[jluetjen]

It's tough to do this given your limited use of grammer, syntax and punctuation, but let me try to respond.

Originally posted by nota
I see several possable ways for the man to reapear
but donot believe in dead coming back to life

1 fake or fix, the rich burial cave[#1] owner Nick bribed pilot
this we know from the bible, ...

The Bible says nothing about any bribes, only a request. If you're going to use the Bible for supporting data, then you need to at least do so faithful to the text. If you don't buy into the Bible at all, then I guess it's not valid as support for your argument. Without the Bible, you only have Josephus's contemporary account(s) and later accounts from which you can draw conclusions about the life and death of Jesus, known as the Christ -- essentially less data then you find in many of today's obituaries.

...they said he asked for the body [you ask a roman offical with a tip [bribe] at that time] ...

Now you're hypothosizing. What data do you have that a bribe was either offer or accepted, or that it was even normal at that time? You've made the leap from the available evidence to something that you pulled out of your butt. If you're trying to be logical, you can't do that.

pilot was surprized at the quick death
but allowed the body to be taken down and given to Nick
now roman law required a body to rot in place on the cross, that was part of the punishment, and the rotting body surved as a example to others too
so a bribe was need to take down the body
but was it a body or a man in a coma, past out, or druged and was that part of the bribe?

You're neglecting the fact that by this time Romans were pretty good at crucifixion. The intent was a slow death, and yes, it's fair to say that Pilate was surprised by Jesus's relatively quick death (if you consider something like 3-6 hours a "quick" death). But you're neglecting the other information from the same source that you're quoting (it's bad form to selectively pick and chose the evidence that supports your case) -- specifically that after Nick requested Jesus's body, that Pilate ordered that Jesus's legs were broken, to prevent him from supporting himself -- if in fact he was still alive -- and preventing his asphixiation. This was SOP for a crucifixion. The second piece of information is that a Roman soldier (most likely an auxiliary or soldier out of the provences, but not actually from Rome) speared Jesus in the abdomin after which fluid was seen to pour out. Only after both of these things were done was Jesus taken down off of the cross. So the chances of Jesus surviving all of this, not to mention burial for some period of time are pretty slim. The Romans were not known for being sloppy with their crucifixions.

note, aloe was used on JC now that is not a jewish burial
substance but a healing oinment
so he came back ''from the burial cave'' but no god or rebirth just tricks

Man, if Aloe works as good as that, we should be using it on the wounded soldiers returning from Iraq -- instead of in our shampoos!

and later died and was buried for real and for good
with the family

Considering how much the Jewish Temple leaders feared or hated, Jesus -- why would they have allowed that to happen after they just got done railroading him through the justice system. What was the crime that Jesus was crucified for? It certainly wasn't for blasphemy. Even Pilate acknowledged that he hadn't committed any capital crimes. But anyhow, why didn't anyone point him out and turn him in? During the entire apostolic period covered in the book of "Acts of the Apostiles", why didn't anyone challenge them about Jesus's apparent false death? Certainly the Romans would not have stood by as a mockary was being made of their execution system.

2 the whole son of god thing was added later by saul/paul
who never meet JC but wrote much of the new "T"
and was at odds with james and the other jewish followers of JC over his revised ideas for ''their'' religion
he may have added extra bits like rebirth ,virgin birth, and son of god bit, all taken from other religions

You're once again neglecting "the rest of the story" as reported which was James, Peter and Saul/Paul got together and reached an agreement. You're also ignoring the fact that the 11 remaining apostiles, ran away and hid after the crucifixtion out of fear for their lives. It only appeared to be a question of time before the Temple officials or the Romans came after them. But then for some reason, they went public with vigar. Even before the conversion of Paul, Simon- (I don't know him! 3x) Peter stood up before a crowd and said

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. THis man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and forecknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from teh agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep it's hold on him. ... Therefore let all Israel be aasured of this; God has made this Jesus, whom you cricified both Lord and Christ.

(Acts 2: 22-24, and 36)

Even the accounts of Jesus' trial before the council of Elders, once again a group of people who could have refuted the account at any time, but did not, include references to how Jesus described himself. For example, Luke 22: 66-71:

At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them. "If you are the Christ" they said, "tell us".
Jesus answered "If I tell you, you will not believe me, and if I asked you, you would not answer. But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God."
They all asked " Are you then the Son of God?"
He replied " You are right in saying I am"
Then they said, "Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips"

After that remark they took Jesus to Pilate's palace.

So once again, you if are going to use the contents of the Bible to support your views, you need to be careful to not cherry-pick the bits and pieces that support your case and discard the rest. It's either valid or not.

so JC's body may have only gained religious status long after he died

You're kind of right. There are numerous examples through-out history of great leader's bodies being kept around as objects of respect or worship -- Lenin or Mao are a couple of recent examples. But by all accounts, it was Jesus's lack of a body (and his appearances afterwards prior to his assension in broad daylight) which propelled his followers forward. The authorities in Jerusalom were certainly aware of his follower's claims (supported by the example of Saul's well known career as a "special prosecutor") but yet were never able to produce a body (dead or alive) which would have immediately squashed the movement.

So while I understand that you, and many others from that time to this, do not believe that Jesus died and was raised from the dead -- no one has ever been able prove otherwise. Even those who were close enough in time to the event such that it should have been a trivial thing to do, never disproved the claims of the Christians.

Getting back to the original subject of this thread and the specific case in the news today. The case being proposed by the producers of the TV show is such an outrageously bad example of archealogical study that I'm torn between the desire to not boost their ratings by watching on one hand, and watching it with my daughters so that they can see an really life example of shoddy scientific research. There are vasts amounts of fascinating and meaningful archeaology being done in the last 50 years -- but these "Jesus boxes" certainly don't deserve to be grouped with the wider disciplined study of archeaology.