The Body of Christ, Discovered For You?

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Are those claims proven at all? Or are they just a claim to fame, just like medieval churches all claimed to have slivers from the Cross?

And (because I'm no biologist and have no idea) how similar should DNA be between a 2,000-year-dead body and a living great-great-etc.-nephew?

You can find statements alluding to the fact in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.

Hang on, I'm actually going to quote the Bible. This is a true rarity for me.

53] And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these parables, he departed thence.
[54] And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
[55] Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
[56] And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?
[57] And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.
[58] And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.

But as for DNA, I've no idea how it works, really, but if they can take a modern girl and tell if she's Anastasia, they can probably tell if someone is related to a buried guy.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Am I supposed to care about this? It sounds like another round of "piss off religious people for attention".

 

[GenMarshall]

So, your proof that Jesus wasn't married is the bible? Hardly a credible source. It would have been quite easy to change some details - after all, Jesus was a touch divine, the image could've been ruined by marrying a prostitute and having kids with her.

Relation to the Merovingians: I believe the term for them having European DNA is "integration".

I am going to have to call Bullcrap on this. Jesus never had children nor was he married. Relations to the Merovingians, utter bullcrap! As for your statement on the Bible being harldy a credible source, utter bullcrap! The Bible is indeed a credible source.

Another claim about Jesus' supposed marriage and children? Man, if people are going to attack church doctrine, at least have some creativity.

I know, its like the anti-Christians have too much time on their hands so they just go for the heart of all Christianity, including Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Orthodox Christianity (Both Oriental and Eastern).

 

[Irish Caesar]

You can find statements alluding to the fact in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.

Hang on, I'm actually going to quote the Bible. This is a true rarity for me.

Oh, I'm well aware Jesus had brothers; the letter of St. James in the Bible is attributed to [possibly a follower of] his brother James, not [a follower of] the disciple James, son of Zebedee.

But as for DNA, I've no idea how it works, really, but if they can take a modern girl and tell if she's Anastasia, they can probably tell if someone is related to a buried guy.

Well, even proving relation to a buried guy doesn't really say much of anything. Just that someone is related to a dead guy from 2,000 years ago.

As a side note, does anyone else find it odd that it supposedly took Israeli historians years to figure out what was written on the tombs when it was just common names?

 

[Nylan]

Am I supposed to care about this? It sounds like another round of "piss off religious people for attention".

bingo

they just want attention, and will do whatever it takes to get it

 

[GenMarshall]

bingo

they just want attention, and will do whatever it takes to get it

Just like Bald Britney!

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Bald? I just now heard she was flirting with girls, but then none of my news sources have mentioned Britney in the last few months - I've had the above tidbit shoved in my face by 72pt headlines.

 

[skadistic]

I'm more likely to believe that dude was humping females and may have knocked one up and had an illigitamate child then the absord resurrection story.

 

[skadistic]

As a side note, does anyone else find it odd that it supposedly took Israeli historians years to figure out what was written on the tombs when it was just common names?

Not realy anchient hebrew was almost totaly lost as a language. Todays hebrew isn't the same. IIRC.

 

[Kozmos]

I'm just waiting for the day they find a stone tablet saying Jesus was arrested as a teenager for possession of marijuana.

 

[TheBladeRoden]

So Catholics really like the Mary, but does Magdeline have her own dedicative religion yet?

 

[skadistic]

So Catholics really like the Mary, but does Magdeline have her own dedicative religion yet?

I'm sure there is a cult out there devoted to her.

 

[JerichoHill]

That time article is bad.

Go to the discovery channel website and read about it. The whole burial tomb and the names involved makes it 599 out of 600 that this is the jesus and co we're talking about.

However, they are very clear to note that this does in no way dispute or destroy christianity. Because you can have a spiritual ascendance or a physical, and that their discovery in no way contradicts thats or the rising from the grave.

If you guys read the darn website, maybe wed have a better discussion

 

[emzie]

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.

Hmmmm

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html?dcitc=w99-502-ah-1024

When I first heard about this years ago, I swear they gave a more frequent occurrence.

 

[Azash]

I am going to have to call Bullcrap on this. Jesus never had children nor was he married. Relations to the Merovingians, utter bullcrap! As for your statement on the Bible being harldy a credible source, utter bullcrap! The Bible is indeed a credible source.

