Jesus Tomb Found

I think the argument is that the James ossuary is from the correct period, but the inscription is fake.Brian.

If it's a question of choosing to beleive Simcha, with a record of misrepresenting the evidence and Joe Zias, I'll got with Joe Zias.There's also the question of decoration - the James ossuary has faint decoration visible - and inscriptions - part of the James ossuary's inscription is thought to be genuine. And if the inscription was a complete forgery then it contributes nothign to Simcha's case. It msut at least have the name James on it to be of any help. But so far as we know the "missing" ossuary had no decoration or inscription at all.And we still have Oded Golan claiming to have had the James ossuary before the Talipot tomb was opened. Now maybe it'll turn out that he's lying but it'as another thing that needs to be resolved before we can place any confidence in the idea that the James ossuary came from the Talipot tomb (as well as wanting to now how it found its way to Golan).

In response to you and Brian;The inscription, yes, said to be fake...but now we have 'part' of the inscription is fake, i.e., 'James son of Joseph' is real, 'brother of Jesus' is a contrivance. Although, if someone had stolen this ossuary from the tomb, the fact that he no longer had that connection to Jesus would be a probable cause to add the inscription, no? And he might even feel slightly justified at that?The simple fact that we have to try, as lay people, to decide who to believe when it comes to dimensions, is pretty sad. Can't we just get the dimensions of both and stop taking someone's word for it? I am not sure that Simcha and friends are lying aout this, as it seemed that this was their main 'evidence' for the rest of the entire story. If you saw the after-special, they stopped quavering and fidgeting when it came to the size.

No, Brian, I am sure you understood the question. We can either follow the Biblical account, or no, but if we are going to get into one tomb, two tombs, three tombs, you might as well get into 'no criminal death' as well.Are we looking for evidence to confirm the Bible? Because if we look for all possible alternate explanations, that is never-ending.

I'm sure you can find it on the web. But worst case scenario, Discovery will sell it to you for $29.95. They employed a statistician from the University of Toronto. What he had done is taken all of the known ossuaries in Jerusalem and juxtaposed them by the five names in alleged Jesus tomb. He discovered that names like Joseph, Mary, and Jesus were very common in that time. I believe the odds were something like anywhere between 1:5 and 1:40 people in Israel had those names. However, the name "Mariamne" was quite unique, even in Aramaic. Then he calculated what the odds were of all of those names being in the same family. The odds then jumped a bit higher. Here is how he did it. I don't think the hyperlink will directly link you to the statistics page. If not, click on "Enter the Tomb." Then go to "supporting evidence," on the lower lefthand corner. Then click on "statistical evidence."

• Here's the problem though. They only mentioned six of the twelve names in the tomb. They neglected to mention or factor in Matia, Judas, Shimon, Miriam, and Salome who were also found at the site in their statistical figures, even though Shimon and Judas (Jude) are in fact listed in the Bible as two out of four brothers of Jesus.
  ​
• Secondly, it has been claimed by a few sources who helped with the expedition that Jacobovici neglected to relay that the tomb carried the bones of about 35 different individuals, and about half were from these ossuaries.
  ​
• Thirdly, they had only one dissenting opinion on the actual program, but he and a few of his colleagues assert that Jacobivici is too tempted to think clearly because the translation of the names on the ossuaries may not be accurate.
  ​
• The quaternary example is that the sole discovery of the DNA analysis was that Mariamne and Yeshu were not maternally related. The speculation then becomes that Mariamne and Yeshu must have been married because why would a non-family member be in the same tomb unless they were married. But that does not mean any one was married to another, nor does it mean that if Mariamne was married to anyone it was specifically to Yeshu. It could have meant marital ties to any other male found in the tomb. Therefore, the DNA evidence is literally the weakest link they have. Nor does it mean in any way, shape, or form, that its Jesus or Mary Magdalene inside those ossuaries.
  ​
• There is no substitute for the fact that the controversy surrounding Jesus' resurrection was a top priority of that day. Everyone wanted to know where Jesus' body was. That would have come to light immediately if they not only knew where his body was in the temporary burial site, but even more so after the fact when they placed his bones in the ossuary. Aside from which, archaeologists have been scouring Israel for centuries trying to find his body or his family members. This particular tomb was discovered in 1980. This isn't a recent discovery. Rabbi's even installed a tube in the ossuary, which is now custom, on every ancient ossuary site. There is no one with greater vested interests in demolishing the resurrection story than strict adherents to Judaism who view Jesus as a false messiah-- and yet, they didn't.
  ​
• Discovery came out with a program about a year ago when the gospel of Judas was found in Egypt and the Da Vinci Code was a hot topic. They alleged that Mary Magdalene and her son, borne of Jesus, fled to France and started their own line. How, then, can Mary and the alleged son of Jesus, Judas, be buried in an ossuary in Jerusalem? Did they recant their previous sentiment? Did they retract their previous claims? No. They simply didn't mention it. So was Mary in France or in Israel?
  ​
• Lastly, the buzz concerning the James ossuary was a compelling piece of evidence for many Christians because it corroborated the account of Jesus. But it was quickly deemed as a forgery by naysayers and it fell into obscurity. But now they are changing their tune. Now they say that the James ossuary was not "entirely" a fraud. They say that only the last part of the inscription is a forgery, but the rest is authentic based on patina evidence that places James' ossuary within the tomb found in Jerusalem. I guess as long as they believe that Jesus is dead, that James' ossuary no longer poses a threat.

