It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Geologist: ''Jesus was married with a child and tomb found''

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Redacted material for a new thread.
edit on 4/7/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   
It's a little telling (although not surprising since it was in the Daily Mail!) that the linked piece adds the premise, "son of God" as a tagline. It's establishing Jesus' divinity as a given. This cannot be the case. Even if there was a Yeshua figure, and his story wasn't borrowed from dozens of previous myths (see? I can do it too - establishing my side of the argument as a given), there's absolutely nothing to show that he was in any way divine in nature.

Had they replaced 'son of God' with 'a Jewish carpenter' they would have a really mundane story. They have proof that a Jewish carpenter lived around that time and had a family. That's great. They have no proof that he was the son of God, or the deity himself/herself/itself (dependent on your beliefs) personified.

I'll concede that there was possibly a very charismatic, and compelling storyteller at that time who was a Jewish carpenter.
I could concede that he was a rabbi. I could concede that he had followers.
It's up to those making the claims for divinity to prove the virgin birth, the whole nativity story, the miracles, and the claims made by the gospels (which tend to strongly contradict each other). As mentioned above, the birth, life, and death of the Biblical Jesus seems to be very close to any number of previous myths. Were they 'dress rehearsals' for Jesus? Simple coincidence that all sorts of supposedly supernaturally gifted people had similarly fantastic life stories? Or did the authors of the Bible plagiarise previous mythology to make a good story (if you want to call it that)?

There's a mention in the thread of Robin Hood. That's a great example. There are a number of features to 'his' story that are historically, politically, and geographically accurate. However, it's more likely that Robin Hood was not one person, but a personification of any number of other characters' actions. Robin Hood is also relatively recent compared to the gospel Jesus. That said, even with historically, politically, and geographically accurate events, and markers in the Bible, there is still no evidence at all for any 'son of God,' any deity, or any associated miracles. Simply not understanding something doesn't automatically make the answer "Magic!" We're way past that stage in our growth as a species, and it's past time that people stopped pretending their particular version of 'it's magic' has any validity at all.

The Fitzgerald insert piece in the link is spot on.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
heard he had a daughter called sarah?



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
This information is worthy when considering the origins of Christianity.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


The Zodiac

In " The Christ Conspiracy", Acharya S elucidates that the many motives as to why these narratives are so similar, with a godman who is crucified and resurrected, and who does miracles and has 12 disciples, is that these stories were all based on the movements of the Sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the planet because the Sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. Or in other words, Jesus Christ and all the others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the Sun, and the Gospel fable is merely a rehash of a mythological formula revolving around the movements of the Sun through the heavens.

For instance, many of the world's crucified godmen have their traditional birthday on December 25th ("Christmas"). This is because the ancients recognized that from an earthcentric perspective the Sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that "God's Sun" had "died" for three days and was "born again" on December 25th.

The ancients realized quite abundantly that they needed the Sun to return every day and that they would be in big trouble if the Sun continued to move southward and did not stop and reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the "Sun of God's" birthday on December 25th.

The following are the characteristics of the "Sun of God"
In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the Sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
The Sun is the "Light of the World."
The Sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
The Sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
The Sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
The Sun "walks on water."
The Sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the Sun must pass.
The Sun at 12:00 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
The Sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
The Sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.
The Egyptian Pharaohs also identified themselves in life with the Sun god Horus and in death with his father Osiris. These myths identified the Pharaoh as both the earthly form of the royal falcon god who triumphed over his enemies and the pious son who claims the throne after the death of his father. Whilst Osiris ruled the dead in the underworld, Horus ruled the living. Horus and Osiris, just like Jesus, became interchangeable in the mythos ("I and my Father are one"). Horus, who predates the Christ by 3000 years shared the following in common with him.

