http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1593893,00.html?cnn=yes

i dont know how this could be proven, DNA? cmon

2/26/2007 9:35:52 PM

After our DNA test has concluded............ Joseph............ YOU ARE........................... NOT THE FATHER!

2/26/2007 10:00:12 PM

no. The tomb had the inscription "Jesua son of Joseph" as well as two Mary's... and they conclude OMG IT"S JESUS! CHRISTIANITY IS FALSE!!!!11!!

In fact, the names on the tombs were some of the most common Jewish names of the time.

2/26/2007 10:01:03 PM

^^ ahaha, well played

2/26/2007 10:18:12 PM

Abnorio won this thread.

Plz 2 close.

2/26/2007 10:45:45 PM

I was hoping for a Geraldo Riveria special.

The Opening of the Coffins!

Will Al Capone's gold finally be found?

2/26/2007 11:18:18 PM

but then they said what are the statistics that all those names

Mary, Jesus, Jose etc... are a 1 in 2 million chance of happening to end up in the same tomb, a family tomb.

so although they were common names, them all being together is almost impossible to not trace to Jesus

2/26/2007 11:42:15 PM

Quote :

"but then they said what are the statistics that all those names"

No no

Then a guy said the statistics you're putting forward.

Ultimately, I'd say anyone betting the fundamental beliefs of their life on an archaelogical dig that is even remotely questionable is stupid. If they found a big-assed boat-looking-thing with some skeletons on a mountain tomorrow, I would not think terribly highly of anyone who suddenly believed in the Old Testament (or at least Genesis) as a result.

2/27/2007 12:05:14 AM

Quote :

"Ultimately, I'd say anyone betting the fundamental beliefs of their life on an archaelogical dig that is even remotely questionable is stupid"

unlike... say... betting fundamental beliefs on... a 2000 year old book?

2/27/2007 12:16:16 AM

Quote :

"unlike... say... betting fundamental beliefs on... a 2000 year old book?"

See, this is clearly where you and I differ: I see those 2,000 years as a supporting factor for the veracity of the book, and you see them as a negative.

Never mind that, though; the Bible represents a large compilation from several sources that has been looked over and evaluated for a very long time, so regardless of what conclusion you arrive to about it, you are hopefully basing it on something slightly deeper than a dig that could be construed in a way just controversial enough to make it profitable.

In other words, you rejected the Bible at least in part because of what it said, but at least your decision was based on something that is demonstrably not ephemeral.

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 12:34 AM. Reason : ]

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 12:35 AM. Reason : ]

2/27/2007 12:34:31 AM

Well no, not so much that it's 2000 years old, but that it's 2000 years old and obviously full of holes, contradictions, incorrect facts, and some really awful stuff. It's my thought that if god was going to divine his perfect and glorious word to the human race, he'd have done a better job.

This whole Jesus' tomb thing, however, is I'm sure a bunch of hoo-ha. There's no way to prove that it's THE Jesus, there's no way to prove that his body was or wasn't there after he supposedly ascended bodily into heaven, etc. I don't believe he even existed at all, as a man or as a divine being, and this doesn't change that.

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 12:38 AM. Reason : .]

2/27/2007 12:37:30 AM

You seem to be going out of your way here to say, "Well I don't believe in Jesus," even though that isn't really all that relevant to what is being discussed.

Ultimately, I stand by my point that I don't think much of anyone who puts a whole lot of stock in the "flavor of the week." This "discovery" has only barely entered the public consciousness recently. It may bear keeping an eye on, but until something big ch anges I'm honestly not even convinced that it deserves so much as a Soap Box thread.

2/27/2007 12:40:36 AM

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 1:10 AM. Reason : .]

2/27/2007 12:47:18 AM

so are the Mormons gonna baptize dem bones in their Temple by proxy?

2/27/2007 1:08:02 AM

the bible can suck my dick






and that is teh truth

2/27/2007 1:08:16 AM

I just thank Jesus that James "Titanic" Cameron didn't let Celine Dion do a theme song with his tomb show too. "My Heart Will Go On" makes me want to jump into icy water anytime I hear it.

