http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000
2007-10-25 08:51:29 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Just click on it,, takes you directly to the page of evidence.
2007-10-25 08:57:30 · update #1
Feuerverger multiplied the instances that each name appeared during the tomb's time period with the instances of every other name. He initially found "Jesus Son of Joseph" appeared once out of 190 times, Mariamne appeared once out of 160 times and so on.
To be conservative, he next divided the resulting numbers by 25 percent, a statistical standard, and further divided the results by 1,000 to attempt to account for all tombs — even those that have not been uncovered — that could have existed in first century Jerusalem.
The study concludes that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb. In other words, the conclusion works 599 times out of 600.
2007-10-25 09:08:04 · update #2
Does it matter?,..No it does not, My stance with Jesus will never change
2007-10-25 08:55:34 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They have found evidence that some people died and were buried, and their names may well have been Jesus, Mary, Mary, Joseph and Judah, or a variation thereof.
All of these were very common names at the time. There is no evidence whatsoever that these are actually the remains of the mythic figures described in the Christian Bible.
UPDATE:
So this guy comes up with a figure that there were only 1000 tombs in Jerusalem throughout that entire century??
I think he severely underestimates the chances that these tombs might represent someone else entirely. Does he include any other variations of these names (the tombs themselves don't fit the variations usually seen in most Biblical accounts)? How about the possible range in time that this tomb may have come from - what evidence is there that it is necessarily only from that specific century? What evidence is there that this 'tomb' was not something created and lost a hundred years after the real Jesus, Mary and Judah died, and put together by some of the Magdalene worshippers then?
If they were less common names, I'd be more inclined to being impressed, however it's remarkable how often some names show up. My own name is quite common (Mike) - in grade 9, there were six Mikes in my class. That same class also held two Neil McDonalds. What are the chances of that?
In University, there was another friend of mine whose name was Mike. Both of our fathers were named Robert. And we both (independently) happened to be dating women named Joanne at the same time. These kinds of naming synchronicities are more common than you might realize.
2007-10-25 08:58:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they found the tomb. But they discovered it was not the tomb of Jesus C. Just somebody else. And how would they have tested the DNA samples anyway? Are there some Jesus samples somewhere? Besides, according to the Magdalene gospels, Mary M. had a girl in France, named Sarah, I believe.
2007-10-25 09:04:31 · answer #3 · answered by magix151 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Lots of 'probably', 'maybe', and 'could be' s in it.
Where did they get Jesus' DNA to compare for proof.
And Juda was Jesus' BROTHER
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
And Jesus' tomb is EMPTY!
2007-10-25 09:06:43 · answer #4 · answered by Molly 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. DNA evidence is COMPLETELY USELESS.
Do you know what Jesus's DNA coding was? If not, then you can't POSSIBLY use DNA evidence...
2. Just because you find a tomb that says "here lies Jesus" doesn't mean that the immortal Messiah's body is there. Has it ever occured to you that there might have been more than one "Jesus" in the world?
3. Ahhh its a Jew-plot!!!!!
(Lol, ok that was dumb)
2007-10-25 08:59:17 · answer #5 · answered by CanadianFundamentalist 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You call this strong evidence?
All those names were the most common of names at that time and location.
It is all highly speculative.
.
2007-10-25 08:59:48 · answer #6 · answered by Hogie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure, I'll take a peek. Gimmie awhile to respond.
***
Looks a little dubious to me. I'll have to research it some more.
Meanwhile, there are some opposing points of view on wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus
2007-10-25 08:56:47 · answer #7 · answered by Emperor Insania Says Bye! 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No it was disproved 20 years ago !!!
2007-10-25 09:00:38 · answer #8 · answered by rapturefuture 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nah! Send it to me when its a proven fact.
2007-10-25 08:55:27 · answer #9 · answered by mariposa 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
that page is a search bar.
2007-10-25 08:55:46 · answer #10 · answered by miniejllo 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