Horus was called "Iusa/Iao/Iesu/Iusha" the "KRST," with Iusha even contributing to the name of Jesus which in Hebrew of course is Yeshua (Iusha). In the Old Testament, it is Joshua (Iusha) son of Jacob.
Horus became born of the virgin Isis-Meri (Mary) on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced by a star in the East and attended by three wise men.
His earthly father was named "Seb" ("Joseph").
He was of royal descent.
At age 12, he was a child teacher in the Temple, and at 30, he was baptized, having disappeared for 18 years.
Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus or Iarutana (Jordan) by "Anup the Baptizer" ("John the Baptist"), who was decapitated.
He had 12 disciples, two of whom were his "witnesses" and were named "Anup" and "Aan" (the two "Johns").
He performed miracles, exorcised demons and raised El-Azarus ("El-Osiris"), from the dead.
Horus walked on water.
His personal epithet was "Iusa," the "ever-becoming son" of "Ptah," the "Father." He was thus called "Holy Child."
He delivered a "Sermon on the Mount" and his followers recounted the "Sayings of Iusa."
Horus was transfigured on the Mount.
He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days in a tomb, and resurrected.
He was also the "Way, the Truth, the Light," "Messiah," "God’s Anointed Son," the "Son of Man," the "Good Shepherd," the "Lamb of God," the "Word made flesh," the "Word of Truth," etc.
He was "the Fisher" and was associated with the Fish ("Ichthys"), Lamb and Lion.
He came to fulfill the Law.
Horus was called "the KRST," or "Anointed One."
Horus's principal enemy was "Set" (biblical Seth) or "Sata" (Satan) Set represents the Serpent of the Night. Horus is the Golden Sun (Son) it becomes the struggle between day and night for supremacy.
Like Jesus, "Horus was supposed to reign one thousand years."



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
This story was brought to light well over three decades ago and has been debunked many times over in the past thirty years. The story is resurrected for grants and books which can be big bucks for the right people.
www.craigaevans.com...

If any thing it would not prove that Jesus had never existed as the Son of God. At the very most it would show that He could have resurrected the same as all terrestrial life resurrects. Leaving terrestrial evidence only proves that those remains were at one time living entities. It proves nothing else.

Most Christian bibles do not claim a resurrected body of flesh but only shows that the terrestrial body of Christ Jesus could not be found at the time of anointing and dressing of the body. The missing body is totally of whatever you want to believe.

The correct name of Jesus in Hebrew is Yahusha pronounced as Ya - hoo - sha. This was the name used as He walked the earth. How could Yahusha be the Son of God and be the Son of Yoseph and yet He was both?

The Jews hated Yahusha and tried to erase His name from all memories of literature and tradition.
Dr. David Instone Brewer - Senior Research Fellow In Rabbinics and the New Testament - Tyndale House Cambridge, has a paper of great importance called The Munich Talmud.

The earliest full Babylonian Manuscript Talmud was penned in about 1342 CE. This is called the Munich Talmud. The reason the Munich Talmud is so unique is the fact that it is the only surviving Babylonian Talmud that has survived revisions and deletions of Jesus name. You can do your search on this as I have not the information in front of me. "Munich Talmud" is all that should be needed.

The reason for looking at this is the fact that there is evidence here that Jesus was hated and erased from Judaic literature and if Jesus did not exist then why is He in the Munich Talmud of 1342 C.E. and not in the modern Babylonian Soncino Talmud?

If you can't kill the messengers then kill the message. Lies do rear their ugly heads at times.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   
A couple thoughts regarding this "find".

First and glaringly foremost, Jesus did NOT have a brother named James, according to scripture, logic and reason. Jesus did not have ANY blood brother siblings, fathered by Joseph, or born to Mary. Period. The Church has pronounced this for 2000 years. Get used to it. I almost stopped reading right there. But ignoring that fact, I finished the article anyway, and noticed that the "geologist"(note: NOT biblical scholar or archeologist) Arye Shimron is an Israeli, I wonder if he may be Jewish.(a quick wiki was unsuccessful). This raises an eyebrow for possible bias. I'm being presumptuous about his faith, not all Israelis are Jewish, but if he were a Jew, these are the findings that fit his faith.

If the inscription says "James, brother of Jesus"...it's case closed. But that aside, like Disraeli said, if the objects are real, everyone and their brother (pun intended) in that era, was named James or John or Jacob or Mary, etc.

(Irrelevant sidebar but; when I was a kid, there were quite a few Italians in my neighborhood. Every single one of the girls had Mary or Maria somewhere in their names, either given or chosen as confirmation names.)


a reply to: theabsolutetruth


edit on 7-4-2015 by Ignatian because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-4-2015 by Ignatian because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   
This story keeps growing, whatever.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 03:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Seede

The Jews hated Yahusha and tried to erase His name from all memories of literature and tradition.
Dr. David Instone Brewer - Senior Research Fellow In Rabbinics and the New Testament - Tyndale House Cambridge, has a paper of great importance called The Munich Talmud.

The earliest full Babylonian Manuscript Talmud was penned in about 1342 CE. This is called the Munich Talmud. The reason the Munich Talmud is so unique is the fact that it is the only surviving Babylonian Talmud that has survived revisions and deletions of Jesus name. You can do your search on this as I have not the information in front of me. "Munich Talmud" is all that should be needed.

The reason for looking at this is the fact that there is evidence here that Jesus was hated and erased from Judaic literature and if Jesus did not exist then why is He in the Munich Talmud of 1342 C.E. and not in the modern Babylonian Soncino Talmud?

If you can't kill the messengers then kill the message. Lies do rear their ugly heads at times.


The Babilonian Talmud was not written until the 3rd to 6th century CE, 300 to 600 years after the death of Jesus. So once again (see my previous post) non-Bible accounts of Jesus are not contemporary but have been written after the gospels had been created and circulated. This is hearsay and not real evidence, they have no credibility.

Also, there were two Jesus that appeared in rabbinic literature: Jesus Pandira (son of Pandira, which is in the Talmud and appeared around 50 years Before CE) and Jesus Ben Stada who was a political figure who practiced the forbidden arts of magic and was hanged with his 5 disciples (2 CE). 'The' Jesus (Yeshua) never appeared in rabbinic writings until aprox. 600 / 700 years after the anno domini.








posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 04:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How about this. Give me physical proof that EBEs exist.

Not videos, not paintings, but physical proof.

I am playing Devil's advocate now.

BTW, there is actual evidence the Jesus did resurrect.

The proof is the Shroud of Turin.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The previous test which claimed the shroud was made during medieval times was tainted with cloth that had been used to repair it, during medieval times, because of it's age. But new evidence proves the contrary, that it was in fact made in the 1st century, and tests have shown that the only possible way it was done is if some sort of energy had irradiated the body of Jesus from inside out.

There was a documentary in the History channel called "The real face of Jesus" where they showed a 3d image of Jesus according to the image in the shroud.


...
Human male blood found on the Shroud is a rare type AB. As one would expect, blood of that crucified male penetrates the linen cloth. But here is where science enhances the Shroud’s mystery: Blood on the cloth preceded the image of the crucified man. “Blood first, image second” is a mantra of Shroud researchers. Here is a startling fact that makes the Shroud nearly impossible to be considered a forgery and enhances the mystery. Unlike his blood, the mans crucified image does not penetrate the cloth but rests on top. His image could be scraped away with a razor blade. Since any earthly substance used to create the mans image would seep into and adhere to the cloth, this lack of penetration continues to baffle modern science. Moreover, tests on the mysterious substance constituting the image have concluded that it was applied with 100 percent consistency, as it rests on the cloths top two microfibers. Such consistency is a feat impossible to achieve with human hands.
...

www.nationalreview.com...

Here is a link to the History Channels "The Real Face of Jesus"


edit on 8-4-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment and link.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Even if the Turin shroud was proven with 100% accuracy as being a legitimate image of a man, somehow gotten there of unknown means, it isn't proof of a biblical Jesus or of anything other than an image of a man.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth

A man from the period when Jesus existed, who suffered the wounds that Jesus suffered, whose death made an imprint in a shroud which cannot be reproduced by modern science and which still baffles scientists.


edit on 8-4-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Even if the Turin shroud was proven with 100% accuracy as being a legitimate image of a man, somehow gotten there of unknown means, it isn't proof of a biblical Jesus or of anything other than an image of a man.


