Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
Still Waters

The final resting place of Jesus found?

89 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Exactly. We don't even have any records to indicate that the bible's Jesus ever existed, other than hearsay. Anecdotes don't constitute as being undeniable evidence in the world of sound logic and rationality.

Funny how almost no-one from among the academic worlds scholars reject the fact that Jesus existed. They may reject the bibles view, but never that he did not exist at all. Some people talk as if they are actually stating a fact when they say he never existed.

And the bible does very well in standing up to criticism against its historicity.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. We don't even have any records to indicate that the Bible's Jesus ever existed, other than hearsay. Anecdotes don't constitute as being undeniable evidence in the world of sound logic and rationality.

I have no evidence that you exist! I have said that before. I don't even have anecdotal proof of you existing. But such would not convince me anyway because I want empirical evidence you exist! Prove yourself or I will keep considering that you are a machine run by a random number generator!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Funny how almost no-one from among the academic worlds scholars reject the fact that Jesus existed. They may reject the bibles view, but never that he did not exist at all. Some people talk as if they are actually stating a fact when they say he never existed.

And the bible does very well in standing up to criticism against its historicity.

When I said the bible's Jesus, I was more-or-less referring to the proclaimed healer, the son of god...

Also, are you saying that scholars accept the concept that a man with such capability existed?

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said the bible's Jesus, I was more-or-less referring to the proclaimed healer, the son of god...

Also, are you saying that scholars accept the concept that a man with such capability existed?

That depends which scholars one is referring to, they are divided into two camps, skeptics and believers.

The skeptic position is based on the supposed non-historicity of the New Testament, in other words they claim the New Testament is not a reliable witness, so they dismiss it as a fabrication full of errors.

The opposition states the opposite. That it is historical, reliable and that it can be demonstrated to be reasonably accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends which scholars one is referring to, they are divided into two camps, skeptics and believers.

The skeptic position is based on the supposed non-historicity of the New Testament, in other words they claim the New Testament is not a reliable witness, so they dismiss it as a fabrication full of errors.

The opposition states the opposite. That it is historical, reliable and that it can be demonstrated to be reasonably accurate.

So, essentially, the people of logic, rationality and reason are the ones who don't see the bible as being a credible resource of historical information, while the believer in fairy tales do?

I think I will stick with the former.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, essentially, the people of logic, rationality and reason are the ones who don't see the bible as being a credible resource of historical information, while the believer in fairy tales do?

I think I will stick with the former.

So they reinterpret whatever they want to suite their own logic as well?

Their rationality is what they decide is correct, not based on the actual evidence, that is their greatest weakness...

Lets' take Dr. James Tabor who is mentioned by the article in the OP. A non-believer, who doesn't believe the New Testament account. His logical and rational thoughts brought him to believe that the Talpiot tomb, a few meters away from this one, was Jesus actual tomb, now he is saying that this one is Jesus tomb... rationality and logic only get you so far, after that one counts on ones agenda.

http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/category/talpiot-jesus-family-tomb/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they reinterpret whatever they want to suite their own logic as well?

Their rationality is what they decide is correct, not based on the actual evidence, that is their greatest weakness...

Lets' take Dr. James Tabor who is mentioned by the article in the OP. A non-believer, who doesn't believe the New Testament account. His logical and rational thoughts brought him to believe that the Talpiot tomb, a few meters away from this one, was Jesus actual tomb, now he is saying that this one is Jesus tomb... rationality and logic only get you so far, after that one counts on ones agenda.

http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/category/talpiot-jesus-family-tomb/

No, their rationality is based on the fact that they have no evidence to form any support in favour of Jesus' existence.

Also, if you're going to provide a source, at least provide one that doesn't have "bible" in it; provide me with a source that is actually credible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, their rationality is based on the fact that they have no evidence to form any support in favour of Jesus' existence.

Also, if you're going to provide a source, at least provide one that doesn't have "bible" in it; provide me with a source that is actually credible.

The source is Dr. Tabors own website my friend... ^_^

Evidence from the past is based on what?

Written accounts, we have those. They are dismissed.

Archaelogical evidence, proving he existed?

