Where are the remains of Jesus of Nazareth?

[fantome profane]

Funny, I've never read that before. My guess is that you are getting your information from those biased against the Church.

Can you prove that "large parts of the Gospel of Mathew and the Gospel of Luke were just copied directly from the Gospel of Mark"? Or is this merely speculation?

If you want evidence of this, just read the Gospels, compare them. You will see large swaths of text that are identical.

If you want further evidence just ask your local Priest. The fact that that the Synoptic gospels copied text from Mark is widely acknowledged even by the Catholic Church.

If you want internet links, search Google. Look at different sources, and by all means go ahead and give priority to Catholic sources if you wish to, you will still find what I am saying is true.

Bible.org - hardly biased against the church
https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem

It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.3 There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence.

catholic-resourses.org - you can't tell me this is biased against the church.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm

The similarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke are so numerous and so close, not just in the order of the material presented but also in the exact wording of long stretches of text, that it is not sufficient to explain these similarities on the basis of common oral tradition alone. Rather, some type of literary dependence must be assumed as well. That is, someone copied from someone else's previously written text;

There are dozens of other sites I could give you links to, but I have to go right now. Take a look at these, and do your own research. What I am saying is hardly new or controversial.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't joke about things like this. And it's likely that the tomb of Joseph of Arimethia is located adjacent to this. They explored his tomb with a robotic camera. And Jesus' tomb (pictured above) with a symbolic spirit of a dove descending over the head (circle) of Jesus was reburied and covered with this slab:

Israel doesn't want to get in the middle of any of this.

I am aware of this, but there isn't any way to verify whose bones are there. So this theory is nothing more than speculation.

 

[First Baseman]

If you want evidence of this, just read the Gospels, compare them. You will see large swaths of text that are identical.

If you want further evidence just ask your local Priest. The fact that that the Synoptic gospels copied text from Mark is widely acknowledged even by the Catholic Church.

If you want internet links, search Google. Look at different sources, and by all means go ahead and give priority to Catholic sources if you wish to, you will still find what I am saying is true.

Bible.org - hardly biased against the church
https://bible.org/article/synoptic-problem


catholic-resourses.org - you can't tell me this is biased against the church.
http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Synoptic_Problem.htm


There are dozens of other sites I could give you links to, but I have to go right now. Take a look at these, and do your own research. What I am saying is hardly new or controversial.

Even if some of it was copied does that then mean we must throw all 3 Gospels out and rule them all out? No, of course not.

 

[First Baseman]

I am aware of this, but there isn't any way to verify whose bones are there. So this theory is nothing more than speculation.

I feel sure that if someone had found the actual bones of Jesus Christ the whole world would be aware of it. You're right, this is just a ruse.

 

[leibowde84]

I feel sure that if someone had found the actual bones of Jesus Christ the whole world would be aware of it. You're right, this is just a ruse.

I agree. Even if they were Jesus' bones, no one would have any way of knowing.

 

[First Baseman]

I agree. Even if they were Jesus' bones, no one would have any way of knowing.

Well, DNA testing could be done and the results compared with those of Joseph/Mary's line.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, DNA testing could be done and the results compared with those of Joseph/Mary's line.

Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, right?

 

[First Baseman]

Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, right?

No, but if those are Jesus' bones all the non-Christians could prove that He wasn't the Son of God. Yeah, if those were His bones we'd know all about it by now.

 

[leibowde84]

No, but if those are Jesus' bones all the non-Christians could prove that He wasn't the Son of God. Yeah, if those were His bones we'd know all about it by now.

And, we don't have any DNA that has been verified to be from Mary's bloodline either. All of those assumptions are circumstantial at best.

 

[First Baseman]

And, we don't have any DNA that has been verified to be from Mary's bloodline either. All of those assumptions are circumstantial at best.

How do you know Mary's bloodline can't be traced to her descendants?

 

[leibowde84]

How do you know Mary's bloodline can't be traced to her descendants?

Because we don't have any way of verifying who her dependents actually are. And, there is much reason to lie about this, as in some countries, claiming this might make one a celebrity. Thus, a high level of scrutiny is necessary.

 

[paarsurrey]

As a comparison, you must realize that knowing or not knowing where the remains are of any historical or fictional person doesn't change the relevance or validity of his or her story. Asking where the remains of Jesus of Nazareth are is akin to asking where the remains of Lazarus are. Whatever the answer is to one is the answer to the other.

The queries about Jesus and Lazarus are both important. Neither did Jesus resurrect from the really dead and ascend to skies nor Lazarus got life from the really dead. Right?
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Good. And good-bye to you. Hopefully you won't respond to any more of my threads with such stupidity.

I think the thread is started by one but then it is open for everybody and it is everybody's thread.
Regards

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I am aware of this, but there isn't any way to verify whose bones are there. So this theory is nothing more than speculation.

