Login/Sign Up




Jesus bones?
History

cancerfish
Feb 26, 2007
17 votes
5 debaters
1


+ Add Argument

3
They found Jesus' bones!


gogopoet
Feb 27, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
There is no question that a tomb was uncovered containing the coffins of a family bearing the names of the biblical family. At this point, I wouldn't argue that it is either the family in question, or a hoax. The names in question were pretty common at the time. One report indicated that there have been no less than 17 coffins containing the bones of people named Jesus. I do, however, think the odds are against finding a tomb with all the appropriate names unless it is the family grave or a hoax. In short, it's still up in the air.

 
gogopoet
Feb 27, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chiefmcg Show

OK! Let's do think for a minute. What evidence do we have that Jesus rose from the dead? None! The earliest "account" we have of the event was written no less than sixty, count them, SIXTY years after the fact. And the author in that account was far from unbiased. He had a vested interest in convincing his readers that he was telling the truth. I am like Thomas. I want evidence, not the testimony of a church leader.

 
cancerfish
Feb 27, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Yeah, they found an ossuary that is possibly labled as Jesus with possibly the rest of the family.
I can only hope it remains/remained a secular investigation. Cameron went on record saying it wasn't there to undermine Christian faith, but if you ask me it'd be a nice wake-up call. So I can hope it actually is 'the' Jesus. It'd make for a very interesting topic for years to come.

 
gogopoet
Feb 28, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: nbcrusader Show

Matthew was written between 50 and 70 something. It is questionable whether or not Matthew was the actual author since the book appears to borrow heavily from Mark. If he was, he was a leader of the church. Church leaders benefit from their position in the church. That provides motive.

Mark is credited to one John Mark, cir 50 to 70. He alledgedly was influenced by Peter and was the guy Paul refused to take with him on a joourney after Mark parted company with Paul and Barnabas on a previous trip. Note that Mark was NOT an eyewitness and could not have written his book sooner than approx. 20 years after Jesus was supposed to have died. That's based on the assumption that Jesus was born in the year 1 and died in the year 33. While it seems reasonable to me he was, or had been a leader of the church when he wrote the book, I don't know that for sure, so I'll not make guesses about his motives.

Luke was a friend of Paul's, meaning he got his info about the Gospel from a third party. He didn't write his third-hand account until at least 59, and might not have gotten it down until 80. Despite his reputation as a historian, that makes his "testimony" rather dubious at best. Historians of his era were as exacting as they are today and even today many of them are suspect.

The author of John is still controversial among Bible scholars, with three possible Johns that I know of. IF it was written in the early 50s as some contend, it is possible the Disciple wrote it, in which case we are talking about a church leader. That would give him the same motive as Matthew would have had. If John was written sometime after 85, then it is almost certain it was written by a bishop John whose account would be second or thir hand AND designed to bolster his leadership role in the church. I don't recall enough about the other John, a camp follower but not a disciple per se, to speculate as to motives.

In any case, the book of John is the only one that may have been an eyewitness account written by someone who didn't have a known motive to skew the facts for personal gain. Given the controversy over authorship, I don't think this testimony would hold up in court. In fact none of the gospels would.



 
chiefmcg
Mar 01, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

I wasnt saying that Jesus rose from the dead at all, but if it was just regular bones , they wouldnt excist anymore, so that if It is Bible Jesus then it couldnt be his bones, and if it is just the normal Jesus who was a crazy person running round doing magic tricks there is no way that his bone would still be around they would be dust

 
+ Add Argument

14
Its just a hoax


nbcrusader
Feb 27, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Finding a tomb with common names is not the same as finding the bones of Jesus Christ.

People have quickly forgotten that a similar ossuary with the name "James" (brother of Jesus) was "discovered" in 2002 - and later labeled a forgery.

The Cameron movie will be short on scientific evidence (as if we have Jesus' DNA to verify the discover) and be embraced by those who love to doubt Christianity.

 
chiefmcg
Feb 27, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Ok, lets think for a second, if Jesus rose from the dead after he was killed, wouldnt that cause him not to have bones lieing around? Also after he came back he rose up into the sky, so no bones at all. Did jesus drop his bones back down from heavon?

 
nbcrusader
Feb 28, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: gogopoet Show

To the contrary, the testimony of Jesus resurrection was given by people, not with a vested interest in the topic, but by people who were willing to die rather than refute their testimony. Nothing was materially gained by the Apostles, but most lost their life for holding to their testimony.



 
gogopoet
Mar 01, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chiefmcg Show

I think there is a very good chance bones could have survived that long, given the climate and the burial practices of that time. I base that on the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls survived even longer under, what I preume to be similar conditions.

 
wigg1es
Mar 09, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chiefmcg Show

ever heard of fossilization? it usually happens in dry, arid climates where decay is slow due to lack of moisture. yeah, think dinosaurs. anyways, thats not even the point. they never said in the documentary (which im assuming this debate is referring to) that they found bones. they obtained DNA from residues on the insides of the ossuaries, not from actual bone material. and yeah, they are jesus' bones. and whats more, he was married and had a kid. shocking, i know. but who do you think he was talking to when he said, while hanging on the cross, "mother behold you son, son behold your mother"? do you think he was referring to himself in third person? not so much...

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

martin luther king jr. races racism rights segregation skin color civil rights Empire government history hitler nazi power Rome war WWII