"Jesus Box" Exposed As Fake

[The Mad Monk]

Case in point.

[Elden]

EDIT: Message deleted

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"What man, in any time, would remain married to a woman for 33 years (at least) and not have porked her at least once? What man in Biblical times wouldn't have deemed it his right to do so with his property?"

Joseph was canonized a saint by the Church for a good reason.

But is the reason supported by a shred of evidence, or even a statement to that effect in the Bible?

[serious] For the people who have asked me "Why perpetual virginity?" can read up those websites I linked to, and see how they respond to the biblical passages about Jesus' brothers. I can't answer those questions, I really don't know much about Marian theology. My post here was something of a troll, and it seems a few people bit.

Neither page addressed why Mary had to be a perpetual virgin, but rather seemed to be assuming it as fact and offering explanations for seeming contradictions.

The first page was dealing just with the James box, which now is a moot point.

The second page was just dealing with the listing of Jesus's brothers. It didn't explain the passage from Matthew I cited, in which Jesus is with his disciples, and then his mother and brothers come clamoring to see him. It wouldn't make much sense to claim that brothers here is referring to the disciples!

Personally I don't really care all that much, the status of Mary's virginity isn't really important to my faith. I am willing to trust my Church on this one as I haven't really studied it enough to have too much of an informed opinion. There are some problematic elements in the Church though I will admit as far as this goes, some Catholics do let their Marian devotion go too far(For instance, there was this one guy claiming that nobody can be admitted into heaven without Mary praying for them). [/serious]

Well, that's good to know, I suppose. I've found the "Mary Perpetually Virgin" idea quite baffling, since it seems to have no scriptual support whatsoever. Of course, there's also the possibility Joseph, Mary and the big JC are fiction anyway, which could explain pretty much everything (sentence added for MM's benefit).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Case in point.

UR raises a valid point which you sidestep. The burden of proof is on you. Can you produce documentary evidence of Jesus? That means evidence contemporary with his lifetime. No one, to date, ever has, so the ball is still in your court.

I, for one, am amazed at how willing people are to swallow a piece of obvious religious propoganda that is riddled with inconsistencies, historical errors and outright absurdities.

[History Guy]

I, for one, have always found it hard to see why people are so intent on shouting down Christianity, and yet refrain from remarking on other religions, Islam, for example. Christianity is open for any needless attack.

Boris, what evidence have you found that proves that Jesus did NOT exist? I, for one, am amazed at how willing people are to swallow a piece of obvious secular propaganda that is riddled with inconsistencies, historical errors and outright absurdities.

As for lack of evidence, I suspect you'll find it hard to deny that Christianity began when it began and quickly spread all over the Mediterranean.

When one asks for further evidence, one might bother to look at the recent studies of, say, the Shroud of Turin, which is now dated conclusively to Classical Israel in the First Century. Indeed, they've now located on the shroud pollen, blood, and images of the crown of thorns, which, unlike the round band that it is often portrayed to appear, was actually tall and tiered like the "crown" worn by the pharisees and head priests of the synagogue and temple, suggesting Roman anti-Semitism.

How about the headcloth that is in Rome that perfectly matches the proportions of the Shroud as far as blood is concerned. Made of the same fabric, sporting similar sphores, with the same blood stains.

How about the sign nailed at the head of the cross, as mentioned by the Gospels. Remember the four languages on that little board? Remember "This is the King of the Jews"? Remember "I have written what I have written"?

The plaque that was always believed to be this same headboard still exists. It is of the same wood brought back by Emperor Constantine and Empress Helena during their search for the cross. The words match the descriptions, and the clincher is the way the Hebrew is written out. It is in a style that Classical historians have confirmed became extinct by the year 100 AD.

Finally, it wasn't until the Dark Ages that Christians were allowed to make images. Such things as the Shroud, the cloth, and the headboard would not have been manufactured by the early members of the sect. It was against their law.

If such evidence exists and is placed in the 1st Century AD by scholars and scientists alike, and was not made by admiring Christians, eager to manufacture "relics", why is it not recognized as evidence? Why is it so easily ignored?

[Imran Siddiqui]

This was little shock... now Jesus, once again, has the same historical evidence attached to him as Socrates does .

[History Guy]

Actually...he's got more!

(Alas, poor Sock.)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by History Guy
I, for one, have always found it hard to see why people are so intent on shouting down Christianity, and yet refrain from remarking on other religions, Islam, for example. Christianity is open for any needless attack.

We live in a predominantly Christian world. Most of the issues involving religion in our environment center around Christianity. Why should I devote much effort to going through the absurdities of Islam, when it is peripheral to our culture? Christianity has spent centuries attacking other worldviews, so I don't think criticizing it is unwarranted or unfair. I know Christians tend to have martyr complexes, but they aren't warranted.

Boris, what evidence have you found that proves that Jesus did NOT exist? I, for one, am amazed at how willing people are to swallow a piece of obvious secular propaganda that is riddled with inconsistencies, historical errors and outright absurdities.

That would have been cute, had I not already turned Mad Monk's phrase around on him. Sloppy seconds. It's also specious reasoning, as it is your onus to proof the affirmative. Asking someone to prove a negative is a really bad debating fallacy.

That you would consider the reams of historical and scientific evidence that contradict the Bible "secular propaganda" speaks volumes for your mindset, though. Beware of the Evilutionists! Oooooh!

.As for lack of evidence, I suspect you'll find it hard to deny that Christianity began when it began and quickly spread all over the Mediterranean.

More specious reasoning. Can you deny that the cult of Osiris took hold in Egypt and quickly became its predominant religion? No? Well, Osiris must have existed. Can you deny that most ancient Romans believed in the pantheon of Greco-Roman gods? No? Hail Jupiter, then!

The debate isn't over the existence of Christianity, it's over the existence of the man Jesus whom Christians claim to worship. If the existence of a religion is evidence of its veracity, then I wonder how you divide your time between Allah, Vishnu and the rest when saying your prayers!

When one asks for further evidence, one might bother to look at the recent studies of, say, the Shroud of Turin, which is now dated conclusively to Classical Israel in the First Century. Indeed, they've now located on the shroud pollen, blood, and images of the crown of thorns, which, unlike the round band that it is often portrayed to appear, was actually tall and tiered like the "crown" worn by the pharisees and head priests of the synagogue and temple, suggesting Roman anti-Semitism.

Utter nonsense. And you don't even support these wild claims! The Shroud has been debunked time and time again by science, yet people still cling to it desperately.

http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

http://www.csicop.org/articles/19990806-shroud/

http://www.kcbx.net/~ipauslo/fthall-of-slo/fd-005.html

Carbon dating has shown the shroud to be about 650 years old. Believers posit a ludicrously unscientific theory that exposure to a fire somehow changed the dating, but this holds no water whatsoever:

"The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century. Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories."

Your claim that scientists agree it is from the 1st century is completely untrue. Scientists have consistently believed it to be a 14th century fake:

"The shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated to circa 1260-1390 by three separate laboratories. The date is consistent with a fourteenth-century bishop's report to Pope Clement VII that an earlier bishop had discovered the forger and that he had confessed."

The blood:

"Blood has not been identified on the shroud directly, but it has been identified on sticky tape that was used to lift fibrils from the shroud. Dried, aged blood is black. The stains on the shroud are red. Forensic tests on the red stuff have identified it as red ocher and vermilion tempera paint. Other tests by Adler and Heller have identified it as blood.* If it is blood, it could be the blood of some 14th century person. It could be the blood of someone wrapped in the shroud, or the blood of the creator of the shroud, or of anyone who has ever handled the shroud, or of anyone who handled the sticky tape. But even if there were blood on the shroud, that would have no bearing on the age of the shroud or on its authenticity."

The pollen:

"It was reported that pollens on the shroud proved it came from Palestine, but the source for the pollens was a freelance criminologist, Max Frei, who once pronounced the forged "Hitler Diaries" genuine. Frei's tape-lifted samples from the Shroud were controversial from the outset since similar samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project in 1978 had comparatively few pollens. As it turned out, after Frei's tapes were examined following his death in 1983, they also had very few pollens--except for a particular one that bore a suspicious cluster on the "lead" (or end), rather than on the portion that had been applied to the shroud. (See Skeptical Inquirer magazine, Summer 1994 pp. 379-385.)"

How about the headcloth that is in Rome that perfectly matches the proportions of the Shroud as far as blood is concerned. Made of the same fabric, sporting similar sphores, with the same blood stains.

