the jesus bones are a lie?

Question

they are. it was a publicity stunt.
there is no proof to back that those are the bones of jesus.
none whatsoever.

First off i dont believe there was a man named jesus. therefore it has to be a lie.

Answer 1

There are the names of Jesus, his father, Mary Magdelene, and it looks like he named his son after his good buddy Judas. That's not proof, but it is evidence, and no one is lying except you.

Answer 2

abc News Technology and Science reported today (Feb.27 2006)
There are 900 tombs within a 2 mile radius of Talpiyot. 71 bear the name Jesus. 2 son of Joseph. 48% of women at that time, were named Mary. Jesus family was poor. The family of this tomb was at least middle class. If Jesus family was to come up with the money, still, the tomb would have been in Nazareth; after all, He was Jesus of Nazareth- not Jesus of Talpiyot. The original archeologist that discovered this tomb back in 1980, says that the inscription on this tomb is no different than the rest of them. He said in this abc interveiw, that Cameron has purposely lied. Check this article out! *** You dont believe in Jesus? There is extensive proof, that He existed. The debate is whether He is the Messiah, not whether He existed. You should do a little more investigating beforeyou come to your conclusions- consider this: Theyve already proven Jesus existed. Now, if He is the Messiah, (which I believe He is) then by your lack of knowledge, you are limiting your ability to make an informed decision. If you are ready to make a choice, without all available information, well, what is that called? People used to deny He everevenlived at all. Now they can't claim that, as their position. Think about it.

Answer 3

Well, historical accounts show that a man named "jesus" did exist. Even as an atheist, I can agree with that.

What most atheist do not believe in is the divinity given to this man. I don't doubt that he lived. I will go as far as saying he even walked around preaching to the masses. What I will not agree with is that he was the son of a deity, and was resurrected from the dead for "my sins".

Don't go overboard in not believing, that you also state you don't believe in historically accurate things. Even if I do not subscribe to the "divine" inspiration of the bible, don't believe there is a god, I will concede the bible does hold some historical accuracies.

"David", the king of the Jews in the OT did exist(not under that name, but I won't get into that). Now, the bible claims that he was chosen "by the hand of god". Historical records show he was elected by the people. So, while I don't agree that god chose him(as there is no god), I do agree that the man talked about existed, was elected, and ruled over those people.

Answer 4

*drink* Well, you haven't seen the film, so how do you know for sure?
These bones have been in the hands of archaeologists since 1980.
If you haven't read anything on it, or seen the film, why dismiss it so?

I agree with you that there is no historical proof that a man named Jesus as the bible portrays him existed. The name Jesus itself is not Jewish. However, Yehoshua was a common name at that time. The odds of one family having all the same names as are mentioned in the bible in one burial site is something like 600 to 1.. so, perhaps it is.. what difference does it make, really?

How about watching the film and then making a decision?

Answer 5

This is a theory. No one has said it is a fact. There is a compelling argument that the combination of the names on the ossuaries diminish the possibility of belonging to a different person. I think it is interesting that a lot of people have disputed the theory for lack of proof but still believe in the literal translation of the bible as fact without supporting evidence. Many of the people disputing the theory have not bothered to view the documentary (which has not aired yet).
Most nay-sayers are trying to use scientific arguments to disprove it, yet they believe in the biblical version on faith. There is "no proof whatsoever" to support the story of Jesus (as followed by Christians) insofar as the resurrection of Christ, but that does not stop followers from believing.
Just another example of faith versus facts.

Answer 6

I may be mistaken, but I don't think there were even bones in the osuary, it was empty when found. The report I saw never mentioned bones.

Also the Names on the osuary are very common for that time period. No proof of anything, I am neither impressed, nor concerned.

Answer 7

Hello...... read the entire article, there are no bones. Jesus is the Hebrew name Joshua, which was very common. Mary Magdalene's name is not there, there are two ossuaries that say Mary on them, and of course we all know, Mary was a very common name too. Its says Joseph's ossuary is there too, which seems very strange since he died before Jesus even began preaching, so wasn't even in Jeresulem, didn't live in Jeresulem, none of them lived there, so logically, why would their burial ossuaries be there? Is it logical that He faked His own death by crucifiction and then just stayed in Jeresulem where so many would recognize Him? Of course not, it's ridiculous.

