Jesus’ Tomb Confirmed in Suburb of Jerusalem!

Newly confirmed "Jesus Family Tomb"

Newly confirmed “Jesus Family Tomb”

On April 5th, 2015, Haaretz, Israel’s most respected newspaper, published a Hebrew article by Nir Hasson, their archaeology correspondent.

It highlights Dr. Aryeh Shimron’s recent studies which prove once and for all – as the headline says – that “Jesus was buried in Jerusalem’s Talpiot neighbourhood”.

We provide the first English translation below:

Haaretz Article
05.04.15

Study: Jesus was buried in Jerusalem’s Armon Ha’Natziv/Talpiot neighborhood and may have had a wife and child

Dr. Aryeh Shimron used chemical analyses to find a clear link between ossuaries discovered in the Talpiot Tomb and the ossuary of the “Brother of Jesus” – reigniting debate on Jesus’ burial place.

By Nir Hasson

Jerusalem – A geological study supports the claim that a Second Temple Period burial cave, excavated 25 years ago in the Armon Ha’Natziv/Talpiot neighborhood in Jerusalem, belonged to the family of Jesus of Nazareth. That’s the conclusion of geologist Dr. Aryeh Shimron, who used chemical analysis to examine a possible link between the ossuaries (bone boxes) found in the Talpiot burial cave and the ossuary known as the bone box of the “Brother of Jesus”. Supporters of the theory maintain that this study could have far-reaching implications. If Dr. Shimron is right, Christians are wrong about the location of Jesus’ burial cave (Church of the Holy Sepulcher) and about the fact that Jesus did not have a wife and son.

The burial cave known as “The Talpiot Tomb” was discovered in 1980, during construction of the Armon Ha’Natziv/Talpiot neighborhood. An excavation of the tomb uncovered ossuaries from the Second Temple Period, such as can be found in many burial caves in the Jerusalem area. Though the names inscribed on these ossuaries were common during that era, the cluster of names in the same tomb provoked interest. Among the names are “Jesus, son of Joseph”, “Maria”, “Mariamene”, “Judas son of Jesus” and “Yose”.

The tomb has provoked international interest in the last decade largely due to the films and investigations of journalist Simcha Jacobovici. He makes the statistical argument that, at the time, there could not have been another family in Judaea with that particular combination of names.

Parallel with the story of the Talpiot tomb, the archeological world was rocked in the last few years by another story –the “Brother of Jesus” ossuary. Antiquities collector Oded Golan owns a bone box that bears the inscription “Jacob (James in English), son of Joseph, brother of Jesus”. The State of Israel claimed in court that Golan faked the second part of the inscription (“Brother of Jesus”) so as to boost the ossuary’s value. Three years ago, after a long judicial battle, the district court of Jerusalem ruled that the State failed to prove its case.

In the last few months, following another judicial struggle, the ossuary was returned to Golan and he allowed Dr. Shimron to examine it. It’s clear to everyone that if Shimron can prove that this “Jacob/James ossuary” came from the Talpiot tomb, statistically speaking, there would be no doubt that the tomb belonged to the family of Jesus. The “James” ossuary, after all, is inscribed with three names: “Jacob”, “Joseph” and “Jesus”. It also describes familial relations between these people: Jacob son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. Two names from Talpiot were especially interesting to Simcha Jacobovici – “Mariamene” and “Yose”. These are rare versions of “Joseph” and “Mary” that are cited in early Christian writings. Jacobovici has also linked the Talpiot tomb with a close by burial cave, which contained symbols that are, according to his research, consistent with the iconography of early Christianity.

Shimron, who has been working at the Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) for 25 years, began his inquiry into this topic after hearing a lecture delivered seven years ago by one of the archaeologists who discovered the cave, Dr. Shimon Gibson. Gibson mentioned in passing that when they first encountered the cave it was completely blocked with earth. “When I heard that, I realized that there was a geo-chemical key here that can be utilized,” says Shimron. The cave, he explains, was most likely sealed during a dramatic earthquake in 363 C.E/A.D. This turned the Talpiot tomb into a kind of chemical time capsule that sets it apart from other caves.

Throughout the years, the limestone ossuaries in the cave absorbed elements from the earth that covered it. In this way, the Talpiot tomb developed a clear “chemical signature” that sets it apart from other tombs. Dr. Shimron conducted dozens of tests to check for these elements. [In addition to the Talpiot tomb ossuaries], the Israel Antiquities Authority provided about twelve random ossuaries. Recently, following its return to collector Golan, Shimron was also able to examine the “Brother of Jesus” ossuary.

The results of the examinations, as Dr. Shimron displays them in a series of charts, are unequivocal. Every chemical element Shimron examined in the James ossuary displayed the “chemical signature” shared by the Talpiot ossuaries and falls within the Talpiot chemical cluster. “The evidence is very powerful” he says. “It is almost without a doubt that the ‘James, Brother of Jesus’ ossuary came from the Talpiot tomb.”

Statistician Camil Fuchs had already established – based on the names inscribed on the James ossuary, their familial ties, the fact that the buried person was an adult, and the literacy displayed on the ossuary – that there could have been no more than two families with this particular combination of names in Judaea throughout the Second Temple Period. If, in addition to the names on the James ossuary, we now also add the names found in the Talpiot tomb to the cluster, there can be only one conclusion: the Talpiot tomb belonged to the family of Jesus of Nazareth.

“I’m saying this as a journalist, not as a researcher or a statistician,” says Simcha Jacobovici, “but it’s clear that by adding the ‘James, Brother of Jesus’ inscription into the mix, this supports the authenticity of the inscription and completely changes the statistical name balance of the tomb. From here on in, you can only argue against the Talpiot tomb from the point of view of faith and theology – you can say that you don’t care about the facts, that you believe what you believe and that’s that. But what I’m saying is not a gut feeling. These are facts. This case is closed.”

If this is indeed the Jesus family tomb, Dr. Shimron’s findings are of monumental importance – they imply that the IAA has in its possession the ossuary of Jesus himself – “Jesus, son of Joseph” – and of a man called “Judah, son of Jesus”. Their bones were buried in an unknown location 25 years ago, when the tomb was found. This also means that Jesus of Nazareth, contrary to popular belief, had a son.

But for this to be true, Jacobovici has to overcome a basic problem with his theory: when was the James ossuary removed from the Talpiot burial cave? During his trial, Oded Golan presented a photograph showing the ossuary in his possession as of 1976– four years before the Talpiot cave was discovered. In response, Jacobovici offers two alternatives. According to the first scenario, one of the ossuaries was stolen during the excavation, and Golan’s picture is dated incorrectly. And, indeed, the archaeologists reported finding ten ossuaries, whereas the IAA has only nine in its possession today. Another possible scenario is that the James ossuary was stolen and sold to Golan a few years before the discovery of the Talpiot tomb.

The theory’s opponents point out another issue. If Jesus’ earliest followers wanted to bolster the myth of his rising to heaven, there would be no sense in burying him in his family tomb – the first place skeptics would go to find proof of his “earthliness”. It is more likely that they would have concealed his remains. Jacobovici’s answer: “The problem is that we’re looking at this through Christian theology, rather than through Jewish history. If you take a Messianic Lubavitcher [an Orthodox Jewish Hasidic sect] today and ask him if the Rabbi of Lubavitch rose to heaven, he will say “yes”. If you ask the same Hasid if the Lubavitvher Rabbi has an earthly grave, he will also say “yes”. They do not believe that their Rabbi gathered up his kidneys and physically rose to heaven, body and all. A physical ascent – that’s Christian theology. It isn’t fact. The first believers weren’t Christians; they were Lubavitcher types.”

Prof. Amos Kloner, a former senior member of the IAA and one of the Talpiot cave excavators, rejects Jacobovici’s theories – as well as Shimron’s study – out of hand. First, Kloner is convinced that the “Brother of Jesus” inscription is both fake and modern”. Second, the missing ossuary from the Talpiot cave was listed in the archaeological reports as broken, uninscribed and without decoration. Last, there could not have been another ossuary in the tomb. “The ossuaries were completely buried,” he says. “They were not visible under the earth, so it makes no sense that one of them was at any point removed from the cave. I’d like Shimron to conduct his research on several more ossuaries. So far, his findings are not unequivocal. This whole business,” he adds, “is a commercial bluff.”