Ah yes, the head cloth:

"Danin notes that another relic believed to be the burial face cloth of Jesus (the Sudarium of Oviedo in Spain) contains the same two types of pollen grains as the Shroud and also is stained with type AB blood. Since the Sudarium is believed to have existed before the 8th century, according to Danin, there is "clear evidence that the shroud originated before the eighth century." The cloth is believed to have been in a chest of relics from at least the time of the Moorish invasion of Spain. It is said to have been in the chest when it was opened in 1075. But, since there is no blood on the shroud of Turin and there is no good reason to accept Danin's assumption that the pollens were on the Shroud from its origin, this argument is spurious."

The Shroud is a fraud, and only the most credulous believers cling to it as being a genuine artifact. You think it would have been conclusive when it was admitted to by the person who made it that the Shroud was a fraud:

http://www.kcbx.net/~ipauslo/fthall-of-slo/fd-005.html

"Not all of the clergy were intoxicated by relicmania. Some were honest men, repelled by the circus that was engulfing their church and they set out to investigate certain relics. In 1357 the famous Shroud of Turin first appeared publicly for large fees. A local French bishop, Henri de Poitiers, started an investigation into its background. As a result of his findings the Shroud was declared a fake and the viewings were stopped. Thirty years later the exhibitions were revived, prompting the bishop to write a lengthy letter to Pope Clement VII. This important letter contains the earliest written reference to the Shroud. It begins (translated):

"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Sometime since in this dioceses of Troyes, The Dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not of any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted..."

The bishop then described the image on the cloth, which we today call the Shroud of Turin, along with the circumstances of the exhibitions, and continued:

"Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he [the Bishop] discovered the fraud and how the said cloth was cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed... I offer myself as ready to supply all information sufficient to remove any doubt concerning the facts alleged."

Clement VII considered the matter and issued a Papal Bull, which ordered that the Shroud of Turin be advertised only as a "copy." However, since this directive was not profitable, the Bull was gradually forgotten, and this "cunningly painted" cloth came to be the most venerated relic in Christendom."

How about the sign nailed at the head of the cross, as mentioned by the Gospels. Remember the four languages on that little board? Remember "This is the King of the Jews"? Remember "I have written what I have written"?

The plaque that was always believed to be this same headboard still exists. It is of the same wood brought back by Emperor Constantine and Empress Helena during their search for the cross. The words match the descriptions, and the clincher is the way the Hebrew is written out. It is in a style that Classical historians have confirmed became extinct by the year 100 AD.

Once again, you provide no source for these claims.
Cite.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/freethought/foote/crimes/c5.htm

"Helena is said to have taken a part of the true cross to Constantine; the rest she enclosed in a silver box, and left in care of the bishop of Jerusalem, who exhibited it periodically to the faithful; and, as Jortin observes, "it must have brought in great revenues to the Church and to the bishop, if they only gave sixpence a piece to see the box in which the cross was locked up." The bishop alone, says Tillemont, "had the power to give little bits of it, which were considered as a singular favor and blessing." These little bits were not given but sold, and in a short space of time the sacred wood was "spread all over the earth." To account for this extraordinary distribution, Paulinus, and after him the Church, asserted that the wood of the true cross had a miraculous power of vegetation, and repaired itself whenever a piece was cut off. This miracle was grimly derided by John Calvin, who said that a mere enumeration of the fragments of the cross would fill a goodly volume.

"There is no abbey so poor as not to have a specimen. In some places there are large fragments, as at the Holy Chapel in Paris, at Poictiers, and at Rome, where a good-sized crucifix is said to have been made of it. In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it."

Not satisfied with this profitable commerce, the clergy of Jerusalem multiplied their store of relics; and, before long they exhibited also the crown of thorns, the pillar at which Christ was scourged, and the nails and the lance that pierced his hands, his feet, and his side.

Helena herself was sainted after her death; and her body appears to have contracted some of the miraculous virtue of the true cross, for it was preserved in an abbey in France, and also in a church at Rome.

At the holy sepulchre an annual miracle was wrought. A holy fire used to descend into it on the Saturday before Easter. Gregory the ninth, in A.D. 1238, forbade the Greeks to exhibit it any longer, but the practice was continued. Of a piece with this was the supernatural fire annually visible at the pillar of St. Simeon Stylites after his death. "What tricks," says Jortin, "would not these monks have played if they had possessed the secret of electricity!" Queen Helena is also said to have built a church on the spot whence Christ ascended to heaven; a sandy place was kept on the floor, and the clergy gave out that it could not be paved, as the print of Christ's feet was visible there, and could not be covered or erased."

The Titulus has not by any means been conclusively shown to be authentic. The fact that enough supposed pieces of the cross abound to fill a ship's hull should tell you something.

Finally, it wasn't until the Dark Ages that Christians were allowed to make images. Such things as the Shroud, the cloth, and the headboard would not have been manufactured by the early members of the sect. It was against their law.

Not true whatsoever, as the source cited above has shown:

"Constantine's favor stimulated the worship of relics, and from that time it became a regular part of Christian devotion. An exaggerated respect had long been paid to the martyrs of the faith who had suffered death under the various persecutions, but this sentiment now assumed a grotesque form. Not only the clothes they wore, and the objects they used, were exhibited and sold, but their very bodies were dug up and made profitable. These holy corpses were usually reburied under the altar of a church, which naturally enjoyed a reputation for sanctity, and attracted the custom of numerous worshippers. Theodosius was obliged to pass a law forbidding the people to dig up the bones of martyrs or traffic in their remains. [86:2] But nothing could arrest the progress of the mania. St. Ambrose even refused to consecrate a church that had no relics, [86:3] and the Council of Constantinople (A D. 692) ordained that those altars should be demolished under which no relics were found."

People were obsessed with relics in the Dark Ages, and forgeries were abounding. The forgery of the Shroud is proof of this. Just because people were technically not allowed to make such things did not mean they didn't, as it was an easy way to make a buck.

If such evidence exists and is placed in the 1st Century AD by scholars and scientists alike, and was not made by admiring Christians, eager to manufacture "relics", why is it not recognized as evidence? Why is it so easily ignored?

As I showed, this assertion is simply not true. The Relic trade was ongoing throughout the Dark Ages. Fraudulent ones abound and are, in fact, all we have!

You'll note that we also had one marvelous relic...the Christ Foreskin!

"But the most astonishing relic of the Redeemer was his foreskin, which was cut off at the circumcision and miraculously preserved. This precious article, according to Calvin, [94:5] was shown by the monks of Charroux, who, as a proof of its genuineness, declared that it yielded drops of blood. But the honor of its possession was disputed by many cities; by Akin, Antwerp, Heldesheim, Besancon, Calcata, and Rome. [94:6] Surely the Christians who venerated this obscene relic were far sunk in the slough of superstition, and it may be doubted whether the most ignorant Polytheists ever condescended to worship the prepuce of a god.

There is an amusing story of this curious article in an anonymous though very able book, published in 1761, on the Portuguese Inquisition.

"Sandoval, the Spanish bishop, twice before referred to, relates, as incontestable fact, in his life of the emperor Charles V., that the real Santo Prepucio was kept at Rome, and fell, among other things, into the hands of some soldiers, when the Duke of Bourbon's army plundered that city; that it would not suffer itself to be touched by such profane wretches; upon which, one, more penetrating than the rest, beginning to suspect the truth, sent for a pure virgin, in order to make trial of its virtue, when it readily expanded. This precious relic seems to have been lost, amidst the confusion, but was soon replaced, by the same kind of angels, no doubt, who brought the holy house of Loretto."

It should be added that at least one Catholic writer has devoted a treatise to the Savior's foreskin, asserting that it ascended, like Jesus himself, and expanded into one of the rings of Saturn."

[SnowFire]

Black Dragon, I don't think that many Protestants would use this as a "proof" against Mary's virginity, even if it were legitimate. "Brother" doesn't always refer to direct brother. He might have been a half-brother (well, actually not if you assume God over Joseph, but you get the idea), or simply "brother" in the sense of "brothers in faith." The much simpler refutation is that no where in the Bible does it say Mary was "perpetually" a virgin, merely that it was a virgin birth. Frankly, if you want to believe in it, I can't see a Biblical reason not to, being that the Bible doesn't comment on this either way, IIRC.

