Started By
Message
locked post

Tomb of Jesus dated for first time, built far earlier than originally believed

Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:32 pm
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
68391 posts
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 by Bluefin
The Banana Stand
Member since Apr 2011
13393 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:42 pm to
Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
102591 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:45 pm to
This thread won't turn into a shitshow at all.
Posted by BRIllini07
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2015
3126 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:47 pm to
So what year should it be now?
Posted by AbuTheMonkey
Chicago, IL
Member since May 2014
8416 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:50 pm to
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.
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
68500 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 10:53 pm to
Seems like the date keeps getting closer and closer to the time of Jesus.
Posted by East Coast Band
Member since Nov 2010
65923 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:08 pm to
quote:

RollTide1987


Thanks, RollTide1652
Posted by Btrtigerfan
Disgruntled employee
Member since Dec 2007
22945 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:09 pm to
Up your butt, Jobu.
This post was edited on 11/28/17 at 11:11 pm
Posted by Masterag
'Round Dallas
Member since Sep 2014
19578 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:10 pm to
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.
Posted by Nawlens Gator
louisiana
Member since Sep 2005
5915 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:14 pm to

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 by el Gaucho
He/They
Member since Dec 2010
57036 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:15 pm to
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 by rsbd
banks of the Mississippi
Member since Jan 2007
22791 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:16 pm to
[/URL][/img]
Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
34616 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:19 pm to
quote:

Up your butt, Jobu.

Posted by Spock's Eyebrow
Member since May 2012
12300 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:19 pm to
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 by sugar71
NOLA
Member since Jun 2012
9967 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:22 pm to
quote:

Tomb of Jesus


Should be "Tomb of Jesus" .
Posted by Havoc
Member since Nov 2015
34616 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:24 pm to
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 by rsbd
banks of the Mississippi
Member since Jan 2007
22791 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:27 pm to
[/URL][/img]
Posted by Esquire
Chiraq
Member since Apr 2014
13656 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:36 pm to
quote:

Same fricking thing only you're too arrogant and blind to see it.


It’s really not.
Posted by saint tiger225
San Diego
Member since Jan 2011
42107 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:36 pm to
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. 
Well, that didn't take long for some a-hole to turn this thread to shite. Congrats masterfag.
Posted by PowerTool
The dark side of the road
Member since Dec 2009
22418 posts
Posted on 11/28/17 at 11:40 pm to
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.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram