Wow. Jesus son of Joseph? Interesting topic indeed.?

Question

I watched "The Tomb of Jesus" last night and found some of the material compelling, some faulty. parts like the "James" ossuary taken from the tomb and sold into the antiquities market, but not the others or at least those named didn't add up. Jesus, son of Joseph?! Odd. I'm not saying that it is "Jesus of Nazareth" nor am I saying it isn't. I simply don't know, no one does imo, but I do hope we get nearer a truth; one that perhaps ALL people can agree upon. That maybe he was just a man, though a great one. A visionary that saw all of humanity band as one, to live harmoniously and to prosper TOGETHER. I dig that notion a lot. I just don't think he's divine or the son of a supreme being. That's MY belief and you're no less for it.

On the other hand I've read some well thought out arguments from the faithful as well. The following thread has some very intriguing arguments that's got me thinking hard. Enjoy. http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3601981278/m/6701973478/p/1

Answer 1

WILL I CLING TO THE ACCOUNT IN THE BIBLE?

John 17:3,5,24; Col.1:15-17; Rev.3:12,14;
Jesus first creation created in the image of God.
Gen.1:26;
God said,"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." THEN ALL IS LOST.

Adam a created soul, born to him, all souls die, resurrected souls to salvation.
SAVED BY THE FIRST CREATION CREATED.

Adam to Noah #10 son, Abraham #20 son Matt.1:1-17; David #34. Jehoiachin #48 at Eze.1:2; down to Joseph and Jesus, Mary is from Nathan the son of David, down to birth of Jesus #62 in Roman Empire #6 for world [ How many Empire exist until the reign of Jesus brings it to and end? with no Satan 1000 years ].

Answer 2

Something illogical about this. First off, why would their tomb be in Jeresulem? They didn't live there. Does it make any sense that He'd fake His death, then stay in the very city He was crucified, and having been wildly popular, no one would recognize Him? Also, the Mary Magdelene thing is kinda far fetched considering how many Mary's there were, and the fact that the tomb said "Mariamene", but nothing about Magdelene, the town she was from, so it literally could have been any Mary of 2,000 years ago. Also, they did dna on some residue left in the ossuaries and found that that one of the Mary's was not related to the one reportedly of Jesus, which can be confused in ancient Arabic translations as Hubon or something, a totally different name altogether, so it might not have even been the name Jesus, though it was a popular name at that time. They are assuming that because the one they say is Jesus is not related to one of the Mary's, that they were married. They're ignoring the fact that it could have been some other Mary, who was possibly married to Matthew. Lucky for them, only two of the ossuaries had any dna, which I find kind of odd. Just more silly theories without any evidence of much of anything, except that the names on the ossuaries were some of the most common names of the time.

Why they'd even want to mention that the James ossuary had been in that tomb I don't know, considering that they've already discredited it as a fake.

Answer 3

I watched. It was a slightly entertaining dramatization in parts but it was not good archaeology (biblical or otherwise) because they sought from the beginning to prove it was the tomb of the biblical Jesus of Nazareth (and later Capernaum) rather than just examining the evidence scientifically - without an agenda.

Newsday is kind enough to call it a theory ... it is an extremely weak hypothesis at best ... and that's being lenient.

"If 'The Lost Tomb' had been prepared to consider all the evidence - pro and con - then maybe this might be a more compelling theory." - Newsday.com

As for the statistical info that seemed to be the backbone of their argument, from Ben Witherington (Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary):

"The statistical analysis is of course only as good as the numbers that were provided to the statistician. He couldn’t run numbers he did not have. And when you try to run numbers on a combination name such as ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ you decrease the statistical sample dramatically. In fact, in the case of ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ you decrease it to a statistically insignificant number! Furthermore, so far as we can tell, the earliest followers of Jesus never called Jesus ‘son of Joseph’. It was outsiders who mistakenly called him that! Would the family members such as James who remained in Jerusalem really put that name on Jesus’ tomb when they knew otherwise? This is highly improbable."

And if you did watch it ... did you see at any at point information abut the fact that there are several known ossuaries inscribed with the very common name of Jesus? Are that there is even another ossuary in existence that is also inscribed "Jesus, son of Joseph" which comes from a different tomb? No?

They barely touched on the fact that the practice of using ossuaries ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 72 CE (it had only started about 70 or 80 years earlier) but did you learn from them that it is important to authenticate an inscription on an ossuary to guard against fakes? Or did you see them attempt to authenticate the inscriptions? No?

