Not tomb of Jesus

[archaeologist]

But the ossuary reads "Jesus Son of Joseph".

focusing on this for a minute, my answer would be ---'so?' how many children today were named after famous or good people?  parents do this all the time as they take names fromthose they admire, relatives and sooon to give their child's name some sort of special meaning.

i bet many people were named after george washington and one or two mayhave had fathers with the same name as the 1st president's father.  that doesn't mean that the child is the 1st president but that many parents hoped their child would be influenced by the association with a good, famous person.

the same with this ossuary, there is NO evidence connecting it or the bones with the Jesus of Nazereth, the Christ.  NOTHING but a name on a box and this leap to a conclusion is just a giant leap to an assumption which belongs to those people, like jacobovici, cameron and tabor, who have nothing better to do than cause trouble.

statistics aren't proof nor evidence, just a probability and they cannot say that the probability did not happen.

you are goingtohave to come up with some very, very credible evidence to say that those bones belong to Jesus Christ.

[archaeologist]

is it possible to separate the temple discussion from this thread and give it is own  for better access and clarity please.

[falasha]

But the ossuary reads "Jesus Son of Joseph".

focusing on this for a minute, my answer would be ---'so?' how many children today were named after famous or good people?  parents do this all the time as they take names fromthose they admire, relatives and sooon to give their child's name some sort of special meaning.

i bet many people were named after george washington and one or two mayhave had fathers with the same name as the 1st president's father.  that doesn't mean that the child is the 1st president but that many parents hoped their child would be influenced by the association with a good, famous person.

the same with this ossuary, there is NO evidence connecting it or the bones with the Jesus of Nazereth, the Christ.  NOTHING but a name on a box and this leap to a conclusion is just a giant leap to an assumption which belongs to those people, like jacobovici, cameron and tabor, who have nothing better to do than cause trouble.

statistics aren't proof nor evidence, just a probability and they cannot say that the probability did not happen.

you are goingtohave to come up with some very, very credible evidence to say that those bones belong to Jesus Christ.

When you say there is "NO" evidence you sound disengenuous. Of course there is evidence, that is why they are examining it.  Nobody has leaped to any conclusion but it would be criminal to not examine this tomb. But you are correct about a great deal of evidence. To prove this is Jesus the Christ some type of sign pointing to the ossuary written by God himself would be the only evidence that would convince people.

I guess Capernicus and Galileo had nothing better to do and caused a great deal of trouble too.

[Diane]

Archaeologist’s point: “there is NO evidence connecting it or the bones with the Jesus of Nazareth,”  is evidenced by the fact there were no bones in the tomb to put in an ossuary.

Peter tells us that Jesus was “put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.” As a spirit Jesus went and preached to “the spirits in prison,” the angels who had disobeyed God in Noah’s day. (1Peter 3:18-20) As a spirit Jesus was able to manifest human flesh as did angels in Abrahams time. He was able to appear in a room with locked doors and disappear. The disciples didn’t even recognize him because each time he appeared it was in a different body.—Luke 24:15-16, 31; John 20:14, 19, 26; 21:4
Paul also said plainly that, “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom.” So Jesus could not have taken his fleshly body to heaven. (1Corinthians 15:44-45, 50, 51, 53)

Falasha your thought, “To prove this is Jesus the Christ some type of sign pointing to the ossuary written by God himself would be the only evidence that would convince people.”
The empty tomb is the sign written by God himself. “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.”—Acts 2:32

Jesus said the only sign that would be given would be the “sign of the prophet Jonah.”
"A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”—Matthew 38:39-40

Each gospel writer says that when several female disciples went to the tomb they found it empty. Angels told them Jesus was not there for he had been resurrected. (Matthew 28:6-7; Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:2-6; John 20:1-13) Peter and John found in the tomb only the bandages in which Jesus’ body had been wrapped.—Luke 24:12; John 20:3-8

Jesus said that he came to give his “flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (John 6:51) Christians, Paul said, “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” (Hebrews 9:26, 28; 10:10) To keep his body in the resurrection would negate the sacrifice.

Falasha, in reply #9 you said: “I think Jesus dying on the cross was the supreme sacrifice. I don't understand how seeing his body would preclude a sacrifice. It was the suffering of the man Jesus that was cleansing.”