The tombs in question demonstrate that he existed and was worshipped, within his own lifetime, they are the tombs of christians who followed Jesus, they lived during his lifetime.

Evidence that he actually did the things the bible states?

You either believe or you do not, you cannot prove it either way, unless we invent a time machine to go see for ourselves.

Their dismissal of the evidence is blatant, there is no logic or rationality involved... and certainly no objectivity. What they do is dismiss what they have in favour of ridiculous assumptions which they can't prove.

It sort of leaves them in the very boat, people put believers into.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The source is Dr. Tabors own website my friend... ^_^

Evidence from the past is based on what?

Written accounts, we have those. They are dismissed.

Archaelogical evidence, proving he existed?

The tombs in question demonstrate that he existed and was worshipped, within his own lifetime, they are the tombs of christians who followed Jesus, they lived during his lifetime.

Evidence that he actually did the things the bible states?

You either believe or you do not, you cannot prove it either way, unless we invent a time machine to go see for ourselves.

Their dismissal of the evidence is blatant, there is no logic or rationality involved... and certainly no objectivity. What they do is dismiss what they have in favour of ridiculous assumptions which they can't prove.

It sort of leaves them in the very boat, people put believers into.

I don't believe, because I don't see any reason to. There's as much evidence to suggest the existence of the biblical portrayal of Jesus as there is to suggest the existence of fire breathing dragons. What I know is that it is physically impossible for one to simply heal others by using the sense of touch... It is physically impossible to simply rise from the dead, and go to live in the clouds.

*SNIP*

Edited by Lilly
removed inflammatory remarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe, because I don't see any reason to. There's as much evidence to suggest the existence of the biblical portrayal of Jesus as there is to suggest the existence of fire breathing dragons. What I know is that it is physically impossible for one to simply heal others by using the sense of touch... It is physically impossible to simply rise from the dead, and go to live in the clouds.

Ah, the crux of the argument, you choose not to believe because you see no reason to.

It is a choice, not based on evidence, but because you decided it was so...

The evidence is in the tombs themselves, people were buried who were clearly christians, who believed that Jesus was the Christ, who saw a reason to believe it with their own eyes.

Yet you say there is no evidence.

The evidence is in the testimonies of those who wrote the Gospels, who got that information from actual witnesses. In any other setting, they would be considered crucial evidence. In this setting they are considered wackos, or liars.

Yet you say there is no evidence.

You say that miracles cannot happen, they are physically impossible, well... the definition of a miracle is that it contradicts the established laws of the universe, so just because those laws say that it is impossible, doesn't make it so for God.

Yet I have seen one or two in my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me remind you as well as our esteemed readers of a few items...

Genesis 18:1-8

1The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. 2Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground.

3He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord,a do not pass your servant by. 4Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree. 5Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way—now that you have come to your servant.”

“Very well,” they answered, “do as you say.”

6So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah. “Quick,” he said, “get three seahsb of fine flour and knead it and bake some bread.”

7Then he ran to the herd and selected a choice, tender calf and gave it to a servant, who hurried to prepare it. 8He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. While they ate, he stood near them under a tree.

Time and again almost without exception in all the books of the old Testament we see God appearing as a physical being, he eats, he fights, he touches people and yet he is God.

Just because Jesus flesh looked and felt human, and had the marks of his crucifixion, does not mean that the body he had after his resurrection is the same as the old body. He also did a number of amazing things in this body after he rose from the dead, He looked physically different, he could walk through walls, he could instantaneously travel from one place to another among other things.

Yet most importantly, Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, Samuel, Jeremiah and a host of others would have immediately recognized him.

Okay so you're comparing the God of the OT to the Jesus who comes back after resurrected, but yet you say he was God too in the human flesh body too, did miracles and stuff in his human self before crucifixion, physical body then. So where did his human body go, the physical body?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so you're comparing the God of the OT to the Jesus who comes back after resurrected, but yet you say he was God too in the human flesh body too, did miracles and stuff in his human self before crucifixion, physical body then. So where did his human body go, the physical body?

It was transformed.

Jesus didn't change bodies, like we change a shirt. His actual physical body was transformed/reconfigured/transfigured into the resurrected body he had, after being raised from death.

It wasn't just a reanimation of a physically dead body in decomposition.

