Tomb Held Christ's Body

[mook]

What about "the Spear" they have isnt it rumoured to have one of the crusafiction nails inbedded in it, so say they done a lot of tests on this spear and have it dates from the time of Christ

bibleprobe.com/holy_lance.htm

[bone]

What about "the Spear" they have isnt it rumoured to have one of the crusafiction nails inbedded in it, so say they done a lot of tests on this spear and have it dates from the time of Christ

Im no lawyer, but I would have to assume you can only examine the murder weapon with any objectivity only after you have established if the victim actually existed.

[Meercat]

mook said:

What about "the Spear" they have isnt it rumoured to have one of the crusafiction nails inbedded in it, so say they done a lot of tests on this spear and have it dates from the time of Christ

bibleprobe.com/holy_lance.htm

But there are many artifacts that date back to the time of Christ, and before. Nothing to say that just because they are from the right Era that they have anything to do with that particular individual. As for this DNA thing, I have never heard of anything so ridiculous.

[skywarp]

of course if it really is Jesus in that coffin, then he didn't ascend to heaven on the Pentecoste and therefore every single branch of Christianity is wrong.

[Amaris]

skywarp said:

of course if it really is Jesus in that coffin, then he didn't ascend to heaven on the Pentecoste and therefore every single branch of Christianity is wrong.

Good point Liam

[pcdunn2005]

The Discovery Channel aired quite a lot about this find last night, first a program called "The Lost Tomb of Jesus", then a discussion-type program following. I saw part of the first program. The story, as I understand it, is that in 1982 while construction was underway for new apartment buildings, a tomb filled with ossuaries (bone boxes) was located. These things are similar to the object that caused a commotion recently because it supposedly said "James, brother of Jesus" on it. (I think that inscription was later decided to be a hoax.)

Anyway, apparently according to custom, the bones were removed from the ossuaries and re-buried in a secret, sacred location, and the stone ossuaries were sent to storage as Isralei antiquities. Now some science types have noticed that the names scrtached into the different ossuaries are all apparently related to Jesus and his family, including old forms of Mary, Joseph, a Matthew (a name which turns up in Mary's family line, it is said), and another version of Joseph, which is supposed to be Jesus' brother. Also found is an ossuary with the name they tell us refers to Mary Madalgene, who the show assures us, should not be indentified with the prostitute who washed Jesus's feet, but with a female teacher and disciple of Jesus (this information comes from an ancient copy of "The Acts of Philip", a Gnostic text not included in the official Christian Bible).

I watched with some skepticism-- it seems so "Da Vinci Code" in places-- but I do think it needs to be investigated and discussed. Take the time to read up on it and make your own judgments, no matter your own personal beliefs.

There is probably more information at Discovery's website.

[skywarp]

the thing is, was Jesus a popular name at the time? Could just be a random person called Jesus whose tombs they found

[pcdunn2005]

Hi, Liam,

yes, the program addressed the popularity of the three main names of the Holy Family (Joseph, Mary, Jesus) and did admit all were somewhat popular names, but that the chances of all three being found inscribed on boxes found together in what seems to be a family crypt is something like 1 in 600,000. (I dunno, I'm no math whiz).

The inscriptions themselves are interesting; they are nothing like the elaborate carving on the hoaxed "James, brother of Jesus" ossuary previously discovered. These are stick-like, what archaeologists call "graffiti-type" writing.

I'm on the fence on this so far, mainly because I don't know enough about it yet. I do think they need to rule out ALL possibilities of a hoax, because Biblical archaeology is a big deal nowadays, with many faith-based scientists having a lot to gain by proving the validty of the Bible. Even if these are authentic, they only prove a Jesus of Nazareth lived, which we already know from Roman documents.

[bone]

Even if these are authentic, they only prove a Jesus of Nazareth lived, which we already know from Roman documents

Think again We have NO contemporay evidence for the Jesus of the bible, he was never mentioned by the Romans of his time at all....

www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

As for being from Nazerath, this place didnt even exist at the time of Jesus...

His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question -- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

[Meercat]

bone said:

Even if these are authentic, they only prove a Jesus of Nazareth lived, which we already know from Roman documents

Think again We have NO contemporay evidence for the Jesus of the bible, he was never mentioned by the Romans of his time at all....

www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

As for being from Nazerath, this place didnt even exist at the time of Jesus...

His home was Nazareth. He was called "Jesus of Nazareth"; and there he is said to have lived until the closing years of his life. Now comes the question -- Was there a city of Nazareth in that age? The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot perhaps venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

A good link, fascinating reading.

[skywarp]

my lord? Is this a sensible debate? To be honest, I'm not particularly religious or anything but the whole passion story over his last few days is a fantastic story. And will whether these bones being Jesus or not make any difference, or is just having faith enough?

[pcdunn2005]

bone said:

Even if these are authentic, they only prove a Jesus of Nazareth lived, which we already know from Roman documents

Think again We have NO contemporay evidence for the Jesus of the bible, he was never mentioned by the Romans of his time at all....

www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

[/quote]

I figured that would get me into trouble Thanks for being nice about it.

[pcdunn2005]

skywarp said:

my lord? Is this a sensible debate? To be honest, I'm not particularly religious or anything but the whole passion story over his last few days is a fantastic story. And will whether these bones being Jesus or not make any difference, or is just having faith enough?

Historical Jesus and mystical Jesus are two different things, for sure. I come from a Catholic background, but I admit that I'd rather pick and choose elements of Christianity to believe in. Even scholars have said the Nativity story appears only in one Gospel, and seems to bear resemblences to Greek myths of the birth of a hero or demigod.

When it comes right down to it, faith is certainly the question. The core message of Christianity is the thing, not the mythological trappings.

[Amaris]

[quote author=pcdunn2005 board=religion thread=1172433579 post=1173122864[/quote]The core message of Christianity is the thing, not the mythological trappings. [/quote]

Does that include the message in the old testament of cruelty by a "loving" god?

[pcdunn2005]

No, I don't hold much with the Old Testament fellow.

I figure it boils down to the sign in my room when I was a child: "God Is Love".

People, on the other hand... sometimes not so much...

[skywarp]

I mean, if we don't have faith what do we have?

[bone]

The story of Jesus is a basic rip off from the Mithras cult:

www.atheists.org/christianity/jesuslife.html

If you are interested read above

I mean, if we don't have faith what do we have?

A view of the natural world based on experiment and emperical evidence which is peer reviewed?

[hellyp]

The thing is, the so-called core message of Christianity is basically what any right-thinking, compassionate person would try to incorporate into their lives anyway - eg. treat others how you would want to be treated, don't kill anyone, don't be jealous of others' success, don't cheat on people, etc. so it's nothing to do with Christianity. It is entirely possible to be a good/respectful/decent human being without being a Christian, and it annoys me when Christians claim that they have the moral high ground.

I once had an argument about Christianity vs Mithraism with a Christian. His basic point was that Christians couldn't have copied from Mithraism because the gospels were written so soon after Jesus died, which as we can see, is not true. He also said that Mithras culd not be the pre-cursor to Jesus because Mithras was a completely mythical figure, whereas Jesus was a historical figure. Oh, the irony.

[mook]

I dont think that they will ever proove that this is JC tomb, look at the Ark of the Covenant, many people believe that it excist but no-one knows where it is. www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a018.html

The Shroud of Turin has been prooved to be a fake yet people still believe that it is real.

[harvey107]

The shroud of Turin was never proved a fake, they took samples from where it had previously been hung and therefore got forensic dating from earlier material that was on it. I think they were ment to do further tests but its when the church allows them to.