| quote: |
Originally posted by Dude Love
Morricone? As in Ennio Morricone? He's the man.
So, what about all that DNA evidence he has apparently proving that it actually is Jesus. What did he compare it to? Was the DNA glowing? Perhaps it was a triple helix [/Bad Holy Trinity Joke]? Did he store it in a vial with water only to find when he was doing tests it was dissolved in wine? Or, perhaps it just took twenty years to finally get a cotton swab from the almighty (the tomb was discovered 20 years ago)... If that's the case, will God be revealed as the father on Maury? |
That's the same stance I'm taking, Dude. In the absence of any defensible arguments that have actually been spelled out yet, I'm currently defaulting to the typical postulates that have stood for a fair amount of time:
1. Yeshua/Jesus, Joseph, Mary, etc. were common given names of the time, so finding a tomb with all of those names does not, by itself, prove anything.
2. As far as I know (and this is admittedly little since I am not an expert in biblical history beyond what I've studied in critical reading Theology classes in high school), Jesus was the son of a rather poor carpenter, and probably didn't have all that much money himself. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that Jesus and his family lacked the income to pay for such a tomb.
3. DNA testing can, at best, prove all the people in the tomb are related. It cannot confirm the identity of someone who existed over two thousand years ago unless there is another source to compare it to (whether that is another DNA source from that time, or from a suspected decedent, etc.). I fail to see how DNA testing--which shouldn't be all
that accurate to begin with since you're using some really dated materials here--can confirm anything regarding this individual's identity.
Now, it might be possible to date the bodies around the time that Jesus apparently lived, and it might also be possible to find evidence that the body supposedly belonging to Jesus died via crucifixion, and if so, that improves the credibility of the argument a great deal. It still isn't a final word, however, since that could still be chalked up to coincidence; I'm not saying that's the position I would necessarily take, obviously I haven't seen the evidence, but that is still a possibility.
4. It's certainly fair to assume that, while the Gospels themselves (which any serious Biblical scholar knows aren't meant to be the literal truths) were written several decades after Jesus' apparent death and resurrection, there is some evidence that there were older transcripts around detailing Jesus' teaching (and, one might assume, his life and death), and there were certainly eye-witnesses who at least lived in the two or three decades following his death. Presuming the belief surrounding resurrection emerged that quickly, and I'm inclined to think that it did, it would be hard to fool everyone, and based on the evolution of Christianity in the first few centuries immediately following Jesus' death, I don't think it was a belief that was intended to be a total sham just to attract more followers. Again, none of this is certain, but I'd like to think that if people were seriously looking to discredit belief of the Resurrection, it would have been done in the early years of Christianity, and since it hasn't been done up until now (and there has been no evidence of it having been done until now), it is at least safe to assume--at the very least--that it will prove improbable (though not necessarily impossible) to do so.
Again, these are just some of my initial rational reactions to what I've heard thus far, and I in no way am presuming this is the last word, nor that--if there is indeed a last word--I have it. I am probably the last person to have a last word because, quite frankly, I'm not educated enough in archeology, biology, or biblical studies to have a compelling opinion on this subject matter. As such, I am going to be far more inclined to--outside of the brief reasonings outlined above--also default to my religious beliefs, and--irrational though they might seem--I'm confident enough in them that I do not believe that even something as potentially compelling as this will shake them.
...damn it, should have been working on my Parmenides descriptive essay for my Philosophy class tomorrow morning. Oh well; I'll have to finish that after dance class, I suppose...
P.S. Ennio Morricone is indeed the man.