The human flesh body had human limitations, Jesus was entirely human, from birth to death, the body he rose in is based on that body, but it is not a human body as we know it anymore. It is an immortal, indestructible body, a body that is not made of normal matter in the sense that it is now eternal and will never decay in any way.

He can still eat, drink, use it to walk and open doors and touch people but that body does not need to eat, drink or sleep anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was transformed.

Jesus didn't change bodies, like we change a shirt. His actual physical body was transformed/reconfigured/transfigured into the resurrected body he had, after being raised from death.

It wasn't just a reanimation of a physically dead body in decomposition.

The human flesh body had human limitations, Jesus was entirely human, from birth to death, the body he rose in is based on that body, but it is not a human body as we know it anymore. It is an immortal, indestructible body, a body that is not made of normal matter in the sense that it is now eternal and will never decay in any way.

He can still eat, drink, use it to walk and open doors and touch people but that body does not need to eat, drink or sleep anymore.

I think that's what Eight Bits talked about being the pneuma body, is that right? Don't quote me on that, I might be wrong that is what he said. Pneuma is breath so that's sort of like the spirit or soul. And this non-decay body, that's indestructible, that's what everyone is supposed to get when Jesus comes back, is that right? Or well Christian people, I guess is the common belief, but those kind of bodies that Jesus has when he comes back is the same, correct? This all sounds so weird, like transhumanism religion, haha. I always thought everyone passed away, went to heaven or hell and were in a spirit form, over and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think that's what Eight Bits talked about being the pneuma body, is that right? Don't quote me on that, I might be wrong that is what he said. Pneuma is breath so that's sort of like the spirit or soul. And this non-decay body, that's indestructible, that's what everyone is supposed to get when Jesus comes back, is that right? Or well Christian people, I guess is the common belief, but those kind of bodies that Jesus has when he comes back is the same, correct? This all sounds so weird, like transhumanism religion, haha. I always thought everyone passed away, went to heaven or hell and were in a spirit form, over and out.

It could be what he was trying to say, I have never seen the term pneuma body, to me that merely means "spirit body", if that is the case, no, it is not the same. The spirit body inhabits a physical body, it is not meant to exist without a physical body.

It merely does so because the host body is dead, dust and all other possible descriptions. People who have died until now are in that condition, but that situation is temporary and they feel incomplete without thier bodies. They will get theirs when we get ours, some people believe it will be upon Jesus 2nd coming, others believe it will be in the rapture.

The unsaved will get theirs at the final judgement.

Everybody gets an eternal body.

But you are correct in your assumption that it is the ultimate transhumanist religion. If one studies the philosphy behind the ideas in the bible, we invariably come to the conclusion that mans destiny is eternal physicality, not by our own hands, but by Gods. It his destiny to resume his purpose in being created, the administration of the physical universe, as Gods imagers and representatives.

Sorry , no flying on cloud 9 playing harps and such... We are destined to live in the material universe, on earth and beyond, not be disembodied spirits in a spiritual heaven, that was never meant for us.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

So, essentially, the people of logic, rationality and reason are the ones who don't see the Bible as being a credible resource of historical information, while the believer in fairy tales do?

I think I will stick with the former.

So they reinterpret whatever they want to suite their own logic as well?

Their rationality is what they decide is correct, not based on the actual evidence, that is their greatest weakness...

Lets' take Dr. James Tabor who is mentioned by the article in the OP. A non-believer, who doesn't believe the New Testament account. His logical and rational thoughts brought him to believe that the Talpiot tomb, a few meters away from this one, was Jesus actual tomb, now he is saying that this one is Jesus tomb... rationality and logic only get you so far, after that one counts on ones agenda.

http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/category/talpiot-jesus-family-tomb/

This is getting a bit confusing.


