Why do atheists lie about the discovery of Jesus's bones?

Question

There are SO many non-theist archaeologists who say the documentary is just trying to make money. There's like one guy who says it's the bones of Jesus and everyone else atheist and Christian who are experts on the subject say it's a mistranslation.

Answer 1

If the bones of Jesus have truly been discovered, in THAT BOX it would solve a few problems.
1) he was just a man!
2) He did not rise from the dead
3) it could be a different 'jesus'
4) Easter is now a pointless holiday!

The box where the bones were found, is made of limestone. It's not terribly large, but it attracted a very large crowd, more than 100,000, when it was first exhibited. It made the New York Times and the cover of Biblical Archaeology Review.

New Testament scholar Ben Witherington, who wrote a book about the box, was at that first exhibit. "There was a lot of excitement. There was, you know, the atmosphere was kind of palpable, really," says Witherington. "And there were various of us just sort of buzzing around this exhibit."

Actually, ossuaries are quite common. The Israel Antiquities Authority keeps hundreds in its basement. What was so special about this one? The mysterious engraving on its side -- sort of a Da Vinci Code in stone. It's written in ancient Aramaic and it reads "James. . . Son of Joseph. . . Brother of Jesus."

Could this box have contained the bones of the man the Gospels mention as Jesus' brother?

"If it can be proven, it's probably one of the most important archaeological discoveries of the century," says Steve Pfann. He and Claire Pfann are scholars of early Christianity, based in the Holy Land. They believe the ossuary is the first firm archaeological evidence that Jesus once lived here.

"That is really a great thing just to be able to confirm, from an extra-biblical source, that a man named Jesus existed," says Claire Pfann.

The idea that Jesus had a brother at all is a bone of contention. Many Catholics believe Mary was a life-long virgin, so James could not have been a blood brother. Either way, after the crucifixion, James became the first Bishop of Jerusalem. James died, it is written, in 62 AD, when he was stoned by an angry mob and fell from the walls of the Holy Temple.

Answer 2

It has nothing to do with LYING. LYING is when you know something is true and say it isn't. The atheists who say they don't think it's really the tomb of Jesus are saying that because they're skeptical. There are a few people who are debating whether or not the name on the box IS Jesus, because it's so faded it's barely readable. And what are the chances that, of all the millions of people who have died in that area over the past 2000 years, they just happen to find the tomb of THOSE particular people?

Answer 3

Well it is a better case than for the Ark and you guys believe that. So what the heck.

And I have read through the article on Discovery.com. You are misrepresenting the evidence that is there quite badly. It isn't a bad case at all. Not a sure thing, but solid. If you had the same evidence that they found say the cross, you would have the guy up for a Nobel Prize.

Answer 4

Well, your statement is partially correct. Most educated atheists are waiting to see any supporting evidence to this claim before it is considered true or false.

That is the basic premise most atheists live by. We want to see "proof" of any claims made. We want to be able to view things, read about them, and determine how we feel about what we have seen.

So, don't be on quick to jump on either bandwagon until all the information has been presented.

What you are seeing now are news agencies and the such putting out headlines in hopes of getting ratings. This is one subject that will get people on both sides of the issue to tune in. This translates to more $$ for them. Honestly, those news agencies could care less what evidence, or lack thereof, is produced. As long as the process means $$, then they will report on it.

Answer 5

Well, based on reality I assume most people knows when one dies his remains are not going any where but the ground. Of course the guy is trying to make money, but he may also have a valid point based on a more earthly way of seeing things. Why do you assume he's an atheist? He could be an agnostic or part of another religion entirely.

Answer 6

This is true, there are many others who have thoroughly studied this tomb and the boxes and none of them have mentioned anything, a kook comes around with any idea and with the right support of other kooks, gets it placed on TV and movies. It is sad that we have come to this, especially in our day and age in which we are supposedly enlightened more than ever before with truth, but apparently that truth has blinded alot of people. It is the Plato's Allegory of the Cave in person. People are so blinded by truth and light that they prefer the darkness of their closed minds.
Thanks for posing this question.
God bless always.

Answer 7

Surely Jesus doesn't have bones, did his earthly body not ascend to heaven as per Mark (16:14-19)?

Answer 8

*drink* (wondering why I agreed to drink to this overused question now)
Atheists aren't doing anything. Archaeologists found the bones in 1980, and James Cameron decided to produce the film along with the Discovery Channel.. if you haven't seen the film, why not at least watch it first and then spout off this tripe.

Answer 9

It could be Jesus since he did EXIST, but the whole athiest thing is not believing in a God. Or that Jesus is the son of God (the Jewish faith believe that, too) not bickering about whether the bones are Jesus's or not, because honestly, in the grand scheme of things, a skeleton really isn't that important.

Answer 10

I am an atheist and I have no idea what those bones represent - and I doubt many other people do either, regardless of their religious views.

So stop the hysterical generalizations. it makes YOU the liar.