The Significance of the Jesus Tomb

If verified, this is extremely significant. It would show that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child, Judah, as written about in the DaVinci Code. To those who wonder how DNA testing will be used here, they will use it to verify the members of the tomb (including many others) were indeed related as specified on the tombs. This would verify that the man buried in the tomb of Jesus indeed had a Child, Judah, with Mary Magdalene.

And for those wondering if this really is Jesus, well, statistically, it is extremely unlikely that it is not. This is just from the names on the tombs. Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, husband of Mary Magdalene are all written on the tombs, as are other names of relatives. In order for that to happen more than once statiscally, there would have to be a city 8 times the population of Jerusalem for a period of 100 years, something we know is not true.

This finding will validate events captured in the Gospel of Judas (the Catholic Church has known of many Gospels other than the 4 in the Bible, but only recently has verified that they existed). It would also give merit to Gospel's accuracy and bring into question many new things about the Church (Catholic). Indeed, this finding, if verified, will rock the Christian world.

I'd be delighted.

Not speaking for the poster, but I assume this is what he/she means.
:shrug:

It only has Mary Magdalene finding the empty tomb, and running away because she was afraid. The Gospel ends abruptly there, and no one knows what the original ending to Mark was. A newer ending was added to Mark by monks in the early Church, but not even the Catholic Church included that ending in their canon, although some Protestant Bibles do include it.

Christianity without a literal Resurrection would also validate the Gnostics who believe in Jesus' spiritual resurrection, not a physical one.

that Jesus saw his shadow and there were six more weeks of winter.

resurrected, and not to be afraid. (Then they fled.)

I just think they'll bury their heads in the sand some more.

on my religion and my spirituality.

As far as my faith and spirituality, I don't think much will change.

when they find out Jesus married a street walker.

Like I said in an earlier post, it makes no matter to me what he did when he was here. He was entitled to life as well and was sent here to become one of us anyhow, so what's the big deal?

And as caustic as it sounds, I can't see the 'Church' allowing this to be unearthed and disrupt the status quo they have fought so hard to maintain over the years when other 'discoveries' have come to light.

There was another Discovery show and it was great - showed how the Catholic Church STILL rules the world (Vatican bank et al) and has it's fingers in all the industrial stations in the world along with the freemasons. THAT was a show and a real eye-opener. That show should be 'must see tv' for EVERYONE!

a streetwalker.

As for the rest of this, it's about time that someone came to their senses and realized that if you could "prove" faith, it wouldn't be FAITH. Duh.

Maryam were extremly common names in those days.

It would be like finding a cemetery plot of some Americans named Mary and Joseph and their son Joshua and his wife Mary and their son Jude, and saying, "Oh, Jesus made it to America."

The tombs had the family heritage and relationships. A statistician already verified it would be extremely unlikely to have more than one family with the same configuration (would require 8 times the population for a period more than 100 years).

or the real Jesus? Just need some clarification there.....LOL!!!

it may take generations for this finding to catch on as accepted fact - however at this point it does not merit the label of accepted fact. We need to see the documentary, and have a debate among scholars before it is accepted fact.

Also, many of the extremely devout are way to quick to pass judgement and dismiss such findings or religion-rocking revelations (so to speak).

DNA evidence can tell us about the interrelationships of the people in the tomb, and carbon dating can tell us how long ago they died, but there's nothing to compare the DNA to, to give us an identity for them beyond that.

I like archaeology and ancient mysteries, but I think this is an instance where people are seeing what they want to see, not what's there. That's been true throughout the ages; every mysterious bone fragment or odd artifact seems to have been linked to Jesus or some other Biblical figure at some point. That's unfortunate, because we miss out on the real story, which might be much more diverse and interesting.

overwhelms your argument.

