i saw it on cnn that an archeologist found the tomb of Jesus, was that really his remains?

Answer 1

No bones were in any of the ossuaries. There is no sample of Jesus' DNA to prove any of the claims that are being made. This is even being labled a farce by Jewish and atheist archeologists. What does that tell you?

Answer 2

Cameron is pandering to the public and his "discovery" 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.

Kind of disappointing to see that all it takes is a press conference and a slick TV show for some 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 3

If it had been; someone still managed to do a partial cover-up by removing evidence. Science and archeology should have been able to show any "Relative" DNA between these people.This could have possibly been about money such as revenue from the "faithful" tourism. It would than appear someone was paid off at some point.This still seems to be just another conspiracy story and closer to tabloid journalism than a forensic pathology type of docudrama.With a warehouse full of these boxes it wouldn't be very hard to assemble this family or even mark these boxes more recently. Where is the proof that these boxes weren't just recently written on and only on a select few? Even if they had been the child wouldn't necessarily belong to Jesus. It still could have been the son of James as well and after Jesus had died. The day to day details of these people would have been lost long ago unless Mariamne had written about it and that this diary or journal is still hidden to this day from public view. I am even more struck at the biblical timing to release this after the prophesied Red Moon and then the False Messiah as if this in some way fulfills it.

Answer 4

Though we can say that it could be the tomb of Jesus but how sure are these archeologists that it was really Jesus' remains in the tomb?

Answer 5

It is still open to debate. Religious scholars say absolutely not. Scientists are uncertain.

A small family tomb was discovered in 1980 with small limestone ossuaries (bone boxes). Some of the ossuaries were engraved: Jesus son of Joseph, Mary, Mary Magdalene, and the names of Jesus' brothers. Also Judah son of Jesus.

The Discovery Channel is running a program now about the discovery and subsequent archeology being performed.

Answer 6

No, Jesus ascened to heaven in says in it the bible in Mark 16:19-20 to. We the stone was rolled away of of the tomb by God, Jesus was not in the tomb. He walked the earth before ascended back to heaven.

Answer 7

No, this does not make any sense at all. This is just a ploy for attention from James Cameron. First of all, if someone actually believed in Jesus, they would not be talking about remains, and bones, because the belief is that he left earth. Also, there was some talk about his son that he had, that also goes against biblical beliefs. So I think its a load of crap, how can you find someone who obviously don't believe exists?

Answer 8

Nope, But the archeologist probably will get paid as if it is. Jesus is not on this earth. HE ascended into heaven in the presence of witnesses. Why keep looking?
Eds

Answer 9

lol, No not at all, infact, both archeologist and scientist alike agree that nmber one, a dna sample means nothing with no base dna in which to camper it to, number two, Jesus and amry and James ect, were names of thousands of people living in palestine in biblical times, abd lasty, the historica and extra biblical accoutns agree, and the shaky evidence presented in this documentary do not match accurately, historicall or biblically.

Answer 10

The evidence is compelling and warrants more research.
Answer: A Strong Maybe.