Historical proof of Jesus: There have been religions that have formed without a central leader figure immediately, or with a more downplayed one, but why make one up when you can use one that actually existed? The initial beliefs of Christianity would be rather weird for a group without this leader. Look at how some gospels really stress the whole "Son of Man" part, that God was a human and we could talk with him and wow! If nobody actually had that experience- or thought they had that experience, for the naysayers- a most curious dogma, then.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


UR raises a valid point which you sidestep. The burden of proof is on you. Can you produce documentary evidence of Jesus? That means evidence contemporary with his lifetime. No one, to date, ever has, so the ball is still in your court.

I, for one, am amazed at how willing people are to swallow a piece of obvious religious propoganda that is riddled with inconsistencies, historical errors and outright absurdities.

I have no interest in proving Christ's existance to your satisfaction. It has been proven to my satisfaction, and that is what matters to me.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by History Guy
I, for one, have always found it hard to see why people are so intent on shouting down Christianity

Ah yes, "shouting down." A rational request for evidence is painted as some sort of irrational rage.

Originally posted by History Guy
and yet refrain from remarking on other religions, Islam, for example. Christianity is open for any needless attack.

Ah, "needless attack," more demonising again. Anyway, one of the reasions why there are less criticisms of other religions is perhaps because most people on 'Poly are less familiar with it.

Originally posted by History Guy
Boris, what evidence have you found that proves that Jesus did NOT exist?

History Guy, are you saying that you also believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Umguf the Invisible Purple with Pink Polka Dot Unicorn, Athena, Thor, Brahma, Ra, The Celestial Emperor, Ralph the Snake God, Offler, and all these mythical entities because there is no evidence that they don't exist?

If you don't, it just makes you a hypocrite.

Originally posted by History Guy
I, for one, am amazed at how willing people are to swallow a piece of obvious secular propaganda that is riddled with inconsistencies, historical errors and outright absurdities.

Snooze, more bald assertion.

Originally posted by History Guy
As for lack of evidence, I suspect you'll find it hard to deny that Christianity began when it began and quickly spread all over the Mediterranean.

So? How is the evidence for the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth?

Originally posted by History Guy
When one asks for further evidence, one might bother to look at the recent studies of, say, the Shroud of Turin, which is now dated conclusively to Classical Israel in the First Century.

Oh my side hurts.

Please, the Shroud has been shown repeatedly to be a scam. Just one of the websites showing the C-14 radiometric analysis.

Originally posted by History Guy
How about the headcloth that is in Rome that perfectly matches the proportions of the Shroud as far as blood is concerned. Made of the same fabric, sporting similar sphores, with the same blood stains.

Oh, that has been shown to be forged, too.

Originally posted by History Guy
If such evidence exists and is placed in the 1st Century AD by scholars and scientists alike

But scientists agree that they were created later, much later.

[Master Zen]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by History Guy Boris, what evidence have you found that proves that Jesus did NOT exist?

What evidence have you found that I did NOT break into your house without leaving a trace last night while you were sleeping?

Seriously, if we were to apply this kind of logic to everything, then how can you prove that a guy called Mr. Happy didn't live in ancient Israel either?

Without any definitive archeological evidence to support his existence, then it is up to the Christians to prove he indeed exist, or even more so, that he was the son of god (which frankly I find impossible to prove). Until that day comes, the default option is that he didn't.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by SnowFire

Historical proof of Jesus: There have been religions that have formed without a central leader figure immediately, or with a more downplayed one, but why make one up when you can use one that actually existed? The initial beliefs of Christianity would be rather weird for a group without this leader. Look at how some gospels really stress the whole "Son of Man" part, that God was a human and we could talk with him and wow! If nobody actually had that experience- or thought they had that experience, for the naysayers- a most curious dogma, then.

The ancient Greeks had their gods with the same powers and weaknesses of men, just read their wonderful mythology. Should we assume that they had a same experience as the Christians and that Zeus really lives on top of Mount Olympus?

Seriously, man has always created god in his image.

[Q Classic]

Not necessarily, seeing how Jesus of Nazareth is supposed to be historical.

historical: he may have existed. one can probably prove that.

how then, to prove his miracles? or his divine creation? or his mother's sinlessness?

all of that cannot be proven but through faith; to try and find physical proof of his miracles goes against the nature of believing that he did perform them.

granted, it's not for everyone. then again, believing wholesale in the idea that we are but composed of quarks and nothing more than chemical reactions isn't for everyone, either.

[Urban Ranger]

Q Cubed: it's an Orthodox Christian doctrine that Jesus actually did exist.

You can always be unorthodox, of course.