2000+ years later? Unless it was frozen inside of glacier.

Haha ok look people there is NO DNA OF JESUS the DNA they took was from the "bones" so they could compare with the other bones to see if the bones were blood related. LOL!

That's what I'm not understanding. I thought DNA wouldn't survive in bones that old.

Ahh sorry I thought you meant how can they compare with a "Jesus" DNA sample. I am almost 100% positive you can get nuclear DNA from bones only 2000 years old, I think you run into problems when you go beyond the 10000 year mark.
A quick Google search and here is a story about DNA from 30000 year old bones:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/15/news/gene.php

Interesting. Thanks for the link.

You can read more about it here to http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html

This is pretty interesting. Sure it may prove that Jesus didnt resurrect, or atleast not in flesh and blood. But on the flip side, it could prove that there was a Jesus, and a Magdelena. And why were the burried in stone tombs in a cave ? Back in the day those funeral spots were for the royals only, they must have had some sort of "importance" in the community, not just a carpenter... I a definitively looking forward to the documentary, this is going to be big.

I've been reading that most scientists think it's just a big media thing to build ratings to the show. Apparently the name was not uncommon during that time and historic timetables show that it was unlikely he was buried there.

I'm not religious in anyway, but I just have a feeling this is a big publicity stunt.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that Jesus definately was of royal decent, ( an Egyptian prince in exile who's lineage can be traced back to King David and probably even further into the dynastic Kings and Queens of ancient Egypt ), but for centuries this somewhat embarrasing fact has been covered up by the Church.

As for Jesus being a carpenter - there is in fact no evidence outside the new testament that this was ever the case. A much more likely scenario would be that Jesus would have inhertited the title "Gods Carpenter", ( a common Pharonic title ), from his father Joseph.

sex sex sex thats all they ever think about

Well the word is that Mary and Joseph etc were some of the most common names of the times. And proving the jesus and mary bones are not blood related is then presumed to mean that therefore they were married. But remember they found like 10 peoples bones in there, and no way to know for absolute sure if any two were married or not. Also saying things like why would Jesus be buried in jeruselem when he was from nazareth, and this was a very RICH persons grave site, while Jesus was extremely poor.

Now, I would say if the bones of the child could be proven with mitochondrial DNA to be descended directly from the female bones, you COULD say the baby was this or that womans child.

Anyway, pretty intriguing stuff regardless.

If you're willing to believe he was resurrected at all, you could definitely believe his spirit came back in a human form, and it didn't have to be the same bones.

duh, I had Pausania the spartan general in mind when i said he was born before christ (not the explorer Pausania). Anyhow, Lysias name is false for sure since he lived during Plato era.

waiting for this news conference - anyone have any info?

well this isnt going to be a big deal because christians and catholics will say this is just the devil speaking and its not true.

spawning yet a new meaning to Pwned...

:pimp

Here we go again.

Do we get 72 Virgins:upsidedow

[QUOTE=split_joel;11977184]well this isnt going to be a big deal because christians and catholics will say this is just the devil speaking and its not true.[/Q

Pretty much. The same thing happen with the dead sea scrolls

They have extracted DNA from Pharoahs mummies that are far older than these bones are supposed to be. Hell they've extracted DNA from Dinosaurs now, there was a documentary about it on Discovery not that long ago.

tsk..tsk..

archelogical evidence has proved many things in the bible thought to be fables to be true though.......

not to take any sides here... but how in hell do you have DNA proof? did he find a jar of spit labeled "Jesus's Spit" to compare it against?

seems pretty silly to me

archelogical evidence has prove many more things in the bible to be false than true. Most of the "true" findings have been shoved into a box with a sledge hammer to make it fit the bible.

[QUOTE=anne;11978433]The Nag Hammadi. Good read :thumbsup

James Cameron is supposed to be on Larry King in about a half hour to talk about it...

do you know what hour?

mell gibson is gonna beat the fuck outta james cameron then make a movie of how bad he beat the fuck out of him

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

it's going to hit the fan....

thanks for sharing the info

I agree. There is very little real evidence to support the Bible's version of events and what scraps have been found are often somewhat tenious to say the least.

However if we look to Egypt as the true source of the Biblical stories, ( both old and new testament ),then many of the characters and events stated in the Bible can be reliably linked with real occurences, places and people.

Most of exodus has been proven wrong by Zahi Hawass. The people may have been right, the dates were mostly wrong, the events were wrong. First and foremost, the pyramids were NOT created by jewish slaves.

Yes, Exodus is quite a good example of the misinformation contained in the Bible. Unless we are to belive that there were two Exodus's that were allmost identical in every detail, ( extremely unlikely ), then we must conclude that the Jews deliberatly altered the circumstances surrounding their flight from Egypt probably as a peice of propgander to try to hide the fact that they were quite literally kicked out of the land in upper Egypt that they had squatted on some 200 years earlier after migrating from their original home in Syria.

the shroud of turin was proven to be a fake

Fuck I repented for nothing. HIS soul is still rotting in hell and the human race never really was saved. Everyone's going to hell no matter what but at least now the religious right and all those catholic priest child molesters won't have any more ammo. Or whats the call on this one, ref? He died for sins but isnt resting with his Father? He went to Hell when he died right? So that means he would technically still be there as he would have had to be resurrected and then rise into heaven. This is really fucked up. The world's going to burst into chaos.

But finding all of the names of that family in one tomb is something like 2,000,000 : 1, 900 : 1 from the most conservative stat person.

Given the names, the other documents etc. that were left out of the bible, would tend to point that direction... I wonder if they did any other DNA tests among the family to "prove" that they were related or not.


Very true.

Where was he first burried and resurected from? Sort of makes sense given he died there to be burried there, especially if the Romans etc. were influencing the situation. As for him being poor or not, I don't see where that would really matter. You'd only need one rich support to get the cash to be burried in a place like that.

Here's a thought. What if his followers etc. actually took his body from the first tomb and moved it to a different one in order to ensure no one did anything to his body etc. Given the controversy over him at the time, that sort of makes sense as well. Just look at the crap over where Anna is going to be burried.

Yeah, I wish they had talked about whether they had done more DNA testing than just those 2 bodies.. Guess I'll have to wait and see what they really did.

Definately. The 2 religeous guys on Larry King just came accross as morons as they argued broad strokes and not what the guy was actually saying. How many times did the guy say that the DNA showed that the Jesus and Mary weren't related and yet they kept going on and on about "how could DNA prove it was Jesus"... Morons.

Did anyone watch the documentary?
It was on discovery channel last night.
It was very interesting.

Tried to watch it last night but alas, it wasn't on Canadian satellite. Had to watch Deal or No Deal instead :disgust

We all believe in something.
But i don't believe that that these bones belongs to Jesus and his family. Is not that i don't want to shake my faith,is not possible to be just somebody's else grave and to be coincidencially called same?
Like in our days, many people are called Jessus, Maria ,Magdalena(Jesus mostly in South America,and Maria and Magdalena in Europe,mostly Greece.
Elly Jaine.

Well If Its On Tv And Produced By A Major Hollywood Director, Then It Must Be True!!!!

I just can't understand where did they take the DNA of Jesus to prove that those bones have the same DNA.

The didn't claim that they compared DNA from the bones to Jesus' DNA.

They claimed that the mitochondrial DNA of "Jesus" and "Mary" (hypothesis:Magdalene) were not related so it is possible they were married.

Anyway. I think it's all just a promotion of his forecomming documentary movie.
i wouldn't believe it untill i here more info from more reliable sources.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

The documentary was already on. Am I missing something or are you a time traveler?

And there was Sig Spot! :1orglaugh

hollywood.hollywood. though nice thoughts are shared.

Hollywood stunt intended to shake up the Christians. Call it Mel Gibson II.

Arg, stupid double post!