|
Name: Michael •
Title: Looks like maybe I'm in the minority here •
Date posted: 03/11/07 23:58
|
Q: I think it is possible this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.
Michael
|
|
|
|
Name: InterestedParty •
Date: 03/12/07 1:21 |
|
A: If you are a minority then I am also a minority. I can also see this being his tomb.
|
|
Name: john •
Date: 03/12/07 2:06 |
A: hows it going michael,
jesus was like a rock star when he lived
that means everyone around him followed him all the time.
when a big event happened ,people would write on walls and leave there name or a fish symbol.
this tomb does not have any markings from jesus followers ,and you cant tell me the 1000s of people that visited his place of death and the other tomb he risin from,didnt ask where his mother and father was buiried?
if this tomb was the real thing ,the early christrens would have found it,and left grafitte or names on the tomb right?
this is a fake
|
|
Name: Panluna •
Date: 03/12/07 2:48 |
A: I don't think people desicrated property in those days.Tombs were considered sacred.The fish symbol was used as away to indentify other early followers of St Peter the "Big Fisherman"who was the 1st Pope and organizer of the early Christian religion.When they started to be persecuted by the Romans who thought this sect was trying to over throw the empire the followers went underground and used the fish symbol to identify each other.
I believe that the tomb was located ,but i don't understand why the information was not released in 1980.It's a shame that no one at that time fluent in Aremaic or other rarely used languages took the time to examine and classify and verify the ossuaries.
I wonder how different the world would be today if we could have known sooner.
|
|
Name: exact55 •
Date: 03/12/07 3:56 |
A: @Panluna
Most people on this blog will admit that there is a possibility of this being true unless of course they have some blinkered religious bias. I too believe that there is a possibility but I don't like being purposely misinformed. The archeologists (working under Amos Kloner) who originaly excavated this tomb were highly competent. When the bones were reburied they would surely have noticed a little thing like the marks of a crucifiction seeing as this type of thing has always facinated archeologists and there are so few recovered. This to me is the most damning inconsistency among a very large number of inconsistencies. Now don't get me wrong - I am not saying it's not possible, just that the chances are a lot lower than is portayed in the movie and on this web site.
|
|
Name: betty47 •
Date: 03/12/07 11:55 |
|
A: I am a Catholic, but I'm more realistic than most Catholics, and I think there is a strong possibility that this is the Jesus Family tomb. It seems to be in the right place and buried at the right time. It makes sense even though the scholars are armed with their talking points and are determined to tell us how it couldn't be true. They say Jesus was poor and couldn't afford a tomb, but ignore that Mary of Magdala was not poor. She financed his ministry so why couldn't she finance his tomb? They claim they need proof, but can they give us proof that anything in Christianity has been proven in the first place like a virgin birth or that Jesus was born on December 25th? We celebrate Christmas and Easter on what use to be pagan holidays. The Christmas tree was originally a pagan symbol, but as Christians we close our eyes to all of that. Prove to me that Mary was a Virgin. Most things in Christianity can't be proven and a lot of the Bible is probably made up, in my humble opinion, if one is honest, but they ask us to believe anyway. I think as Christians we have to be open to this new possibility, but that doesn't make Jesus's words any less powerful. It's exciting to find proof that he might have lifed on earth. I understand a lot of Christians are afraid of the possibilities that a true tomb of Jesus could bring, but Christianity will adapt. I hope and pray the research will continue.
|
|
Name: benjiwa •
Date: 03/12/07 18:49 |
A: In response to John,
The early Jewish followers would not have marked up his tomb with graffite and would have probably lost track of things after the Romans had there way in 70.
And as for the early hellenic christians, they wouldn't have been looking for the tomb of Jesus as they believed he had ascended.
|
|
Name: Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/12/07 19:42 |
A: I think it's possible, too.
Most of my entries on this forum are in defense of the possibility. So many people want to call this a fraud. They seem very invested in this being a fraud. I just can't imagine what their motives would be.....hmmm.
|
|
Name: lightwoman •
Date: 03/12/07 20:08 |
A: Although I have no vested interest one way or the other (it doesn't bother me or alter my faith/beliefs if Jesus' tomb or even his bones were found), I DO believe it's possible and feel the tomb and ossuaries should researched further (as well as the bones if they can be tracked down and exhumed).
I am just amazed that some Christians are so entrenched in beliefs/teachings that are 2 millennia old and may even have been misleading (i.e., off the track from what Yeshua originally taught, in the original context of his life and the times/Jewish messianic and apocalyptic culture), that they will not even harbor the slightest possibility that this tomb and ossuaries could be the real thing. That is a blind, close-minded view and shows a fear/resistance to change in the face of a quickly changing environment - which is the #1 cause of extinction.... Adapt/change or die. As human consciousness evolves and changes with the times, so too must belief systems or they go the way of the dinosaur and do-do bird.
