Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is unlikely that there would have been grave cloths because of the distinctive way in which they buried the dead. The dead were originally laid on "benches" cut into the wall, and then when newer family members needed room, and the previous "Bench"-residents had disintegrated, their remains (bones only) were gathered together into one collective repository in the ground (a bone repository). This proces is called "secondary mortuary burial". This is where we get the biblical phrase "then they were gathered unto their fathers".
This later evolved into the practice of burial boxes, after Roman influence. Ossuaries are their name at this point, and they would have only been as long as the longest bone in a human body.
See James F. Osborne's "Secondary Mortuary Practice and the Bench Tomb: Structure and Practice in Iron Age Judah" (Journal of Near Eastern Studies Vol. 70, No. 1, Apr. 2011; pp. 35-54, University of Chicago) for an excellent description, with bibliography to other resources. Let me know in a PM if you want a copy to read, if you don't have access to it.
For those interested in the Book of Job, he makes a reference to this in the oft-misinterpreted passage concerning his "vindicator". This kinsman would have been the one to make sure Job was "gathered unto his fathers" and received proper burial. It was not a reference to Jesus, as some would claim.
As you are aware it says how Lazarus was in his grave cloths and he was beginning to stink from decomposing.
I really wonder how much of the New Testament has been mistranslated if indeed the Jews didn't dress their dead in grave cloths.
And thanks for hinting in my other thread how the name Satan was ''ha-satan'' until the christian theologians changed it to Satan to fit they agenda... So when the Messiah said to Peter, get thee behind me Satan. He the Messiah was actually calling Peter ''ha satan'' which means adversary.
So Peter was only being called someone in opposition (ha satan),he wasn't being called the Devil as many Preachers thump into little childrens minds.
As you are aware it says how Lazarus was in his grave cloths and he was beginning to stink from decomposing.
I really wonder how much of the New Testament has been mistranslated if indeed the Jews didn't dress their dead in grave cloths.
And thanks for hinting in my other thread how the name Satan was ''ha-satan'' until the christian theologians changed it to Satan to fit they agenda... So when the Messiah said to Peter, get thee behind me Satan. He the Messiah was actually calling Peter ''ha satan'' which means adversary.
So Peter was only being called someone in opposition (ha satan),he wasn't being called the Devil as many Preachers thump into little childrens minds.
In the three oldest uncial Greek manuscripts Jesus says to Peter:
CATANA (where the 'c' is our 's') so it is "satan" with a lower case 's' in the Concordant Literal New Testament. Peter was being an adversary.
“Particularly notice that at the time of Nehemiah the sepulchres of David (and many other early kings of Judah) were located at the base of the stairs that went down into the Kedron Valley from the City of David. 2 They were positioned alongside a pool that was fed by the waters of a conduit from the Gihon Spring. …
"These sepulchres in Nehemiah’s time were positioned not far south of the Gihon Spring over which the Temple then stood. In the earlier period from David to Nehemiah it was common to place the tombs of distinguished persons (especially kings) outside the Temple, but not far away. They were certainly not buried far to the north near the Dome of the Rock.”
1. Rachel's tomb (Rachel was Yakkov's wife - i.e. Abraham's grandson's wife) - she died on the road to Yerushalayim and is not buried with her husband like her mother and grandmother were. See #2 below. This is a common place for jews to visit when they want to pray for mercy, which was Rachel's primary defining trait.
2. The cave of Macapeleth, which houses: Adam and Chava (Eve), Abraham and Sarah, Yitzchok and Rivka, Yaakov and Leah and possibly Esau's head. There's a Midrash that says Adam and Chava were not yet "put to rest' inside the cave when Abraham purchased it. When Abraham buried Sarah, he also laid Adam and Chava to rest.
3. Yosef's tomb (Abraham's great grandson) - which is in Shechem, which sadly is PLO-controlled now. Many Chassidic Jews (primarily Breslev Chassids) put their life in peril to visit this tomb each year.
4. I believe the tomb of Yuhoshua ben Nun (Moses' predecessor) is also known and open to the public.
Maybe if you could find evidence that people took the flying monkey story as factual just as they took the historical records you might have a leg to limp on.
As you are aware it says how Lazarus was in his grave cloths and he was beginning to stink from decomposing.
I really wonder how much of the New Testament has been mistranslated if indeed the Jews didn't dress their dead in grave cloths.
And thanks for hinting in my other thread how the name Satan was ''ha-satan'' until the christian theologians changed it to Satan to fit they agenda... So when the Messiah said to Peter, get thee behind me Satan. He the Messiah was actually calling Peter ''ha satan'' which means adversary.
So Peter was only being called someone in opposition (ha satan),he wasn't being called the Devil as many Preachers thump into little childrens minds.
I didn't actually mean to imply that they didn't use grave cloths - I just meant that it would be difficult to find evidence of them, given the practice of secondary mortuary burial - and the general fragility of them if used on the occupants of the bench tombs over thousands of years.
Sorry...
And as for the Satan - you're welcome. I'm aware of how the term was used, and how it evolved in the minds of certain later Jews and Christians.
I can't remember, though, if the definite article prefixed the term in the story of Peter and Jesus, however.... It might have reached the point of personalization at that point.
Maybe if you could find evidence that people took the flying monkey story as factual just as they took the historical records you might have a leg to limp on.
Two possibilities in this response:
1- You're clueless about these people.
2- You're in denial.
I'm going to assume the former and tell you, yes there are. Like you, they too, believe in such monstrosities presented as "historical evidence".
Now you know why your beliefs are pushed aside as myths? Even you find similar stories from other belief systems... impossible and purely mythological.
Where are the graves of Moses and Joshua and King David and King Solomon and other prominent biblical figures?
Also where is the Ark of the Covenant's resting place?
Why are these important things not visible for all to see?
A more basic question: why are these things important? Would it bother you the same way if you didn't know where George Washington was buried?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm aware of how the term was used, and how it evolved in the minds of certain later Jews and Christians. 
