What do you think? One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070226/ap_on_re_us/jesus_s_burial;_ylt=AuH2nkMWrAr_Tdb7ZfW6knlH2ocA
2007-02-26 07:20:02 · 25 answers · asked by Mike J 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Obviously, you people would deny Jesus if they really did find him.
2007-02-26 08:05:53 · update #1
I read about this yesterday from more neutral sources.. the bias evident in that article is pathetic. The writer glosses over the main points and goes straight for the unsubstantiated counter points of the christians. The statistical probability of these names appearing together with these relations (who was related to who was determined with DNA) by sheer coincidence is 0.16%... that means there is a 99.84% probability of this being the correct tomb. Of course that wasn't mentioned in the yahoo article - which was evidently written by a "yahoo."
2007-02-26 07:34:56 · answer #1 · answered by Mike K 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I saw an interview on the Today's show this morning with James Cameroon (the guy that made Titantic) and another film maker. I will watch it to see what they have to say. But It wasn't Mary Magdelene, it was a different Mary and it was Judah being a bloodchild of Jesus, it was Judah the disciple that committed suicide after betraying Jesus. Many think that they already found the Tomb that Jesus' body laid for 3 days. They found that tomb over 20 years ago.
Jesus never had a child with any woman. Whether you believe that Jesus is the Son of God or is God the Son, He wasn't sent here to have sexual relations with anyone nor to have children. He was here to teach people about God and to redeem our souls for eternal salvation. It makes no sense to why Jesus would have sex and have children. Then His children would be holy, blessed, without original sin, etc. Meaning there are divine descendents living on earth today. There is only one divine person - Jesus.
2007-02-26 07:29:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The bone boxes have been known for quite some time. There was even a very good novel written about them several years ago. The ossuaries were empty when found I believe.
The problems involved are many, and as always it will have to remain a matter of faith. Particularly because the highly charged nature of any discussion both with religious and political concerns. There are special problems with any antiquities in today's Israel. Things like the excavation of Masada by Yigael Yadin in the 1960's serve as an example, the archaeology was very bad, the assumptions were wildly popular but wildly off the mark. And so it will continue.
2007-02-26 13:05:40 · answer #3 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yeah I heard about it. I think it would cool, and very funny, if it was actually Jesus because then all those people that were so avidly against Jesus marrying Mary of Magdala were wrong. But, Jesus and Mary were very common names back then (there were like 12 Marys in the Bible), so was Judah. So I doubt it's Jesus - the Christian savior - Jesus, I think it's a different Jesus. But who knows? I waiting for the carbon dating.
2007-02-26 07:41:07 · answer #4 · answered by Caity S 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I did hear this. I was immediately drawn to the conversation Jesus had, on the Mount of Olives; when he told his disciples not to believe the hype of false Messiahs. In Matthew 24, you can read the entire thing.
.......23" At that time, if someone says to you,'Look!Here's the Messiah!' or, 'There he is!' dont believe him. 24) For there will appear false Messiahs and false prophets performing great miracles-amazing things-so as to fiil even the chosen, if possible. There! I have told you in advance!So if people say to you,'Listen! He's out in the desert!' dont go; or, 'LOOK! HE'S HIDDEN AWAY IN A SECRET ROOM!' DON'T BELIEVE IT.....
2007-02-26 07:35:32 · answer #5 · answered by Erin 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
>>One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son.<<
I have no doubt there is a "Judah, son of Jesus." (You do understand that was as common a name as "John Smith", right?)
2007-02-26 07:28:17 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
These were the most common names for the time. Also when this was found in the 1980s it was dismissed as the tomb of other people not Jesus of Nazareth.
2007-02-26 07:24:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 0⤋
Jesus was a common name. These ossuaries were found earlier and the bones were removed. You are jumping the gun. Wait for the DNA tests and you will find the Bible and the Word of God still unchanged and perfect as written.
2007-02-26 07:31:13 · answer #8 · answered by Jeancommunicates 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yep, most asked question today.
What does it actually prove? nothing really. DNA testing will only go so far as to say this was someone who of middle-eastern descent and lived approximately 2 thousand years ago.. these names are all common names at that time... so even if they translated correctly, how does this prove that it was the Jesus of the bible?
2007-02-26 07:26:49 · answer #9 · answered by Kallan 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
They THINK that's what they might have found. I, personally, am skeptical. What are the chances that they found the tombs of THOSE particular people, out of millions of people who have died in that area over the past 2000 years? And those names were very common in that time, in that area. It will be an interesting show to watch, I think, but it won't convince me.
(I'm an atheist, for the record.)
2007-02-26 07:26:02 · answer #10 · answered by Jess H 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