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.

[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.

[Siblesz]

This case is never going through to the history books, even if Jesus himself presents himself and talks to Discovery in an interview detailing every facet of his life. It goes against mainstream belief, and as such it will take with it the heaviest of cynicism and disbelief. Of course, this is in no way saying that I sincerely believe that Jesus and his bros were buried there, but I don't set it aside completely either. It is an interesting find, but what I find more interesting is the reaction to the find.

[MaximiIian]

The discoverers are assuming that the Mary Magdalene, or indeed Yeshua ben Yosef, even exist in the first place. Interesting find, though.

[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.

[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.

[Ummon]

Aside from the really boring polemics about Jesus in the Qu'ran (the Qu'ran, that perfect book is contradictory on every aspect of Jesus and many other things) it is fully possible that the tomb is that of Jesus.

Now let's assume that I find a tomb of a person named Alexander and another person named Roxane in Egypt. Is it the tomb of Alexander the Great? Can I scientifically state it? How many people have been crucifixed in Galilee and Judaea? With Simon Magus revolt?

People who here advocate this interpretation are deliberately ignoring:

1) statistics
2) the fact that carbon dating has a large span of uncertainty
3) logics

If these people were not logics supporters themselves...

It is fully possible that it is the tomb of Jesus. It is also highly improbable that it is the tomb of Jesus.

[NaptownKnight]

I saw this article on MSN and read a little bit about it. I would have to agree with a antropologist quoted in the article, the people who found this tomb are just conjuring up magic for the masses. I mean why is that guy that did Titanic (the motion picture) investigating this? Titanic was a movie known for it's special effects, maybe that has something to do with it. These people smeel the strong odor of money that wafted off of the DaVinci code, and now they want to start up another "investigation". I can see it now... " Group of scientists are now searching for the descendants of Jesus Christ by tracing his lineage down from Judah, his son". All of the sudden contraversy and money start puring in as books and finaally a motion picture come out about it, of course directed by the guy ( Cameron something?) who did Titanic.

[Balikedes]

It is fully possible that it is the tomb of Jesus. It is also highly improbable that it is the tomb of Jesus.

Yeah, just like it's entirely possible for a giant asteroid to hit earth tomorrow but also highly unlikely.

James Cameron should stick to making sci-fi movies.

[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.

[danzig]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2007/02/26/D8NHI2MO2.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Amusing thing about this story the actual archeologist who oversaw the original uncovering of the site and worked on it dismisses the entire 'story' trying to be sold here as no evidence to back it up. Lets see who to trust more the man who gave us The Terminator and the Titanic or an archeologist....tough call I know!

[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.

[Gaidin]

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

...

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

So it really has nothing to do with how you were raised?