Jesus family tomb

[C.M.]

I'm not religious, but i find this interesting.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?

[Sétanta]

As soon as I got to "...the findings suggest Jesus and Mary Magdalene produced a son named Judah." I stopped reading. It isn't His tomb, it isn't His family's tomb.

[Sadreddine]

As soon as I got to "...the findings suggest Jesus and Mary Magdalene produced a son named Judah." I stopped reading. It isn't His tomb, it isn't His family's tomb.

Why so?

I mean no disrespect, but christians should consider the historical Jesus (sas), instead what his followers wrote of him. I´m a Muslim and have very clear that Jesus, just as Muhammad (saws), was nothing more than a mere human.

It takes such a big effort to deify a human by sole faith that I couldn´t afford it when raised as christian. Maybe it´s time for christians to reconsider their Dogma and accept thre search for the historical, human Jesus?

But that´s just my opinion, and I apologize if I offended anyone.

[Giorgos]

Why so?

I mean no disrespect, but christians should consider the historical Jesus (sas), instead what his followers wrote of him. I´m a Muslim and have very clear that Jesus, just as Muhammad (saws), was nothing more than a mere human.

It takes such a big effort to deify a human by sole faith that I couldn´t afford it when raised as christian. Maybe it´s time for christians to reconsider their Dogma and accept thre search for the historical, human Jesus?

But that´s just my opinion, and I apologize if I offended anyone.

it only takes effort if you were raised to believe that he was just human.

[Gaidin]

it only takes effort if you were raised to believe that he was just human.

I was raised to believe that he was the Son of God and yet I seem to have just as much trouble as he in deifying Jesus. It just doesn't make sense.

[Giorgos]

I was raised to believe that he was the Son of God and yet I seem to have just as much trouble as he in deifying Jesus. It just doesn't make sense.

then you simply don't believe it. it's a matter of faith i'm afraid.

[Sétanta]

Why so?

I mean no disrespect, but christians should consider the historical Jesus (sas), instead what his followers wrote of him. I´m a Muslim and have very clear that Jesus, just as Muhammad (saws), was nothing more than a mere human.

It takes such a big effort to deify a human by sole faith that I couldn´t afford it when raised as christian. Maybe it´s time for christians to reconsider their Dogma and accept thre search for the historical, human Jesus?

But that´s just my opinion, and I apologize if I offended anyone.

Jesus and Mary Magdalene producing a son is one of the biggest conspiracy theories of all time. As soon as they prominently announce that, you can be sure that its historical accuracy is not something that historians are going to be agreeing with anytime soon.

And besides, are you considering the Koran to be a more correct interpretation of Jesus...yes, of course you are. The Koran is perfect, even though it was written 600 years after His death. The Bible, written between 2 and 40 years after His death is not a commonly accepted historical source about Jesus. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Search for the human, historical Jesus. Yeah, billions have been doing that for the past 2,000 years. Didn't work, doesn't work.

[Gaidin]

And besides, are you considering the Koran to be a more correct interpretation of Jesus...yes, of course you are. The Koran is perfect, even though it was written 600 years after His death. The Bible, written between 2 and 40 years after His death is not a commonly accepted historical source about Jesus. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

I bet you missed the part where a story with great focus on the last three weeks of a man's life doesn't really help with his history either. Yeeeeaaaaa.

[Sétanta]

I bet you missed the part where a story with great focus on the last three weeks of a man's life doesn't really help with his history either. Yeeeeaaaaa.

The Gospels tell of His entire life, although there is clearly a lot left out. Most historical figures of the day weren't into biographies. But it is the only reliable historical source about Him availible, surely more accurate than the Koran.

[Sadreddine]

And besides, are you considering the Koran to be a more correct interpretation of Jesus...yes, of course you are. The Koran is perfect, even though it was written 600 years after His death. The Bible, written between 2 and 40 years after His death is not a commonly accepted historical source about Jesus. Riiiiiiiiiiight.

This shows a blatant ignorance, one of the worst I´ve seen in a while. 600 years after his death? What kind of anti-Islam books so you read to believe that? That sounds ridiculous enough to como from Santo Tomás de Aquino...The Qur´an was written while Muhammad (sas) recited it by a group of his followers. It wasn´t however until the first Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Utman, that it was compiled and organized in the Vulgata of Utman, where it took the form we see nowadays. FYI, the Caliphs were the immediate successors of Muhammad, thus the name Jalifa. Saying it was written 600 years after the death of Muhammad is lying, good sir. And I mentioned historical research of non-muslim experts, not only muslim biographers.

I used a respectful tone with you, and yet you answer with arrogance and twisting the truth.

The Qur´an is not a biography of Jesus, obviously. However it clearly points out that Jesus is a human like any other and Muhammad himself. When I read that in the Qur´an, I was very pleased with a religion that in that aspect made sense to me. You can believe in a human idol in a way or the other if you wish. Yet my rationality never let me do such a thing.

@Ummon

As always, your messages are full of words, yet empty of content. No more than blaming and baseless accusations. Would you please tell me where in the Qur´an do you find contradictions about the supposed divinity of Jesus (sas)? In the Qur´an, there are verses that mention the twisting of christians of their own religion, chosing to pray Jesus as God. There are others that accept the special conception of Jesus, being a particularly beloved Prophet, and recognized as the Messiah. Yet you will never find a verse in which the supposed divinity of Jesus is acknowledged.

[jankren]

This shows a blatant ignorance, one of the worst I´ve seen in a while. 600 years after his death? What kind of anti-Islam books so you read to believe that? That sounds ridiculous enough to como from Santo Tomás de Aquino...The Qur´an was written while Muhammad (sas) recited it by a group of his followers. It wasn´t however until the first Caliphs, Abu Bakr and Utman, that it was compiled and organized in the Vulgata of Utman, where it took the form we see nowadays. FYI, the Caliphs were the immediate successors of Muhammad, thus the name Jalifa. Saying it was written 600 years after the death of Muhammad is lying, good sir. And I mentioned historical research of non-muslim experts, not only muslim biographers.

Take it easy bro Ibn Rushd. If you read carefully, I think you will know that Setanta was referring to the death of Jesus, not Muhammad. Al Quran was indeed revealed basically 600 years after Jesus's supposed death.

Do not let your anger get the better of you which could let others to make a fool of you brother.

Peace,

[Ummon]

@Ummon

As always, your messages are full of words, yet empty of content. No more than blaming and baseless accusations. Would you please tell me where in the Qur´an do you find contradictions about the supposed divinity of Jesus (sas)?

The contradictions are not about the supposed divinity of Jesus.

In the Qur´an, there are verses that mention the twisting of christians of their own religion, chosing to pray Jesus as God. There are others that accept the special conception of Jesus, being a particularly beloved Prophet, and recognized as the Messiah. Yet you will never find a verse in which the supposed divinity of Jesus is acknowledged.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE QUR-AN TO THE BIBLE: The Taurat and the Injil (Old Testament and New Testament) were given by God to Moses, the Prophets and Jesus and they are guidance, light and admonition: S. 5:47-52; 5:71-72; 5:69; 6:91; 3:3.

Muslims are to believe in the revelations given to Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc. There is no difference in revelations: S. 2:136; 29:46; 4:136; 2:285.

The Qur-an confirms former revelations: S. 10:37; 46:11; 35:31.

The Injil and the Taurat are available during the time of Mohammed: S. 21:7; 10:94; 3:71; 3:93; 4:47; 2:42; 29:46.

The Word of God cannot be changed by men: S. 6:34; 10:64.

Mohammed was sent to guard Scriptures from before in safety: S. 5:51.

TESTIMONY OF THE BIBLE AS TO ITS INSPIRATION: 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:16-21.

Jesus testifies to the inspiration of the Old Testament: Matt. 4:4, 6, 7; 11:10; Mark 14:27; Luke 4:4-12; Matt. 5:18; John 10:35; Mark 7:13; Luke 11:49

Evidence in the Old Testament: 1 Sam. 9:27; 1 Chron. 17:3; Isa. 4:8 etc.

Evidence in the New Testament: Matt. 13:9; Luke 3:2; Acts 8:25; 1 Peter 1:10-11 etc.

Jesus commissioned His apostles as teachers and promised them supernatural aid: Matt. 28:19-20; 10:7, 19, 20; John 14:26; 15:26-27; 16:13; 17:8; 20:22; 12:49-50; 8:40.

The apostles testify to the reception of the Holy Spirit and His teachings: 1 Cor. 2:10,13; 11:23; 14:37-38; Gal. 1:12; 1 Thess. 4:2, 8; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2 Peter 3:2,15-16; 1 John 5:10; Jude 3.

