what if they really would have found the bones of Jesus what would u do as a Cristian?

Answer 1

How could they find His bones if there are no bones? Christ has risen, and He rules and reigns on the right hand of God Almighty!

Answer 2

I would still keep believing. No matter what happened to the bones, it didn't affect the faith of the first christians, who saw exactly what happened to Jesus' body, so why should it affect mine. The people I think will have the hardest time with this will be the ones who are more concerned with doctrine, words and facts, not the ones who practice what Jesus tought. As for the anti-christians, the ones who said Jesus didn't exist will have to reverse their claim and come up with a new argument.

On that note, I do not think they found Jesus' bones. I just read that there was a fraud allegation over the James box and five men in Israel were prosecuted in 2003 over it. And as someone mentioned here, Simcha Jacobovici seems to be more of a sensationalist rather than taking time to check the facts.

A 2003 CNN story describes the fraud issue surrounding the bones. I also posted some others.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/18/jesus.box/index.html

Answer 3

First off, it's Christian, because Jesus was the Christ. As for your question, if they really found the bones of Jesus, how would they know? They don't have any DNA from Jesus. He didn't have and children, and if he did, how would we know? There is no way to tell if they found the bones of Jesus, so I'll just stick to my beliefs and say that his body rose from the dead on the 3rd day after his death, and he ascended into the right hand of God, and one day, he will return to judge the living and the dead.

Answer 4

Fire Princess so far is the ONLY person who actually answered the question. Everyone else went into [what I call] 'religion-sqeak" mode and squeaked ONLY what they have been taught to say when something threatens their religion. They are not stating what they beleive - only what they are taught to say.

I'm non-christian, and if they really are the bones of Jesus, I would be saying - "its about bl**dy time, now can we stop the ride, I wanna get off.".

Answer 5

To answer your question, if they would have found the bones of Jesus, I would be hurt, crushed and extremely disappointed to find out that everything I have believed was a lie. I would probably renounce my faith and believe my life was over as I knew it. No heaven, no hell, what do I believe after something like that it revealed? But, that's just me answering the question that you asked.

Answer 6

1) Nothing is new here: scholars have known
about the ossuaries ever since March of 1980, so
this is old news recycled. The general public
learned when the BBC filmed a documentary on them
in 1996, and the “findings” tanked again.. James
Tabor’s book, The Jesus Dynasty, also made a big
fuss over the Talpiot tombs more recently, and
now James Cameron (The Titanic) and Simcha
Jacobovici have climbed aboard the sensationalist
bandwagon as well. Another book comes out today,
equally as worthless as the previous.

2) All the names – Yeshua (Joshua, Jesus),
Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose
-- are extremely common Jewish names for that
time and place, and thus nearly all scholars
consider that these names are merely
coincidental, as they did from the start. Some
scholars dispute that “Yeshua” is even one of the
names. One out of four Jewish women at that
time, for example, were named Maria. There are
21Yeshuas cited by Josephus, the first-century
Jewish historian, who were important enough to be
recorded by him, with many thousands of others
that never made history. The wondrous
mathematical odds hyped by Jacobovici that these
names must refer to Jesus and his family are
simply playing by numbers and lying by statistics.

3) There is no reason whatever to equate “Mary Magdalene” with “Mariamene,”
as Jacobovici claims. And so what if her DNA is
different from that of “Yeshua” ? That
particular “Mariamme” (as it is usually spelled
today) could indeed have been the wife of that
particular “Yeshua,” who was certainly not Jesus.

4) Why in the world would the “Jesus Family” have
a burial site in Jerusalem, of all places, the
very city that crucified Jesus? Galilee was
their home. In Galilee they could have had such
a family plot, not Judea. Besides all of which,
church tradition and the earliest Christian
historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, are unanimous in
reporting that Mary, the mother of Jesus, died in
Ephesus, where the apostle John, faithful to his
commission from Jesus on the cross, had accompanied her.

5) The “Jesus Family” simply could not have
afforded the large crypt uncovered at Talpiot,
which housed, or could have housed, 200 ossuaries.

6) If this were Jesus’ family burial site, what
is Matthew doing there – if indeed “Matia” is thus to be translated?

7) How come there is no tradition whatever –
Christian, Jewish, or secular -- that any part of
the Holy Family was buried at Jerusalem?

8) Please note the extreme bias of the director
and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici. The man is an
Indiana-Jones-wannabe who oversensationalizes
anything he touches. You may have caught him on
his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which the
man “explained” just about everything that still
needed proving or explaining in the Exodus
account in the Old Testament! It finally became
ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again, though in
reverse: this time attacking the Scriptural
record. – As for James Cameron, how do you
follow the success of The Titanic? Well, with an
even more “titanic” story. He should have known
better, and the television footage of the two
making their drastic statements on Monday,
February 26 was disgusting, and their subsequent
claim that they respected Jesus nauseating.

9) Even Israeli authorities, who – were they
anti-Christian – might have used this “discovery”
to discredit Christianity, did not do so. Quite
the opposite. Joe Zias, for example, for years
the director of the Rockefeller Museum in
Jerusalem, holds Jacobovici’s claims up for scorn
and his documentary as “nonsense.” Those
involved in the project “have no credibility
whatever,” he added. – Amos Kloner, the first
archaeologist to examine the site, said the
conclusions in question fail to hold up by
archaeological standards “but make for profitable
television.” -- William Dever, one of America’s
most prominent archaeologists, said, “This would
be amusing if it didn’t mislead so many people.”

10) Finally, and most importantly, there is no
external literary or historical evidence whatever
that Jesus’ family was interred together in a
common burial place anywhere, let alone
Jerusalem. The evidence, in fact, totally
controverts all this in the case of Jesus: all
four Gospels, the letters of St. Paul, and the
common testimony of the early church state that
Jesus rose from the dead, and did not leave his
bones behind in any ossuary, as the current sensationalists claim.

Bottom line: this is merely naked hype, baseless
sensationalism, and nothing less than a media fraud, “more junk on Jesus.”

Answer 7

The bible teaches that Jesus rose into heaven, and is on the right hand of His Father, so those must be the bones of someone else. That is why He said to study to show your self approved. Search the scriptures! So when false statements come your way, you will no the truth from non-truth.

Answer 8

Hello Siar.. :)

Then I would say..they have the wrong Jesus..

For the Jesus that changed my life and my heart towards everyone for the better, died on a cross for our sins, then was placed in a tomb and Praise the Lord my Lord rose again.. :)

In Jesus Most Precious Name..
With Love..In Christ.. :)

Answer 9

That would make absolutely no difference to me - I'm a Christian for believing in Christ's words and teaching, and not because of his divine/non-divine nature! I would admire to his ethics if he was a talking frog, let alone a man.

Answer 10

It would change nothing. As a Christian pastor, I celebrate the life of the very human Jesus. His resurrection refers to the overpowering conviction of his followers that even after death, their Lord was still with them. St. Paul, the earliest of the Christian writers, never referred to a physical resurrection, or an empty tomb. St. Mark, the earliest gospel, introduces the empty tomb into Christian literature forty years after Jesus died. And even Mark recites no resurrection appearances--indeed it is announced by a "young man" not an angel.

Christ was important because he taught us how to live. The sermon on the mount is much more challenging than the issue of what happened to the bones.