Jesus' tomb found

[relativestranger]

i can honestly not believe that noone has started this topic yet, please i would like to hear your views on this, all views welcome.

I shall give my own in due time, am currently digesting all reports i can find as

[solitarysoul]

I havn't said anything about this yet because I'm actually working on a few articles about this subject to put on my website . I may give my views here as well soon.

[Betty]

I would like to know more about it. I have heard it mentioned but that is really all. What if they do find the tomb. The stone was rolled away 2000 + years ago. It is not important what is there now; what is important is what was not there then We serve a risen Savior!

[relativestranger]

i feel that is very important as it could feasibly do one of two things, 1) rip open christianity or 2) convert everyone as there is proof

[rsf]

The big deal people are making about it are these three things:
1. The ossuary that says Jesus, son of Joseph (translated) has bones in it. If it was really his, then why are there bones in it. They think that Jesus must not have been resurrected, therefore destroying Christianity.

My thoughts on that are this: So what? Jesus (Yeshua) was a common name. If it was even Him, He's not there anymore. He was resurrected on the third day, was seen by MANY walking and talking, therefore proving that He was the Messiah that was promised to come. 40 days later when he ascended to heaven, He left His body here.
1 Corinthians 15:45. So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
47. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven.
48. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly.
49. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.
50. Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
51. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed,
52. in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
53. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.
55. "O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY ? O DEATH, WHERE IS YOUR STING ?"
56. The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law;
57. but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

According to that, His physical body would not be needed in heaven.

2. There was also ossuaries found with the names: Joseph, Marie, Mariemne (Mary, known as master) Mathew, James, Judas, Simon, Miriam and Judah. They are saying the one labeled Mariemne could possibly be Mary Magdalene. Still again, so what? They all are common names of the time, so no proof it's them. Even if it is, I'm sure they all were so hated by the majority in there day, that they became family, lived together, died together, and were buried together out of love.

3. Here's the goldmine for this fine fellow doing the documentary. The one for Judah is said to read Yehuda bar Yeshua. or Judah, son of Jesus. Now comes along all the "DaVinci Code nonsense that has had the masses in it's grubby little grasp for a few years now.

Did Jesus have a son with Mary Magdalene? Were they married? What does this all mean? Stay tuned and we will reveal the shocking truth after these commercials

Sorry if you all can read my scathing sarcasm into this post. As so many other things in this depraved world, it is just laughable and sickening all at once. They are even trying to throw in the "James" ossuary that was a forgery a few years ago, saying that it was part of it even though they got a conviction through testimony by the forger himself. They found TONS of forgeries he was in the process of making in his basement. All evidence led that ossuary back to him and he admitted it. He was selling his stuff all over the world. Now it's included into the evidence that confirms the Divinci Code? Please, stop insulting our God given intelligence. But please by all means, enjoy the money and fame you will get out of this.

I don't care if they have DNA "proving" that Yeshua, Mariamne, and Yudah are all related. I don't care if they really are Jesus, Mary Magdalene and a child they produced. The facts remain the same. Jesus, the son of God Himself came to us, taught us truth and showed us the hope we all have through Him if we only believe. Jesus died, on a cross/ tree/ torture stake/ or whatever for the sins of ALL who believe in Him. Our belief in that, reconciles us with the Living God Himself, and gives us eternal life in His presence when we leave this twisted existence.

In the meantime, let's show God's love to ALL of humanity, saved or unsaved, not going nutty like i just did too often, and push forth the Kingdom of God to the best of our ability until we die, or Jesus comes back. Whichever comes first ;D

[relativestranger]

ok i like the above post bar one word, the word fact, as in the facts remain the same

neverthelesss the evidence points to jesus being married not against it

it was the christians in the roman church in 450 ad apporximately that first suggested that women were lesser, before that it was believed that in order to see God you should orgasm in holy love and women were remouned as the creators of life(through God)

If you wish to learn about this, to debate or merely for your own information research the name Pelagius

back to point, all jews of that time were encouraged to marry before the age of 15 for men and 14 for women, therefore jesus being older then that would have been married, or shunned by all, and if shunned would have had noone listening when doing famous things such as sermon on the mount(which i think you'll agree is very important for the formation of christianity)

if He was married doesnt it stand to reason that kids are possible, although in relation to that...chances are no remaining descendants, i mean how many descendants does shakespeare have now..answer=none so it does not nessasarily follow that jesus has some left

surely son of could mean anyone as we are all Gods and in association jesus' children children of christ if you will

forgive lack of capitals

[wiccanwolfsrose]

If jesus' tomb was found what good does it serve? Christians will stronger believe, cynics will say its merely a man (for a lot of religions believe jesus was merely a prophet or messenger, not the son of God). I've no doubt that a man name jesus lived once, its what he lived as that baffles many people.

