Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 28

Thread: Jesus bones, truth or myth ?

  1. #1

    Jesus bones, truth or myth ?

    Hello my neighbors,


    Somebody found some bone fragments in Jerusalem and claims that they were of Jesus and his family.

    Is this truth or myths ?

    How strong are the evidence for and against ?

  2. #2
    I think I found the bones of Terry Sawchuck in my back yard. Or maybe they're just from an old racehorse.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by the_rock70
    Who cares!
    exactly! are you going to church? me no...

  4. #4
    S-Team member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Quebec
    Posts
    272
    I don't go to church either, but I still find this discovery interesting from an historical and spiritual point of view. Don't take this personally guys, but I find your position narrow-minded.

    I've never been to Israel, Palestine, Iran, Irak, etc, but I'm still interested in what's happening over there. I've fought in WWII, but I'm still interested in to happened back then.

    So, for those interested in this intriguing discovery, I suggest you read this article, which gives a pretty good recap of the situation: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23386857-details/I've+found+the+coffin+of+Jesus%2C+says+film+director/article.do

    It seems the inscriptions on the coffins are authentic, but skeptics claim then names (Jesus, Joseph, Mary, Mary Magdalene, as well as Judah, Son of Jesus, and Matthew) were pretty common at that time. My opinion is that it would be very surprising that a family with the same constellation existed at the same period in the same region.

    It might be true, and it would be very interesting if it was, but I doubt that it will ever be considered as true because of the incredible force of resistance of the Church.

    The fact that Jesus would have been married and had a child is contradictory to the idea that chastity is a good way to heaven, to the idea that females are the source of temptation and ultimately, evil. Most of the other big religions see sexuality as a good thing, a way toward enlightenment, a spiritual journey. Because of some sick Catholic Pope, sex has been perceived as a bad thing since a very long time now in our culture.

    I think that having the proof that Jesus was married and had children is a good thing would straighten things up a bit... even if that will never happen.
    wookie

  5. #5
    Actually, Wookie, I do find this interesting, but it does seem like an odd place to discuss it. No offense to the original poster.

  6. #6
    S-Team member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Quebec
    Posts
    272
    Yeah... you may be right... but still, this is the Lounge, where we talk about Bush's idiocy, US stocks market melt down, hockey and Britney Spears' new look... so it doesn't seem like a bad topic to me.
    wookie

  7. #7
    I am me, too!
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    If only I knew...
    Posts
    2,214
    Wookie's right, why not post here?

    The conclusion is a statistical one, nothing more. Problem with it is, we don't have the census for that period so we can't know how common these names were. The missing census remove even more precision from this analysis.

    Think about how names for kids today follow names of celebrities. Jesus "el al" were celebrities in their days so, must have been the same at that time with naming kids, making these name very common. Also, the "name pool" was also probably smaller, helping making repeats even more common in such small population.

    As far as genetics is concerned, nothing can be proved since nobody today can be related to Christ. To follow a genetic line, you need a good starting point, not an extrapolation and here, there's no solid start to go with.

    So, IMHO, at this time, this is only grounds for a good story. Maybe a movie? This discovery look more mercantile than spiritual to me.

    Could Jesus had a wife and kid(s)? Why not! He was a man after all! Could the remains found be "the ones"? At this time, must say no.

  8. #8
    As far as genetics is concerned, nothing can be proved since nobody today can be related to Christ. To follow a genetic line, you need a good starting point, not an extrapolation and here, there's no solid start to go with.
    Actually if they can be proved to be his bones, it's very possible that there are relatives living today. All you would have to do is use the DNA from the bones as the starting point. But I doubt that it would be possible to prove whose bones they really are in the first place. It's going to be fun to see all the religious nuts start coming out of the woodwork and freaking out though!
    And the Lord said unto John, "Come forth and receive eternal life." But John came fifth and won a toaster.

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    225

    Jesus' remains

    Since the time of the christian Emperor Constantine (313 ad) and about a couple of thousand years thereafter, the whole area had been searched minutely for any religious relics. If there was anything to be found, it would have come to light already.

    This new "find" is just another rehashed relic claim that charletans have always and will always claim to have discovered.

    His remains like any other would have turned into soil well by now. Let the man rest in peace already.
    Making hot sweet love to all your beautiful women

  10. #10
    This isn't a "new" find. It occured in 1980 when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. The excavation revealed a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets.

  11. #11
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by New York
    Hello my neighbors,


    Somebody found some bone fragments in Jerusalem and claims that they were of Jesus and his family.

    Is this truth or myths ?

    How strong are the evidence for and against ?
    I haven't read the whole thread, but I heard from some experts on tv this week that it's highly improbable that we're dealing with the actual Jesus Christ. First, his family came from the northern part of the country, not the area where the grave was reportedly found. Second, Jesus's family was poor, hence not likely to have had the means to build a mausoleum. And third, apparently a lot of people back in those days bore the names of Jesus, Judas, Mary and Joseph. My humble advice: Don't let this story ruin your sleep
    fml

  12. #12
    Myth. Myth. Myth. You might call it cruci - fiction.

  13. #13
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    37
    I know it's true

    Didn't you see " the daVinci code "

    Jesus got children

    no I'm not an expert but I don't think bones could stay in a good shape for so many years, we're talking about 2000 years from now, except maybe for momification.

    Mick

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Gotsome
    This new "find" is just another rehashed relic claim that charletans have always and will always claim to have discovered.
    As H. L. Mencken famously said "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the [American or Canadian] people."

    I don't know much about making movies and I suspect that James Cameron doesn't know much about Middle Eastern Archaeology.

    It's too bad since the Discovery Channel did such a good job with programs like Jesus: The Complete Story which has commentary by many scholars with differing viewpoints.


    Professor Amos Kloner, a top Israeli archaeologist, who documented the tomb as the Jewish burial cave of a well-off family more than 10 years ago, is adamant there is no evidence to support claims that it was the burial site of Jesus. "It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave. The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."

    Kloner said that of 900 burial caves found within four kilometres of Jerusalem's Old City and from the same era, the name Jesus or Yeshu was found 71 times, and that "Jesus son of Joseph" had also been found several times.

    Kloner said the idea failed to hold up by archeological standards but rather is all about television. "They just want to get money for it."

    Additionally when the BBC first aired a short documentary on the same subject, archeologists challenged the claims.

    In 1996 the Israel Antiquities Authority stated that the probability of the caskets belonging to the family of Jesus were "next to zero."

    Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun."

    Archeologists also balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James Ossuary - the centre of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel - might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box. "I don't think the James Ossuary came from the same cave," said Dan Bahat, an archeologist at Bar-Ilan University.

    MERB isn't really the place to have profound discussions but there really is incredibly strong evidence to identify The Church of the Resurrection/The Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the site of both the crucifixion, and of the tomb. And, I believe of the Resurrection.

  15. #15
    Of course this is the right place to discuss this... wasn't mary Magdalen a harlot?
    Amantes sunt amentes.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •