NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6397373.stm

"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," said Mr Pfann, who was interviewed by the film-makers.

"But sceptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

"It will mean our house prices will go up because Christians will want to live here," one woman said.

so......what do you think?

I think it's kinda sad, but hey, I am probably one of those Christians who won't buy into it.

I think its a lie personally. They have no real evidence, all they have is a few names on a tomb. One of which is jesus(not an uncommon name back then) yet they claim as if they have disproven God or something. Forgive if I'm not impressed by their little "find"

I'm going to reserve judgment until I see their evidence and hear what archaeologists have to say. It'll be interesting to see how people react to this story, regardless of whether it turns out to be true or not. Though the reactions will be far more amusing if it does turn out to be true, I think.

I think it's a case where people will take away what they want to from this. To say I'm skeptical is to be kind, simply because of the connection with the James ossuary that was shown to be a fake some years ago, but even if it could be absolutely proven that those were or weren't Jesus's bones in the tomb, it wouldn't answer any questions about his divinity.

Opinion aside, what do you think'll happen if it actually is Jesus?

did someone not say they found it last year

even if it could be absolutely proven that those were or weren't Jesus's bones in the tomb, it wouldn't answer any questions about his divinity.

I think if it were proven that those are the bones of the historical Jesus in there, it will definitely answer some questions about the Christian doctrine of Jesus' bodily resurrection and assumption into heaven. Wasn't the tomb supposed to be empty on Day 3?

*supresses a rant*

statistical analysis and DNA tests????

what the fuck?

what possible dna test can show that its the tomb of jesus.

*keeps supressing rant*

Opinion aside, what do you think'll happen if it actually is Jesus?

how would they prove that? seriously, I am curious.

"But sceptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

As a sceptic I'm sceptical. ;)

If they want to prove that these are the remains of the original Jesus then they'd better have some pretty solid evidence; from what the article says I don't think this is very likely.

Incidentally, does anyone know how they can use DNA to identify the remains when there are no known descendants?

how would they prove that? seriously, I am curious.

I don't think they can, in all honesty. But say it is somehow proven... what then?

*supresses a rant*

statistical analysis and DNA tests????

what the fuck?

what possible dna test can show that its the tomb of jesus.

*keeps supressing rant*

Thats what I have been thinking since I saw this bit on the news earlier today. Actually came on here hoping to see a nice drag out debate over it, but untill now no one seemed to have noticed.

I think if it were proven that those are the bones of the historical Jesus in there, it will definitely answer some questions about the Christian doctrine of Jesus' bodily resurrection and assumption into heaven. Wasn't the tomb supposed to be empty on Day 3?

Never underestimate the power of believers to rationalize their beliefs.

how would they prove that? seriously, I am curious.

Maybe there was some grafitti on the wall: "The Holy Spirit was here 30AD".

Seriously though, I've no idea. The film maker sounds like a quack to me.

maybe they will check it against the "son" that they also found and decide that they are related, and that proves that it's Jesus........circular logic FTW!:p

:D

Incidentally, does anyone know how they can use DNA to identify the remains when there are no known descendants?

maybe they will check it against the "son" that they also found and decide that they are related, and that proves that it's Jesus........circular logic FTW!:p

Opinion aside, what do you think'll happen if it actually is Jesus?

Earl Doherty and the Christ Mythicists will look a bit silly.

i guess it would put to rest that "davinci code" theory that mary magdalene moved to france with the fam.

Just wait until James Cameron does his "finds" on Mohammed.

Then he'll find out what fatwa means.

And if and when some nutball christian preacher calls Cameron the antichrist, will you dutifully report that as well?

I think its a lie personally. They have no real evidence, all they have is a few names on a tomb. One of which is jesus(not an uncommon name back then) yet they claim as if they have disproven God or something. Forgive if I'm not impressed by their little "find"

Just wait until James Cameron does his "finds" on Mohammed.

Then he'll find out what fatwa means.

Since it can't really be proved that this ossuary had anything to do with Christ, it's sort of moot. *moves on*

Just wait until James Cameron does his "finds" on Mohammed.

Then he'll find out what fatwa means.

"SHOCK NEWS: Muhammed was married and had children!!!"

Oh wait...

"The Oscar-winning director of Titanic says statistical analysis and DNA back the claim."

DNA analysis? Did Jesus have a blood sample taken before he died? And this blood was somehow preserved for thousands of years.

Besides, who are they saying was buried there? You can't just say "Jesus". All we have are some stories in the bible that could or could not be true. There may be evidence for some of the events, but that doesn't mean that they all happened, and that they all happened to the same guy.

Just wait until James Cameron does his "finds" on Mohammed.

Then he'll find out what fatwa means.

was mohammed buried or did he get bodily assumed into heaven?

was mohammed buried or did he get bodily assumed into heaven?

Let's have James Cameron find out!

Maybe there was some grafitti on the wall: "The Holy Spirit was here 30AD".

Seriously though, I've no idea. The film maker sounds like a quack to me.


Over christmas, he and Camerons other little escapade was on the TV, which was (supposedly) proof of the story of the Exodus. I watched the first half hour. Essentially he says that various things mean that theres no record of Jewish slaves leaving etc then says that the if Hyksos were the Jewish slaves, then it starts to come together. Likewise of course, if Dolphins were really aliens then yes, aliens exist. Having been satisfied that this was indeed a gargantuan crock of shite, I turned it off.

*supresses a rant*

statistical analysis and DNA tests????
what the fuck?
what possible dna test can show that its the tomb of jesus.

*keeps supressing rant*
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/SithHolo.gif Good, I can feel your anger.

Actually, that were my thoughts exactly. :rolleyes: You can do a DNA sample and compare it to what?!? Throwing around smart words like statistical analysis and DNA tests won't help...
Well, I guess that's what happens when the movie studios deny Titanic 2 http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/titanic.gif.

Well, I guess that's what happens when the movie studios deny Titanic 2 http://www.studip.uni-goettingen.de/pictures/smile/titanic.gif.
More like what happens when you make so much money from a movie that you don't have to listen to people say "this might not be a good idea." Look what happened to Lucas after "Empire" for an even better example.

More like what happens when you make so much money from a movie that you don't have to listen to people say "this might not be a good idea." Look what happened to Lucas after "Empire" for an even better example.
Oh Nazz, don't remind me... (for I don't want to be consumed by the Dark Side... :p)

Oh Nazz, don't remind me... (for I don't want to be consumed by the Dark Side... :p)


*Waves hand* You have never seen Jar-Jar. The Ewoks never existed. Hayden Christensen is a kid who works at the EZ-Stop. *Waves hand*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6397373.stm

So......what do you think?

I think it's kinda sad, but hey, I am probably one of those Christians who won't buy into it.

I can't see how many people will buy into it, at all.

Those who 'believe', most likely are not going to be interested in a story about a Jesus that is buried alongside a family somewhere... and those who are skeptical would either not be all that interested in the burial place, or would have no reason to suspect a literal Jesus ever existed.

I'm waiting to see what kind of data they produce. At the moment, anything less than a Bible with a scribbled note on the flyleaf saying "Hey Mary, baby - here's my autobiography finally published, but you'll never believe what they did to the end of it! Love, Jee" seems like it's going to fall flat.

*Waves hand* You have never seen Jar-Jar. The Ewoks never existed. Hayden Christensen is a kid who works at the EZ-Stop. *Waves hand*

Now I know that most people wish they had never seen Jar-Jar...

Hmmm...

1. They could have tested the DNA with the remains of the wine after mass (tongue in cheek)

2. They could always test the DNA with Jesus' hairbrush

Right, I saw the story this morning and thought what possible DNA could they be comparing this with? But the guy's a genious. It will be sloppy research that proves nothing, but people will flock to see it because of the controversy and it will make more money than Titanic for the guy in the long run. Why is my world so weird?

Just wait until James Cameron does his "finds" on Mohammed.

Then he'll find out what fatwa means.

Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) is buried in Medina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Nabawi

*Waves hand* You have never seen Jar-Jar. The Ewoks never existed. Hayden Christensen is a kid who works at the EZ-Stop. *Waves hand*
Life is good! :fluffle:

Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) is buried in Medina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Nabawi

Says you. Just wait until James Cameron proves otherwise - then the fireworks will really start.

*Waves hand* You have never seen Jar-Jar. The Ewoks never existed. Hayden Christensen is a kid who works at the EZ-Stop. *Waves hand*

you know who is a good filmmaker? GEORGE LUCAS, thats who!

i am SO glad that he stopped after 3 movies and never succumbed to the temptation to have cuddly characters that would make good stuffed toys. he is a genius!

what did mohammed do in jerusalem?

A night trip...

Prophet Mohammed(pbuh) is buried in Medina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masjid_al-Nabawi

what did mohammed do in jerusalem?

what did mohammed do in jerusalem?

Bought a few plastic crucifixes for the wives, saw the sights and had a nice dinner in this restaurant just off the beaten track......

And ascended bodily into heaven.

Says you. Just wait until James Cameron proves otherwise - then the fireworks will really start.

No. Just admit you made an uneducated, lame remark(do to the fact no nothing about Islam) about a "fatwa on james cameron" even though the burial place of the prophet(pbuh) is already well known.

Bought a few plastic crucifixes for the wives, saw the sights and had a nice dinner in this restaurant just off the beaten track......

And ascended bodily into heaven.

This is part is true, the other things, not so much:)

No. Just admit you made an uneducated, lame remark(do to the fact no nothing about Islam) about a "fatwa on james cameron" even though the burial place of the prophet(pbuh) is already well known.

It was apparently a well-known historical fact that the tomb belonging originally to Joseph of Arimathea (and hence Jesus) is not properly known at this time, nor do any real scholars believe that it could be found. That didn't matter to James Cameron.

They say the Prophet is buried in a known spot. Want to see more controversy and money? James Cameron will deliver!

This is part is true, the other things, not so much:)

I thought he was buried in Madina, now your saying he rose bodily into heaven?

It was only an excursion on the Jerusalem package ('Day 2 - Ascend bodily into heaven, for a relaxing tour of the afterlife') not the whole hog.

I thought he was buried in Madina, now your saying he rose bodily into heaven?

And then returned to earth, it was not the place of his death. Some say he did not physically do this, though I do think he did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isra_and_Miraj

It was only an excursion on the Jerusalem package ('Day 2 - Ascend bodily into heaven, for a relaxing tour of the afterlife') not the whole hog.

Nice.:cool:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6397373.stm





so......what do you think?

I think it's kinda sad, but hey, I am probably one of those Christians who won't buy into it.

Archeologists are not buying it and neither are the Israelis. Of course, Jews believe that Jesus was not the Son of God anyway so for them to deny this is also very telling.

*supresses a rant*

statistical analysis and DNA tests????

what the fuck?

what possible dna test can show that its the tomb of jesus.

*keeps supressing rant*

Yea. That part has me questioning this whole thing. James Cameron is only in it for the money and that's that.

What are they going to do, make God have a paternity test?

Just wait until James Cameron does his "finds" on Mohammed.

Then he'll find out what fatwa means.

LMAO!!!

No. Just admit you made an uneducated, lame remark(do to the fact no nothing about Islam) about a "fatwa on james cameron" even though the burial place of the prophet(pbuh) is already well known.

You do realize sarcasm is there right?

From the title, Smunk makes it seem like Jesus isn't already a multi-billion dollar industry...

From the title, Smunk makes it seem like Jesus isn't already a multi-billion dollar industry...

of course selling Jesus is a multi-billion dollar industry :( it's sad but true.

however, this is slightly different, this is selling something to skeptics that a true skeptic would see right through.......

however, this is slightly different, this is selling something to skeptics that a true skeptic would see right through.......

Well, there are a lot of pseudoskeptics out there who love to attack others' beliefs but consider their own positions to be uncontested truth regardless of whether or not that's even a remotely valid or skeptical position to take. *cough* James Randi *cough*.

Ok, im not necessarily christian, but if it were ever proved that jesus had a wife and son, it would in no way alter my beliefs. And the only people who would actually be offended by it are the radicals

Ok, im not necessarily christian, but if it were ever proved that jesus had a wife and son, it would in no way alter my beliefs. And the only people who would actually be offended by it are the radicals

Uh, not really as it would contradict the teachings of most of the major sects.

wether or not jesus had a wife and son, does it really matter? yes, its not mentioned in the bible, so that goes against major sects, but the message is still the same. You can still follow his teachings and worship him. Would you honestly care if it was proved that Jesus had a son? If you found out it were true, would you throw away your bible and never go to a christian church again?

Opinion aside, what do you think'll happen if it actually is Jesus?

Clone army.