There is no record - zero, zilch, nada, nothing - in the Roman archives about the crucifixion of anyone who resembles the Biblical Jesus. Odd, that. The Romans kept meticulous records, and there are several historians who wrote in great detail during that day and age - and if a Jesus-like person was such a thorn in the Romans' side, not to mention that he had followers who went out and caused additional uproar, there would almost certainly have been some mention of it.

Only one of the gospel writers' lifetimes overlapped with the purported Jesus. The other three books were written decades-to-centuries after the supposed events. Oddly enough, the earliest account, which you would think would be the most detailed and accurate, is the sketchiest, giving almost no details as to Jesus' life and family. As the story evolves through the years, though, it becomes longer, more fleshed-out, more detailed and intricate. Of course, all the versions contradict each other at some point....

The tale of Jesus echoes an older myth (Persian, I believe) whose hero performs nearly identical miracles and comes to a nearly identical end; it would seem that only the names and locations have been updated.

While I don't doubt that there were religious teachers in that time and place who were spreading new ideas and breaking away from the old ways, from all the evidence I have seen I have to say, statistically, that it's doubtful the person of Jesus, as the individual who was written up in the Bible, ever in fact existed.

So we have a tomb containing a family from ancient times - which might be able to tell us fascinating things about how people lived in those days. What was their lifespan like? What sort of physical activity did they have to perform? (Fractures, bone density, and muscle scars can tell us that.) What sort of injuries and diseases were they prone to? What sort of foods did they eat? (Tooth wear can give a pretty good clue.) What were some of the burial customs and beliefs of that day and age? That's all fascinating stuff, to me. Why cheapen it by immediately trying to affix it to a myth?

Now, I'm not really intending to argue religion on this forum, but every time I see a reference to Jesus, whether in a historical sense or a moral sense ("What would Jesus do," for instance), I can't help but remind myself that "Jesus" is a conglomerate story that has been shaped through the ages by people who either wanted to influence others consciously, or unconsciously absorbed the stories as fact. Was there ever such an actual person? I say no. "Jesus" is a concept, like "peace" or "love" - in the right context something to aspire to, and therefore not entirely without merit - but not a concept that has left archaeological or historical evidence.

the gospels. My personal belief is that it was made up to try to control people and their behavior not to mention obtain power and wealth. The most amazing thing to me is that it still goes on after all these years. I have my own thoughts as to why. There is nothing else given so much credence in society with such little proof. I believe to claim it is based on faith shows that something can be ingrained into your brain and despite any evidence to the contrary you don't really challenge it. When I look back on my own journey I understand that way of thinking, but common sense prevailed. Still to tell people you're not Christian is frightening usually. I will put my morals up against anyones at anytime though. I am happy being a humanist. If Jesus did exist I think that's what he was anyway.

...as in, the character of Jesus, the hero of the tale, representing an ideal that people want to aspire to (but of course, you'd have to pick and choose among the aspects of the myth; for instance do you emulate the "love thy neighbor" Jesus, or the condemning Jesus? You'll find both in the scriptures) - but IMO it's not necessary to worship a divinity in order to aspire to those virtues. Having a man/god/person to visualize, may just make it easier and more immediate to some people. I don't really fault that. I have my own techniques for inspiring myself, and I say, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, do what works.

As a psychological study, it's fascinating how entire cultures can come to accept something as truth, without having any idea of its origin - and how tales evolve through the psyche of mankind through the centuries. History is re-written deliberately or unconsciously even over the course of decades; there are things that people take as a given today which, if you were to ask senior citizens, they would tell you "It wasn't like that at all."

But I definitely agree with you that "faith" has been used and misused since the dawn of time for the sake of control, wealth, and power. Not to say there aren't religious and spiritual leaders with genuinely good intentions, who haven't genuinely helped people. There are. But again, I don't think it's necessary to have a religious belief system to accomplish that same amount of good.

Not surprisingly, other experts agree. One problem here is that a couple of those remains were labeled in Latin. What are the odds that a bunch of Israelite revivalists like Jesus's family and apostles would allow their remains to be labeled in Latin instead of Hebrew or Aramaic? About nil, I'd say.

