Jesus Tomb

[namguy69]

Quote by: Dirty Name With the "big news" today that James Cameron discovered Christ's tomb and has definitively proven that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead because DNA evidence confirms he is still dead, we now have ourselves a quandary: Either Cameron is wrong, or our very own Zhavric is wrong, or, most likely, they both are. What say you? The Middle East Blog - TIME

I didn't believe they found Jesus's tomb as soon as it was broadcasted that they did.

[agustine]

To Mr. Dirty Name. With respect to your comment

“With the "big news" today that James Cameron discovered Christ's tomb and has definitively proven that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead because DNA evidence confirms he is still dead……”

Not withstanding your inquiry directed toward Mr. Zhavric, I thought I would provide you with an update relative to the particulars of the purported discovery. The recent comments of Dr. Carney Matheson, the paleo-biologist who performed the DNA testing of the ossuary contents is of particular interest. When asked the following question: “Given that mitochondrial DNA analysis can only address maternal relationships, leaving open the possibility that 80-503 was, in fact, the father of 80-500, and the mitochondrial DNA analysis could not address this, is the preceding quotation accurate to your recollection? Did you inform Simcha Jacobovici (the journalist responsible for the purported discovery) of the possible paternal relationship?” Before I provide Dr. Carney’s response, the preceding quotation to which the inquisitor alludes is taken from Simcha Jacobovici’s book “The Jesus Family Tomb,“ pg. 172, which provides, in pertinent part: “That this man and woman do not share the same mother," Matheson said quickly and conclusively. "They cannot be mother and child. They cannot, maternally, be brother and sister. And so, for these particular samples, because they come from the same tomb--and we suspect it to be a familial tomb--these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely have been husband and wife." Dr. Carney responded: “This work was done as a service. We did not know who they suspected these individuals to be from. On the report it concludes that these two profiles from two different individuals were not maternally related. That is all the report states. When they did the filming and on the documentary they asked every question under the sun with permutations and manipulations. I provided the investigators with all the possibilities. They were not brother and sister, mother and child, maternal cousins, maternal grandparent and child etc. I also mentioned all of the possibilities, which I should not have done in hindsight. These included, father and daughter, paternal cousins, half brother and sister (sharing the same father) or simply unrelated individuals. The media does what they want.” Also, quite interestingly, of the ossuaries found on the site termed the "necropolis," also known as the Dominus Flevit, translated: the place where “The Lord Wept,” discovered in Jerusalem by Bellarmino Bagatti and cited by Jacobovici in his book, he conspicuously omitted the names inscribed on the ossuaries, to wit: Mary, Martha, Philo the Cyrene, Matthew, Joseph, and of course, surprisingly, Jesus. There are literally scores of these discoveries. The burial boxes of current interest, widely in use from the time of approximately 30 B.C. to approximately 70 A.D., have been in the possession of the academic community since 1980. The discoveries of the early Christian ossuaries on the Mount of Olives by archaeologist P. Bagatti for instance contain inscriptions such as Shimon bar Yonah – translated Simon Son of Jonah, I don’t have to tell who that may be – Mattias or Matthew and, of course, Jesus. Of peculiar interest is the inscription of a cross along with the name “Yeshua” or Jesus found on each of the Mount of Olives burial boxes. Also found were coins minted by Governor Varius Gratus (approximately A.D. 16) which indicates that these tombs were used for burial of Christians before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Other such ossuaries discovered at the Mount of Olives site by Bagatti contain inscriptions of the following names together with the sign of the cross and the name “Yeshua” are: Jonathan, Joseph, Jarius, Judah, Menahem, Salome, Simon, and Zechariah. Many of these names appear in the New Testament Book of Acts describing members of the Early Church at Jerusalem. Then there are the ossuaries found at Bethany by archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau with the following names inscribed upon them: Eleazar - translated Lazarus - Martha and, surprisingly, Mary. Of both the Bethany cite and the Mount of Olives cite Ganneau writes “What gives additional value to these short inscriptions is that they furnish a whole series of names found in the Gospels, in their popular and local Syro-Chaldaic forms. The presence of the names of Jesus and Martha, of which we only knew historically that it was the feminine form of the Aramaic, would alone be sufficient to make this collection important from an exegetic point of view. By a singular coincidence, which from the first struck me forcibly, these inscriptions, found close to the Bethany road, and very near the site of the village, contain nearly all the names of the personages in the Gospel scenes which belonged to the place: Eleazar (Lazarus), Simon, Martha, and a host of other coincidences occur at the sight of all these most evangelical names." During the fall of 1945, Hebrew University archaeologist Dr. Eleazar Sukenik investigated another first century Jewish catacomb at the southern end of the Kidron Valley on the road to Bethlehem. Dr. Sukenik found several ossuaries with the sign of the cross, Greek inscriptions, a coin minted in A.D. 41 for King Herod Agrippa I, leading him to believe that the tomb was sealed by A.D. 42. He ultimately concluded that the ossuaries "contain almost the whole dictionary of names in the New Testament.” One ossuary found at the Kidron cite contained an inscription written in Koine Greek to "Jesus" followed by the exclamation "Y'ho," meaning "YHWH" the covenant name of God otherwise pronounced solely as "Lord." The inscription translates: "To Jesus, the Lord." In light of the A.D. 42 date for the sealing of this tomb, the presence of this dedication to "Jesus, the Lord" attests to the acceptance by Christians of Jesus Christ as God within ten years of his death and resurrection. One could conceivably go on for quite sometime….. What of the name Jesus? Well, the name is derived from the proper Hebrew name “Yehoshua” which means YHWH or the Lord saves. The Aramaic rendering is Yeshua, a shortened version. There are several individuals in both Testaments of the Judeo/Christian Scriptures with the name “Yehoshua” such as Yehoshua, son of nun, in Joshua 1:1, Neh. 8:17, etc…, Yehoshua ben Yehotzadak, the "Kohen Gadol," or High Priest found in Ezra 3:2 and Zechariah 3:1-2. The name itself has been cited by Richard Bauckham in his book entitled Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, as the sixth most popular of the Hebrew male names. The first most popular Hebrew female name is, hold onto your seats, Mary. This is clearly evident by the fact that seventy first century ossuaries have been discovered that contain the name Mary or Miriam inscribed upon it. The comments by the archaeologist responsible for the original discovery, Amos Kloner, professor at Israel's Bar-Ilan University are telling, insofar as he believes the discoveries are of no significance commenting, “The names found on the tombs are common ones at the time.” "These are the most common names among Jews in these centuries," said Kloner, who published his findings in 1996. "It's very interesting," he said of all of the names of Jesus' family being found on ossuaries in the same cave, "but it's not a convincing proof that it's the family of Jesus." He knows of at least two other ossuaries that bear the name of Jesus, son of Joseph. With respect to the name Mariamne inscribed on one of the ossuaries, albeit in Koine Greek, and the imputation of the name Mariamne as meaning Mary the Magdelene, it appears as though Jacobovici is using as his source material the late fourteenth century writing know as the Acts of Philip, despite the claim made by Meredith Viera on the Today Show this past Monday morning whereby she indicates that the Christian Scriptures, otherwise known as the New Testament, identify Mary the Magdelene as Mariamne. Two problems arise here: 1. The name Mariamne never appears in the New Testament; and, 2. The woman known as Mariamne in the Acts of Philip is identified as the sister of Philip who is to die in the Jordan River, and when threatened she turns into either a glass box or a pillar of smoke. Any suggestion that Mariamne is Mary the Magdelene is regarded by the mainstream community of New Testament Scholars as incredible at that and sorely lacking in evidence. It appears as though they have a long way to go…….

Augustine

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Dirty Name With the "big news" today that James Cameron discovered Christ's tomb and has definitively proven that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead because DNA evidence confirms he is still dead, we now have ourselves a quandary: Either Cameron is wrong, or our very own Zhavric is wrong, or, most likely, they both are. What say you? The Middle East Blog - TIME

My column, Inspection, covers the topic. Links at the bottom of this post. Here's a quote...

If Jesus was in that grave, then nothing is taken away from his ministry. Even considering more traditional beliefs this is true, because whether there are mortal remains, or not, has little to nothing to do with how God-like he may or may not have been. We are talking spirit, aren’t we? Not corpuscles, brain cells, kidneys, warts, right?

If dogma is all that matters, then I can see how it really drives those type of folks crazy. I, personally, find it interesting... but not much more convincing than more orthodox beliefs.

[loser]

Then there are the ossuaries found at Bethany by archaeologist Charles Clermont-Ganneau with the following names inscribed upon them: Eleazar - translated Lazarus - Martha and, surprisingly, Mary.

Why surprising? Lazarus had two sisters, Martha and Mary.

Interesting aside: These were Jesus' best friends and He spent a lot of time at their home. It was Lazarus' death that evoked that most famous and shortest sentence of the Bible: "Jesus wept."

[agustine]

To Mr. loser. With respect to your comments

Why surprising? Lazarus had two sisters, Martha and Mary.

I apologize for my somewhat veiled sarcasm. I am a Christian Theist and Apologist. I do not think Cameron has found the family tomb of the Lord. I subscribe wholeheartedly to the historic accuracy of the canonical Gospels in particular as well as the Judeo/Christian Scriptures in general. I do not think it is surprising at all, moreover the discovery of Eleazar - translated Lazarus - Martha and Mary is what I would expect to find if one were to excavate the city of Bethany. Again, I apologize.

Augustine

[agustine]

To Mr. Ken Carman. With respect to your comment

and the church’s tendency to destroy anything that just might run over their favorite dogmas, especially in the early years.

Given the manifest tenor of your article, would it be fair to characterize your comments as faint expressions of satirist hyperbole? If however you are serious, out of curiosity, what specific destructive exertions of the Church are you alluding to?

Augustine

[agustine]

To Mr. Ken Carman. With respect to your comment

If dogma is all that matters, then I can see how it really drives those type of folks crazy. I, personally, find it interesting... but not much more convincing than more orthodox beliefs.

Just a thought, without the intention of offending, it appears to me from your unremitting attention that you are just as much a dogmatist in your denunciations as those to which you allude.

Augustine

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: agustine To Mr. Ken Carman. With respect to your comment Just a thought, without the intention of offending, it appears to me from your unremitting attention that you are just as much a dogmatist in your denunciations as those to which you allude. Augustine

The differences between a "dogmatist" (Is there really such a word? If so... serves its purpose well.) ...and one who is not, I would assume, is when that person insists his belief has to be right, questioning is "heresy," and doubt in such belief wrong. I make no such claims, about anything I say, believe or surmise. Never have.

[agustine]

To Ken Carman. With respect to your comment

(Is there really such a word? If so... serves its purpose well.)

I'll save you the suspense: Yes! With respect to your comment

questioning is "heresy,"

No sir, not at all. Heresy is false teaching. I am not aware of anyone branded a heretic who merely asked questions. With respect to your comment

is when that person insists his belief has to be right,

I assume you believe yourself to be right, or at least the content of your proposition to be right. Correct me if I am wrong.

Augustine

[Jack]

From what I've read of Ken's posts, I'd say he considers his opinions to be relatively true as opposed to absolutely true. He's willing to change his opinion based on newly acquired information, while someone who is dogmatic adheres to their beliefs and ignores or demeans new information.

[agustine]

To Isherwood. With respect to your comment

he considers his opinions to be relatively true as opposed to absolutely true.

What do you mean "relatively true"? Truth is by definition exclusive, in that it excludes its opposites. I do not understand your comment. With respect to your comment

He's willing to change his opinion based on newly acquired information, while someone who is dogmatic adheres to their beliefs and ignores or demeans new information.

The question stands: is he dogmatic about the foregoing belief? Another words: is rigid adherence to the belief that a person should be willing to change his opinion based on newly acquired information, while eschewing a person who adheres to their beliefs and ignores or demeans new information in itself a dogma? It appears as so to me. The problem is that you are looking for the universal solvent without realizing that it dissolves everything it comes into contact with.

Augustine

[Jack]

What do you mean "relatively true"?

Relative to new information, not other truths. Beliefs are true relative to the information they're based on. When the information base is updated or enlarged, the truth of an opinion may have to be updated or enlarged as well.

Another words: is rigid adherence to the belief that a person should be willing to change his opinion based on newly acquired information, while eschewing a person who adheres to their beliefs and ignores or demeans new information in itself a dogma?

Philosophical word games. OK, every person holding any opinion is dogmatic. Let's not let common discussions become absurd.

The problem is that you are looking for the universal solvent without realizing that it dissolves everything it comes into contact with.

An allegory pertaining to ...?

BTW-how does any of this relate to the thread's topic?

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: agustine To Ken Carman. With respect to your comment I'll save you the suspense: Yes! With respect to your comment No sir, not at all. Heresy is false teaching. I am not aware of anyone branded a heretic who merely asked questions. With respect to your comment I assume you believe yourself to be right, or at least the content of your proposition to be right. Correct me if I am wrong. Augustine

Odd, one of my Grand Uncles, Mr. Ingersoll (sure you've heard the name), was branded a heretic, even in my own family, not for what he wrote but for the questions he raised. I suppose, like most words, it depends on who uses it and how it is used. I don't remember the burnings of heretics, once again my family had at least three, being only for for "false teaching." In fact a Great...GGGGGGG (etc) Aunt was slaughtered for "heresy" during the reign of Bloody Mary. She wasn't a teacher. She wasn't a writer. They basically came to her door and demanded allegiance. She said that she wouldn't take sides. The charge? "Heresy."

I suppose that, back then, "heretic" was used more "liberally," perhaps "loosely" would be a better term... just like "terrorist" or "helping terrorists" is now.

I don't share most people's concept of words being concete concepts, btw. Just about the time the next dictionary comes out the meaning of many words changes, in very small, to very large ways, due to usage. Dictionarys help, but it's a little like nailing down pea soup over the long haul, historically.

Of course I "assume" I'm right. But assumption doth not a dogmatic person make. It's how much you insist it's not assumption... but absolute truth that is unquestionable. There's little I put in that category, if anything.

As Grandpa used to say, with a smile, "I could be wrong. I was... once."

(Yes, that was just a joke... from this Carman, and the deceased one.)

[Eclipse]

Well, after watching it I was somewhat almost convinced and then the IAA told Cameron to close the tomb back up after being in there for a few minutes because of a safety concern with the children in the area :rolleyes: . There was a previously unknown inscription above one of the places where a body would lay and they couldn't go back in to check it out among other possible findings. After that the documentary ended.

I think Cameron hit the mark but I'm not a total expert. Was the documentary accurate in its claims and estimations?

[Gods_Mercenary]

As far as I know, they aren't making any decisions, the thought of making up your mind based on ridiculously common names is silly.

[Eclipse]

I understand the reason why someone would not make up their mind but with historical clues and contexts and associations you can come to a probable theory and have that as your conclusion. This is what must be done when looking at a historical context. How can anyone make any conclusions in history without doing so. In this case it was highly probable if the bible accounts for real historical people. I think the statician calculated it out to be 1/600 that it was not Jesus with just the commonly known names and then 1/60 000 or 600 000 with the other names also found in the tomb and then this increased from there with the addition of further work. The purpose of statistics would be to say that there is not enough statistical evidence against the hypothesis.

If they were able to take a look at the insciptions edged into the tomb they may have found more evidence. They found stuff that no one has ever looked at before or even thought to touch base on. They tested the DNA of a Mariamne and found that it was buried in the family tomb with Jesus but did not come from the same mother and that Mariamne was a very rare name and was associated with Jesus in biblical scripture in her own Gospel and Philips gospel. The name we associate it with today was Mary Magdaline. From there they found more possible evidence. It was at the least an intriguing perception. Nick names and whatnot that were unique to the people.

Also they found historical symbols of christianity that may be the earliest signs of it. The inverted V with a dot in it and the last letter of the alphabet which was a semblance to a cross. No one has claimed to have any historical symbol beyond that of the cross with the allowance of Christians by Constantine. It was a good hypothesis.

