Lost Tomb of Christ

[The Spartan (Returns)]

The screening this weekend of a Discovery Channel special in which celebrated film director James Cameron purports to reveal the lost tomb of Jesus Christ was the subject of a predictable explosion of comment in the USA. More surprisingly, the accusations of heresy from the religious right were drowned out by accusations of inadequate archaeological rigour and general dullness from more secular commentators.
link (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article1473617.ece)
..:lipsrsealed2:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Has been around for a while I hear. Amusing though.

[Csargo]

:no:

[The Spartan (Returns)]

friend tells me that people gave up the faith after this.

[ShadeHonestus]

Interesting as an archaeological find.

Aside from that, I hear Cameron, Brown, and Rivera are going to reveal the Orgah Tomb next fall, followed by a blockbuster film on the Tosa Code.

[Ignoramus]

Considering that even non-Christian experts are ridiculing this "supposed" find(even though it's been know for about 20 years), does not give any wait to this falsity.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Okay, can we have some context for what the tomb actually is?

Is this the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail?

[ShadeHonestus]

Considering that even non-Christian experts are ridiculing this "supposed" find(even though it's been know for about 20 years), does not give any wait to this falsity.


Well it is a "find", but its importance based on the tomb of Christ is another kettle of fish.

[ajaxfetish]

friend tells me that people gave up the faith after this.
I rather suspect that such people didn't have much faith to give up in the first place.

Ajax

[Csargo]

I don't see how this could hurt anyone's faith.

[Azi Tohak]

If this is true, then the existence of Jesus' remains disproves that Christ was NOT risen from the dead, and therefore that the main event of Christianity was false. Therefore the religion is wrong.

But if this actually caused people to lose their faith, those people are idiots anyway.

Doing just a little research on this finds that the archaeologist who found the tomb thinks Cameron is full of it too.

Azi

[Husar]

film on the Tosa Code.
:laugh4:
I'd definitely go to the cinema to watch that.:2thumbsup:

[Cronos Impera]

Or........The Return of Barroca

[ShadeHonestus]

Or........The Return of Barroca

Yeah what ever happened to Barroca...or Magy, any of the old guard...

[rory_20_uk]

ONe can not give up one's beliefs based on evidence. A belief is a point of view that is held irregardless of existing evidence.

~:smoking:

[Banquo's Ghost]

ONe can not give up one's beliefs based on evidence. A belief is a point of view that is held irregardless of existing evidence.

Of course one may. One's belief may be held irrespective of evidence - usually in the absence of evidence for or against - but if new evidence comes to light that directly contradicts one's belief, it may well cause a relinquishment.

People refuse to accept evidence often enough, but there's plenty who have rejected or modified their beliefs after seeing evidence to the contrary.

[Devastatin Dave]

I have a documentary coming out soon about a pebble I found in my backyard. It was obviously a pebble that Abraham Lincoln had stuck in his shoe during the Gettysburg Address. I came to this conclusion because:
1) My house resides in IL.
2) Lincoln was born and burried in IL.
3) Lincoln gave a speech at Gettysburg which is in Pennsylvania which has a lot of rocks.
Mr Cameron has yet to return my calls but I fear he is missing an even more compelling case with my Lincoln pebble.

[Banquo's Ghost]

What confused me about the claims as reported by the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6397373.stm) was that Mr Cameron seemed to say that DNA analysis backed his assertions.

I'm intrigued to know to which descendant he was cross-referencing?

[Goofball]

ONe can not give up one's beliefs based on evidence. A belief is a point of view that is held irregardless of existing evidence.

~:smoking:Of course one may. One's belief may be held irrespective of evidence - usually in the absence of evidence for or against - but if new evidence comes to light that directly contradicts one's belief, it may well cause a relinquishment.

People refuse to accept evidence often enough, but there's plenty who have rejected or modified their beliefs after seeing evidence to the contrary.

