The Lost Tomb of Jesus at Talpiot

[Pappa]

He seems to have posed enough of a threat or irritation to the Jewish establishment, for them to have him executed.

Is there any evidence he was executed?

[Feck]

There might have been a Jesus or maybe not. I think it's more probable that there was a guy who preached and then legends grew out of it than they made it ALL up.

Agreed, except for the word ALL. I can't see why they would make the names up.
These people did actually believe in the stuff, to the extent that the cult grew extremely quickly. It's extremely unlikely that the names in the stories would be changed. I would say that most of what's in the gospels is invention, but based on and grown out of a real man, with real followers.
Probably a Charles Manson type of charismatic loonie.
And I still think the odds are, it's his bones that were found.
.

So no urban myths are common 'Knowledge' today ?
It would be nice if those bones could be PROVED to be his but I doubt they will(even if they are ) and the god bothers would never believe it anyway

[mistermack]

He wasn't"Important" Enough for the romans to execute him ..they didn't give a shit the jewish Authorities said this guy is causing trouble so the romans killed him .... they killed people for amusement FFS . Jewish Rebel linked to the anti roman resistance Got NAILED ....big deal

I agree with all of that. Especially big deal. A very big deal if 2.1 billion people now follow the religion. what a waste. And if these are his bones, I think people at least should be let know, and not have it kept hidden, at the back of a warehouse.
.

[mistermack]

Is there any evidence he was executed?

The only thing I would quote as evidence for any of it, is the collected letters of Paul. And some of those are better evidence than others.
But evidence and proof are very different things.
.

[Svartalf]

I've seen Like the first 45 mns of the documentary (like months ago, haven't been able to get myself to finish it yet).

My take on it :

a) Names on the boxes are pretty common, and no proof in and of themselves that the family in question would be Jesus'
b) I know Jesus did not really get taken to heaven, but his family is supposed to be from Bethlehem, and the film was most unconvincing in explaining how they should have had a tomb at Jerusalem.
c) Actually, most of the arguments presented and arguments for them are most unconvincing, most especially the pictural and written evidence
d) when they start digging in the gnostic gospels and the Magdalen stuff, I know that regardless of who Mary Magdalene really was and what she did, they are going for the ludicrous conspiracy angle

Overall, that mockumentary is a piece of crap, and that tomb belongs to just another family.
I loved how they went to apperent great lengths to introduce an endoscope in the tomb to come up with essentially nothing that they still blew up as "proof" that their insubstantiated "theories" are likely. '

[mistermack]

So no urban myths are common 'Knowledge' today ?
It would be nice if those bones could be PROVED to be his but I doubt they will(even if they are ) and the god bothers would never believe it anyway

Loads of urban myths, but the letters of Paul are dateable to pretty soon after the cruxifiction, so they aren't fully in that catagory.
I'm sure it won't ever be proved now. It would be virtually impossible. Maybe if the bones were somehow recovered, and they had nailmarks in the hands or feet, it would be a shock. But that isn't going to happen. In fact I'm 100 sure that if that happened, nobody would ever hear of it.
.

[mistermack]

I've seen Like the first 45 mns of the documentary (like months ago, haven't been able to get myself to finish it yet).

My take on it :

a) Names on the boxes are pretty common, and no proof in and of themselves that the family in question would be Jesus'
b) I know Jesus did not really get taken to heaven, but his family is supposed to be from Bethlehem, and the film was most unconvincing in explaining how they should have had a tomb at Jerusalem.
c) Actually, most of the arguments presented and arguments for them are most unconvincing, most especially the pictural and written evidence
d) when they start digging in the gnostic gospels and the Magdalen stuff, I know that regardless of who Mary Magdalene really was and what she did, they are going for the ludicrous conspiracy angle

Overall, that mockumentary is a piece of crap, and that tomb belongs to just another family.
I loved how they went to apperent great lengths to introduce an endoscope in the tomb to come up with essentially nothing that they still blew up as "proof" that their insubstantiated "theories" are likely. '

Well, I have to agree that the film was full of crap, especially the Mary Magdelene stuff, and the 'missing' James Ossuary.
But the fact that the film was crap doesn't make the slightest difference to the case for it being genuine.
If you think the names were common, try this. Imagine going to London, and trying to find a man called Michael, who's father is called Dave, who's mother or wife is called Mariah, and who has a brother or very close male relative called Dai.
I would say the chances are you'd come away with nothing. And that's out of a population of ten million.
.

[Svartalf]

When this first came out, NOBODY questioned the Jesus inscription.
.

Bullshit.

Precisely... the very number of "experts" found in the mockumentary shows that the matter has actually been abundantly studied...and the quality of the "pro Jesus tomb and ossuary" arguments is by itself ample evidence why the matter was, as our friend mack says, rubbished.

[Feck]

So no urban myths are common 'Knowledge' today ?
It would be nice if those bones could be PROVED to be his but I doubt they will(even if they are ) and the god bothers would never believe it anyway

Loads of urban myths, but the letters of Paul are dateable to pretty soon after the cruxifiction, so they aren't fully in that catagory.
I'm sure it won't ever be proved now. It would be virtually impossible. Maybe if the bones were somehow recovered, and they had nailmarks in the hands or feet, it would be a shock. But that isn't going to happen. In fact I'm 100 sure that if that happened, nobody would ever hear of it.
.

Personally I think Christianity is Paul-ism ....I think Jesus had a lot more in common with ultra-jewish anti Roman sects at the time Paul was not charged with spreading the gospel to the world he was told to fuck off and talk to the gentiles if he wanted to !

There are so many literary links to the teaching of jebus to the Essenes and others like them it would seem unlikely that a Roman was accepted into the faith of his family and friends ,there is little evidence for any involvement in his nearest and dearest in the Paulism that was spread .To say that Jebus MUST have been important to the Romans is to ignore the lengths they went to take Masada and other areas of jewish resistance to the occupation ,to take the Gospel and especially the Revelation out of context of Jewish apocalyptic writing that had been common every time Israel was occupied is just foolish .The Genesis was made up when the jews were in Babylon, before then they had many gods large and small ,much like the Egyptians.
The historical fact or not of the last couple of years of Jebus's life as written down by people that did not know him or his faith MANY years after is irrelevant .
The body nails and all can be found BUT it will make not one bit of difference to the faithful !EVERYTHING they believe in a lie anyway !

If you want an example then look to the Rasta's ,they were told in no uncertain terms by their object of worship that they were WRONG ,did they listen did they fuck !

[Svartalf]

I've seen Like the first 45 mns of the documentary (like months ago, haven't been able to get myself to finish it yet). '

My take on it :

a) Names on the boxes are pretty common, and no proof in and of themselves that the family in question would be Jesus'
b) I know Jesus did not really get taken to heaven, but his family is supposed to be from Bethlehem, and the film was most unconvincing in explaining how they should have had a tomb at Jerusalem.
c) Actually, most of the arguments presented and arguments for them are most unconvincing, most especially the pictural and written evidence
d) when they start digging in the gnostic gospels and the Magdalen stuff, I know that regardless of who Mary Magdalene really was and what she did, they are going for the ludicrous conspiracy angle

Overall, that mockumentary is a piece of crap, and that tomb belongs to just another family.
I loved how they went to apperent great lengths to introduce an endoscope in the tomb to come up with essentially nothing that they still blew up as "proof" that their insubstantiated "theories" are likely. '

Well, I have to agree that the film was full of crap, especially the Mary Magdelene stuff, and the 'missing' James Ossuary.
But the fact that the film was crap doesn't make the slightest difference to the case for it being genuine.
If you think the names were common, try this. Imagine going to London, and trying to find a man called Michael, who's father is called Dave, who's mother or wife is called Mariah, and who has a brother or very close male relative called Dai.
I would say the chances are you'd come away with nothing. And that's out of a population of ten million.
.

Actually NOT

If there was anything like a serious case for that tomb having creditable links to the biblical character, they would have laid out that case with the strength of the Chicxulub meteor causing the K-T event over earth... but did they do that, oh, nope, they go for a bunch of outrageous, unbelievable crap arguments predicating absurd conclusion that would not convince anybody who does not also believe in Erich von Däniken, Graham Hancock and Da Vinci Code to be integrally and inerrantly TRUE.

The argument is a set of preposterous predicates that rely not on the truth or falsity of the bible, but to a conspiracy scenario about deforming and dissimulating the truth behind the events speaken of in the bible. The 'proof' used toprop up those theses would not pass any serious examination by an amateur historian. Ergo, it's crap from aleph to tav and there's no such thing as a case, unless you believe every 'fact' mentioned in da Vinci Code to be literally true, even the plain geographic mistakes that brown could have avoide if he'd even taken the pain to see the locations for himself.

[mistermack]

If you want an example then look to the Rasta's ,they were told in no uncertain terms by their object of worship that they were WRONG ,did they listen did they fuck !

That's right. And Brian, don't forget. He had the same problem. He told them to fuck off, and all he got was "how shall we fuck off Lord?".
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Loads of urban myths, but the letters of Paul are dateable to pretty soon after the cruxifiction, so they aren't fully in that catagory.
.

Goodie! A single source. Good thing he wasn't making any of this up, ain't it?

[Feck]

Loads of urban myths, but the letters of Paul are dateable to pretty soon after the cruxifiction, so they aren't fully in that catagory.
.

Goodie! A single source. Good thing he wasn't making any of this up, ain't it?

A single source not of what happened but of HIS important place in the story ...He must have been telling the truth !

[mistermack]

Svartaff, I don't give a monkey's about the film, or the Da Vinci code.
I made my case in the OP, nothing to do with the film, just the grouping of names.
There are two possibilities. Either another family had that group of names by chance, or this is the family of the historical Jesus.
I'm just giving my opinion of the chances of that grouping occurring purely by coincidence.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Loads of urban myths, but the letters of Paul are dateable to pretty soon after the cruxifiction, so they aren't fully in that catagory.
.

Goodie! A single source. Good thing he wasn't making any of this up, ain't it?

A single source not of what happened but of HIS important place in the story ...He must have been telling the truth !

Why?