Answer 8

The documentary relies heavily on statistics.But,they start out with false premises and assumptions.
To come up with the statistics on the film,they had to assume 5 things.These things are:
1.That the ‘Jesus’ and the ‘Jose’ in these caskets,are brothers.
2. That the ‘Mariamne’ in the tomb, is Mary Magdalene.
Guess where the makers of the film get this idea? From a book known as the ‘Gospel of Phillip’,written by a group known as the Gnostics in the 4th century AD,hundreds of years after Jesus.It is not a reliable historical document at all.
3. That Jesus was married to Mary, and they had a son named Judah.
There is absolutely no evidence for this claim,in either credible Biblical or non-Biblical sources.None at all.Why assume something you have no proof of?
4.That the Matthew found in this tomb was somehow related to Jesus’ mother but is not her son.
The New Testament does not say anything about a brother of Jesus being called ‘Matthew’,but it does mention Jesus’ other siblings.There is no evidence of this Matthew being a brother of Jesus anywhere,and the makers of the film have to somehow provide an explanation as to why he would be in the tomb.In addition,the tomb is missing the other brothers of Jesus.
5. They also assume that the ‘James,son of Jospeh,brother of Jesus’ ossuary,discovered a few years ago,originated from the same tomb as the recently discovered caskets.That is a major piece of evidence that they use to try and back up their claims.
The problem?If the ‘James,son of Joseph,brother of Jesus’ ossuary had originated from the tomb,it would have needed to be discovered after 1980,as that was when the recent tomb was opened.But was the James ossuary discovered after that? No,not at all.The James ossuary was discovered in the 1970’s.That puts a huge hole in the movie.How couild the ossuary have come from an un-opened tomb?

The film-makers were also choosy with what evidence thaty would use to come up with their statistics.They excluded the names of Matthew and Judah,yet kept in the name of Mariamne,based on the Gnostic book!
After this,the probability decreases dramatically.There is only a 1 in 15,000 chance that the tomb is that of Jesus’ family.

Now,onto the DNA evidence they have supposedly used.
They cannot look at the DNA they have taken from the Jesus casket,and conclude that it is Jesus’.They do not have a sample of Jesus’ DNA to compare it to.
The scientists were only able to extract DNA from two of the caskets.Just two.What did this DNA evidence prove? That the one in the ‘Jesus’ casket,and the one in the ‘Mary’ casket,were not maternally related.Hardly groundbreaking evidence.

There are other reasons why the tomb is not that of Jesus.


1.Joespeh,who was born in Bethlehem,lived in Nazerath,and died in Galilee,would not have bought a tomb in Jerusalem.He had no connections there. It is highly unlikely that he would have bought a tomb in Jeruslame,which is over 131 miles from Nazareth.
2. The two Mary ossuaries,which supposedly prove that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene,do not even mention Migdal anywhere!

3. The tomb and ossuaries are the type which only the rich would have been able to afford.Jesus and His family were certainly not rich.

4.The names on the tomb,while sounding convincing,were extremely common in that time.In fact,21% of Jewish women in the era were named Mary,with the names of the males on the caskets also being extremely popular.

The experts:

Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jerusalem District archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the tomb in 1980 and has published detailed findings on its contents, on Saturday night dismissed the claims. "It makes a great story for a TV film," he told The Jerusalem Post. "But it's impossible. It's nonsense." “"They just want to get money for it,"

Professor Amos Kloner,"..those were the most common names found among Jews in the first centuries BCE and CE"


Prof. Kloner said there was no way the tomb housed the Holy Family.
The senior Israeli archaeologist who thoroughly researched the tombs after their discovery, and at the time deciphered the inscriptions, cast serious doubt on it.
"It is just not possible that a family who came from Galilee, as the New Testament tells us of Joseph and Mary, would be buried over several generations in Jerusalem."

Kloner said the names found on the ossuaries were common, and the fact that such apparently resonant names had been found together was of no significance. He added that "Jesus son of Joseph" inscriptions had been found on several other ossuaries over the years."There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb," Kloner said. "They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE."

"Archeological evidence shows that chances of these being the actual
burials of the Holy Family are almost nil," said Motti Neiger, a spokesman for the
Antiquities Authority.

"Simcha has no credibility whatsoever," says Joe Zias, who was the curator for anthropology and archeology at the Rockefeller Museum in Jerusalem from 1972 to 1997 and personally numbered the Talpiot ossuaries. "He's pimping off the Bible … He got this guy Cameron, who made 'Titanic' or something like that—what does this guy know about archeology? I am an archeologist, but if I were to write a book about brain surgery, you would say, 'Who is this guy?' People want signs and wonders. Projects like these make a mockery of the archeological profession."

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight. "How possible is it?" he said. "On a scale of one through 10 - 10 being completely possible , it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."


The official report written by Prof. Kloner found nothing remarkable in the discovery. The cave, it said, was probably in use by three or four generations of Jews from the beginning of the Common Era. It was disturbed in antiquity, and vandalized.

Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus'' on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun.''

Professor Juergen Zangenberg, an expert on the New Testament at the Dutch University of Leiden, said the documentary's claim was unrealistic, and more likely "about money and headlines".

Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site,also said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.


William Dever, an expert on near eastern archeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archaeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years.
"The fact that it's been ignored tells you something," said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. "It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people."



You decide, but personally I think it's someone trying to cash in on the Da Vinci Code hype...

Answer 9

It can't possibly be Jesus' bones becuase Jesus is alive....remember he rose again on the 3rd day.

Answer 10

I agree. they tried this exact same thing before and failed. you would think they would learn. oops just realized you dont believe in Jesus. for the record i believe in Jesus.