• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Where are the remains of Jesus of Nazareth?

First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Gary Sheldrake said:
Thank you for the reply First Baseman. As for what I think, I simply don't know where they are. I suppose it all vectors in on whether or not one believes in the resurrection and the ascension, and I don't know either way about that either. I do know that the resurrection and the ascension are fantastic events that are predicated on some very unlikely prerequisite events, such as the Romans allowing for the deposition of a crucified seditionist, which is not likely at all. Sedition was the only crime for which the Romans crucified people. They did not crucify for any other crime. Seditionists were crucified in public view and left to rot and be eaten by birds and animals as a warning to anyone who might have ideas about challenging Rome. They didn't allow anyone to take down or entomb the remains of seditionists. I don't know either way, but I base my opinions on such things on likelihoods, and it isn't likely that the Romans would have allowed it. Just my point of view.

All the best,
Gary
Click to expand...

You seem to ignore the writings of events in the NT? Why, if you don't mind my asking?
 
Gary Sheldrake

Gary Sheldrake

Member
First Baseman said:
You seem to ignore the writings of events in the NT? Why, if you don't mind my asking?
Click to expand...

Good Evening First Baseman: I am not ignoring the NT accounts of the life of Jesus. I am shoring them up with what is historically known about the time and culture in which Jesus lived. It is one of the best studied periods and places in all history. We know a lot about it. I also have taken into account what is known about the authors of the NT, along with the social and political pressures and influences that produced these works. We know that the authors had incomplete knowledge of the culture and region and history of the time of Jesus. We know this from the mistakes in the Gospel stories. One example of many was the arrest of Jesus. This account tells of Jesus being brought before the high priest Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin the night he was arrested. The Sanhedrin never met at night and was not allowed to meet at night. Not for any reason. The Sanhedrin also never met during Passover. This was also forbidden. Jesus was arrested after the Passover meal. We know the political pressures of the time the gospels were written and the reasons the gospel writers were eager to blame the Jews rather than the Romans for the arrest of Jesus when writing their accounts. We know that Pilate was not the sort of person to try and save Jesus or hesitate to execute any Jew. In fact, he was recalled to Rome eventually because of his famous brutality. He was well known for putting thousands upon thousands of Jews to death. The whole affair about Pilate washing his hands was a literary device to add more blame to the Jews. The reasons for this can easily be researched and would take me many more pages to explain here.

With regard to the resurrection and ascension, we know that the Romans only crucified seditionists and we know they didn't allow the bodies to be removed from the place of execution, because that type of execution was supposed to be a gruesome display. Hundreds upon hundreds of corpse were displayed on crosses outside the gates of Jerusalem in all stages of decomposition as a warning to anyone who challenged the authority and rule of Rome. Jesus was one of hundreds, perhaps thousands hanging outside the gate. With regard to messiahs, Jesus was one of at least 12 known messiahs in and around Jerusalem at the time, and there were probably many more at the time, but 12 are known by name. All were more popular than Jesus and all had more followers than Jesus, who had only 12 apostles and 72 disciples. The others had more. Like Jesus, all were crucified.

All I am doing is trying to take a pragmatic look at the evidence when it comes to what I believe or don't believe. I owe it to myself, like anyone else, and I have spent many years studying Jesus of Nazareth because he was the central figure in the household I was raised in. For this reason, I wanted to know more about who and what he was. My conclusion is that over two thousand years, he has pretty much been whatever people wanted or needed him to be. Not a bad thing I supposed - just an observation.

All the best,
Gary
 
Last edited:
Ouroboros

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
Where are the remains of Lazarus? He was resurrected before Jesus, and we don't have his remains...
 