The testimony of the prophets and apostles were supported by signs, miracles and prophecy: Matt. 10:1; 1 Cor. 13:12 etc. etc. The writers of the New Testament regarded their writings as universal authority: 1 Cor. 1:2; Col. 4:16; 2 Peter 3:15-16.

The testimony of the believers: It works! God’s promises are reliable! Unpredictable prophecies have been given and were in great detail fulfilled. List: “Christians Answer Muslims” pages 43-69 and “Comparing Confusing Considering Concluding” pages 11-22.

CONCLUSION:

1. The Qur-an testifies to the inspiration of the Bible and attests its existence at the time of Mohammed.

2. The Bible testifies to its divine origin – though different to the “nazil” concept of Islam.

3. There is an abundance of Bible manuscripts in our possession. Thousands date back to pre-Islamic times. They are identical to our Bibles today.

We ask Muslims:

A. When was the Bible changed and corrupted?

B. Why was it corrupted and changed?

C. By whom was it changed and corrupted?

What was the response of all the other believers when it was discovered?

D. If there was an ‘original’ Bible, where is it that we can compare it?

GOD HAS NO SON – JESUS CANNOT BE GOD

S. 19:35: “It is not befitting to (the Majesty of) Allah that he should beget a son."

S. 112:3: “He begetteth not, nor is He begotten."

S. 5:19: “In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary."

S. 23:91: “No son did Allah beget, nor is there any God along with Him."

See also S. 9:30; 10:68; 2:116.

YET

Jesus was born by a virgin (S. 19:16-35)! Who takes the ‘father role’? After the annunciation by Mary: “How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?” The angel replied: “Thy Lord says: ‘That is easy for me’!” “And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our Spirit…” (S. 21:91). The ‘father role’ is taken by God. He initiated the conception (S. 19:21-22).

The Bible teaches just that! The word “begotten” (John 3:16) is a false translation. It should be “only born” (Greek mon-genis). See Matt. 1:18-23; Luke 1:26-35 (Note the similarity of vs. 35 with S. 19:19).

THE QUR-AN TEACHES THAT JESUS WAS

Born by a virgin (S. 19:16-35)

The Messiah (S. 4:171)

The Word of Truth (S. 19:34)

Holy (S. 19:19)

Illustrious in the world and hereafter (S. 3:45)

A sign to all men (S. 21:91; 19:21)

A creator of Life (S. 3:49; 5:113) (See S. 22:73)

A Mercy from God (S. 19:21)

A Spirit from God (S. 4:171)

The Word of God (S. 4:171) Is the Word of God (thought, mind of God) part of Him or a separate entity)

Raised to Heaven (S. 4:158)

And will return for judgment (S. 43:61 with Mishkat IV pp. 78-80)

A miracle worker (S. 3:49)

Was there any other prophet or man ever, who united these or any two of the above 13 attributes in him

THE BIBLE TEACHES IN ADDITION THAT JESUS

Had command of the natural elements (sea, wind) (Mark 4:37-41; Matt. 14:25)

Forgives sins Luke 7:48-49; John 1:29

Is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no man can come to God except through Him. John 14:6

Was Co-creator and is the keeper of the Universe John 1:1-14; Col. 1:15-20; Heb. 1:1-3

Was God come in the flesh; John 5:26-29 with Dan. 7:13; John 5:18; Rom. 9:4-5; 2 Cor. 4:4; Acts 20:28; Titus 2:11-14

Himself said so: Rev. 21:6-7; John 14:6-10; 10:30-33

Himself suggested it: John 20:27-29

Replied it to the High Priest: Matt. 26:63 (Muslims object, that Jesus said not “Yes” but “You say so”). Compare 26:25

Is God as prophecies by Isa. 7:14; 9:6

He was pre-existent: Micah 5:2; see also John 8:58

The very name Jesus means “salvation"

THE TRINITY

S. 4:171: “Say not Trinity: desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah”.

S. 5:76: “They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no good except Allah”.

S. 5:119 views Trinity as consisting of God, Mary and Jesus. This is misunderstanding.

THE BIBLE TEACHES THE TRINITY OF THE ONE GOD only by implication.

