Jesus Tomb Found

Just giving my two cents here, probably not worth even that much.I have a hard time understanding where researchers draw the lines in regards to Biblical historicity. Never mind the resurrection. No one can do much about proving or unproving that. Personally I believe in a corporeal resurrection but who cares? Can anyone be sure that any bones found in a tomb are from the original and only body ever placed in that tomb?To me, for someone to prove the existance of an historical Jesus, bones aside, I would minimally expect that the Biblcal account be regarded as true in all areas first; Jesus had no wife, no son, no for-sure brothers. I have no problem with changing the Biblical account per se, but what part? Would it not be easier to declare that the name of Mary Magdalene, maybe to protect her, etc was changed, than to declare that major factors such as marital status were changed?It is not that I care one way or another whether Jesus had a wife or son or brothers. Just, 'historically' He didn't. The Bible may not be historical, but there is nothing else to go by. So, basically, finding bone boxes which match some names up etc is only proof that some Jesus existed, but not the Biblical Jesus.I need to know how there can be proof of the Biblical Jesus, without following the Biblical account. It is the usual anti-fundy arguement reversed; if some parts of the Bible are suspect, how does one decide which parts aren't? How can anyone know, for example, that if Jesus did not die as said, that He would have married Mary Magdalene, lived in Jerusalem, or had only one son? Aside from the Biblcal account, there is no way to figure what to look for, or where to look. The bones of Jesus could be in France, or Africa.

Yes, could have a comma; not there though. "But since nothing was brought forward in his favor, he was hanged". I may be able to answer this part, arachnophilia might know better; according to Jewish law, a man would be first put to death, and THEN hanged, like for display. So there is no contradiction in using both.Obviously, Jesus still wasn't stoned, and I don't know why the sentence is in past tense and then the next is in future tense.

I wanted to ask your view on this. I say Jesus did not have brothers, purely because that is the teaching of the RCC stemming from the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.I know about James Adelphos, and Jude, and have even heard that there were sisters. Jude refers to himself as the brother of James, but not Jesus. I think this is a case where passages can be translated literally, or not. But it depends who you ask.

Here is what I referred to, arach.

It's ok. Nemesis and I were just discussing this in chat. He will find it interesting, I am sure.The Catholic dogma is based largely on the Protoevangelium of James. It has a major following particularly in the Eastern churches, which is where I was raised, but has been proclaimed by the universal church in the 16 century or so.All references which may contradict this in scripture are thought to be of step-brothers.Maybe a stretch, but that's how it goes.

Neither did I, to be honest. Just stumbled upon it by accident while looking something else up.

Don't mind me, but I think you are not answering Creavolution's question.He says; why do you require evidence for the tomb of Jesus, and NOT require evidence for His resurrection?The burden of proof is on the side of the scientists to prove that the tomb in question is of the same Biblical Jesus.This might sound really dumb, but it is a question of having enough evidence to disprove what you believe, and to disprove the Bible.So, while there is no physical evidence for the Biblical Jesus, the Bible can be believed.There has to be good evidence to NOT believe that the Bible was a true account. If not, it still stands as such (not that one can't think critically).I know it is a tough sell, but I personally feel similar to how I think you meant it.I can believe the Bible until I have a good reason not to. I don't need evidence to believe, I need evidence to stop believing. Evidence of any empirical kind does not make belief anyway. It makes knowledge, and there is no knowledge that this tomb is the real deal.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I think not, Brian. I am not sure where you are going with this, but be aware that I am not of the same opinion as nj is regarding the Sanhedrin text.You asked as well how the tomb could possibly be proven to be that of Jesus. Good question, I am not sure that it could be. What I would say is, if a tomb were found that matched the Biblcal account AND had bones in it I would be more likely to believe its authenticity, and to question the resurrection.

Could be just a misunderstanding. I am not sure of your point. I will say it again differently. The Bible can be taken as accurate until proved otherwise. There is no concrete proof that invalidates most of the NT. Any evidence against the Biblical account must be pretty solid before it can be said to invalidate it.Say I read a biography. I can believe it. Until, I read another which says something contradictory. If that happens, someone needs to do some proving before I go believe either of them. It would be silly to believe the second one over the first for no reason.All I am saying is that we are not sure if the second biography in this case is even about the same person, so I would need a little more evidence of that nature before I could even begin to question which is the truer biography.

None. I never believed in them. I am sure some people do and did, so you could ask them what evidence they would need to stop. Seeing is not believing. That was the point. You don't need evidence to believe, you need it to not believe.

Of course I have not proved that any other texts are not true, or in some part true. Where do all these other texts mention Jesus, so that I may compare biographies? We are talking about the tomb of Jesus here, right?When it comes to the Bible, there are myriads of texts that have been disproven, and myriads more no one is sure about. I can't even cover all of those in a life-time, let alone make a judgement on the tens of thousands of other religious texts. Huh? Can I disprove the existance of Buddha or Mohamed? Do I have the knowledge to make a decision about what parts of their lives have been potrayed accurately? Can I tell you that nothing in any other books is true? Silly. I can only tell you that I do not believe their philosphies regarding the after-life, primarily. I can't prove they are wrong, I just don't believe that way.

This is supposing the Bible's account of Jesus' death. I agree that it seems likely from Jewish law that Jesus would be buried in Jerusalem, but I have heard rumours to the tune that Jesus may not have died, that there was a cover-up or something. I would have to check the sources, but it would be a possibility anyway. If Jesus had been still living after the Bible has Him dead, there is no telling where He could be buried.
Not that I believe that of course. In the passage I cited about hanging bodies, they make mention of a shroud. I feel arach is correct about that, but might be able to unearth something more.And on a tangent, since you mentioned the shroud, there are other miracles which claim to have the blood of Jesus. All cases the blood is AB...but I have no idea about DNA tests.

Last time; I personally would need evidence to NOT believe the Biblical account of the death of Jesus. This was never about the Qu'ran or anything else. Typical non-fundy over-generalization and force a sentence to fit everywhere reaction.

I have no idea about the significance of the carob stalk, but the tree and the pillar are correct. Both. Remember the Scourging at the Pillar? That was the point where Jesus was whipped, and traditionally, while bound to a pillar.I am not all for this Sanhedrin account, I am not sure the first was referencing Jesus. The second seems to, but I am no expert.Still, we talked about Lent...the 40 days part is neat regarding Lent.For forty days they searched for witness in favor of Jesus, it said, or similar.Lent is the 40 days prior to Easter, and in a way, we are searching for witnesses in Jesus' favor during that time. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Nah, I never said any such thing.There is no belief I MUST have.This is not hard, honestly. It was not even meant to be profound. I said simply; It would take good evidence for me to discontinue taking the story of Jesus' death, as given in the Bible, as based on truth. Why? I am not scrutinizing any other theory at this time in my life. I have no idea what other theories I will someday be enamoured of, but if there are any, I will require disproof for them also. Or maybe I won't. Maybe it will be easy come, easy go by then. And there is no double standard. I am sure that if I have any other beliefs in my life-time, I will not need evidence for them. Reasons, maybe, not evidence.