(Discovery Channel) the Tomb of Jesus.

[macguy]

But don't any of you find it at least somewhat plausible?

For the atheist and agnostic? Sure. The basic idea itself may be plausible but no evidence is in support of it! As i said, there are many assumptions and this is nothing new. People have thought that Jesus had a tomb since the 1980's while others think that the disciples stole Jesus's body. Others think it's merely a myth (convincing story). I mean, what isn't possible? The only thing for this to be plausible is for there to be evidence in support of it. For the christian, this is just another one of those arguments in attempt to debunk christianity. I've debated many things and atheists will take ANY route to destroy christianity. Whoops, these topics can easily jump to theology but these are the basics and no theology has been presented. At least I don't think so...

[Puguni]

For example, someone mentioned that this could be a 2000 year old prank/fake. Well, couldn't that be evidence that the people mentioned in the Bible existed and had some real impact on the people? Enough of an impact that someone would want to make a mockery of them?

There already evidence that people in the Bible had existed once, and of course Christians had a real impact on people. Why do you think the Romans kept trying to oppress them? A tomb labeled with Biblical names isn't needed to prove that. The media is just blowing this out of proportion.

Now if the tomb held some scrolls from the Library of Alexandria...that would be a entirely different story.

[Joshua Christopher]

The main problem I see is that Christians can be silly sometimes in rejecting anything that conflicts with what they've been taught. This is not the way to go about life--we have to be skeptics. We have to try to find faults in what we believe, because if we can disprove it, we can't believe it. Don't keep yourselves in the dark here, folks.

Do I think James Cameron found Christ's bones? No, of course not. But what if, by some ridiculously implausible chance, he did? And suppose it ended up being true? Would that destroy faith? Absolutely not. It would just mean that a traditional view would be incorrect, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Did you know that some people used to believe the earth was flat? Yup, people did. And they ended up being wrong. The same line of thinking ought to be applied to what we believe. Don't just discount something just because it conflicts with what you believe--learn about it. If ultimately it ends up being wrong, you're in good shape.

So, no, I really doubt they've found Christ's bones. I'm not going to completely discount it because it goes against what I believe, I'm gonna look into it, and I'm sure I'll discover that it's all a buncha hoopla. If not, so be it.

[JesusFreak84]

This "tomb" was proven a fraud 27 years ago.
End of story.

[ashfire]

I had a thought about this. If DNA testing was done. There would only be one link between Jesus and Mary because of Mary being a virgin. There would be no other DNA links. Just Mary's

I was watching a politaical talk show host, Mr. McLaughlin who has two show one being the McLaughlin Group and a show which followed which he had a minister who has writen three books. One is "Jesus The Rabbi" and one on Mary Magdalene. The discussion was about how Jesus and Mary Magdalene could have been considered has husband and wife back in that era. The two men went into many things that could involve about all this info that is out there.

[KhakiBlueSocks]

IMHO, it doesn't matter where He WAS...

What matters is where He IS...

[Joshua Christopher]

I had a thought about this. If DNA testing was done. There would only be one link between Jesus and Mary because of Mary being a virgin. There would be no other DNA links. Just Mary's

She was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, she had other children after him (the old-fashioned way).

[Dante]

I had a thought about this. If DNA testing was done. There would only be one link between Jesus and Mary because of Mary being a virgin. There would be no other DNA links. Just Mary's

I was watching a politaical talk show host, Mr. McLaughlin who has two show one being the McLaughlin Group and a show which followed which he had a minister who has writen three books. One is "Jesus The Rabbi" and one on Mary Magdalene. The discussion was about how Jesus and Mary Magdalene could have been considered has husband and wife back in that era. The two men went into many things that could involve about all this info that is out there.

Mind you this argument wouldn't work either, because technically, if you already believe otherwise, this whole thing won't influence your faith... second checking the DNA wouldn't do much anyways, as they could just simply claim that she was NOT a virgin at the birth of Jesus, and this was simply folklore or that she made this claim after having the child to avoid punishments from others (just look at what happens to women over there today if they have a kid whose origin occured before marriage. PUBLIC STONING COME ONE COME ALL! GREAT FUN!) You get the point, right? The only way this would work is if you had the DNA of God... And well... He's kind of difficult to get a sample from these days. Does he even have DNA?

My take on the issue is this...

A) I have already spent God knows how many years pursuing physics, and still don't understand it... Therefore, as I do not have even an equal and more background in archeology, or (sadly) Biblical studies, and I do not intend on acquiring such an extensive background in the future (for this or any other purpose) (as I've already about lost my mind). I declare that, I hereby really don't know anything about the study to make any true judgement about what in the world they found down there... could be a giant purple people eater for all I know. Overall though, it sounds like a heap of yellow journalism, and sadly those responcible for the paper (whether they wrote anything to do with Jesus or not) will likely get a bucketload of evil letters, SPAM and other trash... or they may not even have any real evidence of anything, but know that if they make a statement like this, it's bound to cause controversy and the media will eat it right up... and they'll be rich BABY!!!

I'm going with option number 2, just because this doesn't seem like something that would tell us much about the human condition way back when (Which is what I thought archeologists looked for, that and things on major historical individuals whose tombs you could easily decipher)... further, comments like "this could have been the REAL tomb of Jesus" are more likely to be a joke at the end of a serious academic paper than actually the focus of the paper in my opinion. It would be like me looking back to the first instants of the universe with some form of advanced gravitationa astronomy... finding nothing and then writing an entire paper about there not being a God there... I would NOT be taken seriously by the scientific community, that's not what science is trying to look for, because God is not well defined in physical parameters... we can't make a Schrodinger Equation of the spiritual realm. And if we thought he may be, why would we be poking him with a probe... Do not poke the one and only God... cause there's only one... and you REALLY don't want to make him angry.

In the end, all this somehow (???) brings to mind the time I heard about a physicist that was refused a job at a university somewhere in the Bible belt because he had written his thesis about STELLAR "Evolution"... Yes folks, the stars we see here today are the result of the survival of the fittest.... until recently of course, when stars started to acquire hamburgers and died of heart failure... resulting in supernova and eating binges (black holes).

O_O
Never trust any information... unless its' from your mother... cause we all know that mothers REALLY do know everything... At least mine does!
Pascal

P.S. Oh and Joshua... I'm pretty sure that the DNA of Jesus wouldn't change because she had created other children the "old fashioned way". So yes, if we were to go with the Virgin thing, there would still only be an anomoly in Jesus' DNA. (Watch someone try and clone Jesus now )

[Etoh*the*Greato]

The main problem I see is that Christians can be silly sometimes in rejecting anything that conflicts with what they've been taught. This is not the way to go about life--we have to be skeptics. We have to try to find faults in what we believe, because if we can disprove it, we can't believe it. Don't keep yourselves in the dark here, folks.

Do I think James Cameron found Christ's bones? No, of course not. But what if, by some ridiculously implausible chance, he did? And suppose it ended up being true? Would that destroy faith? Absolutely not. It would just mean that a traditional view would be incorrect, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Did you know that some people used to believe the earth was flat? Yup, people did. And they ended up being wrong. The same line of thinking ought to be applied to what we believe. Don't just discount something just because it conflicts with what you believe--learn about it. If ultimately it ends up being wrong, you're in good shape.

So, no, I really doubt they've found Christ's bones. I'm not going to completely discount it because it goes against what I believe, I'm gonna look into it, and I'm sure I'll discover that it's all a buncha hoopla. If not, so be it.

I'm all in favor of a reasonable faith. Ravi Zacharias is my hero, and I'm willing to accept plausibility. From a courtroom/Imperical standpoint this whole thing is plausible. From an evidence standpoint, it has a lot going against it. The fact that they are, without any hard evidence, willing to throw a "ZOMG TOMB OF JESUS" at us at all is just so silly! I know a lot of Christians do it too, but it doesn't make the fact that they're trying to make a very scientific claim on very unscientific grounds any less ridiculous. The possibility? Plausible. The current follow through? Shallow.

[Joshua Christopher]

In the end, all this somehow (???) brings to mind the time I heard about a physicist that was refused a job at a university somewhere in the Bible belt because he had written his thesis about STELLAR "Evolution"... Yes folks, the stars we see here today are the result of the survival of the fittest.... until recently of course, when stars started to acquire hamburgers and died of heart failure... resulting in supernova and eating binges (black holes).

What are you talking about here? I'm being serious, I mean, I'd like to know more about this.

[Hakaii]

The main problem I see is that Christians can be silly sometimes in rejecting anything that conflicts with what they've been taught. This is not the way to go about life--we have to be skeptics. We have to try to find faults in what we believe, because if we can disprove it, we can't believe it. Don't keep yourselves in the dark here, folks.

Do I think James Cameron found Christ's bones? No, of course not. But what if, by some ridiculously implausible chance, he did? And suppose it ended up being true? Would that destroy faith? Absolutely not. It would just mean that a traditional view would be incorrect, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Did you know that some people used to believe the earth was flat? Yup, people did. And they ended up being wrong. The same line of thinking ought to be applied to what we believe. Don't just discount something just because it conflicts with what you believe--learn about it. If ultimately it ends up being wrong, you're in good shape.

So, no, I really doubt they've found Christ's bones. I'm not going to completely discount it because it goes against what I believe, I'm gonna look into it, and I'm sure I'll discover that it's all a buncha hoopla. If not, so be it.

Thank you!!! Whether or not it is all true, a little true, or a complete hoax, at least your using this as an oppertunity to learn something. I mean, the fact is that the tomb exists. It probably isn't the real tomb of Jesus. But it is real and there must be something to learn from it, right? Oh never mind, it probably is just a fake and a waste of time.

[Yeshua-Knight]

i find it interesting that these findings are only now coming to light when supposedly they were discovered back in 1987, that's right kids, 20 years ago

as far as dna testing, i guess they could test it with whatever dna they can scrape off the shroud of turin, but then they're gonna have to admit a certain peculiarity about that dna, that being that it's missing a chromosome that's only given by the father

and as far as forensic evidence on the bones, heh, let's see, hmmmm, well, his bones weren't broken....so, let's see, how many people die without broken bones?

i also feel the need to mention an interesting little tidbit concerning an other ossuary that came to light in recent times, it seems the man who stepped forward claiming to be in possession of the ossuary of james, the brother of Jesus, is now on trial for fraud, yes, intriguing indeed

and just to cover the unthinkable base i'll quote a man i heard that was skeptical of the finding

"what are they gonna do to test the dna, do they have God's dna on record or something?"

[Dante]

In the end, all this somehow (???) brings to mind the time I heard about a physicist that was refused a job at a university somewhere in the Bible belt because he had written his thesis about STELLAR "Evolution"... Yes folks, the stars we see here today are the result of the survival of the fittest.... until recently of course, when stars started to acquire hamburgers and died of heart failure... resulting in supernova and eating binges (black holes).

What are you talking about here? I'm being serious, I mean, I'd like to know more about this.

Ahem, this comes from an astrophysics classmate (another graduate student at ASU). They were talking about a perfectly good astrophysics major who studied something by the name of stellar evolution (the study of the life cycles of stars and the properties that accompany those stages). However, when he went to go get a job at some XYZ college in some XYZ state (it was one of the ones you would typically associate with the Bible belt) he was denied a position because his research topic in Graduate School had the word "evolution" in it... and well... that was all it took. O_O

I'm sure he found a job elsewhere, but it's just really silly to think about... and no I have no real clue what this really actually had to do with this topic... but it somehow came to mind.

[Joshua Christopher]

Ahem, this comes from an astrophysics classmate (another graduate student at ASU). They were talking about a perfectly good astrophysics major who studied something by the name of stellar evolution (the study of the life cycles of stars and the properties that accompany those stages). However, when he went to go get a job at some XYZ college in some XYZ state (it was one of the ones you would typically associate with the Bible belt) he was denied a position because his research topic in Graduate School had the word "evolution" in it... and well... that was all it took. O_O

That's absolutely disgusting, yet unsurprising.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

Evolution is one of those things that in no way threatens my belief in God. I think some good arguments could be made for a theistic God Guided evolution (as opposed to a deistic, "Wind the watch and leave" evolution). That's just me. I picked it up off of a teacher that was, other than that little concept, a total theological conservative.

[Joshua Christopher]

Evolution is one of those things that in no way threatens my belief in God. I think some good arguments could be made for a theistic God Guided evolution (as opposed to a deistic, "Wind the watch and leave" evolution). That's just me. I picked it up off of a teacher that was, other than that little concept, a total theological conservative.

Not to get into theological stuff here, but I believe in evolution and God. The two are perfectly compatible. I just wish evolution wasn't viewed as some evil affront to Christianity and Theism, because it isn't at all.

[Cap'n Nick]

First of all, I must admonish anyone on *either* side of this debate who does not acknowledge complexity and ambiguity in matters pertaining to creation. Secondly, this really isn't the place.

[JesusFreak84]

She was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, she had other children after him (the old-fashioned way).

Bites her Catholic tongue on that point.

[Stephen]

How is what I said anything but possible? According to the Bible the Jews killed Jesus. I know its not popular to say that, but its true. Yes, our sin is what required it...but the fact is...its clear who hammered the nails. I would be curious to see why anything I said would be far-fetched. Unless of course you want to belive that it really is Jesus bones they just found. In which case, we need to close this site down. Maybe I sound crazy, but I refuse to belive that Jesus did not come back from the dead. It is a cornerstone of what our faith is based on.