With my previous question I guess I was asking if any of these name associations were pure misconceptions or if anyone found anything that was obvious evidence against the theory.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Zhavric Let's get one thing straight: I am no one's "very own". I'm willing to listen to Cameron's claims, but I'm highly skeptical of them. Atheists hold the gospel Jesus never existed, theists will hold that Jesus was resurrected and both camps will point out that a poor carpenter wouldn't warrant an elaborate tomb.

The atheists do not necessarily argue that Jesus never existed. The argue that God and the incarnate Son of God portrayed as Jesus never existed.

The gospels only provide brief disconnected parts of Jesus's bibliography. We do not have enough details concerning his economic status. Both His wife and Him have impressive geneologies, and to maintain these records you have to literate and at least merchant class to what at the time would be middle class as the tomb bears witness, and be some what connected family wise to have this impresive ancestory, therefore it is unlikely that Jesus and his family were very poor.

The tomb was not elaborate. It was more typical of the merchant class of Jeruselum, and their are many tombs like this one.

This tomb actually fits well with what Jesus and his family were most likely had at that time, but that does mean that this is the tomb of Jesus and His family.

I don't see it as being all that radical a find. Apologists will ask "Were there bones in it?" and have appropriate propagandist answers for a yes or no answer... No will mean they'll stick with their story and yes will mean they'll have to get a little creative.

It may be a significant find if it was fully investigated properly, but considering the circumstances this may not happen.

We also know from Josephus there were at least a half-dozen noteworthy Jews with the name "Yeshua" (Jesus) living around 2000 years ago. It could very easily have been one of them as Yeshua was a common name.

The argument for it being the tomb is not based on the just the presence of the Yeshua burial box, but the selection of boxes which fit the family Jesus with considerable accuracy.

[namguy69]

I never believed for a moment they found the tomb of Christ. Just like when 'they' were looking for the Arc of the Covenant....never found that either. Take your rock hammers and chip away....good luck.

[Jack]

I thought it was a shame that once again we are denied a definitive result, an indisputable finding. Geraldo's vault, the StarGate version. I think the show on Discovery was over-hyped for what it produced. Maybe, could be, if you turn your head just right... It makes scientists look like a person trying like hell to see the image of Jesus in a piece of toast. And a show based on scientific inquiry doesn't need all the drama. It was like they were all trying too hard to appear "scientific", professional and profound.

Why should we expect to find Jesus' tomb? It's quite possible he never existed. If he did, there's no reason to expect that we could locate his particular tomb out of all the land in that area. Most tomb discoveries are serendipitous. We face worse odds hoping to ever find his body. How many remains do we have of people from that era? It can't be many. And the ark? A wooden boat? Maybe if there's a bog at the top of Mt. Ararat, and it sank in that...

And let's say we did find a tomb that by some means we could say had been Jesus". So what? All it would show is that there had been a Jesus. Somehow a very natural location would have to yield supernatural evidence. Yeah, that happens all the time.

[Eclipse]

Why should we expect to find Jesus' tomb? It's quite possible he never existed. If he did, there's no reason to expect that we could locate his particular tomb out of all the land in that area.

Finding a tomb provides a historical or archaeological context to see into the past and understand something about it. If it was simply a christian family it provides an insight as such. If we could actually have highly probable evidence for a find, then the insight is all the more worth its weight in knowledge.

It's quite possible he never existed.

Same with written accounts of people I suppose. But finding the city of Troy or the possible tomb of Agamegnon (sp?) is a lot of insight to understand history or to say this story is about real people and hence more understanding.

And let's say we did find a tomb that by some means we could say had been Jesus". So what? All it would show is that there had been a Jesus.

It could provide more insight into the day and age, life and death of a man of that nature and how those men were treated. It would also set the story straight with his family for instance.

Somehow a very natural location would have to yield supernatural evidence. Yeah, that happens all the time.

What do you mean? Evidence is always dubitable? Yeah, I see what you mean especially in such a controversial case.