Better cancel easter, they found the body.

[pasithea]

Unless you live in a cave, you've probably seen that there is a documentary airing on Discovery channel in a few days about a possible tomb containing the body of Jesus. It's become the top tedious news story, blasting Brittney Spears new hairdo clean out of the headlines.

So I suppose I'm expected to say something like the topic of this post. It's no big secret that I find religion farcical and a huge detriment to society. The thing is... I apply that evenly to all faiths. Accepting a news sound-bite without any thought is just as bad as accepting religious doctrine. Obviously, I don't have any real information on this tomb, and even if I did, I'm not an archeologist and I wouldn't know how to interpret it, but one thing is absolutely certain in this: The researchers cannot have overwhelming evidence. Christian mythology is adamant that Jesus had no heirs so there's no way we can compare this body with a living person who claims to be descended from Jesus. One might be able to prove a familial connection between the bodies in the tomb and that the names match, and that the date is correct, but that's no smoking gun. Regrettably, much as I'd like to see christianity upset, there just isn't sufficient proof. As a for-instance: Even if the bodies are of the proper age, stone does not carbon date. There's plenty of room for an explanation on the lines of 'an ancient forgery' even if one ignores the possibility of mistaken identity.

Now don't get me wrong. This doesn't mean for a second I believe all of the 'Son of God' rubbish. Nor is it agnosticism. I still find every religion I've researched to be absurd and deeply flawed. God's existence or lack thereof is completely irrelevant.

All I'm saying is that I am very skeptical there's a way to conclusively prove this body is the one the christians gibber about. Moreover, I'm absolutely certain that even if such proof did exist, it would be completely ignored by the vast majority of people calling themselves christians.

On the whole though, this news story just makes me sad. There are many things happening in the world that are more deserving of such intense media coverage. It is also sad to see these right-wing asshats being interviewed, spewing their well-rehearsed propaganda lines as quick as they can in an attempt to undermine scientific process by espousing half-truths and logic faults. The mainstream will probably buy it. On the other hand.. Just as sad is the knowledge that in the future I am sure to see other atheists citing this tomb as their gospel, presenting it as an absolute truth that cannot be ignored. Come on guys. That's still religion. triggur recently posted this handy diagram. It's fairly accurate, and you should try applying it to everything you 'know' to be true on an occassional basis.

Comments

[ff00ff.livejournal.com]

I've heard of this. It's going to be such a sensational farce. There is no proof of Jesus except what exists in the bible, and given how often it contradicts itself, and even if it were reliable in any way it doesn't exactly record his dental records. He is a fictional character that was created in a book of fiction, and in the plot of that book he bodily ascended into heaven. There is no criteria by which one might determine it was Jesus, because there is nothing specific or personal to him that he might be recognized by. He even has a common name from his time!

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I imagine there probably was a guy named Jesus who had a cult of personality religion based around him. There's been lots of those throughout history. I just don't think he had majyckal powers.

[ff00ff.livejournal.com]

The evidence is all circumstantial though. Yes, there were a lot of would be messiahs back then. Yes Jesus was a common name, so couldn't there have been a would be messiah who was the biblical Jesus? That provides no positive evidence to believe in a Jesus. Many other claims in the bible must not be taken literally, so why this one? In the end it probably does boil down to how watered down a man you'll accept as Jesus. What if the guy who beat up the Jewish moneychangers wasn't the same one who gave the sermon on the hill? I've heard that many elements of Jesus's supposed canonical biography were actually cribbed from Zoroaster and Krishna, so again, how many assertions about Jesus could be shed before you can only conclude that essentially the guy never existed. We're already on the same page when it comes to the idea that he had no divine powers which takes a pretty hearty chunk out of the traditionally defined Jesus. Maybe in a thousand more years they'll say Dudley Do-right fed his people with loaves and fishes, and spent 40 days in the desert where he saved Nell Fenwick from the railroad tracks.

[dv-girl.livejournal.com]

That's a fair point. I am aware of the plethora of would-be messiahs and the alteration of events to make certain people match the messiah stories better. Not to mention it isn't as if the romans weren't big into copying stuff. Their Gods were thinly remasked versions of greek gods. Oddesseus was rebadged as Ulysses and so on. Actually, it's quite possible S/Paul, the Roman (and dickhead who wrote most of the really lousy jew-hating and woman-hating stuff in the New Testament) was attempting to co-opt jewish messiah prophecy into Jesus in an attempt to integrate the jewish population into Roman power.

As for your Dudley Do-Right example. Here's an even better one: Cargo Cults. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6370991.stm I particularly love the quote from the christian youth worker. The irony is fantastic. :)

Of course finally, I need point out that I said that I only believed there'd probably been a guy named Jesus. Not even that he was the biblical figure. It was a shady answer. I know there's a guy named Jesus. He lives in my apartment complex and smokes Marlboros.

[ff00ff.livejournal.com]

Ah yes, I may be vuagely aware of the John Frum cult :)