I just finished reading "The Varieties of Scientific Experience" by the late astronomer Carl Sagan (compiled and edited by his widow from a series of Sagan's lectures). The title is an homage to Williams James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience." Carl Sagan was a religious, devout Jew who did not let his religious beliefs interfere with his quest for scientific knowledge and discovery; rather, he allowed his consciousness to expand to encompass much grander concepts of God and the Universe vs. what is literally written in the Bible. And he warns of the danger of such closed-minded, literalist thinking that I described above - he was just as concerned it could lead to the extinction of the human species, not the advancement of the humankind into a more optimistic future. And if anyone has read Sagan's book "Contact" and/or seen the film, you will understand that even Sagan, a renowned scientist, was also a bit of a mystic. Science and religion can co-exist peacefully if one remains open to the idea that ANYTHING is possible (even Jesus taught this!) and one should strive continually to learn and grow, both intellectually as well as spiritually. Learning and growth, more often that not, acknowledge the need at times to CHANGE and ADAPT.
|
|
Name: Schwar3Kat •
Date: 03/13/07 10:51 |
A: @lightwoman
The difference between being open minded and being gullible is the ability to apply reason.
This is no different for me an atheist than for a religious person. Everyone has vested interests. A religious person has a vested interest in strengthening their beliefs. An intellectual person has a vested interest in stimulating their intellect. I have a vested interest in disproving religious dogma.
Vested interest can be useful tool for highlighing flaws in a theory as is common in scientific peer review, but this should never be at the expense of scientific reason.
I would dearly like this find to be the Jesus of the Bible just to disprove another religious fable but sadly the theory is severely flawed and is not anywhere near as likely to be true as is claimed. To me this is as much of a fable as the religious fables, and it takes even more faith to accept it as presented because of the huge body of negative evidence and the poor quality of the positive evidence.
Yes there is always a small chance that this could be the Jesus of the Bible, but that chance based on all of the available evidence is miniscule.
I say go the religious bloggers keep pointing out the flaws and if in the process you spout some rubbish we will ignore it and keep the good stuff.
|
|
Name: JustSue •
Date: 03/13/07 22:59 |
A: I posted this earlier but I don't think anybody read it...I read on another website that they also found pottery shards in the tomb. One of those shards had the name of Jesus and the fish symbol. Is there any way to confirm this? I haven't seen that anywhere else. I know that one of the ways they dated the tomb was by dating the pottery, but I had not previously heard of this particular shard.
http://www.graal.co.uk/ossuary.html
|
|
Name: Schwar3Kat •
Date: 03/14/07 0:38 |
A: @JustSue
This claim is actualy made on this web site
http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com-/back_to_basics/site_history.htm-l-
I suspect that this data may be drawn out of context from the original BBC program.
The London Sunday Times of March 31, 1996 in an article called The Tomb That Dare Not Speak It's Name refering to Chris Mann one of the makers of the original documentary and talking about his search for any evidence of physical remains with the name Jesus.
"The first Jesus ossuary was little more than a broken shard, with a mark supposedly of a fish and an inscription. Chris knew a 6in diameter piece of pottery makes an uninspiring picture. He persisted in seeking out the second ossuary".
It was the second ossuary that came from the Talpiot tomb and lead to the discovery of the name cluster in the tomb. The first shard was from an unrelated find.
|
|
Name: Schwar3Kat •
Date: 03/14/07 0:43 |
|
A: BTW - Remove all dashes from the url. For some reason this blog mutilates urls when they are posted.
|
|
Name: alm786 •
Date: 03/14/07 2:21 |
A: You guys are forgetting sth and that is though Jesus was a rock star according to you, but at the time of his being crucified, he had the support of only handful of followers. Even out of them, one was really behind the arrest of Jesus, and the other spitted right onto his face.
At that point of time, it was really difficult for Jesus to live and spend a life of a famous man in Jerusalem. There is noway he would have lived in Jerusalem after escaping a death on cross cos Jews would have grabbed him again and killed him for sure. There are only two things that are humanly possible.
One either he died in Jerusalem and was burried somewhere in that area, or he migrated to some other area to spread the message of God for which he came into this world. Possible suggestions to Kashmir or France. France less likely as Romans were dominant in Europe as well, so Kashmir is the more likely place for Jesus to migrate. Check www.tombofjesus.com for more info on this
|