Dr. Shimon Gibson adds: “If there was another ossuary in the tomb, we should have found an imprint in the ground. I hope Aryeh Shimron publishes his research and then we can respond to it.”

Collector Oded Golan, who owns the ossuary and can potentially profit by linking it to Jesus, isn’t rushing to adopt the theory. “I bought it from someone who claimed he found it in the area of Silwan, not Talpiot,” he says. “The study is not statistically solid, it needs more samples. But we can’t rule out the theory that the James ossuary came from Talpiot.” If it turns out to be true, Golan believes that the cave served Jesus’ family, but not Jesus himself. “The argument about the specific versions of the names ‘Yose’ and ‘Jacob’ is a strong one, but there could certainly have been another man in the family who was called ‘Jesus, son of Joseph.”

-END-

Print Friendly
  • fred houpt

    Very interesting news. Step by step the Talpiot tomb story gathers strength. There will always be disbelievers and naysayers. They will have less impact as this story gets stronger.

  • Ha’aretz is Israel’s most respected newspaper??? You are sick sick sick in the head, Simcha. There isn’t anything that this Vatican/CIA propaganda outlet ever prints that is remotely true. Even calling it an Israeli newspaper is a disgusting lie. Your ignorance, Simcha, and total lack of situational awareness is truly shocking. They’ve handed you their planted scripted Jesus propaganda and you like a fool took it and ran with it. You are their unwitting tool and your ego will not allow you to understand that. Read Joseph Atwill if you to want to know about “Jesus”.

    • TRS

      If it would have been published first, say, in the Jerusalem Post, then that paper would have been designated by Simcha Jacobovici as Israel’s most respected newspaper.

    • Actually agree that Haaretz the newspaper and site is awful. Scary to think the majority in Israel wouldn’t.

      But the vatican wouldn’t be happy with this story as it potentially reduces it’s coffers should some catholic understand the facts.

      There never was a j, only a Y’shua.

  • iWildwood

    “They were not visible under the earth, so it makes no sense that one of them was at any point removed from the cave.”

    What doesn’t make sense, in my most humble opinion, is this entire statement, for surely it implies that no one but no one, over the course of at least 1500 years, had access to the tomb and the occusary in question. We simply don’t, and can’t, know this. No matter how credentialed, or faith filled, we are.

    How many years passed before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found? How many are missing, among those originally stashed away and by whom, and when? We don’t really know, in all certainty; all we can do is speculate based upon what evidences we have, and yet we don’t question their validity! So why the mad dash to invalidate the tombs at Talpiot, when all evidences, thus far, point to the very real possibility of the tomb being that of Jesus and his family?

    I share in the weariness of those who are ever so diligently seeking further investigation, and yet are not only denied but endlessly mocked and maligned for simply weighing the evidences at hand, in their quest for knowledge and a far greater understanding of this man Jesus, whose life may or may not have been, correctly recorded.

    • The man Y’shua.

      • iWildwood

        Ah, you’re keeping an eye on me, huh?
        I stand humbly corrected.
        The man, Y’shua.
        Okay, so, who are you and what is your story?

        Shabbat Shalom, by the way.

        • Actually I was seeing if there was new information in this article and then I read the comments and saw yours. I thought the rest of your comment was well put but as I said before beating the dead horse of j using j is continuing to propagate the error and for some, it is a fatal error. The program crashes.

          • iWildwood

            I understand your reasoning – but the fact remains, many are they who wouldn’t know who you were talking about by saying “Y’shua.” Jesus they understand.

          • Wide gate, narrow gate. Diamond in the rough. The vast majority of subjective, non-scientific, and non-verifiable comments make the statistics clear along with the actions of peoples lives.

            To say they understand j is undefined. Which j? The one in Talpiot? No j there. The one making water wine? That’s the magic j. The one keeping Torah….no that’s not j. The one giving you a ticket to heaven……yeah that’s j alright but not in a verifiable way.

