeus nor Alexander the Great can be proven, but Alexander the Great has a much larger probability of existing. Now we get to Jesus. So there's a story of Jesus. Is there anything (such as coins) to support his existence? Is there anything besides a story? If there is, I would love to see it.

Originally posted by AshleyD
So what seal the deal for you?

There are lots of things that could seal the deal. We do not have these things. What do we have? A story. That story COULD be true, but most likely is not given that there is NO bases for the stories. We are left with JUST stories.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Directly after he prays to God, alone, he is taken to be crucified. When would he have the chance to tell anyone his exact words of prayer? It's possible that he could have gotten the message to his disciples but it's not likely. It doesn't fit. I never argued that it's impossible, just that the story is written as a story and NOT as the eyewitness testimony you and others claim it to be.

Ya. Psst. Come here. He came back and stayed with them until His ascension.

Sorry but your objection is silly so my reply is, too. And being an ex Christian I am sure you know about the 'God breathed' passage.

How is my objection silly? It's a legitimate concern. You don't find it at all strange that the gospels state the exact words used by Jesus when he was alone and later had little oppurtunity or reason to tell them? As stated before, the gospels are not written as a historical account even though you take them as such. You can scoff at that all you want but it's true.

Originally posted by AshleyD
'Most likely?' On what authority or information do you make such a claim? I'm sorry but again logic demands those closer to the events would have known more about the facts than those of us living 2,000 years later. Not to mention Heggissipus as one example is someone who DID travel extensively throughout Asia Minor investigating the Gospel story. He was nobody's fool and dug around. Or the Bereans who researched everything before acceptance. So, sorry but the objection that people in antiquity were total gullible morons or who weren't privy to more information than we have today is silly, in my very humble opinion.

These people believed that Jesus performed miracles without actually witnissing it. So right there that tells a lot about what they were willing to accept as fact with no evidence whatsoever. People in the past were more likely to accept such things as fact. It's just how things were. That was my point. That from a HISTORICAL stand point, their beliefs mean very little.

Most people in History are known through Text or scriptures! i mean why is it so hard to believe. i mean being an Athiest what is your purpose in life? you live then you die?

what is your meaning of life?


AWESOME FIND! im so stoked they found it!

those christians may have bore whitness to the death of Jesus christ!!!

thats like amazing!

Originally posted by AshleyD
God hating atheists

Wouldn't atheists pretty much believe that God exists in order to hate him?

close minded God hating skeptic

There's that phrase again. "God hating"
And the phrase "close minded"
Skeptics are more open minded than you would admit. They are open to all kinds of evidence being presented to them.
We have studied Christians' so called evidence and found them lacking. How is that being closed minded?
I read some of your website you provided in another thread. I will continue to study and research. But please don't say that we are closed minded. I am sure some other skeptics have done researching Christianity claims thoroughly.
I will get back to you on your website.
Do not assume too much about atheists and skeptics. Some skeptics might doubt the validity of Christianity's claims and still believe in God.

Originally posted by Simplynoone
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

Jesus is the ONLY MEDIATOR between man and God ..Its really very simple.
Also the bible is pretty clear that we are not supposed to call up the dead for any reason .Mary is dead .isnt she ? So are the Saints that yall pray to arnt they ?
And the Pope is a mere man and is not a VICAR of CHrist in any way shape or form and we are to BOW before NO MAN ..So why do you bow to him ? Why would you give him so much obedience ?Will you do the same to the AntiChrist ? I think you would if you were used to bowing to the POpe and the statutes of dead saints ....They are prepping their congregations to serve the AC .(So are many protestant Churchs these days so I wont leave them out of this ) .....they are all being CONDITIONED to be led like sheep to the slaughter .
Its pretty simple ..and really that is just a tip of the iceburg of the Catholic Doctrines .That are completely contrary to the word of God .

Oh I'm not a catholic I was a Baptist for many years.
Perhaps a more appropriate word would be 'worship'. The catholics do not worship the Pope or Mary.

Originally posted by sparksgordon
i mean being an Athiest what is your purpose in life? you live then you die?

what is your meaning of life?