First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Gary Sheldrake said:
Good Evening First Baseman: I am not ignoring the NT accounts of the life of Jesus. I am shoring them up with what is historically known about the time and culture in which Jesus lived. It is one of the best studied periods and places in all history. We know a lot about it. I also have taken into account what is known about the authors of the NT, along with the social and political pressures and influences that produced these works. We know that the authors had incomplete knowledge of the culture and region and history of the time of Jesus. We know this from the mistakes in the Gospel stories. One example of many was the arrest of Jesus. This account tells of Jesus being brought before the high priest Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin the night he was arrested. The Sanhedrin never met at night and was not allowed to meet at night. Not for any reason. The Sanhedrin also never met during Passover. This was also forbidden. Jesus was arrested after the Passover meal. We know the political pressures of the time the gospels were written and the reasons the gospel writers were eager to blame the Jews rather than the Romans for the arrest of Jesus when writing their accounts. We know that Pilate was not the sort of person to try and save Jesus or hesitate to execute any Jew. In fact, he was recalled to Rome eventually because of his famous brutality. He was well known for putting thousands upon thousands of Jews to death. The whole affair about Pilate washing his hands was a literary device to add more blame to the Jews. The reasons for this can easily be researched and would take me many more pages to explain here.

With regard to the resurrection and ascension, we know that the Romans only crucified seditionists and we know they didn't allow the bodies to be removed from the place of execution, because that type of execution was supposed to be a gruesome display. Hundreds upon hundreds of corpse were displayed on crosses outside the gates of Jerusalem in all stages of decomposition as a warning to anyone who challenged the authority and rule of Rome. Jesus was one of hundreds, perhaps thousands hanging outside the gate. With regard to messiahs, Jesus was one of at least 12 known messiahs in and around Jerusalem at the time, and there were probably many more at the time, but 12 are known by name. All were more popular than Jesus and all had more followers than Jesus, who had only 12 apostles and 72 disciples. The others had more. Like Jesus, all were crucified.

All I am doing is trying to take a pragmatic look at the evidence when it comes to what I believe or don't believe. I owe it to myself, like anyone else, and I have spent many years studying Jesus of Nazareth because he was the central figure in the household I was raised in. For this reason, I wanted to know more about who and what he was. My conclusion is that over two thousand years, he has pretty much been whatever people wanted or needed him to be. Not a bad thing I supposed - just an observation.

All the best,
Gary
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you had developed an alterior motive to try to "prove" the Gospel writers wrong before you began your research. I see no reason to think they were lying or wrong. You do realize that all of the Apostles were put to death for their testimony rather than recant, right? (Except for John, who was exiled.) Have you read Josh McDowell's The Resurrection Factor?

Anyway, I respect your right to choose. Good day to you, Gary.
 
Gary Sheldrake

Gary Sheldrake

Member
First Baseman said:
It seems to me that you had developed an alterior motive to try to "prove" the Gospel writers wrong before you began your research. I see no reason to think they were lying or wrong. You do realize that all of the Apostles were put to death for their testimony rather than recant, right? (Except for John, who was exiled.) Have you read Josh McDowell's The Resurrection Factor?

Anyway, I respect your right to choose. Good day to you, Gary.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was the reverse. I was raised so thoroughly entrenched in Christianity that I set out to know everything I could about the Christ of my faith. In the process I found the Jesus of history. My conclusion is that they appear to be two different people. I am not telling anyone what to believe or what not to believe, but I think people should believe whatever it is they believe armed with the facts. I was raised in the same church you belong to. Asking the wrong sorts of questions could get you into a lot of trouble in that church in those days and it still can. That is what made me suspicious. You see, I have always thought that the truth would be the "real deal" and that the truth could stand up to any line of questioning. In fact, it seems to me that the truth should be able to stand up to anything you throw at it, and the minute you are told to approach something with your head lowered, or with eyes averted, or to bow or kneel before it, or not to ask uncomfortable questions, then you are probably approaching garbage, not the truth. Because the truth can take you however you come at it. It doesn't require your respect or submission. And any institution in possession of the truth would of course know that and act accordingly. It would not tell you to obediently accept the teachings of the magisterium without question, which you of course are probably aware is a requirement in the RCC. This is why I asked questions and this is why I came to know what I know. I was only looking for the truth.


All the best,
Gary
 
ThePainefulTruth

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
His bones were found in this tomb near Jerusalem in 1980:
359264-8c8745b6-dcd7-11e4-90d8-bc21b5c83438.jpg
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Gary Sheldrake said:
Sedition was the only crime for which the Romans crucified people.
Click to expand...
A good point. I agree with you. There were no charges of sedition on Jesus, so Romans had no business to kill Jesus, the Romans officials put Jesus on the Cross, yet under the table they sided with friends of Jesus so that he survives death.
Regards
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Gary Sheldrake said:
Actually, it was the reverse. I was raised so thoroughly entrenched in Christianity that I set out to know everything I could about the Christ of my faith. In the process I found the Jesus of history. My conclusion is that they appear to be two different people. I am not telling anyone what to believe or what not to believe, but I think people should believe whatever it is they believe armed with the facts. I was raised in the same church you belong to. Asking the wrong sorts of questions could get you into a lot of trouble in that church in those days and it still can. That is what made me suspicious. You see, I have always thought that the truth would be the "real deal" and that the truth could stand up to any line of questioning. In fact, it seems to me that the truth should be able to stand up to anything you throw at it, and the minute you are told to approach something with your head lowered, or with eyes averted, or to bow or kneel before it, or not to ask uncomfortable questions, then you are probably approaching garbage, not the truth. Because the truth can take you however you come at it. It doesn't require your respect or submission. And any institution in possession of the truth would of course know that and act accordingly. It would not tell you to obediently accept the teachings of the magisterium without question, which you of course are probably aware is a requirement in the RCC. This is why I asked questions and this is why I came to know what I know. I was only looking for the truth.

All the best,
Gary
Click to expand...
I like your love of truth.
Regards
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
A good point. I agree with you. There were no charges of sedition on Jesus, so Romans had no business to kill Jesus, the Romans officials put Jesus on the Cross, yet under the table they sided with friends of Jesus so that he survives death.
Regards
Click to expand...
This is an interesting theory. Buy, what verifiable evidence beyond it merely making sense in your opinion can you provide?
 
fantome profane

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
A good point. I agree with you. There were no charges of sedition on Jesus, so Romans had no business to kill Jesus, the Romans officials put Jesus on the Cross, yet under the table they sided with friends of Jesus so that he survives death.
Regards
Click to expand...
You need to understand that in 1st century Palestine religion and politics were not the separate things that they are in the modern world (if they are separate in the modern world). When Jesus (or anyone else for that matter) talked about "the Kingdom of God" this is a political concept. Kingdoms are about politics. The coming of the Kingdom of God meant ousting the Roman occupation of Palestine. That would have been seen as sedition.
 
First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Gary Sheldrake said:
Actually, it was the reverse. I was raised so thoroughly entrenched in Christianity that I set out to know everything I could about the Christ of my faith. In the process I found the Jesus of history. My conclusion is that they appear to be two different people. I am not telling anyone what to believe or what not to believe, but I think people should believe whatever it is they believe armed with the facts. I was raised in the same church you belong to. Asking the wrong sorts of questions could get you into a lot of trouble in that church in those days and it still can. That is what made me suspicious. You see, I have always thought that the truth would be the "real deal" and that the truth could stand up to any line of questioning. In fact, it seems to me that the truth should be able to stand up to anything you throw at it, and the minute you are told to approach something with your head lowered, or with eyes averted, or to bow or kneel before it, or not to ask uncomfortable questions, then you are probably approaching garbage, not the truth. Because the truth can take you however you come at it. It doesn't require your respect or submission. And any institution in possession of the truth would of course know that and act accordingly. It would not tell you to obediently accept the teachings of the magisterium without question, which you of course are probably aware is a requirement in the RCC. This is why I asked questions and this is why I came to know what I know. I was only looking for the truth.


All the best,
Gary
Click to expand...

Gary, you should also know that going outside the church for your facts allows Satan the golden opportunity to deceive you. I do believe that is exactly what has happened to you. I do hope you are led to the truth and will pray for you. I am very sorry to hear that you have been led astray. Anyway it was good talking with you and I do hope for the best for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top