I'll take the liberty of speaking for rory here (please forgive me if I have it wrong, rory).

I believe rory was referring to "faith," rather than "belief." Religious faith can (and arguably, should) be able to be maintained even in the face of contradictory physical evidence. That's what makes faith faith...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

According to the Israel Antiquities Authority, six of those coffins were marked with the names Mary; Matthew; Jesua son of Joseph; Mary; Jofa (Joseph, Jesus' brother); and Judah son of Jesua.

I'll admit it is a considerable co-incidence, but if Jofa is Joseph why isn't he called Joseph?


"Mariamene is Mary Magdalene - that's the Ringo, that's what sets this whole film in motion," he said.

Not convincing, added to which, where is Lazarus? Wouldn't he want to be burried with his sister and his brother in law, especially after the latter commended his own mother into Lazarus' care?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'll take the liberty of speaking for rory here (please forgive me if I have it wrong, rory).

I believe rory was referring to "faith," rather than "belief." Religious faith can (and arguably, should) be able to be maintained even in the face of contradictory physical evidence. That's what makes faith faith...

I imagined rory meant faith too - and my view still applies, in that a person's faith can change and develop through both revelation and evidence. Not everyone who has faith is an unbending fundamentalist. :wink:

Perhaps this is a view derived from my upbringing as a Catholic. Doubt and faith are two sides of that coin. But I've known people from other traditions that value doubt and questing for truth rather than certainty.

[Martok]

It would be pretty cool if it was actually true, but I remain more than a tad skeptical that this is *the* tomb of Christ. (I'm agnostic, by the way.)


Aside from that, I hear Cameron, Brown, and Rivera are going to reveal the Orgah Tomb next fall, followed by a blockbuster film on the Tosa Code.
:laugh4: Sadly, I think I would probably watch that too....

[Pindar]

I believe rory was referring to "faith," rather than "belief." Religious faith can (and arguably, should) be able to be maintained even in the face of contradictory physical evidence. That's what makes faith faith...

Based on the above: what is the difference between belief and faith?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Based on the above: what is the difference between belief and faith?

Perhaps that a belief is the idea itself where faith is your adherence to that idea?

In any case all this does, if true:inquisitive:, is Nuke the Nicean Creed.

We all become Arians! Yay, Christianity and Islam can finally snuggle.

[Pindar]

Perhaps that a belief is the idea itself where faith is your adherence to that idea?


Does this mean one can't adhere to a belief?

[ShadeHonestus]

We all become Arians! Yay, Christianity and Islam can finally snuggle.

hehe

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does this mean one can't adhere to a belief?

No, you adherence to a belief is your faith.

Faith=adherence.

Which is why people who lack faith tend to give up their beliefs.

[Pindar]

No, you adherence to a belief is your faith.

Faith=adherence.

Which is why people who lack faith tend to give up their beliefs.

I see. Interesting. What is your take on the following:

I believe in you.
I have faith in you.

[Fisherking]

Why should this have an impact on anyone! Gosh they found a tomb with some of the most common names in Judaism. They have found several others just like it with similar names and they have known about it for years.

Someone wants to make some money and sensationalizes the thing and people are going to buy into it?

This is silly on so very many levels!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I see. Interesting. What is your take on the following:

I believe in you.
I have faith in you.

I believe in you = I believe you are.....

I have faith in you = I have faith you will......

So in the first case I believe the person to posses traits or qualities, in the second case I have faith that the person will use those traits qualities in a certain way and achieve a certain end.

[Goofball]

Based on the above: what is the difference between belief and faith?

Belief requires some evidentiary basis and should be changed as new evidence emerges, while faith doesn't and shouldn't.

I believe that I weigh 190lbs, because I stepped on the scale today and that's what it said. But if I stepped on the scale tomorrow and it said 193lbs, then I would now believe that I weigh 193lbs.

I have faith that there is some sort of higher power watching over me/us, even though there is nothing I can point to as proof of my faith.