          • iWildwood

            Good morning Eliyahu

            If you don’t mind, I am bringing our WND conversation over here; certain as I am that Simcha won’t mind, perhaps he will even help me out here, and far fewer are they who will be offended, or as aforementioned, it is not my intention to destroy the person(s) rather the misconceptions.

            That being said:

            “I don’t think you will find the idea of Israel being the suffering
            servant in the Isaiah scroll from Qumran. It is not a commentary but
            the book of Isaiah. The idea is a relatively recent response by jews to
            xtians.”

            Exactly right! It IS not commentary. It IS the book of Isaiah, throughout which ISRAEL is named/proclaimed God’s servant. Only in 53 does it become contentious. Does acknowledging Israel as God’s servant time and again, throughout the text of Isaiah, only to change it to someone else in 53, make any sense? Does it fit the whole of Isaiah to suddenly abandon Israel so named God’s chosen, or if you will G-d’s servant, so suddenly and in such a way?

            “Come, let us reason together.”

            What sense does it make to say that 53 points exactly to Y’shua, when such a proclamation falls flat on its face when one considers, per the teachings of x-ianity, not only did Y’shua die young (so much for prolonging his days), he bore no children (did not see his offspring – zera) – not unless he DID marry, DID survive the cross, and DID bear a son who is buried at, perhaps, Talpiot, which is something that x-ianity, as a whole, will not ever accept, no matter that messianic prophesy teaches, point blank, that once (1 time) ha’Machiach comes there will be – peace on earth and good will to men. That did not happen then; and it has not happened yet. He who has ears let him hear, so that he may know that yet patiently and faithfully we wait.

            As you will allow me to (per your reading of this) I wish to make something clear: For a very long time, decades in fact, I was quite a devout Christian, so believing every word taught to the point that I would well have laid down my life, and anyone who knows me, knows that.

            With all that I was I so loved Y’shau and served him well, served the church well, having led many to the cross and into the belief that contrary to Deuteronomy, one man could indeed die for the sins of many.

            More than that, I raised my children up in that belief, some of whom now serve in the ministry and who fear for my soul, as do many former friends who just don’t understand why I can’t just live by “faith” rather than nit-picking my way through in this ravenous hunger I have, have always had, and since childhood, for TRUTH.

            After so many years I just couldn’t accept by faith, and faith alone, the teachings of the church that ran contrary to Scripture, and in particular, contrary to what it was that Y’shua, himself, taught, and it hurt me terribly, for as much as it was that I LOVED, to be accused of being every thing from a backslider to demonically possessed, for so daring to ask questions for which there were no sound answers, only a bunch of mumbo jumbo apologetics that also ran contrary to scripture. IE: No man can die for the sins of another. So how is it possible that Y’shua did? (Because Y’shua was no man. Y’shua is G-d made manifest in the flesh. G-d laid down his own life.) I admit to having believed that for a time – never having been taught, and never having read but to have skimmed through it so as to have missed it: G-D IS NOT A MAN. When I read that, it hit me like ton of bricks.

            “God says He’s not a man.”

            “God is God. He can be whatever He so chooses to be and He loves us so that He chose to become a man…”

            “Where, in all of Old Testament prophesy does it say that?”

            It doesn’t.

            It goes on and on: “If Y’shua was without sin, why did he go to John who was preaching repentance and baptism, for the remission of sin?”

            “Why did Y’shua say, ‘Why callest me good? There are none good; no not even one…'”

            Why didn’t Mary, his own mother, know that he was the Messiah? Why didn’t his disciples know this, in particular Peter? And why does the church teach that it was Peter who took up leadership of the church when in fact it was Jesus’ brother James, and for that matter, Peter never went to Rome but to confront Paul on his teachings. The two were not in agreement. Moreover, Paul despised the leaders of the Jerusalem church, in particular, James, Peter and John, as he made particularly clear in Galatians.