The meaning of my life is whatever I make it. I don't live by predisposed regulations. I make of myself whatever I will.
What is the meaning of your life?
To follow God?
That's fine. That's your choice and I'm not knocking that, but just because an atheist does not believe in God does not mean we do not have a purpose. Our purpose is simply what we make it, while yours is predefined.

Originally posted by sparksgordon
being an Athiest what is your purpose in life? you live then you die?

what is your meaning of life?

I know this wasn't directed at me but, my purpose in life is to enjoy it while I'm here and to be a good example for my child. Being an Atheist I live a moral life because I choose to, not because I'm in fear of burning for all eternity if I don't follow superstition. Free will, it's a beautiful thing. I live, I'll die, if there's anything after that it's a bonus.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Honestly? I believe there are some who simply do not believe in a god[s]. I was an atheist at one time and have been pretty honest about admitting that on ATS. I simply 'didn't believe.' My atheist friends also fit into that category- they simply don't believe. But there is another type that admits to actually hating God, Christians, the Bible, etc. Those are the ones I was referring to. IMO, there is a huge difference between unbelievers who try but can't believe or who are still searching and then there are those that have a beef with God for one reason or another and sear their conscience regarding His existence and vocally admit to hating Him- something they claim to not even believe in.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I conclude that there is no historical evidence for Jesus.

That's all I needed to see to realize it is pointless in continuing this discussion.

Herod, no outside confirmation of NT events (even supernatural), no historical evidence, proof vs. evidence, etc., etc. All explained time and time again. Some people simply don't want the facts. Accuse me of dodging or not knowing- I don't care this time- but the objections you are bringing up are simply false and I don't see the point in typing it all out and providing links just to see it all be ignored for the umpteenth time. Most of your objections were already answered in this thread or linked to where I have already answered them elsewhere on ATS when discussing this topic.

[edit on 9/18/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by sparksgordon
. i mean being an Athiest what is your purpose in life? you live then you die?

what is your meaning of life?

Off topic, I know, but why does life have to have meaning and purpose? That is something we have constructed to make us feel better about our existence.
All of us are here primarily for the continuation of the species. That we are aware of this makes us uncomfortable and thus we invent scenarios for comfort.

On Topic: There appears to have been a historical figure known as Yeshua Ben Joseph. He seems to have been a teacher. That much is plausible. However, that's where 'fact' stops and faith begins. I don't believe he was divine. The stories of the Bible 'stink' more than a fish factory, in that regard.

I do think it possible there was a historical Jesus. I don't believe in any godlike powers or miracles or anything of the sort. And I've not seen one person on here that can deny the fact that there isn't one tiny little shred of contemporary evidence to say there was a real Jesus. I've seen lots of dancing around the issue and endless babbling about it, but not one contemporary source named.

Stories get embellished, myths develop, don't have to go too far back in history to see that. Does anyone believe the story of Geroge Washington and the cherry tree?

Originally posted by AshleyD
Herod, no outside confirmation of NT events (even supernatural), no historical evidence, proof vs. evidence, etc., etc. All explained time and time again. Some people simply don't want the facts. Accuse me of dodging or not knowing- I don't care this time- but the objections you are bringing up are simply false and I don't see the point in typing it all out and providing links just to see it all be ignored for the umpteenth time. Most of your objections were already answered in this thread or linked to where I have already answered them elsewhere on ATS when discussing this topic.

Yes there are answers. There are many theories. The fires burned all the records of Jesus. Jews were illiterate and therefor never wrote about Jesus. There are many such theories that actually could make some sense (though there are others that do not make a bit of sense), but it doesn't add to a negative. In other words, you can explain why such things may have not been recorded, but the fact remains that they were not recorded, whether because there was an unlikely reason or because Jesus never existed is up for the reader to determine. I think it's more likely that he didn't exist while you think it's more likely that there are reasons why we have no evidence of many implications in the gospels. I could be wrong, but I am not ignoring facts, because there are NO facts to ignore regarding Jesus. I'm the type of person that holds the truth higher than 'my truth'. I have been proven wrong before, and each time, I have stated that I was wrong and I adopt the new truth, which is something that many people don't seem to do. I have been accused many times of only believing what I want to be true. If this were the case, then I would still be a Christian, as there is nothing more that I would love to believe than an afterlife and an all powerful father.
So the truth is, I DO want the facts, but you have none to give regarding a historical Jesus. No evidence. Only assumption, which may be correct, but also may not be, which you would never admit.