Is it possible that this is Joseph and Mary's family tomb? Sure, that's humanly possible. Is there any actual evidence, aside from speculation and barely even a nugget of circumstantial evidence linking any of the biblical characters to that site? No. I don't think the challenge substantiates any worry on the part of Christians any more than the Di Vinci Code did. If there is any actual outrage over this amongst Christians, none of which I've seen, then perhaps they need to look at it from your perspective. However, perhaps you are not seeing it from the Christian vantage point. For years, decades, and centuries, people have been preoccupied with trying debunk Jesus in various forms and theories. Why they care so much is anybody's guess. The disconfirming evidence is usually nothing more than a paper tiger, used in a way to rhetorically refute the claims made by their opponents. This new theory is no different. There is a whole lot of fluff about this whole thing and makes it puff up larger than what it really is. They are literally basing it all on a few names to say, oh yes, this is Jesus of Nazareth. The DNA evidence is nil. The statistical evidence is of no consequence, because even supposing it was accurate, 1:600 are odds that good to me. If the lottery were those odds, even I would play, everyday.The point is, this is just another attempt to malign Jesus, whether it was Cameron or Jacobivici, who have a flair for the dramatic. So, perhaps your "disgust" is extremely misguided. I'm a Christian and I'm not disgusted by this effort. If anything, it makes me chuckle. I don't let things like this give me a bad hair day. Perhaps you should adopt a similar lifestyle and leave your disgust for things that are truly disgusting.

---

"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8

That's the point: you don't stop looking when you find the answer you want. The quest is never-ending.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Zias says that he was on the spot when the Talipot tomb ossuaries came in. The diemnsiosn of the James ossuary should be easy to find. Maybe Brian can find a report on the Talipot tomb - he'd have the best chance.But given that the only evidence that it is the same one seems to be the patina - which is far from good evidence - at present there seems no good reason to count it as evidence for Simcha's claims.

Essentially you are saying that either the Bible is 100% accurate or 100% inaccurate, there's no inbetweenies for you? I'm not getting into any tomb because ASAIK there's no evidence that Roman's allowed executed common criminals to be interred in a family tomb. There may well be evidence, but I don't know about it as it is about a thousand years after my area of research. But general reading suggests that Romans didn't give criminal's bodies back to the family.But it isn't at all implausible that Jesus was crucified, thrown into a common grave, and then a fairytale was invented about an empty tomb.Brian.

quote:

---

Lastly, the buzz concerning the James ossuary was a compelling piece of evidence for many Christians because it corroborated the account of Jesus. But it was quickly deemed as a forgery by naysayers and it fell into obscurity. But now they are changing their tune. Now they say that the James ossuary was not "entirely" a fraud. They say that only the last part of the inscription is a forgery, but the rest is authentic based on patina evidence that places James' ossuary within the tomb found in Jerusalem. I guess as long as they believe that Jesus is dead, that James' ossuary no longer poses a threat

