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

Jesus buried in Jerusalem with wife and son

182 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Still Waters

An Israeli geologist believes he has found the tomb of Jesus in Jerusalem, and this time, the tomb of his supposed son is buried along with him.

After 150 chemical tests, Canadian- Israeli filmmaker-journalist Simha Jacobovici and geoarcheologist Arye Shimron claim they've reached a scientific breakthrough with theological implications.

http://www.jpost.com...osed-son-396262

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

Oh dear, looks like it could be back to the drawing board. What about his resurrection from the tomb...and Jesus knows "excuse the pun" all the other bits in the novel about him, does it mention his "son" in there?

But saying that, chemical tests on what? if they did not have his DNA are anything from him in the first place, then what good are chemical tests? what do they compare it with.

Maybe everything will be explained in the film, i take it Mr Simha Jacobovici is sorting something out on that side?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

No he's not, he's buried at Rennes-le-Chateau with his wife Mary Magdalene, everyone knows that. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

But saying that, chemical tests on what? if they did not have his DNA are anything from him in the first place, then what good are chemical tests? what do they compare it with.

Tests on the James Ossuary and those ossuary's found in the "tomb of jesus" matched soil and chemical signatures. This shows that it is very likely that they are from the same location, giving more credibility to the claims of a tomb of jesus and his family, if the inscriptions are to be believed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

Odd, you'd think their names would be... I dunno... their actual Hebrew/Aramaic names, not the anglicized versions (Mary, Miriam, Joseph Ya hosep, etc). Also, startling lack of peer review.

I believe that the inscriptions are in Aramaic. Certainly those on the James ossuary are. It's just the more popular names are used in articles so people know what they're talking about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

I don't know that I overly trust the word of a journalist-filmmaker. Their motivation could easily be more on the hype and the views than on the science.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Anyway, just how uncommon a name is Jesus? There's loads of people in Mexico called that. :unsure2:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aardvark-DK

Jesus was a very common name at the time, Hebrew : Yeshua, Greek : Iesous.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

Jesus was a very common name at the time, Hebrew : Yeshua, Greek : Iesous.

Supposedly, a statistical analysis of the combination of names found on the ousarries makes it incredibly unlikely to be coincidence.... according to the filmmaker.

Jacobovici was producing a documentary on the artifact, and went to a statistician from the University of Toronto, who told him those names each separately composed approximately 8% of the population. But of that population who had the common names, a very small percentage had a mother named Mary and a brother named Joseph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

hmmm... I though Oded Golan was still in jail for faking archeology.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She-ra

I don't know that I overly trust the word of a journalist-filmmaker. Their motivation could easily be more on the hype and the views than on the science.

Yes I'm gonna have to go with you here on this one. It was my first impression. I don't think this holds any weight. Just my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

hmmm... I though Oded Golan was still in jail for faking archeology.....

He was found not guilt of forgery, but guilty of illegal dealing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

Yes I'm gonna have to go with you here on this one. It was my first impression. I don't think this holds any weight. Just my 2 cents.

It could be a solid film, and I'll probably see it due to curiosity, but it's likely a film first and solid data second.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

It could be a solid film, and I'll probably see it due to curiosity, but it's likely a film first and solid data second.

yeh...and to make it more believable there will be an Indiana Jones version upcoming....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

He was found not guilt of forgery, but guilty of illegal dealing

formally, because he was not caught red-handed. The James Ossuary still is a fake. The other cases were not tried.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
She-ra

It could be a solid film, and I'll probably see it due to curiosity, but it's likely a film first and solid data second.

Oh I watch all those types of things. Curious nature. That's cool! and :lol: to questionmark! Definitely a possibility there :tu: with the Indiana Jones version! Edited by She-ra
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

formally, because he was not caught red-handed. The James Ossuary still is a fake. The other cases were not tried.

Oh, I agree. The inscription probably is a fake. The ossuary is probably a real ossuary, though, and *if* these guys are too be believed, it comes form the same tomb as these others talked about in the article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

This just reminds me of Jorn and the huge deal he made about the Ida fossil, with claims it will change everything we know, it's the anthropological equivalent of the holy grail, etc

And Darwinius (Ida) was just another Adapid fossil. Incredibly well preserved, but still just another Adapid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grandpa Greenman

If it is what they say it is true, at least there is something that could show Jesus was a actual person and there is a least some truth to the story, even if the zombie part isn't. Sometimes you have to take what you can get.

I never cared much for Jacobovici nor Biblical archaeology. It is like trying prove King Arthur was real using Geoffrey of Monmouth.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Yes I'm gonna have to go with you here on this one. It was my first impression. I don't think this holds any weight. Just my 2 cents.

He may well have found a grave with occupants that have matching DNA - even the common name may be attributed correctly. There will always be those like myself who believe in the truth of the bible and those who never will. This gentleman can make a fortune with his book and movie if there are more of the non believers who care to disprove the faith. That's the thing that truly has always puzzled me though. Why is it so important for some to cast doubt on a firmly held belief that does them no harm? It smacks of mean spiritedness.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro

That's the thing that truly has always puzzled me though. Why is it so important for some to cast doubt on a firmly held belief that does them no harm? It smacks of mean spiritedness.

It's because we do not live in the freaken 4th century anymore for one, and it erodes much needed critical thinking for another.

Firm belief does not equate to truth and you know nothing of the Neurological effects of fantasy beliefs as reality.

As for the topic:There is no Jesus of the Gospels because it's literay fiction.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Anyway, just how uncommon a name is Jesus? There's loads of people in Mexico called that. :unsure2:

From what was written recently "Jesus" was a fairly common name. Which therefore required a add on, such as "of Nazareth".

Supposedly, a statistical analysis of the combination of names found on the ousarries makes it incredibly unlikely to be coincidence.... according to the filmmaker.

Oh, and I'll just trust the used car dealer that this is the best price he can give me....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1

Oh, and I'll just trust the used car dealer that this is the best price he can give me....

I don't think he's necessarily correct, just repeating what the article said. All the questions asked on the first page were answered in the article, which it seems no one bothered to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

I don't think he's necessarily correct, just repeating what the article said. All the questions asked on the first page were answered in the article, which it seems no one bothered to read.

Read, read, read..... Yeah, it's about what I expected. This guy is trying to pull a bunch of stuff that really proves nothing into real proof. evidence A shows fact B. And evidence C shows fact D. Therefore since Jesus had a brother, X = Y.

I think actual research has been done, and real tests done, but I don't think the "logical" assumptions that are drawn from them are as logical (or well evidenced) as is being presented in the article. 90% of what he says is unlikely is his opinion. Like he said the three names made up about 8% of the population. Finding anything with the name Jesus on it isn't going to be necessarily remarkable.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.