Please understand that I am not trying to denigrate faith in any way, or imply that people of faith are mindless sheep because they blindly ignore evidence that is contrary to their faith. My point is that faith actually should ignore worldly evidence.

But where I see the disconnect is that people should have faith in God, but belief in the literal details of the Bible. This way, their faith would not be threatened when evidence arises that Biblical anecdote may or may not be accurate. They could then modify their belief without shattering their faith.

[Pindar]

I believe in you = I believe you are.....

I have faith in you = I have faith you will......

So in the first case I believe the person to posses traits or qualities, in the second case I have faith that the person will use those traits qualities in a certain way and achieve a certain end.

Both are complete sentences meaning they are complete thoughts. The object of both is an individual. Neither indicate any attending act grammatically. If you wish to argue one is tied to an anticipated future, while the other is not, how do you make the case without simply appearing arbitrary?

I hope this doesn't appear tedious, I'm just exploring your position.

[Pindar]

Belief requires some evidentiary basis and should be changed as new evidence emerges, while faith doesn't and shouldn't.


Do you consider the statement: 'I believe in the Santa Claus' meaningful? If so, how does this notion fit with the above?



Please understand that I am not trying to denigrate faith in any way, or imply that people of faith are mindless sheep because they blindly ignore evidence that is contrary to their faith. My point is that faith actually should ignore worldly evidence.

I understand.

[Del Arroyo]

A belief is an idea. Faith is a feeling or a state of mind. "A faith" is a religion or sect, but I believe that falls outside the bounds of the current semantical discussion.

[rory_20_uk]

I imagined rory meant faith too - and my view still applies, in that a person's faith can change and develop through both revelation and evidence. Not everyone who has faith is an unbending fundamentalist. :wink:

Perhaps this is a view derived from my upbringing as a Catholic. Doubt and faith are two sides of that coin. But I've known people from other traditions that value doubt and questing for truth rather than certainty.

In a Medical context a belief is unshakable. That the neighbours are trying to kill them may be a belief that some psychiatric patients have.

I agree that things are more open in the lay public.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Both are complete sentences meaning they are complete thoughts. The object of both is an individual. Neither indicate any attending act grammatically. If you wish to argue one is tied to an anticipated future, while the other is not, how do you make the case without simply appearing arbitrary?

I hope this doesn't appear tedious, I'm just exploring your position.

Well it's hard for me to qualify in the context you provided. I'm not talking about the future, I'm talking about a very subtle difference. Let me try again.

I believe in the weight the scales show me because I have faith they are accurate.

So another way to put it might be that I believe in "things" like God but I have faith in abstracts, such as his mercy.

Any clearer?

Oh, and be as Socratic as you like, just make sure Tribesman doesn't get jealous and pass you the Hemlock.

[Pindar]

Well it's hard for me to qualify in the context you provided. I'm not talking about the future, I'm talking about a very subtle difference. Let me try again.

I believe in the weight the scales show me because I have faith they are accurate.

So another way to put it might be that I believe in "things" like God but I have faith in abstracts, such as his mercy.

Any clearer?

No. Still unclear, earlier you mentioned faith=adherence. Adherence is a sentiment. Would you then say belief can't have any sentiment or that any sentiment a belief may have is a faith? If the latter is the case, then return to my earlier examples:

I believe in you.
I have faith in you.

Is there a difference in the above (no context is provided: only the two statements). If so, what is it and why?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hmmm, well a belief, to the believer is a "fact" while the faith is the holding of the belief.

So, I suppose without context, "I believe in you is grammatically wrong." You can't believe in somone, only about them.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

Hmmm, well a belief, to the believer is a "fact" while the faith is the holding of the belief.

So, I suppose without context, "I believe in you is grammatically wrong." You can't believe in somone, only about them.

you can't say I believe in you
but what about I have faith in you?

[Pindar]

Hmmm, well a belief, to the believer is a "fact" while the faith is the holding of the belief.

