Jesus' family tomb has been found. Statistically it HAS to be him. What are your thoughts?

Question

READ:
It is true that "Jesus" "Mary" and "Matthew" were common names in that period...BUT the Discovery Channel had a statistics expert on last night, and he concluded the following:

Considering the limestone case read "Jesus son of Joseph", and was buried with another which read "Mary" (his mother), another that said "Matthew" (Mary's kin), and "Jose" (Jesus' brother, whose name was ENTIRELY UNIQUE at that time, such as someone today being named "Machiste" or something)...and considering the use of limestone coffins was only used for a 100 year period which included Jesus' death-date...

...the chance of there being another "Jesus son of Joseph" with mother Mary and brother Jose from the same location at the same time period (less than a century) in a world with a MUCH smaller population than today...would be...impossible. Are there really people still denying this?

Also:

Realize two things:
1) There are such thing as religious scientists. There is such thing as a religious scientist doubting the plausability of a discovery because of his personal biases.

2) We all know how full-proof DNA tests are. Tests done on living "criminals" have imprisoned and killed countless innocent individuals. 2000 year old samples are surely 100% correct.

Answer 1

I am an Atheist - and a skeptic. I watched the show with a skeptical mind, believing I was going to be able to pick apart the "evidence" provided.
I must admit that I felt there was a lot of compelling evidence, including the statistical research. Sure, Jesus and Mary and Joseph were common names in those times... So, you yell "Jesus" in a crowded market place and 4% of the population responds (personally, I dont find 4% to be "common", but this is the statistic used in the documentary) - however, if you call out for Jesus - who has a father named Joseph, a mother named Mary and a brother named Jose, your odds go WAY DOWN... The clincher for me was the name Jose - found in the Bible, but it being a rare name in those times. Of all the thousands of ossuaries that are in existence, NONE bear an inscription of "jose" - so, how can that be called a common name? That, and the patina tests on the ossuaries.

Im looking forward to watching the special that was on afterwards, hosted by Ted Koppel...didnt get a chance to see it last night.. Im certain I wont have trouble picking apart THOSE viewpoints...

Answer 2

I am a Christian, I stayed up until midnight watching this. A couple of things about this that I did not care for, if this were truly a documentary wouldn't you look at the documented list of the ossuaries found, match the numbers to the correct ossuary and then review the names? Why did they run around the warehouse like treasure hunters finding names all over the place? Seemed a bit to wierd. The names and signs were compelling, but I have to take into account how many scientists and archeologists are saying still that it is not correct that there are too many 'ifs' to make the chain complete. Although they didn't talk about it last night even on the debate, earlier last week they said the name on the ossuary for Judah could have been interpreted incorrectly to be the son of Habnan. But they didn't want to talk about that because that would mean that their is a possibility this was a family with similar names. 1 in 600 is still pretty high odds. Plus even though it was discussed how powerful the Roman army was at the time, and they knew that the possibility of Jesus body being stolen was huge they put a guard(more than one soldier) in place to keep others out of the tomb. And they would have had to known there was a family tomb and gone to it to show that the body had been stolen. They talked about how his family was tortured and killed, why would a government that wanted to stop the "Jesus Movement" allow the body to stay missing or not kill the apostles that stole the body of Jesus. But even if it is his tomb, I do still believe that Jesus appeared 3 days after his death and fullfilled his promise of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. IF you are christian, and sadly many people say they are but do not live christian lives, then you know the feelings of faith and you know the powers of the Holy Spirit, when you know things that no one can explain, that is faith. It didn't just appear. I apologize on behalf of true christians who follow Christ belief to love your neighbors as yourself, because it seems many atheists, agnostics, and other religions on here may be at the place they are because of these bad christians. May God reveal Himself to you before your lives are over. God bless.

Answer 3

> Are there really people still denying this?

Answer: YES...

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.”

Israeli archaeologist Joel Rosenberg believes this new film is nonsense. So does Jewish archaeologist Amos Kloner.

Professor Stephen Pfann in Jerusalem believes the name “Jesus” should actually be interpreted “Hanun.” For such an esteemed Rabbi, the family sure did a sloppy job of inscribing His name on the casket.

As for statistics...

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.

They simply left Matthew out of the picture to make the statistical analysis look better.

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?