            And so began the long and heart rendering journey out of X-ianity, which was, by far, one of the hardest of all things I’ve ever done in my life – giving up my greatest love of all, Y’shua, for YHWH. Paul’s teachings (which opens another whole can of worms) for the teachings of Y’shua who led me straight to his Father, and our Father and heartbreaking repentance, which is exactly what he taught! Repent, repent, repent, he said, and keep Torah. “If you want to enter into Heaven, keep the Commandments” he said, and repent when you don’t. It doesn’t get plainer than that.

            I had to learn a bit of history in order to understand why and how it was he said, “I lay my life down for my sheep”. Roman rule throughout Judea; Temple hierarchy accommodating Roman paganism within the Temple, desecrating the Temple with idol worship – and Caesar himself was a god to be worshiped. Jesus had his followers, all Jews, all true to Torah, his sheep, if you will who despised him not, and in fact, he was quite well revered and that doesn’t fit the despised and rejected scenario at all. His beef was with the Sanhedrin, not the Jewish people who’s hearts. so being influenced by Roman custom, he hoped to turn back to G-d, and did, and nothing in the world will change the fact that it was the Romans who killed him, for sedition – he who would be king, and assume his rightful place on the throne as heir to King David. He believed that. His followers believed that. His existence threatened to shatter the status quo, as convoluted as it was between Roman and Temple cooperation, and so it was that he had to go lest he incite a war that decades after his death took place and the temple was destroyed. But it wasn’t G-d’s doing. It was man’s doing. Once again MAN brought about his own destruction. But you, of all people, know all of this, right?

            Scrambling as I was, in coming out of the church, and so utterly lost and confused that I hardly knew how to pray or to whom, I took to reading everything I could and in so doing I ran into this guy who provided the salve my broken soul so desperately needed and recommend this particular article to you:

            https://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/

            Perhaps it will give you a clearer understanding of why it is that 53, indeed, refers to Israel.

            In closing I have to say, at long last I truly have found the peace that surpasses all understanding, in Torah, in Tanach, in G-d, whom I love more than I ever thought it possible to love, as well as I have a newfound respect of this man, Y’shua, who so loved his G-d, and our G-d, his Father and our Father, and the price he paid for so doing.

            Shalom

          • Wow. That’s long. I have started to translate/read 53 again. I will try to get back to you on it.

            Which prophecy is that about peace on earth after mashiakh comes?
            Does he fundamentally change human nature? Is it a genetic engineering thing? Seems unlikely that free will to do or not do Torah will ever be aleviated.

            Concerning your xtian past, been there, done that. I too was in deep and left and was rejected. Went to “bible” college, a couple of them, and was a couple hours short of a degree. Heck, we went to seminary where I spent up my 401K, left, came back, and then went to live with the Amish because we couldn’t find real xtians. But the Tanakh always was there to measure reality and they came up wanting.
            And I’ve heard the same bs you have. He can do anything He wants because He is who He is.
            But it was finally Shabbat that I couldn’t get away from. Kashrut wasn’t even a problem.
            So I get it about having questions and wanting them answered with facts and sound reasoning.
            But if you haven’t run into a lot of the same bs from rabbinic jews then you haven’t been around. Probably one could be sincerely wrong about the mashiakh as Akiva was but today rabbinics don’t allow that.
            But even if 53 were not about Y’shua they still won’t address the timing of Daniel, and the absolute requirements that mashiakh be born in Beit Lekhem and be of the lineage of David. There is no complete genealogies after the 1st century of priest or of David.

            Remember I’m not saying Y’shua is the Most High. He was a man. Period.

            And about outreachjudaism, sorry but Singer is as thick headed as the hardest of the xtian fundamentalist. I’ve read his stuff and heard him. He is an apologist, not a debater. Actually I group almost all xtians, jews, and muslims and other religions including the scientist agnostics/atheists that think they are something just because they only deal with half-wit fundamentalist jew, xtian, and muslims. They seldom debate. They are mainly parrots and in it for money and fame, if you don’t mind me saying.

            Tired of the bs. I would guess you have some latent aversion to conflict from past teaching. Those that study the objective heavily generally get over that because they become confident in facts. And it only appears to weak minds that we don’t care.

