Why is it so hard to believe that Jesus's tomb has been found with his remains?

Question

Are people going to totally believe a Bible just because they were told to, verses hard facts that his body/tomb has been located? The Bible has been rewritten so many times that the original texts and meanings have been lost, as is the fact that there are the Gnostic books which are missing and tell a very different story than what the current Bible explains.

Why would scolars leave this on the shelf? Because it would change the world as we know it and how people believed...as long as they have the "Bible" and the New Testament to believe in then the masses can be easily controlled...just look at how Bush uses religion...with the proof that Jesus was just a man then it would throw doubt on the whole Bible.

I WILL agree that all those names WERE common for that era...BUT not all those names in one grave. There was only ONE other "Jesus son of Joseph" that they know of...but only ONE with the mother Mary and 3 of his brothers in one tomb.

Yes, there were bones left. They were reburied as were the other bones found in the tomb. There are also remains left in the box.

Answer 1

People are very defensive about this, aren't they? I guess it will change the value they put on Jesus's words.

Answer 2

Because so many people attack the Bible out of Bias and hatred, the evidence about the tonb is fabricated, just another attack on Christianity.

as for the Bible?


This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The complaint is that since it was rewritten so many times in different languages throughout history, it must have become corrupted . The "telephone" analogy is often used as an illustration. It goes like this. One person tells another person a sentence who then tells another person, who tells yet another, and so on and so on until the last person hears a sentence that has little or nothing to do with the original one. The only problem with this analogy is that it doesn't fit the Bible at all.
The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.
So when that we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language a person needs to read it in. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language we translate the Bible into. We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

Answer 3

I will keep this real simple.

Everyone that wants to say that the tomb of Jesus was found is now admitting that there was a Biblical Jesus - Right? Stated another way - if you want to say Jesus's tomb was found then there must have been a Biblical Jesus. You can not say that Jesus's tomb was discovered and then in the next statement say that Jesus did not exist. You can not have it both ways.

So congratulation to everyone that want to argue that Jesus's tomb has been found - you are now admitting that there was a Biblical Jesus.

If you are willing to say that the Bible is correct that there was a Jesus, and a Joseph, and the Marys (which you are saying by arguing that His grave has been found) then why would you not accept that the rest is true?

How can you logically argue that the Bible is only enough true that Jesus, and Joseph, and the Marys all existed but then not accept the part that Jesus died for your sins and rose from the dead?
The answer is you can not!!!!!
Either the Bible is all true or it is all hog wash. Take your pick people.

Answer 4

First of all, it's impossible for the remains to be Jesus The Christ. He is risen. That's my faith talking.

Next, the DNA samples they have are only for the remains within the tomb. There is NO DNA from Jesus The Christ to compare it to, so it cannot and never will be proved. The DNA only showed a relationship, or lack of one, with the remains found.

Mary, Jesus, etc. were popular names during this period of time. There is some dispute about whether the names were even translated properly. Also, this "find" is 27 years old, already had a documentary made and dismissed. It's old news that seems to be a money maker now because of the success of the Da Vinci Code. It's just another childish attempt to deny God and you are falling for it.
I actually think this attempt will have a reverse affect. See, more people are now admitting that Jesus was real and not a fictional character. I pray this leads more people towards The Truth!

May God Bless you.

Answer 5

The Gnostic books were never included in the Bible. They are historyical but not part of the Bible and never have been. I believe that Jesus rose the third day as old testament scripture fortold. That means they couldn't find his bones. Let's not forget the fact that Jesus was laid in a borrowed tomb and that tomb has been open to the public for decades. No bones of Jesus there. In fact, even the Jews know his bones won't be found. And the linen that covered him did not have any imprints as they were folded neatly on the place where he once laid. Why is it so hard for you to understand that I totally believe that?

Answer 6

I'm going to answer this one from a non-religious standpoint. Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and Judah are some of the MOST common names of that time and culture. Without some additional evidence, it would be next to impossible to determine that these particular people were those referenced in the Bible. I find it hard to believe that there could ever be proof that this is really Jesus. There are plenty of other issues such as how what we believe was a fairly poor man was buried in a tomb beyond his means? Why have scholars left this on a shelf for a couple decades? Etc.

Answer 7

1) Nothing is new here: scholars have known
about the ossuaries ever since March of 1980, so
this is old news recycled. The general public
learned when the BBC filmed a documentary on them
in 1996, and the “findings” tanked again.. James
Tabor’s book, The Jesus Dynasty, also made a big
fuss over the Talpiot tombs more recently, and
now James Cameron (The Titanic) and Simcha
Jacobovici have climbed aboard the sensationalist
bandwagon as well. Another book comes out today,
equally as worthless as the previous.

2) All the names – Yeshua (Joshua, Jesus),
Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose
-- are extremely common Jewish names for that
time and place, and thus nearly all scholars
consider that these names are merely
coincidental, as they did from the start. Some
scholars dispute that “Yeshua” is even one of the
names. One out of four Jewish women at that
time, for example, were named Maria. There are
21Yeshuas cited by Josephus, the first-century
Jewish historian, who were important enough to be
recorded by him, with many thousands of others
that never made history. The wondrous
mathematical odds hyped by Jacobovici that these
names must refer to Jesus and his family are
simply playing by numbers and lying by statistics.

