someone explain, if it's supposedly jesus's bones,
don't they need a sample of DNA of jesus to prove it was him, but they don't i think cuz he live thousands of years ago...
i don't get it...
how can they tell its jesus's bones with science...
archaelogy or whatever?
2007-03-02 01:08:29 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
jbvail258...: ya but like u said, it's only a legend if jesus' bloodline is carried out to the marivigain family....
it does sound like total crap actually
2007-03-02 01:30:10 · update #1
Because there were nails in the hands and feet, and he was wearing a t-shirt that said "I was sacrificed for the sin of all mankind and all I got was this crappy T-shirt".
2007-03-02 01:12:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
If there is enough physical evidence and documentation to support the claim than DNA isn't always necessary.
If we go to any graveyard in the world and pull up a cadaver that is a few hundred years old, it is unlikely we would have any way of finding dna outside of what is in the casket; does that mean we don't believe the inscription on the stone?
It would be cool if there were some dna on the Shroud of Tourin or if someone had that spear which cut his side when he was on the cross; cause if there could be definitive proof that the bones are the Christ's; well that would basically spell the end of the Church.
2007-03-02 09:17:47 · answer #2 · answered by zaphodsclone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
New explanation, Jesus was the son of an unmarried woman,they ran to Josephs house so she wasn't stoned for prostitution. What happened if there were triplets or twins(identical) ?
They certainly would not let that be known,in case the authorities wanted to kill the child. It would explain why Jesus was seen in different places at the same time as well as why the bones were said to be buried in different places. Also the "bible" was only put together by some priest much later (I think 200 yrs) after any of the stuff even happened. Also it (the bible) had many other scrolls that wasn't included because of prejudice.Why do Christians believe that what's in the bible today is even close to what really occurred?
2007-03-04 14:37:44 · answer #3 · answered by God 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i've been wondering the same thing to and i can only come up with one possible way they could do it.
i dont know if you saw the divinci code or not but according to legend, the bloodline of Jesus was carried on by the marivingian family in france. since they dont have jesus's DNA, i'm guessing that if they used a sample of marivingian DNA and compared it to the DNA they found in the supposed bones of jesus and there were enough similarities, they could conclude that they were at least descendants or close family of Jesus. This in itself isn't enough to say definitively that it's Jesus, but equally as controversial.
This is just my best guess but i'll be watching too
2007-03-02 09:25:35 · answer #4 · answered by jbvail2586 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Forget about two thousand years ago, lets bring this same issue up to today.
When the internet phonebooks were still free, I found 22 people listed accross the country with the same name as me.
2,000 years from now under the same conditions that the bones were found in 1980 how many people would swear which one was me?
2007-03-02 11:22:19 · answer #5 · answered by yars232c 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you saw the documentary, you know the statistics. You know that there were no bones to test, just scrapings from the ossuary. It is known that Yeshua bar Yoseph existed because he was named in reputable Roman documents of that time. It is SO great that science can begin to show the MAN Jesus was, instead of the god-monster that stupid human myth-makers created.
2007-03-05 13:35:18 · answer #6 · answered by cartimandi 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they look just like God's bones, and we all know Jesus took after his Dad.
2007-03-02 09:22:14 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the people who claimed this knew their Bible, they'd know it couldn't be the bones of Jesus.
2007-03-02 09:59:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Presumably it was the remains of an adult male with only half the normal genetic complement - after all, it was a virginal conception, so there was no dna contribution from the dad, was there...
2007-03-02 09:13:43 · answer #9 · answered by RM 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I will share with you my belief. They can't possibly be Jesus's bones because he died and on the third day he rose...so He is in heaven....including His bones. He is alive.
2007-03-02 09:15:31 · answer #10 · answered by LG 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Im with ya on that one,,,,,,, but,,,,, think a lil more,,,,,, they just do some forensics on the first edition of the bible,,,,,,, its his autobiography isnt it lol surely its got his prints on it,,,, and they gotta have them on file lmao
2007-03-02 09:15:32 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