Sorry, but this great find smells like a publicity stunt to me. Let's just be grateful they didn't try it in Boston.

correct that the whole thing will be portrayed in that light by the people who fleece the flocks of the faithful.

and the biggest one of all is Bill "War On Christmas" Oreally from New York City.

Think about 100's of millions of people finding out all at once that everything they believed was wrong.

who do we get to oppress and ridicule now?

This finding doesn't invalidate Christianity, but it does change some Church dogma.

It affects religion, but it does not change the teachings of Christ or that to be Christian is to love God, love your neighbor, care for the poor and sick and seek peace on Earth.

If it's possible to prove that Jesus was a biological father? Assuming the church accepted the findings anyway, which is a whole separate matter.

Not sure the Catholic church would change it, but many people would start questioning it. Remember, the Catholic Church has many, many secrets. They knew about the Gospel of Judas before it was 'rediscovered'. It may be that some people in the Church may have known about this tomb as well.

that one of the Popes should have gotten them to put in a sense of humor commandment.

Sorry I missed it in your first post :-)

Pot calling kettle black. Why is it that oppressive people who love ridiculing those who don't believe as they do... seem to enjoy ridiculing religious people? OK....it is true that some religious people are just as oppressive and ridiculing....but hypocrisy is not monopolized by religious folk.....

really have the holy family's DNA on file somewhere?

It will be fascinating if it proves true but I guarantee you it will be denounced as heresy and that most churches will continue on as they always have. (Except for those who questioned His divinity in the first place. The life is more important than the death there.)

It's a matter of validating the relationships as specified by the tomb.

The tomb is considered to be of the time.

The family name configuration is statistically impossible to happen more than once given the population and timeframe in Jersualem.

So the only thing to validate is was Jesus the son of Joseph and Mary (both in the tomb) and was Judah the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

I've seen you make this claim several times, but have yet to see any source for it. "Statistically Impossible" according to whom?

For instance, the one in the documentary is University of Toronto mathematician Andrey Feuerverger.

Oh, and don't forget your calculator, Einstein.

then attack when someone has the temerity to ask that you back up your bullshit. Guess what... I'm simply not inclined to believe a couple of anonymous internet posters when they make an outrageous and hitherto unheard of claim such as the one expressed by Bernie. And I would seriously question the intellect of anyone who would.

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3369346,00.html

I'd be very interested to see what the rest of the real scientific community has to say about this.. so far, this whole issue can be filed alongside the Shroud of Turin and the James Ossuary in the "wishful thinking" category.

what a joke.

And which is the greater scam?

That a guy named Jesus resurrected and ascended, or that his descendants are running around, including George W Bush. Just waiting for Divine Right of Kings to make a comeback.

Some of them don't believe there were ever dinosaurs! Here's an article about the tomb:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1593893,00.html?cnn=yes

revolves around it. The Bible is the source of such belief.

This subject should stir a lively discussion!

there is no way what so ever to prove that this tomb was where jesus was buried or if jesus actually existed. one thing it does do -the story will make a lot of money...

It's driving me crazy to see so many apparently intelligent people who should have seen enough of these claims in their lifetime acting as though this one has any better chance of being proved authentic than any of the others. What do they think is going to prove that this is or isn't Jesus's tomb? What could possibly prove it one way or the other? The answer is nothing, but look through this thread and count how many are in touch with that fact. Shockingly few. Every other post says something like "If this is proven true..."--as though it could be! :wtf:

was that if these bones can be proven to belong to Jesus, thereby undermining the very foundation of Christianity, and Al Sharpton's DNA proves he is related to Strom Thurmond, we could be looking at the dawn of a brand spanking new religion.

at least that is what Opie Griffifth and Tom Hanks had me convinced of....

The cloud being deluded are tripping all over themselves to explain away any prospect or discussion of the find. Even if Cameron produced airtight evidence, the deluded would deny the find and/or call it some sort of "trick of the Devil."

