PDA

View Full Version : Did Archeologists find Jesus' Coffin?



ahaha
03-03-2007, 10:13 AM
Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found
Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News

Feb. 25, 2007 — New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.
The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.

The DNA findings, alongside statistical conclusions made about the artifacts — originally excavated in 1980 — open a potentially significant chapter in Biblical archaeological history.

A documentary presenting the evidence, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," will premiere on the Discovery Channel on March 4 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. The documentary comes from executive producer James Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici.

Discovery has set up a special Web site, www.discovery.com/tomb, to provide related in-depth information and to allow viewers to come to their own conclusions about the entire matter.

The Talpiot Tomb


On March 28, 1980, a construction crew developing an apartment complex in Talpiot, Jerusalem, uncovered a tomb, which archaeologists from the Israeli Antiquities Authority excavated shortly thereafter. Archaeologist Shimon Gibson surveyed the site and drew a layout plan. Scholar L.Y. Rahmani later published "A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries" that described 10 ossuaries, or limestone bone boxes, found in the tomb.

Scholars know that from 30 B.C. to 70 A.D., many people in Jerusalem would first wrap bodies in shrouds after death. The bodies were then placed in carved rock tombs, where they decomposed for a year before the bones were placed in an ossuary.

Five of the 10 discovered boxes in the Talpiot tomb were inscribed with names believed to be associated with key figures in the New Testament: Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph and Mary Magdalene. A sixth inscription, written in Aramaic, translates to "Judah Son of Jesus."

"Such tombs are very typical for that region," Aaron Brody, associate professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion and director of California's Bade Museum told Discovery News.

Ossuary Inscriptions

At least four leading epigraphers have corroborated the ossuary inscriptions for the documentary, according to the Discovery Channel.

Frank Moore Cross, a professor emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "The inscriptions are from the Herodian Period. The use of limestone ossuaries and the varied script styles are characteristic of that time."

Jodi Magness, associate department chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told Discovery News that, based on the New Testament writings, "Jesus likely lived during the first century A.D."

In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary." Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."

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."

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."

DNA Analysis

Jacobovici, director, producer and writer of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," and his team obtained two sets of samples from the ossuaries for DNA and chemical analysis. The first set consisted of bits of matter taken from the "Jesus Son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara" ossuaries. The second set consisted of patina — a chemical film encrustation on one of the limestone boxes.

The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related.

Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper.

Robert Genna, director of the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory in New York, analyzed both the patina taken from the Talpiot Tomb and chemical residue obtained from the "James" ossuary, which was also found around 1980, but subsequently disappeared and resurfaced in the antiquities market. Although controversy surrounds this burial box, Genna found that the two patinas matched.

"The samples were consistent with each other," Genna told Discovery News.

Upon examining the tomb, the filmmakers determined a space exists that would have fit the "James" ossuary. Given the patina match and this observation, Jacobovici theorizes the lost burial box could, in fact, be the "James" ossuary.

Statistical Data

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.

BallHawk
03-03-2007, 10:41 AM
Dan Brown is pissing himself as we speak.

MJZiggy
03-03-2007, 10:48 AM
As is the Pope...

oregonpackfan
03-03-2007, 11:32 AM
So are theologians and moralists..

If Jesus rose from the dead would he leave DNA samples of a motal body?

Would Jesus have initimate relations with a known prostitute? Dr. James Dobson and Pat Robertson would spit out their morning coffee on that one!

Charles Woodson
03-03-2007, 01:36 PM
I dont belive any of this hollywood hype.

Fosco33
03-03-2007, 01:43 PM
Now a bunch of people will be getting dna tested for relations to Jesus. Oh boy... could you put that on an application... "Yeah, Jesus is my great (X 100 generations removed) grandfather"

HarveyWallbangers
03-03-2007, 01:50 PM
This is actually been shot down by many archaelogists before. Apparently, Hollywood is making a movie or something about this. The fact that 1/3 of women in those days in that area were named "Mary". "Jesus" was a common name also. Actually, there weren't that many variety of names back then.

ahaha
03-03-2007, 02:03 PM
The good news for guys like Pat Robertson is that you could never prove, with 100% certainty, that these remains are Jesus Christ. It's not like we have a sample of his DNA to compare to. Sure, the odds of another Jesus-son of Joseph, Mary, Joseph, Matthew, James and Mary Magdelene being buried next to each other, and all tombs being dated to the first century in Jerusalem, is probably astronomical. The evangelical preachers can claim it's just a crazy coincidence. Maybe the devil did it to confuse us like he did with dinosaur bones.

ahaha
03-03-2007, 02:28 PM
The fact that 1/3 of women in those days in that area were named "Mary". "Jesus" was a common name also. Actually, there weren't that many variety of names back then.

How sure are you about this? The Bible has a wide range of different names. Just off the top of my head: Adam, Eve, Isaac, Kane, Abel, Joshua, Moses, Noah, Ruth, Sarah, Sampson, Delilah, Jesabel, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Isaih, Jacob, Job, Daneil, John, Herod, Esekial, Jonah, Jesus, Joseph, Saul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Phillip, Thomas, Peter, James, Judas, and I know there's more.(Of course, these are English translations, but still different names.) And that's just the Bible.
It doesn't make sense that one out of every three women would be named Mary. That would make distinguishing people very difficult, especially in a time without last names.

HarveyWallbangers
03-03-2007, 03:45 PM
The fact that 1/3 of women in those days in that area were named "Mary". "Jesus" was a common name also. Actually, there weren't that many variety of names back then.

How sure are you about this? The Bible has a wide range of different names. Just off the top of my head: Adam, Eve, Isaac, Kane, Abel, Joshua, Moses, Noah, Ruth, Sarah, Sampson, Delilah, Jesabel, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Isaih, Jacob, Job, Daneil, John, Herod, Esekial, Jonah, Jesus, Joseph, Saul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Phillip, Thomas, Peter, James, Judas, and I know there's more.(Of course, these are English translations, but still different names.) And that's just the Bible.
It doesn't make sense that one out of every three women would be named Mary. That would make distinguishing people very difficult, especially in a time without last names.

How many of those are from the old testament? How many are from that area at that time?

Bretsky
03-03-2007, 04:01 PM
I dont belive any of this hollywood hype.


ditto

Charles Woodson
03-03-2007, 04:08 PM
The fact that 1/3 of women in those days in that area were named "Mary". "Jesus" was a common name also. Actually, there weren't that many variety of names back then.

How sure are you about this? The Bible has a wide range of different names. Just off the top of my head: Adam, Eve, Isaac, Kane, Abel, Joshua, Moses, Noah, Ruth, Sarah, Sampson, Delilah, Jesabel, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Isaih, Jacob, Job, Daneil, John, Herod, Esekial, Jonah, Jesus, Joseph, Saul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Phillip, Thomas, Peter, James, Judas, and I know there's more.(Of course, these are English translations, but still different names.) And that's just the Bible.
It doesn't make sense that one out of every three women would be named Mary. That would make distinguishing people very difficult, especially in a time without last names.

How many of those are from the old testament? How many are from that area at that time?
Adam, Eve, Isaac, Kane, Abel, Joshua, Moses, Noah, Ruth, Sarah, Sampson, Delilah, Jesabel, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Isaih, Jacob, Job, Daneil, Esekial, Jonah, Saul
are the ones from the Old Testement[/b]

Joemailman
03-03-2007, 06:58 PM
So are theologians and moralists..

If Jesus rose from the dead would he leave DNA samples of a motal body?

Would Jesus have initimate relations with a known prostitute? Dr. James Dobson and Pat Robertson would spit out their morning coffee on that one!


Just a small point...It is now generally agreed that Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute. There are 5 Mary's mentioned in the Gospels, of which one was a prostitute. The Mary who was a prostitute, and Mary Magdalene are mentioned in successive chapters in Luke's Gospel, which adds to the confusion. In addition, a 6th century Pope also claimed that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute, probably in an attempt to diminish the importance of Mary Magdalene's role as one of Christ's followers.

ahaha
03-03-2007, 08:25 PM
The fact that 1/3 of women in those days in that area were named "Mary". "Jesus" was a common name also. Actually, there weren't that many variety of names back then.