Did you know that the archaeologist Joe Zias, who cataloged the alleged "missing" ossuary, explained to the film maker the following (but was ignored):

Joe Zias [e-mail]: Subject: Re: Jesus Tomb Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 6:02 AM

"Amos Kloner is right as I received and catalogued the objects, the 10th was plain and I put it out in the courtyard with all the rest of the plain ossuaries as was the standard procedure when one has little storage space available. Nothing was stolen nor missing and they were fully aware of this fact, just didn't fit in with their agenda." ShalomJoe

From: Joe [e-mail] To: Subject: Re: Jesus Tomb Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 4:31 PM

"There was no photo of the 10th ossuary as there was no reason to photograph it, plain white ossuaries, basically once you have seen one you have seen them all. time is money and it would be a waste of time to waste resources on something which was put out in the courtyard. Remember these are large, and heavy not to forget that Kloner has the measurements. They knows this from me personally. The conspiracy idea fits in well with their agenda of hyping the film as well as his/their book."
Joe


One more quote:

"The conclusion is that the name Mariamenon is unique, the diminutive of the very rare Mariamene. Neither is related to the form Maramne, except in the sense that all derive ultimately from the name Mariam. There is no reason at all to connect the woman in this ossuary with Mary Magdalene, and in fact the name usage is decisively against such a connexion." --- Prof. Richard Bauckham (M.A., Ph.D. Cambridge;F.B.A.; Professor of New Testament Studies and Bishop Wardlaw Professor, St Andrews.)

I could go on but you get the point.

Answer 4

I thought it was very interesting as well.

I have always thought of Jesus as the son of Joseph, so that fit in well.

I hope that they continue to test and learn so that people can know one way or the other if that is indeed the tomb of Jesus.

I liked the theologist who said he was schizophrenic about the whole idea. He seemed to be the only one willing to discuss it as even a vague possibility.

Answer 5

You poor poor person...the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" is a fraud...

It is clearly written up as a "Docudrama", which means it is a dramatization and "what may have happened" according to the show's producers.

The James Ossuary was proven to be a fake in the 1990's and it's not just "the faithful" who are proving it to be a fraud it is Secular archaeologists who are slamming this too, read the Wiki article.

So stop reading DaVinci Code and watching Lost Tomb of Jesus.
They were made to make money

End of Story.

read up on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus#Criticism_of_the_documentary

Answer 6

you've rather properly figured it out. The family members tree of Jesus in Luke is his bloodline through Mary. note that it says that he "became meant the son of Joseph, the son of Heli." The time period "became meant" in Jewish subculture means that they are itemizing his maternal family members tree. he's "meant" to be of the bloodline because of marriage. in case you persist with the bloodline in Luke again, you'll discover that Mary became descended from King David, yet through his son Nathan, no longer through the kingly line of Solomon. subsequently Jesus may be of the bloodline of David without being contained in the bloodline of the later kings that God rejected. a desirable thanks to get round 2 contradictory prophecies. Jesus became seen to be the son of Joseph because his father and mom had married before his beginning. lower than Jewish regulation that made Joseph his legal (regardless of the truth that if no longer organic and organic) father, and Jesus became entitled to an identical inheritance as a organic and organic son. So because Joseph could were heir to throne had the Jews nonetheless had a king, so Jesus may be the subsequent valid King of the Jews. Luke 4:22and Jon 6:40 2 both record incidents in which persons renowned that Jesus became seen to be the son of Joseph.

Answer 7

Why would the 11 of the disciples come out of hiding if JESUS didn't rise from the dead like he said would?

Why would 11 disciples carry forth this message of JESUS risen from the dead at the cost of their life?


Why would Saul/Paul of Tarsus change his ways from ccaptureing and murdering christians to evangelizing and gathering huindreds of thousands more by his conversion on the road to Damsascus?

Scientific observation by many records JESUS risen.

Not in the grave.

Answer 8

Glad to see you're in 'think' mode, since thinking is not only allowed, but perhaps a requirement for "escape", to "give more eanest heed" to what's been said, as noted in Hebrews chp 2.
http://www.godshew.org/Hebrews3.htm

Also glad to see believers are saying to non-believers I'll show you mine if you show me yours; But both should consider the over-all objective is not to "believe" (devils "believe": Jame 2), but to "know": John 8:32.

While you're in think mode, consider the bible defines itself as "allegory" in both "covenants", and as "mystery" to solve over 20 times; So then perhaps it's allegoric mystery to solve, and perhaps if it's allegoric mystery there's no tomb nor bones to find.
http://www.godshew.org/Allegory.htm

Perhaps you missed the see-king 101 class:
- "seek and ye shall find"... conversely: no seek = no find
- "seek ye first the kingdom of God AND his righteousness"
- "find grace", at the "throne of grace", and "in time", "to help"

The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.

Answer 9

Jesus worship is like getting lost in the messenger and shadowing the message:

One God.

Answer 10

Being a Muslim I already knew that Isa(PBUH*) was just a man however I didn't know he was married or had a son which is cool.