[VictoryGal]

Color me very skeptical, but even if true this discovery says nothing different about Jesus' divinity or his mission on earth.

[VictoryGal]

By skeptical I mean skeptical of the claim that this tomb is actually Jesus'.

[Blogger]

Yes it does. If he has bones in an ossuary then he died on the cross and did not rise from the dead. As Paul said if there is no resurrection then we are without hope.

[Polybius]

Color me very skeptical, but even if true this discovery says nothing different about Jesus' divinity or his mission on earth.

And it says absolutely nothing about which "Jesus".

Jesus (a variant of "Joshua") was a very common name form in that era as evidenced by the index of "The Work of Josephus" which lists:

1. "Jesus, son of Phabet, deprived of the priesthood"

2. "Jesus, son of Ananus, his ominus clamor and death"

3. "Jesus, or Jason"

4. "Jesus, son of Sapphias, governor of Tiberias"

5. "Jesus, brother of Onius, deprived of the high priesthood"

6. "Jesus, the eldest priest after Ananus"

7. "Jesus, or Joshua, the son of Nun"

8. "Jesus, son of Saphat, ringleader of robbers"

After Jesus Christ, the name "Jesus" would have been expected to become even more popular.

Just ask any American Anglo how many of his friends or relatives are named "Josh" and just ask any Mexican how many of their friends or relatives are named "Jesus" or "Joseph" or "Mary" or all three put together.