They have found Jesus's bones and tomb. Do you think that it will change Christianity?

Question

There is major proof that they HAVE found the tomb and bones of Jesus. Based on the fact that everything has only been in archeologist's hands..do you think it will change Christianity? Yes, they do have their DNA including Jesus's DNA.

How do you know the bible is true? I find it funny that none of you have even LOOKED at the evidence and yet you will sit there and refute it without even HEARING the other side! If you want to find out HOW they know that they have found the grave, go to the Discovery Channel to learn more. And no, the professional community isn't refuting the fact that they indeed have found Jesus's remains.

Answer 1

There is a lot of controversy about this whole thing. One of the problems with it is that it is not going thru with the proper scientific methods. The findings need to be peer reviewed before any major claims can be believed. That means that the people who discovered this need to write up what they found along with the evidence they have to back it up and present it. This will allow other scientists to go thru it and check their work. This lets other scientists gauge how credible the discovery is. If they have good evidence then it will gain credibility. If there is a lot of guessing involved in their research or relying on faulty research, then the credibility is lost. The big problem with this is that James Cameron is running this thing straight to a documentory and realeasing it to the news directly and now the non-informed public is left to decide whether or not this is a real find or not. We have not studied archeology and we have not studied the ancient histories and we have not studied archaic languages and texts. We do not have the knowledge to properly judge this find. Yet that is what is happening.

Possible ramifications: If there is enough evidence to back this find up, then it could cause a new group of christians to form. Those who believe in the find and those who do not. This would not be a good thing for christians. This would cause fighting between the groups. I do not say that people will abandon chrisianity. I believe that a new form would emerge that can somehow justify this find with the scripture.

There will be people from other religious groups that will jump on this too. They will use it to show that chistianity is wrong in their beliefs. This will not be good for anyone involved either. It would just be something to start fights about. Maybe even wars.

All of this depends on there being enough evidence to back up what the discoverers are claiming. It does not depend on the claim being confirmed. In fact, you could still have people forming a new christian group based on this find even if the find is later proven to be wrong or even a fraud. However, the size and legitimacy of this group would be drastically reduced in that scenario.

Answer 2

They have the DNA of the man with the name Jesus. Isn't that what you meant to say? The have a man named Jesus' DNA. Big Deal.
That was a very common name in those times. They have no proof yet, this is the same exact tomb that was found 20 years ago (80's). The are just bringing the story out again. Many problems with it though. Why would Jesus of Nazareth and his whole family from Nazareth not be buried in Nazareth? How would poor family such as Josephs afford such an elaborate tomb. How did they all get buried together when they didn't even have a tomb for Jesus at Crucifixion they had to borrow one. Now they are all together? Just seems a little strange to me.

Answer 3

They have found a Jesus's bones, not Jesus Christ's bones. By making this claim they are admitting the existence of the Jesus of the Bible but if they read a little more carefully the would find that Jesus Christ had been buried in a cave not a crept. Not even taking into account the fact Jesus rose from the dead. You can not accept some parts of the bible as true and not the whole thing. Lets assume that Jesus was just a normal guy (which he was not) He would have been buried with his family in there ancestral home which would be the Bethlehem area not Jerusalem. Also Jesus and his family were poor and did not have anywhere enough money to have a tomb like they are taking about. As far as the DNA you would have to have an ancestor to test it against and there are none.

If you want even more information, listen to the link listed in sources. It is very informative and you do not have to read.

Answer 4

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
They have found Jesus's bones and tomb. Do you think that it will change Christianity?
There is major proof that they HAVE found the tomb and bones of Jesus. Based on the fact that everything has only been in archeologist's hands..do you think it will change Christianity? Yes, they do have their DNA including Jesus's DNA.

Answer 5

They found the bones & tomb of A Jesus. Jesus was pretty much the most common name back then. And the fact that this tomb was so intricate and showed signs of wealth which the Jesus you're thinking of did not have.

And, by the way, nothing will come of analyzing this body's DNA. It's not like Jesus Christ's DNA is on file somewhere to compare it to.

Sorry but I don't think this will change anything. Except, I bet that tomb was pretty smelly.

Answer 6

No one has proved that the bones are of Jesus Christ. There are of a young male around the age of 20-25 with the name Jesus. The show hasn't even been shown on TV yet (this weekend on Discovery) so how can you say it's Jesus without having heard the evidence.

These tombs were actually found 20 years ago. New archeologists are putting a different spin on it now.

Yes, these bones will show DNA but we don't have DNA samples from Jesus Christ from when He was alive to compare to so how can one prove that the DNA is His?

Forgive them Father, for they know not what they are talking about

Answer 7

Even if this were true:
Christianity is a system of belief. Not of historical evidence or proofs. Kind of why they call it 'faith'.

If they based Christianity on proof, technology and things that were easy to see and touch.. well, it wouldn't be 'faith', it would be science.

Not only that, but nobody said Jesus ACTUALLY got up and dusted himself off and walked out of the tomb. That can also be a very spiritual resurrection and, based on your interpretation, can be the rebirth of people's belief in christianity.. just like most of the bible's symbolisms that tell a story but might not be the EXACT order of events..

Again.. FAITH is key.

Answer 8

Truthfully, you would have to be completely naive and totally ignorant of the historic facts to believe this. Even the evidence they provide is totally imaginative. The name Jesus was one of the most common names of the day. At least 2 other people are named Jesus just in the New Testament. The name Mary is even more common. On resurrection morning no less that 3 Marys went to the tomb. As for the alleged "recent scholarship" indicating that the name of Mary Magdalene was actually a different name that corresponded to one found on one of the ossuary boxes, this is pure drivel. I looked at the manuscript evidence for the name Mary Magdalene and it is sound. Even if it weren't the alleged marital relationship between Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene is completely fanciful, based on a recent novel, not on history.
Please, if you are willing to buy into this nonsense, don't let anyone try yo talk you into buying the Brooklyn Bridge.

Answer 9

Explain to me why a poor family from Bethlehem would be buried in a middle class grave in Jerusalem.
2. Mary, Jesus and Joseph were the most popular names in Israel at this time. That is why the Jewish archaeologists who first discovered these caskets in 1980 NEVER claimed these belonged to the family of Jesus. The odds are too preposterous.
3. Israeli archaeologist Joel Rosenberg believes this new film is nonsense.
4. So does Jewish archaeologist Amos Kloner.
5. There is no credible evidence that Jesus was ever married. The only possible reference to Jesus being married is in a 14th century manuscript (Acts of Phillip) that nobody deems credible.
6. There is no evidence that Jesus had children.
7. They claim they have proof that Jesus had a baby. We can’t even determine the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby. (Jay Leno)
8. As there is no credible evidence that Jesus was married with children, this discovery does not prove that Jesus was married; it proves that these caskets don’t belong to Jesus. If Jesus was not married to Mary, this whole theory collapses.
9. If Jesus had a wife and children, wouldn’t Jesus have told John to only take care of His mother when He was on the cross?
10. Jesus son of Joseph is hardly legible.
11. Professor Stephen Pfann in Jerusalem believes the name “Jesus” should actually be interpreted “Hanun.”
12. For such an esteemed Rabbi, the family sure did a sloppy job of inscribing His name on the casket.
13. Jesus is never referred to as “The son of Joseph” in early Christian witness. That is the inscription on the casket.
14. If you were going to hide a casket, would you put it in Jerusalem and label it “Jesus”?
15. Why did they only test the DNA of the Jesus and Miriamne casket and not the caskets of the others? Because if they discovered that the DNA didn’t match, their story would crumble.
16. The scientist who did the limited DNA testing said, “Don’t be deceived by the media. This type of DNA testing cannot test every relationship.”
17. There is no DNA baseline available to prove this was the burial box of Jesus.
18. Miriamne e Mara is not legible, they are speculating.
19. Miriamne e Mara is almost certainly interpreted wrong. “Mara” is probably a contraction of Martha and is probably a second name.
20. Miriamne is NOT Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene is not written on the casket.
21. Is the Yose (Joseph) married to Maria? Who knows?
22. Is Jesus married to Miriamne? Who knows?
23. The name Miriamne is not found in any credible text. Not one. The only time that we can find the name Miriamne is in reference to Herod’s wife, Miriamne.
24. Matya (they claim that is Matthew) is found on one of the caskets. If this is Matthew, why would Jesus’ disciple be buried with him?
25. There is no evidence that Jesus had a brother named Matthew.
26. Defenders claim that if Joseph and Mary had more children than what the Bible lists, “The name Matthew is consistent with the type of name that Mary and Joseph might have named one of their children.” That is not a credible argument.
27. They simply left Matthew out of the picture to make the statistical analysis look better.
28. They are doing their statistics backwards. They start with the presupposition that this is Jesus tomb and then try to determine the odds. You can’t do that.
29. If we found a gravesite today with the names John and David, John’s son (the equivalent to Jesus and Joseph) could we conclude which John this was? How many John’s have had a wife named Mary and a child name David in the last two centuries? Then if you knew that David was unmarried and from Los Angeles, but the tomb was found in New York, would you feel confident you had identified the right David?
30. Joseph’s tomb is missing. Why?
31. Jesus’ half-brother Jude is missing. Why?
32. Jesus’ half brother Simon is missing. Why?
33. Jesus sisters may be missing. Why?
34. If Jesus was buried and didn’t rise from the dead, why did Jesus’ half brother, James, die preaching that Jesus rose from the dead?
35. Ditto for Jude.
36. How could the family have kept this a secret from the early church?
37. Wouldn’t the Romans been able to find this casket and end the dispute?
38. Wouldn’t the Jews happily dug up this casket to put an end to this new Jewish cult named Christianity?
39. Trying to resolve whose caskets these are is like trying to figure who put the first dagger in Julius Caesar.
40. While science and CSI techniques can be helpful, we don’t have a time machine to take us back to the first century.
41. Eisegesis is when you form a conclusion and then go find the evidence for your theory. That is what they have done here.
42. There are a thousand scenarios to explain this. To assign ownership to Jesus is simply not reasonable.
43. We have films and eyewitnesses of the JFK assassination and we still can’t figure out who killed him.
44. If this were a civil case, it would be laughed out of court.
45. Wow! You trust this film more than the Bible? Now that’s faith. The Bible is a more reliable source of information than this circus of evidence.
Source ( Dr. Albert Mohler (www.albertmohler.com) Dr. James White (www.aomin.org ), Dennis Ingolfsland (www.reclinercommentaries.com)
Nathan Busenitz (http://faithandpractice.blogspot.com/)

Answer 10

Have you even watched the documentary? They proved nothing, nor did they claim to. Being named Jesus, Mary, Joseph, Judas, John, etc. in turn of the common era was akin to being named Josh, Julie, Bill, Bob and Jimmy is today. Very common, nondescript names. And also, they think the name they've been prosyletizing as "Jesus" is actually "Hanun" (another common name of the time). I kind of think that you are trying to start a fight rather than give information. There is no proof (look up the word) and they can't get Jesus DNA because they have no control group from which to analyze it.