What do you think of the claim that they have found the tomb and bones of Jesus and his family???

Question

I am sure that everyone has heard the claim that people have found the bones of Jesus and His family. I was wondering what everyone thinks of this?
Here is my opinion on that issue:
This whole issue is lunacy. It is clearly stated in the Bible that the tomb did not belong to Jesus in the first place it belonged to Jospeh of Arimathia (sorry for the spelling). Also during the days of the Bible several people were buried in the same tomb so how would these people know if these were His bones or not. I'm sorry but I find these claims water thin especially since we do not have any DNA of Jesus, Jospeh or anyone else involved.
And now on the claim that Jesus married Mary Magdaline is not true as well. Especially since Jewish marriages (during this time) were arranged and they were married in their teens. Hence this would have been years before he met her.
I am not meaning to step on anyones toes but that is just simply what i believe.
I do not want some smarty pants answer please.

Answer 1

I think all this is non sense. It is not true. Jesus is Alive

Answer 2

How does having a place to be buried show that you were buried there and stayed there? Wouldn't they have already bought an ossuary when Jesus died? And what about the medical evidence? They included the James Ossuary with this find, so I want to know if the bones were broken, they should be broken if he was stoned, as Josephus said.
Why didn't they just show the bones to everyone who said he rose from the dead? It would have been easy enough to do, and people had plenty of motivation to disprove Christianity.
Why does it have to be Jesus of Nazereth? The site is nowhere near Nazareth and if they had the money to buy the fancy ossuary, they would have been able to move the bones to their hometown.
If the apostles faked the resurrection, why would they have Jesus buried with his family? To do so would be beyond foolish.
Why are only some of the ossuaries labeled? According to the theory pushed by Cameron they labeled the bones because of the importance of Jesus. Well, why would they ignore his brothers?
Nobody said if the bones of Jesus were from a crucifixion. If they were wouldn't they have shown pictures of the bones themselves rather than leave that question unanswered?
Why weren't the archeological sites immediately recognized? If they found an ossuary with the name of Jesus son of Joseph and the body was crucified, it shouldn't have taken over twenty years for the news to come out.
And if they have such conclusive evidence, why don't they just come out and say that christianity is a lie? Without the resurrection being physical, it wouldn't have been called a resurrection.

Answer 3

Something illogical about all this. First off, why would their tomb be in Jeresulem? They didn't live there. Does it make any sense that He'd fake His death, then stay in the very city He was crucified, and having been wildly popular, no one would recognize Him? And Joseph wasn't from Jeruselem, so would have been buried in a tomb where he actually lived, in Nazareth. Joseph was dead before Jesus started His ministry, so there would be no reason at all for him to be entombed in Jeresulem. The only reason Jesus was entombed there was there was a 3-day burial law and they couldn't get his body to Nazareth within that time frame. Also, the Mary Magdelene thing is kinda far fetched considering how many Mary's there were, and the fact that the tomb said "Mariamene", but nothing about Magdelene, the town she was from, so it literally could have been any Mary of 2,000 years ago. Also, they did dna on some residue left in the ossuaries and found that that one of the Mary's was not related to the one reportedly of Jesus, which can be confused in ancient Arabic translations as Hubon or something, a totally different name altogether. They are assuming that because the one they say is Jesus is not related to one of the Mary's, that they were married. Just more silly theories without any evidence of much of anything, except that the names on the ossuaries were some of the most common names of the time.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070227/ap_en_ot/jesus_s_burial;_ylt=Ak7p1Z2EdvXODxLBh3TysKzMWM0F

Answer 4

The spurious debate about whether Jesus married Mary Magdalene has been around for centuries.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this is a hoax, as was the case with the "James" ossuary discovered several years ago. I do think, however, that given the subject's dismissal about 13 years ago, after the BBC aired a short documentary on the same subject (the chief Israeli archaeologist who discovered the tomb in 1980 refuted the claims), this "startling discovery" seems similar to a public relations attempt to stir the controversy for profits.

I may watch the documentary on the Discovery channel, but only because I enjoy watching documentaries, not because I actually believe this subject matter's import.

