I am part of another message board for youth ministers and others in church life who enjoys working with teens in a church setting. One of the topics is the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" concerning the speculated findings of Jesus' bones. I posed the question of whether or not that changes how we do church? Well, the very question was rejected so I want to pose it here. How would church, theology, etc... be different if the bones that were found were indeed that of Jesus? I do not think it would change a thing for me personally. I beleive that the message of love, peace, and reconciliation, is what was truly divine and not so much the man who brought the message. Anyway, what are your thoughts?

Ed

Ed;

I agree with you. The English word Jesus is a corruption of the Greek word Yeshua which is in turn a corruption of the Hebrew word Joshua. Jesus' real name was Joshua. He was married to Mary Magdalene and had 3 children. He was a man no different from any other man with the exception that he taught great wisdom that he learned from the Egyptians, Pagans and Hindus. He is a man that has been idolized to a far greater extent than he ever should have been. It is his wisdom and love that will bring harmony to the world - not his bones.

BobD

Hi All, Jesus name in Hebrew is Yeshua. That translates into English as Joshua.That was translaed into Greek as Jesus. The gospels were written in Greek, thus the world came to know Yeshua as Jesus.

One more exception...we're still talking about him 2000 years after his death. We define our beliefs systems based on what we believe and don't believe about him. Some of us are even still trying to have a personal relationship with him.

Something powerful happened with Jesus-Yeshua-Joshua-Emmanual-Christ-GodWithUs. We may never know exactly what happened, but something happened.

I will not attempt to make a case for resurrection here, but I will say that bones "don't mean bones" in some theories of resurrection. That which composes decomposes. Dust to dust, ashes to ashes. But there is something about us that is not dust. Our composition (ask a quantum physicist) is held together by energy. Energy emanates from a source. I believe this relationship between energy (the source) and matter (the creation) is our relationship with God. I further believe that the relationship between our own personal matter and our own personal energy is the relationship between our body and our soul. We are participating in our own creation (or creative composition). Jesus was conscious of his relationship to the source. His participation was far more conscious than the average human. Perhaps, then, he was capable of composition beyond mortality. Even while his body was returning to dust, his spirit (in coordination with the source of all) was choosing to emanate an earthly presence to teach one final lesson to his discipes. (ok, I guess I did attempt to make a case for resurrection...)

I suppose the question you are asking is "how does the Resurrection story affect my theology?". Jesus was who he was whether he did it or not. Who Jesus was, how he lived his life, and how he died out-weighs the impact of the Resurrection story for me personally.

Another question to consider, though, is whether or not resurrection is possible. If you declare that it is impossible....you might just be denying a fundamental principle of the universe. Perhaps time will tell. Science books are revised every year.

I'll leave you to consider 2 quotes from the Nobel prize winning physicist (the father of quantum physics) Max Planck.

Hi fatherman. Your views here seem to dovetail my own. Just thought I'd add that there is a belief among Tibetan Buddhists that for some highly realized individuals, when they die over a period of days their body dissolves into a "body of light."Of course, while those tradiitonal Tibetans have offered many anecdotal accounts of witnessing such, nobody's gotten that one on tape. have a good one, earl

Yes, earl! The light body seems to be one possibility for what the disciples reported. Disciples of great yogi masters have reported the same thing.

Another interesting historical issue is if the bones are authentic and the story of the empty tomb is authentic, then was there a deception? If so, who perpetrated it? I've always been suspicious of Joseph of Aramathea. He was a secret disciple of Jesus and a wealthy man. He purchased (I believe) the tomb in which Jesus was placed.

Fatherman...

There are at least two other alternative myths concerning Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Joseph of Aramathea. In terms of locales they involve the south of France, and the west regions of the UK near the ancient tin mines and Glastonbury. Both stories involve getting Jesus and his family re-established after his tribulations in Jerusalem, and leaving his brother James the Just to establish a Jeruslaem branch of the new followers.

The British guys that sued Dan Brown for infringement did some good research and writing as did some German authors, both of whom published in the 80's; but only Mr. Cameron and his crew, and the other recently proven hoax purporting to have found the bone box of James the Just, seem to have gained public attention in this circus that's taking place regarding Jesus' legacy.

Just to show you how influential the alternative stories have become, the late and great John Paul II worshipped the blue virgin images of the Madoonna image that arose simultaneously in the middle ages in the South of France, and in eastern and central Europe. Coincidence...? Hmmmmm...?

flow....

I don't see how this latest "find" could be anything but a hoax, like the ossuary that supposedly belonged to James, the brother of Jesus, from a couple years back. The names Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Judah were all very common then, as others have pointed out.