Comments on: What Skepticism Isn’t

By: RW

RW — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:54:03 +0000

If one sets aside the “the only way is through me” portions of his red-text, what the guy is credited with saying is……well, is there anyone who can have negative things to say about his rap? The guy said some pretty powerful stuff.

I can see why he was considered a radical of his time. He’d be a radical in today’s time, as well.

By: Buck

Buck — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 16:10:34 +0000

The fact that Jesus was feared and hated by the church and the government has always made Him a hero in my eyes. He had to be doing something right.

By: smijer

smijer — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 15:24:09 +0000

lol – this could go on for a while… I don’t think there is anyway we could say he was “definitely” very well known at the time. We can guess that he had some kind of public profile, from the nature of the stories that later grew up about him. If he was indeed crucified, then he caught the attention of at least the local authorities – maybe as high up the chain as Pilate… but that may have been because Pilate was actively fishing for troublemakers and had his scouts looking for “troublemakers”. It doesn’t mean that Pilate read about him in the Jerusalem Daily News, necessarily. We do have the tradition that Pilate was the person who ultimately had Jesus crucified, and that some of the Jewish authorities were involved, too. There isn’t any indication, however, that Caesar knew anything about him. However, whatever level of notoriety he may have had while living – there isn’t any special reason to think that anyone would have keeping records of his family burial ground even as much as 20 years later. People who remembered him after his death, or remembered stories about him, were likely more interested in his politics & religion than they were the details of his family burial plot, and might not have bothered to keep track of it at all.

By: RW

RW — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 14:14:55 +0000

He certainly wasn’t as well known during life as After Death (see, even the AD – anno domini (SP?) – brings the guy to mind) but he was extremely well-known. Enough so that Caesar & the Jewish elders/leaders were afraid of his influence and….well, we all know the rest. He was brought before the pharisees (big-time leaders of that day) as a set-up because they wanted a public embarrassment of the person that they’d heard so much about….and Jesus openly debated the entire crew. No, they wouldn’t have done that for a near-nobody.

I mean, you guys know, when the government fears the influence of a single man (even though they admit that he’s broken no laws), it’s beyond a small cult. He was no Barack Obama, to be sure, but he was definitely a popular figure at the time.

By: smijer

smijer — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 22:09:36 +0000

Buck – no way to know for sure. I’m sure there were people who were “famous” then who *never* got mentioned in any written accounts that survive today. The fact that Jesus was mentioned, albeit quite a while after his lifetime, and in written accounts that focused on a religious group rather than the history of the rich & famous leaves us with a question. How well known was he at the time of that writing, & how well known was he during his lifetime? My guess is not very well at either time – but it’s just that… A guess. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn something that would indicate the opposite was true. And, if the opposite is true, then RW’s reasoning would apply.

By: Buck

Buck — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 21:32:57 +0000

I really didn’t think He was all of that popular during His lifetime either.

Weren’t His followers basically considered to be wingnuts and moonbats?

And didn’t Romans crucify Messiahs almost every day?

By: smijer

smijer — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:57:48 +0000

Ok, dude – here’s your bone… If Jesus’ fame was consistent from the time he was buried until the time that revealing his tomb would have interested anyone, then likely his fame would have attached to the tomb-site and would have kept it known and to some degree identifiable.

However, I don’t see much evidnence for Jesus carrying much fame in the years immediately following his crucifixion, and there isn’t a clear indication of how widespread his fame was during life. Clearly, if the accounts of his crucifixion are accurate, he at least had enough to draw the attention of the local authorities, but it’s safe to say he wasn’t the most famous person in the world at that time. In fact, I don’t think he really gets the title of most famous person of the world until some point after the Roman Empire made Christianity the official religion.

By: RW

RW — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 17:22:06 +0000

“If the families burial plot existed, it would have been in someone’s favor to reveal it, if and only if, they knew of its existence and location…,”

Jesus was kinda popular (is anyone in history ever been more popular? I mean, besides Laci Peterson & Anna Nicole) & someone took the time to label and bury the corpses. It defies Occam’s razor that no one would know until 1980.

“Since there is no guarantee of any of those conditions…”

Well, if we’re only going to go by things that are guaranteed, let’s go ahead and shut down the blogosphere.

But that’s too many assumptions to make a good argument with, imho.

Wait……looking at the family tomb for the bones of a member of the family – the most famous body in the history of this earth (believers or not believers, it doesn’t matter, Jesus is the most famous human to walk the planet, ever) to see if he’s there…..is too much of a leap? You go all out for Al Gore’s “moral issue” but looking in the Jesus family crypt for, well, Jesus, is taking too many assumptions into account?

Throw me a bone!

By: smijer

smijer — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:51:10 +0000

RW – to simplify:

The argument: If the family burial plot existed, it would have been in someone’s favor to reveal it. They did not do so, ergo, the burial plot did not exist.

Counterarguments: If the families burial plot existed, it would have been in someone’s favor to reveal it, if and only if, they knew of its existence and location, and if and only if they had the technology to show that it belonged to the family under dispute. Since there is no guarantee of any of those conditions, then it does not follow that we should expect such a crypt to be revealed by interested parties.

On the Roman premise, considerations above aside, they may have viewed Christianity as a set of beliefs revolving primarily around the resurrection of Jesus. Or they may not have, and instead viewed it as a cultish political group, insensitive to reason or criticism. I think there is a significant chance that, rightly or wrongly, the Romans perceived the Christians in a way similar to how Janet Reno percieved the Branch Davidians in Waco.

So, yes – if we make all these assumptions – that the site would have been known in detail and could be identified to the satisfaction of all parties at the time, and if people interested in revealing it believed that it would make a difference to believers, then the argument holds. But that’s too many assumptions to make a good argument with, imho.

By: RW

RW — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 16:10:23 +0000

Point being: it’s not like there hasn’t been anyone or anything that would’ve greatly benefitted from exposing the ‘fallacy’ of the resurrection (quotes intentional, you know why) by producing Jesus’ body. Lord knows, a few folks around Jerusalem over the years could’ve been spared quite a bit (I’m talking about Jews, of course) if they’d have been able to give up Jesus’ body and declare to the world that they did not, in fact, kill “Christ”, but rather just another ordinary man who did not resurrect.

I’m sure some Jew in or about the middle east would’ve stepped forward while millions of Jews were being killed throughout the last 2,000 years and spared his bretheren….had he only thought to look in the most obvious place for anyone to look were it to be real.

I mean, seriously, think no one’s checked the Hoffa family cemetary for Jimmy’s body? Someone gonna step forward and say they’ve found Amelia Earhart buried next to her parents, in marked graves?

t’s not even certain that the Romans were hoping to “disprove” Christianity – they may have only wished to disband it.

And the easiest way to do that…….
Which is more logical, using armies to do your bidding over long periods of time & going up against an entire religion or pointing to the family burial plot, digging ‘him’ up and saying “okay, game over”?