Why are so many afraid of archeologists finding the real tomb of Jesus Christ?

Question

Cmon, honestly how much proof is it going to take to convince Christians that Jesus was mortal and not divine. There is no question that this is Jesus of Nazareth's tomb.

For those who don't know what I am referring to, a tomb was found in 1980 and revisited 2 years ago, and televised March 4, 2007. The tomb has overwhelming evidence of being Jesus's tomb.

Answer 1

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 2

I'm not Christian, so I have no side to take on this. Look at the facts...correctly, though. If, indeed, this was the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, news coverage everywhere would converge on this story since Christianity is widely known. It would, of course, be the biggest news since it affects many people's faith. Of course, the documentary allows us to analyze the fact that there may be probabilities. It does provide stunning statistics and evidence that may never be proven. It allows us to make our own interpretations as it does mention in the beginning and end of the program. But then you have to give the benefit of doubt. The producer is none other than James Cameron (Titanic). This may be a publicity stunt like some have mentioned to make a future movie or Cameron may have actually had something...who knows?

Now Christians around the world have differing views but stand with their beliefs. Some may be insulted and refuse the fact that such findings may be possible and others have come to the conclusion that it may be quite possible. Nonetheless, Christians believe that Jesus did rise from the dead- spiritually and physically. These findings, compelling or not, is probably not going to undermine people's faith. The priest that appeared on the discussion following the show mentioned that regardless of the finding, it doesn't change his faith. For the tomb itself- yes, it is very striking that the names and time period match and the probabilities are high that this may indeed be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, but, it is open to interpretation. But it is just names. We can't go back to Jesus' time and gather his DNA for analysis. We will, not may, never know if this is indeed Jesus' tomb or another person. Again, follow what the documentary said. It is definitely possible that it is or is not the tomb of Jesus.

One other thing, it is surprising that something that should be so huge as this was paved over for an apartment construction. The tomb presumably that of Jesus is of huge significance and Israelis decide to construct apartments? Despite the controversy, this tomb, whether it is that of Jesus or someone else with the same name, can provide even more insight to the life of what it may have been like to live around the time of Christ. It is compelling. That's not to say that we don't anything of say...the Roman Empire before the time of Christ, but it will a clearer view and more specific view. It's always open to interpretation, people.

Answer 3

Perhaps you and I watched two different TV shows, sir.

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 4

When one's faith is on shaky ground, for whatever reasons that might be, then the strength of their beliefs is easily threatened by revelations that don't fit their fragile schema. Hebrews have long had a different view of Jesus then the mindless masses so finding his tomb won't be a shock for those of the Hebrew faith but really how can it be determined that the tomb of Jesus has been found? Who has dna evidence to prove it is in fact the tomb of Jesus?

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

Just because he was flesh, does not mean that he was not divine.
I am not aware of the rule, prohibiting divine beings from living amongst men as men. Are you?
Anyway, the Bible says he rose from the dead, and the body was gone. This will cast doubt on the Bible (old news on that one for me).
The Catholic church has many hidden truths about the Bible in record, that others are not allowed to see.
The Holy Roman Counsel of Nicea, made many changes to the Bible, after the Romans put the Old and New Testament together and declared the Holy Roman Catholic Church was the Official Church of the Roman Empire.
This all took place after 300 years of Christian slaughter at the hands of the Romans.
Your spirit is in no better hands today, living in the United States.

What you should be concerned about, is a rouse about the discovery, claiming they have found the body of Jesus. This would put one of the worlds major religions in question.
This would leave people to look elsewhere for direction, it would be a fascist governments wet dream to be the guiding light, to the people. Considering the current rate of rights lost to "Rider Legislation", is complete spiritual oblivion in the plan also?

Answer 7

yeah, 30,000 to 1 odds -- I'd take those odds in Vegas any day...:)

Those who believe that jesus' body ascended into heaven are the ones most threatened by this...if he left bones behind, that can't have happened. So finding bones proves them wrong, and they don't want to be wrong.

Those who believe Mary (jesus' mother) was "ever virgin" are threatened by this because it proves jesus had brothers (which everybody already knew, it says it right in the bible for cryin' out loud). Those who claim he was celibate and never married or had kids are threatened by this, because it shows he and Mary Magdalene were married and had at least one son.

Funny thing is, the bible doesn't say anywhere that Mary was ever virgin, or that jesus was celibate, or that he wasn't married, or that he didn't have kids. So none of those beliefs are biblically based anyway :)

Many people won't let the facts get in the way of a good supersitious fairy-tale. No matter what proof is offered, they'll never accept it because it proves their own beliefs wrong. Those of us who live by reason will just accept it and move on...we don't believe the superstitions about god or a virgin-birth son anyway, so these finds don't threaten us.

Peace.

Answer 8

If a tomb was found with the bones of Jesus in it, it would mean that all we have believed about the ascension of the Christ was a myth. True Christians would not want this to happen because their religion is based so strongly on it.

Answer 9

Ah, dude, this has less credibility than the DaVinci Code. It is almost laughable how flimsy this is. If you wish the read what some real scholars are saying about this piece of trash, visit these links:

http://aomin.org/
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/problems-multiple-for-jesus-tomb-theory.html

Answer 10

Jesus died and in three days he Rose again. That is why we celebrate Easter. It has to do with his death on the cross as a sacrifice for all of our sins. The archeologists are smart and know that there is no way that they could find a man's bones who is not even dead. He has ascended into heaven. I encourage you to just take 15 minutes to stop and think about this one view a man out in CA has. http://juststopandthink.com