Revisiting the tomb

Frank Rizzo, Hoboken NJ — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:49:02 GMT

I'm sorry to hear that some Christians are "thoroughly sick" of the theories on this "Jesus" guy's burial. I have to hear their childish beliefs in gods day in and day out. It's 2007, how is it possible we still live amongst people who believe in gods?

[Commercial message omitted - AB]

Revisiting the tomb

Mark Simoneau, Damar Kansas — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:12:42 GMT

What in the heck would be wrong with Jesus having a wife? I think it is great and a son! wonderful.. It makes more sense than most other theories that are passed down as fact! It drives me crazy that these so-called religous zealots call the findings blasphemous when it could turn out to be the most exciting finding in all of history!

Revisiting the tomb

A. Lisa Swift, Lemoore CA — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:17:59 GMT

"With that, here's wishing you a blessed and peaceful weekend - no matter what your religious persuasion (or non-persuasion) may be."

Thank you, and the same to you!

Personally, I am amused by some of the strange, but interesting theories about the historical Jesus. The fact remains that no contemporary history from that time period even mentions the existence of such a person. This feeds the attempts to validate their faith by Christians throughout the history of the religion.

I can only wonder why someone would need to justify his/her faith. To me, it indicates that such a person is unsure of his faith...

Revisiting the tomb

Grulg, Mexico Me — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:30:02 GMT

Paul and Christ the same person--? Was Paul a Schizo or fiction writer-? And how stupid were the early church fathers again now? That's a patently idiotic premise.

Revisiting the tomb

Jake Harris, The Dalles, Oregon — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:35:40 GMT

How is it possible that we live amongst people who don't believe in God when the evidence points to the fact that most of us believe in God? Those that don't are in a small minority of people. Whether we believe in Jesus or some other God, most people believe and are not afraid to admit it. Those that do not believe in God seem to think that they can Mock, Ridicule, or somehow "Intellectualize" God out of existence. I can make fun of, mock, ridicule or try to deny the existence of the "Green Bay Packers" but that will never make them any less real. The truth of the matter is that those people that have had God manifest Himself in their lives will Believe no matter what non believers think, and the non believers will continue to ridicule that which they could not possibly understand. Time will tell, and I thank my God that I will never have to explain why I did not believe in Him when all of creation bears witness to his existence.

Revisiting the tomb

John Derringer, Naples, FL — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 01:45:51 GMT

In the book, Jesus Tomb: Is It Fact or Fiction? -- it clearly identifies certain problems with the documentary. First off, the supposed experts that they advertised in the press release were actually against the conclusion of the documentary. They were re-interviewed and many of their statements apparently were either misused or conveniently omitted from the film and book. So sad is the foolishness of man that we have to believe in deception and fiction instead of debating with facts.

Revisiting the tomb

Steve Faraday, Willoughvy, Ohio — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 02:25:19 GMT

There is no one presently living who knew or saw Jesus living and so, therefore, eyewitnesses are not possible. ALL so-called evidence is interpretation of ancient writings, and there will always be debate over these interpretations and among the interpretors. Who really knows what the verifiable truth is?

Revisiting the tomb

Gene Morley Ash Fork, Az. — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 03:00:25 GMT

I grew up in the South, (n.e. Ark.and s.e. Mo) Great uncle was Baptist minister, went to church at least 2 times a week till about 15 yrs. He sure could preach Hell, Fire, and Damnation if you went against the bible. Too many so called (religions) now, catholics, protestants, etc.,etc., they all think they are right, but most of them get along o.k. Now (they're not new) Muslims, want to annihilate anyone who doesn't believe in their ways, every war that has ever been fought, (and I did 2 of them) has been almost entirely about religion, something is wrong here. Religion is a man made thing but now without some past happenings. Most native populations world wide talk of superior beings coming from the sky when there were no flying ships or any sort. There propably is a superior being, but more likely, they did not live on this planet. The Mormons didn't start their so called Religion till the 1800's, now I'm not picking on them either, just an example. I have seen so called religions started just for a tax exemption, this is just B. S. because the Govt. doesn't want to P.O. some of the more established (religions) with their tax exemptions and votes.

Revisiting the tomb

D Bryan, Barberton, Ohio — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 03:13:32 GMT

to all those poor, willfully ignorant unbeleivers. I couldn't believe the audacity of the one man that spoke earlier, but here again freedom of speech gives voice to heaven and hell right... Anyway, Jesus was real, is real and will always be real; these are scientific, historic, and Biblical FACTS even the elephants know it..... Quit trying to find ways to escape reality and bow now

Revisiting the tomb

Joel Gabbert — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 03:21:36 GMT

Their are many non-biblical documentations, available to contemporary historians, of imperial Roman persecution of Christians in the 1st and 2nd centuries A.D (C.E.) and of "a strange tale of the resurrection of a man known as Jesus" told by those persecuted Christians.

Revisiting the tomb

CMR, Rochester, NY — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 04:51:23 GMT

I am not skeptical about whether or not the tomb is of the biblical Jesus, nor do I believe it. I am extremely curious and fascinated by this discovery and would love to know more. However, should there ever be some groundbreaking evidence that it is indeed, wouldn't that push more people into believing in God instead of turning from him? I mean, here's the most physical evidence there is about the existence and people want to turn away from it saying it can't be because it would mean...what? If it were, I mean, there's Jesus...how can you deny the physical evidence? (I speak hypothetically here)

Revisiting the tomb

Lewis B. Smith — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 05:25:19 GMT

The stumbling block that all these "alternative" theories run afoul of is that all of the Biblical gospels were written, if not BY eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, then at least during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and using eyewitness testimony. They were recognized as authoratative almost as soon as they were written - whereas all the alternative, Gnostic texts - the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel to the Hebrews, and the much-ballyhooed Judas Gospel - were written over a century later by second century authors posing as first century apostles. They weren't rejected for doctrinal reasons - they were rejected because they were forgeries, and pretty clumsy forgeries at that. The four Biblical gospels remain the earliest, best documented, and most accurate sources of information about the life of Christ.

Revisiting the tomb

raj macwan, jersey city, NJ — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 06:22:31 GMT

WHY every year some people come up with new stories abt jesue?,,,,,

AND by the way....

WHY no body showing dare to write a single column challenging the prophet mohmd....?????????????????

try to even draw a single cartoon and see what happens.... i guess james camroon should make a small documentery of prophet mohd...or HE SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO CHRISTIANS...who are very kind to all these BS,,,coming year after year.....

Revisiting the tomb

William Jeffery, Los Angeles, CA — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 06:31:23 GMT

This is a question to Frank Rizzo and any others who are so positive there is no God (or gods): Why are you so sure about your belief being corect, at the same time you are so sure others' beliefs are incorrect? If you are an atheist or rational positivist, then you should be able to recognize the limits of the intellect, human senses, logic, and physical instruments. To be valid, any statement based on those must take into account their limitations....

Revisiting the tomb

Rob Elger — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 07:16:37 GMT

So we have a body. Why should christians be upset? If it is true-cool! But I doubt we will know for certain until Jesus comes and tells us himself. By the way, someone said there is no mention of Jesus outside of the bible. Didn't Claudius complain about the christians and their leader Jesus? He booted them out of Rome.

Revisiting the tomb

David Cresswell — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:16:17 GMT

It never fails to amaze me when I read articles which pooh-pooh religion on the basis of it is just too stupid or how stupid were the early church fathers etc.

Prior to the modern age writing was a scarce, expensive and highly valuable resource. So much so that very little recorded material survives from the time of Christ. It was, in economic terms, simply too expensive to waste on stupidity and nonsense.

In our modern world the written word is terribly cheap, commonplace and trite. Much writing and opinion is often the result of scant research and very little in the way of seeking understanding. It is blind, similar to the mental conditions resulting from the bigotry of the established religions. Some modern thinkers fear this modern shallowness to be the result a contrived political objective - popular ignorance masquerading as modern pragmatism. This to achieve the same level of ignorant subservience of a population with which the so called stupid early church fathers successfully created and then enslaved Christendom for nearly two thousand years.

I write here not of veracity of the theology and dogma. Rather more about the practical usefulness of organised religion. This has nothing to do with theology. It is to do with wealth, social control and political power. As such the early church fathers were far from stupid. They were extremely accomplished, highly intelligent and successful men who pulled off a massive global coup the like of which even the most accomplished minds of the modern can only wonder at. Later church fathers pulled off lesser coups against the mother church with the same motives. These required a state of ignorance of the general population.To recreate the state of ignorance of the general populations of 2000 or 3000 years ago one needs to undo the near universal literacy and education of the modern western world. The seeming inability of supposedly well educated persons to see & understand the teachings accredited (not just) to Jesus in an abstract or symbolic manner rather than to focus purely upon the literal is an indicator how very little our thinking has progressed since universal Christian thought & truth dominated western conciousness.

I am a late 20th Century rationalist and humanist. I, too, find the addiction of others to religious faith a strange & illogical phenomenon. However, I recognise the mental prowess of those who formulated (& still do)theology and then proceed to market it to millions.

Revisiting the tomb

Tracey, NJ — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 12:13:56 GMT

I believe in God and Jesus, but I love to find out as much about the history of that time period as I can. The Bible has be rewritten so many times by man and the church to fit the needs of those at the time, that it is unsure of some of the facts. Finding out more about the history of Jesus' lifetime actually helps me more understand his teachings.

I can never understand why some people are so dead set against looking at the Bible as a guideline for just simply living a good life and being kind to your fellow human beings regardless of their beliefs.

Revisiting the tomb

Derek Meche — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 13:47:10 GMT

I find it funny that an atheist always feels a need to explain to Christians why they are right and Christians wrong. Are you that unconfident in your beliefs that you have to convert others? I believe in One God, the Father Almighty the Creator of Heaven and Earth and in Jesus Christ His only son Our Lord. I am a proud Roman Catholic, and that is what I believe in. What you believe you have a right to. You go your way, and I’ll go mine.

Want to go fishing, or have a beer after work, if you are a decent person, then why not. We can talk football, baseball, or whatever. We’ll just skip the religious topics.

Just one thought though for the atheist. If you are living your life as if there is no God...........you better be right.........

Revisiting the tomb

Dr. Aaron Justice, Riverton, WY — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:10:37 GMT

While the search for the historical Jesus is very informative about our Christian faith today (and, yes, A. Lisa Swift, there are non-Christian mentions of Jesus of Nazareth and his state execution), it should not be seen as the apex of the matter. The Christian confession (and I say the "only" Christian confession) is that Jesus is risen from the dead. It is either yes or no, nothing in between. So one must take the 1st century Palestine information and apply it to Jesus' teachings, but also hold fast to the idea of his resurrection. Anything else, frankly, is not a Christian confession.

Revisiting the tomb

Mike C Vallely Allen Park, MiI — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:20:29 GMT

I have learned more about God through Science than Church,although Church earns part of its usefulness by teaching moral code,without which we lose our Civilization.

Revisiting the tomb

Robert Murdock, Alto,Tex. — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 14:25:38 GMT

I feel real sorry for those who don't believe in God Almighty and Jesus Christ. A lot of the people who don't are very smart people otherwise, for instance Carl Sagan, it breaks my heart that he didn't believe or trust in Christ. Jesus said, "There is only one way to heaven and that is through me." So that means only Christans and Jews will ever get to heaven except for the people who were never witnessed to who will be judged by their on merits. The White Throne Judgment will be a very sad day for many! Of course Jesus is real and he did rise again and he will judge all of us.

Revisiting the tomb

Jake Pliskin, Seattle, Washington — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:37:34 GMT

I am not suprised by all of the various theories. Judaism, Islam and perhaps even Matrixism have their own differing stories as to how Jesus died and what that meant. Perhaps some of this recent theorizing is an attempt to posture the situation for a viable return. It might not be a coincidence that this kind of research is on the rise at the same time that anticipation of a second comng.

Revisiting the tomb

Thomas Ashby, Calgary — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 16:41:44 GMT

Whats really scary is that a recent poll suggests 90% of american adults believe in God and half of those don't believe in evolution.

Jesus never said he was the son of God as I understand it. However there are passages in the bible that sure suggest he actually did. Such as when he proclaims that the only way to the kingdom of heaven is through him. There are a number of contradictory writings in the bible.

Revisiting the tomb

Bill Mullins, Belgrade, Maine — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 18:51:28 GMT

The basic question religion must answer is 'What happens when we die?'

Is there an afterlife, do we get reborn or is there just nothing at all? As far as I can see it's all a matter of opinion. Nobody knows, but we are all going to find out.
Perhaps we get what we expect. Catholics go to Catholic heaven, Muslims go to Muslim Heaven, Pagans get reborn and athiests just get dead. That's a joke, of course. Personally I believe religion is the most personal of subjects, and not something that should be shared with anyone else, ever. It's not religion that has caused so much pain and suffering, but the churches that result from sharing beliefs. I'd like a church that had nothing to do with God or the gods, but rather concerned itself with the welfare of its members. The best way to pray is to feed the hungry, help the sick, raise children with love, and accept your fellow man as he is.

Revisiting the tomb

Lewis B. Smith — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 20:16:29 GMT

I can't resist jumping in again!!! ;)

FIRST - to the statement that the Bible has been re-written and edited so many times that the original text is lost or distorted beyond recall - poppycock! The New Testament is the best-documented work of antiquity, with thousands of manuscripts to review and compare for accuracy. We have two complete texts of the entire NT that date to very early in the fourth century (less than 300 years after the actual time the books were written) and over 3000 manuscripts of individual books and passages that predate those two texts! Some of the earliest fragments date within less than 50 years of the original writings. Even critical scholars agree that the New Testament has been passed down with a textual purity in excess of 99.5%.
NOW, as to another oft-repeated error - that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God, or a Deity - again, that is simply untrue. Look at the titles he gave himself - "Son of Man" (you have to be familiar with the OT to realize that title is a Messianic one), the "Bread of Life", the "Light of the World", etc. He accepted worship, and repeatedly asserted His absolute unity with the Father. His statement to the Pharisees - "Before Abraham was, I AM!" - was the clearest possible claim to deity he could have made.

So obviously, Jesus claimed to be God, or the Son of God - which amounts to the same thing. The big question is, WAS HE? Anyone making the statements listed above had to either be a charlatan or a madman, or else he had to be exactly who he claimed to be! So which was it? The empty tomb argues for the latter - which is why skeptics and secularists have been busy for 2000 years trying to discredit it!

Revisiting the tomb

James Weekley, Greensboro, North Carolina — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:54:57 GMT

"There are a few new answers to the historical questions about Christianity's founder"? WOW! I'm amazed how a much-accomplished, respected writer could be wooed so easily by entertaining, speculative hypotheses....to the point he could label them "answers". So could the Easter bunny be Jesus Christ reincarnate?

Revisiting the tomb

Scott Putzier, Seattle, WA — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:55:39 GMT

Wow, Seems to be a lot of talk about Jesus and whether of not he was real. Well, he was real. It is a matter of choice whether or not you believe He was the Son of God. Where is faith in all of this? A true Christiam does not need proof that Jesus is the Son of God. Now for the tomb of Jesus. Do you realy think they will find the bones of Jesus in a tomb? Of course not. He rose into heaven remember. Mary went to his tomb and found that he was not there, remember. Easter is a special time because it celebrates Christ's resurrection from the grave and his accesion into Heaven. Let's keep it that way and pratice freedon of Religion. We still have that in this country, right?

Revisiting the tomb

Tim Ness, Minneapolis, Mn — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:23:15 GMT

The Universe is what, at current best guess, 13 1/2 billion years old. 13 and a half BILLION years old. Can humans even comprehend that kind of time span? Doubtful. Humans in their current form are only a few hundred thousand years old. We've not been much more than grunting animals for only 10 or 15 thousand years. Both just blinks of an eye is cosmic terms. And you (the devout believer of any religion) claim that you have the answer to God? That your way is the only right way? And that you know in your heart of hearts that you are right and everybody else is wrong? Only the arrogance and folly of humanity would allow such thought. I admire anyone that has deep faith. I'm glad you get something out of it. Don't trash or pity me for not believing, and I won't accuse you of being weak minded.

Revisiting the tomb

Ed Frank, Sun City Center, Florida — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 00:26:01 GMT

L. B. Smith paraphrases C. S. Lewis and the Lewis argument still stands. Either Jesus was a world class kook or he was what he claimed to be. The empty tomb would rationally suggest the latter.

Revisiting the tomb

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 01:35:09 GMT

I have some problems with James Cameron's theory:

(1) Paul was raised as a Pharisee to believe in resurrection. In his letters (which appear to pre-date the Gospels) he insists that he is being persecuted for his belief in resurrection, not his belief in Jesus. If Jesus was alive, married and had a son, why would Paul choose Jesus as his poster child to prove resurrection was a valid concept?

(2) The Gospels are NOT eyewitness testimony. Our earliest surviving mss date to 250 AD, not 50 AD. A good chunk of the Gospels weren't created until after Titus destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The patchwork nature of that story suggests there were earlier versions of the Gospels dating back to 50 Ad or so, but those versions ended with Jesus dying on the cross and the Roman centurion saying "Surely this was a son of theos." (Drawing a parallel to the title used by Augustus Caesar.) In other words, there were no Empty Tomb and NO resurrection appearances in the Gospels BEFORE 75 AD or so.

(3) The Gospels can be dated to the period just after all of the authentic eyewitnesses died.

(4) Jesus was a common name in Palestine. It might have been "against the odds" for a man named Jesus to marry a woman named Mary, but it only had to happen ONCE. If we're comfortable with the odds against our own descent from tiny mammals ("You're one in a million... and so am I!") then I would have to question whether that ossuary belonged to the Jesus of myth and legend.

(4) Jesus never claimed to be a son of theos. If anything, that title was awarded to him in recognition of his death at the hands of a Roman official. The Son of Man was a character from popular fiction of the day, and if Jesus claimed it for himself, it would be like me claiming that I'm a Jedi Knight.

Revisiting the tomb

Alan Boyle — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 01:46:55 GMT

James, I admit that I'm fascinated by the 1st-century era and maybe give more of a look than most folks would to issues ranging from the Gnostic gospels to Essene latrines. Not that I always buy into the claims. As I said in the posting, I'm not yet convinced by the claims for the Jesus Family Tomb hypothesis - particularly the statistical name analysis. And I'm definitely not signing onto the Jesus=Paul idea. But in the course of looking through the material, I did hear some things worth checking out about daily life in the 1st century, and that's my point: The interest in things like "The Da Vinci Code" can lead to further study of an important cultural milieu, regardless of what your religious belief (or non-belief) may be.

Revisiting the tomb

Charles Todd, phoenix, AZ — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 02:03:36 GMT

To begin with, there was a contemporary of the times that mentioned Jesus. Josephus mentioned him in passing while referring the Macabee up-rising in the Holy Land. All religions are based on faith, those who seek answers in science are either unsure of their faith, or have none.

Revisiting the tomb

Rod — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 03:57:33 GMT

So much for a science blog.

I have to listen to religious followers and their BS all the time, from our teachers to our politicians.

This is a science blog. Why don't you try acting like one? Let the religious nuts run their own blog, or make this a religious blog. But don't pretend to be science oriented if you are going to try to appease the religious.

Revisiting the tomb

J J O'Brien, Lancaster, CA — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:20:47 GMT

Does anyone bother going to the source? The debate (if I recall correctly) is over this tomb near Jerusalem of a man named Jesus and his wife, Mary, and whether these two are Jesus of Nazareth, and His wife. I'm willing to take a look at the evidence itself (not someone else's interpretation of it.) The main point is whether the Jesus who was executed on a Roman cross outside Jerusalem is the same one in this tomb. If it is, let's eat, drink and be merry. The main premise of the entire Bible is that this life is temporary, but there is an eternal life of which we can be sure. The promise is given in the person of this same Jesus of Nazareth, who rose from the dead and was seen bodily by many people after His resurrection. If you would, read the 15th Chapter of First Corinthians, so you can see what is being said in context. Somewhere in there you will find the words, "If Christ (that's Jesus of Nazareth) is not risen (from the dead, in the context), your faith is useless..." Please show me the error of my ways by producing the remains of Jesus, for my belief is that He rose from the dead, and that some day in the future, I will, too. The test is given in the very foundational book of the faith, that if Jesus is not risen from the dead, I am a fool, as are all those who believe in His resurrection. This is not a question of 'if I believe He is risen,' it is a question of history: if Jesus is in that tomb outside of Jerusalem, close the churches and party, for your hope is gone. It is also not a question of 'if you believe he is dead in a tomb,' you need to be sure you are correct. If someone, somewhere, has come back from the dead, that must mean there is a power over death. If you aren't willing to investigate that, you're a bigger fool than you think I am for believing you're not going to die someday. At that point, you will need that power. For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever Believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.

Revisiting the tomb

Alan Boyle — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:33:20 GMT

Sorry, Rod ... I'll declare right here and now that this is not a 100 percent science blog. OK, maybe a 95 percent space and science blog, based on the category breakdown of postings over the past year. But some of what I'm interested in has to do with the intersection of science, religion, politics, celebrity and culture. In fact, I might have stolen the name "The Intersection" if Chris Mooney hadn't beaten me to it. ;-) So I'm afraid you'll have to endure that 5 percent or so that touches upon religion ... particularly the reflection of religion in anthropology (human origins), archaeology (ranging from ancient Egypt to the Roman era), biology (evolutionary theory and stem cells), neuroscience (near-death experiences) and so on. Again, sorry about that.

Revisiting the tomb

Lewis B. Smith — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 12:17:07 GMT

W. Hayes said: "In other words, there were no Empty Tomb and NO resurrection appearances in the Gospels BEFORE 75 AD or so. "

WRONG!!! First of all, with the exception of John, there is good evidence all of gospels were completed BEFORE the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Luke's gospel most probably dates to 62 AD, and in his introduction he clearly states "having interviewed those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the word". Paul in I Corinthians 15 discusses the critical importance of the Resurrection to Christian theology, and cites it using an old rabbinical formula "For I passed on to you that which I first received", indicating that he was quoting something he had been taught immediately after his conversion. The list of resurrection witnesses in that passage dates to within two or three years of the actual event.

And even John's gospel, completed sometime around AD 95 or so, was written by the last surviving apostle of Jesus - in the postscript to the book it is written "This is the disciple who witnessed these things, and we know that his witness is true."
So the gospels, by their own claim, DO contain eyewitness testimony, or else they are pure falsehood from the start. Unlikely that a creed which cherishes truthfulness would be build on a lie so convincing that its early adherents were willing to die for it, don't you think?

Have any of you people who delight in trashing the gospels ever actually READ them?

Happy Easter to all!

Revisiting the tomb

Phil 478, Shipshewana, IN — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:01:53 GMT

I am sitting here watching the snow come down on this quiet morning of FirstFruits (the climax of Passover fulfilled by Yeshua Messiah) I am blessed to have has the wisdom to gather with fellow believers last evening to consider these things; and to have this quiet time to read and reflect on what I know that I know that I know: He died as my sinless Passover Lamb according to the OT scriptures; He was buried as my unleavened Bread of Life, and raised to a glorified eternal state on the third day: the Sign of Jonah: the down-payment, first-fruit promise of my own future resurrection. These other "hypotheses" are a bit like like global-warming:
consensus science driven by popular opinion and pseudo-science. (How do they explain this weather?)

If I am wrong, (no doubt,we are) then what has been lost but a short miserable life lived in a world devoid of meaning or purpose? In the meantime, I will strive to practice true religion: James 1:27. This is what our Creator/Sustainer requires: "to do justly, love mercy, walk humbly with Him". If Jesus is not raised, then WE (all of us) are the most to be pitied among all HIS creatures, for he gave us the reason and intelligence to discern and acknowledge His existence. Like global warming, to be willfully ignorant has serious consequences: The Heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19) (but) the fool says in his heart (and on his blog?) 'there is no God' (Psalm 14) But the righteous (the one justified by faith/obedience) shall be blessed. (Psalm 1) It's not about being "correct", it's about being righteous in His sight. Paul realized he was "wrong" at the end of the 7th chapter of his letter to the Romans, but cries out to the One who can deliver him from this body of death we all live in. Jesus, my risen Saviour, is the answer. he saves wretches like me. There is no condemnation in Him.

Revisiting the tomb

SB, Iraq — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:19:29 GMT

Throughout the world, there are thousands, if not millions, of tombs and I bet there are at least some empty ones, perhaps the remains were destroyed, washed away, crumbled, or simply relocated to another burial place. The absence of remains from a tomb purported to be Jesus' wouldn't necessarilly mean Jesus was resurrected and rose to heaven. Even if they find an empty sarcophagus with the name Jesus written on it, I'd still be skeptical. As was mentioned before, Jesus was a common name 2000 years, occasionally, a sarcophagus or coffin is made, maybe with a name written on it, and then never used, got to put it somewhere, I guess.

As for religion, it shouldn't matter, as long as you don't try to impose your belief, or lack thereof, it's all right. For example, and this is based off some of the comments I read, if I understand Christianity, it's to love thy neighbor, not frighten people with what you believe to be the only way to live. If someone goes through the motions of belief only to escape the possibility of hell, are they truly believing in your God or are they simply boosting the ranks.

Revisiting the tomb

Bill Hensley, Houston, TX — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 16:57:28 GMT

Alan, thank you for your posting on this subject. I am a Christian who believes in the literal resurrection of Christ, but I think I would be interested in this topic anyway for the same reasons you are. I love to read about space and science, but I'm also fascinated by archaeology and history. I think your point is valid that these controversies do sometimes help us become better informed, although I think the overall motive and effect of shows like "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" is lamentable. Unfortunately, most people never get past the sensationalist headlines and so never get a chance to hear about the good historical evidence that exists for the resurrection of Jesus.

The gospel writers were not disinterested third parties, but this does not automatically mean that their writings are fabrications. Paul's letters are even earlier, and contain largely independent attestations to the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Within a few decades Christianity had grown large enough to attract the attention and persecution of the Roman government. Authors like Josephus, Pliny and Tacitus verify the existence of Christians and their faith in the resurrection of Jesus. These and other early sources do not deny that the tomb was empty, and they confirm that the disciples claimed Jesus rose from the dead. From a small band of Jewish peasants grew a movement that rocked the foundations of the Roman empire. An open-minded person must seriously consider that the resurrection of Jesus may be the best explanation for these events.

Revisiting the tomb

Just another lunatic — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:39:11 GMT

I see. It’s just fine to believe in an omnipotent spirit being who created the universe and all that is in it in six days. But let someone claim to have seen a UFO or possibly have found the tomb of Christ, and that’s a different story. They must be nuts, right??

Right.

Revisiting the tomb

Shane Gabbert, Silver City NM — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 19:33:25 GMT

Here is some science for you, Rob. Scientists into quantum physics now "believe" that ALL matter in the universe is actually made of "light" particles, that is waves of pacticle light. The 3rd verse of the book of Genesis in the Holy Bible says, "And God, said, Let there be light: and there was light."

Just believe what the inspired Word says, and eventually "science" will prove it so.

Revisiting the tomb

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 23:14:01 GMT

It's easy to see how the gospels changed over time. In Mark 14:71, probably a very early version of the story, "Peter began to curse and swear, "I do not know this Man of whom you speak!" (end)

    If Jesus had brought Lazarus back to life in a tomb, why would Peter deny him?

At Mark 12:35 "while Jesus taught in the Temple, he asked, "Why do the scribes say the Messiah is the Son of David? (quotes Psalm 110) If David calls the Messiah Lord, how is he his Son?" (end) ie, Mark wanted Jesus to be the Messiah without being a descendant of King David, as the prophecies demanded.

   This wasn't good enough, so Luke 3:31 adds that Jesus is a descendant "of Nathan, of David, of Jesse..."

   But then Paul, a Pharisee who NEVER MET JESUS but saw an opportunty to sell his theory of resurrection.

In Romans, Paul wrote "... Jesus Christ who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared Son of God BY his resurrection from the dead..." (In the same way that Julius Caesar was declared a deity by a proclamation of the Roman Senate.)

   Some best-guess dates:

   1 Thessalonians (A.D. 50), Galatians (A.D. 54), Philippians (A.D. 54), Philemon (A.D. 54). First Corinthians (54-55 AD) toward the close of a three-year residency in Ephesus. Romans about 56-57.

   After Paul's letters became popular, the gospel accounts changed. The easiest way to change a gospel was to add more story at the end, and that happened. Several times. Mary met an angel outside the tomb who said Jesus was not there. Then, Jesus himself appeared to Mary. Once you understand how easy it was to add new words at the end of a handprinted codex or scroll, the resurrection appearances can be dated later than 75 AD, long after all the people who actually knew the facts were dead.

Matthew 27:46 "At about the ninth hour Jesus cried out, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?""

   In the original version, all of the eyewitnesses reported that Jesus had been forsaken by God and died.

He died a noble death, as noble as any Emperor, and thus deserved the generic Jewish memorial of "Truly this man was a Son of YHWH."

Revisiting the tomb

Dave Misal — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:36:01 GMT

Few comments:

1)History - More copies of early Biblical texts than any other ancient book. You don't see people arguing about the veracity of Homer - why the Bible?

2)Who do men say that I am? - The issue here is that Christ did not leave a middle ground. He claimed to be God incarnate, His son. Either he lied, was looney, or was what he claimed. No middle ground, no compromise. If he wasn't what he claimed, then why do anything he said? He'd just be another man. But you can't call him "good" and say that he lied or was looney about something so crucial. (indebted to CS Lewis in this argument).

3)Difference - The reason Christians get tweaked about the whole "historical Jesus" issue is that if he didn't come back to life, then it is all meaningless. A death without a resurrection has no power - heck, that is what the Muslim's have. And the Buddhists. And the Hindus. And just about everyone else - Christianity is different in that it has a death and resurrection.

Revisiting the tomb

Mike Maxwell — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 01:27:07 GMT

Nothing like being late--I want to comment on the first poster.

Frank Rizzo wrote:
"It's 2007, how is it possible we still live amongst people who believe in gods?"

Perhaps because in 2007 (and more) years, no one has come up with a more plausible and understandable reason for why there is a universe?

(Note that my response above does not claim that the reason is correct, although I happen to believe it is. Rather, my claim is that saying God--there, I'll use a capital 'G'--is self-existent makes more sense to most of us than saying that the universe is self-existent.)

Revisiting the tomb

Eric, Concord, NH — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 02:57:52 GMT

How do you debate "facts" when everything we know is based on rewritten rewrites of things written 200 years (in a different language going through its death kibby) before the final copy was inserted into the Bible?

Fact? Let's get real here. Close to actual accounts or not let's not confuse what we know with "facts".

Ever hear of a game called Grape Vine?

I remember when I was in kindergarten our teacher had the whole class sit in a circle then she would whisper something into someone's ear, then they would turn and whisper it to the next person, and around it went until the last person said it out loud. Oddly enough the last person never repeated the original statement correctly.
For instance, Moses never parted the Red Sea...it was the ReEd Sea. So much for factual rewrites.

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 03:20:37 GMT

I think this is interesting stuff and I agree that there is some overlap between history and science; namely, archaeology.

Religious fanatics will always threaten the non-believers, because that is what their reference manual teaches them to do. It's the same sort of technique used by used-car salesmen - "Buy this car right now or you'll miss out on a real DEAL!" or "If you die without JESUS, you'll go straight to HELL!"

They do not hold their own beliefs to the same scrutiny they hold the beliefs of others. Christianity is important to us - to our history, our culture, our understanding of ourselves. But it's not "true" in any reasonable meaning of the term. Christians are taught to memorize and repeat that their beliefs are "historic and scientific facts," but this is just like the story with evolution - they don't actually understand what the heck they're talking about - they just memorize some stupid statements and repeat them.

There is perversion of theology known as apologetics. The purpose of apologetics is to defend the truth faith - all of them. There are Islamic apologists, and mormon apologists, and catholic apologists. It's not about discovering truth - it's about winning the argument at any cost, and usually truthfulness is the cost.

I have forced my kids to read parts of the Bible. I think there's some really great stuff in it. There really is some stuff that is true in it, some that is beautiful, and some that is wise. But anyone who would read it as he would any other book would discover that there is a lot that is false, ugly, and stupid as well. (Apologists dishonestly misrepresent this by saying that the bad stuff is perpetrated by those who are disobedient to the God of the bible, GotB.)

The Bible is worth the read and is interesting (at parts). My dilemma is this: imagine you're talking with someone about a really good episode of Star Trek or a cool scene from Lord of the Rings - and suddenly the person you're talking to indicates that they actually believe these fictional stories represent scientific fact or known history. Suddenly you realize you're talking to a child.

Revisiting the tomb

Allen, Bible Belt, USA — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 05:08:02 GMT

so let me get this straight...god created the entire universe over the course of six rotations of the earth on its axis, slowly moving around the sun? how was the earth already rotating and forming days and nights if god was still in the process of creating the universe? something sounds fishy...

Revisiting the tomb

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:24:36 GMT

Alan,

I for one am glad you allow discussion about God and about religious beliefs on your science blog. For if we are truly part of a created world, then the scientific laws that govern our existence were created by the Creator, or at least manipulated by the Creator, to form not only our world but all the other galaxies out there in space.

The pursuit of knowledge is a human characteristic that should never be so one sided or dogmatic that the pursuer forgets to sanity check their conclusions.

Atheists use science to discredit God. Some overly zealous religious fanatics use God to discredit science. I think it helps to have a healthy combination and understanding of both. And although I can never make an atheist understand the peace and hope that resides in the hearts of those of us who believe in an existance after our physical death, I do hope that whatever peace and hope they get from science is enough to help them get through their short time here on earth.

Revisiting the tomb

John Wilding Montreal, Quebec — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:54:47 GMT

Every statement made will always meet up with a counter-statement. We can debate and argue with one another. And for as long as we continue to do this the truth will always be hidden from us.

Jesus spoke in parables not to confuse but to inform those who truly believe in Him that He alone has power over life and death, and at the same time hide the truth from those who deny His true identity.

Those who fail to believe in His resurrection will always be searching for His empty tomb.

The Acts of the Apostles reveal that what is being said and done today to disprove the existence of Jesus Christ, also was said and done during the worldly life of Jesus Christ.

Who is Jesus Christ to oneself? We are born individally and we die individually!

Revisiting the tomb

dan,west springfield,mass — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:58:53 GMT

i am a bit confused.if a tomb is found that could be that of jesus, whether empty or not, arguments could be made either way for its authenticity. If empty that could mean his followers moved the body so as not to be disturbed or destroyed by the romans. But if a body was discovered it would also back up the biblical account that when jesus rose he told his followers do not touch me for i am not of flesh,but only of spirit. Either way who's to say?

Revisiting the tomb

W. Nicholson, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 15:08:53 GMT

I have read, with great interest, the comments posted on this blog regarding the Cameron documentary. One of my cardinal rules is that I never discuss religion or politics with friends or family (or even strangers) unless I am sure of their beliefs because I do not want to offend them or appear to be forcing my beliefs on them.

But I feel compelled to share a few comments just as the rest of you have passionately shared your feelings. I beg your indulgence.

I believe that great evil has been done in the name of "religion". From the earliest times until the present day we humans murder, torture and enslave our fellow human beings because they do not share the same religious beliefs that we hold dearly. Often these beliefs include "Love thy neighbor", "Thou shalt not kill" and teachings of universal brother-hood, kindness and generosity. Somehow all that gets lost in our over-zealousness.

I believe in true "Freedom of Religion". I believe that everyone has the right to believe in whatever mythology brings them comfort and gives meaning their existence. They have the right to practice those beliefs, or not, as it suits themselves.

I believe even more strongly in "Freedom FROM Religion". No one has the rights to force their religious beliefs on me or anyone else. Not in public schools, or the workplace or on the street as I go about my daily business.

If I choose to believe that the earth is a living vessel on which we are all briefly passengers through the dark and lifeless void of space and time. If I choose to believe that humanity is the greatest single threat to this precious living cosmic entity. If I choose to believe that humanity is a self-delusional cancer or a virus that has infected this planet. That's my choice and I won't attempt to inflict it on you.

