Did they really found Jesus' Tomb?

Question

Before you answer this question, pls go to the website link below to see the evidence Discovery Channel presented in their website.
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html

This was also televised yesterday or few days ago, if you saw the documentary, did you really believe it?

Just by using my simple common sense, I think it's quite easy to spot Jesus' bones because he was tortured, scourged & nailed on the cross. But none of that was mentioned (or maybe I haven't seen that part yet). And I think if there were really a bone or tomb, it should have been discovered very long time ago and this one is not real. If ever there's a real one, I am pretty sure it was already kept by someone.

Answer 1

It hasn't been shown yet, the premier of the broadcast is Sunday, don't judge this issue until the show airs.

Answer 2

You really are stirring up something with Christians. There is no way that Christians could ever accept that this could even be the tomb of Jesus. Their whole premise for their religion is that Jesus ascended into heaven, his whole body. Which they fail to realize then if that is the case then heaven must be a physical location, which can be observed and studied and not a spiritual place, or else why would he have needed the body? The resurrection stories in the Bible are all very contradictory and none of the facts told are the same. In addition, I would have been impressed if God had in fact miracled the body out of the tomb, instead in the Bible the stone on the tomb is rolled back when the disciples get there. That would indicate tampering and removal of the body by a physical force, perhaps a human or group of humans, but certainly not by a God that created everything. Come on Christians look at least at that logically, why would God have needed to move to stone on the front of the tomb?
The Christians cannot go to the website and look at the evidence. Even if the bones had a flashing neon sign that said Jesus Christ's bones, they could not believe as their religion and beliefs would be all for naught. Unfortunately no matter if the bones are determined to be the bones of Jesus, beyond a shadow of a doubt, Christians will still never accept it. They cannot accept that the stories in the Bible contradict themselves, and that the people writing the stories clearly expounded on the stories, more like made them up.

Answer 3

Its a facinating find, and the video was cool, thanks for sharing it; the man kept saying "Scholars agree" to so many things, and in fact, scholars do not agree about the actual name of Mary Mag. - I just don't know, really.
I think that one of the biggest considerations here should be that on other bone boxes, and there have been thousands upon thousands excavated, the writings on the boxes are kind of like what you would expect to find on a gravestone today - they not only put the names, but also would write if the person had any particular specialty, or anything notable.
If there is not, then you will have what was found here - just basically the names, period.
So the odds that Jesus of Nazareth would have had bones buried and nothing presented on the box,(just as a prophet even) would be kazillion to one against it.

Answer 4

Its fairly arguable. From what I understand, they chanced on a tomb with the names, Jesus, Mary, and Judah son of Jesus in it. ok i chanced on some extra information on it. it form of feels there are some execs and cons: professional: The names in the tomb have been Joseph, Mary, Jesus son of Joseph, and Jonah son of Jesus. Cons: those have been very basic names on the time. professional: Its a six hundred-a million hazard that those basic names could take place to look in the comparable tomb, because of the fact the comparable family contributors. Cons: this is concept uncertain Jesus's family contributors could desire to cope with to pay for a tomb

Answer 5

Cameron is pandering to the public and his "find" will be proven to be just bad science:

- The statistical analysis is not rigorous

- The name "Jesus" was a popular name at that time, appearing in 98 other tombs and on 21 other ossuaries

- There is no historical evidence that Jesus was ever married or had a child

- The earliest followers of Jesus never called him, "Jesus, son of Joseph"

- It's unlikely Joseph, who had died earlier in Galilee, would have been buried in Jerusalem

- The Talipot tomb and ossuaries probably would have belonged to a rich family, which is not a historical match for Jesus

- Fourth-century church historian Eusebius makes quite clear the body of James, brother of Jesus, was buried alone near the temple mount.

- The two Mary ossuaries do not mention anyone from Migdal, but just Mary, a common name

- By all ancient accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty, making it unlikely that any body was moved, allowed to decay for a year, then be put into an ossuary.

- If Jesus had remained in the tomb, first-century opponents of Christianity would most certainly have found His body and put it on public display.

- Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the conclusions cannot be supported by the evidence but it's a way to make money on television. He would have nothing to do with supporting the movie's assertions. "It's nonsense," he said.

- James, the half-brother of Jesus and author of the book of James, the early leader of the church in Jerusalem, was martyred for his faith. Why does James make no mention in his letter that Jesus was not bodily resurrected? When he was about to die why didn't he just recant his beliefs and say, 'Okay, okay! My brother didn't rise from the dead. Here's where we took him. Here's where his bones are. Here's our family tomb. We made the whole thing up?' People will generally not die for a lie when they know it's a lie. Why would James die perpetuating a lie when it would have been so easy to disprove? In fact why would any of the apostles go to their deaths for something they knew to be false?

As I have expected, there has been **no scientific or historical find** that has ever been shown to disprove the authenticity of the bible's history or theology.

In contrast other archaeological or historical discoveries, whether Christ actually rose from the dead or not is an event that one cannot NOT take a passionate view on. If He did not rise bodily then, to paraphrase Paul, the our faith is in vain and we are dead in our sins.

Having a neutral opinion over the resurrection of Christ is not a fair-minded, or rational approach; it is simply intellectual and personal cowardice.

Kind of sad to see that all it takes is a press conference for folks to form life-altering opinions versus taking the time to rationally examine all the issues and dig a little deeper. It is the Macdonald's generation: fast, superficial, and never satisfying.

Answer 6

No they haven't found it. That documentary was tried back in the early nineties by the BBC and it failed too. Some years before the BBC ran their show there was a group of people trying to sell the same product.
The legitimacy of this documentary is on the same level as Von Danikan's "Chariot of the Gods" It's interesting pablum but has no merit.
They have not found the tomb of the Christ.

Answer 7

The names Jesus, Joseph, Jude, and Mary are very common translations to those names. I think they have found a family that was fascinated by the story of Jesus and named people the same. While doing my own family genealogy I found it fascinating that I found relatives living in the 1830's that had children with names of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklyn. These names were the first and middle names of my ancestors. I find that this practice is common in a lot of different cultures

Answer 8

I finally got to read some information about this. Apparently a tomb was found that would date to the time, and could conceivably be his, but I doubt it. One of these did read "Yeshua bar Yehosef" (Hebrew for "Jesus son of Joseph"), but as the article points out, both names were common at the time. Also, DNA tests done on the bones show they are not related (it is apparently supposed to be "Jesus' family").

In short, they may have found Jesus' tomb, but probably not THE Jesus.

Answer 9

Seems a little weird that the people who lived right there couldn't find it and the people who would benefit at the time from finding it couldn't find it, and the Apostles all died horrible deaths because they couldn't just reveal it...but some REALLY smart person 2,000 years later seems to have come up with something that NO one that was an eye-witness to the whole thing ( and there were more than 500 of them) could come up with in the first 100 years after his death and resurrection.

Answer 10

Nope

Answer 11

What is interesting to me that every single name had to be explained as a nickname, or maybe used to hide the fact of something, or a variation of. It is almost like someone is trying to stretch the truth to make it fit their argument. I think it is a lot of "baloney". After all, Jesus is not here, He is risen.