reply to post by The Djin
Yes. All from that house were considered heirs to David. That doesn't make you a kind. It makes you related to one of the tribes of Israel. if you
don't even know the culture, how can you assume anything? Being an heir to a house of Israel is not that special. It makes you as good as any Israeli.
As a jew you came from one of the tribes. David has his tribe.
If there is no name on the tomb, then that makes it even less likely. The tomb of Jesus belonged to a man named Joseph whom gave his tomb away for the
Whose family? Marry And Joseph's family. If it was Marry the mother, they would be related. If it was marry the rumored wife of Jesus, then their
child would be related to one of them. Can you support either way? Not from what I see.
There's no evidence either way. And I'm sorry to tell you that I don't even know what you're going on about. It could be a family name, it could be a
city, hell, he could have lied about where he was from to everyone and made up his birthplace so as to make himself a new man, as was a common act, in
as much as that area had a lot of contested lands where locals hated you if you were from place A. It doesn't mean the Bible lies or that it's fraud.
It means we don't know. Now if you want to accuse someone of assuming, look at yourself.
reply to post by bogomil
I've described it repeatedly, and it's used by most anthropologists as well as historians. History does sometimes lie. So we look at the opinions and
descriptions of many different sources from numerous places. This leads to a bell curve of stories with most being fairly much the same, and a few on
each end, where some are extremely similar, and others are as far off as the Pope on Pluto. Using deductive reasoning we take those far off tales and
compare them again to investigate the reason for this far-off-ness. All to often we can identify an individual or group of individuals whom started
the story and, due to their isolation, had nobody stop them. We take, we compare, we compare the compared to other comparisons done by other comparing
people, and then we conclude to the current status of the nature of something, always open for more evidence to sway either way.
This is not something I invented. This is how history works. While we may never get a perfect image, we can get something a few pixels off from the
truth and thus know from common sense what's going on.
The example I used was The architect Vitruvius. I have others. And yes, you should use examples. otherwise your words are just words.
27-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by orangetom1999
You say this but don't say how. In fact, your story is just a tangent unrelated to your claim. Thanks for the story, but it doesn't say anything.
Vitruvius did not build those arches. In fact, they were probably there long before he was born. Vitruvius could have been a falsified character to
cover a man who lost his pride in a war for all we know. We don't. There is as much evidence for him as there is for Jesus having existed. So I ask.
Why does he get the benefit of the doubt but Jesus is just brushed off as never having existed?
edit on 27-1-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no