astarath said:
Something to be aware of, isn't it? Is your view consistent with Victor's and historical Christianity so that the discovery, if real, would have impact?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus family tomb
- Thread starter autonomous1one1
- Start date
Something to be aware of, isn't it? Is your view consistent with Victor's and historical Christianity so that the discovery, if real, would have impact?
astarath said:
Essentially my view too. I really would like to know what proportion has the historical view, but am not sure that an answer is available. 
opensoul7
Active Member
I am interested and will watch the documentary tomorrow on discovery channel . I find it interesting those that are over zealous to accept or discount this without at least hearing out ALL the evidence . Knowing the little that I do know about the claims I think that even if you were to stretch and accept it is Jesus's tomb and bones , it is impossible to prove. But they could have a trick up their sleeve , wich is why I will watch . If they are able to present enough solid evidence to support such a claim I will also buy the book .
Greetings Opensoul. I look forward to your conclusions.opensoul7 said:
opensoul7
Active Member
Just watched the show and it lead to more questions than answers. The most interesting part was the second show " a critical look" . I will buy the book just to find out more details. I do hope that this leads to alot more "academic" and "scientific" reasearch into this topic.
Yes, I agree on the 'more questions' conclusion. It seems that the real answers about this 'discovery' will lie with a tier of study and analysis below what was presented or discussed.opensoul7 said:
Hope
Princesinha
autonomous1one1 said:Greetings Victor. I understand what you mean. Would you say that most Christians hold this view of 'historical Christianity.' There seem to be increasing numbers that express the views of Kateyes and Scott, but I may be getting biased by posters on RF.
I'm with Victor on this one.
Greetings Opensoul. Yes, I saw the 'critical look' but I couldn't get much from the critics in the way of details or facts - just negative statements. There were comments from both sides that raised more questions as you said. I came away still with an open mind that must await the next level of detail analysis for conclusion. Did you understand the Catholic Priest answer to the question about impact if the discovery were true?opensoul7 said:
Greetings Hope. Does that mean that if this alleged discovery were proven, your belief in Christianity would be destroyed, modified, or just 'tweaked' ? I personally did not understand the answer of the Catholic Priest in the subsequent program when asked a question about impact.Hope said:
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
autonomous1one1 said:
I don't know about Hope, but proving that this rreally was the body of Christ (and the case is so flimsy my 1 year old could probably poke holes in it) would utterly destroy Orthodox Christology, which in turn would destroy Orthodox soteriology. Seeing as this is the basis (even for most western Christians whose soteriology has rather changed since) for the understanding of who Christ is and what He achieved as expressed in the Ecumenical Councils, I would expect that for the majority of Christians there would be no possibility of 'tweaking' this. If you want to better understand what I mean, might I suggest that you follow the link in my signature? Feel free to ask me any questions you might have on reading the article.
James
Todd
Rajun Cajun
autonomous1one1 said:
It wouldn't affect my belief, because it wouldn't be true just like many of the other discoveries Scientists have made that have been proven false over time. From my viewpoint, Jesus was resurected with body and spirit, so they will never find his bones.
To refute any Christian that thinks otherwise, Thomas got to touch Jesus' physical body after resurection.
John 20:26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
Greetings James. Thanks for the link. I did enjoy reading the article although I developed a new vocabulary by the time I finished.JamesThePersian said:
I especially appreciated the thoughts on Theosis as the union with God and Theosis is Salvation and understand what you have been saying better now. However, from my brief read-through I did not fully grasp the criticality of 'physical body' resurrection. Would it be possible to give me a sentence or two in layman's terms which explain that criticality?I hate to ask this next question, my asking must show such ignorance. You have said your 1-yr old could punch holes in the story; Angellelous indicates beginners could and it is not worthy of examination; the critics on the program said that the archaeology was flawed and that things were selected without the whole picture; the moderator accused the film maker of biasing with reactments of a selected viewpoint; etc. My question - can anyone give a few concrete facts on what is wrong with the alleged 'discovery?' I did not really hear any on the TV program that stuck.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Todd said:
Actually, he had the opportunity to touch Jesus' body... it doesn't say that he actually did it...
James the Persian
Dreptcredincios Crestin
autonomous1one1 said:Greetings James. Thanks for the link. I did enjoy reading the article although I developed a new vocabulary by the time I finished.
Well, can I take it that you understood our belief that Christ is saviour because who He is, rather than what He did? In other words we are saved because He has put human nature in communion with the Divine by being God Incarnate as man? If you did understand that, then it should be raesonable clear. If Christ ceases to be Incarnate, fully God and fully man, then His nature changes - who He is changes - and our nature ceases to be in communion with God and so we are not saved. In other words, no bodily ascension, no salvation. It is worth noting that we have always rejected the idea of an immortal soul as heresy - hence the reason for the belief in bodilt Resurrection for us and the need for Christ to remain Incarnate. A disincarnate man, a disembodied spiri if you will, isn't fully human for us. Does that help at all?
Well firstly, there's the issue of the names - by far the most common names in first century Palestine and so indicative of - absolutely nothing. Secondly, the claim that Mariamne must be Mary Magdalene and yet Mariamne is simply Mary and there is absolutely no connection that can be shown between the Mary of the ossuary and Mary Magdalene. Then there's the question as to why a lower class family from Nazareth would have a middle class family tomb in Jerusalem. Then there's the issue of there being not tradition of such a family tomb at all, though there is a tradition of a tomb containing the relics of James the Just from earliest times. Then there's the fact that at least one archaeologist has suggested that they misread one of the inscriptions and that it actually says Harun rather than Jesus and then there's the fact that the archaeologists who actually discovered the tomb in 1980 have come out and said that the suggestion that this is the tomb of Christ is impossible, baseless and nothing more than archaeological sensationalism. Cameron et al really don't have qa case at all (even though my 1 year old comment was rather hyperbolic - need to wait a few years first. I'm fairly sure my 4 year old would be at least a little dubious of a claim based solely on rather common names, though).
James
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
autonomous1one1 said:
1) Commonality of names in ancient times. The association with Jesus of Nazareth rests on names alone... DNA is useless. The historical connection between an inscription on an ossuary and people in biblical stories would be nearly impossible in nearly every case. The only ones that we should expect to find would be the Gentile kings noted in the Gospels.
This is for two simple reasons:
a) Many people had the same name. Fathers and sons generally had the same name, and mothers and daughters did too.
b) This is complicated by the fact that an ossuary dated sometime in the first-second century would have about 150 years of lee-way for 6 generations or so of groups Jews who all had the same name. That is, at any given time in 150 years, a group of Jews could have all shared an ossuary with these names.
c) The names in this case don't exactly match the Gospels anyway.
d) The connection to the Gospels is complicated also by the fact that ancients could have been buried assuming the name of their Gospel hero.
e) The names could have been inscribed at any later time.
f) It's just a fanciful fairy tale to sell books in modern times.
Yes, that does help. And I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this matter with me. My view is different in that the physical resurrection is not necessary, but I will have to ponder on your comments further. I do believe that Jesus as Christ was fully human and fully divine, and that transfiguration to realize this is available to us as well. Let me ask if you consider Theosis, union with God and salvation, to be something for the living human? That is, salvation is realized while living?JamesThePersian said: