What do u think about the finding of Jesus Tomb?

Answer 1

I have seen a previous documentary with Simcha Jacobovici and found his "research" to be a lot of guesswork and "what ifs" with little evidence. I doubt this one would be any different.

Answer 2

Personally, (and this is coming from a Spiritual Agnostic!) I don't feel they presented enough evidence in the documentary to make a claim that it IS the tomb of the Biblical Jesus. I would like to see people take an actual SCIENTIFIC look at it, and see what they can find out in the future, however, as it might prove to be of interest to OTHER people who might possibly be related.

On the other hand, I thought that the hour-long Ted Koppel show AFTER it was a waste of time and airspace. Ted was being an....well, fill in the blanks.....and the "scholars" they had on there were NOTHING if not biased. Couldn't they find someone who HADN'T been paid off by the Religious Reich to make a serious inquiry into the evidence? I would have liked to see a more serious debate on the subject, with more informed people who DIDN'T care or have a stake in either side.

I was most pleased by the CATHOLIC PRIEST on that show - out of all, he was the ONLY one who seemed to give it (and the people who made it) a fair consideration, and though he said that the "evidence" (if you could call it that) wouldn't make him change his mind about the divinity of Jesus, he at least wasn't downright RUDE in saying so. But Ted Koppel was a disappointment, I always thought he was unbiased....his true colors sure came out!

Answer 3

If it was the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, it would not have been in Jerusalem it would have been in Nazareth.
Jesus was not the head of the family Joseph was, so The ossuary of the other Mary proves nothing, she could have been the wife of one of the brothers of Jesus, she could have even lived with the family as if she was part of it.
There were no marks on the bones in the ossuary of Jesus when it was found in 1980, so it could not be Jesus Christ.

I could go on, there are so many holes in the story it is pathetic. Just another attempt to discredit the Bible. Must be getting close to Easter huh?

Answer 4

The red moon prophecy and the false messiah? If the Messiah is a messenger of truth than even an obvious lie can be truthful by exposing itself. And those whose faith is unwavering barely blink an eye over it also. There can be many interpretations over this but a false positive is still positively false especially to those who refuse to believe anything science might come up with to prove Jesus was just a man who died for a rebel cause.

Answer 5

One thing that bothered me about that that show is that I don't remember them doing any sort of dating test on any of the artifacts found there. It's possible I just missed it, does anyone else remember them doing it? I mean... if I were studying this tomb I think that would be the very *first* test I would do, to make sure all these artifacts were of the right age to be genuine. I'd do that long before I started doing dna tests, certainly. Something just doesn't seem right, there, and I'm not even a believer.

Answer 6

Here's what I do know: Jesus may have actually existed, as a person. Whether or not there is proof of his existance is nearly inconsequential, as what we do know for certain, based on a multitude of historical documents of the time (josephus flavius comes to mind) is that:
During his time, Jesus was not a significant political or religious figure. His 'fame' came long after his death.

Answer 7

I'm not sure what they found. Almost everything associated with the historical Jesus is a muddle. The Gospels, for what they're worth, are of uncertain authorship. His greatest proponent Saul (St. Paul to you), who is the de facto creator of the Christian tendency, never met him at all. And even Josephus' heavily edited accounts have to be take with a grain of salt - after all, he also reported on various mythical monsters as "history."

In short, there may indeed have been (at least one) Jesus. Who/what he really was seems destined to continue being a mystery - except to those whose image of him wouldn't change regardless of ANY evidence.

Answer 8

I think its awesome. If it is Jesus' tomb than so be it, it jsut means that some of the facts from the bible are not correct. That shouldnt be a surprise to anyone.

It would be inspiring to learn more about Jesus' family.

Answer 9

I doesn't matter. It will never be pr oven and if it could the evidence would be lost or the person that could give proof would suffer a convenient accident. The Roman Catholic church has enough power and money to make sure it is never proven. Besides how can they prove It was Jesus when they can't really even prove that he ever lived.

Answer 10

A shameful fraud to attempt to bring down the holiness of Easter(Resurrection Day). The empty tomb and The Shroud of Turin have already been established. I hope this guy didn't make any $$ on this.

Answer 11

1) Nothing is new here: scholars have known
about the ossuaries ever since March of 1980, so
this is old news recycled. The general public
learned when the BBC filmed a documentary on them
in 1996, and the “findings” tanked again.. James
Tabor’s book, The Jesus Dynasty, also made a big
fuss over the Talpiot tombs more recently, and
now James Cameron (The Titanic) and Simcha
Jacobovici have climbed aboard the sensationalist
bandwagon as well. Another book comes out today,
equally as worthless as the previous.

2) All the names – Yeshua (Joshua, Jesus),
Joseph, Maria, Mariamene, Matia, Judah, and Jose
-- are extremely common Jewish names for that
time and place, and thus nearly all scholars
consider that these names are merely
coincidental, as they did from the start. Some
scholars dispute that “Yeshua” is even one of the
names. One out of four Jewish women at that
time, for example, were named Maria. There are
21Yeshuas cited by Josephus, the first-century
Jewish historian, who were important enough to be
recorded by him, with many thousands of others
that never made history. The wondrous
mathematical odds hyped by Jacobovici that these
names must refer to Jesus and his family are
simply playing by numbers and lying by statistics.

3) There is no reason whatever to equate “Mary Magdalene” with “Mariamene,”
as Jacobovici claims. And so what if her DNA is
different from that of “Yeshua” ? That
particular “Mariamme” (as it is usually spelled
today) could indeed have been the wife of that
particular “Yeshua,” who was certainly not Jesus.

4) Why in the world would the “Jesus Family” have
a burial site in Jerusalem, of all places, the
very city that crucified Jesus? Galilee was
their home. In Galilee they could have had such
a family plot, not Judea. Besides all of which,
church tradition and the earliest Christian
historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, are unanimous in
reporting that Mary, the mother of Jesus, died in
Ephesus, where the apostle John, faithful to his
commission from Jesus on the cross, had accompanied her.

5) The “Jesus Family” simply could not have
afforded the large crypt uncovered at Talpiot,
which housed, or could have housed, 200 ossuaries.

6) If this were Jesus’ family burial site, what
is Matthew doing there – if indeed “Matia” is thus to be translated?

7) How come there is no tradition whatever –
Christian, Jewish, or secular -- that any part of
the Holy Family was buried at Jerusalem?

8) Please note the extreme bias of the director
and narrator, Simcha Jacobovici. The man is an
Indiana-Jones-wannabe who oversensationalizes
anything he touches. You may have caught him on
his TV special regarding The Exodus, in which the
man “explained” just about everything that still
needed proving or explaining in the Exodus
account in the Old Testament! It finally became
ludicrous, and now he’s doing it again, though in
reverse: this time attacking the Scriptural
record. – As for James Cameron, how do you
follow the success of The Titanic? Well, with an
even more “titanic” story. He should have known
better, and the television footage of the two
making their drastic statements on Monday,
February 26 was disgusting, and their subsequent
claim that they respected Jesus nauseating.

9) Even Israeli authorities, who – were they
anti-Christian – might have used this “discovery”
to discredit Christianity, did not do so. Quite
the opposite. Joe Zias, for example, for years
the director of the Rockefeller Museum in
Jerusalem, holds Jacobovici’s claims up for scorn
and his documentary as “nonsense.” Those
involved in the project “have no credibility
whatever,” he added. – Amos Kloner, the first
archaeologist to examine the site, said the
conclusions in question fail to hold up by
archaeological standards “but make for profitable
television.” -- William Dever, one of America’s
most prominent archaeologists, said, “This would
be amusing if it didn’t mislead so many people.”

10) Finally, and most importantly, there is no
external literary or historical evidence whatever
that Jesus’ family was interred together in a
common burial place anywhere, let alone
Jerusalem. The evidence, in fact, totally
controverts all this in the case of Jesus: all
four Gospels, the letters of St. Paul, and the
common testimony of the early church state that
Jesus rose from the dead, and did not leave his
bones behind in any ossuary, as the current sensationalists claim.

Bottom line: this is merely naked hype, baseless
sensationalism, and nothing less than a media fraud, “more junk on Jesus.”