So any belief held is also a demonstration of faith?


So, I suppose without context, "I believe in you is grammatically wrong." You can't believe in somone, only about them.

"I believe in you." is grammatically correct, however. Further, it is neither an odd grammar construction nor does it sound odd to the ear.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So any belief held is also a demonstration of faith?



"I believe in you." is grammatically correct, however. Further, it is neither an odd grammar construction nor does it sound odd to the ear.

A belief is a demonstration of faith in that belief, yes.

Grammatically correct? Well, English grammar is karzied.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

this topic has changed from lost tomb to the def. of belief and faith

[Del Arroyo]

"I believe in you" and "I have faith in you" mean exactly the same thing. This only remains consistently true as long as the object is the second-person pronoun. "I believe in John" and "I have faith in John" would most probably have the same meaning, but there is a measure of ambiguity in the first statement as to whether it expresses trust or a belief in existence. In this case context would be needed.

In any case the equivalence between the first two statements in question is merely a linguistic anomaly and it has no wider implications as to the respective meanings of the two words.

[Quietus]

I think the difference between "faith" and "belief" is that the former is a dogma.

i.e.

ask a faithful: "What has to happen for you to say there is no god?" You'll likely get a blank stare.

What's the unlikely answers:

- "Oh, when the Big Bang and the Universe is thoroughly explained then there is no god. So that's it. See, god did those too.

- "If dark lord Xenu visits me then there's no god". But, Xenu doesn't exist, there's no proof.

- "If they discovered Jesus' tomb, then there's no god". But, but that can't be Jesus' tomb; Jesus ascended to heaven!

In short, in "faith" there's no 'out', unless one is to lose faith itself.

Whereas,

ask a neutral (aka: atheist): "What has to happen for you to say there is god?" You'll likely be asked to come up with proof or evidence of god. Or why doesn't this "omnipotent" (definition?), "supreme" (definition?) something-something-I-don't-know-I-don't-know appear at all? :skull:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

An Atheist has a faith, and that faith is in the non-existance in God.

The only person who might be able to claim neutrality would be an agnostic.

[IrishArmenian]

In my opinion, this finding is prone to two major flaws:
1)Geshwa (Jesus) was an incredibly popular name, to the point that it is belived that Thaddeus (the Disciple/Apostle) had to change his name, for his name was Geshwa too. Geshwa means "Salvation in God".
2)While it could've been the tomb of Jesus at one point, I would assume an empty tomb would be reused, making it improbable that their is any body in their linking the tomb to Jesus.

[Quietus]

An Atheist has a faith, and that faith is in the non-existance in God.

The only person who might be able to claim neutrality would be an agnostic. Hi,

There are really only two positions: Neutral and Positive.

If I were to say there is a dog. That's a Positive claim.
If I were to say there's no dog (that's a rejection of the claim). That's remaining Neutral (or wrongly seen as a "Negative claim". It is only Negative relative to the Positive claim. It is not a "Negative claim" or as you've put it "Faith in the non-existence of God". Do you have faith in the non-existence of Leprechauns or Xenu? No, you're Neutral.)

If you were to say there is god. That's a Positive claim.
If you were to say there is no god (that's a rejection of the claim). That's remaining Neutral.

If I were to say there is a Leprechaun. That's a Positive claim.
If I were to say there is no Leprechaun (that's a rejection of the claim). That's remaining Neutral.

Agnosticism would then look like confusion or sitting between the fence. However, everybody starts at the Neutral position (Do you have any outside knowledge before you were born?) Agnostics are not making any claim, hence, Agnostics really are Neutral.

I'm not claiming there is a Leprechaun, hence it's Neutral. I'm rejecting anyone claiming there are Leprechauns, again remaining Neutral. Atheism is just another word for Neutrality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No.

If I say there pixies that is a positive statement.

If I say there are no pixies that is directly opposed to the positive statement, and is therefore a negative statement.