The most significance this finding entails is the faithof the world around and their current beliefs. Whatever the findings end up being we are forced to ask what do we truely believe? Is this a hoax, is it reality, do we trust it, do we care, and does it even matter?

[solitarysoul]

Well I've been doing a lot of research on this because I'm working on an article or few for my website on this topic. And you know I really hate to say it because I am trying to look at this from an open-minded perspective so that critics won't just say we're dismissing "facts" and too ignorant to accept the 'inevetable', but the more research I've done on this, the more and more it looks to me like it's nothing more than an attempt to make a lot of money. These producers know this topic is so contriversial that pretty much the entire world will be talking about it, so when they found some evidence they were happy with, my honest opinion is that they are ignoring the thousands of holes in this so that they can make this big production in hopes of making history. Of course again this is just my view of it right now and there's no proof of this, but I'm starting to believe that this is nothing but old news with a new way of looking at it. And sadly, because it's on the news and Discovery Channel, half the world is going to think it's true.

So anyway, this is what I've found (I have sources that I'll include in the article on my site but I'm a bit lazy to do it here right now )

Basically, back in 1980 a group of construction workers outside Jerusalem accidently excavated a tomb in a partially underground cave, dated to be about 2000 years old. It holds 10 ossuaries (burial boxes which contain bones), 6 of which have names etched on the side: "Jesua, son of Joseph; Maria; Maria e Mariamene; Matthew; Judas, son of Jesua; and Jose, a diminutive of Joseph". Supposively, 'Jesua' is 'Jesus', and 'Maria e Mariamene' is 'Mary Magdalene'.

For some odd reason though, I havn't found out much about this yet, but I've read that when these tombs were first discovered by the construction workers, the bones were removed and buried, and supposively they have sense been lost. I havn't found out yet if all the ossuaries contained bones or not, of if anyone even knows. Scientists for whatever reason decided to pull this back out recently though and do some DNA tests on the remaining material found in the ossuaries, and the results indicated that the tombs named Jesus and Mary Magdalene did not have similar DNA, therefore suggesting that they were possibly a couple or had some other form of relationship, but were not siblings.

Sense they do not have the bones anymore, there really is no way of telling for sure if the DNA tested even belongs to any of the bones found. Even if bones were taken out of Jesus' tomb, there still is not way of telling for sure that they were his bones, because families back then would often use the same ossuaries for several generations.

Another issue is that I have been amazed at actually how common these names really were. Of nearly 2600 specific names recorded from this area in this time period, just about 1 out of every 30 were 'Jesus'. The names Joseph, Judas, Jose, and Matthew were also all in the top 10 most common names of that time period. Mary/Maria/Marianmene was also by far the most common female names during this time. The names also are in different languages! Jesus and Judah are written in Aramaic. Jose, Maria, and Matthew are written in Hebrew. But Marianmene e Mara is written in Greek. If these people were closely related and Jesus and Mary were in fact a couple, or if they are even from the same generation, why are their names written in different languages? And one more point - the languages written on the side of these ossuaries are very very hard to decipher, and can easily be misinterpreted if not studied very well. Some Bible scholars who have studied these names do not think it even says Jesus, but more likely says another common name, "Hanun".

I havn't seen how many people there are backing up this discovery but just by researching around online and what I could find on the subject at my university's library, it almost looks as if for every archeologist there is who claims this is the tomb of Jesus Christ, his wife Mary Magdalene, and their son Judas, there almost seems to be 10 more scientists, archiologists, scholars or professors, who claim that these names were extremely common in this time, and so is the excavation of these tombs. There is nothing unusual or extrodinary about this tomb at all. After all don't forget, it was discovered 27 years ago, but these other guys just suddenly decided to take another look at it now.

Another thing to take into consideration is that families back then were buried in their home towns. The tomb is located in a neighborhood just outside of Jerulsalem. But Jesus was from Nazareth. If Jesus' tomb had been found, would it not have been in Nazareth? Also, regardless of the location, would it also not have said "Jesus of Nazareth" on the ossuary? This is what he was called. Jesus' family was also poor, yet this tomb is a little larger than average and very elaborate. It is much more likely that it is the tomb of a wealthy family.

Here's another thing I really wish I could ask some of these scientists lol ... if they are getting the names from the gospels (meaning ... they know about Jesus and Mary and Joseph and all because of the gospels) and they are willing to just accept that as it is ... then why do they not also accept what the gospels say about those people?? lol. If you really think about it, there is a big inconcistency there.

To sum this up for now I just want to say that if people are honest enough with themselves and do the research ... I think people will realize that scientists aren't always as smart as they make themselves out to be, and that because of how messed up our media is today, some people can get away with telling us just about anything. For one final point ... there is still NO WAY to prove that that is in fact Jesus' body, or that this is even His tomb. Like I mentioned before, sometimes families would put several generations in the same ossuary. In other words, several skeletons in the same burial box. So there really is no possible way to know for sure, because even if everything was found, and all the tests matched up, there still is no way of knowing whether or not the DNA and bones in that box are that of Jesus, some other Jesus, or even another member of either family being placed in the same ossuary. This would also compensate for why the names are in different languages ... whether this is the tomb of Jesus Christ or not, it is much more likely that these people are from different generations.

[rsf]

Great post solitarysoul!

relativestranger, there is so much more proof of the existence of Jesus, than there is even of Julius Ceaser. That being said, there is so much proof that He was seen again after His crucifixion. Especially the fact that almost ALL His apostles were put to death for what they knew to be true. The way humanity views what is "fact", has to put the life, death, and ressurection into that category. Not to mention the millions of lives who changed for their belief in those facts.

wiccanwolfsrose, I understand where you are coming from because I was there myself for years. I only ask that you read the bible, and judge for yourself.

Personally I don't care if Jesus was married with kids. They called Him Rabbi, and that office was filled by men who were expected to be married with kids. Although I'm sure not all did, it means nothing to the gospel message either way.

[relativestranger]

i know jesus was a real person, i know he was a great person, i know he was a fantastic prophet, and that his wisdom helped many many people when he was alive. you are exagerating over the julius cesar comment as there is no writing by jesus yet there is some by cesar

i have never said jesus was not real, nor have i said he was not a brilliant man, he was as u said a rabi, and almost certainly married

the only thing that is not a proven fact is jesus son of god

that is what u followed the phrase fact everything else u said was good solid fact easily proven if anyone cares to look, he died for the sins of others, as that is why he said he was dying, there were more then four apostles though, and more then four died too, apostles being mathew mark luke john as i understand the word, not sure that translates all round the world

[relativestranger]

as a ps, twisted existence, enjoy urself more man, wothout sinning too much if you can

[solitarysoul]

relativestranger said:

i know jesus was a real person, i know he was a great person, i know he was a fantastic prophet, and that his wisdom helped many many people when he was alive. you are exagerating over the julius cesar comment as there is no writing by jesus yet there is some by cesar

i have never said jesus was not real, nor have i said he was not a brilliant man, he was as u said a rabi, and almost certainly married

the only thing that is not a proven fact is jesus son of god

that is what u followed the phrase fact everything else u said was good solid fact easily proven if anyone cares to look, he died for the sins of others, as that is why he said he was dying, there were more then four apostles though, and more then four died too, apostles being mathew mark luke john as i understand the word, not sure that translates all round the world

Wait wait actually he's not exagerating at all, there is much much more evidence of Jesus than Ceasar . They don't have to write something to prove that they existed. There are all forms of evidences.

