What do you think of the finding of what's supposed to be Jesus' bones?

Question

If scientists prove that those bones really ARE Jesus' bones, what impact do you think this will have on christianity worldwide?

Answer 1

All you have that is at all significant are the names. And even there you don't really know the names were not added later or misread. Too bad the names Jesus, Mary and Joseph were so common back then. Other than that all you got are a bunch of old bones.

Answer 2

It can't be... they will never find Jesus bones because Jesus was raised from the dead. He has no remains, no bones... and if they will insist that it is Jesus bones... then they are just making it all up to make an issue and of course to get some money.

I think it will not affect me at all. I know my God and I believe in what the Bible says than what the scientist says. Before scientist can even say what they say it is already predicted in the Bible that at the end times this will happen to confuse God's people

Answer 3

It's not even worth asking about, to be honest.

The ossuaries were not found recently. They've been known about for at least ten years.

Yet they've gotten little attention until recently. That should tell us something.

All the archaeologists in the news stories about Cameron's film have utterly rejected the idea that these are Jesus' bones.

I'm not worried about what impact it will have on Christianity, because it has none. It is a total falsehood.

Don't believe everything you see in a film, even if it calls itself a "documentary."

It's easy to see that documentaries these days are not like those of the past -- they take far more liberties with the truth. Just look at Michael Moore.

Answer 4

I do not see how they can positively identify the bones to be that of Jesus, so the Christians will deny the validity of any findings.
Jesus' teachings still show us the way to the Creator. We are all children of the Creator.
Besides, the majority of the Christians I know are a bunch of hypocrites anyway. They may pound their chests over such blasphemy and then turn around and behave in a manner that would make the Christ weep.

Live well....

illuminostic

Answer 5

they can't. first off, there would be signs of the seal put on by the romans, second, there would have to be a big rocks, and third, you can't get DNA from the Holy Spirit. how in the world would they be able to prove they are Jesus' bones when none of the above are true? the answer is that it's impossible. and by the way, Jesus went to heaven!

Answer 6

I think James Cameron is trying to make a controversial buck - more shameful trash from secular-progressives.
The tomb where Jesus rose has been identified since the time of his death and there is a church covering it.
Want to know where Jesus is? Try the heart of a believer.

Answer 7

-. The name Jesus - was not exclusive to Jesus Christ the Messiah.
-. The Bible God's Holy Word is infallible.
-. Bible prophecy that has been fulfilled to date has been 100% accurate.
-. Therefore there is no way that any bones found could be the bones of Jesus Christ the Messiah

Answer 8

I'm not sure it will change it drastically. For every scientist that says those are Jesus's bones there will be one who says its not. There is no fool proof way of knowing for certain those are his. So those who want to believe it will, and those who don't wont.

Answer 9

They didn't.For one,they cannot prove that they are His bones.They do not have a sample of Jesus' DNA to compare it do.There are also other problems with the theory,which scholars and archaeologists are tearing apart.

No,the film is bunk.It is easily refuted,and it has been many times,by Christians and non-Christians.
It 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 Jospeh,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 suppsedly 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.''

Answer 10

honestly, many people can say "so What" so you really think that important, I dont think jesus cares about his bones even if they are his, the point is he sacrificed his body for us. i think God is more concerned whether or not we obey his commands instead of making idols out 'what we think are remnats' so again i say so what should that change anything we still need to follow what he says