Would you honestly care if it was proved that Jesus had a son? If you found out it were true, would you throw away your bible and never go to a christian church again?

Hope springs eternal.

wether or not jesus had a wife and son, does it really matter? yes, its not mentioned in the bible, so that goes against major sects, but the message is still the same. You can still follow his teachings and worship him. Would you honestly care if it was proved that Jesus had a son? If you found out it were true, would you throw away your bible and never go to a christian church again?

you would have to completely change your understanding of jesus and his resurrection.

if he rose from the dead, walked the earth for a while then was bodlily assumed into heaven, why are his bones in a box? if he had a son, why isnt that son mentioned in the bible like jesus' siblings are? if these major detail are wrong, what else in the new testament is completely wrong?

you would have to completely change your understanding of jesus and his resurrection.

if he rose from the dead, walked the earth for a while then was bodlily assumed into heaven, why are his bones in a box? if he had a son, why isnt that son mentioned in the bible like jesus' siblings are? if these major detail are wrong, what else in the new testament is completely wrong?

Not really.

Opinions differ on the nature of the 'resurrection', anyway - most people conjure up some lazy image of Jesus' body (a mortal coil) ascending to the heavens, or some such - but ignore the fact that Jesus' wounds would have been fatal. If one brings life back to a fatally wounded body, the body does not revive. How did a material ascension leave the wrappings undisturbed, as so many believe? If Jesus still had his wounds (that Thomas could play with), why wasn't he bleeding, or dying?

At the time of Jesus' final sacrifice on the cross, the gospels tell us the dead rose and ran the streets. Obviously, if tombs are spilling their dead, and the dead are functional, there must be a kind of resurrection that is more than just the re-animation of body parts.

So - even if there was a 'bodily' resurrection of Jesus - it can't have been his 'meat'. Allowing for this 'other' body, there is no reason why more mundane remains shouldn't later be found.

Regarding the exclusion of a possible son, from scripture... at the time Jesus lived, a young Jewish man that was NOT married (with or without children) would have been making a hell of a statement in context of society. Certainly, something 'exceptional' enough that it should be mentioned in the Gospels. The fact that it isn't mentioned, could be considered reason enough to believe that Jesus was married, more than likely a father.

Should the scripture mention a son? Not necessarily - after all, it tells a story that 'ends' with Jesus.

Not really.

Opinions differ on the nature of the 'resurrection', anyway - most people conjure up some lazy image of Jesus' body (a mortal coil) ascending to the heavens, or some such - but ignore the fact that Jesus' wounds would have been fatal. If one brings life back to a fatally wounded body, the body does not revive. How did a material ascension leave the wrappings undisturbed, as so many believe? If Jesus still had his wounds (that Thomas could play with), why wasn't he bleeding, or dying?

At the time of Jesus' final sacrifice on the cross, the gospels tell us the dead rose and ran the streets. Obviously, if tombs are spilling their dead, and the dead are functional, there must be a kind of resurrection that is more than just the re-animation of body parts.

So - even if there was a 'bodily' resurrection of Jesus - it can't have been his 'meat'. Allowing for this 'other' body, there is no reason why more mundane remains shouldn't later be found.

Regarding the exclusion of a possible son, from scripture... at the time Jesus lived, a young Jewish man that was NOT married (with or without children) would have been making a hell of a statement in context of society. Certainly, something 'exceptional' enough that it should be mentioned in the Gospels. The fact that it isn't mentioned, could be considered reason enough to believe that Jesus was married, more than likely a father.

Should the scripture mention a son? Not necessarily - after all, it tells a story that 'ends' with Jesus.

oh god the great unmentioned zombie invasion of jerusalem. youda thunk that someone might have mentioned it outside of the bible.

im not saying that it cant be fixed. im saying it would have to be fixed. the gospel had thomas putting his hand into the wound on jesus' side. the tradition of most christian sects is that jesus came back with his original body (the tomb was empty) and that he was bodily assumed into heaven--no corpse left behind. the catholic church has it that mary (his mother) was also bodily assumed into heaven. (feast of the assumption). its not in the bible but it would have to be "un-fallibled"


3 He presented himself alive to them by many proofs after he had suffered, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.
4 While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for "the promise of the Father about which you have heard me speak;
5 for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the holy Spirit."
6 When they had gathered together they asked him, "Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"
7 He answered them, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons that the Father has established by his own authority.
8 But you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."
9 When he had said this, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him from their sight


i dunno but if MY messiah had a son, even if he were a baby when the messiah died, i would want to keep an eye on him. mohammed's sons were quite involved in islam, for example.

if my messiah were GOD, i think it would be even more important.

if my messiah had a child, then he might have decendants today (kevin smith is a prophet!)

there are very many implications of finding jesus' tomb with jesus in it that would have to be dealt with.

oh god the great unmentioned zombie invasion of jerusalem. youda thunk that someone might have mentioned it outside of the bible.


