Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals:Names, Testimonies of First Christians

i believe ther was a jesus,but he was a normal man baptised and then became a preacher.i dont think he performed miracles it the common story ,it start some one fell over it progresses to a broken leg.same thing.ive read lots of stuff on templars .the roman church the bible and im quite knowlegable on this.for one after he was on the cross for three hours his brother explained a jew couldnt be crucified only romans,so they checked he was alive by a soldier cutting him with a spear,they then put him in a family tomb which you were put in for three days and if you lived you were free.that is where the line HE ROSE AFTER 3 DAYS.also he was of royal blood from the house of david,hence jesus christ,christ means king.he had brothers a son i could go on all night,any questions?

The title of this story drew my attention. It's not the 1st time someone claimes to have found Jesus coffin. This story is rather old tho I already heard about it early 2007. In 1980, March 28th, Prof. Amos Kloner found a burrial cave in East Talpiot (Jerusalem).

www.eretz.com...

There is a DVD “The Lost Tomb of Jesus.” that is about the discovery of this tomb and the way scientists work to reveal the evidence.
dsc.discovery.com...

Go to Youtube and and type: The Lost Tomb of Jesus

The Coffin and DNA of Jesus? Producer James Cameron, and his director Simcha Jacobovici claimed that Jesus wasn't resurrected. They produced the film. Story February 25, 2007 -
theologica.blogspot.com...

I'm very interested in this theory, I even have a tat with the name of Mother Mary exactly as found on that coffin on me arm.

Of course there were positive and negative reactions about the DVD.
Like Russell Grigg who called the movie ' Another ‘Titanic’ Disaster'
creationontheweb.com...

There were a lot of questions raised about the research that is been done for this movie / documentary and most negative reactions were that the research wasn't done proper nor was it done scientifically enough.

So what can I say? Go watch that DVD - movie / documantary.

reply to post by C.C.Benjamin

For instance: why the hell would Jesus have exiled the "demon" (and I'm glad I could clear your issues on demons up too) Legion into a herd of swine? How? WTF was a herd of swine doing in Judaic (and therefore, non-pig-eating) areas? God's decreed these animals unclean, so we'll just keep a 2000-strong herd of them around to ensure we remember how unclean they really are? And we never eat bacon sandwiches - alright!

I'm glad you asked, it was actually a "slap" in the face to the Romans and the gods they worshiped. The Romans of that day worshiped the Greek gods, and they were the ones who sacrificed pigs to zeus. You're absolutely right, the Jews didn't have pigs, they were in the land because the Romans used them. On that hill they were outside a temple to zeus, and what Jesus basically did was cast the demons out of the man right into the heard of pigs causing them to commit suicide. At the same time, killing all the pigs that the Romans had to sacrifice to their false God zeus.

I thought that was hilarious when I learned it. Jesus does have a sense of humor after all! Glad I could clarify that question to you.

reply to post by Melyanna Tengwesta

The title of this story drew my attention. It's not the 1st time someone claimes to have found Jesus coffin.

No one is claiming to have found Jesus's coffin or tomb. This thread is about the discovery of a tomb for first century Christians.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
the Romans had to sacrifice to their false God zeus.

No more or less false than any other god. Cultural (mis)appropriation is rife where the gods of others are concerned.

God is a flasher
He reveals himself to some
and not to others.

(Thanks to Grant Ewart for the Haiku)

Originally posted by ChChKiwi

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
the Romans had to sacrifice to their false God zeus.

No more or less false than any other god. Cultural (mis)appropriation is rife where the gods of others are concerned.

God is a flasher
He reveals himself to some
and not to others.

(Thanks to Grant Ewart for the Haiku)

The Word of God is available in every language on Earth. He has revealed Himself to anyone willing to seek Him.

Moot point.

Secondly, what I said is truth, the pigs were there to be sacrifices in the temple to zeus/satan.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

No one is claiming to have found Jesus's coffin or tomb. This thread is about the discovery of a tomb for first century Christians.

What I mean is that the story the OP reffered too is prob. a mixed story. The article mentioned dates from 1998, it's a Jerusalem Christian Review and most of the pix shown in this article belong to the story of The Lost Tomb from 27 years ago.

Doctor B. Baggati is an archaeologist who wrote about a discovery on Mount Tabor. " La fortezza saracena del Monte Tabor" (1976) and " Una grotta bizantina sul Monte Tabor" (1977).

The theory on discovery on Mount Tabor was that is could be the tomb of The Virgin.

external quotes:
" The excavations at NAZARETH (1955-1960) by Bellarmino Bagatti revealed an uninterrupted sequence of cultic installations around the Grotto of the Annunciation. The present basilica is built on almost the same plan as the Crusader’s. A smaller Byzantine church of the fifth century AD was also found."

" At CAPERNAUM a well-preserved village has come to light, with its magnificent synagogue, the living quarters and a special house transformed into a place of worship already in the second half of
the first century AD. It is called the House of Peter"

" The excavations of B. Bagatti at BETHLEHEM (1948-1951) proved that despite important transformations, the grotto of the Nativity and the manger hewn into the rock remained basically the same."

" A second lucky flooding of Kidron valley in 1972 presented Fr. Bagatti with the opportunity of examining archaelogically a place in the same valley, not far from the grotto of Gethsemane, traditionally
called the TOMB OF THE VIRGIN.

source: 198.62.75.5...

Sometimes articles on the web need a second look by whom they are written and why.

Peace.



[edit on 9/15/2008 by Melyanna Tengwesta]

reply to post by Melyanna Tengwesta

What I mean is that the story the OP reffered too is prob. a mixed story. The article mentioned dates from 1998, it's a Jerusalem Christian Review and most of the pix shown in this article belong to the story of The Lost Tomb from 27 years ago.

Perhaps you weren't aware that most public/poor tombs during the first century looked like this. When the Arabs took control of the city, they began to put their bodies above ground in burial boxes. The reason is they are under the impression that a "prophet" (Jesus) would never defile Himself by walking through a cemetary.

The prophesies state that Jesus will enter through the sealed Eastern gate to judge the nations, so they put their burial boxes above ground outside the Eastern gate.

However, Christians and Jews are different, most first century common tombs were like this.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Perhaps you weren't aware that most public/poor tombs during the first century looked like this. When the Arabs took control of the city, they began to put their bodies above ground in burial boxes. The reason is they are under the impression that a "prophet" (Jesus) would never defile Himself by walking through a cemetary.

Well I didn't know that Arabs did put their bodies above ground in that time periode. Thx!

The picuters showed in the beginning of this thread show ' ossuaries (stone ' bone' coffins). These coffins are very small. I know how tombs from back then look like and also how ossuaries look like.

The 10 ossuaries discovered in Talpiot are said to ALSO date back to the first century AD. Then it was fashionable for prominent Jewish families to have “second burials” for their loved ones by placing their bones in ossuaries for burial in family tombs. These 10 were brought to the warehouse of the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) in 1980. The warehouse is loaded with ossuaries.

The documentary purports to show that 6 ossuaries or bone boxes in the warehouse of the IAA MAY have contained the bones of Jesus of Nazareth and 5 members of his family by combination of the names written on the coffins (most in Aramaic).

It's 2 totaly different stories (as there are many more) about stone coffins and tombs. I just wonder why this Christian site (the source) reviewed this article with pix from another story ;-)

Peace.

Originally posted by Simplynoone
The Pope and Mary would be at the bottom of the totem pole if catholics really believed that Jesus was real ...There is so much idolatry in the Catholic Church and Christ preached more about idol worship than just about anything else ....

This is a typical catholic bashing from christians. For the last time, Catholics DO NOT worship the Pope and Mary. Please, please do some study before posting this nonsense.

I am beginning to realize that non-catholic christians do not want to be lumped in the same category as the catholics. Probably because the catholic church has so much in common with the other christian churches, and that all christian churches CAME FROM Roman Catholic Church.

