Posted on 02/07/2015 12:06:39 AM PST by Faith Presses On
A few years ago, people exploring caves outside Jerusalem came across the find of a lifetime: an ancient burial cave containing the remains of a crucified man. This find is only one in a series of finds that overturns a century-old scholarly consensus.
That consensus held that the Gospels are almost entirely proclamation and contain little, if any, real history. The remains belonged to a man who had been executed in the first century A.D., that is, from the time of Jesus.
As Jeffrey Sheler writes in his book Is the Bible True? the skeleton confirms what the evangelists wrote about Jesus' death and burial in several important ways.
First, location—scholars had long doubted the biblical account of Jesus' burial. They believed that crucified criminals were tossed in a mass grave and then devoured by wild animals. But this man, a near contemporary of Jesus, was buried in the same way the Bible says Jesus was buried.
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...
Scholars long doubted means progressive academics who are athiests.
Jesus’ burial cave would be empty!
It didn’t say it was Jesus’s burial cave.
The very stones cry out!
More than that, the condition of the remains is such that it could not be Our Lord’s...though it could be either of the thieves’...
More than that, the condition of the remains is such that it could not be Our Lord’s...though it could be either of the thieves’...
(((
Or some other man whose body was claimed by his loved ones after his death. The authorities allowed Jesus to be given to his mother and his followers after his death, why would they not allow some other fellow’s family to take his body?
Letting the family take the body would save the Roman soldiers some work in disposing of the body, also, so why would they object?
Does anyone know what crimes might have resulted in crucifiction in a family that could provide a rock tomb. I guess in the case of Jesus it was sedition or something similar. What are others besides common theft and murder (which this case might have been)?
Crimes don’t necessarily mean that the criminal is from a poor family; he could be a black sheep.
And the family of Jesus was probably poor and unable to furnish a permanent rock tomb. According to the Bible, Joseph of Arimethea, provided his own tomb for the burial. Since tombs were generally a family affair, the question becomes was this tomb on temporary loan just for Passover with a reburial to another location in prospect.
Lots of apocryphal stories and legends about this Joseph, including a genealogy showing he was Mary’s uncle—and an ancestor of the British royal family.
Quite a few people were executed by crucifixion in those days.
Finding a crucified body in some tomb isn’t evidence of anything, other than the proof of a crucifixion in that era.... although some will grasp at straws, just as they do with the shroud of Turin.
Um, I think that is what the article is referring to. As opposed to the thinking that the dead from crucifixion were dumped into mass graves.
Sort of along the lines that historians think the idea of King David is mythology, that no king could be that powerful (cities, government, etc.) from that early of a time period. But now they have found remnants of those large cities, coinage, etc. from that time period.
I don't think they have found anything that says “King David slept here”, but just the notion that the timeframe is possible and evidence of a powerful king is one more piece of the puzzle.
“just as they do with the shroud of Turin”
You should look at what the latest research shows about the shroud, it is made from cloth made around within the time period of Jesus, and they have determined how the image was put on the cloth.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19%3A40&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:12
The Catholic Church also lays claims to all sorts of grisly ancient relics, including the bones of Peter, and a bunch of severed heads. See article.
John 19:40 New International Version (NIV)
Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.
The Bible described 75 to 100 pounds of spices being wrapped in the burial cloth. No traces of spices have been found on the shroud. [Jn 19:40]
The Bible quotes Jesus as saying there are nail holes in his hands from the crucifixion. By contrast the shroud image has no wounds in his hands but one in his wrist. [Jn 20:24-27]
There are no examples of the shroud linen's complex herringbone twill weave date from the first century. However the weave was used in Europe in the Middle Ages, coincidentally when the shroud first appeared.
It's a clever medieval forgery.
The clear implication of all three synoptic gospels is that the material was bound tightly round the body, yet the Shroud of Turin shows an image made by simply lying a linen shroud on top of the front of the body, over the head and down the back.
There is a lack of wrap-around distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. Thus the cloth was never used to wrap a body as described in Luke 24:12 New International Version (NIV):
Luke 24:12 ”Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.”
“12 Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.”
KJV has it a little differently.
Lastly, but certainly not least: the herringbone weave found in the Shroud of Turin linen, wasn't around in the 1st century, it wasn't prevalent until 1,300 years later!
These aren't trivial facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