Indeed, it is strange the things that are not considered worthy of a mention in secular histories.


im not saying that it cant be fixed. im saying it would have to be fixed. the gospel had thomas putting his hand into the wound on jesus' side. the tradition of most christian sects is that jesus came back with his original body (the tomb was empty) and that he was bodily assumed into heaven--no corpse left behind. the catholic church has it that mary (his mother) was also bodily assumed into heaven. (feast of the assumption). its not in the bible but it would have to be "un-fallibled"


I'm just saying - if Thomas could place his hand in mortal wounds, then the flesh he encountered cannot have been what we would conventionally consider strictly mortal.

It's one of those blurs in religion that survives because no one looks at it too closely.


i dunno but if MY messiah had a son, even if he were a baby when the messiah died, i would want to keep an eye on him. mohammed's sons were quite involved in islam, for example.

if my messiah were GOD, i think it would be even more important.

if my messiah had a child, then he might have decendants today (kevin smith is a prophet!)

there are very many implications of finding jesus' tomb with jesus in it that would have to be dealt with.

But, the naswer is within what you write, here - if Jesus had a son, and Jesus' son was not important to the nascent religion - there would be no reason to mention him.

(Also - looking at what people believed of 'messiah' during Jesus' lifetime, a son wouldn't necessarily have been worth recording - because there was no understanding that 'messiah' and 'God' even could be the same entity. Our modern Christianised idea of what 'messiah' means, bears little resemblence to the messiah that Israel is still waiting for.

Indeed, it is strange the things that are not considered worthy of a mention in secular histories.



I'm just saying - if Thomas could place his hand in mortal wounds, then the flesh he encountered cannot have been what we would conventionally consider strictly mortal.

It's one of those blurs in religion that survives because no one looks at it too closely.



But, the naswer is within what you write, here - if Jesus had a son, and Jesus' son was not important to the nascent religion - there would be no reason to mention him.

(Also - looking at what people believed of 'messiah' during Jesus' lifetime, a son wouldn't necessarily have been worth recording - because there was no understanding that 'messiah' and 'God' even could be the same entity. Our modern Christianised idea of what 'messiah' means, bears little resemblence to the messiah that Israel is still waiting for.

the whole story doesnt hang together very well at all. he comes to them, they touch his body that is complete with the wounds of the crucifiction. he eats a piece of fish. he stays with them for 40 days talking about heaven but they dont write any of it down. stuff that should have been the most important things he ever said to them! after a while he went to heaven.they stood there and watched jesus shoot off into the sky like a godrocket. (reflecting the biblical cosmology of concentric spheres with god in the outermost, us in the middle and hell at the innermost.) its not particularly believable.

As a sceptic I'm sceptical. ;)

If they want to prove that these are the remains of the original Jesus then they'd better have some pretty solid evidence; from what the article says I don't think this is very likely.

Incidentally, does anyone know how they can use DNA to identify the remains when there are no known descendants?

if they could confirm the tomb did actually belong to Jesus that would destroy the miracle of resurrection...DNA could prove if the bodies in the tomb were related, if the DNA of a son or daughters body(also in the tomb I believe) were linked to the father Jesus present it would turn the Christianity on it's head....DNA tests of todays population would turn up any living descendants...

what it comes down to is can archeologist's with absolute certainty confirm that the tomb of this Jesus was the same Jesus that was crucified...that will be extemely difficult...if they could it will destroy the Christian religion, only the fanatical will deny it... it's doubtful that evidence exists....

the whole story doesnt hang together very well at all. he comes to them, they touch his body that is complete with the wounds of the crucifiction. he eats a piece of fish. he stays with them for 40 days talking about heaven but they dont write any of it down. stuff that should have been the most important things he ever said to them! after a while he went to heaven.they stood there and watched jesus shoot off into the sky like a godrocket. (reflecting the biblical cosmology of concentric spheres with god in the outermost, us in the middle and hell at the innermost.) its not particularly believable.

Well, of course it doesn't hang together very well--it's an amalgamation of a bunch of different myths and stories crammed together to invent a divine authority for later church fathers to point to and claim as an ancestor of sorts. Plus, the people who put the story together, frankly, weren't very good storytellers. They didn't have a good sense of narrative or pacing.

if they could confirm the tomb did actually belong to Jesus that would destroy the miracle of resurrection...DNA could prove if the bodies in the tomb were related, if the DNA of a son or daughters body(also in the tomb I believe) were linked to the father Jesus present it would turn the Christianity on it's head....DNA tests of todays population would turn up any living descendants...

what it comes down to is can archeologist's with absolute certainty confirm that the tomb of this Jesus was the same Jesus that was crucified...that will be extemely difficult...if they could it will destroy the Christian religion, only the fanatical will deny it... it's doubtful that evidence exists....

the claim is ludicrous. it isnt even fully researched to see who among the 10 ossuaries are related to each other.

its like stumbling upon a tombstone with the name "john" on it and deciding that its the grave of your great great grandfather because HIS name was john.

Well, of course it doesn't hang together very well--it's an amalgamation of a bunch of different myths and stories crammed together to invent a divine authority for later church fathers to point to and claim as an ancestor of sorts. Plus, the people who put the story together, frankly, weren't very good storytellers. They didn't have a good sense of narrative or pacing.

im still freaked out over the unreported zombie invasion of jerusalem.



51 And behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split,
52 tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised.
53 And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.


its amazing how one can have heard the story their whole life and then suddenly see how crazy it is.

the claim is ludicrous. it isnt even fully researched to see who among the 10 ossuaries are related to each other.

its like stumbling upon a tombstone with the name "john" on it and deciding that its the grave of your great great grandfather because HIS name was john.

well it's not ludicrous or impossible but highly unlikely....I don't know what DNA samples they collected or were tested we'll find out later I suppose

if even if it was "THE" Jesus they found it would be difficult to confirm...you would almost need an inscription in the tomb that could be verified for the time, stating that this was the "man" and I kind of doubt that they'll have that....

well it's not ludicrous or impossible but highly unlikely....I don't know what DNA samples they collected or were tested we'll find out later I suppose

if even if it was "THE" Jesus they found it would be difficult to confirm...you would almost need an inscription in the tomb that could be verified for the time, stating that this was the "man" and I kind of doubt that they'll have that....

its completely ludicrous. it would be an incredible co-incidence for these random ossuaries with 3 biblical names on them (out of a batch of 10) to turn out to have religious significance. its not impossible but incredibly unlikely. (less likely than that the whole story of jesus is completely made up).

and yeah, to prove it you have to have something much better than 3 biblical names on them. without some other link, its just stupid.

how would they prove that? seriously, I am curious.

I'd guess they'd try for some sorta DNA sample on the Holy Veil and compare the two.

Though 2000 years in pre-industrial doesn't exactly preserve DNA...

its completely ludicrous. it would be an incredible co-incidence for these random ossuaries with 3 biblical names on them (out of a batch of 10) to turn out to have religious significance. its not impossible but incredibly unlikely. (less likely than that the whole story of jesus is completely made up).

and yeah, to prove it you have to have something much better than 3 biblical names on them. without some other link, its just stupid.

it has been done already with bodies twice as old, so it's not ludicrous...

a unspectacular tomb of mummies turned up and identified 8 lost Egyptian pharaohs that were long thought lost centuries ago....then even more amazing another lost pharaoh turns up in a museum in the USA, absolutely identified even with no name or associated grave goods to help in the identification.....

yes it can be done...what modern forensics and archeology can do is amazing...

I'd guess they'd try for some sorta DNA sample on the Holy Veil and compare the two.

Though 2000 years in pre-industrial doesn't exactly preserve DNA...

to much DNA contamination, any results from a DNA test on 2000 yr old veil would be useless

Hope springs eternal.

