Who is Jesus Christ, Really?

Message Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic

Archaeological Discoveries that confirm Biblical Accounts:

An inscription at a Roman theatre in Caesarea Martima reading, "Pontius Pilate, prefect of Judea".

Duh! Of course there are Roman remains that mention the name of the Roman governor. They're all over the place. No-one disputes that Pilate was the Roman governor (whatever his exact title).

You know something? There are signposts all over France pointing to Paris. Does that prove the Da Vinci Code is true? I mean, I've BEEN to the Louvre and I've SEEN the Mona Lisa.

It doesn't prove that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, although by your logic it does.

An inscription found in Northern Israel mentioning King David's
dynasty. The inscription is the oldest reference to any Biblical figure outside the Bible.

Duh! again. I don't know whether David was a historical figure or not; he may have been. But he was certainly a well-known figure, so it's hardly surprising he is mentioned.
Again - There's an inscription that says King Arthur's round table hangs on the wall in Winchester. And I've SEEN the table. 

But, unlike you, I don't find that convincing proof that the Morte D'Arthur is anything but fiction.

The discovery of an ossuary, a stone box used for retaining bones of
the deceased, inscribed with the name of Caiaphas, the high priest who
presided over the trial of Jesus shortly before his crucifixion.

Again no-one (well maybe someone does) disputes that Caiaphas was High Priest. So?
In Aachen Cathedral you'll find a tomb inscribed with the name of Charlemagne. Does that mean the story of Roncesvalles is true?

Legends quite often incorporate historical figures. It doesn't prove anything.

Israeli archeologists have uncovered a 1st century cave, in
a suburb south of Jerusalem, which served as a tomb to a family of
disciples of Jesus Christ.

The burial cave, carved in the mountainside, off the Kidron Valley,
contained several coffins, with names engraved on their sides, as well
as signs of the cross. These inscriptions identified the cave as the
burial vault of the Barsabas family. This family is well known to us,
since several of its members are mentioned in the book of Acts. The 
tomb remained hidden for nearly 2000 years.

There were Christians in Palestine. True. They died. True - at least I guess they did. They were buried in ossuaries. Usually. Some of them were named Barnabas. Virtually certainly. This was the family named in Acts. Highly unlikely but I guess possibly since Acts (in its accounts of the disciples' journeyings) probably has a fair basis in fact.

No-one challenges any of that. It just doesn't prove anything except stuff we already knew. 

Eminent Jerusalem Historian, Prof. Ory N. Mazar, states that "at
least some members of this family were among the very first disciples 
of Christ."

At a stretch, that coulr even be true. We know that there were followers of Jesus. Some of them must have been the very first. Thay're probably all dead now, so they're probably buried somewhere. Why not here?

It doesn't prove anything Jesus said, or the Gospel writers recounted, was true.

The stuff that follows about the historical references in the Old Testament is nothing new. Everyone accepts that the OT has at least some historical accuracy. As the eventually written down oral history of a culture it would be surprising if it didn't.

But, once more, the legends of Arthur correctly refer to England and France. They mention the Roman Empire. Many of the place names within Britain have been identified.

But that doesn't prove the legends are true.

I'm pretty patient but I can't be bothered with the rest of the nonsense.