How sure are you about this? The Bible has a wide range of different names. Just off the top of my head: Adam, Eve, Isaac, Kane, Abel, Joshua, Moses, Noah, Ruth, Sarah, Sampson, Delilah, Jesabel, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Isaih, Jacob, Job, Daneil, John, Herod, Esekial, Jonah, Jesus, Joseph, Saul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Phillip, Thomas, Peter, James, Judas, and I know there's more.(Of course, these are English translations, but still different names.) And that's just the Bible.
It doesn't make sense that one out of every three women would be named Mary. That would make distinguishing people very difficult, especially in a time without last names.

How many of those are from the old testament? How many are from that area at that time?

Does it matter that much? I was just pointing to the wide variety of names in the most popular book of Jewish history. Just because one of those names was in the Old Testament doesn't mean it wasn't at use during Jesus' time. I would guess there were plenty of Esekials, Davids, Isaihs, Ruths, and Sarahs walking around Jerusalem in the first century. Doesn't it make sense that plenty of people would name their kids after people from their sacred writings?

Charles Woodson
03-03-2007, 10:00 PM
The fact that 1/3 of women in those days in that area were named "Mary". "Jesus" was a common name also. Actually, there weren't that many variety of names back then.

How sure are you about this? The Bible has a wide range of different names. Just off the top of my head: Adam, Eve, Isaac, Kane, Abel, Joshua, Moses, Noah, Ruth, Sarah, Sampson, Delilah, Jesabel, David, Solomon, Jeremiah, Isaih, Jacob, Job, Daneil, John, Herod, Esekial, Jonah, Jesus, Joseph, Saul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Phillip, Thomas, Peter, James, Judas, and I know there's more.(Of course, these are English translations, but still different names.) And that's just the Bible.
It doesn't make sense that one out of every three women would be named Mary. That would make distinguishing people very difficult, especially in a time without last names.

How many of those are from the old testament? How many are from that area at that time?

Does it matter that much? I was just pointing to the wide variety of names in the most popular book of Jewish history. Just because one of those names was in the Old Testament doesn't mean it wasn't at use during Jesus' time. I would guess there were plenty of Esekials, Davids, Isaihs, Ruths, and Sarahs walking around Jerusalem in the first century. Doesn't it make sense that plenty of people would name their kids after people from their sacred writings?

Actually the Jews do not use the bible. They use something different. Torra or cannon maybe??? basically the old testement. They dont belive that Jesus was the TRUE Christ and so they dont belive in the New testement. But still its just hollywood crap.

BallHawk
03-03-2007, 10:08 PM
Ahaha was refering that the most famous book in Jewish history is the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Jews use the Old, not the new.

Jimx29
03-03-2007, 10:54 PM
Rev. Lovejoy: You could save a lot more souls with roller-skates and Easy-Bake ovens, than with this [lifts Bible] 2000 page sleeping pill

jack's smirking revenge
03-03-2007, 11:18 PM
Don't believe what you read in the presses. I have Jesus' coffin in my garage. He and I party all the time. Unfortunately, he's usually drunk when he gives me advice, so he's not much of a counselor.

Harlan Huckleby
03-04-2007, 08:45 AM
My favorite Kinky Friedman song, "They don't make Jews like Jesus Anymore"

Anybody for a sing-along?

Zool
03-05-2007, 08:07 AM
Rev Lovejoy: Today's hymn will be In the Garden of Eden by I. Ron Butterfly.

Homer: Hey Marge, remember when we used to make out to this hymn?

red
03-05-2007, 09:07 AM
the little film last night about this on the discovery channel was pretty interesting. as was the debate afterwards

i really wasn't convinced by either side, but it was interesting

Charles Woodson
03-05-2007, 02:40 PM
Ahaha was refering that the most famous book in Jewish history is the Old Testament, not the New Testament. Jews use the Old, not the new.

No shit, i know that. What im saying is most of the names he put are new testemant names.