          • iWildwood

            Thank you for you patient reading, and your response. Allow me to assure you that my reading is not limited to Singer. He’s but one of many to include (but not limited to) Arnold Schweitzer, Paula Fredriksen, John P. Meier, Tabor, Ehrman, a myriad of ancient writings to include Maimonides and Nachman, Josephus, Origen and on and on, and there is little I enjoy more than witnessing, and learning from, rabbinic Jews who even vehemently argue scholarly opinion and interpretation, so don’t be so quick to sell me short, nor to assume that my mind is weak.

            Having served and studied under at least two well known Christian scholars/preaching doctorates, for a good many years, there remains a mutual respect born of that which we yet have in common – that being, our love of God whom I doubt would ever condemn a soul searching for truth to the Christian understanding of hell.

            Moreover, you need not remind me of those well knowns who are in it just for the money, the majority preaching an “easy believism” that plays to and upon the emotions of men for profit, and so that the people perish for lack of knowledge.

            I will not weigh on your patience any further, but to offer you this, lest this posting become too long, regarding the book of Daniel, from a rabbinical point of view:

            http://www.chabad.org/multimedia/media_cdo/aid/2925421/jewish/The-Book-of-Daniel.htm

            It would seem your mind is made up, and I seek not to change it. We all need to find our way and with God’s help, we will.

            Seek and ye shall find.

          • Well you sort of addressed Daniel but not Beit Lekhem or David’s lineage being necessary for the mashiakh.

            And you missed the point of being weak minded. It was not you but those that you are afraid of offending that I was referring to.

            If my mind were made up I wouldn’t review 53. What is your problem with changing minds? If someone has a false idea somebody better say something. Or maybe there is latent “let go and let g-d.” By the way, using G-d to refer to the Most High is wrong, whoever does it, even a rabbi. The word is of Teutonic origin which may be why the jews of German descent are so comfortable with it. It is the name of a Teutonic deity. You can find that in any older dictionary and possibly on line.

          • iWildwood

            I need not address what all Biblical scholars and specialists know and agree upon, do I? Of course ha’Machiach is to come from the line of King David, as surely as it is written, which in fact, as is my understanding, gave Y’shua the right to claim the throne, in his life time, and in so attempting to do so he was crucified, by the Romans, for sedition.

            Having studied this stuff, and at length, it came as a great surprise to me to learn that Micah 5:2 isn’t referring to a place, a town, but a person. Surely you’ve heard this, read this before?

            “These[are] the sons of Israel;Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, etc. These were the sons of Calebthe son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of
            Kirjathjearim, Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of
            Bethgader.” (1 Chronicles 2:1-51)

            Did you catch the names? It stands to reason (without going into a lengthy discussion on the history of war) that the Bethlehem referred to in Micah 5:2 was “the” Bethlehem, of the house of Ephratah, spoken of in Chronicles, who would (and did) save his people from the Assyrians, made clear in Micah 5:1-6:

            “Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting….And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his G-d; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land….and they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword…”

            If it means anything, it does not mean that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, rather that he would be a descendant of the man Bethlehem, of Ephratah.

            I don’t have a problem with changing minds; G-d knows how often I’ve changed mine; and I don’t remain silent, agreeing to disagree more often than not among those I hold close.

            I really don’t know that G-d minds in the least if someone who so adores Him refers to Him as “the Most High” which is not only common among Jews of German descent, but has become quite common among the Jews (operation Moses) coming out of Ethiopia.

          • Yeah I caught the names. Many cities were named for the founders or people that were famous in them. So you are saying another ruler came out of Beit Lekhem and defeated the Assyrians? Does he have a name? Is this your interpretation of Mikhah or a rabbinic one and if so could you give me the reference. There is quite possibly another 1st century interpretation from the house of Israel so maybe one is more well thought out.

            Is there any prophesy concerning the mashiakh besides the one about bringing peace to Israel and the world? The one which you didn’t cite for me?

            And it is the word “G-d” (Shemote 23:13) that is forbidden to say, not the Most High. They are not interchangeable.

            “It would seem your mind is made up, and I seek not to change it.” That’s what you said.

            “I don’t have a problem with changing minds” That’s also what you said.

            They sound opposite.

            But this has exchange has been beneficial even if incomplete. I will look for more of your comments.

