Jesus Tomb Found

The Babylonian Talmud. I already referenced it. Secondly, not only does Josephus make mention of Jesus as an historical figure, but he also names central figures in the Bible. This lends far more credibility to Jesus himself.

Get over it, He existed. You can say that he's dead. You can say that he is not the son of God. All this you can say with a reasonable amount of suspicion. What you can't claim is that He never existed. Tacitus wrote about Jesus only 50 years after his death and resurrection, but somehow that isn't considered contemporary enough for you. Imagine questioning the historicity of Winston Churchill. Because you questioning Tacitcus is the same thing in relation to time. The point is that it shows your bias prominently when there is more than ample evidence that Jesus existed. Iraneus, Origen, Eusebius, Papian, Augustine and the whole Muratorian canon concluded that it was written by Mattityahu, more commonly known as 'Levi', who is even most commonly known in English, as Matthew. You don't seem to question Josephus' writings, or Tacitus for that matter, but for some reason, all suspicion is placed on all 66 books of the Bible. Why? Based on what? What are you measuring any of this by? Because it sure sounds like you're just flying by the seat of your pants and making this up as you go along. Just admit that you have a strong aversion to anything Christian and that you seek to discredit it so we can move on from there. Read it again. The verse says that an edict was posted throughout the city for forty days saying that he would be stoned for sorcery and apostasy. It says he was hanged as the cause of death, consistent with Jesus' execution. "Now Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, took the twelve disciples aside on the road and said to them, "Behold, we are going to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn him to death and deliver Him to the gentiles to mock and scourge and to crucify. And on the third day He will rise again." -Matthew 20:17-19Matthew records it that they weren't in Jerusalem but were on their way. From all the gospels we know that they traveled to places like Capernum and Bethany and to Galilee, etc. So its entirely possible that the disciples had no idea, which would make sense since Jesus told them three times about how and when and in what manner it would all go down. I just quoted Josephus corroborating the biblical account. That's one source. I quoted in the previous thread that Tacitus corroborated the biblical account. That's two sources.The only one who mentions the obvious, which is that his crucifixion was orchestrated by the chief priests comes from a Syrian historian."How did it benefit the Athenians to kill Socrates, especially as it was later revenged by famine and an epidemic? What good did it do the residents of Samos to burn Pythagoras at the stake, as it resulted in all of their country being covered in a moment by sand? Or the Jews to kill their wise king since after that they have been without a kingdom? God justly revenged the death of these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger, the people of Samos didn't get help when the sea covered them, and the Jews were killed and driven away from their kingdom living scattered around the world.

​

Socrates is not dead, thanks to Plato, Pythagoras is not dead, thanks to the statue of Hera, and neither the wise king, thanks to the new laws he gave.” -Mara Bar-Sarapio How can you all of these figures spoken about from various sources, as well as having tangible evidence of their existence, all of whom corroborate Jesus' existence, but not believe in the actual protagonist? If you believe that Ananias or Pilate or other important figures in the Bible existed, why must you deny the main character? Doesn't lend credence to the claim more strongly that he existed? The Watchtower society is young. Jesus Christ and His message, clearly prophesied about long before his own time, is 2,000 years in the making. If there was not some credible basis to believe in Him, the religion would have died out like all false religions do. Scientology is fifty years old. Give it time. That's a fine consideration and applaud that kind of restraint. Why don't you apply that to the rest of history while you're at it. Because as far as I can tell, you only seem to question the Bible's historicity. Because His tomb is unimportant. Paul does, however, speak numerously on what is important-- the Resurrection. That's fine, because every time somebody questions the historicity of the Bible it always gets thrown back in their face. There is something wrong with your rationale if you only apply such rigorous scrutiny to things you don't like. That's the problem.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : fixed italics

---

"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

Even then they might be inclined to try and rationalize it the best they can. They may say, "Well, he obviously wasn't really dead in the first place. His heartbeat was probably experiencing severe bradycardia and it masqueraded as a death."The point is, even if it was in front of their face and it confounded medical science, there is a good chance they would think of scenarios for why it couldn't possibly be what it appeared to be. That's it, basically. Yes, this is what I have alluding to at times in this thread. Every time some new gnostic text is recovered from Egypt, or anything along those lines that might discredit the biblical account, there is a lot of media attention. Would they give any attention to it if it corroborated the biblical account? I don't know. "The alternative thesis is that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. The fact of Christianity's beginnings and the character of its earliest tradition is such that we could only deny the existence of Jesus by hypothesizing the existence of some other figure who was a sufficient cause of Chrstianity's beginnings - another figure who on careful reflection would probably come out very like Jesus." -Michael Grant

---

"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

The Pope John Paul credited Mary with saving his life from an assassins bullet. If the Pope himself, who is called "the Vicar of Christ," and who is reputed to be "infallible," credits Mary with divine providence, there must be some truth that many Catholics intentionally or unwittingly deify Mary. Their were many conferences and councils in the early church period because a lot of gnostic texts began to materialize. As a result, it was confusing the laymen because there were conflicting accounts about Jesus. After prayer and analysis, it was determined by a panel consisting of 60 theologians to determine what would be canonized and what was not of God, but of man. Jesus was about 3 years old when the flight back from Egypt took place once Herod died. After this time, they were free to live their lives as usual and could have had their other children. The fact remains that the Bible and extra-biblical sources say that Jesus had siblings. Obviously, that would make them half-brothers and half-sisters, but siblings nonetheless. So either the Bible and Josephus were incorrect, or its a true account. But if you bring this into question, then you would have to bring all of the Bible into question as well.

---

"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

Alright, as I said in an earlier post, the Discovery channel was set to put out a special on the "Tomb of Jesus" on March 4^th, which was last night. I said that I would post a critique, so here I am. I believe it was a two hour special, but I only managed to stay awake for about 45 minutes of it. (No, that doesn't mean that it was boring to me. I just had to wake up at 0400 this morning for work).Anyway, I wanted to see the whole special because what I did see was interesting and hope to see the rest of it soon. I have to say that while I saw many discrepencies and fanciful ways to tie some facts with others, the treatment and tone of the special wasn't as bad as I expected. I also thought that the archeological work conducted, as well as their overall desire to cover various angles to mitigate error on their part. For those that are not in America or for those who missed the program, here is an overview of the special.Let me know what you think and we'll take it from there. Besides, as Adminasgara said, we have been drifting off topic. Perhaps this will steer it back in the right direction.

---

"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

Every time something surfaces that might be able to sleight the gospels in any way, Discovery has put on a special advertised with a lot of fanfare. This one was slightly less overt about its maligning tradition, but the implicit goal was still present. I did watch that part too, but I was not very impressed. For all of the whining done about how the gospels are a late insertion, and therefore, are unreliable because they are not contemporary with Jesus, should be even less compelled to trust the veracity of the gospel of Phillip. Aside from it running counter to virtually every Christian doctrine, it was a much later insertion. In fact, the book of Phillip is a prime example of why the Nicene council was instituted in the first place. Or their emphasis that the Mariamne (Mara) tomb and that of Yeshua ben Yosef weren't related by blood. All it proved were that those two were not maternally related. It proved nothing beyond that. Secondly, they simply erased any mention of the other ossuaries, like Matia, whom they made allusions to being Mattityahu (Matthew of the Bible). Why not provide a DNA signature on those bones? Indeed. I didn't think about that aspect. I'm glad you mentioned it. I had to go to bed right before they got into the patina evidence, so I can't comment on that part right now. Well, its very likely that a family all be placed in a family plot, but the problem is, there is a slew of missing people from the family of Jesus. Others seem to have any earthly reason for being in that tomb, which makes its more unreasonable to suggest that it is Jesus' family tomb. Or how was it that no one knew where Jesus was buried since all of this controversy was swirling around about his death and resurrection? Plus, the other specials headed by Discovery claim, like the Di Vinci Code, that Mary Magdalene fled to France where she lived out her days with the son, remember? So how can her and Jesus' alleged son be both in France and in Jerusalem? Oops... I didn't see that part. I can't comment on it right now. From what I did see, it was much-ado-about nothing. I saw people trying to make leads where the leads didn't actually suggest. I mean, for an archeologist and a film Director as large as James Cameron, thinking you might have the tomb of Jesus is the motherload. There is no doubt that they could resist the temptation of trying to piece it together, whether it were true or not.

---

"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

Why is that? The gospel of Phillip is not apocryphal, its a gnostic and pseudepigraphal text, so either way it doesn't matter how they viewed the Apocrypha because its not relevant. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : edit typoEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Typo

---

"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

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

"Co-investigator Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University said that the antiquities team concluded that the ancient Aramaic script appeared to have possibly been written by more than person. The report says that a forger could have utilized a computer program that scanned ancient letters from known texts, and then etched the words on the side of the limestone box. Experts remain divided over whether the word "Yeshua" (Jesus) was forged, "but the rest for sure is fake," Goren announced. "Yeshua was a very common name. If all you have is the name Jesus, that proves nothing," he added." -American AtheistLike I said, it immediately met hostility. First they believed that whole text was a forgery. Now they believe it is authentic, save the last word. I'm not talking about the physical box. I obviously was talking about the inscription, which is why I said they claimed it was a "forgery." Nor could it ever "prove" the existence of Jesus. At best it simply gave more credence to his existence. That's all would have ever been. There is no fabrication. The scientific consensus was that it was forged. And now they've changed their tune. What is inconsistent about what I'm saying?

---

"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