The only thing I want to say is that Cathics pray to Mary. You dont pray mary. You talk to God throw the power of Christ that it. praying to Mary and telling people its doctrine is wrong. Yes you can to her, like your walking down a street and talking to your dead grandma. But if you get down on your knees and pray to Mary your braking law. The bible says you only bow to God. And him only do you worship. God bless and Go with his spirit.

There is not one piece of real evidence here.

There were thousands of Yeshua's and the Ossuary box find has been proved a fake.

Christians have been faking these things since Eusebius who said it was alright to tell lies to keep the faith going.

The Cross goes back to time immemorial. It is also still used as a signature by those who cannot read or write. A crucified figure with the head of a donkey has been found in Roman Catacombs, but this was a Greek or Egyptian god being cruicified.

For Heavens sake, get your facts right. Do some research and find the truth.

Christianity is evil. It teaches hatred - Luke 14:26, War - Matthew 10:34/38, downgrades women to shameless creatures - 2 Chronicles, and the Old Testament is full of commands to kill, massacre and rape. I can quote the verses for the doubters, but they are listed in an encyclopaedia. Can you get any worse than this one - Psalm 137:9 - "Happy shall he be who takes our little ones and dashes them against the rock!"
Christians even worship an instrument of death - it would have been the guillotine had the Romans had one two thousand years ago. In Egypt it was the Ankh - the Cross of Life which is exactly the opposite.
They even still call out the name of the Egyptian God 'Amen' at the end of prayers. However unlike Muslims they no longer prostrate themselves with heads to the ground (see Nehemiah 8:6)
They ignore Matthew 6:5/8 which specifically bans praying in public - in Egyptian this is called an abomination. But the priests need to get the gullible into church to extract as much money as possible from the fools.
They ignore Matthew 23:9 which prohibits the use of the word 'Father' when addressing priests. Here the priest is trying to place himself on the same pedestal as god.

If Christians would only read the Bible and understand what it is saying they would dump it faster than removing leeches from the stricken.

It is full of errors - there are so many contradictions and virtually on every page. A true God would get his story straight.

The Bible god is proved a liar right from the beginning - he told Adam he would die that day if he ate the fruit. Adam ate and lived to be 930. The Serpent told the truth when he told Eve she would not die. She didn't - she gave birth to the Egyptian Kings Hbr (Hbl or Abel) and Kian (Qyn in Hebrew - Cain).

Adam was the Egyptian God who became the first living king of Egypt and was called Atum.

reply to post by Malankhkare


It's nice to see someone that knows what they're talking about. I've been pointing out the same contradictions and lies, but no one seems to listen. I've learned that a person's perspective has to change before their ideas change, it rarely happens the other way around. So many people just ignore such things in the Bible, sweep it under a rug, or try to make excuses which make no sense. There is no proof that Jesus existed and I highly doubt there ever will be.

I think this is fantastic. I hope more discoveries like this are found. Unfortunately recently there was a hoax by an archaeologist that said he had found a tomb of importance that he had lied about. I hope this is true.

Excellent thread. I heard about this a few years ago and dug around quite thoroughly. From everything I found, the evidence is legitimate and not a forgery. Also while digging around, I tend to see the same arguments over and over again:

1). The names were too common (although they ignored the UNCOMMON names and the specific MATCHES of names that matched the Biblical accounts).

2). The cross could have been a pagan symbol (although they ignore the fact it is inscribed in the same tomb with Yeshua's name).

3). All this discovery shows is that there were first century Christians who believed Jesus existed (Um... ya and I would believe them over God hating atheists 2,000 years later who are far too late to be reliable authorities on the existence of Jesus as a historical figure).



Anyways, as any intelligent, reasonable, and logical person can conclude, Jesus was a historical figure.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
There is no proof that Jesus existed and I highly doubt there ever will be.

There is EVIDENCE.

Define what you would consider PROOF.

His face on a coin like we argued with Alexander? Nope- Zeus Had Coins. Are we to believe he was a historical figure? So a physical depiction wouldn't work (although there are physical descriptions of Jesus in early Christian writings).

Works of carpentry? The close minded God hating skeptic would NEVER believe they were works of Jesus no matter what.