If you're suggestible (gullable) enough to buy into a mythical cloud being, then you're probably also likely to use very primative psychological defense mechanisms when confronted with threats to that comforting delusion.

J

nt

This is just from the names on the tombs. Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, husband of Mary Magdalene are all written on the tombs... is probably a forgery just like the James ossuary. For those who don't know the story. A genuine ossuary of that period had a forged inscription on it indicating that it was of James the brother of Jesus. (I don't remember the exact incription.)

So this is probably a genuine tomb and sarcophagi and bones of that period, but the incription is probably a forgery and everyone should keep that in mind until the experts weigh in on it. If Jesus was a criminal, I doubt if he would have been living in family bliss with Mary Magdalene in the Holy Land and would be buried there even if he survived crucifixition. Also, considering that the Romans obliterated the place decades later scattering any Jews left alive to the four corners of the earth it's unlikely if they had escaped that they would be buried there as well.

... it's one of veracity.

The motivation for making a fake claim is extremely strong. The scrutiny that the claim should face should be equally strong.

This is the official site.

http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/

Personally, I am gonna read the book (out tomorrow), watch the documentary, and THEN form an opinion. However, the part about the inscription "Mary, the master" is fascinating.

That is not the translation:

"The Discovery Channel film proposes to read Mara as the Aramaic word ‘the master’ (as in Maranatha). But, since we know that Mara was used as an abbreviated form of Martha, in this context of names on an ossuary it is much more plausible to read it as a name. This woman had two names: Mariamenon and Mara. It could be that the latter in this case was used as an abbreviation of Mariamenou, or it could be that the woman was known by Mariamenon, treated as a Greek name, and the Aramaic name Mara, conforming to the common practice of being known by two names, Greek and Semitic."

"We can now turn to the inscription on the ossuary, which has, in Greek: MARIAMENOUMARA. The two words Mariamenou and Mara are written consecutively with no space between. This makes it rather unlikely that two women are named here. But Rahmani takes a small stroke between the last letter of Mariamenou and the first of Mara to be a Greek letter eta (long e). He takes this to be the relative pronoun he (eta with a rough breathing), reading: ‘Mariamnenou who Mara.’ (Note that this is different, it seems, from what the Discovery Channel do when they read the eta with a smooth breathing, meaning ‘or’.) There are parallels (I gather from Rahmani) to this abbreviated way of indicating two names for the same person."


http://www.christilling.de/blog/2007/03/guest-post-by-richard-bauckham.html

Can any one explain how it possibly could be?

are, not the claims Cameron makes for them.

As for statistics, there's an old saying about there being three kinds of lies: "lies, damned lies and statistics." Of course Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici cite stats that support their thesis. Like expert witnesses in court, one can find "experts" to provide info that supports one's thesis.

I've seen programs that feature Simcha Jacobovici and he puts forth interesting and provocative stuff that's fun, but he also takes imaginative leaps not necessarily supported by the evidence he cites and then puts it forward as fact. Fun to toss around, but not necessarily intellectually honest or accurate especially when he starts out with an agenda and as the saying goes "fixes the facts" to suit what he wants to "prove" and ignores those that don't support his thesis. 10 ossuaries were found in the tomb, what of the ones that don't "fit" their thesis?

Simply, Cameron's and Jacobovici's speculation, which is all that it is based upon common names in use at the time, cannot be proven. But their pseudo archaeology/history with spectacular claims will sell their film and book.

He was no more divine than the Roman gods and emperors that achieved divinity.

As to the OP, and Cameron and Jacobovici's appearance on Larry King tonight, they pretty much showed that the ossuary did have Mary from Magdala:

To assert that it does in itself is a leap of faith, not a matter of scientific evidence.

And is not evidence of any connection to a Biblical Jesus. What methodology was used to arrive at those stats, based on what data? What do statiscians/archaeologists who were not associated with the film say?

Jacobovici also works into his case as "evidence" his claim that the "James ossuary," the previous subject of another hyped "discovery" and documentary, is real and came from that same tomb. Although the inscriptions on the James ossuary have been declared modern forgeries and the forgers are facing trial. The director's response: it's just politics. Of course. It can't be that it really is a fraud because he's got a much better story by asserting that it's real.

That's Simcha Jacobovici's standard methodology: ignoring experts and evidence that don't support his thesis and stretching/creating interpretations of "evidence" that really don't support his claims but that he nevertheless cites as positive "proof" of his thesis. It's not intellectually honest and certainly not scientific, no matter how many numbers he throws around to make it sound like it's scientific. (Check out a book called "Lying With Statistics," an oldie but still relevant.)

His form of "archaeology" is entertainment, not science. His work can only be taken seriously if one avoids looking closely or logically at the bases for his claims. He's not a reporter, historian or scientist He's a showman with a product to sell: a $3.5 million film and a book deal.

Frankly, it wouldn't bother me at all if there was definitive proof of a historical Jesus (some people insist that he didn't exist and now I wonder if some of those same folks also now insist this is "proof" that he died, LOL). It wouldn't bother me if there were definitive proof that he had a gaggle of kids. Or even that he lived to a ripe old age.

But this stuff ain't anything of the sort. This is just hyped speculation and entertainment with a patina of (pseudo)science. It's in the same territory as "The DaVinci Code" and appeals to the same audience that accept that thesis is real although an essential part of Dan Brown's claims (that he "borrowed" from others) are based on an admitted fraud that was known to be a fraud years ago. It's part of the popular "dumbing down" and selling of entertainment as historical fact.

Again, uncritical acceptance of Jacobovicihi's claims and "evidence" is in itself a leap of faith, not logic or science.

As for citing statistics as if they are proof, dontcha know there is no such thing as global warming/climate change? Why, there are folks with degrees and stats who have proven it doesn't exist. That's "proof" as long as one doesn't look too closely at their claims, methodology, vested interests or what the consensus of the qualified scientific community says about the matter.

talking about million-to-one odds is not the way to do it. The entire approach is sensationalistic, and Cameron does not appear to be asking the right questions.

They have to argue first that the find is not a forgery --that's not at all clear. They would then compare the specifics (time frame, economic class, analysis of any organic evidence) with what is know about Jesus' life. For example, under what circumstances would Jesus have been buried in a family grave with Roman lettering? That sounds very bizarre.

There's also the question of why this site was not known and honored in the first century. Many sites have been made into shrines or holy places. How would this have been concealed if his brothers were still walking around?

Then there is the relationship of this tomb to the gospel stories. Cameron is relying on the gospels for names only. Are the gospel stories accurate enough to get all the people right but all the important events and circumstances wrong?

Jesus may have had a grave (unless the Romans prevented his family and friends from taking possession of the body). But this strikes me as either a forgery or a misinterpretation.

There are so many problems with this tomb it's ridiculous the amount of gleeful pissing going on here.

Why is it in Jerusalem? That was not their home. How did they all get together? They died at different times and places and under very different circumstances. Who paid for it? Who is the Matthew there? Why is he there? Where is James? The Roman lettering you pointed you. And on and on.

The inscription on the ossuary doesn't read "Mary Magdalene." And if I'm not mistaken, it didn't even read "Mariamne." It read two other names, which they interpreted as "Mariamne." On top of that, they had to rely on some 4th century text to make the connection between Mariamne and Mary Magdalene.

Here's the real kicker. They conducted DNA analysis of bone fragments from Jesus and Mariamne. Because those two weren't related, they concluded they must have been husband and wife. They didn't even bother checking DNA from any of the other ossuarys. And even if she hadn't been related to anybody in the tomb, isn't it jumping to conclusions to assume that she was married to anyone, let alone Jesus? Why not Jose, or Matthias, or any of the other ones? And if the early church was trying to hide the fact that Jesus was married, then why bury her in the same tomb at all? Why was there no other inscription? Other ossuaries have shown familial inscriptions (Jesus son of Joseph). Why wouldn't they inscribe something like "beloved wife"?