2/27/2007 1:35:18 AM

^ no arguments there

2/27/2007 9:59:09 AM

a non-partisan agreement with DG ^

2/27/2007 9:59:54 AM

A few ways to prove that this is REALLY Jesus' tomb:

Was there a body in the tomb? If so, they should just do one of those neanderthal cavemen reconstruction faces made from clay that I see on Discovery Channel all the time. If the face ends up with long light colored hair, a large mustache, a large beard, and pale skin, then it must be Jesus!

Also, another way to prove that it's Jesus, is to do carbon dating. Seems like that's always a surefire way to date something scientifically.

And lastly, if those things don't work, they should come up with random numbers about the odds of couples with the names Joseph and Mary. Then make up with a ridiculously high ratio, like 1:2,000,000 so that it'd be slightly more convincing.

In other news, Elvis was last seen in a small rural town restaraunt in Tennesse.

2/27/2007 10:09:03 AM

there were no bones in any of the sarcophagi, just a few skulls and fragments in the tomb. They have dated the remains and tombs and whatnot - that's how they know the time frame.

also, it seems you're just being sarcastic with your comments, but they have come up with statistics as to the possibility that a person could have that name with that other circle of names around it, named as his father and mother, etc, and it's 600 to 1, so basically, there's a 1 in 600 chance that it's not THE jesus. at least, that's what their statisticians say

alot of great info here

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html?clik=www_wh_1

A lot of the analysis of the names, statistics, etc can be found in this pdf

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/media/tomb_evidence.pdf

of course, one reason I think this whole thing is silly is highlighted here

Quote :

" The statistical analysis is of course only as good as the numbers that were provided to the statistician. He couldn’t run numbers he did not have. And when you try to run numbers on a combination name such as ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ you decrease the statistical sample dramatically. In fact, in the case of ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ you decrease it to a statistically insignificant number! Furthermore, so far as we can tell, the earliest followers of Jesus never called Jesus ‘son of Joseph’. It was outsiders who mistakenly called him that! Would the family members such as James who remained in Jerusalem really put that name on Jesus’ tomb when they knew otherwise? This is highly improbable. My friend Richard Bauckham provides me with the following statistics:"

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/jesus-tomb-titanic-talpiot-tomb-theory.html

I would say that regardless of the statistics, this is not THE jesus, and indeed, THE jesus never existed.

[Edited on February 27, 2007 at 10:54 AM. Reason : .]

2/27/2007 10:50:43 AM

ARTHUR:
He has given us a sign!

FOLLOWER:
Oh!
SHOE FOLLOWER:
He has given us... His shoe!
ARTHUR:
The shoe is the sign. Let us follow His example.
SPIKE:
What?
ARTHUR:
Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise.
EDDIE:
Yes.
SHOE FOLLOWER:
No, no, no. The shoe is...
YOUTH:
No.
SHOE FOLLOWER:
...a sign that we must gather shoes together in abundance.
GIRL:
Cast off...
SPIKE:
Aye. What?
GIRL:
...the shoes! Follow the Gourd!
SHOE FOLLOWER:
No! Let us gather shoes together!
FRANK:
Yes.
SHOE FOLLOWER:
Let me!
ELSIE:
Oh, get off!
YOUTH:
No, no! It is a sign that, like Him, we must think not of the things of the body, but of the face and head!
SHOE FOLLOWER:
Give me your shoe!
YOUTH:
Get off!
GIRL:
Follow the Gourd! The Holy Gourd of Jerusalem!
FOLLOWER:
The Gourd!
HARRY:
Hold up the sandal, as He has commanded us!
ARTHUR:
It is a shoe! It is a shoe!
HARRY:
It's a sandal!
ARTHUR:
No, it isn't!
GIRL:
Cast it away!
ARTHUR:
Put it on!
YOUTH:
And clear off!
SHOE FOLLOWER:
Take the shoes and follow Him!
GIRL:
Come,...
FRANK:
Yes!
GIRL:
...all ye who call yourself Gourdenes!
SPIKE:
Stop! Stop! Stop, I say! Stop! Let us-- let us pray. Yea, He cometh to us, like the seed to the grain.

