Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Physicist
No, but I think the archaeologist who dug them up already described them as completely mundane. He also explained that there were at least 70 other tombs in Jerusalem that bore the name Jesus. It was a fairly common first name in the era.

Cameron already had all of this knowledge available to him before he made his documentary. He went ahead with it anyway.
13 posted on 02/27/2007 6:50:53 AM PST by .cnI redruM (Liberals NEVER measure the consequences of their actions, only the personal political advantages.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: .cnI redruM
No, but I think the archaeologist who dug them up already described them as completely mundane. He also explained that there were at least 70 other tombs in Jerusalem that bore the name Jesus. It was a fairly common first name in the era.

If that were all there was to it, it wouldn't be worth calling attention to it. My belief is that this is a different family, but the combination of names does seem unlikely enough to justify the attention.

Very few people doubt that Jesus was a historical person, and nobody can discount his importance, so if these are relics of the man and his family, they deserve close scrutiny. Look at the attention the Shroud of Turin has received over the centuries.

While we're on the subject, does the "Jesus" ossuary actually contain any bones? If there's one historical fact about Jesus that almost everyone can agree upon, it's that he was crucified by the Romans. The bones ought to show evidence of that, if they're for the right man.

And if the box is empty...

17 posted on 02/27/2007 7:03:49 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson