|
Name: BlessedChildofGod333 •
Title: MORE DNA NEEDED •
Date posted: 03/01/07 23:34
|
Q: I urge caution about making any assumptions about the relationships of these people and their identities until further DNA evidence can be collected from each bone box and hopefully from the bones themselves.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU CAN REMEMBER IS THE SKULLS THAT WERE FOUND IN THE TOMB WITH THE OSSUARIES ARE NOT FROM THE FIRST CENTURY.
THESE BOXES HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH AND POSSIBLY CONTAMINATED WITH THE REMAINS OF OTHERS. THE BONES HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED, CATEGORIZED OR EVEN EXAMINED PROPERLY.
*****THERE WAS A SHORT COMMENT AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT THE FACT THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE HUMAN REMAINS IN AT LEAST ONE OF THESE OSSUARIES.***** (PLEASE RESEARCH THIS FURTHER)
THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED
It is extremely dangerous to say that this is the same JESUS
box and the remains of "THE JESUS OF NAZARETH"
without first taking the DNA sample from Ossuary 80/505 -- “Maria” ,
the MOTHER MARY box and DNA matching it for maternal positive ID
too Ossuary 80/503 "Yeshua bar Yosef” – “Jesus, Son of Joseph”
Now when that information comes to light, then you will have a much
clearer picture of the family connection within the tomb.
This also needs to be done with ALL the ossuaries
and bones (if possible) so that any samples can be preserved,
tested and FULLY DNA IDENTIFIED.
Of course this goes without saying that DNA parental identification
needs to be established with the Ossuary 80/503 "Yeshua bar Yosef”
– “Jesus, Son of Joseph” and the Ossuary 80/500:
“Mariamene e Mara” – “Mariamne, also called Master”
with regard to the possible child
Ossuary 80/501: “Yehuda bar Yeshua” – “Judah, son of Jesus”
Also, on a side note, you need to address the interestingly strange sequence of events that cause the "emotionally driven" GLOBAL stock market to suddenly make an "unusually market correction" (down over 400 points) when the announcement of a "JESUS FAMILY TOMB" press conference reverberated around the world. And then when the Documentary was denounced "by authorities) then all was right with the market again....Look at the timing.... I did and it was interesting, Coincidence.... maybe.
All of this bears more investigation with an open mind. Asking for God in Heaven to give you discernment and wisdom is always a good idea, because He will answer.
|
|
|
|
Name: BlessedYou •
Date: 03/04/07 2:10 |
A: First of all try not typing in BOLD.
I'm sure that Jesus DNA will match John the Baptist's DNA.. remember the church has his bones, as well as a dig done a few years unearthed some bones which was also suggested to be Johns.
Provided that the reburied bones can be recocivered? I'm not sure whats the Jewish traditions says about this.
Also on a side note. The drop of the GLOBAL market originated in Asia. Last I checked they have a low rate of Christianity over there. So you are likely merely juxtaposing those two events.
|
|
Name: bigpundaddy •
Date: 03/05/07 6:15 |
|
A: Ha ha yet another roller try to cover it up.
|
|
Name: RhettRButler •
Date: 03/05/07 9:48 |
A: Here are a few more questions after seeing the show.
1) DNA was only ran on the ossuaries of "Jesus", and "Mariamne",, With speculations that they could've been married. And after the results came back negative,,, that seemed to prove that theory.
Now lets say this IS the tomb of Jesus and his family... and "Mariamne" IS Mary Magdeline....Does this automatically prove that she married Jesus?
Jesus had brothers.. even in the same tomb. Could she have married one of them?
Personally, I think the "Son of Jesus" ossuary is more interesting than any other. Why wasn't there any DNA samples taken from it, and compared to the presumed bride of Jesus?
|
|
Name: Daisy •
Date: 03/05/07 15:40 |
|
A: If DNA was able to prove that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not related, why could it not prove the joint parentage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene to their supposed son, and also the parenage of Mary to Jesus. It was a compelling argument that I would love to believe, but the fact that this obvious evidence was not pursued nullifies a lot. Perhaps there was not enough DNA, but if that was the case, it should have been mentioned and at least an attempt should have been documented.
|
|
Name: Wes Boll •
Date: 03/05/07 19:20 |
|
A: Boy I would say it is important, Would not want to be the person that lost all those bones, sure would make me mad!!
|
|
Name: heavyrevy •
Date: 03/08/07 18:21 |
A: I agree. I would like to see the DNA evidence of the child compared to the Jesus and Mariamne DNAs. Though I do not believe that Jesus would have fathered a child - for theological reasons - I would like to know about the relationship this Jesus and Mary had to the child.
The supposition that the child could be the "beloved" disciple is erroneous. The "beloved" disciple is identified in the Bible as the disciple John (cf. John 21:20-24). Also, John 19:26-27 plainly states that the woman Jesus was speaking to was His mother - not Mary Magdalene. It was clearly the passing of responsibility for his mother from the oldest son to his designated heir in keeping with Jewish tradition and custom - although a little strange that He didn't pass it to one of His brothers (perhaps the speculation that Jesus and John were cousins is correct?).
While I have enjoyed all the works produced by Mr. Jacobovici and his team which I have seen, I have not always agreed 100% with his findings or interpretations of what they might mean. That is to be expected - especially when dealing with history that happened so long ago. That he provides excellent research and well thought out theories is fact and a credit to his reputation. However, I think he has either missed the mark on this one or else hasn't revealed all the facts yet. Did I hear something about a follow-up?
|
|
Name: Matt Stone •
Date: 03/13/07 12:34 |
A: I would like to see the DNA compared to one of the captured Roswell aliens.
Matt Stone
http://mattstone.blogs.com
|