Eye witness accounts? Some believe some NT books are eye witness accounts. The God hating skeptics either state they were not eye witnesses but IF they were, then eye witness testimony is not considered reliable.

First century Christians who died for their beliefs: The sincerity of belief does not make that belief true! I agree with that but surely 1st century Christians would be an advantage over us regarding Jesus' historicity 2,000 years later. And there was physical evidence of Jesus documented to still have been in existence during their time that has not survived to our own time.

What about the deaths of the apostles. Who would die for something they knew was a lie? Then we have to prove ALL the accounts of the deaths of the apostles really occurred and were not unreliable eye witness accounts of their deaths. We can only do this for about half of the apostles but the God hating skeptic would still say this is not enough.

Historical sources? There are. But they are all dismissed as hearsay... while the accounts that are not necessary hearsay accounts but which are believed by many to be eye witness accounts are dismissed as 'unreliable.' And forget the fact many of these historical sources were written by Roman pagan historians- it's still not enough for the hardcore deny-at-all-costs skeptic.

So, I see no reason to try to sway the brainwashed. The evidence for His existence is plentiful but never enough for those who refuse, yes refuse, to believe. There is historical, documentary, and archaeological evidence confirming Jesus' existence but the hardcore skeptic who has seared their conscience will never, ever accept it.

[edit on 9/17/2008 by AshleyD]

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by TruthParadox
There is no proof that Jesus existed and I highly doubt there ever will be.

There is EVIDENCE.

Define what you would consider PROOF.

There's the problem.
Proof is not defined by me or by you.
Proof is proof.
If there was proof of Jesus' existence, then there would be no argument taking place.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Eye witness accounts? Some believe some NT books are eye witness accounts. The God hating skeptics either state they were not eye witnesses but IF they were, then eye witness testimony is not considered reliable.

It is not written as an account but as a story. An eyewitness account would be what the person saw from his vantage point. The gospels are written as knowing things that would not be known, such as knowing what Jesus said to God on the Mount of Olives, despite the fact that it says that he was alone while prayed.

Originally posted by AshleyD
First century Christians who died for their beliefs: The sincerity of belief does not make that belief true! I agree with that but surely 1st century Christians would be an advantage over us regarding Jesus' historicity 2,000 years later. And there was physical evidence of Jesus documented to still have been in existence during their time that has not survived to our own time.

Actually, they would NOT be at an advantage, as many of the people of this time were ignorant and believed what they did based on word of mouth. This should not be taken with any sort of validity just as early believers from any other religion.

Originally posted by AshleyD
What about the deaths of the apostles. Who would die for something they knew was a lie? Then we have to prove ALL the accounts of the deaths of the apostles really occurred and were not unreliable eye witness accounts of their deaths. We can only do this for about half of the apostles but the God hating skeptic would still say this is not enough.

Many people die for their beliefs. Just because muslims crashed planes in the world trade center does not validify their beliefs.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Historical sources? There are. But they are all dismissed as hearsay... while the accounts that are not necessary hearsay accounts but which are believed by many to be eye witness accounts are dismissed as 'unreliable.' And forget the fact many of these historical sources were written by Roman pagan historians- it's still not enough for the hardcore deny-at-all-costs skeptic.

There are no sources DURING THE TIME JESUS LIVED. This is the key that many Christians do not mention.

Originally posted by AshleyD
So, I see no reason to try to sway the brainwashed. The evidence for His existence is plentiful but never enough for those who refuse, yes refuse, to believe. There is historical, documentary, and archaeological evidence confirming Jesus' existence but the hardcore skeptic who has seared their conscience will never, ever accept it.

There is no concrete evidence. If there is and I am missing something then state it now and I will believe. All of the 'evidence' I've seen presented simply is not evidence of anything other than a story that was written during the first century. OF COURSE other sources verify this story by writting about the story, but they were not there to write about the event itself, but rather the story. SO we return to the gospels. Written well after the fact. Many claims therein have not been verified. It's written as a story and not an eyewitness account. The only 'archeological evidence' is only evidence that the places mentioned in the Bible exist, and are not evidence of Jesus himself. Many stories refer to real places that exist, this does not mean they are true.
If I am brainwashed, then show me where I am wrong. Show me the proof, and not YOUR definition of proof. Proof is proof, and requires no assumption.

