That if we can't prove the infamous bones aren't Jesus', then they MUST be his?
2007-02-27 03:11:08 · 17 answers · asked by DBA GODZY 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
That would seem (theistically) logical.
2007-02-27 03:13:28 · answer #1 · answered by Bad Liberal 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think it looks too much like a hoax like the last "findings" wound up as. It's far too convenient that such a discovery has been made when all the fundamentalists are going overboard on the whole "last days" thing, as they have been for centuries (but there's no telling them that).
Even if it isn't a hoax, it doesn't prove any of their "divinity" claims or mythological nature of his existence... it just proves the man walked the Earth.
_()_
2007-02-27 11:15:54 · answer #2 · answered by vinslave 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're asking about proving a negative, right? Isn't that what the atheists always say about God's existence, that they cannot be asked to prove a negative?
Now tell Yoda Green that if he can't prove God does not exist, then God exists. See if he gives you the Incas driving automobile analogy. Bet not.
2007-02-27 11:22:21 · answer #3 · answered by cmw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah...
By that same logic, if we can't prove the ancient Incas did'nt drive around in Ferrari's, then they MUST have done so.
That kind of moronic "logic" is used every day by christians. It's just another way they demonstrate their stupidity...
2007-02-27 11:13:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Hysterical. And the sad thing is - the Christians don't appear to be seeing any connection between this and their "you can't prove god doesn't exist" statement!
2007-02-27 11:17:17 · answer #5 · answered by Haiku Hanna 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well I always like evidence. And from what I have seen so far on it, there is far more evidence they are, than they aren't.
It really isn't important to me one way or the other. But it should be easy to shoot down if it were not true.
2007-02-27 11:15:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Bible made no mention of Jesus having bones. Therefore, he must not have had any.
If it's not in the Bible, it's not true.
=0P
2007-02-27 11:17:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Hahahaha ty
2007-02-27 11:13:27 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Of course not, to any reasonable person, but for Christians that is probably enough.
2007-02-27 11:13:59 · answer #9 · answered by JP 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, absolutely.
2007-02-27 11:13:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2007-02-27 11:14:43 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