---

Please stop inventing "facts". There has been NO change in the position on the James ossuary. The idea that part of the inscription was genuine and part faked goes back right to the time of the fuss about the ossuary. Consider this report from 2002.The ossuary itself was ALWAYS accepted as genuine - only the inscription was ever in question. The patina match changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHINGFew if any of the skeptics of the ossuary were concerned about the ossuary "proving" the existence of Jesus.The skeptics in general do NOT accept Simcha's ideas about the Talipot tomb either.So it is ompletely false to say that Smicha's claims make ANY DIFFERENCE whatsoever.Do you actually understand that this sort of fabrication amounts to lying ?

Hi Doc,I am not in Uni until Friday this week, so rather than give links to sites, I'll look out some quotes from sources on Friday and reply probably Sunday.Hope this is okay.Brian.

I don't have a problem with in-betweenies, but as I said, if you are going to look for any possible in-between explanation, you have to consider that there was no crucifixion. Not strongly consider, not consider over other ideas, but at least allow the possibility, and thus; The Roman customs would be a good indication for the falsity of the new tomb, but an indication of nothing else whatsoever if we bring an alternate biography into play.You are being a Biblical literalist. You are using the Bible to discount Simcha. That is good, that is fine, that is the primary tool we have as a resource...but if you all want us to think critically, where does one start?Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Every thing in this extract from your post is utterly untrue.It was so quickly deemed a forgery that it was on display in a museum as real!Oh, and do you have any evidence that people are 'changing their tune'?You have a bad habit of inventing things that you believe supports your various stances.Brian.

Hello,

quote:

---

As far as we know, anyone 100%human can not be conceived through the mother alone.

---

Agreed. But that still does not stop the dogma of immaculant conception and that Jesus was fully man. From being perpetuated in the church. As a good Catholic would say: It is a mystery. It doesnt have to make sense biologically. It is based on a religious tennant.

Hello,

quote:

---

He had a distinct, indentified mother and a distinct identified father.

---

Yes. And was resurrected decended into hell and onto heaven. (Depending on which bible)...And we still do not know if he had 23 of God the father's chromosomes or if he had 46 human chromosomes all of which came from the Holy mother. Do we?

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Hi Ana, Of course, but that wasn’t what you were saying when you said we can either follow the Bible account or not. We can follow the Bible account and reject the impossible and thus keep the plausible.Is it plausible that the Romans handed Jesus’ body over? Well, to look for a satisfactory answer for this we need to rely on external sources, and they say that the Romans threw the criminal bodies into a common grave. If there are no reports to the contrary, then it is less likely that Jesus’ body was handed over. If there are a few, or even many, reports of the Romans handing over criminal bodies, then the Bible claim that Jesus was placed in a tomb is more likely. The thing is, it is not impossible, or even improbable that someone was crucified in the period in question, the Romans crucified tens of thousands of people, sometimes thousands were crucified at the same time, and so there really is no good reason to doubt that Jesus was crucified. This is sort of correct. The Roman customs could indicate the falsity of a tomb, and if the new biography includes a tomb then wouldn’t the Roman custom undermine the reliability of the new biography? If the Roman custom falsifies the existence of a tomb then this would have a knock on effect, which would affect other issues in the biography. For example, if there was no tomb for Jesus to be put in just how much of the Gospels would be falsified? All the testimonies relating to finding the tomb empty would be affected for a start. How can I be a literalist when I am denying that there was a tomb whilst the Bible clearly indicates that there was a tomb? You have to start by collecting as many resources about the period in question as you can, then build up a background picture to try and fit the Gospel accounts into. But, the most important thing for any historical research is to try and be as objective as possible, if your research turns into a persuasive work then it won’t be taken seriously by your peers.So, I would say that one should start by gaining as good an understanding of the period and location as one can, then look at the plausibility of each event.Having done this, of course, the plausibility of any event depends on the individual’s approach to the subject.All histories are inventions of the human mind, we only have records of what any particular person wanted us to have.Brian.