The Lost Tomb of Jesus at Talpiot

[Feck]

Loads of urban myths, but the letters of Paul are dateable to pretty soon after the cruxifiction, so they aren't fully in that catagory.
.

Goodie! A single source. Good thing he wasn't making any of this up, ain't it?

A single source not of what happened but of HIS important place in the story ...He must have been telling the truth !

Why?

Well Jesus appeared to him so he must be an honest man.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Loads of urban myths, but the letters of Paul are dateable to pretty soon after the cruxifiction, so they aren't fully in that catagory.
.

Goodie! A single source. Good thing he wasn't making any of this up, ain't it?

A single source not of what happened but of HIS important place in the story ...He must have been telling the truth !

Why?

Well Jesus appeared to him so he must be an honest crazy man.

[Pappa]

There are two possibilities. Either another family had that group of names by chance, or this is the family of the historical Jesus.

Or it doesn't even say Jesus.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There are two possibilities. Either another family had that group of names by chance, or this is the family of the historical Jesus.

Or it doesn't even say Jesus.

Or it says "Jesus" . . . now.

[Feck]

There are two possibilities. Either another family had that group of names by chance, or this is the family of the historical Jesus.

Or it doesn't even say Jesus.

Or it says "Jesus" . . . now.

Prolly some dead mexican ?

[Svartalf]

Svartaff, I don't give a monkey's about the film, or the Da Vinci code.
I made my case in the OP, nothing to do with the film, just the grouping of names.
There are two possibilities. Either another family had that group of names by chance, or this is the family of the historical Jesus.
I'm just giving my opinion of the chances of that grouping occurring purely by coincidence.
.

You may not, but that's partly what they are drawing on for appeal, and their arguments and proof have exactly the same degree of veracity as the 'facts' described in the novel.

The case you made in the OP doesn't have a peg leg to stand on.

[Svartalf]

There are two possibilities. Either another family had that group of names by chance, or this is the family of the historical Jesus.

Or it doesn't even say Jesus.

Or it says "Jesus" . . . now.

Prolly some dead mexican ?

Jaaay... zus H Christ on a Harley Davidson, next thing you'll tell me the mormons are right and Mexicans are actually Jews.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There are two possibilities. Either another family had that group of names by chance, or this is the family of the historical Jesus.

Or it doesn't even say Jesus.

Or it says "Jesus" . . . now.

Prolly some dead mexican ?

Simple forgery. Religious people bear false witness whenever they feel like it. You'd think they had no more morals than your average atheist.

[mistermack]

You may not, but that's partly what they are drawing on for appeal, and their arguments and proof have exactly the same degree of veracity as the 'facts' described in the novel.

The case you made in the OP doesn't have a peg leg to stand on.

Your logic is some of the strangest I've ever encountered, Svartalf.
By the way, did you pinch your picture from Sprite on the Dawkins site?
.

[Svartalf]

Strange but to the point, and true nonetheless.

[colubridae]

Your logic is some of the strangest I've ever encountered, Svartalf.

Kettle, black, pot. etc.

[Pappa]

Regarding the validity of the letters of Paul...

The earliest letters were written about 55 AD. So 55 years would have passed before Paul wrote down the stories from eye witnesses that may still have been alive. Putting aside the very obvious and serious problem that human memory is shit at that sort of thing, there's also the problem of life expectancy.

I'm still digging, but for Paul to have any chance of talking to any eye witnesses, life expectancy would need to be at least 65 (or thereabouts). A 10 year old would presumably remember the events but not their context, flow or significance. A 20 year old follower of Jesus would probably remember a lot more about how the events stitched together and their significance. The adult would presumably have a better chance of remembering the words Jesus spoke, but again, human memory is pretty shit, and nobody is likely to remember spoken words for 55 years (most people can't handle 5 minutes).

So anyway, what was life expectancy in the time of Jesus?

Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts By K. C. Hanson, Douglas E. Oakman has this to say:

Life expectancy: approximately twenty years for live births, and approximately forty years for those who lived past five.

Unreferenced though.

Evidence from the Neolithic in Orkney:

A neolithic tomb at Isbister (The Tomb of the Eagles) on Orkney, off the north coast of Scotland, produced the remains of 342 people. The age profile of the bones showed a population where children outnumbered adults three to one. The most common age of death was early adulthood, between 15 and 30. Only 1.5% of people were over 40, and very few lived to reach the age of 50. Old age, rather than life, began at 40.

Chalcolithic: ~30
http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/seminarpapers/dg09102006.pdf

Bronze Age and Iron Age: 35+
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expec ... _over_time

So, if we assumed the highest estimate there, 40, was accurate. That sounds suspiciously like Paul didn't start writing his letters until after everyone who may have met Jesus first hand was actually dead.

[mistermack]

Am I missing something here? 55 ad was about 25 years after the usual date for the cruxifiction. But it's widely accepted that the cruxifiction was later than that, possibly by as much as ten years.
Also, there was a very strong tradition of passing down history by word of mouth in those days, and great care was taken not to alter the stories. This also applied to written records, incredible care was taken to exactly copy documents.
I'm sure Paul was happy to lie, if it advanced his own importance. But he was so self important, that he would not have wanted to invite criticism, by getting the story wrong. So you just have to make your own mind up about what to believe.
Of course he made up the story about the 'road to Damascus' incident, or maybe faked it. It ensured that he not only could claim to have spoken with Jesus, but was the last man to speak with him. Very convenient.
I also don't believe all that bollocks about him persecuting the christians, before his conversion.
That's what christian apologists are still saying now, ''I used to be an atheist, I was more cynical than you, till I got the word of god''. It's psychology, it's saying, '' I'm not gullible, I'm convinced by the evidence, and you should be too ''.

But I personally feel that the names of the family would never have been changed. It's the sort of thing that was incredibly important to people of that era. Look at all the 'begats' in the bible.
That's all I'm taking as true, the names. I'm not even assuming he was cruxified, although it's likely.
.

[colubridae]

Your logic is some of the strangest I've ever encountered, Svartalf.

Followed by:-

Also, there was a very strong tradition of passing down history by word of mouth in those days, and great care was taken not to alter the stories.

Mistermack how do you keep coming up with this stuff.

Remember you said I was a child in a zoo. It's not my fault you keep coming up with this gibberish.

[Pappa]

Am I missing something here? 55 ad was about 25 years after the usual date for the cruxifiction.
.

Sorry.