First the Bible does not say  “It was the suffering of the man Jesus that was cleansing.” Instead it says, “The blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 John 1:7) That it was both his blood and his body offered in sacrifice is shown by Jesus' words that he would give his “flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (John 6:51)
Paul discusses Jesus as a sacrifice in his letters. “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” (Ephesians 1:7) “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Christians, Paul said, “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” (Hebrews 9:26, 28; 10:10)

It was the body and blood of Jesus that was offered as a sacrifice for Adam’s sin. He said, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28) And later Paul wrote that Jesus, “gave himself as a ransom for all men.”— 1Timothy 2:6

If his body had still been in the tomb there would have been no sacrifice for sin. At the Last Supper when Jesus passed the bread around to the faithful 11 he said, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” (Luke 22:19-20) He still had his body and had not yet poured out his blood. The bread represented his body and the wine his blood. 
Paul explained, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace.” (Ephesians 1:7) Why did he have to shed his blood?
“In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” (Hebrews 9:22)
God provided the Bible so we would know his viewpoint on everything. It is the only book with all the answers to all the questions.

[falasha]

In all of the scripture that you took the time to post never does it say a resurrection was required. Only blood and flesh.

[RamboPreacher]

In all of the scripture that you took the time to post never does it say a resurrection was required. Only blood and flesh.

death must be conquered for there to be first born of resurrection.  The Christian-theological implications I believe in require that not only must there be a sacrifice for atonement, but that it needs to be of infinite value, a human-only, no matter how "righteous", would not fulfill that requirement.  Comunicatio Idiomatum, and hypostatic union are part of that theological reference I happen to hold.  Since this is not a theology forum, I will refrain further.

[Diane]

In all of the scripture that you took the time to post never does it say a resurrection was required. Only blood and flesh.

Yes, according to the Scriptures his blood and flesh were required to pay the ransom price God required for Adam's sin, soul for soul. (Exodus 21:23) As Jesus said he came, "to give his life as a ransom for many."—Matthew 20:28
A ransom is the price paid to the ransomer deemed equal to what was lost or stolen. The perfect life of Jesus for the perfect life Adam thru away.

What was Jesus' reward from his God and Father? To be resurrected and given the kingship over the earth. That he knew this beforehand is shown by the fact that Jesus told his followers many times that he would be killed and raised on the 3rd day.
After his resurrection Peter applied the prophecy at Psalm 16:10, "you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay,” to Jesus in his speech in Jerusalem. He told the crowd, "God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death.” Then he quoted David’s prophecy, “David said about him [Jesus]:" 'I saw the Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.  You have made known to me the paths of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence.” (Acts 2:24-28) This is what Jesus knew and believed as to how he would be rewarded. God raised Jesus as a spirit and disposed of his body in his own way so that the body of Jesus did not decay.
Peter referred to again to Psalm 16:10 saying David "spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.”—Acts 2:31-32
Later Paul would write, “God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:9-11

It was perfect everlasting life on earth that was lost when our first parents declared independence from rule by God. No human since Adam is perfect. After his sin he no longer had perfection to pass on to his children. US. We inherit only what he had to give, a future ending in death thru sin.
Paul explained, “sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned... even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come... the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”—Romans 5:12, 14, 18-19
Jesus was willing to replace that life by dying because none of us could provide an equal ransom, perfect human life for perfect human life. As Psalm 49:7 states, "No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him." Paul acknowledged, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Because God loved his human family so much "God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement.”—Romans 3:23-25
Jesus was born as a perfect man because his Father is perfect. He alone could fill the requirement of perfect life for perfect life. As Hebrews 10:5 tells us, ""Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me.” Similarly to Paul's statement in Romans 5:18-19 above, John wrote, "He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.”—1John 2:2
Paul told the Roman congregation, "For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man." Again showing how Jesus replaced the life of Adam he wrote, "The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam, a life-giving spirt.”—1 Corinthians 15:21, 45
He told Timothy, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men."—1Timothy 2:5-6

Falasha, I did not intend to write a book here! Please consider how the Scriptures make it clear that Jesus' sacrifice of his human life for us would result in his resurrection and restoration of his heavenly life but with a higher place than before he gave up his place as number 1 Son to become a human.