Jesus' Tomb????? Here are some interesting facts?

Question

1. The names on the ossuaries were very common at that time 1. "Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary says he has a first-century letter written by someone named Jesus, addressed to someone else named Jesus and witnessed by a third party named Jesus."2 This demonstrates the commonality of the name Jesus. Isn't it likely that other names would be common as well? Think about it. The name "Mary" occurs in the gospels several times in reference to different women. Also, If Christianity were on the rise in the culture, it makes sense that people would adopt Christian names as they eagerly moved away from the imposing Roman Empire's rule. This would increase the name frequency.
2. "'Jesus' and 'Joseph' were common names of the time, and another ossuary bearing the same inscription [Jesus son of Joseph] was revealed by archaeologist Eleazar Levi Sukenik in a 1931 lecture in Berlin. However, this ossuary is set apart by its presence in a tomb alongside others.......

........ bearing names associated with Jesus' family..."3 The fact is that "Jesus son of Joseph" exists elsewhere in archaeological findings.
3. 25% of the Jewish women in the first-century Judea had the same name of Mary.4 Again, this is evidence of a very common name usage.

# The ossuaries are inscribed in different languages: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.

1. Jesus, James, Judah are inscribed in Aramaic. Yose (Jose, Joseph), Maria, and Matthew are in Hebrew. "Marianmene e Mara" (Mary Magdelene) is the only one written in Greek. If the tomb is of Jesus' family, why are the inscriptions in different languages?
2. Does this suggest that different individuals, perhaps in different times, and of different backgrounds were buried in the tomb? Remember, families used the same tomb and ossuaries for generations. Therefore, we can expect to find the same tomb to have ossuaries with different inscriptions, in different languages, along with similar DNA since the same families would

........be using them. See point 5 below.

# The Inscription dates are from 1 B.C to 1 A.D.

1. "Frank Moore Cross, a professor emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "The inscriptions are from the Herodian Period (which occurred from around 1 B.C. to 1 A.D.). The use of limestone ossuaries and the varied script styles are characteristic of that time."5
2. This is important because the gospel accounts record Jesus' life up to 33 years of age. If Jesus lived long enough to get married, have a child, etc., it would be after he was 33. If Jesus died around 50 A.D. (just picking a date), then how do we account for Jesus' bones being buried in an ossuary that has an inscription dated from about 1 B.C.? Shouldn't the inscription be dated to some time after, say 33 A.D.?A. This is solid evidence against the ossuaries being of Jesus family.

# Families were buried in their home towns.

1. In this case it....

......it would have been Nazareth, not Jerusalem. Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth. If this really is the tomb of the biblical Jesus, then why is he buried somewhere other than his hometown, Nazareth? This would have gone against Jewish culture and custom.
2. Also, shouldn't the burial inscription have read "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph" if it were the Jesus of the New Testament?
3. There was a two day burial window under Jewish law. This meant that a person had to be buried within two days of death. Therefore, he might not be buried in his hometown. However, after the body decomposed and only the bones were left, it would appropriate to move them. Since ossuaries contained only bones, why is it located in Jerusalem and not Nazareth?

# The same ossuaries were used for generations to store bones

1. Point two is supported by the fact the same ossuaries were used for several generations to house bones, sometimes containing as many as....

......six sets. This would mean that the contents therein could be of family members long after the time of Christ. It could even be of non genetically related individuals, by marriage, who get added to the tomb later on – which might explain why the inscriptions are in different languages.
2. Having similar genetics in the ossuaries doesn't prove it is Jesus' tomb. It only proves there are similar genetics. There is no known way to establish that the genetics in the ossuaries are those of Jesus. At best, it can only be inferred and inferences are not fact.

# The family of Jesus was poor. Joseph was a carpenter and couldn't afford such an elaborate burial.

1. To have a tomb and various ossuaries made was an expensive undertaking. Since Joseph was a carpenter, Jesus would've learned his trade from his father. Carpenters were not rich. Therefore, how is the existence of an expensive tomb with ossuaries explained in light of this information if it is supposed to be at...

.....the family of Jesus? This does not support the idea that it was Jesus’ tomb. In fact, it speaks against it.

