that people will believe whatever they want to believe.

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/tag/headline/

Even the truncated headline on its own made me think (a) "no, there will be no 'proof' in the article (b) probably a Daily Mail effort.

As for the article:



So this may well be a Christian burial - or any Jewish sect that believed in an afterlife. It does not 'prove', or even give evidence, that the person or people buried there are Jesus or people directly associated with him. It's 200ft away from the one which has been fairly comprehensively dismissed as anything to do with Jesus - and 200ft in an ancient city is a lot. The claim that this "part of the same complex which may have been the property of Joseph of Arimathea" is laughable - even if he did own such a large section of Jerusalem, you could bury hundreds of people in that space - finding one Christian burial in it proves nothing. And that would be assuming that the bit about Joseph in the gospels was accurate, which there's no particular reason to believe, if you're rejecting the central resurrection claim.

Did the person writing this piece just make it up?

,,, and dates back close to 2500 BCE.

According to the myth he ascended into heaven. No body.

Next!

that they mentioned the ossuaries that have been proven as hoaxes? (the writing was changed to make it seem related to Jesus)

I can see this :

The tomb in question is dated prior to 70 CE, when ossuary use in Jerusalem ceased due to the Roman destruction of the city.

And that is the only connection with the 'resting place of Jesus' claim in the headline. No-one is claiming the ossuary with a fish contain Jesus', or his family's, bones.

During the Crusades there was a whole industry in Israel, selling to crusaders: "authentic" pieces of the cross; the bones of saints; the chalice; the shroud; and so forth.