The bones were in labeled bone boxes, ossuaries.

I feel sure that if someone had found the actual bones of Jesus Christ the whole world would be aware of it. You're right, this is just a ruse.

You completely misunderstand the nefarious motivations of those who founded Paulism, which was his version of the religion he morphed with Mithraism and the Jewish followers of Jesus--which was further corrupted by the 4th Century "Christians".

Well, DNA testing could be done and the results compared with those of Joseph/Mary's line.

We don't have Mary's family DNA. But the DNA of the named people in the tomb could be compared, along with the names and relationships mentioned on the labels, the likelihood of such a grouping being unrelated to it with THE Jesus--and other factors.

Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, right?

Probably not, but Joseph must have died well before the Passion and been buried elsewhere anyway. But references to Joseph as father would have meaning for relationship identification purposes. BTW, one story (from Jewish sources) is that Mary could have been impregnated by a Roman soldier, named Pantera, who is buried in Germany.. But that's for another day. I suppose it's possible they could retrieve his DNA.

No, but if those are Jesus' bones all the non-Christians could prove that He wasn't the Son of God. Yeah, if those were His bones we'd know all about it by now.

Hardly. Christianity would try to discredit any such information, as well as Israel. The Church's power and survival would be threatened. And while the geological component of the Israeli government validated several aspects of the James ossuary, the Israel Antiquities went to trial against it and came away most embarrassed.

And, we don't have any DNA that has been verified to be from Mary's bloodline either. All of those assumptions are circumstantial at best.

(See above).

All this said, Jesus, or at least his early followers, didn't believe in bodily resurrection, and it would have been blasphemy to consider him to be divine--as would be the cannibalistic consumption of his flesh and blood, symbolically or otherwise. That's just another example of Paul melding the beliefs of the followers of Jesus with Mithraism. If Jesus established the Last Supper of Christianity, why did Paul need to have it revealed to him in a vision by Jesus. Paul's only authority was his unverifiable, self-serving, visions, and 2000 years later, people are still buying into them.

 

[leibowde84]

The bones were in labeled bone boxes, ossuaries.



You completely misunderstand the nefarious motivations of those who founded Paulism, which was his version of the religion he morphed with Mithraism and the Jewish followers of Jesus--which was further corrupted by the 4th Century "Christians".



We don't have Mary's family DNA. But the DNA of the named people in the tomb could be compared, along with the names and relationships mentioned on the labels, the likelihood of such a grouping being unrelated to it with THE Jesus--and other factors.



Probably not, but Joseph must have died well before the Passion and been buried elsewhere anyway. But references to Joseph as father would have meaning for relationship identification purposes. BTW, one story (from Jewish sources) is that Mary could have been impregnated by a Roman soldier, named Pantera, who is buried in Germany.. But that's for another day. I suppose it's possible they could retrieve his DNA.



Hardly. Christianity would try to discredit any such information, as well as Israel. The Church's power and survival would be threatened. And while the geological component of the Israeli government validated several aspects of the James ossuary, the Israel Antiquities went to trial against it and came away most embarrassed.

(See above).

All this said, Jesus, or at least his early followers, didn't believe in bodily resurrection, and it would have been blasphemy to consider him to be divine--as would be the cannibalistic consumption of his flesh and blood, symbolically or otherwise. That's just another example of Paul melding the beliefs of the followers of Jesus with Mithraism. If Jesus established the Last Supper of Christianity, why did Paul need to have it revealed to him in a vision by Jesus. Paul's only authority was his unverifiable, self-serving, visions, and 2000 years later, people are still buying into them.

Why should we trust the labels?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Why should we trust the labels?

Geology, chemistry, epigraphy, geography, history....

 

[leibowde84]

Geology, chemistry, epigraphy, geography, history....

What about them?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

What about them?

It's complicated. If you'd like some sources, I'll be happy to supply them.

 

[idav]

Bodies decompose fairly quickly unless mummified. So the remains of Jesus are likely decomposed. Even if he did resurrect, the human body can't survive the "heavens" either, so flying into space isn't much of a work around.

 

[Unification]

Gary, you should also know that going outside the church for your facts allows Satan the golden opportunity to deceive you. I do believe that is exactly what has happened to you. I do hope you are led to the truth and will pray for you. I am very sorry to hear that you have been led astray. Anyway it was good talking with you and I do hope for the best for you.

Precisely, going outside the true church... Your own inner physical body of flesh, blood, and bones will deceive you with dogma and doctrine. Really though, they are not to blame.. You are leading yourself astray by following the masses. Searching for an external and literal "Jesus" instead of "the Christ" within you will lead you astray worshipping images of a literal guy from the beast(false self/Satan/ego)