Please help me make sense of this by answering two questions with a yes or no.
1. Aren’t bones placed in an ossuary (bone box) after about 9 - 15 months of decomposition? 2. Are there ways other than decomposition for bones to end up in bone boxes?
If the answers to the two questions above are 1 is yes and 2 is no. I have a serious problem in reconciling those answers with Acts. 2:31 which I quote from a NIV rendition that reads “Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, [Or Messiah. ‘The Christ” (Greek) and “the Messiah” (Hebrew) both mean “the Anointed One”; also in verse 36.] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.’
Short of telling me that some scriptures are accurate and other are not (I believe all scripture accurate and the Bible inerrant), please explain how Jesus’ bones could be in any box if the only way to get the bones there is after decomposition of the body.
I look forward to your answer and your helping me make sense of the supposition that Jesus' bones were in a box is credible as opposed to in conflict with the Bible.
I have pointed out that what scripture states saying that Jesus did not suffer decay. I also point out that unless there was a way to be in a bone box without have been decayed there is a conflict. In my personal case the Bible wins if there is no way to find what the Bible says is true to in order to accept the "discovery".
So the question for discussion remains can anyone tell me how one in the day of Jesus' time would end up in bone box without having to have decomposed?
That is the question I have asked of Amy-Jill and the answer I persue.
A non decayed body wouldn't fit in one of these ossuaries. The dimensions are usually just big enough to hold the biggest bone of the body in question.
I seem to recall one of the canonical texts describing the body of the resurrected Jesus as brand new (which could account for the disciples having trouble recognizing Jesus). Would it not, (wittnessing this man resurrect the dead, cure the blind and the sick, turn water into wine, and feed 5000 from a few fish and loafs of bread) be natural to expect, that he would also be capable of resurrecting himself?
I mean, had I witnessed anyone do that, would I not be surprised, did he rise from the dead, unless he had changed his appearence significantly.
It has been said (as a defense to the physical ascension), that spirits don't eat. Just read Genesis 19:1-5....
Golfdane, I’m with you on that one. These were bone boxes, not body boxes. How did you get to only bones without decay going on to get to a bone alone status? Tradition was to leave the body in the tomb to decay for 9 to 15 months then to put the bones in a box. So unless there was some other way to do this bone box situation besides waiting for decay to do the job, I believe there is a contradiction with Acts 2:31 and Psalms 16:9-10.
It appears Jesus had a variety of ways that he could change himself after resurrection. When you can walk through locked doors, that is a change. No mortal body does that. At other times people could not recognize him. To show the state of his body when Jesus appeared after walking through a locked door, look what Thomas had to say. This would indicate to me Jesus could show up in his old body or another if he pleased. That to me makes sense when you can create life and have power over death.
Jn. 20:25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” Jn. 20:26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Jn. 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Jn. 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Yes you are right that ghosts don’t eat. The resurrected Christ did and again he might have looked a little different again because the disciples dared ask who he was. Jn. 21:12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. Jn. 21:13 Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish. Jn. 21:14 This was now the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead. Jn. 21:15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
So whether he went bodily or spiritually back to Heaven people visually saw his go up and away. All I know is that whatever way he went (as a holograph or a material person), scripture said he left nothing behind to decay.
Therefore back to the old question of how do you get bones without decay? If the answer is no way, then you have now said the Bible is inaccurate if you persist in stating there is DNA in a box that contains Jesus Christ the risen savior’s bones. I simply want to know if one of these experts can provide me some facts that I don't have that eliminates a contradiction of the Bible.
Now if you told me you got the DNA off the shroud of Turin and were comparing that to everyone in the other bone boxes, different story……
THANK YOU! As my husband and I watched this special, I said they should compare it to the Shroud of Turin and see if they match. Could you imagine if they did? BUT THE DIDN'T!!
And it is convenient that only 80-500 and 80-503 were the 2 that they were able to get results from. What were 501 and 502?
i caught the absolute end of the documentary. they said that they found a whole lot of texts in the tomb. my questions are:
- Why weren't these texts taken out when the tomb was discovered in 1980. - Why didn't the director take out one of these texts with him? these would have a lot of useful information. - If these texts are that old, they are delicate, why was he handling them with his hands rather than wearing a pair of gloves?
It's funny that you're asking about the Shroud of Turin when it's ALREADY BEEN determined to be a fraud, by scientists, biblical scholars, and church authorities.
Also, you said that Jesus once resurrected "could show up in his old body or another if he pleased" makes no sense. The fact that none of his disciples could recognize him makes it appear that it was another body. This begs the question of why you would need a physical, bodily resurrection of a beaten down body (by both age and physical abuse) only to be resurrected in a totally new body not recognizable to your own disciples.
As for the former, resurrecting in his own old body, this would appear to be the case if you take into account the incident with Thomas where Jesus asked him to feel to holes in his hands and body and believe.
So is it one or the other? It can't be both and if you take the reading of the Bible literally, you must do it in all instances and things don't jive.
Full disclosure... I'm not a Christian and have no formal belief, yet have searched for the truth for a long time. All of the major religions are extremely unsatisfying and leave many questions unanswered. As an aside, I find it odd that people back then are shown proof of someone's deity by miracles and other acts (like the aforementioned Jesus/Thomas incident when he is shown and asked to feel the wounds after Jesus is resurrected) yet us poor schmoes in today's time are asked to blindly believe. God gave me this mind and it asks questions. So far the answers have not been very good. To blindly believe without asking the tough questions is stupid in my humble opinion.
@ Rez221... LOL. (That's laughing out loud). EVERYONE that asks about the Shroud of Turin is, in my opinion, the worse of all believers. The uneducated kind. The Shroud of Turin has been shown time and again to be a fraud. Please, you give other Christians a bad name.
What's next? Should we compare the DNA of the image of Christ in that piece of toast I sold on eBay the other month?
You Bible lovers just cannot accept anything that goes against your ingrained belief.
The Shroud of Turin has already been exposed as a Medieval forgery.
Fepitch, all of your Biible quotes clearly portray how limited your iintellectual capability is. It wouldn't convince you if Jesus himself came down out of the sky and told you he was married to Mary Magdalene and that he was buried in that tomb!
People: when someone makes a statement that includes "the Bible says" you should turn them off immediately as they have nothing intelligent to add to your life.
Atizzle, From what I heard during the show concerning the tomb: 1. The government did not seal the tomb back in 1980 when it was first discovered.
2. It was the people who were in the high rise apartments that put the concrete cap on the tomb opening and it was the same people who helped them to remove the cap. As a result they felt they were not in violation of going in the tomb since it was not under government control via their failure to seal it.
3. Once the government knew the crew was in the tomb, the government declared the tomb under government control and would let them take nothing out of the tomb.
4. Since the tomb was open quite some time after 1980, I’m not sure that the transcripts were there in 1980, they may have been dumped there later or they may have been there originally. It is the custom there to bury old Bibles and so someone may have added them later after the tomb was open. We can only wonder about their age.
If anyone heard differently, please feel free to jump in here.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: fepitch,
Yes, there are the variety of Christians who find the Bible inerrant and the guide by which they live and quite frankly make no apology for it. Most assuredly those of us who hold the Bible in that regard most certainly will point blank ask if what is being proposed is in contradiction to the Bible.
My question to Amy-Jill, still remains is there a way to get the bones in the box without decay having set in.
If there is no way to accomplish bones without decay, you might as well be getting DNA off the shroud to use; the difference may or may not all be the same. At least the shroud poses no contradiction to the Bible.
All of you as well as me are free to believe what we wish. I have no problem with that. So can any of you tell me of a way to get bones in that box without having to have decayed that which was to the exterior of the bones?
To answer your question directly requires you to think about what decomposition means. Biologically, decomposition refers to the reduction of the body of a formerly living organism into simpler forms of matter. Etymologically, it simply means to break down or break apart. Reduction of Jesus's body in any way would be a decomposition. If his body was to remain pristine for eternity it could never decay or fall away from the bones. Short of the supernatural there is no way for his bones to be separated from his body. But if you can beleive in all the other miracles in the bible I'm sure it wouldn't be too dificult for you to accapt that Jesus could miraculously disembody his own bones. As for why he would do that... I don't think that would make any sense at all. My suggestion is that you reexamine your own need for every word in the bible to be exactly true. People wrote the bible, people translated and retranslated it dozens of times. People make mistakes. Don't allow some trivial detail about how his bones could have gotten into a box, to distract you from the bigger picture of Christ's teachings. Whatever your belief structure is, this discovery, if any parts of it turn out to be credible, could hold the key to finding out what Jesus's life and death were really like.
I placed the following in another discussion on this site. I thought it might add some light to the discussion here:
The producers of this documentary only chose to reveal what THEY wanted to about the research! Let's deal with the FACTS and NOT theories. After all...look at where the THEORY of evolution got us...btw FACT: Darwin himself said his theories about evolution where all a joke and never meant to be taken seriously..that's a FACT...look it up!)
FACT: The bones in this and many other ossuaries were given a proper Jewish burial in 1980...therefore the the DNA gathered for testing was mitochondrian therefore...very limited.
FACT: The image that looks like a cross is more likely an arrow pointing to the top of the ossuary. (Ok..I can't prove that's a fact, but it sure makes a lot more rational sense)
FACT: 25% of women had the name Mary or some variation of the name in Jesus' time. (That's one in 4)
FACT: The THEORY that Mary Magdeline and Jesus had any other relationship than that mentioned in Scripture is based on the gnostic writings dated 400 years AFTER Christ. (ie: Gospel of Thomas, Acts of Philip, etc)
FACT: The average ossuary had 2 people's bones (the true number is 1.7 people per ossuary)
FACT: Mariamne IS mentioned in the Acts of Philip...but it is NEVER mentioned as the wife of Jesus or any other blasphemous thing. In FACT, the name is NEVER Linked to Mary Magdeline. Remember...1 in 4 women had the name Mary (or variation of)
FACT: Mariamne was the name of Herod's favorite wife. This name is in many factual historical writings has MARIAMNE. Since Mariamne means "Mary, master" it makes a TON MORE LOGIC that Mariamne could actually be Herod's wife.
FACT: The Christians were being persecuted during this time. Would they really have time to bury people in such expensive, noticeable tombs? FACT: remember: it took one year for the body to discompose enough to place it in an ossuary.
FACT: The Jewish leaders (like these producers) were TRYING to disprove Jesus' resurrection. So...why would this "tomb of Jesus" not have been written about in 1st century Jewish writings, exposing Jesus' body?
FACT: Jesus' family was NOT from Jerusalem...they were from Nazareth. So why would his family tomb be in Jerusalem?
FACT: "Jesus, son of Joseph" was a title ONLY used by Jesus Christ's enemies. So, if this truly is Jesus' tomb, why would this name be used?
CONCLUSION: Based upon all these FACTS I conclude that these producers must have a personal vendetta to destroy Christianity. After all...if you take away the resurrection of Christ (and even his virgin birth), you take away the basis of Christianity. If we all do some research on our own and don't MINDLESSLY take these guy's word for it...we will see this documentary is FULL of false assumptions and willful ignorance of the FACTS!
NOTE: These facts presented are from Dr. James White's research. He will be putting out a book by Easter time based on his research. BTW..Dr. White has been in contact with many of the same scholars that the producers site...but Dr. White will give the FULL findings and not just the ones he feels like giving.
Jesus is ALIVE and will return to judge the living and the dead. No TRUE and HONEST science will ever disprove any of Christ's claims or teachings.
subliminalemissions, I am not in opposition to this being the tomb of Jesus’ family and since the Bible does not say that Jesus either was or was not married, I have no issue with that supposition one way or the other.
For me, the bigger pictures of Jesus’ teaching mean nothing if they are not founded in truth and the book in which they are recorded is not completely true. If God wants us to believe and know him, I believe he will also have worked the miracle of keeping his word straight. Therefore, I am not of the persuasion that I find some parts of the Bible credible and others incredible. Since God in the Bible has both said this is his inspired book and that he cannot lie, I logically cannot conclude that he inspires others to lie. I also believe to not accept his word and start to make substitution for his word is ill advised. Re. 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. Re. 22:19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Reading Acts 2:31 in full, these bones have been in a grave (the bone box and tomb are in my estimation a grave) and there would have also had to be decay to get the bones in the box. Acts. 2:31 Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, [Or Messiah. “The Christ” (Greek) and “the Messiah” (Hebrew) both mean “the Anointed One”; also in verse 36.] that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay.
So as I see it, God, not to be in contradiction of self, would not have left bones behind in a grave after decay. Jesus’ family may be in every box that is labeled as it is. In my opinion, Jesus was not by merit of scripture in one of those boxes because he would have not performed a “miracle” that implemented self contradiction and lying.
So are you saying that decay would have had to occur for those bones to be in the box? Are you also agreeing they have been abandoned to a grave?
ibelieveintheresurrection, I hear you. I understand you and for sure your statement "Jesus is ALIVE and will return to judge the living and the dead. No TRUE and HONEST science will ever disprove any of Christ's claims or teachings." is what I believe. I'm fine with any finding that does not contradict scripture. Once contradction must be accepted to believe the "discovery", I will call the discovery, not scripture, the lie.