Explain to me why a poor family from Bethlehem would be buried in a middle class grave in Jerusalem.

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.

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.

There is no evidence that Jesus had children.

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.

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?

Jesus son of Joseph is hardly legible.

Jesus is never referred to as “The son of Joseph” in early Christian witness. That is the inscription on the casket.

If you were going to hide a casket, would you put it in Jerusalem and label it “Jesus”?

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.

There is no DNA baseline available to prove this was the burial box of Jesus.

Miriamne e Mara is not legible, they are speculating and is almost certainly interpreted wrong. “Mara” is probably a contraction of Martha and is probably a second name.

Miriamne is NOT Mary Magdalene. Mary Magdalene is not written on the casket.

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.

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?

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.

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?

How could the family have kept this a secret from the early church?

Wouldn’t the Romans been able to find this casket and end the dispute? Wouldn’t the Jews happily dug up this casket to put an end to this new Jewish cult named Christianity?

While science and CSI techniques can be helpful, we don’t have a time machine to take us back to the first century.

There are a thousand scenarios to explain this. To assign ownership to Jesus is simply not reasonable.

If this were a civil case, it would be laughed out of court.

Answer 4

Actually, it's not impossible. I'm not even religious, but I won't even take it that far and say it MUST be jesus' tomb. It was a docu-drama, which used only the evidence that supported it's already chosen conclusion. It was interesting and compelling, with evidentiary support of some kind, but what that evidence ACTUALLY proves is sketchy at best. And if they said it was impossible (I don't remember) it was an exaggeration.

They also said that since the DNA showed that the two ossuaries didn't contain brother-sister or mother-son they must be married. This totally ignored other familial relationships that might exist, and just presumes to support marriage.

Again, it is interesting "evidence" and should be further studied and critiqued, but it really only holds so much weight. Don't make more of it than what it was. Remember it was only a docu-drama, not an absolute answer.

Answer 5

Interesting that all the responses are so anti-Chrstian and insulting. You claim Christians believe blindly yet you jump at the chance to insult them without any attempt to verify the facts.

Trained scientist I'd prefer to see the exact data this gentleman used to come up with his statistical analysis before I came to a conclusion. Just because someone says it doesn't make it 100% accurate. Has anyone done a check on the statistic expert to see if he has a good reputation or is he trying to make a name for himself?

The documentary has received all kinds of negative responses from the scientific community not all of them religious. You don't think there is a possiblity the Discovery Channel found an expert willing to say what they wanted you to believe? Have you even bothered to find out if there are any facts left out of this whole thing so this "discovery" will fit the theory and agenda these people have?

Perhaps it's not the Christian who needs to examine the facts with an unbiased eye.

Answer 6

Jesus's family members does no longer have a tomb. Tombs again then were for the prosperous, no longer the undesirable. Jesus became buried in a borrowed tomb, that of Joseph of Aramithia, and He rose actual. Then He walked the earth for 40 days in which for the duration of that aspect He ate, drank and slept, before He ascended actual to heaven

Answer 7

I am spiritual, however, not overly religious. Religion is man-made. Each church believes they are the one and only REAL religion. They can't all be right. I feel Jesus did live and there are decedents out there. Why not? If however, there was some form of proof as to whether or not Jesus did live and have children, the Christian church would do everything in their power to deny and hide this and let's face it, Christ's life and death makes up so much of what is thought to be the basis on which the Christian Church has been built. They think they are losing some of their following now....just imagine if......

Answer 8

My thoughts are bamboozled but my faith is strong!! I taped that last night and should have watched it before coming here. I don't want to argue though. I want to Learn!! Can a Christian still come here to learn??? Hope so because I am not getting anything out of this yet. Everyone else knows what they're talking about but I haven't learned a thing!! Oh, okay, I'm whining again.
So you did believe that was Jesus' tomb then? I am going to hang on when I watch that tape and pray it doesn't take God away from me. My life is not worth living without a purpose or a divine plan. Peace friend!!

Answer 9

599 out 600 that would work so it more than likely is the tomb of Jesus family. Where you got this Jose from I have no clue, you perhaps are making something up to appear to know a lot about something you know very little.

In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary." Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."

My first time looking it up, and all because you said Jose. Interesting stuff though thanks.

Answer 10

This response if from Mr Religion:
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 sad 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.