2/27/2007 10:57:53 AM

Quote :

"Was there a body in the tomb?"

Quote :

"there were no bones in any of the sarcophagi, just a few skulls and fragments in the tomb."

don't you realize that the non-existence of bones proves this is Jesus' tomb? It's a well know fact that Jesus came back to life 3 days later, then Zombie Jesus went all Nathan Petrelli on us and flew up into Heaven. If his bones were found in the tomb, it's obviously a fake. If his bone's aren't found in the tomb, but it does have his name on the welcome mat, then it has to be his!!

2/27/2007 11:10:56 AM

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2098630,00.asp

Article is from Reuter's btw.

Quote :

"But Dr. Shimon Gibson, one of the archeologists who discovered the tomb, told Reuters at the news conference he had a "healthy skepticism" the tomb may have belonged to the family of Jesus. In Jerusalem, the Israeli archeologist who also carried out excavations at the tomb on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, disputed the documentary's conclusions. The archeologist, Amos Kloner, said the 2,000-year-old cave contained coffins belonging to a Jewish family whose names were similar to those of Jesus and his relatives. "I can say positively that I don't accept the identification (as) ... belonging to the family of Jesus in Jerusalem," Kloner told Reuters. "I don't accept that the family of Miriam and Yosef (Mary and Joseph), the parents of Jesus, had a family tomb in Jerusalem." "They were a very poor family. They resided in Nazareth, they came to Bethlehem in order to have the birth done there—so I don't accept it, not historically, not archeologically," said Kloner, a professor in the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archeology at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv. "

If both the archeologist who helped initially discover the tomb and one of the senior archeologists who lead the tomb's excavation are both highly skeptical, then that makes a significant statement on the entire issue. Besides, this tomb was discovered thirty years ago. If what James Cameron is claiming is true, then why hasn't such a big story broke earlier? Especially since there was already a BBC documentary made on the tomb released over a decade ago? I would suggest that its because there really isn't much substance to the claim.

Regardless, we won't know anything for sure until the documentary comes out and the case is made.

2/27/2007 11:16:32 AM

Quote :

"If they found a big-assed boat-looking-thing with some skeletons on a mountain tomorrow, I would not think terribly highly of anyone who suddenly believed in the Old Testament (or at least Genesis) as a result. "

Actually, I think there is some huge boat-like object up in the Himalayas..? It was in the news about 2-3 years ago. Some said that they believed it was the remains of the Ark but nobody can get that high with equipment to find out.

2/27/2007 11:30:12 AM

not exactly a "huge, boat-like object". More like some funny looking satellite pictures
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0427_040427_noahsark.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/03/13/satellite.noahs.ark/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark

But hey, doesn't "finding Jesus' tomb" and "finding the Ark" and stuff like that just take all the fun out of Christianity? I mean, Christianity is supposed to be based on faith, right? The very definition of faith precludes the existance of proof. If all the stories in the bible were proven to be true, then where would that leave the Faithful? The tenants of christianity require you to suspend disbelief and put your trust 100% in faith that all this stuff happened. If proof was found, then there's nothing so special about faith or believing any more.

2/27/2007 11:40:12 AM

Scott Adams has some suggestions on how he would handle the whole situation
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/02/empty_boxes.html

Quote :

" I can imagine the moment they removed the lid and looked in. If it were me, I’d wonder if I was going to see one of the following: 1. Nothing 2. Decomposed stuff 3. Jesus sitting up and saying, “What in Dad’s name took you so long?”"