So, as a wise man once said : "meh."

I would like to ask you one thing though. Have you heard the theory of Caesar's Messiah? www.caesarsmessiah.com...
Not only does it make sense of all the questions I have about a historical Jesus (something that no Christian can offer), but it also makes sense mathematically, as it states a 99.999997% chance that the events described in the gospels were taken from Roman battles. I know this will not convince you, as 99.999997% does not equal your 100% belief in Jesus, but I would still be interested in seeing what you had to say about it.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by TruthParadox]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Yes there are answers. There are many theories. The fires burned all the records of Jesus. Jews were illiterate and therefor never wrote about Jesus. There are many such theories that actually could make some sense (though there are others that do not make a bit of sense), but it doesn't add to a negative. In other words, you can explain why such things may have not been recorded, but the fact remains that they were not recorded, whether because there was an unlikely reason or because Jesus never existed is up for the reader to determine.

Wow. Ok, those were actually not the reasons I was thinking of and not what I had already explained previously. Maybe I shouldn't have assumed my links were actually checked out where this stuff was explained. There are historical allusions to Herod's slaughter of the innocents but nothing slam dunk spot on (at least in my opinion), the extended midday darkness is recorded by second hand, the great earthquake is also recorded, etc. That is what I was referring to. Not, 'Everything must have been burned up or destroyed so you just have to believe!!!' Not everything is documented externally, obviously, but some pretty impressive details were. It's not a case of nothing remaining to our day.

I would like to ask you one thing though. Have you heard the theory of Caesar's Messiah? www.caesarsmessiah.com...
I have yet to see a Christian attempt to debunk that. Not only does it make sense of all the questions I have about a historical Jesus (something that no Christian can offer), but it also makes sense mathematically, as it states a 99.999997% chance that the events described in the gospels were taken from Roman battles. I know this will not convince you, as 99.999997% does not equal your 100% belief in Jesus, but I would still be interested in seeing what you had to say about it.

Yes, I have heard that before and it has been discussed on ATS before. It's very similar to the concept of the pagan copycat hypothesis. There is another member in particular who loves spamming various CIR threads with links about the Caesar Messiah. And when I've seen other members debunk her, she just moves onto another thread later on and pastes the links again. lol I think she still has them in her signature, too, unless she took them down. Anyways, it's not as solid as you would think. Without getting into it all, the accusations that Jesus was copied from pagan myths, astrology, or Roman Caesars crumbles upon investigation. But I have to ask- you say you have never even seen a Christian to attempt to debunk that. Have you even looked? Not being insulting- an honest question. There are several apologists who have refuted Atwill's claims. Honestly, his scholarship is on the same level as Bushby. Which basically means... awful. lol It's just one of many debunked copy cat Messiah conspiracy theories IMO.

Originally posted by C.C.Benjamin
This doesn't prove he existed, this just proves there was a sect of people who called themselves Christians - most probably Gnostic - and that one was buried here.

That doesn't make a myth about the sun real, it just meant there really were other people who believed it.

That is all.

Isn't this getting just a little ridiculous at this point? That would be like me saying to you, 'Oh that doesn't prove a sect of people existed who called themselves Christians. This only proves that there was someone in the first century who knew how to engrave things on ossuaries.'

And 'most probably gnostic.' How about 'possibly' gnostic or 'could be' gnostic. Most definitely not 'most probably' gnostic. I could just as easily say 'most probably' the biblical characters spoken about in the NT and that would be 'most probable' looking at the evidence and the name sets.

What makes you say 'most probably' gnostic? The cross carvings aren't even the Gnostic cross but the traditional Christian cross. Hello? So most definitely not 'most probably' gnostic.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Wow. Ok, those were actually not the reasons I was thinking of and not what I had already explained previously.

