Avinash_Tyagi said:
rocketpig said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Actually, Jesus' tomb was found...It was a well-known site that was chronicled in the Bible, which still exists to this day
Incorrect
Once again that site is only where they say Christ was buried, however if that was true then where are the bones or the actual tomb? It is only believed by christians to be Golgotha, but once again there is no definitive evidence that Jesus was actually buried there in fact the authenticity of the location is uncertain as well.
As one of the Archaelogists admits that they don't know:
"We may not be absolutely certain that the site of the Holy Sepulchre Church is the site of Jesus' burial, but we have no other site that can lay a claim nearly as weighty, and we really have no reason to reject the authenticity of the site."
Now if this is supposed to be Jesus's burial site, where are dem bones? Why are't they certain that he was buried there?
Like I said there is no evidence that Jesus was actually a real person just second hand writings , heck they can't even find the body or the actual grave
|
To interject a medium opinion, you both have points but Avinash is asking the important questions... How on Earth do you know?
I've read up on the Holy Sepulchre and the science behind it is sketchy at best. Yes, it's the most likely burial place of Christ that's been found. On the other hand, expecting to actually find bones there is ridiculous. Almost no bones are found in any burial place nowadays. This isn't Indiana Jones. Almost any burial site has been looted multiple times over the years and the expectation of bones is like wishing for God's hand to guide you the way to Eden. It just doesn't happen.
But, to the best of my knowledge, there are records of Christ existing. Whether he's the Son of God or not is up for each person to decide. Isn't that the point of religion in the first place? I'm a dedicated Agnostic but I won't refute that the man existed. His holyness is definitely up for debate, though.
It's times like this where I really appreciate my Religious Studies, Anthropology, and Sociology classes. God knows I hated them all (except for physical antrhopology, that shit rocked).
|
The records are writings written well after the fact, long after he supposedly died.
And whether the sites have been looted or not, doesn't change the fact that no evidence is there to substantiate the man beyond those writings, which were not written by people who knew him or even met him and may or may not be accurate.
Now perhaps there is no evidence of him existing or maybe it just can't be found, but then you can't really say with any certainty that he actually existed, there may not have been a real person named, Jesus or there may have, but without the evidence all you have is theories.
|
Let me ask you this: When were the writings supposed to be written, then, to please you? If you take external writings, Jesus is mentioned around 93AD - 60 years after Jesus' death. If you take internal writings (such as the book of James) it drops to just 15 years (if that) after Jesus died. My question is how late does external writing need to take place to justify one's existance? If Jesus did in fact exist, why would a lot of people outside of his circle write about him until he had a larger impact on society (such as in the case of Josephus)?
As the influence of Christianity spread, so did the writings - they became far more prolific as time went on. Tacitus (born in 56ad) wrote at length about Chrisitanity, and it's persecution under Emperor Nero which agrees with the written accounts within the Bible. Tacitus was a well-known historian in his day, and wrote frequently about the Roman empire, and he is considered Rome's greatest historian - if your going to dispute Jesus's legitimacy as existing puts far more history than just mere Christianity into question. Suetonius (born 69AD) also mentioned the persecution of Christianity under Nero. This would lead one, logically, to believe that Christianity was well-established in his time, and was worth mentioning when it came to Roman history.
My next question would be: Do you doubt the existance of Buddah or Mohammed?
