ok christians and the bones of jesus...?

Question

do any of you read the article or anything? or do you immediatly dismiss it without reading it?

u ask how they were identified, in the article, it says the names were written in the tomb. a minimal chance of all those names coming up were like 1 in 600...

second, the dna they "matched" was the dna from one casket to another to see if they were blood related.

i dont care if u believe it or not, but dont bash on it without researching it. im skeptical too... but that doesnt mean to go out and throw stupid arguments because u didnt research it.

Answer 1

THANK YOU CHIPPY!! I've been saying that all week! These people who are dismissing it outright or even saying it's true without having looked at any of it don't have a clue what they're talking about.

How about we all just wait for Sunday's airing of the film before passing judgment one way or another?

Answer 2

I just read the book "The Jesus family tomb". Before reading the book I was extremely skeptical. I really didn't believe it was too likely Jesus existed at all. The case made in the book seems very strong however. Much better than I would have guessed based on media information. Of course I still believe Jesus was merely a human who had a cult following. But I find the likelihood that they found his bones to be high. And yes I do know how unlikely that sounds.

The information presented in the book.

A tomb was found containing 10 ossuaries. The tomb was opened by professional archeologists and the ossuaries were removed and catalogued by experts. One ossuary was stolen.

Of the nine remaining ossuaries. The following inscriptions were interpreted.

Jesus son of Joseph
Mary
Mariamnene the Master
Josey
Mathew
Judah son of Jesus

Mitochondrial DNA testing found That Jesus and Mariamne were not related.

In ancient texts Mary Magdalene had been known as Miriamnene and also as the master.

Josey was mentioned in the bible as the name of one of Jesus's brothers.

Chemical testing indicates the James Ossuary to identically match the soil found at the Jesus tomb site. The James Ossuary first turned up on the market within a year after the tomb had been opened.

The size of the James ossuary matches the missing ossuary.

Several designs on the ossuaries may match those described in ancent scripture.

Thats about it: Yes individually the names are common but together they present a pretty good case.

I would only suggest reading the book for yourself and drawing your own conclusions. In my opinion it is either a bizarre coincidence or real. The chance of fraud is remote given the reputation of those discovering it and the fact those people did not promote it at all.

I do think it is interesting how quickly people jump to conclusions one way or the other before seeing the evidence.

Answer 3

First of all the original excavation of the site was by a man named Amos Kloner. That was in 1980. The BBC did a documentary in the early nineties making the same claim. Now the discovery channel is doing the same old song and dance!!?? Amos Kloner has called the documentary "nonsense". The man has also stated that the hyped up film is intellectually and scientifically dishonest! When the original archaeologist speaks about the stunt like that, you can bet it is a fraud. Other than that there is too much evidence from researching the archives and history of the site from the last twenty seven years to believe that this is the grave of the Son of God. Hell even the Jewish scholars are scoffing at the flimsy evidence the documentary is flaunting as proof.
Jesus was a carpenter from Nazareth. Historically a poor family would bury the body in a grave. Only the wealthy could afford the urns and tomb. In the Jerusalem area men were identified as "son of smith" or "brother of mac-smith" but in the area where the Christ came from the identity was with their city or town. Like " William of Rock-ton" or "Frances of Montreal". In this case it is "Jesus of Nazarene" or "the Nazarene". His family was a poor family and definetly could not afford a tomb.
The coming documentary is hailed as a fraud by the most respected scholars of the time. I wouldn't put any stock in it for validity of history.

Answer 4

So far history has told us that these types of claims always prove to be bogus. The 2 key pieces of evidence: 1) the dna is absolutely irrelevant, how can a match be made?, and 2) the names are circumstantial even with the 1:600 odds.
Do not forget that the last time this happened, that even the text written on the tomb was a hoax. Any time there is a potential for millions of dollars to be made, the potential for fraud increases dramatically-see the Da Vinci Code!

Answer 5

Are you actually arguing in favor of the these bones being those of Jesus of Nazareth?

I'll help you out here...

The DNA testing that needs to be done is to compare with a known sample from Jesus' family. I'll give you a hint: CODUS has nothing on file from his family!

What are the odds of finding that all the people in a tomb are related? I think about 100% when you consider the fact that all tombs were family tombs! That's sort of the way they did it back then! There were no "public" tombs; they were too expensive.

So the only evidence you have left are the names, and these are among the most common names in use at that time!

Don't be a bonehead. We're a LONG way from proving anything.

Answer 6

Yes, I read the articles on two sources. I was trying to find a positive source. That is; one who approved or believed the finding. I Googled it and spent about a half an hour trying to find someone who felt positive about the story, which had come out years ago and was reported by the BBC. All I got was reasons why the 'finding' was not well founded.

I like the show, " The Naked Archaeologist" . But I saw that the host was there with Cameron. I was disappointed.

Answer 7

Sorry, Chippie, but YOU seem to be the one not doing your homework.

This "discovery" was made in 1982! The archaeologist who found the ossuaries later confessed that it was a hoax, that he'd fudged the evidence by doing the "writing" himself. He's currently awaiting trial for fraud.

The occupants of the ossuaries are related, but the remains belong to a well-to-do merchant family. The Holy Family didn't have the bucks to afford a rock-cut tomb. Remember, those things hadda be dug with hand tools and that kind of labor didn't come cheap.

James Cameron is trying to capitalize on the phenomenal success of last year's Magnum Opiate, The DaVinci Code, an equally specious bit of mythological nonsense with less credibility than a unicorn, but a VERY bank-balance boosting bit of Hollywoodiana. Maybe he spent all the boodle from Titanic?

Answer 8

the Bible says Jesus was buried alone in a privately owned sepulchre, not a grave site with other people. Also, dna varies from person to person, even if they are related, and the only places Jesus bled were in the garden of Gethsemane, in Pilate's palace where he was whipped with the cat of nine tails, and on Mount Calvary. Also, Jesus was a common name back then just like the name Mary and John and Joseph. (Jesus' mother, cousin, and "father" respectively).
"Jesus' bones" were also supposedly found in 1988 I believe, or somewhere there about. So I don't take the article seriously.

Answer 9

Honestly? I don't know about the whole thing, too many conflicting stories and vested interests and really, I do not care all that much.

History has shown us that believers will go on believing even when confronted directly with evidence that they are wrong.

I hope the dust will settle eventually and the truth will surface, and I will wait until then.

Answer 10

I researched it and discovered that those bones cannot be and are not the bones of Jesus Christ. The article and the source of the article is as believable as many of the "questions" posed by the atheists here.