Originally posted by TruthParadox
There's the problem.
Proof is not defined by me or by you.
Proof is proof.
If there was proof of Jesus' existence, then there would be no argument taking place.

Sadly, not all the time. Let's use the shape of the earth as an example. There are still people today who believe the earth is flat. How can they possibly believe this? There is 'PROOF' the earth is spherical yet they deny it. So, 'PROOF' can still be denied.

Example. Of course I believe Alexander the Great existed but we are going to use this example again.

Me (Devil's Advocate Insane Skeptic): Alexander the Great's historical existence must be questioned because the accounts written about his life cannot be considered reliable since they were written after his lifetime. Therefore Hearsay.
Sane Ignorance Denier: Well, There is other Evidence. For instance, we have his face on coins.

Me (Devil's Advocate Insane Skeptic): LOL! You are so ignorant and delusional. That means nothing- Zeus had coins depicting him!
Sane Ignorance Denier: Er... But cities were founded in his name and he himself founded cities!

Me (Devil's Advocate Insane Skeptic): LOL! So did Romulus- a mythological figure said to have founded Rome!
Sane Ignorance Denier: Er... But there are records of his birth cited in external sources that are lost to us but existed at the time of the written records.

Me (Devil's Advocate Insane Skeptic): They were later forgeries/interpolations!
Sane Ignorance Denier: But there are historical sites and other historical figures associated with him!

Me (Devil's Advocate Insane Skeptic): You idiot! LOL! Even really good fiction authors sometimes use real people, locations, and events when writing their novels.
Sane Ignorance Denier: But there are archaeological sites associated with him!

Get the point?

The rest is something I have already answered and I noticed you missed the point on a few things so this will be brief:

It is not written as an account but as a story. An eyewitness account would be what the person saw from his vantage point. The gospels are written as knowing things that would not be known, such as knowing what Jesus said to God on the Mount of Olives, despite the fact that it says that he was alone while prayed.

And Jesus couldn't have told them? Silliness.

Actually, they would NOT be at an advantage, as many of the people of this time were ignorant and believed what they did based on word of mouth. This should not be taken with any sort of validity just as early believers from any other religion.

They most certainly were and I am surprised (but not really) to see you say such a thing especially after me sending you a link previously. Jesus' relatives were still alive, there are the census records that recorded Jesus' birth that are now lost to us, there would have been surviving eye witnesses and artifacts that existed then but were lost to us now, Jesus' great nephews were taken before the courts, etc. Logic demands they would have known more about it than we do today.

Many people die for their beliefs. Just because muslims crashed planes in the world trade center does not validify their beliefs.

Did you read what I said when I said 'I agree with that' after stating such an objection? Again, it goes back to the fact those people would have had a reason to KNOW Jesus was a historical figure- not just dying for something means that thing was true.

reply to post by Deaf Alien



Jesus is the ONLY MEDIATOR between man and God ..Its really very simple.
Also the bible is pretty clear that we are not supposed to call up the dead for any reason .Mary is dead .isnt she ? So are the Saints that yall pray to arnt they ?
And the Pope is a mere man and is not a VICAR of CHrist in any way shape or form and we are to BOW before NO MAN ..So why do you bow to him ? Why would you give him so much obedience ?Will you do the same to the AntiChrist ? I think you would if you were used to bowing to the POpe and the statutes of dead saints ....They are prepping their congregations to serve the AC .(So are many protestant Churchs these days so I wont leave them out of this ) .....they are all being CONDITIONED to be led like sheep to the slaughter .
Its pretty simple ..and really that is just a tip of the iceburg of the Catholic Doctrines .That are completely contrary to the word of God .

Originally posted by AshleyD

Originally posted by TruthParadox
There's the problem.
Proof is not defined by me or by you.
Proof is proof.
If there was proof of Jesus' existence, then there would be no argument taking place.