The whole thing reeks.

a thorough debunking of the Magdalene idea.

http://www.christilling.de/blog/2007/03/guest-post-by-richard-bauckham.html

I'll take it from people who know better the names of antiquity than those who stand to profit from shoving square pegs into round holes!

And I didn't even realise that the "siblings" didn't similarly bear the inscription "son of Joseph." I guess they were either bastards or unloved eh? :P

Extremely unlikely as you said one time, or impossible as you've said since, regarding these statistics no one has seen?

All they gotta do is say they have something that proves Christianity wrong, and the willing throngs who want it to be true will throw millions of dollars their way, and the rightwing Jesus-Crispy throngs who fear for their livelihood to drain money out of the ignorant will throw millions of dollars their way buying their videos and books so that they can make their own DVDs and books disproving everything.

Meanwhile, the intelligent just stand by and watch as yet another ignorant "religion-destroying" fad of the year disappears into the annals of historical hucksterism, to be replaced by next year's "incontrovertible" archaeological find that the hopeful will then throw millions of dollars at.

I find the whole thing hilarious.

leaping passionately into bed together.

:popcorn:

Jesus never existed but I am not 100% convinced he did exist. There are hypotheses on both sides of that debate with no concrete proof. I wish I could be passionate enough about this James Cameron story in order to even pay enough attention to it. But my perception is that this is just another hypothesis just as good as the attempts at closely connecting the dots to prove the existence of a historical Jesus.

The show took their primary thesis - that the tomb belonged to Jesus and his family - and tried to make all the evidence fit. Even as a layman, I could easily see several serious flaws with their reasoning - and I'm sure a learned scholar could easily pick their arguments apart.

For starters, let's take Mary Magdalene. Her name doesn't appear on the ossuary. Instead, it's "Mariamne". In order to "prove" this was Mary Magdalene, they have to rely on a 4th-century text.

Secondly, they show that the DNA from Mariamne and Jesus weren't related. Their conclusion? Mariamne and Jesus must have been husband and wife. Isn't this a wee bit premature? Of all the male remains in the tomb, how would you know which one she would have been married to?

What was really telling what the almost argumentative attitude of the show's creators. For instance, when they were asking the museum curator about Caiphus' tomb, the curator acknowledged the high likelihood that the tomb did indeed belong to the Caiphus from the Gospels. However, he did leave open the possibility that there could have other Caiphus tombs, and this might not have been THE one. The show's creators seemed to be arguing with this guy, and didn't really want to entertain any doubts at all whether this could have been THE tomb of Jesus and his family.

I really tried approaching this with an open mind, but I just found the entire piece to be quite shoddy. I'm sure that scientists and scholars will have no problem whatsoever picking it apart.

As has been pointed out in half a hundred news reports, "Jesus" was a pretty common name. Most of the rest of the revisionist Christian theories are based on weak legends; the writers of the Gospels at least met Jesus, and/or at least have assembled a largely coherent narrative. And I've always found it suspicious that most of these stories follow the line of one particular strain of gnostic thought (from the late Cathars, including DeMolay's "heresy", IIRC).

Granted, I could be wrong in any of the details, and I yield to those who are better learned in this issue. And James Cameron is not the one to advance the academic argument, as he himself has said. I'll have to wait until a couple of competing groups of scholars can comb through the findings.

Which reminds me -- exactly WHO is proposing that these ossuaries are are from the One True Family Jesus Nazarensis ... other than JC (as in "James Cameron)?

Until something more reliable emerges, I won't suggest that any believers stop going to church ... not based on THIS story, anyway.

:evilgrin:

--p!