Quote :

"If Jesus was in there, and sat up when I took the lid off, I’d first try to judge how angry he looked. If he had that money-changers-in-the-temple look, I’d go with a joke, like “Ha ha! Turn the other cheek!” Or maybe I’d try to explain to him that the extra suffering was extra good for humanity, and after all, that’s his job. Then I’d say, “Hey, I don’t like my job either, but you don’t see me complaining all the time.”"

2/27/2007 11:54:31 AM

^^ that "explanation" has more holes than the Bible

3/5/2007 3:50:24 PM

i don't see an explanation of anything

3/5/2007 3:56:02 PM

it's just a clever way to sell books......I wouldn't expect that followers then would've preserved the bones anyway.

3/5/2007 4:25:14 PM

Well, that was anticlimactic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-feiler/the-jesus-tomb-meets-the-_b_42637.html

When a self-proclaimed liberal Jew who enjoys archeological finds that poke holes in the bible and is a regular columnist on the Huffington Post calls the documentary and its claims bad science, then I'd say that this issue is pretty much dead.

3/5/2007 4:39:54 PM

Like Jesus?

3/5/2007 4:41:46 PM

If he existed to begin with.

3/5/2007 4:43:39 PM

I think his actual existence is fact.

3/5/2007 4:49:10 PM

fact? proof?

3/5/2007 4:50:12 PM

as much fact as the existence of any other historical figure....scientists don't dispute the fact that the person existed, just what he did and what he was.

3/5/2007 4:52:38 PM

Quote :

"as much fact as the existence of any other historical figure....scientists don't dispute the fact that the person existed, just what he did and what he was."

not true. you can repeat that mantra all you like, but it's simply not true.

http://www.dirtygreek.org/journal/journalId/1992

Eusebius, who is the first confirmed author to mention Jesus specifically as a real person, lived c. 275 – May 30, 339, hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly lived.

Considering those dates and the fact that the Jesus story shares almost all of its details with several pagan dying and resurrecting god-men (Mythras, Osiris, Dionysus, Attis, etc), there's no reason to think that Jesus actually existed. That is not to say he DIDN'T exist, but it's awfully hard to say "scientists don't dispute" that he lived - because they do. Many, many, many of them do.

That's all I can say, because I've had this discussion SO many times on here. Do a search for more.

[Edited on March 6, 2007 at 9:51 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2007 9:51:06 AM

Did you forget Paul? ^ Who was a contemporary of Jesus where there is actual evidence he existed and wrote and spoke about Jesus.

3/6/2007 10:06:00 AM

Quote :

"between 8 and 4 bc–about ad 29), the central figure of Christianity, born in Bethlehem in Judea. The chronology of the Christian era is reckoned from a 6th-century dating of the year of his birth, which is now recognized as being from four to eight years in error. Jesus is believed by the great majority of Christians to be the incarnate Son of God, and to have been divinely conceived by Mary, the wife of Joseph, a carpenter of Nazareth. The name Jesus is derived from a Greek rendering of the Hebrew name Joshua, or in full Yehoshuah (“Jehovah is deliverance”). The title Christ is derived from the Greek christos, a translation of the Hebrew mashiakh (“anointed one”), or Messiah. “Christ” was used by Jesus' early followers, who regarded him as the promised deliverer of Israel and later was made part of Jesus' proper name by the church, which regards him as the redeemer of all humanity. The principal sources of information concerning Jesus' life are the Gospels, written in the latter half of the 1st century to facilitate the spread of Christianity throughout the ancient Western world. The Epistles of St. Paul and the Book of Acts also contain information about Jesus. The scantiness of additional source material and the theological nature of biblical records caused some 19th-century biblical scholars to doubt his historical existence. Others, differently interpreting the available sources, produced naturalistic biographies of Jesus. Today, however, scholars generally agree that his existence is authenticated, both by Christian writers and by a number of Roman and Jewish historians."

http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=213201

I don't disagree that many of the facts are wrong, but the actual existence has been agreed upon by non-religious people/groups.

3/6/2007 10:07:27 AM