[relativestranger]

solitarysoul said:

relativestranger said:

i know jesus was a real person, i know he was a great person, i know he was a fantastic prophet, and that his wisdom helped many many people when he was alive. you are exagerating over the julius cesar comment as there is no writing by jesus yet there is some by cesar

i have never said jesus was not real, nor have i said he was not a brilliant man, he was as u said a rabi, and almost certainly married

the only thing that is not a proven fact is jesus son of god

that is what u followed the phrase fact everything else u said was good solid fact easily proven if anyone cares to look, he died for the sins of others, as that is why he said he was dying, there were more then four apostles though, and more then four died too, apostles being mathew mark luke john as i understand the word, not sure that translates all round the world

Wait wait actually he's not exagerating at all, there is much much more evidence of Jesus than Ceasar . They don't have to write something to prove that they existed. There are all forms of evidences.

yes, but primary evidence outweighs other forms. and i dont count evidence recorded hundreds of years after death, otherwise is king arthur definitely real, i have evidence he was as a person i am reading is writing as merlin, so merlin must have been real, i have evidence. there is evidence jesus was real, and there is evidence that people said he was king of jews, there is evidence that he gave speeches that were supported by the masses, these are all good solid facts, everythingelse is down to interpretation and belief. and yes i have a lot of research into things like this

[solitarysoul]

Primary evidence does not outweigh other forms if there is a great enough abundance of other evidence. Someone could have written something pretending to be Jesus or Caeser and with enough effort gotten away with fooling us to believe so, but in reality they may not have actually been that person. It's the abundance of evidence that is stronger. If I were to put a lot of effort into recording some kind of document that were to "prove" that I was a king, and then somehow fool people centuries from now into believing that this was the truth, that does not outweigh the abundance of secondary evidence for example that suggests that I am just an ordinary person. Plus, the Gospels after all almost are primary evidence. Just because Jesus Himself didn't write it doesn't mean they aren't as important. He told the disciples to record His teachings, and the disciples wrote what they saw. The Gospels are actual eye witness accounts. That's just about as good as evidence gets.

[relativestranger]

solitarysoul said:

Primary evidence does not outweigh other forms if there is a great enough abundance of other evidence. Someone could have written something pretending to be Jesus or Caeser and with enough effort gotten away with fooling us to believe so, but in reality they may not have actually been that person. It's the abundance of evidence that is stronger. If I were to put a lot of effort into recording some kind of document that were to "prove" that I was a king, and then somehow fool people centuries from now into believing that this was the truth, that does not outweigh the abundance of secondary evidence for example that suggests that I am just an ordinary person. Plus, the Gospels after all almost are primary evidence. Just because Jesus Himself didn't write it doesn't mean they aren't as important. He told the disciples to record His teachings, and the disciples wrote what they saw. The Gospels are actual eye witness accounts. That's just about as good as evidence gets.

which of the gospels are deciples? i know for a fact that one of the four books of the new testament( i know but you know what i mean) was written over a hundred and fifty years later, some eye witness, how old was he. and they were ALL edited 200 odd years later, so do not count as primary evidence,.

Incidently any other evidence that proved you were not king now that was written now or produced now would still be primary evidence...primary means at the time not by the person. that is why it outweighs other forms

[rsf]

Of the 4 gospels, 2 were written by members of the original apostles of Christ. Mathew and John. The gospel of Mark was written by a follower of the original apostle Peter, and was written before his death, so had to have been written well before 80 ad. Peter wrote 2 letters in the new testement, as did John. They were original apostles, as was James who also wrote 1 book of the New Testement. Luke was written by a follower of Paul, the Pharisee who was persecuting the apostles more than anybody before his conversion. Luke followed Paul around and gathered all the first hand accounts he could from people who were affected by the life of Jesus. People he healed, people he taught, etc. So they are all excellent sources of truth.

[relativestranger]

rsf said:

Of the 4 gospels, 2 were written by members of the original apostles of Christ. Mathew and John. The gospel of Mark was written by a follower of the original apostle Peter, and was written before his death, so had to have been written well before 80 ad. Peter wrote 2 letters in the new testement, as did John. They were original apostles, as was James who also wrote 1 book of the New Testement. Luke was written by a follower of Paul, the Pharisee who was persecuting the apostles more than anybody before his conversion. Luke followed Paul around and gathered all the first hand accounts he could from people who were affected by the life of Jesus. People he healed, people he taught, etc. So they are all excellent sources of truth.

actually thanks for that, i am rereading so ill pay special attention to matthew and john as they are primary sources, others are secondary as reported by eye witneses, luke is the one that finished when he was an old man, a long time after jesus death.

acyaully i already knew mark due to the whole rock of my church thing, which is suspect as it is from peter's desciple i think anyway, i really do need to fully read again before quoting specific people. incidently i at know point disputed that jesus was a real person or that any of the things happened, the only thing i even slightly disputed was the cesar comment, and even then i know its not far off being the truth it just depends on what you count as evidence.

