What do you think of James Cameron's documentary on Jesus?

Question

What are your opinions on the so called discovered tombs?

Answer 1

His theory is rubbish.
Even more problems with the ‘Jesus tomb’ are appearing.Critics (Christian and non-Christian) are disputing the film.

1.One of the ossuaries is in Hebrew, several in Aramaic, and one in Greek.Why would they be in different languages?The Jews at that time spoke Aramiac,including Jesus’ family,not Greek.This suggests a multi-generational tomb.
2.In addition,the names were extremely common.Jesus,Matthew,and Jospeh were in the top ten of used names in that era.The name Mary,was shared by over 21% of Jewish women.
3.Mary Magdalene was never called Mariamene.This name comes from a 4th century document called the ‘Gospel of Phillip’.Why trust a document written hundreds of years ,since we already have records of what the people who knew her called her? Also,the ‘Mary’ of the tomb,does not have anything about Migdal on the ossuary.It simply says Mary.
A big deal is made of DNA evidence.What happened?
4.Scientists were able to extract DNA from the remains in two of the caskets.What did this show? That the one in the ‘Mary’ caket and one in the ‘Jesus’ casket,were not maternally related.So,they’ve taken that finding,and made a big leap to come to the conclusion that ‘Mary’ and ‘Jesus’ were married.
5.Here we run into a few more problems.The tomb was found in Jerusalem.Joseph’s birthplace was Bethlehem,he lived in Nazareth,and died in Galilee.Why would he have bought a tomb in Jerusalme,a place where he had no connection? The tomb and ossuaries were also the type that only the rich would have been able to afford.
6.There is no evidence that shows Jesus as having a son,or being married.
7.They have to explain why there are three brothers of Jesus missing from the tomb: James, Judas and Simon,and then explain why a ‘Matthew’ never recorded as being part of Jesus’ family,was in the tomb.
8.The makers rely on the assumption that the earlier ‘James,son of Joseph,brother of Jesus’ ossuary,was taken from the same tomb as the ones in the film.For this to have happened,the earlier James ossuary must have been removed from the tomb after 1980.The problem? The earlier James ossuary,was photographed in the 1970’s.It could not have come from the tomb.
9..The next problem is statistical evidence.While calculating,they did a few things that dramatically altered the result.They removed the names ‘Matthew’ and ‘Judah’,yet kept in ‘Mariamne’,based on the ‘Gospel of Phillip’.

This is what the experts had to say about the find:

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,"
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.
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."
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 archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archeologists 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".


http://www.extremetheology.com/
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/

Answer 2

It's a bunch of crap. Jesus resurrected after 3 days, when the women went into the tomb His body was gone, so how can James Cameron find Jesus in a tomb when He clearly wasn't there anymore. It's been over 2000 years, so how can Mr. Cameron say he's found the tomb of Jesus?!! He's an idiot!

Answer 3

the tombs that were discovered more than 20 years ago are almost certainly not of the family of Jesus, who lived in a small community in the Galilee area, more than a 100 km to the north of Jerusalem, but of a family local to that area, which was the central city of Judea at that time (as it is today).
the similarity in names is irrelevant, since these were some of the most common names of that period, and most of these names are still very common among Jews.
to look for the grave of Jesus family one should try the grave sites of his place of origin.

Answer 4

It does not prove anything. There is no way they can prove that the bones found in the site were those of Jesus and his family. The documentary is just a gimmick to drum up interest in the forthcoming movie of Cameron.

Answer 5

The idea that Cameron can prove the remains are Jesus is asinine.

But I'm sure he'll make a lot of money. My question is: will all the people who claim Jesus never existed now say that he did exist, but he's dead? Curious.

-Aztec276

Answer 6

Good question...
It would make a good show, cos he's a good director...

But I think it should be called a fictional work, not a documentary... I personally don't believe in whatever he says he's found.

Answer 7

I think it's ironic that the Christians are skeptical of the doc's claims because of a lack of evidence.