Jesus buried in Jerusalem with wife and son

[Still Waters 53,885]

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

[RedSquirrel 706]

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.

[freetoroam 40,850]

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?

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

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

[Imaginarynumber1 22,821]

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.

[Imaginarynumber1 22,821]

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.

[Podo 7,766]

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.

[Space Commander Travis 50,164]

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

[Aardvark-DK 288]

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

[Imaginarynumber1 22,821]

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.

[questionmark 11,371]

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

[She-ra 5,181]

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.

[Imaginarynumber1 22,821]

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

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

[Podo 7,766]

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.

[questionmark 11,371]

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....

[questionmark 11,371]

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.

[She-ra 5,181]

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 to questionmark! Definitely a possibility there with the Indiana Jones version! Edited April 8, 2015 by She-ra

[Imaginarynumber1 22,821]

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.

[Imaginarynumber1 22,821]

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.

[Grandpa Greenman 10,380]

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.

[and then 48,252]

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.

[Davros of Skaro 9,334]

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.

[DieChecker 27,188]

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

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....

[Imaginarynumber1 22,821]

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.

[DieChecker 27,188]

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.