The names of God in the O.T. are, besides His title Jahweh – Lord

EL the mighty one God 224 times

ELOAH the object of worship God 56 times

ELAH the object of worship God 89 times

ELOHIM The object of worship God 2222 times

Elohim is the plural form of Eloah

Is any explanation given?

Yes: Gen. 1:26: “Elohim said: Let US make man” (Gen. 11:7) “The Lord said… come, let US go down…?"

Note: there is no “pluralis majestatis” in the Hebrew".

Deut. 6:4: “The Lord our God is one Lord” (Hebrew: Jahweh Eluhenu Jahweh echad). Verbal translation: “The Lord our Gods is one Lord”.

Isa. 44:6: “Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel AND his redeemer, the Lord of hosts: I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is no God."

Isa. 63:7-10: “I will recount the steadfast love of the Lord (Jahweh)…and He became their Jeshua – (Jesus, which is the English form thereof). In all their affliction he was afflicted and the angel of his presence saved them; in His love and His pity He redeemed them…but they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit…"

HOW CAN GOD CONDESCEND TO TAKE ON HUMAN FORM? It is indeed a mystery as God Himself is, and eternity, infinity etc. But God through a prophet announced this event 750 years before: Isa. 7:14; 9:6 (Immanuel – God with us). See also ‘Jesus cannot be God.’

CHRISTIANS BELIEVE SUBSEQUENTLY IN ONE GOD, who in time and history chose to be incarnated into human form in Jesus: GOD through His miraculous conception, MAN through His mother. Being man He had all human needs and many limitations, being God He performed His miracles etc."

JESUS WAS NOT CRUCIFIED

S. 4:157-158: “They killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them…of a surety they killed him not; nay, Allah raised him up unto himself."

Against that we read in S. 19:33-34, where Jesus says: “Peace is on me the day I was born, the day I die and the day I shall be raised up to life. Such was Jesus, the son of Mary, the Word of Truth about which they dispute."

Which explanation offers itself? Muslims say he will die after he returns to earth again to destroy al-Dajjal, the anti-Christ, when he will be buried next to Mohammed in Medina. BUT in verse 15 of the same Surah the identical words are used to John the Baptist! “O, Jesus, I will cause thee to die and raise thee to myself” (S. 3:55) adds to the mystery".

WHICH EVIDENCES SUPPORT THE ISLAMIC CLAIMS? The testimony of one man who lived close to 600 years after the event and did not have access to the documented reports.

THE BIBLE REPORTS CRUCIFIXION death and resurrection in many places: Matt. 27:32-54, Mark 15:22-39; Luke 23:33-47; John 19:17-30; Acts 2:22-24; 7:52; 10:39-40; 13:28-33; Rom. 5:6,8; 1 Cor. 15:3-6; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 7:27; 10:10; 12:2; 1 Pet. 2:24; Rev. 1:5-7; Rev. 5:9; and many more

In any case you see, the contradictions are not about Jesus' divine nature, on which I suspect that in reality, both religions are wrong.

[Ragabash]

As soon as I got to "...the findings suggest Jesus and Mary Magdalene produced a son named Judah." I stopped reading. It isn't His tomb, it isn't His family's tomb.

I find it somewhat ironic, that while people believe in that some person was able to make wine out of water and perform several other miracles, him having a child is out of question because it's not mentioned in a book.

[LegionnaireX]

Interesting article, but I just have to cry bs on account of this portion of the article:

The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.

Sounds like the Da Vinci Code crap all over again.

[TheKwas]

I was going to edit the above post, because I think I come off as a slight A-hole, but for whatever reason the 'save' button doesn't work on my computer when doing so. Can a mod please delete my post above?

Without resorting to sarcasm, I'd like to see some actual reason you individuals are dismissing the evidence brought up in this article. It would seem to me that the article brings up a fairly strong case for this being Jesus' tomb (and I haven't even seen the movie yet).

Allow me to quote the actual article:

A possible argument against the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb is that the collection of names on the ossuary inscriptions could be coincidental.

But Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics and mathematics at the University of Toronto, recently conducted a study addressing the probabilities that will soon be published in a leading statistical journal.

Feuerverger multiplied the instances that each name appeared during the tomb's time period with the instances of every other name. He initially found "Jesus Son of Joseph" appeared once out of 190 times, Mariamne appeared once out of 160 times and so on.

