Jesus' Tomb?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yep, and Kloner thought the Cameron-Jacobovic theory was utter rubbish:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6397373.stm

As do probably just about every archaeologist/specialist historian [b]not on the show.

Since the programme hasn't actually aired in the UK, I can't comment in detail on the "arguments" and "evidence" presented. t night, I have to admit it's probably going to be entertaining fare.[/b]

Lh, can I ask you to step back from this a minute.

I don't know super-accurate numbers, but let's assume that there are 2 billion people who identify
themselves as 'Christian.' That means there's about 4 billion people who don't, and, thus, think
that Jesus died at some point just like every other human being. That is, assuming they believe
He existed at all (which I think most would concede is very highly probable), they think that He
either died on the Cross or resuscitated and died at some point later.

All 6 billion will not deny that Jesus had a profound (if unintended) impact on the past 2000 years,
so a discovery which potentially could be His gravesite is of interest, just like if we found graves that
could be Socrates' or Charlemagne's.

(I should say that, even among the 2 billion Christians, there are some who do not believe in a
literal Ascension [and fewer still who do not believe in a literal bodily Resurrection], whose faith
would be unaffected by the discovery of bones. I recognize that this is a small minority, but even 1%
reflects a million people who might be interested in this topic.)

That having been said, this 'discovery' is twenty-seven years old. I'm unsure why Cameron and
Jacobovic felt that 2007 was the time to make a great film about it. And, as theories go, there are
more than a handful of 'what ifs' that must be taken into account. Although one would be remiss to
deny the plausibility that this tomb belongs to 'The Jesus,' I think that the probability is pretty
shaky.

However, LH, I'd ask you, what if, in the Holy Land, someone unearthed a bone box with the following
inscription: 'Jeshua, son of Joseph and Mary, Messiah and Son of Man.' Let's assume that most
archeologists agree that the ossuary came from before the fall of the Temple and that they believe
that the inscription was fully authentic.

Would you accept it? That is, would you accept that Jesus very likely died some sort of death
(post-Cross, if you like) and was buried as any other human being?

If you cannot honestly answer this question in the affirmative, then wouldn't you say that your faith
occludes or the very least compromises your ability to evaluate the strength of the data upon which
this current hypothesized theory rests?

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Lh, can I ask you to step back from this a minute.

I don't know super-accurate numbers, but let's assume that there are 2 billion people who identify
themselves as 'Christian.' That means there's about 4 billion people who don't, and, thus, think
that Jesus died at some point just like every other human being. That is, assuming they believe
He exis h of the data upon which
this current hypothesized theory rests?

Nemesio

It doesn't really matter what LH thinks, does it, either that was Christ's tomb or it wasn't. However, if it was , what happened to His bones after the IAA gave them up for burial?

edit please no ,,They got burried ,,, answers

Originally posted by no1marauder
According to your link Kloner said: "I don't accept the news that it was used by Jesus or his family," he told the BBC News website.

That's hardly saying that the theory was "utter rubbish".

The Mariamne name is supposedly quite rare, but it was used as the name of Mary Magadalene in certain Gnostic gospels. Quite a coincidence.
ps you can actually discuss what was presented rather than dismissing it out of hand.

That's hardly saying that the theory was "utter rubbish".

OK, here's something from a JPost interview with Kloner:

It makes a great story for a TV film. But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle class family from the 1st century CE.[1]

Is "nonsense" close enough to "utter rubbish" for you?

The Mariamne name is supposedly quite rare ...

I don't know how rare "Mariamne" was, but it was the name of several of Herod's wives[2]. Indeed, "Mariamne" was a Greek misspelling of "Mariame" or "Mariamme" ("Miriam" in Hebrew) that happened somewhat later in Josephus's works.

... but it was used as the name of Mary Magadalene in certain Gnostic gospels. Quite a coincidence.

The Gnostic gospel(s) ('Acts of Philip'😉 you speak of do not identify "Mariamne" (sister of Philip) with Mary Magdalene but rather with Mary of Bethany (and sister of Martha and Lazarus)[3]. Wasn't the whole point of the Mary-Magdalene-Restoration-Project to show that these women were different?

