• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Jesus' Family Tomb?

Mike

Well-known member
Feb. 25, 2007 — New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.
The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.

The DNA findings, alongside statistical conclusions made about the artifacts — originally excavated in 1980 — open a potentially significant chapter in Biblical archaeological history.

A documentary presenting the evidence, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," will premiere on the Discovery Channel on March 4 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. The documentary comes from executive producer James Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Red Robin said:
:lol2: You buy that mike?

Buy this? "a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family."

I haven't seen the evidence yet. About all I have seen is some Theologians discrediting the film maker.

The words "Could Have" leave a pretty broad interpretation of the intent.

From what I saw this morning......Cameron's intent was to say, "Here's the evidence, you decide for yourself".

You buy it?
Or are you saying it's impossible from what you read in the scriptures?


This will be like the Shroud of Turin. Some scientists will believe and some won't. Some Christians will believe and some won't.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Certainly one of the saddest moments in the life of Jesus was His
betrayal by Judas...
a. One of Jesus' closest disciples, even one of His twelve apostles


While I firmly believe my faith this find leads to two questions.

Jesus was betrayed by his close friend Judas, yet named his son Judah?

The original Greek text of the New Testament makes no difference between the names "Judah", "Judas" and "Jude",

Judas (Greek: Ιούδας) is the anglicized Greek rendering of the Hebrew name Yehudah (Hebrew: יְהוּדָה, also rendered in English as Judah.

Judah (Hebrew: יְהוּדָה, Yəhûḏāh, "God" + "Thanks")

So in light of the "find" did Judas betray Jesus whom was his closest friend and a man who named his son after him?
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
Mike it's almost impossible on several fronts. The most important is that it contradicts scripture. The Bible is true.

I would imagine that the logic argument would resonate with several here and elsewhere who don't totally believe in the Bible. I'll go with that for now. If Jesus were married, had children, and was buried in a marked box, the whole Christian deal was a hoax. Not only was it a hoax, it was a known hoax. One of the best evidences that Christ was who he said he was (the Son of God) is the actions of the disciples recorded in scripture. After the crucifixion, they were very disheveled. Peter denied knowing him. Thomas doubted his resurrection. The women were the first to find He was missing from the tomb (which would have been against the norm of society to make up a story showing women in a better light then men). After the resurrection, most of the disciples died a martyrs death. They were crucified upside down, beheaded, etc. If they really hadn't seen the resurrected Christ, why?

Secondly lets just set aside the disciples actions and say it was a hoax. If Jesus was walking around after the crucifixion, how? The event as recorded in scripture makes no mistake, Jesus was dead. There have been several investigations into the events of his death such as when the soldier thrust a spear into his side on the cross, blood and water poured out. Were the Romans not an efficient lot at the crucifixion process? He was dead. But suppose he was alive , they buried him in the borrowed tomb and put a signet seal on the door. They place roman soldiers in charge of guarding the tomb. The penalty of sleeping , willingly let Jesus out or someone else in, thus breaking the seal, would have been death. I don't think they'd go along with a scheme like that.

Lastly do you not think that if Jesus was suspected of being set free or gaining freedom on his own or with the help of others that the mob of Jews that just crucified him would have let him live in peace, father children , and be buried next to his wife and kids with their names on the graves?

It's an Easter hoax to gain publicity and money Mike. Something of this caliber happens just before Easter every year.
 

Steve

Well-known member
RR
It's an Easter hoax to gain publicity and money

And many including myself will watch it.....I will to see, and be able to ask questions, and maybe even answer a few, when asked about it,..as I surely will..

When someone questions the Bible it is a great opportunity to help them understand the word of GOD..

As for Hollywood, they more then likely will never understand that getting it right, sells better then sensationalism...







 

Red Robin

Well-known member
'Lost Tomb of Jesus' Claim Called a Stunt
Archaeologists Decry TV Film

By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 28, 2007; Page A03

Leading archaeologists in Israel and the United States yesterday denounced the purported discovery of the tomb of Jesus as a publicity stunt.

