Jesus family tomb

[angellous_evangellous]

This is an excellent website for Roman culture and the New Testament - http://www.philipharland.com/

 

[autonomous1one1]

One thing that I've thought of is that since all these burial boxes or ossuaries were found in one place it would have to be I think a very prominent well off family to be able to do that and that doesn't square with the idea that the family of Jesus was more likely practically destitute

and another point that I read about was that it would be unlikely Jesus Who was executed by crucifixion and something of a "pariah" would have a clearly marked grave.

- Art

Greetings Art. Guess I am not qualified to judge the value of those seemingly good points. Have you found a critique of the announced discovery somewhere? perhaps on the web?

 

[arthra]

This business of the ossuary boxes is not new...see:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Archaeology-654/early-Jewish-ossuary-boxes-1.htm

http://answers.org/apologetics/jamesbonebox.html

for good general info. on subject see:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm

I get the feeling we are being "hyped" by the media.

- Art

 

[autonomous1one1]

Ha! Burial chambers are quite numerous in Rome especially, and also in Jerusalem. It's where we get most of our inscriptions - the other sources being coins and monuments.

I'll see if I can reccommend an online source... I know scores of books...

Hope you took my comment - wouldn't be fair to you - in the right way for you would have to start at my infantile state of learning in this area; with the very first chamber.

This is an excellent website for Roman culture and the New Testament -

[URL="http://www.philipharland.com/[/quote]"]http://www.philipharland.com/

[/URL] Thanks for the reference. I will take a look at it.

 

[autonomous1one1]

This business of the ossuary boxes is not new...see:

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Archaeology-654/early-Jewish-ossuary-boxes-1.htm

http://answers.org/apologetics/jamesbonebox.html

for good general info. on subject see:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Official_Report.htm

I get the feeling we are being "hyped" by the media.

- Art

Thanks for the references Arthra.
Wouldn't be the first time for the hype.

 

[kateyes]

Obviously there is alot of hype going on about this--but there are a few inescapable issues--these ossuaries were originally discovered by field archaeologists in 1980. They must have seen the inscriptions at that time--and dismissed them. The most logical reason for that would be that the inscriptions are not unique--even within a tomb. In the world of scholarly archaeology-it is unusual for a secret to be kept for over 20 years-clearly we are hearing about all this now--to hype the show.

 

[Quiddity]

Sorry to jump on Vic's question but I think if they do accept this idea they may re-emphasis the spirtual Jesus over the physical Jesus. If you open you bible to Acts chapter 9 versus 1-10 the book is very clear that Saul, on the road to Damascus is talking to a spirt Jesus. The emphasis may shift from physical Jesus back to spirtual Jesus.

A new issue may arise thought that traditionally the way to differentiate between the holy spirt and Jesus was flesh vs spritual energy ---which if Jesus the spirt is incorporated into their faith would blur that seperation.

That may be the shift others take, but for Catholics the physical Jesus is crucial.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Obviously there is alot of hype going on about this--but there are a few inescapable issues--these ossuaries were originally discovered by field archaeologists in 1980. They must have seen the inscriptions at that time--and dismissed them. The most logical reason for that would be that the inscriptions are not unique--even within a tomb. In the world of scholarly archaeology-it is unusual for a secret to be kept for over 20 years-clearly we are hearing about all this now--to hype the show.

Greetings Kate. You are probably right on the hype but I understand that the film producers do have some reason for surfacing it now. Don't know what that reason is until after DC special.

 

[kateyes]

Greetings Kate. You are probably right on the hype but I understand that the film producers do have some reason for surfacing it now. Don't know what that reason is until after DC special.

I rest my case--its all about getting us to watch the show.

 

[autonomous1one1]

I rest may case--its all about getting us to watch the show.

lol, granted, your case is so rested. Do you suggest that I do not watch the show on the most likely case that it is just hype at this time?

 

[kateyes]

Heck no--I am planning on watching--just so I can laugh my butt off at thier "scholarly research" Besides what if they are right and I miss out on the 1st hand advance knowledge .

 

[Popeyesays]

The body is dust. The resurrection was of the spirit anyway. Who says that the body in which Christ appeared after the resurrection was the same dust as the body before the resurrection?

What does it matter? The flesh is never divine. It is dust.

Even if they prove without a shadow of doubt that jesus' body never left this physical world it does not affect my belief in Christ one whit.

Regards,
Scott

 

[autonomous1one1]

Heck no--I am planning on watching--just so I can laugh my butt off at thier "scholarly research" Besides what if they are right and I miss out on the 1st hand advance knowledge .

lol, Then, I rest your case and will watch too.

...Even if they prove without a shadow of doubt that jesus' body never left this physical world it does not affect my belief in Christ one whit.
Regards,
Scott

I agree, Scott, and I think that Christians would continue to believe in Christ also; although some would have to make adjustments on what is important. But this is hypothetical contingent upon 'proof' which doesn't seem very likely at this point.

 

[kateyes]

.............Even if they prove without a shadow of doubt that jesus' body never left this physical world it does not affect my belief in Christ one whit.

Regards,
Scott

I cannot say it would affect my beliefs, as Scott says--it wasn't about the physical body--but about the spirit and its message.

 

[robtex]

Heck no--I am planning on watching--just so I can laugh my butt off at thier "scholarly research" Besides what if they are right and I miss out on the 1st hand advance knowledge .

being as this is being put on the table by you what would qualify as scholarly research and what was/is unscholarly about the research of these presenters? do you feel this group may have had a preconcieved agenda or conclusion and if so why?

 

[Quiddity]

The body is dust. The resurrection was of the spirit anyway. Who says that the body in which Christ appeared after the resurrection was the same dust as the body before the resurrection?

What does it matter? The flesh is never divine. It is dust.

Even if they prove without a shadow of doubt that jesus' body never left this physical world it does not affect my belief in Christ one whit.

Regards,
Scott

I'm sure that's how some people see it, but that's soooooooo not historical Christianity.

 

[autonomous1one1]

being as this is being put on the table by you what would qualify as scholarly research and what was/is unscholarly about the research of these presenters? do you feel this group may have had a preconcieved agenda or conclusion and if so why?

Greetings Robtex. Some have said there is a money objective here, but, I will reserve opinion until after the 'show.'

 

[astarath]

Greetings Robtex. Some have said there is a money objective here, but, I will reserve opinion until after the 'show.'

This is the same man who is still battling to verify the authenticity of the debunct Ossuary of James so I would definitely say there is a personal agenda in line.

 

[autonomous1one1]

I'm sure that's how some people see it, but that's soooooooo not historical Christianity.

Greetings Victor. I understand what you mean. Would you say that most Christians hold this view of 'historical Christianity.' There seem to be increasing numbers that express the views of Kateyes and Scott, but I may be getting biased by posters on RF.

 

[astarath]

Greetings Victor. I understand what you mean. Would you say that most Christians hold this view of 'historical Christianity.' There seem to be increasing numbers that express the views of Kateyes and Scott, but I may be getting biased by posters on RF.

Just a little bit eh?