- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message

Tomb of Jesus dated for first time, built far earlier than originally believed
Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:32 pm
quote:
The scientific dating tests on the shrine, which began in October 2016, were the first of their kind carried out on what the faithful believe to be the resting place of the Christian Messiah. The tomb itself had not been opened in centuries and had previously been thought to have first been built during the time of the Crusaders, and so no older than 1,000 years.
quote:
The church was completely destroyed in A.D. 1009 and rebuilt, which had led to conventional academic thinking that it was unlikely the church could be identified as the same site consecrated by a Roman delegation in the third century.
But results of the modern-day scientific tests have put the date of the building of the cave far closer to the Roman consecration of the site in A.D. 325. A Roman temple was built at the site two centuries earlier, but according to historical record, this was later razed with excavations beneath showing the cave of the burial of Christ, now known as the Edicule.
The reopening of the crypt for the first time in centuries had already led to startling discoveries. Scientists were amazed to discover, beneath marble cladding that covered a1555 burial bed, a far older broken marble slab engraved with a cross.
Yahoo! article
Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:45 pm to RollTide1987
This thread won't turn into a shitshow at all.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:47 pm to RollTide1987
So what year should it be now?
Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:50 pm to RollTide1987
That's pretty damn cool.
That would put it right around the time of Constantine, which fits well with what we know about the era.
That would put it right around the time of Constantine, which fits well with what we know about the era.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:53 pm to RollTide1987
Seems like the date keeps getting closer and closer to the time of Jesus.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:08 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
RollTide1987
Thanks, RollTide1652
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:09 pm to RollTide1987
Up your butt, Jobu.
This post was edited on 11/28/17 at 11:11 pm
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:10 pm to RollTide1987
Jesus, OG troll.
Gotta hand it to him. Y'all won't believe a scientist standing right in front of you, but you'll believe a book from thousands of years ago, that he didn't even write, with no proof of authenticity and no contemporaneous historical confirmations, whatsoever.

Gotta hand it to him. Y'all won't believe a scientist standing right in front of you, but you'll believe a book from thousands of years ago, that he didn't even write, with no proof of authenticity and no contemporaneous historical confirmations, whatsoever.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:14 pm to Btrtigerfan
When he rose from the dead, did he leave his bones behind? That must have scared the shite out of everybody (aka Sam Kinison).
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:15 pm to Masterag
why would we believe a scientist today about something that happened 2000 years ago when we have a history book that was written back then? Dummy
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:19 pm to Btrtigerfan
quote:
Up your butt, Jobu.


Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:19 pm to Nawlens Gator
quote:
When he rose from the dead, did he leave his bones behind?
Yeah, I was thinking Jesus's tomb should be as empty as Al Capone's vault.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:22 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Tomb of Jesus
Should be "Tomb of Jesus" .
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:24 pm to Masterag
quote:
Gotta hand it to him. Y'all won't believe a scientist standing right in front of you, but you'll believe a book from thousands of years ago, that he didn't even write, with no proof of authenticity and no contemporaneous historical confirmations, whatsoever.
And you'll just as easily believe some string of theories and studies by people you don't know and won't ever know, with no proof, the likes of which are disproven all the time.
Same fricking thing only you're too arrogant and blind to see it.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:36 pm to Havoc
quote:
Same fricking thing only you're too arrogant and blind to see it.
It’s really not.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:36 pm to Masterag
quote:Well, that didn't take long for some a-hole to turn this thread to shite. Congrats masterfag.
Y'all won't believe a scientist standing right in front of you, but you'll believe a book from thousands of years ago, that he didn't even write, with no proof of authenticity and no contemporaneous historical confirmations, whatsoever.
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:40 pm to Masterag
quote:
Y'all won't believe a scientist standing right in front of you, but you'll believe a book from thousands of years ago, that he didn't even write, with no proof of authenticity and no contemporaneous historical confirmations, whatsoever.
This thread is about scientists dating a historical site, you dolt.
Popular
Back to top