Indeed. If religion were finally purged from our minds, people might have to start living meaningful lives and thinking about their fellow man.

it has been done already with bodies twice as old, so it's not ludicrous...

a unspectacular tomb of mummies turned up and identified 8 lost Egyptian pharaohs that were long thought lost centuries ago....then even more amazing another lost pharaoh turns up in a museum in the USA, absolutely identified even with no name or associated grave goods to help in the identification.....

yes it can be done...what modern forensics and archeology can do is amazing...

I think you are missing the point. If you have the remains of one Pharaoh, and you believe you have the mummified body of another (which is special, already - not everyone gets mummified), and you believe the two are related - maybe you can draw some conclusions about the DNA.

But this story centres around what? Which body do we already have established? What are we going to compare the DNA to?

I think you are missing the point. If you have the remains of one Pharaoh, and you believe you have the mummified body of another (which is special, already - not everyone gets mummified), and you believe the two are related - maybe you can draw some conclusions about the DNA.

But this story centres around what? Which body do we already have established? What are we going to compare the DNA to?

I already said, they will compare it to the "son" decide they are related, and then that will be all they ever think they need to know.

In reality it won't mean anything, but James doesn't deal in reality.

I already said, they will compare it to the "son" decide they are related, and then that will be all they ever think they need to know.

In reality it won't mean anything, but James doesn't deal in reality.

Yeah, I saw your comment earlier about circular logic - I was just trying to point out the problem here to that other poster.

So - DNA proves the man and woman we found, are the parents of the child - if it is so. Doesn't make any of them Jesus - but people will pretend like it is evidence of something.

And, yes - I know you get this. I know you made the same point earlier.

Yeah, I saw your comment earlier about circular logic - I was just trying to point out the problem here to that other poster.

So - DNA proves the man and woman we found, are the parents of the child - if it is so. Doesn't make any of them Jesus - but people will pretend like it is evidence of something.

And, yes - I know you get this. I know you made the same point earlier.

yeah, I tried to explain this to my friend last night, I said "your name is Britney, and you have a son, if 2000 years from now, I find your grave and your son's grave and compare his DNA to yours, and they match up enough so that he is probably your son, does that make you Britney Spears?"

yeah, I tried to explain this to my friend last night, I said "your name is Britney, and you have a son, if 2000 years from now, I find your grave and your son's grave and compare his DNA to yours, and they match up enough so that he is probably your son, does that make you Britney Spears?"

The problem is going to be greatest for the religious community, unfortunately.

There will be religious people that will leap on this 'science' as evidence that (while they disagree with the findings) Jesus must have existed - the same way they have done with other 'artifacts'.

It's the same approach to logic that says, since a cart wheel was found in the Red Sea... thus the Exodus story must be literally true.

The problem is going to be greatest for the religious community, unfortunately.

There will be religious people that will leap on this 'science' as evidence that (while they disagree with the findings) Jesus must have existed - the same way they have done with other 'artifacts'.

It's the same approach to logic that says, since a cart wheel was found in the Red Sea... thus the Exodus story must be literally true.

well, there are those types on both sides, it usually does no good to try to reason with them.

I think you are missing the point. If you have the remains of one Pharaoh, and you believe you have the mummified body of another (which is special, already - not everyone gets mummified), and you believe the two are related - maybe you can draw some conclusions about the DNA.

But this story centres around what? Which body do we already have established? What are we going to compare the DNA to?

i haven't missed the point...and yes everyone received some degree of mummification at that time, only criminals were denied mummification... tens of thousands of mummies have been dug up and destroyed...and there a many thousands remaining in the sands of eygpt....so identifying the American mummy as a missing Pharaoh was quite a feat....

my point and which you don't seem to understand, is the DNA can link three bodies as parents and child... and DNA can link them to any living descendants....circumstantial evidence surrounding the burial such names, date, circumstances surrounding death,cause of death etc...can ascertain positively who the deceased is.....

this could very well be the Jesus his wife and child but without the right evidence we may never confirm it.....it could also be his neighbour who happened to have the same name.

i haven't missed the point...and yes everyone received some degree of mummification at that time, only criminals were denied mummification... tens of thousands of mummies have been dug up and destroyed...and there a many thousands remaining in the sands of eygpt....so identifying the American mummy as a missing Pharaoh was quite a feat....


'At that time'? The osirification ritual was practised over thousands of years, and other forms of 'mummification' are also recorded in Ancient Egypt.

To say that everyone was mummified isn't strictly true - the full ritual form was time-consuming and expensive, and so we are left with a very much tiered history of mummification. High quality mummies with the full Osirifaction treatment are immediately a suggestion of wealth and/or power. So - you automatically have a clue when you first look at the mummy, if you are looking at a Pharaoh or some other high appointee or honoured citizen.

On the other hand, if you have a body that is basically 'sand-dried', you can immediately assume you are looking at a very cheap ritual, or a very early mummy.


my point and which you don't seem to understand, is the DNA can link three bodies as parents and child... and DNA can link them to any living descendants....circumstantial evidence surrounding the burial such names, date, circumstances surrounding death,cause of death etc...can ascertain positively who the deceased is.....

this could very well be the Jesus his wife and child but without the right evidence we may never confirm it.....it could also be his neighbour who happened to have the same name.

You seem to be under the delusion that 'Jesus' (or Yeshua, as it would actually have been) is a rare name in that place, at that time. On the contrary, finding a 'Yeshua' tomb would be much like finding a gravestone with the name 'John' on it now.

'At that time'? The osirification ritual was practised over thousands of years, and other forms of 'mummification' are also recorded in Ancient Egypt.

To say that everyone was mummified isn't strictly true - the full ritual form was time-consuming and expensive, and so we are left with a very much tiered history of mummification. High quality mummies with the full Osirifaction treatment are immediately a suggestion of wealth and/or power. So - you automatically have a clue when you first look at the mummy, if you are looking at a Pharaoh or some other high appointee or honoured citizen.

On the other hand, if you have a body that is basically 'sand-dried', you can immediately assume you are looking at a very cheap ritual, or a very early mummy.


and?? that's what I said....type of mummification will give ideas as to wealth, status, cause of death, time period mummification took place, matching what is known about the deceased from written records etc....thats good archeology and forensics....

fairly recently a Mayan king was identified...a body found had unique jewelry that was an exact match to likenesses of a King with the same unique jewelry carved in nearby ruins,..sometimes putting 2+2 is as easy as it appears...

You seem to be under the delusion that 'Jesus' (or Yeshua, as it would actually have been) is a rare name in that place, at that time. On the contrary, finding a 'Yeshua' tomb would be much like finding a gravestone with the name 'John' on it now.

I was under no such delusions-people then as well as now are very unimaginative and predictable when naming their kids....most common Western name of all time is still Mary and it's many versions....

and?? that's what I said....type of mummification will give ideas as to wealth, status, cause of death, time period mummification took place, matching what is known about the deceased from written records etc....thats good archeology and forensics....

fairly recently a Mayan king was identified...a body found had unique jewelry that was an exact match to likenesses of a King with the same unique jewelry carved in nearby ruins,..sometimes putting 2+2 is as easy as it appears...



I was under no such delusions-people then as well as now are very unimaginative and predictable when naming their kids....most common Western name of all time is still Mary and it's many versions....

so what IS your point? that its not ludicrous to claim that a box with the name jesus on it is THE jesus?

of course it is.

without some sort of corroborating evidence ALL it is is an ossuary with jesus (or a form of the name jesus) written on it. the names on the other boxes are equally irrrelevant.

Never underestimate the power of believers to rationalize their beliefs.

Presumably you're including atheists who will go to the ridiculous lengths of spinning a yarn based on 4/5 coffins that just happen tho have passble names.

Now if it had said Lord Lucan, I'd have been impressed...

Presumably you're including atheists who will go to the ridiculous lengths of spinning a yarn based on 4/5 coffins that just happen tho have passble names.

Now if it had said Lord Lucan, I'd have been impressed...
Sure. This is an interesting find, but it's not proof of anything, not to believers or non-believers.

ok, if the bones were proved to belong to Jesus it does not necessarily disprove the ressurection of Jesus. If God is all powerful then i could easily come to the assumption that God simply created Jesus a new body that looked the exact same. Like getting a new car :p

it wouldn't answer any questions about his divinity.

The tomb is a bit of an inflated hoax to me. Anyway, if proven (very unlikely), it would challenge some of the most important parts of the christian dogmas, let's say... Christ resurrecting in body, not just in spirit, from the grave, imbuing the holy spirit into the apostles and sending them to preach to the world?

Not that I give a damn about it, I'm atheist.;)