  1. I think we have various combinations of concepts going on here. The basic ingredients being:
  2. The historical Jesus exists. (y/n) [historical Jesus]
  3. The things attributed to Jesus were true. (y/n) [Messianic Jesus]
  4. A man of such capacity existed. (y/n) [Messianic person]
  5. The Bible as fairly historically accurate. (y/n)

(.A.) is stated to be accepted as true by all Scholars. --Jor-el

(.B.) is what Alienated Being meant when he said Jesus. [Bible's Jesus] --Alienated Being

(.C.) is asked by Alienated Being to be a conclusion of Jor-el. It was NOT --me

(.C.) do scholars accept the concept that such a person existed? No answer --me

(.D.) do scholars accept the historical accuracy of the Bible? yes and no --Joe-el

Does (.B.) above, mean that Alienated Being agrees that the "historical Jesus" existed? --Sounds like it to me.

And if I may be a bit cynical, I imagine there are two benefits to him:

  1. Backing his own opinion of religions.
  2. Sensationalizing sufficiently to get in the news, i.e. increases in project funding.
Edited by encouraged

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I would like to see your evidence for such claims. Otherwise I will reguard the remark as the kind it already seems to be.

Mark 16:19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

Luke 24:51 And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.

*SNIP*

Edited by Lilly
no need to be rude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's time to remind everyone posting here of the rules:

3a. Racism or hatred: We have zero tolerance for racism or hatred towards any specific race, religion, country, gender, individual or group.

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

Basically, post in a polite and mature fashion...or don't post at all. If you think someone else's religious beliefs are incorrect or silly simply state you disagree with such and politely move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ah, the crux of the argument, you choose not to believe because you see no reason to.

It is a choice, not based on evidence, but because you decided it was so...

I see no reason to believe in the biblical portrayal of Jesus, no. He was portrayed as being the son of god, which I do not agree with. Do I think a fella named Jesus existed? Sure, it's possible; hell, there are people around today named Jesus (pronounced hay-zeus, I believe). There may have been a nutter claiming to possess powers, and witnessed to have seemingly cured the sick... however, that doesn't mean that he was magical. What it means is that something may have potentially occurred that they could not explain. There is a term known as coincidence, you know. Still, there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING to indicate the existence of a man in that time period who possessed these powers, other than a bible containing words that have been altered by hundreds of anonymous individuals over 2000 years.

The evidence is in the tombs themselves, people were buried who were clearly christians, who believed that Jesus was the Christ, who saw a reason to believe it with their own eyes.

Yet you say there is no evidence.

In reference to your segment regarding "belief"; a belief alone does not confirm the validity regarding said belief... I could BELIEVE that there's an invisible elf standing on my roof right now, but that doesn't make it so.

The evidence is in the testimonies of those who wrote the Gospels, who got that information from actual witnesses. In any other setting, they would be considered crucial evidence. In this setting they are considered wackos, or liars.

Yet you say there is no evidence.

People can have wild imaginations, and their memories CAN be tainted and distorted... This hardly classifies as being valid evidence.

You say that miracles cannot happen, they are physically impossible, well... the definition of a miracle is that it contradicts the established laws of the universe, so just because those laws say that it is impossible, doesn't make it so for God.

Yet I have seen one or two in my time.

Really? And how can you say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was the result of some divine intervention? What makes you invest belief in such a notion? I am curious.

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see no reason to believe in the biblical portrayal of Jesus, no. He was portrayed as being the son of god, which I do not agree with. Do I think a fella named Jesus existed? Sure, it's possible; hell, there are people around today named Jesus (pronounced hay-zeus, I believe). There may have been a nutter claiming to possess powers, and witnessed to have seemingly cured the sick... however, that doesn't mean that he was magical. What it means is that something may have potentially occurred that they could not explain. There is a term known as coincidence, you know. Still, there is nothing, and I mean NOTHING to indicate the existence of a man in that time period who possessed these powers, other than a bible containing words that have been altered by hundreds of anonymous individuals over 2000 years.

In reference to your segment regarding "belief"; a belief alone does not confirm the validity regarding said belief... I could BELIEVE that there's an invisible elf standing on my roof right now, but that doesn't make it so.

People can have wild imaginations, and their memories CAN be tainted and distorted... This hardly classifies as being valid evidence.

Really? And how can you say, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was the result of some divine intervention? What makes you invest belief in such a notion? I am curious.

Ah....I gotta respond to this. There wouldn't be a "Hey Zeus" if it weren't for Jesus. You've got your history wrong. Yes, there are MANY Latinos with that name. Do you honestly think they thought up that name separate from the historical figure? Just because it's pronounced different from English doesn't mean that isn't where they got the name from.

