(Discovery Channel) the Tomb of Jesus.

[mitsuki lover]

Though Iago is Welsh.Interesting that Shakespeare made a Welshman his main villian in Othello.Though that is getting beside the point.
Judah variations would include:Jude and Judas,although I don't know Hebrew so don't know what the spelling would be.
And as far as Mary goes,you can't read the NT without tripping over some woman named Mary being mentioned especially in the Gospels.At one point the Gospel writers have to make a distinction between Marys.This is one reason we know
Mary of Magdala as Mary Magdalene,it was to distinguish her from all of the other
Marys.

[Tommy]

According to the Bible the Jews killed Jesus. I know its not popular to say that, but its true.

The Romans were Jewish?

Pardon my ignorance.

[Nate]

The Romans were Jewish?

Pardon my ignorance.

At the risk of this thread turning sour, yes, you are ignorant. You have read the accounts of Jesus' death, right? Before the crucifixion Pilate offered to release a prisoner, and the people demanded the release of Barrabas. Pilate even told them, "What about Jesus, he has done nothing wrong." The people still cried out louder, "Barrabas, give us Barrabas!" That's when Pilate uttered his famous phrase "I wash my hands of this matter."

The Romans drove the nails through, but the Jews were the ones who clamored for His death, even saying to release a murderer in place of Christ. The Romans were only following their wishes.

[bigsleepj]

Actually I think who killed Jesus is absolutely and totally irrelevant; whether Romans, Jews or both did it is just historical points and has nothing in the end to do with the theological implications of His death.

[Fish and Chips]

[quote="bigsleepj"]Actually I think who killed Jesus is absolutely and totally irrelevant]
Yes. Jesus did not pay the price of his life for the sins of the Romans or the Jews alone but for the sins of all mankind.

[Stephen]

I won't bother responding to you Tom. I think Nate did a pretty good job of it. When I originaly posted what I did...I never said that Jesus did not pay his life for the sins of mankind. Infact, I made mention of the fact that we all put Christ there. My point was simply, that it was the Jews that caused it at the time. Whatever. I wash my hands of this thread. It feels like certain historical truth is allowed to be spoken of, and certain is not. If you make points using fact, you are labled a racist or a conspricacy nut. So whatever. I've said my peace in this thread.

[Hakaii]

It feels like certain historical truth is allowed to be spoken of, and certain is not. If you make points using fact, you are labled a racist or a conspricacy nut.

ShatterheartArk is right.

Ironically, I'm the overly hopefull fool who started this thread. I thought that this subject could be talked about in a logical, open-minded, and mature manner.

I was wrong.

I was hoping to discuss the possible positive things that could be taken from the discovery. Sure it was found over 2 decades ago, but it is new to many of us. Honestly, I believe that any archeological evidence that is uncovered should be investicated to some degree.

But unfortunately, this thread is mostly full of posts that are too theological, off-topic, and too many people are stuck on just refuting the entire documentary as a whole rather than discuss the archeological raw evidence. If I were a mod, I'd have closed it myself a week ago.