I truly believe that I see "god" in the soft gray eyes of my four year old Bearded Collie dog. She is the kindest, gentlest and most loving creature I have ever known.

I do not believe in UFO's, Reincarnation, Big Foot, Satan or God.

I do believe that if my Collie isn't going to "heaven" then neither am I. Like Will Rogers said. (I paraphrase) "I don't know where dogs go when they die, but if they aren't going to heaven, neither am I, I'm going where the dogs go."

Shalom

Revisiting the tomb

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 17:59:56 GMT

And the debate heats up! I view this article as science trying to come to grips with Christianity (or maybe destroy it if they can). By explaining away various parts of Bible history as hoax or non-events, non-christians can justify whatever it is they are trying to justify. I'm not quite sure what that is, but maybe someday these people who are creating these pseudo-documentaries will get to the point I think they're trying to make, "They don't like people who don't believe they same way they do." Sounds like religious (science is the only answer) fanaticism to me.

And on a side note. There are people who regularly write in this blog that continue to call people of religious faith ignorant, stupid, and/or childish. If all they have as an argument to any discussion is to call people names, they need to go post their hate somewhere else. I consider this blog a place where people can freely voice their opinions on scientific matters, as well as the related side topics that come up in the articles that are posted on this website. Hateful fanatics, on both ends of the spectrum, need to back off and let the discussions do what they're intended to do, inform and enlighten.

Revisiting the tomb

Jennifer Kauffman, Indianapolis, IN — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 18:55:06 GMT

I always enjoy observing the clash that seems to present itself whenever human beings try to pit science and faith against one another. As a Christian, it used to make me nervous, thinking somehow that someday scientists would find a way to prove what I believe is wrong, but I don't feel that way anymore. Their pursuit for scientific explanations of the mysteries of the universe is necessary, whether they believe that we are created or evolved. It may be ironic, but doesn't it make sense that if we are created beings, our creator made us able and willing to conduct these pursuits with the ability to accept or reject him? We must tolerate people who disagree with the Bible if we expect others to be tolerant of us as believers. Would I present a person in that position with an opportunity to believe and receive Jesus? Certainly. I have a responsibility as a follower of Christ and the hope I have in him to offer the same thing to those around me. They must have a chance to accept it or reject it. If they accept or reject Christ, they accept or reject Christ, not me. In much the same way, I've been presented with a chance to believe what scientists believe and I had the opportunity to accept it or reject it. If I accept or reject their theories, I accept or reject the theories, not them.

I truly believe that the dialog is healthy and inspired by God himself. How many of you would be sitting around thinking in depth about who Jesus was, claimed to be or who his present believers say he is? God, as Creator of we human beings, gave us the ability to think this deeply about things, even in instances in which the conclusions we reach conflict with the truth of his Word. I believe it's one of God's most endearing qualities.

Revisiting the tomb

Hunter Jacksonville Fl — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:16:15 GMT

Man saw the sun come up in the morning. he saw it leave at night. when it came up, it would warm him and give him light to see. then at night it left. he realized his life was better when he could see so he wanted to have it all the time. what did he do? rituals and sacrifices to make it come back, thus he prayed to the sun. then man realized there was a smaller sun at night that was bright white sometimes and allowed them to see. the same thing follows. now they pray to the sun and the moon. then the stars and the trees and the birds and the snakes and anything else they could not readily and logically understand or explain. So we have polytheism for centuries and then someone says "the real god is the god that created all this" and we get monotheism all over again (sun). so now we have a problem. "we used to pray to all this stuff but now we need to pray to the creator of all of this" and another one says "well that's all well and good but what are we going to call it? i mean what are we praying to?" it's a catch 22. humans, to our credit, have never just accepted the fact that they can not explain something. But at the same time humans throughout history have come up with explanations to scenarios they can't explain by exploiting other's ignorance to the subject. (a physicist could read a high school student formulas and theories that he made up just before the conversation. if the physicist sounds convincing and hangs his master's degreee in physics on the wall behind him, what high school student is going to stand up and call him an out right liar?.) this is a rough example but you get the point. nobody wants to believe we are here for no reason and that there is no pearly gate just waiting to let us in so long as we're behaving. Like god has a list and he checks it twice to make sure he knows whose naughty or nice or something. We would much rather think that everything happens for a reason and that if we just accept that as fact GOD will reserve us a spot in eternal bliss. So rather than teach our children to enjoy every single second of their life because that's all we know for certain we have, we scare them into conforming to a christian belief system with depictions of fire and brimstone. but then our western society promotes freedom and individuality.so kids are born, scared into church and then told to go out and get that american dream. what happens to the ones that go out into thsis wonderful world and find out that christianity isn't for them. that they don't belive in GOD much less just not in christianity? they aren't treated the same by the friends and family that loved them unconditionally while they were "good god fearing christian americans." i am not trying to make a generalization about another group of people so i can't say this is common practice, but to say this has never happened in your community would be rather questionable i think. CHRISTIANS : do yourself a favor and research the impact Constantine had on your fabulous religion today and tell me if that doesn't sound like using fear and ignorance to corral a people and create conformity through the promise of eternal life. I'm not saying i am particularly fond of my beliefs. i see christians live good lives under the auspices of organized religion, but i do not live under the guise that a book (that we have no actual factual basis for confirming it's authenticity)is going to take care of me so long as i follow it's principals. how does one rationalize death? by believing it isn't real. "but i saw a guy die and tit wasn't a myth. he was dead. he's not coming back." no one wants to try and rationalize that so we come up with "oh no his body is dead but his spirit endures forever!" come on. read the book "Aesop's Fables". teach it to your children. it teaches the same moral and ethical values your compilations of fairy tales do. the best part about it? there is no way to manipulate this book and it's contents to fuel greed and empirialistic conquests.

Revisiting the tomb

jhc, Riverton — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 19:36:05 GMT

I've read your comments,
Paused on tiny cat feet,
And then I moved on.

Revisiting the tomb

Hunter Jacksonville Fl — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:12:37 GMT

believe none of what you read and half of what you see. When we die we die. If heaven was church for eternity... would you really want to go? i bet Hell has better golf courses. i guess the down side is the beer's warm. just live life in a positive and (whenever possible) benevolent way, and don't be malicious. there. I just saved you all those sundays picking the bible apart. Get out and live life. it is certain and tangible. don't hold back for something you can't see with your own eyes. the human mind is very powerful. sometimes we create what we need to feel secure.

Revisiting the tomb

Doug Lester, Portsmouth, Va — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 20:15:33 GMT

We do not know when any of the gospels were originally written. We can tell only, to a degree, when certain copies were written. I also find it a mystery that it is claimed that the four gospels in the biblical canon and the others, 32 of them I believe, are considered forgeries where there is no proof that they were written by men they are credited to.

Most people of that time were illiterate and most, if not all of these stories, were passed on by word of mouth before they were ever written down. They have been written in several "official" languages such as anchient Greek and Latin and there is no absolute consensus on how those languages translate into the modern languages.

The Bible is also full of errors, contradictions, and accounts that cannot be supported outside of religious writings. First off Jesus's name was not Jesus. Jesus is a Greek name. There is no record of Augustus or any other Roman emperor calling for a census of all the realm. It was a tale invented to get him from Nazareth to Bethlehem so that he could claim lineage from David (this was required to be the authentic messiah). Again there is no evidence that Joshua bin Joseph (aka Jesus) claimed to be divine. It would be doubtful that he was ever known as Joshua bin Maryium (Jesus Son of Mary) because that would have to declare him a bastard, and as such, an unclean person who would be barred from the temple.

Even if you take any given statement that he was divine, there is his statement that he came not to change the Laws of the Prophets but to fulfill them. Then he immediately sets about changing the laws. He allowed work to be done on the sabbath, he allowed the eating of unclean food, and he challenged the concept of unclean people. He also condemned the law where it did not serve the needs of man, as in the story of the Good Samaritan.

The Bible has been altered to support political points of view. Paul commands that women should cover their heads when they pray and prophesy and then a few paragraphs later in the same letter he commands them to be silent. The custom in those days was to pray aloud, and even if it were not, how does one give witness in silence.

My version of what happened during the first Easter was that Jesus (I'll bow to convention) got out of line by chasing the money changers out of the Temple. He was arrested and taken before Pilate who ordered him crusified. From what is known of Pilate, he was not one who believed in guilt or innocence, he believed in making examples. He was not one to listen to the crowd; he dispersed demonstrations by setting his legions on them to kill all that could be laid hands on. Yes, Jesus was scourged and made to carry the cross beam to the site of execution, that was the custom. He was not crucified between two thieves; thievery was not punished by crucifixion. Crucifixion was reserved for the rebellious and trouble makers. It was not the custom to return the body to the families but it was also not unheard of. Some cooler heads than Pilate probably noted that to leave the bodies on the crosses would undoubtedly cause the demonstrations that the Romans were trying to prevent and had the bodies taken down before sundown. Whether Jesus and the others were buried by friends and family or thrown in a common pit is unknown, but Jesus died and stayed dead.

Two other things are known. One, Imperial Rome has been reduced to a bunch of ruins and stories in history books. Jesus's teachings continue in the traditions of two of the world's main religions and that is the resurrection. Not the physical resurrection of a dead Jewish prophet from the grave but the survival of the Word of God which he brought.

Revisiting the tomb

Cynthia, plain ole house wife, mom, Garnett, Kansas — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 23:44:41 GMT

Is it so hard to believe that Jesus was a man, with a family, that he took care of and loved just like every man on earth, how can he stand up for us , for what we believe in if he didn't live like us, or would it just be easier to think that he was like god and get mad at the fact that people say he was human to.?

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 02:36:38 GMT

Resurrection was not unique to Christianity. It was part of the Egyptian myth of Osiris for a long time before it became part of the Christian myth.

Revisiting the tomb

John Ray Tacoma,Washington — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:33:11 GMT

number one the first greek new testament books were not translated into greek until around the year 323 A.D.the roman church is known to have the hebrew new testement books from 30 to 50 A.D.Constitine had the greek copies of the new testament books altered. several places have the name jesus or it's greek form ieosus which means zeus. constantine had the name imaneul erased because constantine was a sun god worshiper and had the roman catholic church formed.the actual birth name is imanuel which is in matthew and used in isaiah "he will be born of a virgin and his name is imaneul." (imaneul is a hebrew word meaning "god is with us".god showed himself in front of over 3 people in a physical body in the old testament books. read your history. even turkey has a complete new testament in hebrew from 30-50 A.D. Now for the science, a man at N.A.S.A read the bible and found that a whole day is missing in time.(universal time) you have to put that information of missing time into the math hence. the bible is needed in order to launch a rocket to the moon. which is why the russians couldn't do it because the Russian goverment tried to erase G-D from their people. most of your science other than the evolutionist camp is due to scientist finding out that G-D is right. not one religon other than judaism the religoon that christians branched from has expanded our scientific knowledge.It is a known fact the countries who read the bible in school find their science rises above other countries. only israel does this. it is known in scientific circles that 95% of the science in the united states is from the cohen family "sons of moses brother" or coming from israel. thousands of people are alive due to this bible science. show me one person whose life was saved by evolution. All beleivers in the bibical G-D are told by paul to go and read the words of moses read every day.Those that do find more science in the first five books of the bible then any other book.All of the ten commandments deals with both spiritual and physical health. also the 613 other regulations that if observed will lead to better heath. Example a virus that killed over 60% of all troop deaths on the europian front in wwII was linked to eating pig meat. the bird flu in asia was also inked to pigs.The birds had the virus the pigs ingested the bird droppings the pigs got it. the people ate the pig. then people gave it to other people. If you do all that G-d says regarding the ten commandments and 613 reguations. You wil live healthier. the black death was also caused by eating pig meat. note this virus does survive insineration. and some forms of virus carrying magets from unclean animals do to. if you look at the pork chop and see small round spots looking like human finger prints.take a micro scope and look inside. You would see the magets.G-D gave us rules to live by not to ruin our fun but like a loving parent that tells you to look both ways before crossing the street so we don't get hurt or possibly death. more americans die every day from eating unclean animals ex: Pork then 3-months in iraq. G-d created the universe and knows it better than we ever could. G-d gave us a way to live,and also that if you read the bible as much as enstien did you would find the science of everything. so in closing just because a man claims to find the son of G-D/G-D in a box doesn't mean he does. jews don't bury their dead in a stone box in 30 A.D. They set them in a tomb in a cloth (burial clothes)one long peice of cloth. a year later after the skin and flesh has been turned to dust. They place the burial cloth in a niche in the wall with a mantle created with their name in hebrew. the stone box is said and apears to be greek. Only hellinised jews of the year 325 A.D. used greek names at all.

Revisiting the tomb

bamajane, monticello, fl — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:58:27 GMT

Comfort, one of the issues I've not seen addressed here. Religion offers comfort to it's embracers and it really doesn't seem to matter which religion. Belief is so personal and belief gives comfort. Whether or not various religious beliefs are debunked by science it's a basic human need to believe in something.

Revisiting the tomb

W. M. Woodward, Winona, MN — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 18:07:36 GMT

Wow, my head is spinning from reading this endless blog relating to... SCIENCE? As a lover of the sciences I am glad to see all the discussion, even if it has diverged a little into religious debate and bantering.

As for the empty tomb of Jesus, the longstanding claim is that it is a factual (based on the witnesses and evidence attested to) / historical event. So it may have happened or not... and science will never prove, or really disprove it. I have not found any video footage of it on ebay or a handy time machine so we're stuck having to decide not on the basis of good science but whether we can believe what we know or have been told. Darn! This gets personal.

I must admit there is a lot of 'faith' in science as there is a lot we can't absolutely prove using the scientific method, though we seem to be getting better at it with some things. It would do us all good to keep that in mind, whether one believes in God or not.

My bet is that in 50 years or so most of what we assume as scientific 'fact' might end up 'changing' like it seems to do every few decades or centuries. Face it. We just are not as smart as we like to think ourselves to be at any given moment. If there is a Supreme Intelligence (God) behind all reality that we know in this life, at best we all must humor Him with our efforts and wisdom, or at worst really p--s Him off (Bible term: "wrath") with our own brand of arrogance and disregard for the apparent 'fingerprints' all around this universe.

Not that anyone cares but the more I study physics and other fields I am more convinced that there is more out there behind the universe. Too much of it just makes too much sense to be just chance. Know what I mean?

Revisiting the tomb

Hunter Jacksonville Fl — Tue, 10 Apr 2007 19:11:29 GMT

get'em Doug.

Revisiting the tomb

Tiante Tarakia, Murdoch University, Perth, W. Australia — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 12:45:10 GMT

It is so sad and insulting to note that a lot or many unbelievers just don't want to believe Jesus or God for no logical reason other than being brainwashed by some scientists. I also study Science from high school and until today at university. The theory of evolution which makes unbelievers laughing at religion especially God's existence is completely full of imagination and lot of gaps and less concrete proofs. Can we find fossils of intermediate animals or other creatures that have evolved before thier present forms? Of course not and will never be showing that there is a lot of guessworks in evolution theory. Theory about Jesus and God is much better and has real many evidences which unbelievers will always just ignore because of their ignorance. The bible and all the historical facts in it are all true, the miracles which can still be performed by some great religious people and many more. Also the bible is not meant to be a history book nor a philosophy text and that is the great mistake of unbelievers when they consider it as such. If they are willing to spend time studying the bible carefully, then I am sure the truth will be revealed to them.

Let me ask unbelievers. What happens before the big bang? Where all the energy or mass come from that created the big bang? So Scientists/physicists can not answer that and they never admit the shortfall of the big bang theory in this case. Maybe it's time we must believe that there is a beginning of everything all created by God- and I am sure it was God who started the big bang.

It is also stupid for non-believers to believe more strongly in hypothetical scientific theories that lack concrete evidence other than supported mainly by imaginary facts! Why they want to believe in dark matter, black hole, etc? The fact is that these new scientific beliefs are nothing less than religious beliefs - beliefs into the unknown. I am really sure then that these dark matter, etc theories may also concern the existence of God, or religious beliefs. just think about it carefully.

In particle physics, scientists are trying to match and relate the fundamental forces of nature but they face a great difficulty. why is this because there is another great force, and that is the force of God that they need to consider in the theory and then all things will match automatically and smoothly!

Amazing ye?

However, to believe in God doesn't really need evidences but faith and that is also shown in the bible.

I wonder when the unbelievers will die as all everyone (death theory already explained in bible) may be no pastor will attend to their funeral, just bury them like animals. but more sadly, hell is their only place if they persist to disprove the existence of God/Jesus.

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:46:49 GMT

"We just are not as smart as we like to think ourselves to be at any given moment." The advantage that science offers it that it is self-correcting. As a human enterprise, it examines even its most fundamental assumptions in the light of experience and reason. Just because we don't pretend to have absolute Truth as many religions do, does not mean we should pretend that we don't know anything at all. All human knowledge - feeble, incomplete, error-prone - is still among the most important things we possess.

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:21:08 GMT

The fact that so many of the people who recommend God demonstrate such profound and willful ignorance and such poor reasoning skills is sufficient cause to be suspicious of their judgment . There are plenty of intermediates.

Revisiting the tomb

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:52:13 GMT

Reply to: "It is so sad and insulting that unbelievers don't want to believe Jesus or God for no logical reason other than being brainwashed by some scientists... -Tiante"

It's sad - and insulting - that you've been led to believe that scientists are brainwashing people. [...]

Jesus was an ordinary human being. He happened to live during a time when Roman persecutions became so vicious, victims turned to "End of the World cults" that promised a Divine Intervention - let me get this straight - when "the Son of Man appears in the clouds with thousands of angels"?? When the dead are resurrected in new bodies and then all who reject Christ are sentenced to an eternity of torment in a fiery pit?

   Don't you understand WHY we reject this version of Jesus? Because it's Total Nonsense. It's a con game. Christianity has no more credibility than Applewhite handing out poisoned Kool-Aid so human spirits can leave their physical bodies and travel out into space to meet the Flying Saucer traveling behind Haley's Comet.

   There is no Hell. There is no Day of Judgment. Those are Fairy Tales to ensnare the gullible and the desperate. I wish I could get behind the Jesus Family Tomb Story, but I think the corpse of Jesus was left to rot outside in the elements, and not even the bones were preserved. The fact that Jesus wasn't around made it so much easier to create a Mythology around his memory.

   About 56 AD, Paul wrote a letter to the Romans which began "... Jesus Christ who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh..."

   Can't you see that a supernatural conception where the virgin Mary "had not known a man" was a LATE addition to the story? Because Peter's cult was moving into Gentile (non-Jewish) territory where having a god for a father worked for Hercules as well as Alexander the Great and Augustus Caesar. Our Gospel of Mark shows the early version (which became Matthew with the addition of 400 new verses.)

You complained about "hypothetical scientific theories that lack concrete evidence other than supported mainly by imaginary facts! Why they want to believe in dark matter..."

   No concrete evidence for dark matter? Imaginary facts? Or, have you been brainwashed into thinking you should stand up and give testimonty about your own beliefs, whether they have any credibility or not?

Revisiting the tomb

Diana Muscle Shoals, AL — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 20:05:54 GMT

Believing in God doesn't mean someone is willfully ignorant. It shows that they are intelligent enough to understand that life didn't just happen & that any God-less big bang would be a destructive force, not a creative one.

Science is a wonderful thing, but not when people place all of their belief systems in what has just been described as a self-correcting system. God's Truth needs no correcting.

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:06:34 GMT

I didn't say that believing in God implies one is willfully ignorant. What I said was "The fact that so many of the people ..." These people are attempting to move the unbeliever to accept their judgment about God - but we have every reason to suspect that their judgment about what *IS* and *IS NOT* of God is flawed.

"God's Truth" may need no correcting, but what we're talking about is OUR knowledge of that alleged Truth, which, because we are fallible human beings, is necessarily and inherently flawed. If OUR JUDGMENT about what is and what is not God's Own Truth is flawed, then it's hardly a bragging point, if we say that it's not subject to self-correction.

One example where some religious people demonstrate profound lack of understanding is when they repeat untrue and poorly reasoned arguments regarding various topics of social interest and go on to make assertions that are contrary to any rational understanding of the subject, often thereby demonstrating a profound incomprehension of the fundamental aspects of the subject on which they're pontificating. Examples of this are the oft-repeated assertions that "there are no transitionals" or "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics." These are claims that are not just wrong, but outright stupid. Ironically, they actually think the fact they have read a grossly over-simplified and deeply flawed creationist web site on the subject constitutes "having done a significant amount of homework" and that they are now sufficiently well-versed in the subject to refute the highest echelons of our scientific geniuses. It's difficult to decide whether it's more funny or pathetic that someone with a comic-book understanding of the second law of thermodynamics thinks he knows enough to embarrass nobel prize winners.

Revisiting the tomb

Diana Muscle Shoals, AL — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:54:18 GMT

These conversations invariably come back to what we believe about the origins of life. Based on the intricate complexity of the universe and human life and the human soul, I have to believe in God. Because of this, it causes me no problem when people have complete faith in Him without being 'rocket scientists'. We all have different intellectual levels and it seems to be harder for the intellectual elite to accept that they don't know & will never be able to prove everything.

For those who do not believe in God, many are placing their beliefs entirely on scientists who although being incredibly intelligent, are continually proving and disproving their own theories. No one has proven evolution, but the scientific world, much of the media, and our educational system force it down our throats as if it were fact. Doesn't that fly in the face of the definition of science? Complete belief (faith) in something that isn't proven?

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 03:57:34 GMT

There are lots of people who have faith in science. However, that doesn't mean that one has to have faith in science to believe it. Those who are willing to put in the effort to understand it are rewarded with belief, sans faith.

Science does correct itself. This separates it from religion, where people just make up stories and then stick to them in the face of all good sense and all evidence to the contrary.

No one has proven the existence of electrons in the sense that creationists use the term "prove." However, those who have actually done a little homework on the subject know that despite creationist propaganda to the contrary there is a vast array of evidence that supports and is explained by evolution - and not one iota of evidence which refutes it.

Evolution *IS* science, not only that, it is some of the most brilliant science the human mind has conceived. Maybe if you spent as much time trying to understand what real scientists mean when they use the term "science" or "proof", you would understand why you disagree with them.

In fact, the only thing that's being asked of students in schools is that they actually learn what the theory of evolution actually says - as opposed to the comic-book version of the theory that creationists circulate.

Revisiting the tomb

Diana Muscle Shoals, AL — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:40:39 GMT

OK. . . enlighten me. Give me some of the evidence that supports & is explained by evolution. I have no problem with species adapting to their environment, but there is no proof (by my definition or science's) of any species actually turning into another species.

Here's one problem I see with evolution: a complete change in the respiratory system of our so called "ancestor", the fish (according to the Discovery Channel last month), to allow for breathing air could not have evolved bit by bit over time. The system would have had to be functioning in its entirety all at once. Otherwise, why would the ineffective bits continue to evolve when they were initially worthless.

And our students are not being asked to learn what evolution says, they are being told that it is true. And those that don't believe in God are so scared of creationism, they won't allow it to be uttered in the classroom. I thought science was supposed to be open minded.

Revisiting the tomb

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:48:59 GMT

Earlier, we were talking about the odds of a man named Yeshua being married to a woman named Mary. And what I said was, "It only had to happen once."

    Imagine the entire planet called Earth, about 400 million years ago. How many fish swim in Earth's oceans? A large number. Billions and billions and billions, as Carl Sagan used to say. One particular type of fish was able to breathe air. Not all of them, just one. It's much easier to take oxygen from air than from water. There are websites that explain the process in detail. Do some research. I'm sick of the Creationist trick of "If you can't explain a process in simple terms that I can understand, I don't think it every happened." You're sitting at the Internet.

    Tiktaalik roseae (link) was found in northern Canada. There might be great fossil evidence buried under the ice. Or not. The best evidence is in our own DNA.

    The idea of one species changing into another, for the most part, didn't happen. A great variety of new lifeforms appeared when HOX genes allowed limbs to migrate to different places along a spinal cord. Those tiny lifeforms grew larger. One of them turned into all of the mammals you know. Humans share 83% of their genome with cows, and 99% with chimps. Did more than one variety of fish have the ability to breathe air? or did all air-breathers come from a single ancestor?

   Science is open-minded. However, personally, I've grown up in a country where 83% are Christian. That means every time I try to have an intelligent conversation with another person about the Bible, EIGHT other people interrupt us, saying "Let me tell you what I believe." I no longer care what you believe. If you're too lazy to do a Google search and find out HOW fish turned into land animals, it doesn't mean that I'm scared of you. Just that I'm tired of listening to your nonsense. It's like really loud background noise that makes it difficult to talk.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12168265/

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:15:28 GMT

"but there is no proof (by my definition or science's) of any species actually turning into another species. "

Fortunately for the progress of science, your definition doesn't appear to correspond very closely to the definition used by scientists. But here's a link anyway:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

"The system would have had to be functioning in its entirety all at once."

No. It would not. This is the unscientific argument from irreducible complexity which relies on a gross misunderstanding of evolutionary processes. The evolutionary steps that produced a system that does X don't all have to be useful for X. They have to be useful - or advantageous - for something, but not necessarily for function X. Evolution works by coopting functions - a subsystem that is useful for doing Y suddenly getting to a state where it can be useful for doing Z.

Here's a link to a refutation of "Dr" Michael's Behe's argument that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

"And our students are not being asked to learn what evolution says, they are being told that it is true."

The students are being asked to learn it, because so far as we can tell it IS true. The only nay-sayers are people who continually demonstrate they haven't done any homework on the subject. What they are not being told is believe in it. The problem, of course, is that a lot of the actual education that kids get is being countered at home by the barbershop gossip their parents and religious leaders feed them when they get home.

"And those that don't believe in God are so scared of creationism, they won't allow it to be uttered in the classroom. "

Creationists are attempting to do an end-run around the scientific process, because they can't support their ideas with actual science. So they take it directly to the common man who has a comic-book understanding of science and whose "understanding" of evolution amounts to barbershop gossip.

"I thought science was supposed to be open minded."

Open-mindedness doesn't mean that you suddenly drop your scientific outlook and adopt myths on the basis of people who have a comic-book understanding of science.

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 00:01:40 GMT

I have an idea for a project. The Origin of Species is one of the most important books ever written; however, surprisingly few people have read it carefully. While the Internet is a bottomless cesspool of stupidity, though, there are also a number of quite valuable resources available, some of which have considerable potential for helping us - all of us - contribute something important and of lasting value to human knowledge.

There is a site called Youtube that allows people to post 10 minute videos of their own making to the web. My idea is to use Youtube to create an "Origin of Species Redux." The 1st idea is for me to create a series of videos that would summarize the main points from each of the 14 chapters of OOS. The truth is, however, I don't know how much time I'm going to have for doing this - it might take me a year or more to do this. Moreover I really suck as a public speaker and so it would be really cool, if someone listened to my first video and said to herself, "Dear God, but this sucks. I can do better than that." and then she goes out and does it. And then maybe someone else thinks, "Hey, I'm very fond of chapter II" and so on. At the end, some adept video editor might take the best chapter ones and produce a collage that serves as a really good intro to chapter one. Same for each of the other chapters.

In this way, we could really contribute something useful. I also think it would be fun. I'm anticipating that my "challenge" will go ignored and that I will continue doing this by myself until I get bored with it or move on to another project. But if anyone would like to give it a try, the first installment is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KrRGEw5X48

Revisiting the tomb

Carlos, Austin, Tx. — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 06:06:49 GMT

The fact still remains that evolution is only a GUESS until you can replicate it in the lab. And where are all the observers who saw these changes take place? Without those observations, your measurements are only guesses. And the theories based on them, however elaborate, are guesses as well. Your conjectures prove nothing.

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 20:03:13 GMT

"The fact still remains that evolution is only a GUESS until you can replicate it in the lab."

ALL theories are guesses - ALWAYS - even after they've been "replicated in the lab." The Theory of Gravity is a guess, but like evolution, it is one that supports and is supported by the VAST preponderance of available evidence, and refuted by NONE.

"And where are all the observers who saw these changes take place? Without those observations, your measurements are only guesses."

Where are all the observers who have seen electrons? And yet when our teachers discuss them in class, they give no hint at all that their existence is entirely based on inferential reasoning.

"And the theories based on them, however elaborate, are guesses as well. Your conjectures prove nothing."

That's right.

1. Conjectures aren't supposed to prove things. 2. Science isn't about what you can prove - it's about what you can disprove. 3. When you clearly understand points 1 and 2, you'll be ready to continue this discussion.

Revisiting the tomb

Diana Muscle Shoals, AL — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 23:40:03 GMT

Before I'm accused of interrupting an intelligent conversation, let me remind everyone that the title of this conversation is "Revisiting the Tomb". A discussion is expected of whether Jesus Christ was resurrected or not which means Christians are invited to respond. However, early in the postings, Mr. Boyle is blasted for starting a religious discussion on a site for science and the religious are harshly criticized for their beliefs. Why the anger?

I appreciate the links provided to try and help epxlain evolution. I followed the links and studied what they had to say. Here's some of what I learned: There has been exhaustive research on plants that proves that they can be altered by human intervention and environmental change to the point that they no longer can reproduce effectively with plants in their original form. Some scientists would say this constitutes a new species (I also found that scientists disagree on what defines a species). This is a far cry from saying a fish evolved into a human.

As for the Tiktaalik roseae . . . cool. There's a creature that looked kind of like a fish and kind of like a crocodile, that swam in shallow waters, and whose fins had bones in them like an arm that allowed it to pull itself around. Does this make me believe that human life is nothing more than millions of years of adaptations? Absolutely not.

An expert on one of the links even admits "it's impossible to tell if Tiktaalik was a direct ancestor of land vertebrates . . . but if a scientist set out to design a plausible candidate, you'd probably come up with something like this." Christians and creationists have been accused of making up stories and believing in fairy tales when , in reality, our accusers are doing the same. They are starting with a theory and trying to make scientific findings fit into the mold.

I'm all for science. I believe God gave us the intelligence to understand many things. . . but not everything. When science resorts to speculation and that speculation is treated as truth, it's no longer science - it's faith in the unknown.

Again, it all goes back to our beliefs of the origins of life. Many believe in the ideas of a man named Darwin. I believe in the teachings of the Bible. Either way, we have blind faith. So it's time to quit insulting the intelligence of creationists.

Keep watching and real science will continue proving the historical accuracy of the Bible. Are Jesus' bones in the ossuary? I say "NO". . . thanks for playing. . . try again.

Revisiting the tomb

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 07:06:18 GMT

Reply to: This is a far cry from saying a fish evolved into a human...Does this **make me believe** that human life is nothing more than millions of years of adaptations? Absolutely not."

   At some point, I anticipated a Christian would entertain us with another recital of their beliefs. At least I didn't have to wait until September, the way "Dallas" did with "Who Shot J.R.?" Let me try this another way. Either human life is the end result of millions of years of adaptations, or it is not. Either way, your beliefs are not important. If I was going to pass a collection plate later and ask you to contribute to the building fund, I would CARE about your beliefs. I really would. Or, I would make you think that I do.

    I don't think a fish turned into a human being, but they had common ancestors. Must SMALLER common ancestors. Smaller than a paper clip. That's the explanation for long stretches of identical sequences in the genome. Today's fish has "evolved" for four hundred million years since we shared a common ancestor, even if it looks the same. Please get the image of one species changing into another one out of your mind. That's not how it happened. Two modern species had a common ancestor, but one never changed into the other.

     There is no God, so God didn't give you intelligence. That Myth prevents you from appreciating the millions of years of struggle that your ancestors went through to reach our current level of sophistication and civilization. If I choose to honor my ancestors instead of pretending a God "formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils and man became a living being"... ie, created a modern human being out of inorganic materials through a supernatural miracle... well, I have nothing to apologize for. God is a con game. Heaven is a way to pretend that your great-grandparents aren't really dead, just waiting behind the clouds for some great reunion.

The teachings of the Bible about the origin of life on earth are wrong. That's the TRUTH, whether you believe it or not. Our planet is ~4 Billion years old, and life has been around for 3.5 Billion of them. Get the time frame right and you'll see why evolution is the Correct Answer.

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 08:31:39 GMT

"I also found that scientists disagree on what defines a species"

This is one of the central problems that Darwin addresses in Origin of Species.

"This is a far cry from saying a fish evolved into a human."

The only thing this shows is that new species have formed. No one expects that we would be able to replicate evolution on that scale in a laboratory.

"creationists have been accused of making up stories and believing in fairy tales when , in reality, our accusers are doing the same."

No, they are not.

"They are starting with a theory and trying to make scientific findings fit into the mold."

You didn't read those links very carefully.

"When science resorts to speculation and that speculation is treated as truth, it's no longer science - it's faith in the unknown"

Evolution is vastly more than speculation.

"Many believe in the ideas of a man named Darwin."

We accept a theory that is supported by the vast preponderance of available evidence and refuted by none. It has nothing to do with beliefs.

"So it's time to quit insulting the intelligence of creationists. "

It's time for creationists to do some honest homework.

"Keep watching and real science will continue proving the historical accuracy of the Bible. "

Hasn't happened yet except in the minds of the bottom 1% of "scientists."

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend@hotmail.com, LORTON, VA — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:02:16 GMT

From talkorgins:

"The paleontologists who discovered Tiktaalik roseae http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/) didn't just get lucky: they predicted beforehand that if an intermediate like Tiktaalik existed, it should be found in that spot, in that approximate stratum."

Evolution has made many predictions of this sort which have born out. In creationist pseudo-science, ANY CONCEIVABLE thing found is explained simply as "well, that's the way god decided to do it."

Check out:

http://www.berkeleydaily.org/text/
article.cfm?archiveDate=12-06-05&storyID=22912

Scientists used to believe that Komodo dragons were not poisonous - they just had dirty mouths. Evolutionary biologists examined their genome and found they were most closely related to a poisonous snake...so they actually went back to check and BINGO...they DO have poison! Evolutionists made a stellar prediction that turned out to be true.

The thing is evolution could be disproved, if it were false. That's why it's actual science instead of pretend science like creationism.

Revisiting the tomb

William Hays, Tustin, CA — Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:04:28 GMT

In my last post, I appeared to be arguing with ONE other person, which wasn't my intent at all.

In my mind, I see a collective group of about 200 Christians. William Lane Craig, N.T. Wright, the student leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ and other campus outreach groups, Craig Hazen at Biola, and many other Christians that I don't remember by name. That's who I'm talking to, that entire group. I don't have much patience for their nonsense because they all seem to make the SAME mistakes.

   (1) Mistakes in basic evolutionary theory. ie, The idea that a modern fish somehow changed into a modern primate. That's called a Straw Man argument because it's easy to shoot down. Until you've sat down with a victim of Christianity and asked them to explain exactly what they don't believe, you can't appreciate the degree of deception involved.

   (2) Logical mistakes. Let me quote a familiar argument from one of Josh McDowell's books: "Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C., yet the earliest copy we have is dated AD 1100, nearly a 1,400 year gap, and only five MSS are in existence. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C. and its manuscript authority rests on nine or ten copies dating 1,000 years after his death. When it comes to manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embarrassing in contrast… Over 20,000 copies of New Testament manuscripts are in existence today (McDowell, More Than A Carpenter, pp. 47-48)."

   What does this term "Manuscript Authority" mean?

   Accordng to Josh, if we have 20,000 copies of a book, it's more likely to be Historically True than a book with only 5 copies. Large numbers = Authority.

   Anyone out there agree with Josh?

   Anyone care to guess how many copies of James Bond novels still exist? How about the Hobbit-fest in "Lord of the Rings"? Superman comics?

   One thing I've discovered about Christians like William Lane Craig and Josh McDowell is, after they have been proven WRONG, they simply go on to the next seminar and tell the same LIES. Exactly the SAME LIES, which is why I've had exactly the same discussion with different Christians twenty or thirty years apart. The only real difference is that today, I can link to published genomes of humans, chimps and rhesus macaques, and the idea of a "Last Common Ancestor" is easier to grasp.

I still get Christians asking me to explain simple concepts that should have been covered in their high school science classes.

Revisiting the tomb

Diana Muscle Shoals, AL — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 18:02:06 GMT

This two-sided debate seems to have developed a third argument. On the one hand, we have William who is completely anti-Christian but also does not believe in the widely held theory of evolution whereby species supposedly evolved into other species.

My question for William is this: If you don't believe in creationism and you don't believe any species ever evolved into another species, how do you explain where we came from? You say today's similar species (based on genome sequences) had a common ancestor smaller than a paper clip, but how did they develop? How did they grow into their current form? Of course, my exlanation is that our Creator made everything so the fact that he gave different species identical genome sequences doesn't make me want to run out and hunt for a common ancestor. And I know, William, that you don't care what I think, but if you're going to join a public forum, you have to expect public comment.

The other side of the anti-Christian argument comes from TheFallibleFiend who appears to believe in evolution as it is presented so often in the media: humans have evolved from other species over millions of years. He says, "Evolution is vastly more than speculation." Since speculation is 'A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture;Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence', I have to disagree. The evidence for evolution is not conclusive. He also says "The thing is evolution could be disproved, if it were false." Guess what? The same can be said for creationism.

He says, "It's time for creationists to do some honest homework." To what end? Why spend your life poring over studies trying to prove where we came from? It doesn't matter how many fossils are found or how many genome sequences they match up. I think we can all agree that it will never be proven...we weren't there. So where does that leave you? In the same place you started ... always searching.

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 01:34:43 GMT

He never said that species don't evolve into other species. He said that fish did not evolve into humans.

"The evidence for evolution is not conclusive."

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming if you get past the sound-bites from the creationist pseudo-science web-sites.

"Why spend your life poring over studies trying to prove where we came from? "
The only correct end is to try to understand correctly what the situation is with respect to the available evidence. If people attempted to understand, before they came to their conclusions there wouldn't be an argument. Instead creationists have a very strong emotional interest in disproving a theory of which they haven't the slightest comprehension.

Guess what ... creationism COULD NOT be disproved, if it were false. Some few creationist claims could be disproved, but not the "theory" itself, which is why it's NOT a scientific theory at all. Of course understanding this would require reading about philosophy of science instead of religious pamphlets, so maybe that's out of the question.

"I think we can all agree that it will never be proven...we weren't there. "

Scientific theories are never proven 100%. Instead, they fail to be disproven (that's why falsifiability is so important). How many gravitational fields have ever been seen? How many electrons? How many genes have been directly observed? And yet we don't teach any of these theories as being questionable. The central problem is that creationists base their uninformed opinions on a comic-book understanding of what science is and how it works.

When youngest daughter was in 7th grade, I was very pleased to walk into her science classroom and see the following sign above the chalkboard, "Science ISN'T about what you can prove, it's about what you can DISPROVE." I knew right then she was in good hands.

Of course there are things we are searching for. Science is a continual search. But there's no sense at all in pretending that evolution is not a fact. It's the best science there is.

When you look at the scientists who are behind it you see nobel laureates and and members of the national academies. On the creationist/ID side, you see guys with a PhDs who were the head of this institute or that, but whose actual scientific work has been minuscule - and in some cases almost non-existent. And yet creationists won't even do the basic homework to figure out that with a literal handful of exceptions, their "experts" are 10th tier nobodies.

Revisiting the tomb

Carlos, Austin,Tx. — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 19:11:10 GMT

Hi, Diana, I've decided that it's completely useless to argue with atheists about evolution, and undoubtedly everything else as well. In studying their statements, I first noticed that they are completely unscrupulous. They can be true, partly true, or totally untrue. Then I began to discern a method. When I looked up the word 'propaganda', there it was. Propaganda is a form of communication used to confuse, disorient, and weaken your opponent (not to say 'enemy'). It is NOT a method used by scholars when they debate the merits or demerits of their case. Then I realized that that was why William's arguments resonated so strongly with that Communist I'd met back in the 70's (see Cosmic Log: The Future of Faith). They were both engaging in propaganda. This leads me to suspect that, since the anti-Christian's method and the Communist's method match, they've been following the same handbook, namely the Communist Manifesto or perhaps Chairman Mao's. As far as I'm concerned, their credibility is on a par with a Walt Disney comic book. I'm sure any worthy (i.e., scrupulous) scholar will know this.

Revisiting the tomb

Diana Muscle Shoals, AL — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:29:25 GMT

OK, guys, I'm done. You've talked yourselves into a corner and are contradicting each other & yourselves, and your continuing resorting to name-calling is getting old. I leave you with these thoughts:

William did negate species evolving into other species with these statements: "Two modern species had a common ancestor, but one never changed into the other.", "The idea of one species changing into another, for the most part, didn't happen."

If the only correct end is to try to understand what the situation is with respect to the available evidence, then you have to start with an open mind...one that does not rule out intelligent design.

TheFallibleFiend says that because evolution "cannot be disproved" we must accept it as true. He then turns around & says that because creationism "cannot be disproved" it is not a scientific theory. Why the double standard? Because you're starting with a biased opinion.

He also says we should believe in evolution as fact because it's the best science there is. At one time the best theories from the world's highest intellects stated that the world was flat.

In conclusion, there are plenty of Christians and creationists who have put in the homework you seem so fond of and I hope you'll follow a couple of these links:

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html ,

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm ,

http://everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?
gclid=CIDVw-CVwIsCFQ-5SgodWi6E0A

The last one is by a former atheist & here's part of what he had to say: "It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them."

God Bless!

Revisiting the tomb

TheFallibleFiend, LORTON, VA — Sat, 21 Apr 2007 17:40:51 GMT

I haven't talked myself into a corner. Nor have I name-called. I stated very clearly you have not done enough research on this to judge the issue. You and other creationists have very firm opinions in an area where you have not done an honest day's actual research into the subject.

I *never* said you should believe the theory of evolution. I said it was a fact regardless of what you believed. It is good science - and if you fail to recognize that, then you haven't done your homework. Creationists continually say they've "done their homework" and then immediately start making statements that demonstrate unequivocally to anyone who IS informed that they haven't.

I'm not bothered that people believe in God. On the contrary religious people are bothered by the fact that atheists don't believe in god. I *am* bothered by the fact that creationists want to keep kids ignorant under the pretension of keeping them "fully informed."

I never said that evolution cannot be disproved. I don't know if you're mistaken here or just outright lying. I said it CAN be disproved, but that it was not yet disproved. You don't even understand the argument and you won't do the homework necessary to figure it out. You won't do the homework to understand the simple stuff, but then you want me to treat your opinions as if they were just as good as any others.

I know it's wasted breath, but I hold out hope. [...] You can actually do real homework - it takes some effort, but once you get into the habit of careful study, it gets easier and easier.

Revisiting the tomb

Jerry Collins Long Beach, Ca — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:33:04 GMT

If Jesus was buried in a box some distance from his death at the cross when it was joseph his great uncle who ask Romans for the body that it might be buried between the sabaths. The text says he was buried in a borrowed tomb of a rich man of which Joseph was.
Concerning the text of Matthew there is copy of the text which reads in part that it was dictated to Nichols the deacon immediately after his resurection. He was seen alive by many eyewitness other that the writers of the bibical text.
If we step outside the English text to text from north Africa and Arabia and the middle east we find that they agree. Jesus died and rose again the third day after being in the grave 72 hours on a Saturday night about 8 PM. remember to convert to the Jewish time line, The dawning of a new day was after sun down about 6PM not on sunday morning.
Of all the present world religions he was the only one who said that he was from heaven and that he was going back again. That the world problem of sin could only be fixed by his death and the only proof he would give is that he would rise again after 72 hours in the grave. He said that God was his father and that it was the Jews want to kill him for that reason. If Jesus is God then worship him for that reason alone, Any reason to attempt to discredit his earthly journey only proves that you are spiritually dead and leads you to distruction.

Revisiting the tomb

Tiante Perth WA — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 12:53:33 GMT

I never expect so much debate on the issue of 'Science and God'. I hope we will not revive the 'old debates' in the 1800s between supporters of evolution theory and creation theory. My only hope here is to reveal and share the truth to our unfortunate ignorant brothers. Before continuing, let me first thanks everyone for a good discussion. However, I feel sorry for those hardened-minded people who still believe that there is no God. To begin with, let me quote a famous remark by the great physicist Einstein:

"God does not play dice with the universe..."

This remark has a profound implication and meaning. Simply, it reveals the fact that the complex universe can never, and ever be formed by chance. Chance is a flawed concept that is being championed by supporters of evolution and the big bang theory just to avoid the
God-concept or creation belief. It's not surprising that these two great Science theories are related; their common theme is to deny the existence of a supernatural force.

I hope to clarify my position to avoid confusion by others:
1. I strongly believe in Science and it is Science that brings many marvels alongside economic benefits on earth. These range from x-rays or radiations, electrons and neutrons, antibodies & stem cells, organic and non-organic molecules, etc, all these have
countless significant technological applications, and it is in fact are the basis of modern economic development. Yet Science has limitations.

2. Evolution theory for example is flawed and should never be called Science. By contrast, it is nothing comparable to the thermodynamics, or electromagnetism, or special relativity or even genetics and microbiology theories. Evolution cannot be tested experimentally and even over the life of the universe it will never be. Think about it, is that science or just myth-science?

2. What really surprise me is the fact that a number of notable physicists and astronomers are beginning to
believe that there might be 'aliens' or extraterrestrial beings living outside our universe! Some have started to make contact to this unknown regions in space. Think about it carefully. It's really interesting to me, because these astronomical searches are just the beginning to prove that there is
of course life out there beyond our comprehension - this is no different to believing in the unknown dimensional universe of God.

3. I can't comprehend why Scientists would tend to believe in aliens and not believing in God who is really the alien of their discovery. Isn't that amazing?

4. God theory is not nonsense, no! If you think so, then you're saying that the black hole or string theory, etc, are nonsense as well. If fact, these theories including particle physics and other cosmology theories must reconcile to one another and to the God theory. This is the only way to get to the whole picture of the universe and the elementary particles world. No wonder some physcists have started in these directions! There are few but interesting books written by scientists on these kind of subjects and I urge you to find them and read.
-the Bible Code
-Physics of God (not real title but close to it as I forgot the title). Unfortunately, I can't recall the authors of these books.

4. I still challenge those who believe in evolution to
come up with concrete evidence of man's transition from ape, let alone from fossils. In addition, don't you know that whenever a new discovery of old human fossil skulls or remains is made, scientists just make
up imaginary unscientific connections to evolution theory? It's just a game of fixing a puzzle.

5. In fact, when I don't wear shoes and used to walk over rough surfaces, the skin of my bottom feet will increase in thickness. This is just evolution at work due to the environment much the same as that used by Darwin to explain the beak differences for finches species on Galapagos islands. I challenge evolutionists to review and correct the evolution theory by Darwin and others. What I can only see is that evolution doesn't change an organism like a mammal but only changes cells to certain limited
scales! I pause here for now.

Revisiting the tomb

Muhammad Ali Badsha,Peshawer,Pakistan — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:55:47 GMT

Any one interested in my article 'Have You Recognised Yourself"?Took eight years to develop,still six questions remain unanswered.Contact:alibadsha48@yahoo.com and alibadsha@hotmail.com

Revisiting the tomb

CHRIS RALLS GUANGZHOU CHINA. (british) — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:37:37 GMT

anyone who argues against the fact that there is a living God.... has and is missing out on life, and life after death, those who do not understand the power of prayer have never lived, never will, are void of the love of God, it'S SO VERY SAD AND PATHETIC.

Revisiting the tomb

Rufus Collins, Madison, AL — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:11:26 GMT

For what it's worth, I'm a retired engineer/scientist with the academic credentials and work experiences to back it up. However I can truly say there I have not experienced anything in my scientific endeavors that is more real to me than my faith in Jesus Christ. He is without a doubt, Lord of my life.The following is a simple poem I wrote years ago which expressed my belief that there is indeed a GOD whom I discovered was Jesus Christ.

THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1. Form a hypothesis that can be tested.
2. Obtain sample data for assessment.
3. Examine the results for significant trends.
4. Draw inferences regarding the hypothesis.

1. I hypothesized there was no God.
2. I gathered facts from all of creation.
3. I examined the data and was startled.
4. I found in creation my Creator.
cc. RDC February 26, 1978

Sceptics can deny it and believers can profess it but the day will come when every knee shall bow before Him. Here's hoping you experience this great event with joy and not regrets.

Revisiting the tomb

christina smith, Evansville, Indiana — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:51:25 GMT

I would have to say anything is possible.. I watched a program a few years ago where the christians took out many parts of the bible and it referenced that jesus had kissed mary on the mouth. so I would say that it is true that jesus had a family. Most christians to me are a bunch of loonies who seek their own truth not the actual truth. I am glad the truth is finally coming out instead of being brainwashed in to believing in one thing.

Revisiting the tomb

Tony Sampson. Petaluma, California — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:25:10 GMT

I do take notice of how some people despise the use of the very word "God". Those people want the word removed from public view. I looked into my pocket today to view the words enscribed on the U.S. currency that I in witness and surely, I find the words, "In God We Trust" and because the word "God" is mentioned, there are those who want it removed. But, there are those of us who believe that it should NOT be removed and here our opposition is freely stated, as to why:

Money! There are those of us who lived long enough in this world to learn that money, to some, is the only god that these people trust. It's very fitting to be enscribed on currency. We say, to those of you who have made "money" your god and money, only, is that which you trust,... your currency has a well fitted phrase and we see nothing that transforms its use into a holy religion.

The people of the world have raised up to themselves all kinds of gods. Since the term, "In God We Trust" can be interpreted to mean any kind of god in whichthe bearer's trust is believed to be placed and that god could be whatever or whoever that may be, how can there can any argument that the phase promotes, as a fact, a specific kind of religion in particular when there is nothing religious about money which is their only trusted god.

So, why remove the phase, "In God We Trust" from the U.S. currency? The phrase, "In Whatever God We Trust" would not be a phrase fitted for currency. The phrase, "In Almighty God We Trust" might be the kind of phrase that anti-god people could up their argument with religion. But just because there is a people who do place their trust in a God, that is trusted and worship above any and all other kinds of gods before them, and who refer to their God as, the "Almighty God" or the God of Moses", etc. is no reason to have the, "as worded" phase on U.S. currency removed.

Each person who has an opportunity to be fortunate enough to possess U.S. currency can actually see, touch, and feel that which is the trusted god of many; yet further, give witness to the power of such god, when possesed, what it can do or bring. Some people say that it is the kind of god that is deeply rooted into all that is evil.

If the issue to remove from U.S. currency, the phase, "In God We Trust" is ever presented to the U.S. Justices of the Supreme Court, I hope some lawyer involved will pass along the public voice of those who say, "Render under Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser, so let the fitted phase be."

Revisiting the tomb

Christina — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:10:13 GMT

In response to 'how is it possible we still live with people who believe in gods'- look up your history and your constitution. First, we have the right to believe in whom or whatever we want if anything at all. And two; not every god is a primitive god that requires a virgin sacrifice for rain. In fact, even the christian god was partial to sacrifices in the old testament.

Revisiting the tomb

Itamar Bernstein, Los Angeles, CA — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:43:12 GMT

I've been studying this find for years, long before it became public knowledge following the mass media exposure. I believe that it's a serious find, which warrants further study.

The critics of this find's magnitude basically argue:

1. That the Jesus family would be buried in Nazareth, not Talpiot;
2. That the 'Jesus' ossuary would have been inscribed 'of Nazareth';
3. That the Jesus family couldn't have afforded a tomb like the Talpiot tomb;
4. That the "Jesus son of Joseph" ossuary is not inscribed "Yeshua" (Jesus) at all;
5. That the names inscribed on these ossuaries were supposedly common;
6. That the "Mariamne" ossuary didn't contain the remains of Mary Magdalene, but of two other women;

I believe the first five of these allegations against the book's premise don't carry much water. The sixth argument actually supports the conclusion that this is the real thing. My comments:

1. Talpiot is the right place for Jesus' family tomb- Per Luke, 2:3-4, the family's LEGAL residence was Bethlehem, not Nazareth. The fact that Joseph and the pregnant Mary could not take the census in Nazareth but had to take it in Bethlehem indicates that Bethlehem was their DOMICILIUM under Roman Law. That basically means that they had no intention to reside in Nazareth permanently. Therefore it would have made little sense for them to have a family tomb in Nazareth, that they wouldn't be able to frequently visit at a later stage in their lives. They would have wanted a family tomb close to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, easily accessible also to future generations of the family. The fact is indeed that Mary and her children moved to Jerusalem around 30 AD.

2. The traditional name of Jesus in Hebrew, as reflected also in the Talmud, is "Yeshu Hanotzri." This appellation stems from "Netzer" (Shoot or Branch). It alludes clearly to Isaiah 11:1, indicating the Royal birth of Jesus, to substantiate his claim for Jewish messiahship. Not to indicate the place he comes from.

There's actually no evidence in Jewish sources, such as the Old Testament or the Mishna and Talmud, that a place called "Nazareth" even existed in or before the first century. I'm not disputing the evidence per the NT, that there was indeed a place called Nazareth. But to the best of my knowledge, there's no mention of Nazareth at all in any ancient writings outside the New Testament. So the place existed, but nobody knew about it. And those in close proximity in Galilee who did know about it, obviously thought derogatorily of it , cf. "can anything good come from Nazareth?" (John 1:46.) Therefore there was no reason to call Jesus "of Nazareth." Either in life or on an ossuary. He was called "Jesus the Branch" (of David) in Hebrew/Aramaic.

The line of argumentation detracting this discovery around the supposed Nazareth origin of Jesus' family may therefore be based on a very shaky foundation.

3. Talpiot is located about 2.5 miles North of Bethlehem. Jesus' family, of Davidic descent according to the New Testament, could have held the burial cave there even before it moved to Nazareth. Davidic birth was absolutely the most exalted in Judaism, always. The suggestion that any person of Davidic descent could be of the lowest social echelon, that couldn't fund or get funding for a burial cave, doesn't make much sense, if any. There's substantial evidence to the contrary, e.g. 1. Jesus had some very wealthy active supporters like Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemus (known as Nakdimon ben Gorion in post biblical Jewish sources-one of the richest Jews in Judea;) 2. Josephus, A.J. XX, 9:1. Note the prominence of James, brother of Jesus.

4. The inscription on the Jesus ossuary does say "Yeshua bar Yehosef" ("Jesus son of Joseph")to my eye. All letters but one are quite clearly there. The only letter which is somewhat more difficult to discern at first blush is the second letter- "Shin". That's because it's written in a somewhat irregular form (in a regular Shin there are three teeth in the fork, pointing upwards. Here there are two teeth, pointing sideways to the right.) But that particular irregularity appears also on other ossuaries- notably numbers 9 (this one has two "Shin"- one with three teeth pointing to the right, and one with TWO teeth pointing to the right. Exactly like the subject inscription) and 121 in the Rahmani catalogue, which both feature also a "Yeshua."

Still, the name "Yeshua" on this ossuary is among the most, if not the most, difficult to read names of all ossuaries listed in Rahmani's catalogue of Jewish ossuaries. It is almost written as a person's complex signature on a check. Contrast that with the patronymic following the first name. This is written in a simple straightforward fashion, which is very easy to read. There's no other example in Rahmani's catalogue of a first name that has to be deciphered, and a patronymic that's so plain and clear. Is this merely a coincidence?

5. Some critics make the following comment to my post:

"The inscription, Pfann said, is made up of two names inscribed by two different hands: the first, "Mariame,'' was inscribed in a formal Greek script, and later, when the bones of another woman were added to the box, another scribe using a different cursive script added the words "kai Mara,'' meaning "and Mara.'' Mara is a different form of the name Martha.

According to Pfann's reading, the ossuary did not house the bones of "Mary the teacher,'' but rather of two women, "Mary and Martha.'"

Here's my thought about that:
If the Mariamne ossuary indeed housed the bones of Mary and Martha, these are two sisters of NT fame. One of them could have been married to "Jesus son of Joseph." -Whether or not she was Mary Magdalene (Maybe the Mary who anointed Jesus' feet and then dried them with her hair- very intimate scene.) The other sister would than also automatically belong in the family. It still fits. Actually it increases the statistical odds that this is the real thing quite substantially.
This is a very intriguing possibility indeed, fitting perfectly with John 12:3. Intimate contact with a man, as described in this NT passage, was allowed only to a woman who was an immediate blood relative of that man, his wife (...or a working woman.) That's all. Therefore Mary of Bethany was quite possibly by elimination Jesus' wife or in the process of becoming his wife. In that context, Margaret Starbird already theorized that similar anointing with spikenard oil was part of pre marriage ritual of a Davidic king, per certain passages in the Song of Songs. Note also that intercourse by itself was sufficient under Jewish Law in certain circumstances to constitute valid marriage. That practice, termed Bi'ah marriage, was abolished in the 6th century, but it was lawful in Jesus' time.

Mary of Bethany could have become pregnant by Jesus while he stayed at her house, shortly before his crucifixion. In that case it's quite possible that she bore Jesus' son posthumously and named him "Judah." And in that case both she and her sister Martha would have become part of Jesus' family, which earned them a place in the Talpiot family tomb..

Reminds me of the reaction to this find of a BBC reporter in 1996- It seems like all balls in the national lottery coming one by one.

I have no knowledge of Greek, so I can only discuss the two propositions. Assuming that the ossuary does say "Mary and Martha", here's what I think the names are:
* 1."Jesus son of Joseph"("Yeshua bar Yehosef" in Hebrew/Aramaic script;)
* 2. "Mary" ("Marya" in Hebrew/Aramaic script);
* 3. "Joseph" ("Yose" in Hebrew/Aramaic script. Precise nickname of Jesus' second brother- cf. Mark 6:3);
* 4. "Mary and Martha" ("Mariame kai Mara" in Greek)-they must have been sisters because Jewish law didn't allow burial together of two unrelated women;
* 5. "Matthew" ("Matya" in Hebrew/Aramaic script)- Name of Jesus' first cousin, son of his father's brother Alphaeus/Clophas. As James Tabor suggests in a different context, Matya could also well have been Jesus' half brother, considering a certain specific rule of the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:5-10.) This rule was applied in Jesus time- see Matthew 22:24-28;
* 6. "Judah son of Jesus"("Yehuda bar Yeshua" in Hebrew/Aramaic script.)
* Therefore out of eight names actually inscribed on these ossuaries (including the "Joseph" father of Jesus on the first ossuary) four names undoubtedly relate to Jesus' immediate family, and three other names relate to the same with a somewhat lower probability. In any event, they all relate to Jesus' extended family. Note that first century Jewish family tombs were usually a clan thing.
* The eighth name is "Yehuda bar Yeshua"- must have been the son of Jesus and one of the sisters Mary or Martha. More likely Mary, as explained above.

6. While the full versions of all these names were indeed common in Jesus' time, the derivatives, nicknames and contractions were not. Thus "Yeshua" for Jesus was less common than "YeHOshua;" ditto "YeHOsef" instead of "Yosef" for Joseph; "Marya" for Mary was extremely rare in Hebrew/Aramaic script; "Yose" for Joseph is unique. Therefore out of these eight names, two are irregularities, one is a particularity, and one a singularity.

BOTTOM LINE- Ask yourself inversely a hypothetical question- If the Talpiot tomb hadn't yet been found, how would Jesus' family tomb have looked , which ossuaries would it have contained, to when would it have been dated and where would it have been located.

I would have thought of a tomb just like the tomb we're discussing. It fits perfectly with what I'd have expected Jesus' family tomb to be. Right place, right period, right names. I therefore believe that this matter, delicate as it obviously is, warrants further investigation. This could include opening and examination of the adjacent tomb, and forensic examination of the skeletal remains found in the Talpiot ossuaries, and apparently reburied back in 1980. These could hopefully be relocated by comparison to the mithochondrial DNA samples already taken from two of these ossuaries.