The Lost Tomb of Jesus

[EndUnknown]

anyone watch that on the Discovery Channel on Sunday? I watched it, along with the Ted Koppel thing afterward. It was a drama movie with a few facts and lots of assumptions IMHO.

[lpxxfaintxx]

I saw a TV ad on it, but unfortunately, I missed it. Care to sum it up for me?

[EndUnknown]

The tomb is initially uncovered during a dig to build apartments in Israel in 1980. The ostuaries(limestone boxes bones were stored in) said Jesus son of Joseph, Mary, James son of Joseph, Judah son of Jesus,Joseph, and Marimane(Mary Magdalene according to Gnostic[read as 200+ yrs after the fact, unreliable writings] Texts)

The ostuaries were taken by the IAA(Israel Antiquities Association) the boxes were stored at a warehouse w/ other ostuaries, and the bones were given a proper Jewish burial. then they do tests on the boxes and conclude they are authentic.

The facts presented are at times sketchy(the producer says "they're assumptions" but were presented as fact. such as the statement that Jesus and Marimane arn't maternally related therefore they were married

in the end all that really matered was the 600:1 statistic that it was Jesus of Nazareth

[bobdragster]

First off, I am a Christian, I have always believed in non denominational church, because as far as God is really concerned, there is no hierarchy in the church. The Pope is surely a great person, but he is useless. That was not meant to be harsh, just truth, and personally I do have respect for the Pope, but no more than my youth group leader. I think most Christians, or any type of religious people, are too closed minded about the things around them. Most instantly say anything that science has proved to be wrong, same with suggestions anyone has. I would bet that 50% of them haven't bother much with actual time with God, let alone a deep relationship with him.

Anyway, the show was great, but the debate afterward pissed me off because it missed the whole basis of what the guy was trying to do by making the film, he was just bringing things to the public and, just like it said at the beginning and end of the show, and letting people make their own decision about it. If you brush it off and say it has a lot of assumptions, then you are wasting time and just stating the obvious. Instead, try to make your beliefs deeper, or strengthen them, by coming to a realization that anything is possible, especially with God.


My thoughts are all over the place (ADHD), so sorry if I jumped around with my thoughts, but I hope it made sense.

[EndUnknown]

according to what I found here the ratio isnt 600:1 its more like .19:1 or 1:5.26 meaning it's 5.26 times more likely its not the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth

[dead jim]

let me preface this by saying i did not see this program and know only of the whole issue only in passing. that said...

i gotta tell you, the whole idea of finding the tomb of "jesus christ" is just strange. i really have no idea who they're talking about. the problem is this: a number of liberal bible scholars have argued that many of the acts attributed to jesus christ were actually done by other individuals, that there were a number of "messiahs" running around about that time, and some of them were responsible for some of the stuff the bible attributes to christ. also, it looks like 'jesus' was a fairly common name, along with 'mary' and 'joseph', so looking at names on tombs only gets us so far. so who is it we're talking about? is the guy who gave the sermon on the mount the same guy who was crucified by the romans? your answer depends on what historical evidence you're using. you might want to reply, "i'm using the bible," but, in that case, any tomb you find with christ's bones in it can't be the real tomb as christ rose from the dead, and afterward his tomb was empty. so, someone might want to say, "i'm relying on possible events in the bible, but not miraculous ones." but this just seems arbitrary. if we're going to discount some parts of the bible but not others, how do we know which ones to keep and which ones to ditch? surely it's just as easy to lie about common events as it is about miraculous one, and that's what we have to say is going on with the miraculous events if we want to discount them, that they're lies. so, on what do i base my decision to keep certain parts of the bible but not others? other historical documents? but then why would i ever look at the bible at all? i've already admitted that it's full of made-up stuff. it would seem best to simply put it aside when i'm interested in historical issues. but then i have very little to tie the various acts of christ to one person, hence i have no idea what is meant by the tomb of "jesus." who exactly am i talking about?!

don't misunderstand me here. i'm not saying that the bible is full of lies. that is not my point at all. my point is that anyone who believes that they found christ's bones has a huge burden, not the least of which is clarifying exactly who they are talking about, and they can't rely on the bible for such an identification for the reasons given above. genuine christians will never believe that anyone has found the bones of christ since, by virtue of biblical Truth, there are no bones to find in the first place. with all that in mind, the whole attempt by these guys seems like a very peculiar endeavor.

[EndUnknown]

good point

whats the sig mean?

[dead jim]

it's a quote from ovid's Amores. it translates as "we strive for the forbidden." however, i, along with many others, i'm sure, associate it with nietzsche. he used the phrase several times, but the most famous is probably from Ecce Homo which reads, "Nitimur in vetitum: in this sign my philosophy will triumph one day, for what one has forbidden so far as a matter of principle has always been—truth alone."

[bobdragster]

Originally Posted by dead jim

let me preface this by saying i did not see this program and know only of the whole issue only in passing. that said...

i gotta tell you, the whole idea of finding the tomb of "jesus christ" is just strange. i really have no idea who they're talking about. the problem is this: a number of liberal bible scholars have argued that many of the acts attributed to jesus christ were actually done by other individuals, that there were a number of "messiahs" running around about that time, and some of them were responsible for some of the stuff the bible attributes to christ. also, it looks like 'jesus' was a fairly common name, along with 'mary' and 'joseph', so looking at names on tombs only gets us so far. so who is it we're talking about? is the guy who gave the sermon on the mount the same guy who was crucified by the romans? your answer depends on what historical evidence you're using. you might want to reply, "i'm using the bible," but, in that case, any tomb you find with christ's bones in it can't be the real tomb as christ rose from the dead, and afterward his tomb was empty. so, someone might want to say, "i'm relying on possible events in the bible, but not miraculous ones." but this just seems arbitrary. if we're going to discount some parts of the bible but not others, how do we know which ones to keep and which ones to ditch? surely it's just as easy to lie about common events as it is about miraculous one, and that's what we have to say is going on with the miraculous events if we want to discount them, that they're lies. so, on what do i base my decision to keep certain parts of the bible but not others? other historical documents? but then why would i ever look at the bible at all? i've already admitted that it's full of made-up stuff. it would seem best to simply put it aside when i'm interested in historical issues. but then i have very little to tie the various acts of christ to one person, hence i have no idea what is meant by the tomb of "jesus." who exactly am i talking about?!

don't misunderstand me here. i'm not saying that the bible is full of lies. that is not my point at all. my point is that anyone who believes that they found christ's bones has a huge burden, not the least of which is clarifying exactly who they are talking about, and they can't rely on the bible for such an identification for the reasons given above. genuine christians will never believe that anyone has found the bones of christ since, by virtue of biblical Truth, there are no bones to find in the first place. with all that in mind, the whole attempt by these guys seems like a very peculiar endeavor.

I couldn't agree more. I seriously doubt that those bones were actually Jesus', and the whole thing could even be a hoax. Notice how in the program, Jesus' name was written on the ossiary VERY plainly and kinda sloppily? Who would do that for the son of God? Anyway, the evidence isn't all there, so I haven't made a final decision yet.

[Mammlouk]

I also missed this show since I don't have cable. My Western Civ professor was talking about it (His daughter has her PHD in anthropology and has had alot of archaeological involvement). I find it interesting that the graves were initially uncovered in the 80's and the scientists brought in never drew any sort of conclusion, just brushing the names off as being common names of that time period. Then in the mid 90's they were examined once again and still this "amazing discovery" was overlooked. Now suddenly someone has supposedly come to the conclusion that it's the bones/grave of Jesus and his family.

You would think that if this was really what they are proposing that it would have been noticed before. Such a discovery would be nothing short of phenominal and most certainly whoever uncovered it would be more than happy to take the credit that goes along with it in the scientific community.

[Zuneologist]

i haven't seen it yet, but its on my computer and I will convert it, upload it and it should be in the "TV shows" section tomorrow.

[EndUnknown]

Originally Posted by Zuneologist

i haven't seen it yet, but its on my computer and I will convert it, upload it and it should be in the "TV shows" section tomorrow.

cool

[Zuneologist]

btw, its up in the TV shows section, in case anyone wanted it.

[Mammlouk]

Cool. I will DL it tonight.

[wetworker]

I found a kool link,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=ASHRA+KWESI

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=ASHRA+KWESI

[Wune]

Originally Posted by wetworker

I found a kool link,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=ASHRA+KWESI

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...&q=ASHRA+KWESI

Hold up, Jesus was Jewish...

Also I don't think anyone will find the remains of Jesus considering, as stated before in this thread, His remains were not left on earth.

After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

- http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6;&version=31;

[Marshillboy]

I think the whole matter is BS considering the dudes who discovered it are anti-christian anyways.

[David]

Originally Posted by Marshillboy

I think the whole matter is BS considering the dudes who discovered it are anti-christian anyways.

that's pretty much true. I don't think that it really matters anyway, it's not like it's a bad, or good thing to find the tomb of Jesus. It doesn't effect us in any way. I read further up on the thread about jesus sitting at the right hand of god... I never heard of that, but maybe finding the remains of Jesus would disprove something in the bible, but that really doesn't matter. Maybe His soul was sent up to sit next to god.

Besides, there are so many peices of text in the bible that probably weren't translated correctly anyway. I saw something on the History channel that was talking about how every time they bible said heaven it might have suposed to say sky. It was something about how King Goerge's version of the bible was different from the rest of the people's bible. Oh, I think I remember, The show was about how aliens influenced religion. hmmmm whatever.

LIke I was saying The bible probably wasn't translated very well, considering for a long period of time during the middle ages it wasn't translated at all, and only a few people in the kingdom owned one. The bible was mostly passed down by spoken word.