Scorn for the Discovery Channel's claim to have found the burial place of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and -- most explosively -- their possible son came not just from Christian scholars but also from Jewish and secular experts who said their judgments were unaffected by any desire to uphold Christian orthodoxy.



In a warehouse in Bet Shemesh, Israel, Israeli Antiquities workers move ossuaries found in a cave in Jerusalem that are featured in the documentary "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." The film claims that among these is the ossuary of Jesus. (Kevin Frayer -- AP)

"I'm not a Christian. I'm not a believer. I don't have a dog in this fight," said William G. Dever, who has been excavating ancient sites in Israel for 50 years and is widely considered the dean of biblical archaeology among U.S. scholars. "I just think it's a shame the way this story is being hyped and manipulated."

The Discovery Channel held a news conference in New York on Monday to unveil a TV documentary, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," and a companion book about a tomb that was unearthed during construction of an apartment building in the Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem in 1980.

James Cameron, the filmmaker who explored the wreck of the Titanic and directed an Oscar-winning feature film based on its sinking, is executive producer of the documentary. Its claims are based on six ossuaries, or stone boxes for holding human bones, found in the tomb.

The filmmakers contend that the inscriptions on the boxes say Yeshua bar Yosef (Jesus son of Joseph), Maria (Mary), Yose (Joseph), Matia (Matthew), Mariamene e Mara (Maria the Master) and Yehuda bar Yeshua (Judah son of Jesus). They maintain that "Mariamene e Mara" is Mary Magdalene and that Yehuda bar Yeshua may be her son by Jesus.

Simcha Jacobovici, the film's Israeli-born director, said in a telephone interview yesterday that he commissioned four statistical studies that concluded that the odds of those particular names appearing in a single family tomb from the 1st century are "somewhere between 600 and 2.4 million to one."

Jacobovici also said tests on the patina, or surface residue, of the "James Ossuary," which surfaced in 2002, indicate that it also came from the Talpiyot tomb. Israeli authorities have pronounced the James Ossuary, which purportedly held the bones of a brother of Jesus, a forgery and are prosecuting its owner. Jacobovici, who made a 2003 Discovery Channel film about it, maintains it is real.

Dever, a retired professor of archaeology at the University of Arizona, said that some of the inscriptions on the Talpiyot ossuaries are unclear, but that all of the names are common.

"I've know about these ossuaries for many years and so have many other archaeologists, and none of us thought it was much of a story, because these are rather common Jewish names from that period," he said. "It's a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don't know enough to separate fact from fiction."

Similar assessments came yesterday from two Israeli scholars, Amos Kloner, who originally excavated the tomb, and Joe Zias, former curator of archaeology at the Israeli Antiquities Authority. Kloner told the Jerusalem Post that the documentary is "nonsense." Zias described it in an e-mail to The Washington Post as a "hyped up film which is intellectually and scientifically dishonest."

Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, expressed irritation that the claims were made at a news conference rather than in a peer-reviewed scientific article. By going directly to the media, she said, the filmmakers "have set it up as if it's a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly rejected this," she said.

Magness noted that at the time of Jesus, wealthy families buried their dead in tombs cut by hand from solid rock, putting the bones in niches in the walls and then, later, transferring them to ossuaries.

She said Jesus came from a poor family that, like most Jews of the time, probably buried their dead in ordinary graves. "If Jesus' family had been wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb, it would have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem," she said.

Magness also said the names on the Talpiyot ossuaries indicate that the tomb belonged to a family from Judea, the area around Jerusalem, where people were known by their first name and father's name. As Galileans, Jesus and his family members would have used their first name and home town, she said.

"This whole case [for the tomb of Jesus] is flawed from beginning to end," she said.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Curious about what kind of DNA evidence there is in regards Jesus? Did someone take a DNA sample of him and preserve it? Otherwise how could they do any DNA comparing?
 

Martin Jr.

Well-known member
I realized quite a while ago that Discovery Channel's stories do not always portray the truth, but are meant to make money. Also the History Channel also suffers some from this.
 

Maple Leaf Angus

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Curious about what kind of DNA evidence there is in regards Jesus? Did someone take a DNA sample of him and preserve it? Otherwise how could they do any DNA comparing?

Well what I heard was that they were gonna compare it to his when they could sneak a sample of it in Heaven! Y'know all the tricks, swab his wine glass when he sets it down or something like that .



:lol2: :lol2: :lol2:
 

Econ101

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Curious about what kind of DNA evidence there is in regards Jesus? Did someone take a DNA sample of him and preserve it? Otherwise how could they do any DNA comparing?

They got the DNA sample off the original cross, which was made out of Noah's Arc, then the crusaders brought it back and hid it behind the largest ruby in the crown jewels of King Richard the Lion Hearted. They then compared it with dna from the Shroud of Tourin. It was then transferred to the indentions in the wooden cast for the first King James Bible, then transferred by Benjamin Franklin when he smuggled it out of Europe during his first mission there. It was then transferred to the the Declaration of Independence but not until after Benjamin Franklin attached it to a kite and flew it in a thunderstorm. Franklin knew it was the real thing because when lightning struck, it was the same exact time that Christ was said to have died and the sample increased in volume after the lightning strike and glowed with light for exactly 3 days. This almost threw Thomas Edison off the track of inventing the light bulb, but curiously enough it was the motivating factor for the invention of light. Of course everyone knows that Christ is said to be the light of the world.

All you have to do is see the light.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
As for rather Jesus was every married, the theme set out in the Bible would show that he most likely would not have been married.

If you read 1 Cor chapter 7, you will see were Paul talked to the congregation about remaining single as he did.

One specific versus

28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

I have a hard time believing Jesus being perfect and all would take on Troubles of the flesh.

And then he went on to say it was better to not be married in if you could avoid the temptations of the flesh (which I am sure Jesus could do)

38So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.


32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.


The over all theme of why Jesus was on earth, who he was and what the scriptures teach can do nothing but show us that Jesus was never married. He would have never allowed himself to be side tracked away from the message of his father to pursue selfish desires such as marriage!
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Loved your explanation there Econ!!!! :wink: :wink:

Do I think Jesus was married? YES. Did he have kids ? YES, because @ that time in history is was practically UNHEARD of for a Jewish man NOT to be married at his age. Was he buried , YES, but who knows where now.... and buried with his family POSSIBLY.

Is this the tomb? I doubt it because this tomb was discovered back in the 80's and IF....IF....IF it was that historically important the scientist would have been ALL OVER it then, not now. In fact, most of the reputable scholars dismiss all the hub-bub going on right now.

In fact the names on the ossuaries very VERY common names at that time. It may have been Jesus, Mary, etc.....but no the ' famous' ones.

The facts , put aside the religious aspects, just don't add up on this, they never have.


This is old news!
 

Steve

Well-known member
Jesus ascended into heaven, and he will return. Both of those events are important in the Christian faith, and both are included in the Apostles' Creed,...

so you of little faith, if you have Christian faith, you believe these two events...one has happened and one will happen...

if Jesus ascended into heaven then there can be no bones.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
As for rather Jesus was every married, the theme set out in the Bible would show that he most likely would not have been married.

If you read 1 Cor chapter 7, you will see were Paul talked to the congregation about remaining single as he did.

One specific versus

28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

I have a hard time believing Jesus being perfect and all would take on Troubles of the flesh.

And then he went on to say it was better to not be married in if you could avoid the temptations of the flesh (which I am sure Jesus could do)

38So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.


32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.


The over all theme of why Jesus was on earth, who he was and what the scriptures teach can do nothing but show us that Jesus was never married. He would have never allowed himself to be side tracked away from the message of his father to pursue selfish desires such as marriage!

Oh my goodness! This has spawned a Bible study! It is too bad that it has to be in the hotly debated political forum. One of the things that was common in Jesus' day was repressive governments. Jesus himself dealt in the spiritual realm, reaching out to the oppressed. Most governments (ours included) reach out to the rich and powerful. The dichotomy of the two, spiritual and political is one of the ying yangs that has been universal throughout history. It is interesting to note that when these are combined, you usually have peoples who get into wars or oppression. One side claims to have divine favor and so does the other for wars. In oppression, it is usually one side claims the favor of the divine and the other too weak. When both sides believe they have the divine blessing and they both have power, there can be war. Look at our leadership, the leadership of islam and many more examples where religion has been used to overcome the fear of the dangers, atrocities, and dehumanization of war.
 

Econ101

Well-known member
Econ101 said:
aplusmnt said:
As for rather Jesus was every married, the theme set out in the Bible would show that he most likely would not have been married.

If you read 1 Cor chapter 7, you will see were Paul talked to the congregation about remaining single as he did.

One specific versus

28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

I have a hard time believing Jesus being perfect and all would take on Troubles of the flesh.

And then he went on to say it was better to not be married in if you could avoid the temptations of the flesh (which I am sure Jesus could do)

38So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.


32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.


The over all theme of why Jesus was on earth, who he was and what the scriptures teach can do nothing but show us that Jesus was never married. He would have never allowed himself to be side tracked away from the message of his father to pursue selfish desires such as marriage!

Oh my goodness! This has spawned a Bible study! It is too bad that it has to be in the hotly debated political forum. One of the things that was common in Jesus' day was repressive governments. Jesus himself dealt in the spiritual realm, reaching out to the oppressed. Most governments (ours included) reach out to the rich and powerful. The dichotomy of the two, spiritual and political is one of the ying yangs that has been universal throughout history. It is interesting to note that when these are combined, you usually have peoples who get into wars or oppression. One side claims to have divine favor and so does the other; neither respecting the other for wars. In oppression, it is usually one side claims the favor of the divine and the other too weak. When both sides believe they have the divine blessing and they both have power, there can be war. Look at our leadership, the leadership of islam and many more examples where religion has been used to overcome the fear of the dangers, atrocities, and dehumanization of war.
 

Red Robin

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Loved your explanation there Econ!!!! :wink: :wink:

Do I think Jesus was married? YES. Did he have kids ? YES, because @ that time in history is was practically UNHEARD of for a Jewish man NOT to be married at his age. Was he buried , YES, but who knows where now.... and buried with his family POSSIBLY.

Is this the tomb? I doubt it because this tomb was discovered back in the 80's and IF....IF....IF it was that historically important the scientist would have been ALL OVER it then, not now. In fact, most of the reputable scholars dismiss all the hub-bub going on right now.

In fact the names on the ossuaries very VERY common names at that time. It may have been Jesus, Mary, etc.....but no the ' famous' ones.

The facts , put aside the religious aspects, just don't add up on this, they never have.


This is old news!
Kolan do you have a shred of evidence to support your beliefs?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Do I think Jesus was married? YES. Did he have kids ? YES, because @ that time in history is was practically UNHEARD of for a Jewish man NOT to be married at his age. Was he buried , YES, but who knows where now.... and buried with his family POSSIBLY.

I guess not being married would one of the only UNHEARD of things Jesus did while on earth? :roll: Not to many Jewish people walked on water or healed people either in that day it was pretty UNHEARD of to do those things :roll:

If you believe in Jesus and the Bible you have to look at it for the answers not reasoning on the traditions of the time.

Every indication from examples in the Bible such as the one I gave from Paul above show that Jesus would have been focused on the task at hand. I don't think his father sent him to earth to get dragged down with the extra baggage of a wife.

Bible shows that the Congregation was Jesus Bride and the members his children. He had a purpose here and desires of the flesh was not on that list.

If you want to use some good old common sense, he would not have taken a wife and child, because most certainly they would have to face persecution because of who being his. Jesus with his vast wisdom and Love would never bring unnecessary hardships on a wife and child like that.

Answers to such questions are in the bible but many times you have to look at the theme of it and not just look for a direct answer, but then again in this case, the fact that him having a wife and child were not mentioned in the Bible could be a direct and decisive answer in itself.
 

movin' on

Well-known member
Jesus, the most well known and individualistic person of all times, was married and had kids because most everyone else in those times did??!!??

That is pure brilliance Kola.
 
Top