Wah wah. It's good to see you exercising your vocabulary. Is 'bullcrap' your definite answer to ideas you dislike?

The bible has been edited and messed around with too many times to be a credible source. Books have been dropped from it over the years, etc. Multiple translations have probably muddled up a lot of details, too.

My statement that the merovingians have European DNA because they were integrated into the general populace still stands, unless they were incestuous or only married middle-easterners. Of course, you can shout "bullcrap" - it will work wonders in eradicating my arguments.

 

[Elrohir]

That time article is bad.

Go to the discovery channel website and read about it. The whole burial tomb and the names involved makes it 599 out of 600 that this is the jesus and co we're talking about.

However, they are very clear to note that this does in no way dispute or destroy christianity. Because you can have a spiritual ascendance or a physical, and that their discovery in no way contradicts thats or the rising from the grave.

If you guys read the darn website, maybe wed have a better discussion

They can prove that this was a guy named Jesua who was buried with a Maria. So what? Jesua (Or Yeshua) is a common version of Joshua, one of the most famous figures in Jewish history; it was a very, very common name. (As was Mary, a version or Miriam, also from Jewish history) They can't show that this is the same Jesus at all, and quite frankly, it doesn't even make sense. If Jesus and his whole family and friends were all buried together right outside Jerusalem, why didn't the Romans, when fighting Christianity, just say "Guys - the guy is still dead. You can go look at his tomb if you want to." Don't you think it might be a little difficult to start a religion about a guy rising from the dead if the guy's tomb is right down the road?

The whole thing is a gigantic overreaction and exaggeration in order to get better press. "We found Jesus tomb!!" sounds better than "We uncovered a tomb from the First Century AD near Jerusalem, with some bodies in it." This whole thing is ridiculous.

The bible has been edited and messed around with too many times to be a credible source. Books have been dropped from it over the years, etc. Multiple translations have probably muddled up a lot of details, too.

Actually, if you compare the various versions from all over the world that they've found, Old Testament and New, you'll find that they are all remarkably consistent, usually with only grammar or spelling differences. We have many more, and much better ancient copies of the Bible than of any other ancient book - so if you're going to say that the Bible isn't accurate because it's been translated so many times, to be consistent you need to do the same to pretty much every other book from the ancient world, of which we have much fewer copies to cross reference to insure we have the original.

 

[Azash]

If Jesus and his whole family and friends were all buried together right outside Jerusalem, why didn't the Romans, when fighting Christianity, just say "Guys - the guy is still dead. You can go look at his tomb if you want to."

Well, if the names were common, it was probably quite easy to convince the romans it was just a 'normal' tomb.

 

[Elrohir]

Well, if the names were common, it was probably quite easy to convince the romans it was just a 'normal' tomb.

You can't have it both ways. Either the names weren't so common that you can show that they definitely are Christ and His family, in which case the Romans and Orthodox Jews could have destroyed Christianity relatively easily (Which they didn't, so this option is out), or the names are really that common, which means you can prove that they are Christ and His family.

Am I making a mistake here, or is it really that clear that you can't make your case either way?

 

[Azash]

You can't have it both ways. Either the names weren't so common that you can show that they definitely are Christ and His family, in which case the Romans and Orthodox Jews could have destroyed Christianity relatively easily (Which they didn't, so this option is out), or the names are really that common, which means you can prove that they are Christ and His family.

Am I making a mistake here, or is it really that clear that you can't make your case either way?

Uncommon names: Who says the tomb has to become a major tourist attraction that fast? My theory would be that the tomb was well-known in the times when Romans hunted christians, but at the time the belief in Jesus' divinity was not widespread nor canon. After Rome had become christian, there was the council of Nicaea, during which Jesus' divinity was established; however, destroying the tomb outright would have drawn unwanted attention. Simply letting something be forgot is the best way to hide things.

Common names: I won't make a case here. I do not follow this particular theory.

 

[El_Machinae]

If Jesus and his whole family and friends were all buried together right outside Jerusalem, why didn't the Romans, when fighting Christianity, just say "Guys - the guy is still dead. You can go look at his tomb if you want to." Don't you think it might be a little difficult to start a religion about a guy rising from the dead if the guy's tomb is right down the road?

Too be fair, common-sense evidence has never really hindered the survival of many cults. Proof wouldn't have meant much.

That said, I agree that people with common sense should have maintained a memory of where the body is, if there is dispute about the body's ascension.