          • iWildwood

            Quickly, as I have little time, but so appreciate these exchanges, for all there is that we might learn from one another:

            Daniel chapter 9:24-26, we are told the exact time that Messiah is
            supposed to come – 69
            weeks after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem. A problem arises when
            one acknowledges that three decrees were given for this task.

            1) Cyrus in 536 B.C.
            2) Darius between 531-486 B.C.
            3)
            Artaxerses in around 454-434 B.C.

            Messiah was to come 483 years after any one of these decrees and surely Christianity teaches that Messiah has already come, but has he?

            Remember, every anointed king is a “messiah”, but not every king is, HaMachiach. Surely the followers of Y’shua believed him to be that king, the HaMachiach evidenced by the peace that would be once he took his place upon the throne of King David, as heir.

            Remember also, that Tanakh never speaks of a “belief” in a “Messiah” for the salvation of one’s soul.

            Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
            Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
            Ezekiel 38:16
            Hosea 2:20-22; 3:4; 3:5
            Micah 4:1-4
            Zephaniah 3:9
            Zechariah 14:9
            Daniel 10:14

            I will have to dig through my notes (which are many) in order to answer your question on Micah; but as I recall the book of Nahum may shed some light on this in the meantime – that is, if memory serves me correctly.

          • Belief in mashiakh is nothing.

            The Greek texts are too redacted for much use. Mattityahu seemed to be a serious enough work in the Hebrew that it survived into the 13th century and was even copied by the jews. I’m translating Even Bokhan right now. Almost done. I will post it to a website soon.

  • Ana Edwards

    Messiah’s name is YESHUA not Jesus..! He is a Jew not Gentile, the tomb where they laid him in, is in Israel, not America, not Greece, not England..but in Israel!!

    • If Y’shua told his students not to reveal he was the mashiakh, perhaps it is best for us just to give the rest of the facts and let the individual understand as Shimon Kepha did.

  • mag

    Does anyone know who translated the article?

  • Archiebalb Auchenlech

    All jews in the 1st century where buried in the ground and not in elaborate burial caves . See the 2000 year old cemetery of Qumran or the Mt of Olives as simple proof . Only extremely wealthy and elitist Jews were buried in family rock cut tombs and that was maybe 1-5 % of the nation. So you are saying that Jesus never came from a poverty stricken family from the galilee but was related to the aristocracy of Jerusalem ? ( maybe they became super wealthy ala Monty Python by the gold brought to Mary who was so poverty stricken that she gave birth in barn yard by the Kings of the East ) and was so wealthy as to have his own family rock cut tomb ?
    Why is he constantly known as Jesus of Nazerth or Jesus the Galillean if his entire family came from Jerusalem ? This is a case of finding something unrelated and forcing it to prove and find an unrelated mystery .

  • kevina

    Simcha found the tomb of Yahoshua Bar Yosef, his wife and his family. End of story.

  • Okjin Lim

    The symbol above the entrance of Talpiot Tomb means alpha and Omega

    Jesus, he used to say of himself. ” I am alpha and Omega”

    That’s all right.

    Jesus was Alpha and Omega
    Jesus is Alpha and Omega
    Jesus will be Alpha and Omega

  • Okjin Lim

    The symbol, chevron above the entrance of Talpiot Tomb means alpha and Omega

    “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”

    Jesus, he used to say of himself. ” I am alpha and Omega”

    That’s all right.

    Jesus was Alpha and Omega
    Jesus is Alpha and Omega
    Jesus will be Alpha and Omega

    • Unbelievably anachronistic and non-Hebrew culture guess.

  • Fraser Rivers

    Could the missing Ossuary from the Talpiot Tomb be the child of Jesus & Mary

  • “On April 5th, 2015, Haaretz, Israel’s most respected newspaper….”

    What? Do you have a scientific poll they are the “most respected?”

    If you want people to take notice, I would not start an article with that line.

  • Shmuel Playfair

    If the IAA has an ossuary of “Jesus, son of Joseph” in its possession, where is it kept? Are there any available pictures of this ossuary?

Powered by WordPress | Deadline Theme : An AWESEM design