Maybe I shouldn't have assumed my links were actually checked out where this stuff was explained. There are historical allusions to Herod's slaughter of the innocents but nothing slam dunk spot on (at least in my opinion), the extended midday darkness is recorded by second hand, the great earthquake is also recorded, etc. That is what I was referring to. Not, 'Everything must have been burned up or destroyed so you just have to believe!!!' Not everything is documented externally, obviously, but some pretty impressive details were. It's not a case of nothing remaining to our day.

Well, I never said you gave those explanations, just that I've heard them before. Many many times. Also, concerning links, you should know by now that most people just provide a link, and people usually don't click on it. Personally, I like the case to be made directly on the forum, so even if I provide a link, I usually talk about it or quote it or something, and even so I know that a lot of people haven't checked it out. That's interesting what you say about Herod's slaughter, I'll probably check that out when I have some spare time.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Anyways, it's not as solid as you would think. Without getting into it all, the accusations that Jesus was copied from pagan myths, astrology, or Roman Caesars crumbles upon investigation.

I'm not sure about the Titus/Jesus comparison, I think that one is a bit of a stretch. However, some of the similarities between the events described in Josephus's writtings and the story of Jesus are uncanny. Others are less compelling.

Originally posted by AshleyD
But I have to ask- you say you have never even seen a Christian to attempt to debunk that. Have you even looked? Not being insulting- an honest question.

Yeah, I shouldn't have said that as it's not really true, which is why I edited my post shortly after posting it. What I was really saying is when I have talked about it on ATS I never see anyone attempt to debunk it. I have read articles attempting to debunk it, but nothing concrete. I believe there are more problems with the story of Jesus than Caesar's Messiah for example.

Anyway, I was just curious what your take on it would be.

The following video was just made by another member here. It talks about the discovery mentioned in the original post AND another set of ossuraries that were discovered that were not mentioned in this thread.

I can now see why so few know about these discoveries. Nobody is talking about them. The last discovery mentioned in the video was a shocker to me but it would be interesting to hear what others have to say. The quote at the end might not be very reliable but but the find is amazing:



[edit on 9/27/2008 by AshleyD]

Funny that St Peter was in a tomb in Jerusalem but the lying Vatican said he came to Rome and started digging with no observation from the outside world then revealed he was buried their! This was on the discovery channel and a Catholic Priest was interviewed and they asked if the name on the coffin is St Peter how can he be in Rome the Priest then started waffling his way out of the question.

Another one of their ploys to lie to the gullable folks that believe in them.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by orangeman dave]

reply to post by orangeman dave


What's more funny is that if Jesus wanted people to believe in him and accept, he would leave more evidence of him for all of us to see. We could have really made the choice to accept or reject him, instead of deciding to dismiss him because of lack (or scant) of evidence.

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
What's more funny is that if Jesus wanted people to believe in him and accept, he would leave more evidence of him for all of us to see. We could have really made the choice to accept or reject him, instead of deciding to dismiss him because of lack (or scant) of evidence.

*emphasis mine.

He does even more than that and better than that. He actually says before His ascension He will send the Holy Spirit to minister to us and convict us after He is gone. You actually have the spirit of God telling you this is right. In order to reject it, you actually have to sear your own conscience and deny what your own heart is telling you. God is using your own conscience to tell you that He is indeed very real and that Jesus truly is the way to salvation.

The term 'you' above is the general sense- not specifically directed at you. But I truly believe it requires an active refusal against what we know to be true. And those who deny it for so long actually suppress that convicting voice.

So it is so much more than, 'Well if Jesus really wanted me to believe, He would have left more evidence.' No- so much more and even greater than that. A part of Him is actually here ministering to you directly and to your spirit. Don't silence that voice- it's the Holy Spirit moving us but it will not badger us forever.

I ask everyone to please think about it without answering me. The ego steps in and it interferes with our ability to be honest with ourselves. So don't worry about telling me yes or no. The necessary thing at the moment is to be honest with ourselves and to listen to the Holy Spirit's conviction.

[edit on 9/27/2008 by AshleyD]