3) There is no reason whatever to equate “Mary Magdalene” with “Mariamene,”
as Jacobovici claims. And so what if her DNA is
different from that of “Yeshua” ? That
particular “Mariamme” (as it is usually spelled
today) could indeed have been the wife of that
particular “Yeshua,” who was certainly not Jesus.

4) Why in the world would the “Jesus Family” have
a burial site in Jerusalem, of all places, the
very city that crucified Jesus? Galilee was
their home. In Galilee they could have had such
a family plot, not Judea. Besides all of which,
church tradition and the earliest Christian
historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, are unanimous in
reporting that Mary, the mother of Jesus, died in
Ephesus, where the apostle John, faithful to his
commission from Jesus on the cross, had accompanied her.

5) The “Jesus Family” simply could not have
afforded the large crypt uncovered at Talpiot,
which housed, or could have housed, 200 ossuaries.

6) If this were Jesus’ family burial site, what
is Matthew doing there – if indeed “Matia” is thus to be translated?

7) How come there is no tradition whatever –
Christian, Jewish, or secular -- that any part of
the Holy Family was buried at Jerusalem?

8) Please note the extreme bias of the director
and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici. The man is an
Indiana-Jones-wannabe who oversensationalizes
anything he touches. You may have caught him on
his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which the
man “explained” just about everything that still
needed proving or explaining in the Exodus
account in the Old Testament! It finally became
ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again, though in
reverse: this time attacking the Scriptural
record. – As for James Cameron, how do you
follow the success of The Titanic? Well, with an
even more “titanic” story. He should have known
better, and the television footage of the two
making their drastic statements on Monday,
February 26 was disgusting, and their subsequent
claim that they respected Jesus nauseating.

9) Even Israeli authorities, who – were they
anti-Christian – might have used this “discovery”
to discredit Christianity, did not do so. Quite
the opposite. Joe Zias, for example, for years
the director of the Rockefeller Museum in
Jerusalem, holds Jacobovici’s claims up for scorn
and his documentary as “nonsense.” Those
involved in the project “have no credibility
whatever,” he added. – Amos Kloner, the first
archaeologist to examine the site, said the
conclusions in question fail to hold up by
archaeological standards “but make for profitable
television.” -- William Dever, one of America’s
most prominent archaeologists, said, “This would
be amusing if it didn’t mislead so many people.”

10) Finally, and most importantly, there is no
external literary or historical evidence whatever
that Jesus’ family was interred together in a
common burial place anywhere, let alone
Jerusalem. The evidence, in fact, totally
controverts all this in the case of Jesus: all
four Gospels, the letters of St. Paul, and the
common testimony of the early church state that
Jesus rose from the dead, and did not leave his
bones behind in any ossuary, as the current sensationalists claim.

Bottom line: this is merely naked hype, baseless
sensationalism, and nothing less than a media fraud, “more junk on Jesus.”

Answer 8

First of all, EVERYONE should be very leary of the relevence of this find. In order to prove these were Jesus' bones, a comparitive DNA test would need to be done, using the bones and a known sample of Jesus' DNA. This cannot be done because there were no bones in the ossuary, nor is there a documented sample of our Lord's DNA left on this earth.

As for the Bible's meaning being lost, it would seem your concept of God is too narrow. Those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Jews, Messianic Jews and Christians) believe He is an all-powerful God, to Whom nothing is too large or too small. Surely our God is able to preserve a book of writings we call the Bible.

I would also like to point out that, if you research this issue more, you'll find there is NO evidence that the Bible has changed. Start your journey by looking at the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Answer 9

Why don't you read the Bible for once rather than trashing it.

People won't believe that Jesus's remains have been found, because they haven't. The actual researchers involved do not support the Discovery channel "Moc"umentary you are talking about...

The are not even sure they translated the name on the tomb correctly...

Archaeologist use the Bible daily to find out where ancient cities are located, and battlefields and more.

so why don't you do some actual research before you just believe what the Liberal Media tells you to believe.

Answer 10

The Bible makes it clear that Jesus' resurrection isn't a myth or symbol. Instead, it really happened! The hardened Roman soldiers who crucified Him knew He was dead when they took Him down from the cross and laid Him in a borrowed cave-like tomb. But on the third day that tomb was empty, and later hundreds saw Him.

Why is this important? Because it tells us there is hope—hope for this life, and hope beyond the grave. Jesus said, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies" (John 11:25). This hope can become yours, as you turn in faith to the living Christ and ask Him into your life.

Answer 11

...because any 2000 years old material proof has got to be unreliable. It'd be simply too old and too much of a subject of interpretation, especially when it come to such a detailed matter (they may have discovered Troy, but that was an entire city). And yes, how exactly can you prove that the DNA in those bones was Jesus' DNA?...