I agree with your comment. Even if it hadn't been proven be from aprox 600 years ago, it wouldn't prove that was actually Jesus... and this comes from a woman who went to see and admire the shroud in Turin in 1978 when I was a child (I grew up there).

ElectricUniverse, two facts prove it is not from 1CE but from medieval times: first the weave has a 3 in 1 pattern which is a more modern type of weave, not known at the times of Jesus, second the shroud is covered in gesso which was used as a base for paintings, no reason why a linen that covered a dead person should have been covered with gesso. It certainly doesn't baffle scientists and even the Pope won't confirm it is Jesus ( LINK

edit on 8-4-2015 by Agartha because: SPAG!



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Already covered that part. Because of it's age and the damage it had incurred, mostly from a fire, the shroud had to be repaired using cloth from medieval times.


New test dates Shroud of Turin to era of Christ
Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY 4:25 p.m. EDT March 30, 2013

...
Many experts have stood by a 1988 carbon-14 dating of scraps of the cloth carried out by labs in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona that dated it from 1260 to 1390, which, of course, would rule out its used during the time of Christ.

The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.

It determined that the earlier results may have been skewed by contamination from fibers used to repair the cloth when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages, the British newspaper reported. The cloth has been kept at the cathedral since 1578.
...

www.usatoday.com...

The tests also showed that the dirt embedded in the cloth is from the area where Jesus was killed.

What other man could have suffered the same wounds of Jesus, including the crown of thorns, the over 100 lashes, the crucifixion wounds in hands and feet, and the spear through the ribs.

Plus the fact that whoever this man was, at his death he seemed to have emanated energy from inside his cells and left the imprint of his whole body in the shroud.


edit on 8-4-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: theabsolutetruth



Even if the Turin shroud was proven with 100% accuracy as being a legitimate image of a man, somehow gotten there of unknown means, it isn't proof of a biblical Jesus or of anything other than an image of a man.


Be interesting to test human DNA isolated from the Shroud of Turin (link) with that from the tomb.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

As for the type of weave of the Shroud of Turin?


The Shroud is a linen cloth woven in a 3-over-1 herringbone pattern, and measures 14'3" x 3'7". These dimensions correlate with ancient measurements of 2 cubits x 8 cubits - consistent with loom technology of the period. The finer weave of 3-over-1 herringbone is consistent with the New Testament statement that the "sindon" (or shroud) was purchased by Joseph of Arimathea, who was a wealthy man. Also, Leviticus 19:19 speaks of the mixing of linen and cotton, but prohibits linen and wool or the mixing of vegetable and animal. In 1969, Dr. Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium noted that there are traces of cotton (identified as Gossipium herbaceum) in the linen of the Shroud.
...

www.newgeology.us...

How ancient is the in a 3-over-1 herringbone pattern?


Pieces of herringbone cloth has been found in the ancient Hallstatt salt mines near present-day Vienna among the mummified remains of a Celtic people dating back about four centuries before Christ. Other herringbone cloth, made from horsehair, has been found in Ireland dating from possibly as early as the arrival of Celtic people on the island around 600 B.C. Besides, herringbone, other complicated twill patterns going back to at least 200 B.C. and probably earlier have been found with mummies discovered in the Tarim Basin in present-day Xinjiang, China.

The oldest known examples are from Northern Italy where a six foot long piece of linen cloth was found with twilling and lozenge patterning that almost certainly dates to the third millennium B.C. Linen, itself, has been around for a very long time.
...

greatshroudofturinfaq.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
A couple thoughts regarding this "find".

First and glaringly foremost, Jesus did NOT have a brother named James, according to scripture, logic and reason. Jesus did not have ANY blood brother siblings, fathered by Joseph, or born to Mary. Period.
a reply to: theabsolutetruth



How are so adamant that Jesus did not have a brother? Because scripture (written by man, who never lie (sarcasm off)) told you so? Because the church, who also was so sure that the sun rotated around the earth and excommunicated Galileo for proving the wrong, told you so? Using logic and reason? That Mary produced a virgin birth, impregnated by some invisible God? This surpasses logic and reason. The sycophants that wrote scripture had an agenda to deify Christ and hoped people would buy the myth, which people like you have proven.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Professor Fanti is the only one claiming the shroud is from the times of Jesus, whilst all other tests (at least 3 and different labs from different countries) all got the same results: the shroud is medieval.