If I say there may be pixies that sits between the two polarities and is therefore a neutral statement.

Further, the first two are statements, positive and negative, the third is, in reality, a non statement because it says nothing.

You are correct in that everyone starts out agnostic, in that they don't know. In deciding in the existance or non existance of God they are making a judgement and therefore are no longer neutral.

Your fallacy is that you are starting from the position that non-belief is the default state and that all else is a deviation. That's like saying good is the default state and bad is a deviation.

[Quietus]

No.

If I say there pixies that is a positive statement.

If I say there are no pixies that is directly opposed to the positive statement, and is therefore a negative statement.

If I say there may be pixies that sits between the two polarities and is therefore a neutral statement.

Further, the first two are statements, positive and negative, the third is, in reality, a non statement because it says nothing.

You are correct in that everyone starts out agnostic, in that they don't know. In deciding in the existance or non existance of God they are making a judgement and therefore are no longer neutral.

Your fallacy is that you are starting from the position that non-belief is the default state and that all else is a deviation. That's like saying good is the default state and bad is a deviation.Wigferth,

Your reference point then is everything already exists?

Your reference point is 1 or a positive claim for everything at the time you were born! Pixies, God, Leprechauns, Xenu, Gargoyles, Gorgons, Goblins, Spirits, Nymphs etc. all exist?

The reference point really is 0 (no outside knowledge), which is neutral. It only appears as a negative stance if your reference point is 1, which means everything exists and you have to prove it does not exist.

In short, before you can claim Pixies exists, your previous position would be neutral or 0. Now if you say Pixies do not exist, you are only rejecting the positive claim and your neutral starting position do not change (and that is not really negative).

Hence:

Neutral reference (0) ---> Positive claim (1)

Not

Positive reference (1) ---> Negative claim (0)
Leprechauns exist by default (1) ---> Leprechauns do not exist (0)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

From what Ive been able to gather on this story is that the whole premise is based on bad science. Of course its just a coincidence that this is showing at Easter right?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wigferth,

Your reference point then is everything already exists?

Your reference point is 1 or a positive claim for everything at the time you were born! Pixies, God, Leprechauns, Xenu, Gargoyles, Gorgons, Goblins, Spirits, Nymphs etc. all exist?

The reference point really is 0 (no outside knowledge), which is neutral. It only appears as a negative stance if your reference point is 1, which means everything exists and you have to prove it does not exist.

In short, before you can claim Pixies exists, your previous position would be neutral or 0. Now if you say Pixies do not exist, you are only rejecting the positive claim and your neutral starting position do not change (and that is not really negative).

Hence:

Neutral reference (0) ---> Positive claim (1)

Not

Positive reference (1) ---> Negative claim (0)
Leprechauns exist by default (1) ---> Leprechauns do not exist (0)

No, 0 is I don't know.

Let me try to explain again.

I can make four statements about the existance of God:

1: I believe in the existance of God.

2: I do not believe in the existance of God.

3. I believe in no-existance of God.

4: I do not believe in the non-existance of God.

Now, theists believe 1, atheists believe 3 and agnostics believe 2 and 4.

Where 1 and 3 are positivistic, or to put it another way where 1 is positive and 3 is negative 2 and 4 are neutral, because they reject the positivistic stance of either 1 or 3.

"I do not believe in God" does not mean the same thing as "I believe in the non existance of God." because the first can indicate rejection of the belief without adherence to the opposite belief.

0, no outside knowledge cannot be "it does not exist" because that means until you see something it definately doesn't exist, which is clearly absurd. It would mean, for example, that until you meet me I do not exist, except that I do. Now you could argue epistomological reletivism which would say exactly that but that requires that NOTHING exists which you do not experience. If you wish to hold that view then there is no point continuing this disscussion. However, I would ask how you will find your house the next time you leave it, as it will cease to exist as soon as it passes from your sight.