... but it seems somewhat fortuitious that a Joseph, Mary, Jesus son of Joseph, Josa (supposedly a rare form of Joseph but used in Mark as a brother of Jesus) son of Joseph are all mentioned in a single tomb.

Here's the full list of relevant names found in the tomb:

"Yose" (Hebrew)
"Yeshuah bar Yosef" (Aramaic)
"Maria" (Latin name in Hebrew script)
"Matia" (Hebrew)
"Yehuda bar Yeshua" (Aramaic)
"Mariamene e Mara" (Greek)

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html (after "Explore the Tomb\Enter the tomb" )

Some points:

1. "Yeshuah" was Anglicised as Jesus via the Greek ("Iehsous" ) and Joshua via the Hebrew/Latin.
2. There was no James in the actual tomb. Cameron-Jacobovici took that from the now discredited Ossuary of James with the assumption that it was stolen from the main tomb-site (it wasn't -- see Prof. Kloner's interview above).
3. "Iose" (Greek) is mentioned as one of the ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3); "Ioses" (Greek) is mentioned as one of the brothers of Jesus (Mk 6); one of the sons of Mary (Mt 27 -- note that this Mary is not called Jesus's mother here) and brother to James; and as Barnabas the Levite from Cyprus (Ac 4)[4]. There are at least three (probably four) distinct Iose-s in the NT alone.
4. "Mariamene e Mara" cannot be translated to "Mary, known as Master" without switching languages mid-way through the inscription. The inscription uses Greek lettering, and "Mariamne" is (as pointed out earlier) a Greek form of Mary. "e Mara" would only be "known as Master" in Aramaic. The official website acknowledges that "Mara" is a diminutive of Mary (but in which language -- Greek or Aramaic?); in Greek, "e Mara" would be "the Hand"[5]

The first thing that strikes me as odd (and others as well[6]) is the mixture of languages in the grave site. Koine Greek and Aramaic were both common languages of the era, but it would be strange to find them together; even more so to find a Latin name there. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing turned out to be a forgery (like the Ossuary of James) in a few years.

In fact, it's fair to say that the "Maria" ossuary is probably a fake. How does this change the probability that Dr. Feuerverger came up with (which is itself problemmatic because it presupposes the very thing the documentary makers are trying to prove[7])?

I'm sure it will be shown on the bbc and then perhaps you can actually discuss what was presented rather than dismissing it out of hand.

Does it look like I'm "dismissing it out of hand"?

Btw, I doubt the BBC will actually show it (not because I think they don't do rubbish documentaries, but because they tend to focus on home-made rubbish documentaries). I'll wait for it on Discovery UK.

---
[1] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1171894527185&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariamne_(name)
[3] http://www.tonychartrand-burke.com/apocryphicity/2007/02/26/the-jesus-tomb-and-the-acts-of-philip/
[4] http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2500&version=kjv
[5] http://zcatcurious.livejournal.com/54020.html#cutid1
[6] ibid.
[7] As the i-science guys point out, the probability calculation presumes the relationships between the people in the grave are what Cameron-Jacobovici allege whereas C-J are using this probability to prove their case, a clear example of circular reasoning:
http://iscience.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/600-1-a-tomb-of-jesus-follow-up/#more-119
For a more mathematical version of the same rebuttal, see:
http://donaldscrankshaw.com/posts/1172965954.shtml

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]That's hardly saying that the theory was "utter rubbish".

OK, here's something from a JPost interview with Kloner:

[quote]It makes a great story for a TV film. But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. T 172965954.shtml[/b]

I don't have time to fully respond right now, but Kloner's article does mention that the number of Hebrew to Greek inscriptions on 1st century ossuary is about 4:3 and that they are often together. Mary's family certainly had ties to Jerusalem - according to the NT, Jesus died there, Mary lived there after her death and according to Josephus, James the brother of the one called Christus, lived there and was executed there in 62 AD! "No ties", eh?

The James ossuary is not a fake, though part of the inscription may be a forgery. The chances of any ossuary's inscription in the Tailpot or the entire tomb being a "fake" is remote; it was uncovered by construction in 1980 and its contents were carefully recorded and catalogued at that time by the Israeli Antiquities Authority (led by Prof. Kloner!). That's a bit different from the James ossuary which turned up in a private collection.

I'll get into the rest later.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I don't have time to fully respond right now, but Kloner's article does mention that the number of Hebrew to Greek inscriptions on 1st century ossuary is about 4:3 and that they are often together. Mary's family certainly had ties to Jerusalem - according to the NT, Jesus died there, Mary lived there after her death and according to Josephus, James the b uary which turned up in a private collection.

I'll get into the rest later.

whatever the probabilities are, they are still far more probable than the ressurection story.

One man's religion is another man's belly laugh.
--Robert A. Heinlein

lol

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]That's hardly saying that the theory was "utter rubbish".

OK, here's something from a JPost interview with Kloner:

[quote]It makes a great story for a TV film. But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. T 172965954.shtml[/b]

1) Yeshua = Jesus. What's the problem?
2) I never said that the name James was in the tomb. I'm willing to disregard their argument on the James ossuary as speculative; it is not essential to the theory;
3) There are 3 Yose's in the NT and two are related to Jesus according to the Gospels;
4) I don't see why an inscription can't switch languages mid-way and don't feel that this is an a priori reason to reject it. However, the "e Mara" as "master" is not necessary for the theory either;

You've given no reason to believe the Maria ossuary is a fake; apparently you claim that it must be a fake because the form of Mary used is rare (though Kloner mentions it was used in a few other ossuaries). So if it's a common name it means nothing because it's common and if it's a rare name it's a fake! You've covered all the bases, anyway.

Using the arguments out of blogs almost invariably gets you into trouble. One makes a mathematical argument based on the probability of these names being in a group of ten names or even 35. But they were not found in a group of ten or thirty five, so the argument is spurious. It's fairly obvious the blog writer didn't bother to watch the documentary or read any of the materials.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Using the arguments out of blogs almost invariably gets you into trouble. One makes a mathematical argument based on the probability of these names being in a group of ten names or even 35. But they were not found in a group of ten or thirty five, so the argument is spurious. It's fairly obvious the blog writer didn't bother to watch the documentary or read any of the materials.

*cough* *cough*

In 1980 a construction crew exposed a family tomb which remained hidden since the first century CE. Carved above the tomb entrance were unusual symbols. Inside the tomb archaeologists found ten ossuaries...

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html

EDIT: The author of the blog provides no reference for the up-to-35 bit. I do recall seeing that somewhere else, though, so I'll have to hunt for it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
*cough* *cough*

In 1980 a construction crew exposed a family tomb which remained hidden since the first century CE. Carved above the tomb entrance were unusual symbols. [b]Inside the tomb archaeologists found ten ossuaries...

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html

EDIT: The author of the blog provides n ...[text shortened]... the up-to-35 bit. I do recall seeing that somewhere else, though, so I'll have to hunt for it.[/b]

So what? His numbers are based on the chances of the names being found in a group of ten NAMES. A blank ossuary has no effect on that probability. Ditto for 35; which is Kloner's estimate for the number of person's remains that may have been in the tomb based on an average of 1.7 remains per ossuary in a typical tomb plus the evidence of scattered remains (the tomb wasn't exactly pristine).

Better buy some cough syrup.

EDIT: From the "mathematical" blog:

Let's start with ten Jewish names selected at random. What is the probability that there is at least one Maria among them? Hmm, that's a lot of permutations to list... but, you can find the probability that there are no Marias pretty easily. The probability of a random individual being named Maria is 1/8, so the probability of an individual not being named Maria is 7/8. Now, the probability that ten such individuals have no Marias among them is (7/8)^10. So, the odds that at least one is named Maria is 1-(7/8)^10.