If Fanti was right, the Catholic church would have made a bid deal about it, what better way to gain more followers or to regain those they have lost? Please read the Vatican official letter I have enclosed in my post above.




posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
I thought this was a thread about an Israeli geologist with a nutty theory. Obviously it went off topic.


a reply to: Agartha



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
I thought this was a thread about an Israeli geologist with a nutty theory. Obviously it went off topic.


a reply to: Agartha



Actually, the nutty theory about the shroud bearing an image supposedly of Christ is in line with the nutty theory about the ossuary. So this is not completely off-topic.
edit on 8-4-2015 by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How about this. Give me physical proof that EBEs exist.

Not videos, not paintings, but physical proof.

I am playing Devil's advocate now.


Are you? I never claimed that extraterrestrials existed so I'm not sure how you are countering my skepticism of Jesus with skepticism of your own to something I believe. I think the odds of them existing are incredibly good, but I have never once claimed that they definitively exist.


BTW, there is actual evidence the Jesus did resurrect.

The proof is the Shroud of Turin.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The previous test which claimed the shroud was made during medieval times was tainted with cloth that had been used to repair it, during medieval times, because of it's age. But new evidence proves the contrary, that it was in fact made in the 1st century, and tests have shown that the only possible way it was done is if some sort of energy had irradiated the body of Jesus from inside out.

There was a documentary in the History channel called "The real face of Jesus" where they showed a 3d image of Jesus according to the image in the shroud.


...
Human male blood found on the Shroud is a rare type AB. As one would expect, blood of that crucified male penetrates the linen cloth. But here is where science enhances the Shroud’s mystery: Blood on the cloth preceded the image of the crucified man. “Blood first, image second” is a mantra of Shroud researchers. Here is a startling fact that makes the Shroud nearly impossible to be considered a forgery and enhances the mystery. Unlike his blood, the mans crucified image does not penetrate the cloth but rests on top. His image could be scraped away with a razor blade. Since any earthly substance used to create the mans image would seep into and adhere to the cloth, this lack of penetration continues to baffle modern science. Moreover, tests on the mysterious substance constituting the image have concluded that it was applied with 100 percent consistency, as it rests on the cloths top two microfibers. Such consistency is a feat impossible to achieve with human hands.
...

www.nationalreview.com...

Here is a link to the History Channels "The Real Face of Jesus"



Lol the Shroud of Turin is a fake. Did you know that the Catholic church was COMPLETELY on board with the original carbon date test of the Shroud? They offered up the sample to be tested. It wasn't until the sample came back saying it was a fake that all the science denialism claims started.

By the way, History Channel's "The Real Face of Jesus" special asserts the official story that the Shroud is a forgery. We've already discussed that show on ATS. My rebuttal.

Is the Shroud of Turin Real?

First this:

"The Shroud of Turin is one of the many relics manufactured for profit during the Middle Ages. Shortly after the Shroud emerged it was declared a fake by the bishop who discovered the artist."



After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology concluded with 95% confidence that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD.... In 2008 former STURP member John Jackson rejected the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. Jackson stated that this could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition.


If the Catholic Church was on board initially, then they no doubt would have provided the best sample to be tested for the accurate date range.


DATING. The assertion that blood and pollen matching prove the Shroud of Turin dates to at least the eighth century is - based on the evidence - absurd. The shroud cloth was radiocarbon dated to circa 1260-1390 by three separate laboratories. The date is consistent with a fourteenth-century bishop's report to Pope Clement VII that an earlier bishop had discovered the forger and that he had confessed.


Further proof of forgery:


BLOOD. The Associated Press reported claims that the shroud bears type AB blood stains. Perhaps this erroneous information has its origin in other fake shrouds of Jesus, since the Shroud of Turin's stains are not only suspiciously red (unlike genuine blood that blackens with age) but they failed batteries of tests by internationally known forensic experts. The "blood" has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint."

edit on 8-4-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join