To be conservative, he next divided the resulting numbers by 25 percent, a statistical standard, and further divided the results by 1,000 to attempt to account for all tombs — even those that have not been uncovered — that could have existed in first century Jerusalem.

The study concludes that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb. In other words, the conclusion works 599 times out of 600.

Now, I don't buy this statistical conclusion at face value, since people could have added on the inscriptions later, but nonetheless that is an extremely strong case. Perhaps I'm in error in this regard, but I haven't seen any good reason to dismiss this article, and certainly not to dismiss it so out-of-handly.

[DariusEG]

The Mary Magdalene part is BS. They're guessing that it is.

This here explains it:

Francois Bovon, professor of the history of religion at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "Mariamene, or Mariamne, probably was the actual name given to Mary Magdalene."

They have no actual evidence to support their claim. They continue to go on and say it was possibly this and possibly that. They don't know themselves.

[TheKwas]

Now, I'm no greek expert by any means, but it seems to me that Mariamne does seem to be the Greek version of the name Mary, and the only mary that resided with Jesus, outside of his mother, was Mary Magdalene. That seems like evidence to me.

Note the part of the article right below your quote that says:

Bovon explained that he and a colleague discovered a fourteenth century copy in Greek of a fourth century text that contains the most complete version of the "Acts of Philip" ever found. Although not included in the Bible, the "Acts of Philip" mentions the apostles and Mariamne, sister of the apostle Philip.

"When Philip is weak, she is strong," Bovon said. "She likely was a great teacher who even inspired her own sect of followers, called Mariamnists, who existed from around the 2nd to the 3rd century."

Also, 'probably' is quite unlike 'possibly'. Let's not being putting words into expert's mouths that don't belong there.

[bdh]

Given what we know, they can develop some degree of measure by comparing possible factors intrinsic in the tomb.

A) That the individual in the ossuary marked 'Jesus' was crucified and wounded in a similiar fashion to the biblical account.
B) That all of the familial relationships match the biblical account (easily proven or disproven through genetics)
C) The time at which the the individuals were interned is around the time the 1st century AD
D) The possibility of other tombs nearby somehow providing more evidence for or against the conception that it is "Jesus's tomb"

[DariusEG]

Now, I'm no greek expert by any means, but it seems to me that Mariamne does seem to be the Greek version of the name Mary, and the only mary that resided with Jesus, outside of his mother, was Mary Magdalene. That seems like evidence to me.

Nope, that's not evidence. There are several Mary's throughout the New Testament and around Jesus. So, because Mary Magdalene was residing with Jesus she had a son by him? There's no evidence.

And that quote somehow suggests Jesus had a son with Mary Magdalene? And Mariamne is sister to Philip, could that be any Mary? Also, Magdalene means 'of Magdela', I see no evidence of that either.

Also, 'probably' is quite unlike 'possibly'. Let's not being putting words into expert's mouths that don't belong there.

In the context of the article and the statement of the researchers, how is it different? These researchers are just making educated guesses. They don't have enough evidence to fully conclude.

[TheKwas]

Nope, that's not evidence. There are several Mary's throughout the New Testament and around Jesus. So, because Mary Magdalene was residing with Jesus she had a son by him? There's no evidence.

Exactly how many Mary's surround Jesus? I don't know of that many.

When you get down to it, they don't know whether or not anyone from the bible corresponds to the names found in the tombs. There's no real way to prove that. It's just that, given the collection of names that coincidentally correspond to the biblical figures and that they existed in the same time period, it is very unlikely that the names and figures don't match up.

Feuerverger multiplied the instances that each name appeared during the tomb's time period with the instances of every other name. He initially found "Jesus Son of Joseph" appeared once out of 190 times, Mariamne appeared once out of 160 times and so on.

To be conservative, he next divided the resulting numbers by 25 percent, a statistical standard, and further divided the results by 1,000 to attempt to account for all tombs — even those that have not been uncovered — that could have existed in first century Jerusalem.

The study concludes that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb. In other words, the conclusion works 599 times out of 600.

In the context of the article and the statement of the researchers, how is it different? These researchers are just making educated guesses. They don't have enough evidence to fully conclude.

Probably means that the suggested answer is the most likely. Possibily means that the suggested answer could be the answer, but it isn't exactly the most likely persay. The Harvard expert seems to think that Mary Magdalene is the most likely answer. I'm not really sure on what grounds he makes this claim, but that's the claim he is making.