[solitarysoul]

Incidently any other evidence that proved you were not king now that was written now or produced now would still be primary evidence...primary means at the time not by the person. that is why it outweighs other forms

That is what I said in my previous post. If primary means at the time and not by the person, then yes there is far more evidence to suggest the existance of Jesus than Caesar. And here is why:

First of all, I don't know where you are getting your information, but it is not correct. The entire New Testament was written in the 1st Century A.D. (about 50-100 A.D.). All four of the gospels are eye witness accounts by some of the diciples, or people under the teachings or authority of Christ's followers. We know this for a fact because we have found original copies (not the original documents, but copies of them) of books in the New Testament dating back to as early as 130 A.D. And no part of the Bible was ever edited. It was simply copied. There is less than 0.5% error when comparing modern day copies to the original copies that archeologists have uncovered. 0.5% error means a typo here or there, or a word left out, but no where near a big enough difference to actually alter what is being said.

If I have to start digging up sources I will .

Relativestranger, take a look at this chart. It is a chart put together indicating the time period that many historical writings were written in, the time when they were first copied, the time past between the original documents and the first copies (which is a factor in how accurately preserved they are), the number of copies made, and their accuracy. Keep in mind about the number of copies made though, these are not copy after copy. In other words, copies we have today are not copies of copies, which were copies of copies, which were copies of the originals. All these are copies of the actual original or oldest copies that we have discovered. Therefore, you can take any two of these copies and compare them side by side to note differences between them. The amount of difference between the copies indicates how accurate they are. The less error between copies, the more accurate they are. And the more copies there are, the more room there is for error. So for the New Testament, having so many more copies than any other document written after Christ, it is the document which is most vulnerable to having errors found. Yet, we actually find the fewest errors in this document. What I'm getting at is simply that the Bible is by far THE most accuratly preserved document that we have today.

Author	Date Written	First Copy	Time span between original & copy	# of copies	Accuracy
Lucretius	Before 52 B.C.		~ 1100 years	2
Pliny	61 - 113 A.D.	850 A.D.	~ 750 years	7
Plato	427 - 347 B.C.	900 A.D.	~ 1200 years	7
Demosthenes	4th Century B.C.	1100 A.D.	~ 800 years	8
Herodotus	480 - 425 B.C.	900 A.D.	~ 1300 years	8
Suetonius	75 - 160 A.D.	950 A.D.	~ 800 years	8
Thucydides	460 - 400 B.C.	900 A.D.	~ 1300 years	8
Euripides	480 - 406 B.C.	1100 A.D.	~ 1300 years	9
Aristophanes	450 - 385 B.C.	900 A.D.	~ 1200 years	10
Caesar	100 - 44 B.C.	900 A.D.	~ 1000 years	10
Livy	59 B.C. - 17 A.D.			20
Tacitus	~ 100 A.D.	1100 A.D.	~ 1000 years	20
Aristotle	384 - 322 B.C.	1100 A.D.	~ 1400 years	49
Sophocles	496 - 406 B.C.	1000 A.D.	~ 1400 years	193
Homer (The Iliad)	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	~ 500 years	643	95%
New Testament	50 - 100 A.D.	~ 130 A.D.	less than 100 years	5600	more than 99.5%

[solitarysoul]

er and sorry for my late reply ... i started typing this quite a while ago and just posted it lol, i didn't notice the other replies til just now

[relativestranger]

actually the quoran is the most accurately preserved document we have today.

and again i have seen all that before

eye witness is not writing down what someone else has said, so only two were eye witness as you say

and it was not just copied as originall there were about fourty gospels, it was edited by roman emporor in 200 ad, by edited read cut the bits he needed to start a religion