Sadly, not all the time. Let's use the shape of the earth as an example. There are still people today who believe the earth is flat. How can they possibly believe this? There is 'PROOF' the earth is spherical yet they deny it. So, 'PROOF' can still be denied.

Yes proof can be denied, but I am not denying proof, because there is none. I am stating that there is a lack of proof.

Originally posted by AshleyD
Example. Of course I believe Alexander the Great existed but we are going to use this example again.

Me (Devil's Advocate Insane Skeptic): Alexander the Great's historical existence must be questioned because the accounts written about his life cannot be considered reliable since they were written after his lifetime. Therefore Hearsay.
Sane Ignorance Denier: Well, There is other Evidence. For instance, we have his face on coins.

Me (Devil's Advocate Insane Skeptic): LOL! You are so ignorant and delusional. That means nothing- Zeus had coins depicting him!
Sane Ignorance Denier: Er... But cities were founded in his name and he himself founded cities!

Me (Devil's Advocate Insane Skeptic): LOL! So did Romulus- a mythological figure said to have founded Rome!
Sane Ignorance Denier: Er... But there are records of his birth cited in external sources that are lost to us but existed at the time of the written records.

Me (Devil's Advocate Insane Skeptic): They were later forgeries/interpolations!
Sane Ignorance Denier: But there are historical sites and other historical figures associated with him!

Me (Devil's Advocate Insane Skeptic): You idiot! LOL! Even really good fiction authors sometimes use real people, locations, and events when writing their novels.
Sane Ignorance Denier: But there are archaeological sites associated with him!

Get the point?

Yes I get the point, but you don't seem to understand one thing. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The story of Alexander the Great is logical, makes sense, and fits in the timeline. The story of Jesus is based on miracles and is intertwined with fairytale elements.

If someone says that they saw 'person A', you would have no reason to doubt them, correct?
If the same person says they saw a ghost, you would be more skeptical and would need evidence in order to believe, correct?

This is the difference between Alexander the Great and Jesus. And it's a difference that many creationists who use this argument do not understand. I never said that Alexander the Great is 100% likely to have existed. However, his story is FAR more probable to be true, just as 'person A' is far more likely to have existed than the ghost, even given the same amount of evidence, or lack thereof.

Originally posted by AshleyD

It is not written as an account but as a story. An eyewitness account would be what the person saw from his vantage point. The gospels are written as knowing things that would not be known, such as knowing what Jesus said to God on the Mount of Olives, despite the fact that it says that he was alone while prayed.

And Jesus couldn't have told them? Silliness.

Directly after he prays to God, alone, he is taken to be crucified. When would he have the chance to tell anyone his exact words of prayer? It's possible that he could have gotten the message to his disciples but it's not likely. It doesn't fit. I never argued that it's impossible, just that the story is written as a story and NOT as the eyewitness testimony you and others claim it to be.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Actually, they would NOT be at an advantage, as many of the people of this time were ignorant and believed what they did based on word of mouth. This should not be taken with any sort of validity just as early believers from any other religion.

They most certainly were and I am surprised (but not really) to see you say such a thing especially after me sending you a link previously. Jesus' relatives were still alive, there are the census records that recorded Jesus' birth that are now lost to us, there would have been surviving eye witnesses and artifacts that existed then but were lost to us now, Jesus' great nephews were taken before the courts, etc. Logic demands they would have known more about it than we do today.

That IS a possible scenario. However, what most likely happened is that early Christians believed the stories they heard about Christ and did not check for any evidence. Is the scenario I present also possible? If it is, then you can not use that argument as evidence as it could swing either way.

Originally posted by AshleyD

Many people die for their beliefs. Just because muslims crashed planes in the world trade center does not validify their beliefs.

Did you read what I said when I said 'I agree with that' after stating such an objection? Again, it goes back to the fact those people would have had a reason to KNOW Jesus was a historical figure- not just dying for something means that thing was true.

This is an assumption, again you have no evidence that these people knew Jesus was a historical figure. You claim that there were records of Jesus during his lifetime. Of course they were destroyed. How convenient.