Post Reply
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
Switch to Forum Live View New Archaeological Discovery Questions Jesus' Bodily Resurrection
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 8:57AM #1
Esdraelon
Posts: 5,236

First they found the 'James' ossuary...had his name on it....played it up to high heaven...(no pun intended) ....that turned out to be fake....now they claim to have found Jesus' bones....and that the ossuary has 'Jesus' written on it....

Ummm....those boxes next to that guy certainly don't appear to be 2000 years old, and besides....note that GE insignia on the tablecloth...when you got $14 billion courtesy of US taxpayers....obviously the urge to spend some of it on pet causes is irresistible.....

Those 'global warming' scientists were forced to look for other persuasions so apparently, here they are......expect the DNA to come up next.....

www.christianpost.com/news/new-archaeolo...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 9:17AM #2
TemplarS
Posts: 6,963

Much ado about nothing.


As mentioned, Jesus as well as Mary and Joseph were very common names at the time.


Maybe the cross and the fish are real, but these were obviously not symbols of Christiantiy at the time of Jesus' death.  So even if his bones were put in an ossuary, nobody would have carved these symbols.  Seems more likely that maybe this was another Jesus, who was a follower of Jesus Christ, but later.


However, I am very interested in why these people think that the land on which the graves were found "once belonging to Joseph of Arimathea".  If they have evidence to substantiate this, this would be a huge discovery- since so far as I know, there are no contemporary references to Joseph of Arimathea outside the Gospels.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 9:47AM #3
Esdraelon
Posts: 5,236

Mar 1, 2012 -- 9:17AM, TemplarS wrote:


Much ado about nothing.


As mentioned, Jesus as well as Mary and Joseph were very common names at the time.


Maybe the cross and the fish are real, but these were obviously not symbols of Christiantiy at the time of Jesus' death.  So even if his bones were put in an ossuary, nobody would have carved these symbols.  Seems more likely that maybe this was another Jesus, who was a follower of Jesus Christ, but later.


However, I am very interested in why these people think that the land on which the graves were found "once belonging to Joseph of Arimathea".  If they have evidence to substantiate this, this would be a huge discovery- since so far as I know, there are no contemporary references to Joseph of Arimathea outside the Gospels.




Agreed and agreed.



Besides, it's also old news posing as 'new'......


www.garyhabermas.com/articles/The_Lost_T...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 10:35AM #4
Ken
Posts: 33,859

Mar 1, 2012 -- 9:17AM, TemplarS wrote:


Much ado about nothing.



No kidding. Millions of non-Christians already know that Jesus wasn't resurrected. Obviously, finding a box of bones with his name on it isn't going to make the slightest difference to them. After all, how could it possibly be verified that the bones belonged to that particular Jesus and no other? Just as obviously, not finding his bones won't make a difference either. The bones of most people who lived two thousand years ago have long since disappeared, but we don't therefore conclude that all of them rose from the grave.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 10:42AM #5
teilhard
Posts: 52,258

Another interestingly done Archaeological Hoax ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 11:09AM #6
DotNotInOz
Posts: 6,833

From the OP article:


Furthermore, the scientists believe that there is a possibility that in the same tomb and next to the remains believed to be Jesus' are bones that might have belonged to Mary Magdalene.



So THERE! Jesus was SO married to Mary Magdalene. Proof enough for me right there.


:::::: tongue firmly planted in cheek :::::::

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 11:13AM #7
mountain_man
Posts: 40,591

Mar 1, 2012 -- 8:57AM, Esdraelon wrote:

First they found the 'James' ossuary...had his name on it....played it up to high heaven...(no pun intended) ....that turned out to be fake....now they claim to have found Jesus' bones....and that the ossuary has 'Jesus' written on it....


It was a popular name back then. No big deal. Most likely a fraud like the rest.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 11:16AM #8
mountain_man
Posts: 40,591

Mar 1, 2012 -- 11:09AM, DotNotInOz wrote:

So THERE! Jesus was SO married to Mary Magdalene. Proof enough for me right there.


There's no mention of a wedding ring. They were probably friends with benefits. They had no kids because she was on the pill.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 11:21AM #9
Esdraelon
Posts: 5,236

Mar 1, 2012 -- 10:35AM, Ken wrote:


Mar 1, 2012 -- 9:17AM, TemplarS wrote:


Much ado about nothing.



No kidding. Millions of non-Christians already know that Jesus wasn't resurrected. Obviously, finding a box of bones with his name on it isn't going to make the slightest difference to them. After all, how could it possibly be verified that the bones belonged to that particular Jesus and no other? Just as obviously, not finding his bones won't make a difference either. The bones of most people who lived two thousand years ago have long since disappeared, but we don't therefore conclude that all of them rose from the grave.




They don't 'know' anything. Other than that your comments are well-reasoned.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Mar 01, 2012 - 11:22AM #10
Esdraelon
Posts: 5,236

Mar 1, 2012 -- 11:16AM, mountain_man wrote:


Mar 1, 2012 -- 11:09AM, DotNotInOz wrote:

So THERE! Jesus was SO married to Mary Magdalene. Proof enough for me right there.


There's no mention of a wedding ring. They were probably friends with benefits. They had no kids because she was on the pill.




Smile

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 8  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook