Thought's on The Lost Tomb Of Jesus?

Question

Personally, I don't understand why this is so hard for people to even consider. Is it so outlandish to think that Jesus was buried in a family tomb? Personally I never thought that when Jesus went to heaven, his whole body went to heaven. I think his spirit went to heaven like everyone else's. Give me your thoughts on this, it's a pretty interesting subject. And please be nice!

~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.~ Well I never said I believed everything that the documentary said, I said it was an interesting show and kinda makes ME think. It's amazing to me that someone who has such knowledge and faith in the bible is so easy to pass judgment on someone they don't know?!?

Answer 1

I watched the show while the evidence it gave was hardlly irrefutable and without questions, the show did raise some very interesting questions and possibilities. I think you'll find most christians vehemently opposed to even considering the notion that jesus was buried in a family tomb and his bones may have been found. To even consider this a possibility the christian would have to discount the validity of the bible. For a christians to even think that jesus was just a man, was married, and had a son and a family would call into dispute the very essense of the christian religion (i.e. that the bible is the infallible word of god). I thought the show gave some very intriguing evidence (although not conclusive) to support the theory that this was indeed the tomb of jesus and his family.

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 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.

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.

Answer 3

Jesus' whole body went to heaven. In Matt 28:1-10 the bible says, the angel spoke to the women and told her jesus is not here. He is risen. God rolled the stone away, and jesus came out of the tomb. He Mark 16:19-20, the bible also says Jesus ascended to heaven to sat on the right hand of God. So there is no remains of Jesus Christ. Because just as when the rapture comes we will ascend to heaven, body and all if you are saved of course. Anyway, I hope I helped.

Answer 4

I would suggest you consider a few things.......

1. 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.

Answer 5

Filmmaker James Cameron is claiming he and some archeologists found the tomb of Jesus’s family. All the casket-like things called ossuaries are empty. I wonder what the archeologists were thinking when they found an ossuary with Jesus’s name on it. I can imagine the moment they removed the lid and looked in. If it were me, I’d wonder if I was going to see one of the following:

1. Nothing
2. Decomposed stuff
3. Jesus sitting up and saying, “What in Dad’s name took you so long?”

If you put an ordinary guy in an ossuary for 2,000 years, he’d clearly be dead. But if I were opening that ossuary I’d be wondering if maybe someone put Jesus in there after he died but before he arose. And maybe it’s hard to get out once you get in. I’d be worried that Jesus arose inside the stone box, and he’d be totally pissed that no one let him out until now.

I realize that this would not be the most rational worry in the world. But I like to base my worries on an expected value calculation. So for example, a 90% chance of getting a sliver would worry me about the same as a .000001% chance of a nuclear bomb going off in the backyard. In this ossuary example, I’d be looking at maybe a 2% chance of waking up an angry Jesus. I say that’s worth a worry.

If Jesus was in there, and sat up when I took the lid off, I’d first try to judge how angry he looked. If he had that money-changers-in-the-temple look, I’d go with a joke, like “Ha ha! Turn the other cheek!” Or maybe I’d try to explain to him that the extra suffering was extra good for humanity, and after all, that’s his job. Then I’d say, “Hey, I don’t like my job either, but you don’t see me complaining all the time.”

I know that some of you will say that if Jesus could move that big rock that was allegedly in front of his tomb in the traditional telling of his life, he’d have no trouble removing an ossuary lid. But he wasn’t supposed to be in an ossuary in the first place, so obviously if this ossuary is genuine, some of the details of the story were wrong. And if God let Jesus be crucified, it’s not a huge stretch of the imagination to think he’d let him stay in a stone box for 2,000 years. It makes sense to save your coolest miracle for when it’s needed most. And I think you’ll agree that this would be a good time for a messiah. And if you were God, you’d want James Cameron attached to this production. So it makes sense to me.

That’s why I’d be a crappy archeologist. I’d be afraid to open anything.

Answer 6

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. Second, you may want to read that again, on the thrid day he ROSE AGAIN. So yea, I'd say that all of him went with him, as far as I know we can't support ourselves or walk without bones. 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 7

Jesus, Joseph, Mary...etc were common names. To claim that this tomb is THE Jesus every christian relates to is simply silly considering there are no other identifying inscriptions and no independent record his life continuing or of such a grave existing. It's about as believable as the Da Vinci Code.

Answer 8

Jesus had a real body after He rose from the dead, He ate with the disciples and invited Thomas to touch the scars in His hands and side. For those of us who know Him as our personal Lord and Savior we consider him Alive and not in a tomb somewhere. And there were lots of people named Jesus at that time in history. Just read Josephus....a Jewish historian of the time, he talks about Jesus and his 12 bandits referring to someone other than the Jesus of Nazareth that died and rose again.

Answer 9

Great show. A bit skewed to fit the desires of the director but good for him. Trying to make people think for themselves, instead of living like sheep is always a good thing.

As far as the spirit went to heaven, no the old writings are very exact on this .The whole of him ascended and this is the foundation for all Christian religions.

Answer 10

I found the story to be interesting but inconclusive. The symbol over the grave and on other bone boxes is intriguing, and I'd like to know more about it - also interesting that it was sort of mentioned in "The Da Vinci Code", it seems that fiction almost got that part right.

It seems like there should have been other DNA tests done as well, especially on Judah, as that would have shown whether he was Mary's son.

Much of the show was over dramatized, I would have preferred more facts and investigative work.