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.

 

Burial Sites of Biblical People

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I have always been fascinated by the historical value of the bible, the bible has many important figures, most people that have read the bible have become very familiar with them.

But its something that I always has been very aware off, while the bible has mention the death and burial of many of these important figures how come we have not found any archeological Remains of them?

I did a research to see what I came out with and I found some interesting facts.

First, the Hebrews burial sites were excavated in solid rock or natural caves, the bible make references of tombs like that including Jesus tomb was covered by a large stone in a natural cave.

Second, other tombs was known to be made in gardens and many can be found in Jerusalem

Now, some of the important figures of the bible has been attribute more than one burial site.

While Peter and Paul is believe to have die in Rome during Nero’s persecution and even is claims that they were buried in Italy, their site has never been found, its some quotes by Eusebius in which their burial sites were well known at least until 200 years AD. But are they known today?

My question is........Have any of the people in the bible burial sites has ever been found? How about the apostles, has any archeological burial sites has ever been found that belong to them?

Perhaps some members here have some inside that can help me and others learn more about this interesting important persons in the bible.

This a link to a page full of information of Biblical Archeology.

www.bible-history.com...




posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Don't know about the apostles but isn't King Solomon's grave under the temple mount? I have a thread somewhere around regarding that but it's on a whole different tangent. And then there something called the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron, a cave under a temple? i'll go do some searching for you


interesting thread btw



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I think that only some of the apostles have been 'found'. Peter and Paul are supposed to be buried in Rome, for example.

One is not likely to find any of the jewish leaders buried in the bible stories. Consider that the hebrews were a relatively minor tribe for most of their history, and that people probably wouldn't even remeber where anyone was buried for too many generations. Also, I don't think that they had any practices that were centered around preserving bodies. Sometimes there are fortuitous instances of mumification, but its a rare event.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:26 PM
link   
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

www.answers.com...

It is very interesting to note that both Judaism and Islam agree on who is buried in the tomb. Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah and Jacob and Leah.

here's something else that might be of interest marg
www.awitness.org...

[edit on 4-11-2005 by worldwatcher]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Interesting, looks like another person can be added to the list then.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
Thanks for the links and information, I had no idea that the cave of Machpelah with such significance on the Jewish history they still don't have full control of the site when in my opinion it should be the Jewish people birth right.

I wonder if after so many centuries the site still have some of their ancients artifacts.

Also I though that while Peter is supposed to be buried in Rome the actual burial site has never been found.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Are we talking about St. Peter, the first pope? Excuse my ignorance if we're not. They indeed found what they believe to be his remains in the Vatican. The bones they found are those of man of the age and height that Peter was believed to be.



On December 23, 1950, in his pre-Christmas broadcast on radio, Pope Pius XII announced the discovery of St. Peter's tomb far below the high altar of St. Peter's basilica in the Vatican. This was the culmination of 10 years of archaeological research under the crypt of the basilica, carried out by two Jesuit archaeologists and their colleagues. Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, the administrator of St. Peter's, had overall authority over the project and reported about it directly to the Pope himself.


www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca...

Zip



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zipdot
Are we talking about St. Peter, the first pope? Excuse my ignorance if we're not. They indeed found what they believe to be his remains in the Vatican. The bones they found are those of man of the age and height that Peter was believed to be.



Well the problem is not lack of remains all around an ancient city like Rome, anywhere you dig is going to be remains of people around.

The problem is as to who of the remains actually belongs too.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
There was something in the tomb that read "Peter" on the wall, I believe. It either said "Peter" or "First Pope" or something like that, but you're right, that is definitely a problem.


Zip



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I did a research of the remains and I found out that in the same years that St. Peter's remain were possibly found in Rome they were also credited to be found in the mount of olives in Jerusalem.

This the link with photographs.

www.aloha.net...

One of the big problems about the people in the bible are that is many burial sites attribute to them.

I see it more as a symbolic thing that the actual remains of them in the places that have been appointed to be the burial sites.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
We dont know where Jesus was burred because he rose from the dead



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:00 PM
link   
That is true, two places in Jerusalem has been attribute to Jesus burial, one is the cave and the other one in a garden.

I tend to think that is more of a touristic approach to this sites.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Remember the discovery of King Gilgamesh's tomb? Not exactly bible material but interesting nonetheless.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
I don't think it was ever confirmed as belonging to Gilgamesh himself, who may never have even existed, but rather its from a sensible time period for it an of a reasonable 'extravagence; no?



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
The Gilgamesh,




Archaeologists in Iraq believe they may have found the lost tomb of King Gilgamesh - the subject of the oldest "book" in history.



This happen in 2003 so I wonder what happend after the discovery.

news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
I don't think it was ever confirmed as belonging to Gilgamesh himself, who may never have even existed, but rather its from a sensible time period for it an of a reasonable 'extravagence; no?


Ah you are correct Nygdan, I found the link just this minute. They "think" it may have belonged to Gilgamesh because the location was near the Euphrates. It's a bit of a stretch I suppose.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Well it may be the real think taking in consideration that what they found match the describtion in the story.



The most surprising thing was that we found structures already described by Gilgamesh," Mr Fassbinder stated.


Iraq has long been the site of some of the most important historical finds
"We covered more than 100 hectares. We have found garden structures and field structures as described in the epic, and we found Babylonian houses."

But he said the most astonishing find was an incredibly sophisticated system of canals.



I would love to learn more about this ancient city.



posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well it may be the real think taking in consideration that what they found match the describtion in the story.


I hope your right, then we'd have confirmation that possibly the oldest tale written wasn't a work of fiction.




top topics



 
1

log in

join