So let's list them:

At least 1 Maria: 3/4
At least 1 Mariamne: 1/32
At least 1 Jesus son of Joseph: 1/38
At least 1 Yose: 2/9

So, for ten names, you get a 1/7,600 chance of a tomb having all four of the significant names, which is the same result we got with the other technique. However, if you have thirty-five names on your ossuaries, you get a different set of odds:

At least 1 Maria: 99/100
At least 1 Mariamne: 1/10
At least 1 Jesus son of Joseph: 1/11
At least 1 Yose: 3/5

This gives a tomb with thirty-five names a 1/188 chance of having all four significant names. So there's a difference of a factor of six from the other method.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So what? His numbers are based on the chances of the names being found in a group of ten NAMES. A blank ossuary has no effect on that probability. Ditto for 35; which is Kloner's estimate for the number of person's remains that may have been in the tomb based on an average of 1.7 remains per ossuary in a typical tomb plus the evidence of scattered remain ...[text shortened]... ur significant names. So there's a difference of a factor of six from the other method.

heres one jose:


Mark 15:47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid.

btw the rock that Matthew had Josepth roll into place must have grown some in Mark

Originally posted by no1marauder
For someone who claims to have made a life long study of the Bible, you don't seem to know anything about Jesus' ministry. There are 35 public miracles ("interesting entertainment"😉 given in the Gospels. And perhaps you missed Matthew 4:23-25 as regards the "masses":

23 And Jesus went about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching ...[text shortened]... words contained within. Or maybe you're relying on Witness Lee heretical doctrines again.

Oooo! Impressive. You know about 25 miracles given in public in the Gospels. Wow.

Yep, here's a guy who really knows the Bible.

Which teaching by Witness Lee is heretical? And why would you CARE about heretical teachings anyway ??? You don't even believe the Gospel.

So you, the fighting tooth and nail over the relevancy of the Bible at all, are suddenly concerned with Witness Lee's "heretical" teaching ???

I think you just like to jump on band wagons. Why should I expect you to know a heretical teaching from hole in the wall?

But if you so much want to talk about Witness Lee with me identify one heretical teaching of Lee and tell me why you think it is heretical.

To the Witness Lee Basher Wannabe:

Anybody can Google a name and find negative verbage. The Internet is free and a place of great information and massive misinformation.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Too many people take the Da Vinci Code seriously. Too often I encounter people who make claims which are taken more or less from this fictional book.

Like the bible?

Originally posted by jaywill
Oooo! Impressive. You know about 25 miracles given in public in the Gospels. Wow.

Yep, here's a guy who really knows the Bible.

Which teaching by Witness Lee is heretical? And why would you CARE about heretical teachings anyway ??? You don't even believe the Gospel.

So you, the fighting tooth and nail over the relevancy of the Bible at a ...[text shortened]... e with me identify one heretical teaching of Lee and tell me why you think it is heretical.

Wow, you still can't read, idiot. Thirty five not 25, moron.

I didn't say I loved the Bible, but I have read it. That's obviously more than you can truthfully say.

Originally posted by jaywill
To the Witness Lee Basher Wannabe:

Anybody can [b]Google a name and find negative verbage. The Internet is free and a place of great information and massive misinformation.[/b]

So sue me; that seems to be the favored response of Witness Lee's "church" to any criticism. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l40.html#legal

Originally posted by no1marauder
So sue me; that seems to be the favored response of Witness Lee's "church" to any criticism. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l40.html#legal

Jump to another subject ???

Usual response. You are right on time. Nothing about a heresy yet, of course. Only we see you jump to the matter of law suits.

Or maybe you're just stalling for time until you can get a little help from someone who maybe does know something ???

Okay, do you intend to point out which teaching is a heresy. Or are you going to jump to another subject now about law suits?

So, which teaching by Witness Lee is a heresy? And explain exactly WHY it is a Christian heresy.

And PLEASE - Don't start with your weaker cases and save the stronger cases for latter. Start with you single STRONGEST case right up front and FIRST.