Unless you want to explain where they got the names for Jose (Joseph) Miguel (Michael) Tomas (Thomas) ....... I can add a few more if you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another article about the same story. Has a few more photos, and information:

Ancient Tomb Holds Jesus Mystery: Photos

Source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is another article about the same story. Has a few more photos, and information:

Ancient Tomb Holds Jesus Mystery: Photos

Source

This set of photos and associated articles has no claim of the "bone boxes" or tomb being the "final resting place of Jesus." It is a much more professional and less sensational report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to standard Roman crucifixion sentences at the time, and especially if the said crudites were an all out anti-political and heretical figure, Jesus' body would have been thrown on the dumping place where every other so called criminals body would be thrown, not in a tomb, but on the thousands of other previously executed corpses. I read this in an article a few months back that dealt with the issue of Jesus' actual appearance, don't know the name ofthepit or its location but I'm going to try to source it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jor-el, and to some extent, Chloe

It could be what he was trying to say, I have never seen the term pneuma body,

At post 47 you quoted Paul, 1 Corinthians 15. Almost immediately preceding what you quoted there, at verses 35-45, Paul wrote:

But someone may say, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come back?”

You fool! What you sow is not brought to life unless it dies.And what you sow is not the body that is to be but a bare kernel of wheat, perhaps, or of some other kind; but God gives it a body as he chooses, and to each of the seeds its own body. Not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for human beings, another kind of flesh for animals, another kind of flesh for birds, and another for fish.

There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the brightness of the heavenly is one kind and that of the earthly another. The brightness of the sun is one kind, the brightness of the moon another, and the brightness of the stars another. For star differs from star in brightness.

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown corruptible; it is raised incorruptible. It is sown dishonorable; it is raised glorious. It is sown weak; it is raised powerful.It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual one.

So, too, it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being,” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

A "life givng spirit," in Greek, pneuma. The concrete reference of the word is to breath, whose relationship to being alive is obvious. It is abstracted to mean some sort of life force, something animating the resurrected body, and contrasted with the natural animating force, such as psyche. The imagery of animating breath, of course, is from Genesis 2: 7, and equally obviously is not peculiar to Hebrew thought, but a common image across cultures.

I think the passage above makes sense in light of how Paul interpreted his experience of what he took to be the risen Jesus. He might also have been exposed to some of the various reports about Jesus' resurrected body that eventually found their way into the Gospels, that he can eat, but can pass through walls, that he was fully functional, but bore scars, that he was recognizably Jesus, but not always recognized as Jesus, etc.

Obviously, I bear no particular responsibility for any of this. What Chloe recalled was my discussing this passage, which I surely have done in the past. The noun phrase pneuma body is just an obvious shorthand for the longer description quoted above, for ease of reference in a fluent discussion, formed from words which appear there. Any difficulties you might have with Paul's description are best taken up with Paul, not me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you complicated everything, is simple.

There is allegedly tom of Jesus is found, that's a fact !

i don't know how you finding this, but the story" a truth as for believers" Jesus was resurrected ( and there was no body left of him, nothing )

I'm really hopping its not the real Jesus in the tom. I say let the story be...its like people want to say lalala we find Jesus your religion is based on a lay, that's not nice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Ah....I gotta respond to this. There wouldn't be a "Hey Zeus" if it weren't for Jesus. You've got your history wrong. Yes, there are MANY Latinos with that name. Do you honestly think they thought up that name separate from the historical figure? Just because it's pronounced different from English doesn't mean that isn't where they got the name from.

Unless you want to explain where they got the names for Jose (Joseph) Miguel (Michael) Tomas (Thomas) ....... I can add a few more if you wish.

Just because one individual made the name "Jesus" prominent, that doesn't mean that the name Jesus never existed prior to that. For example, I never once heard of the name "Adele" before I heard of the singer, however, apparently it's a not-so-uncommon name. Just because a certain individual made the name globally acknowledged (supposedly), that doesn't indicate, under any circumstances, that the name of Jesus never existed prior. Where did Jesus get his name from?

Edited by Alienated Being

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.