Jesus bones, truth or myth ?
- Thread starter New York
- Start date
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.
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'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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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
As H. L. Mencken famously said "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the [American or Canadian] people."Gotsome said:
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.
Actually that's a late sixth century Roman Catholic construct. The Eastern (Orthodox) Church never has believed this, always keeping separate the three women: Mary of Bethany (sister of Martha and Lazarus), Mary Magdalene, and the "sinner" of Luke 7:36-50.Agrippa said:
None of the Synoptic Gospels name the "Sinner," indeed in Mark and Matthew she isn't even identified as being a sinner but merely as a woman who anoints Jesus' head at a dinner at the house of Simon the Leper. In the Gospel of Luke (generally considered the latest of the three Synoptic Gospels), the house isn't named although the host is addressed as Simon. Luke's is the only Gospel that identifies her as a "Sinner," but any extrapolation of this into “harlot” is entirely based on the passage translated "for she loved much."
It is only in the Gospel of John 12:1-8 (which is both the latest of the Gospels in date and highest in christology) that the woman who anoints Jesus albeit under slightly different circumstances, than in the Synoptic Gospels, is identified as Mary of Bethany.
It was only in 1969 that the Roman Catholic Church separated St. Mary Madalene from the idea of “repentant sinful woman.”
How much better to remember her as described in John’s Gospel, the first witness to the Resurrection. The male Disciples have all taken off when they find the stone rolled away, but Mary stood weeping outside the tomb when the angels say to her:
“‘Woman, why are you weeping?’ She said to them, "Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they have laid him." Saying this, she turned round and saw Jesus standing, but she did not know that it was Jesus. Jesus said to her, "Woman, why are you weeping? Whom do you seek?" Supposing him to be the gardener, she said to him, "Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away." Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned and said to him, "Rabboni!" (which means Teacher). . . . Mary Magdalene went and said to the disciples, "I have seen the Lord"; and she told them that he had said these things to her.”
I might point out the voice of authenticity John was writing in Greek and for him to use Aramaic - with a built in translation for his Greek audience, to me at least, indicates a passed on oral tradition.
End of Sermon
A very simplistic observation would be that people typically aren't willing to be persecuted and martyred for something they haven't experienced to be true.New York said:
And as C.S. Lewis wrote:
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would be either a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."
That would be a very poor observation. People martyr themselves every day in the Middle East and I doubt that any of them have experienced their religious beliefs to be 'true' before or after doing so.
As for the C.S. Lewis quote...Personally I feel that anyone that takes stories that were written thousands of years ago to be absolute truth is indeed on the same level as the man who says he is a poached egg. In fact, the Raelian's beliefs, as well as Scientology, make more logical sense than the bible does.
Similar threads