Answer 5

I cant determine how Jesus' physique would have been taken from a sealed tomb, guarded by skill of Roman squaddies, and added to a kinfolk tomb in downtown Jerusalem with out every person noticing, Pilate replace into attentive to the reality that Jesus claimed he would ressurect on the 0.33 day and did not prefer every person stealing the physique, so he despatched the guards, rolled a 2 ton stone that fell right into a slot over the front, and sealed it with wax with the Roman seal pressed into the wax. They had to place an end to Jesus and his message then and there. you will think of that in the event that they had to place and end to it, they might have got here across the physique and that ought to have been the tip of the completed subject. they did not and ought to not.

Answer 6

You forgot the most important reason they could NOT have found the remains of Jesus. His body was ressurected on the third day. When the ladies went to the tomb to embalm him properly, the stone was rolled away and they were told he was not there. When Peter and John went to the tomb and went in, they found the linen clothes folded neatly and he, that is his body, was NOT THERE. How could they find a body that doesn't lie there. Another thing, our pastor has visited the borrowed tomb where Jesus was laid. How on earth could they now claim to find his tomb when it has been open for the public for decades? For those who don't believe, his body was not moved to another place. He rose again and there is historical evidence. Many saints that were dead were also risen on the same day and visited people they knew to tell the wondrous news of the ressurection. Jesus was seen by several on several different occasions. He was risen according to scripture!

Answer 7

Filmmaker James Cameron is claiming he and some archeologists found the tomb of Jesus’s family. All the casket-like things called ossuaries are empty. I wonder what the archeologists were thinking when they found an ossuary with Jesus’s name on it. I can imagine the moment they removed the lid and looked in. If it were me, I’d wonder if I was going to see one of the following:

1. Nothing
2. Decomposed stuff
3. Jesus sitting up and saying, “What in Dad’s name took you so long?”

If you put an ordinary guy in an ossuary for 2,000 years, he’d clearly be dead. But if I were opening that ossuary I’d be wondering if maybe someone put Jesus in there after he died but before he arose. And maybe it’s hard to get out once you get in. I’d be worried that Jesus arose inside the stone box, and he’d be totally pissed that no one let him out until now.

I realize that this would not be the most rational worry in the world. But I like to base my worries on an expected value calculation. So for example, a 90% chance of getting a sliver would worry me about the same as a .000001% chance of a nuclear bomb going off in the backyard. In this ossuary example, I’d be looking at maybe a 2% chance of waking up an angry Jesus. I say that’s worth a worry.

If Jesus was in there, and sat up when I took the lid off, I’d first try to judge how angry he looked. If he had that money-changers-in-the-temple look, I’d go with a joke, like “Ha ha! Turn the other cheek!” Or maybe I’d try to explain to him that the extra suffering was extra good for humanity, and after all, that’s his job. Then I’d say, “Hey, I don’t like my job either, but you don’t see me complaining all the time.”

I know that some of you will say that if Jesus could move that big rock that was allegedly in front of his tomb in the traditional telling of his life, he’d have no trouble removing an ossuary lid. But he wasn’t supposed to be in an ossuary in the first place, so obviously if this ossuary is genuine, some of the details of the story were wrong. And if God let Jesus be crucified, it’s not a huge stretch of the imagination to think he’d let him stay in a stone box for 2,000 years. It makes sense to save your coolest miracle for when it’s needed most. And I think you’ll agree that this would be a good time for a messiah. And if you were God, you’d want James Cameron attached to this production. So it makes sense to me.

That’s why I’d be a crappy archeologist. I’d be afraid to open anything.

Answer 8

Someone may have found an old tomb, but they did not find the bones of
Jesus because Jesus' body did not lay in a tomb and rot---but instead
He arose in His physical body on the third day and came out of the tomb
and was seen and and spoke and ate with people until the day He just
was lifted up from the earth into Heaven and He will return to Earth,
soon I hope, to receive all that believe in Him and take them to a safe
place until the earth is cleansed by fire and all renewed and then He
will set up His Kinddom on earth.
on the Earth.

Answer 9

It's certainly interesting from an archaeological point of view. But there no way for us to know for sure whether this tomb belonged to the main man of Christianity or not.

People need to consider, also, how many guys where there in 1st century Israel named Yeshu son of Joseph. Probably 5 on each block. This was a very common name.

Answer 10

Too much out there that has refuted all the above. It's to line James Cameron's pockets with a few more dollars. This is old news by the way. No big controversy, just ratings.