[JesusFreak84]

Amen, Ark!

[Roy Mustang]

I agree with Steve.

Saying that there could be bones of Jesus, is like questioning if he rose from the dead or not.

In turn, that's like questioning the bible on if what is said is true or not.


This is something that I can't do. I believe what the bible says.





Col. Roy Mustang

[ShadowCat]

It doesn't matter what scientists say they can prove. Scientists say the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Red Sea was parted by the wind. o.o

[Joshua Christopher]

I agree with Steve.

Saying that there could be bones of Jesus, is like questioning if he rose from the dead or not.

In turn, that's like questioning the bible on if what is said is true or not.


This is something that I can't do. I believe what the bible says.

This attitude, to me, seems more like you're afraid that some traditional belief might be disproved.

Personally, I can't believe in something if I'm not willing to question it.

It doesn't matter what scientists say they can prove. Scientists say the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Red Sea was parted by the wind. o.o

What exactly are you saying?

[Yeshua-Knight]

at the same time joshua, you have to make a decision at some point about whether or not the bible is going to be the authority of your life, and if you do decide that it is the authority of your life then you have to believe that it is the infallible word of God because if it's fallible then why on earth even go along with what it says concerning salvation and how we are to live our lives

[Stephen]

This attitude, to me, seems more like you're afraid that some traditional belief might be disproved.

Personally, I can't believe in something if I'm not willing to question it.

How is Faith...faith, if it changes depending on what you hear from day to day?

[bigsleepj]

How is what I said anything but possible? According to the Bible the Jews killed Jesus. I know its not popular to say that, but its true. Yes, our sin is what required it...but the fact is...its clear who hammered the nails. I would be curious to see why anything I said would be far-fetched.

Yes, the Jews killed Jesus, but so what? The ethnicity of who killed Christ is irrelevant to Christian theology. I'm not trying to point out it's a "myth" or something unbiblical]Unless of course you want to belive that it really is Jesus bones they just found. [/QUOTE]
I don't believe it is Jesus' bones that they found there. Why are you implying that I want it to be His bones?

In which case, we need to close this site down. Maybe I sound crazy, but I refuse to belive that Jesus did not come back from the dead. It is a cornerstone of what our faith is based on.

It *is* the cornerstone of our faith, but that's not why I wanted to know whether you were joking. The reason I asked whether you were joking was pertaining towards the first part of your post, not the part of the Ressurection which I believe. I should have been more clear about that, admittedly, because that is what I wanted to know.

What I objected to was the fact that it sounded like one of those godless paranoid anti-semetic Jews-are-Evil Conspiracy theories. Whether you meant it to be that way or not, that is how it sounds. And quite frankly I can see it to be quite possible that some atheist would take a screen-capture of your comment and post it on a thread at one of their "hangouts" like Internet Infidels and say "See, Christians condone hatred against Jews because they killed Christ".

[Stephen]

Person A Kills Person B. Person A catches wind that person B has risen from the dead. Is it that crazy to think that Person A would lie about person B? How much of a step is it to lie after you kill someone?

[Cognitive Gear]

at the same time joshua, you have to make a decision at some point about whether or not the bible is going to be the authority of your life, and if you do decide that it is the authority of your life then you have to believe that it is the infallible word of God because if it's fallible then why on earth even go along with what it says concerning salvation and how we are to live our lives

While I cannot and will not speak for Joshua Christopher]How is Faith...faith, if it changes depending on what you hear from day to day?[/quote]

I may have misread what you mean there, but I will respond to what I think you are saying regardless.

Faith is not belief in something without proof. It is trust without reservation. I trust that the Bible is true. However, this does not mean that I avoid testing it. I test it in faith that it will stand up and be proven, again and again, to be true. If it fails, then I need to examine why, and seek out the truth.

[Fish and Chips]

Actually, it was a combination of the Jewish leadership and the Romans who killed Christ. Both had there own respective and shared reasoning for wanting him dead and following through with it. Perhaps it's paranoid to think they might have done something so elaborate as construct a farse tomb (personally, I think this was just a coincidence), but they were paranoid people who pulled the strings in the first place.

[Yeshua-Knight]

[quote="ikimasu"]While I cannot and will not speak for Joshua Christopher]

so as you test the scripture for its infallibility, what is the authority of your life?

don't get me wrong, i think that a spiritual seeker (one who hasn't been saved) that investigating and searching for truth in the bible is definitely a good thing, but once the decision is made to follow Christ, why doubt His word