In any case at this particular point we are argueing theology and your thesis was that atheism is the same as agnostism. It is not because an atheist believes in the non-existance of God, where an agnostic simply does not believe, in either the existance or non existance of God.

So both an atheist and a theist hold a belief, therefore in relation to agnostics they are both +1, in order to differentiate between them we call atheism negative (-1) but only in relation to theism. You can reverse the polarity and the essential arguement remains unchanged, merely the bias.

[Quietus]

Wigferth,

I've added a new topic: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=81071

[Navaros]

Over the past week I saw the maker of this film being interviewed on two local stations.

He is an exteremly slick speaker. Uses lots of familiar old secular jargon to propagate his idea. I found it amusing how in both interviews he made sure to say "I'm a damn good journalist" and in both interviews he also made sure to say "It's like when Galileo said the Earth is round, a lot of people didn't want to believe it, but Galileo was right."

I'm actually very surprised that the Christianity-bashing propaganda this guy is promoting hasn't "caught on" and been seen as legitimate with "the mainstream" given that in the past malarky that was/is just as uncredible as "Lost Tomb of Christ" and presented using the same language as he uses, has.

[Goofball]

Belief requires some evidentiary basis and should be changed as new evidence emerges, while faith doesn't and shouldn't.Do you consider the statement: 'I believe in the Santa Claus' meaningful? If so, how does this notion fit with the above?

Yes, I would consider that statement meaningful. If it came from a child, I would view it as a bit of childhood fun and magic that I should help perpetuate until it was about to become harmful. If it came from an adult, I would view it as a sign that somebody was a bit distant from reality and probably needed a bit of help.

And it fits quite neatly with my statement, I think.

I believed in Santa Claus until I was +/- 6 years old. During that time, I had what I considered to be sufficient "evidence" to support my belief:

1) Everybody I trusted (parents, teachers, friends, grandparents, uncles, aunts) told me that Santa Claus existed.

2) I could see the results of "Santa's" efforts every Christmas morning.

But at a certain point in time, new evidence emerged that suggested to me that Santa Claus did not actually exist:

1) My parents explained to me that Santa didn't exist, and explained their reasons for having deceived me.

2) I became a complicit helper in "being" Santa and perpetuating the fantasy of Santa Claus for my younger sister.

At that point, I changed my belief according to the new evidence available to me.

[Pindar]

A belief is a demonstration of faith in that belief, yes.

So any belief held with any degree of conviction entails a faith? What about beliefs without conviction? For example, someone says they believe in UFOs but there is no demonstrable impact on their lives aside from the statement? Further, what does this idea say about my earlier statement: 'I have faith in you'?

[Pindar]

Yes, I would consider that statement meaningful.If it came from a child, I would view it as a bit of childhood fun and magic that I should help perpetuate until it was about to become harmful. If it came from an adult, I would view it as a sign that somebody was a bit distant from reality and probably needed a bit of help.

Yet, an adult who made the claim is still making a meaningful statement correct? Whether the view is justifiable or no seems distinct from the claim itself.

[Goofball]

Yet, an adult who made the claim is still making a meaningful statement correct? Whether the view is justifiable or no seems distinct from the claim itself.

Correct and correct.

[Del Arroyo]

Quietus, your math sucks. For an alternate example, let us put it this way:

Suppose you are travelling in a mounted convoy along a given route. If you

(1) believe with some certainty that there is a prepared ambush waiting along that route, you would probably take a different route. If you

(0) had no strong indication that there would be an ambush on this day along this route, but could not be sure, you would take precautionary measures and keep a keen lookout. If you

(-1) were convinced that there was little to no possibility of any kind of enemy contact, you would take a relaxed tactical posture and simply drive to your destination.

As you can see there is a very clear distinction between the actions taken at the (0) state and the (-1) state. Not to mention that trying to argue that the opposite of a positive is a neutral, or that a negative is equal to a neutral, is absurd.