TalpiotTomb

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rbethea said:
NO! Two comments:
  1. Does it shake your faith that they may have found a tomb that a spurious and roundly rejected archaeologist suggests might be Jesus of Nazareth’s tomb? If so, I suggest reading about the resurrection and the Shroud of Turin. Recognize that there WAS a tomb that Jesus was buried in but that he became resurrected and ascended into heaven.
  2. Go read the open letter from the Princeton 2008 symposium rejecting the claims. Is it possible that he is right, strictly from an archaeological standpoint? I guess. But it doesn’t pass historical, religious, or scientific muster. It cannot be proved unequivocally and the statistics are actually not in its favor. Recognize what this claim is: 1 more sarcophogus was linked to a tomb that this guy says is Jesus’. So what? What does that have to do with it being or not being what he claims it is? It doesn’t further his proof or his claim.
Again, keep your eye on the prize that is Christ and don’t worry about silly things like this. If we all (myself included) would focus the efforts to helping the poor that we spend worrying about this stuff, we would be doing much more good in fulfilling our call that Jesus made to us. 👍
Click to expand...
I know about the symposium, it’s the new developments about the soil and chemicals on the James ossuary that is upsetting me. They say that it matches the soil etc. from the Talpiot Tomb and increases it A LOT that this is Jesus’ tomb.
 
1ke said:
i cannot believe you would think that Christianity is “wrong” based on total nonsense. Some ossuaries were found, some had common names carved on them. Some had some bones in them, some bones were on scattered around, some had multiple people in them. Do you understand that people could have reused these burial boxes and names could have been carved there any time, first century, second century, or beyond? These were some of the most common names around.

No one knows who these people were and no one ever will. We know who they are not: Jesus and Mary.

This is not something to be concerned about. It is a great big “who cares”.
Click to expand...
We’re there bones in some of them? I thought they were all empty. I know the one with the name Jesus was empty.
 
Faith1960 said:
I know about the symposium, it’s the new developments about the soil and chemicals on the James ossuary that is upsetting me. They say that it matches the soil etc. from the Talpiot Tomb and increases it A LOT that this is Jesus’ tomb.
Click to expand...
Also, what’s bothering me is that the James ossuary says James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus on it.
 
Faith1960 said:
I know about the symposium, it’s the new developments about the soil and chemicals on the James ossuary that is upsetting me. They say that it matches the soil etc. from the Talpiot Tomb and increases it A LOT that this is Jesus’ tomb.
Click to expand...
Why do you even believe this story to begin with? It was found and studied by a biased and disreputable archaeologist. The names on the ossuaries were exceptionally common names, and still are. My last name is within the top 40 most common names in Scotland, and within the top 70 in the US. There are over 300,000 people with my first name in the US alone. By this logic, I would have to assume that if I traveled to Scotland and found a gravestone with my name on it, which is statistically extremely likely, it would have to be my grave.

Even if you don’t accept that as a comparable example, can you not see how utterly absurd this is? If I’m biased against Modernist architecture, which I am, yet I am also an architect, would you by default trust my opinion of modern architecture based on my field of study? You know that I’m biased against it. Wouldn’t that diminish my credibility? This archaeologist is determined to find a tomb for a man named Jesus who lived in Nazareth 2000 years ago. That wouldn’t be hard. Yet he is doing so to prove that Christianity is false. Does that not diminish his credibility to you? Does the fact that panels of unbiased scholars and archaeologists basically discredited his points not give you reason to disbelieve this man’s claims? Why are they less credible than he is to you?
 
Kurisu35712 said:
Why do you even believe this story to begin with? It was found and studied by a biased and disreputable archaeologist. The names on the ossuaries were exceptionally common names, and still are. My last name is within the top 40 most common names in Scotland, and within the top 70 in the US. There are over 300,000 people with my first name in the US alone. By this logic, I would have to assume that if I traveled to Scotland and found a gravestone with my name on it, which is statistically extremely likely, it would have to be my grave.

Even if you don’t accept that as a comparable example, can you not see how utterly absurd this is? If I’m biased against Modernist architecture, which I am, yet I am also an architect, would you by default trust my opinion of modern architecture based on my field of study? You know that I’m biased against it. Wouldn’t that diminish my credibility? This archaeologist is determined to find a tomb for a man named Jesus who lived in Nazareth 2000 years ago. That wouldn’t be hard. Yet he is doing so to prove that Christianity is false. Does that not diminish his credibility to you? Does the fact that panels of unbiased scholars and archaeologists basically discredited his points not give you reason to disbelieve this man’s claims? Why are they less credible than he is to you?
Click to expand...
I know the names are common, but a couple people interviewed for one of the many articles I’d read said the cluster of names all in one tomb is unusual.
What’s your opinion on that?
 
Logically speaking the existence of Jesus’, the Christ, tomb is nonsense. First, let’s assume that it was all an elaborate hoax, perpetrated by insane people who really wanted to live in poverty, fool as many as they could, and then be executed in horrible ways. If this tomb is genuine, then these maniacs stole Jesus’ crucified body out of one tomb in order to make it appear as though he was resurrected. A fact that the entire hoax hinges upon, and instead of burying him in the desert where nobody would ever find it, or know whose body it was, they take it to another tomb and clearly mark it? Not only that they make sure all his family members are buried there too and all of their bones clearly marked? Wow!
 
Kurisu35712 said:
Why do you even believe this story to begin with? It was found and studied by a biased and disreputable archaeologist. The names on the ossuaries were exceptionally common names, and still are. My last name is within the top 40 most common names in Scotland, and within the top 70 in the US. There are over 300,000 people with my first name in the US alone. By this logic, I would have to assume that if I traveled to Scotland and found a gravestone with my name on it, which is statistically extremely likely, it would have to be my grave.

Even if you don’t accept that as a comparable example, can you not see how utterly absurd this is? If I’m biased against Modernist architecture, which I am, yet I am also an architect, would you by default trust my opinion of modern architecture based on my field of study? You know that I’m biased against it. Wouldn’t that diminish my credibility? This archaeologist is determined to find a tomb for a man named Jesus who lived in Nazareth 2000 years ago. That wouldn’t be hard. Yet he is doing so to prove that Christianity is false. Does that not diminish his credibility to you? Does the fact that panels of unbiased scholars and archaeologists basically discredited his points not give you reason to disbelieve this man’s claims? Why are they less credible than he is to you?
Click to expand...
Well, he is Jewish, possibly an Orthodox Jew, so he might be trying to disprove Christianity based on his beliefs and bias.
 
Faith1960 said:
I know the names are common, but a couple people interviewed for one of the many articles I’d read said the cluster of names all in one tomb is unusual.
What’s your opinion on that?
Click to expand...
Poor people use the same ossuary all the time.
Some have no names on them.
Compare the ossuary of Caiaphas to those of ordinary citizens.
In Ireland, my mother-in-law, father-in-law, and both of their parents are all in the same tomb. The headstone is inscribed with 9 different names. That’s nothing new.

People called each other “brother” who were not blood brothers. Sill do in nearly every culture. In the Hispanic culture it’s a term of endearment to call someone “primo” = cousin. Doesn’t mean they’re my cousin. :rolleyes:
All of this has been explained and discussed at length on these forums in the past.
Hebrew culture of the first century is nothing like American or European culture of the 20th century.
We can’t ascribe our expectations to people who lived 2000 years ago. Same with Biblical interpretations. Study the cultural norms of that time in history and all of this will not seem nearly as dire as some would have you believe.
 
pianistclare said:
Poor people use the same ossuary all the time.
Some have no names on them.
Compare the ossuary of Caiaphas to those of ordinary citizens.
In Ireland, my mother-in-law, father-in-law, and both of their parents are all in the same tomb. The headstone is inscribed with 9 different names. That’s nothing new.

People called each other “brother” who were not blood brothers. Sill do in nearly every culture. In the Hispanic culture it’s a term of endearment to call someone “primo” = cousin. Doesn’t mean they’re my cousin. :rolleyes:
All of this has been explained and discussed at length on these forums in the past.
Hebrew culture of the first century is nothing like American or European culture of the 20th century.
We can’t ascribe our expectations to people who lived 2000 years ago. Same with Biblical interpretations. Study the cultural norms of that time in history and all of this will not seem nearly as dire as some would have you believe.
Click to expand...
Is there ANY chance whatsoever this could be Jesus’s tomb?
 
Faith1960 said:
Is there ANY chance whatsoever this could be Jesus’s tomb?
Click to expand...
I’m really not following why this would concern you if it was.

The Church of the Holy Sepluchre is built on the traditional location of Jesus’s tomb. So, if some other place were the tomb, so what? I don’t understand what this has to do with ANYTHING.
 
Faith1960 said:
I know the names are common, but a couple people interviewed for one of the many articles I’d read said the cluster of names all in one tomb is unusual.
What’s your opinion on that?
Click to expand...
My opinion on a couple of people’s opinions who just so happened to agree with the premise? Do you really want my opinion? 😃

For one, there range anywhere from three to six different Marys named in the New Testament alone, possibly even eight, depending on the interpretation you’re looking at. There are up to six people named James. Two people named Joseph. I wouldn’t think it is either unusual or unlikely to find those names in a tomb in the Middle East, even all together. I’m no statistician, but another poster actually did quote some numbers for you. It isn’t unlikely, much less impossible.
 
Faith1960 said:
I know about the symposium, it’s the new developments about the soil and chemicals on the James ossuary that is upsetting me. They say that it matches the soil etc. from the Talpiot Tomb and increases it A LOT that this is Jesus’ tomb.
Click to expand...
No. It doesn’t.
 
Faith1960 said:
Also, what’s bothering me is that the James ossuary says James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus on it.
Click to expand...
Why does THAT bother you? Without lending any credibility to it, because I think this guy is a nut case, so what if it someone’s tomb named James? So what if it was actually the Apostle James?

He has to be somewhere.
 
1ke said:
Why does THAT bother you? Without lending any credibility to it, because I think this guy is a nut case, so what if it someone’s tomb named James? So what if it was actually the Apostle James?

He has to be somewhere.
Click to expand...
And besides, there are at least three places that claim to have the remains of St. James.
This sort of speculation happens all the time.
 
pianistclare said:
And besides, there are at least three places that claim to have the remains of St. James.
This sort of speculation happens all the time.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that the Wikipedia page on the Talpiot Tomb has rebuttals for every point you’ve brought up. One quote in particular.

Peter Lampe, professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Heidelberg and working in archaeology, pointed out that in the 120s/130s C.E. in the port town of Maoza at the southern end of the Dead Sea, one Jewish household comprised the following names: Jesus, Simon, Mariame, Jacobus and Judah (Papyri Babatha 17 from 128 C.E.; 25-26 and 34 from 131 C.E.). These people had nothing to do with the New Testament or the Talpiyot tomb. “According to the rationale of the filmmakers, these people should not have existed.”​
Click to expand...
 
uhl.ac/en/projects/talpiot-tomb/cracks-in-the-foundation/

This is a (rather long) detailed debunking of every point this archaeologist is trying to push with his “discovery.” You don’t necessarily need to read the entire thing to realize that this is, at best, indeterminate. One point brought up in the link is that multiple peoples’ remains were found in each ossuary, and stated that there are in fact 88 people buried in this tomb. Furthermore, there is no scientific reason to suspect that the ossuary labeled “Jesus son of Joseph” is the child of the person(/people) in the ossuary labeled Joseph.

Read through a few of the statements, or all of them. The claims your worries are based on are dubious at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top