# What of the existing documents (gospels).

1. The gospels in the New Testament are excellently preserved historical documents that are consistent with the time, place, and culture in which they claim to describe. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then what about the gospels accounts? Are they fakes, compilations, lies, forgeries, or legitimate and accurate historical documents?
2. Are these eyewitness accounts contained in the gospels less valuable than names on ossuaries found in a tomb? Surely, an explanation needs to be established to account for the claims of the gospel accounts if in fact they were lies or fabrications.

# If the gospels are used to verify the names on the ossuaries, why are they not also used to verify that Jesus rose from the dead?

1. There seems to be an inconsistency in using the Gospels to verify the names on the ossuaries....

.....but then deny the claim of those same Gospels concerning Jesus' resurrection. Why accept the names but reject the resurrection when both are described in the same documents? Is it because the presuppositions of those who examine the evidence do not allow for the miraculous? If that is the case, then beliefs are forced upon evidence and the evidence is interpreted in light of those beliefs.
2. Please see the articles related to this topic: Since the New Testament writers were biased, can we trust their testimony?; The Christians were mistaken about Jesus' resurrection; The Disciples stole Jesus' body and faked His resurrection.

# The Acts of Phillip

1. In the book The Acts of Phillip is the term "Mariamene" which some scholars think it refers to Mary Magdelene. Therefore, the inscription in the tomb which uses that term has been linked to the biblical Mary Magdelene via this old document. However, the oldest copy of the Acts of Phillip is from the fourteenth century..

....and is a copy of a fourth century text.5 How reliable is the document known as the Acts of Phillip? "The text is generally considered to have been a late 4th or early 5th century fantasy, involving miracles and supposedly clever dialogue, which it claims caused Phillip to win many converts."6 So, is phrase in a fantasy-based document evidence that Jesus married Mary Magdelene?

# Why aren't there any accounts of Jesus having a family recorded in any reputable ancient writings?

1. This is, essentially, an argument of silence and is not the best argument. Nevertheless, there is no credible historical evidence suggesting that Jesus had a family. If Jesus were that important of a figure and if he had a family, in contradiction to the gospel accounts, then why are there no reliable records of this recorded anywhere?
2. If Jesus had a son, and a wife, and was walking around Israel, it would have been around the time that the gospels were being circulated which were....

......initially written anywhere from the 40's to the 60's, with John possibly written later. See "When were the gospels written and by whom?". You'd think that the Jews and Romans would have countered the circulating gospels by simply saying, "Hey, Jesus lives with his wife and son over in Jerusalem."
3. Also, after the gospels had been circulating and Jesus' son was alive and well (as the ossuary evidence has been interpreted to support), certainly someone (Jewish and/or Roman) would have documented that Jesus indeed had a son in contradiction to the widening distribution of the gospel records. After all, both the Jews and the Romans had reasons to not want Christianity to flourish. So, why are there no such accounts of Jesus' son in existence?

# Why didn't the critics of Christianity produce Jesus' body?

1. This is similar to point ten. Since the Jewish culture as well as the Roman authorities did not want Jesus' resurrection to be believed, since it contradicted.....

.....of their theological and social power structures, and if Jesus did get married and have children, then why is their no record of those authorities producing the person and/or body of Jesus? You'd think this would have been settled long ago if Jesus really did live and breathe after the gospels' recorded resurrection and Acts account of his ascension.

# Statistical analysis of the names

1. How do they know which names were and were not common in those days? Isn't this a relevant question to ask when making statistical analysis? Joseph, Jesus, and Mary were very common names at the time. As Christianity grew, it would make sense that people would take the names of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, etc., as a sign of respect for and identification with their Christian beliefs.
2. Statistics can be manipulated. We're not suggesting that these statistics were, but there needs to be an explanation dealing with how common the names were in the culture at that time and the criteria needs..

...to be examined.
3. Even if the statistical analysis shows the coincidence to be improbable, it still does not demonstrate that Jesus was in the ossuary. After all there are too many other questions and problems that counter that conclusion.

# Counter evidence

1. Archaeologist says it isn't Jesus' tomb. "In 1996, when the BBC aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea [of the tomb being that of Jesus] fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television....It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave...The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time...The cave, it [Kloner's report] said, was probably in use by three or four generations of Jews from the beginning of the Common Era. It was disturbed in antiquity, and vandalized. The names on the boxes were common in the first century.....

...... (25 percent of women in Jerusalem, for example, were called Miriam or a derivative)."7
2. Incorrect reading of names? "Pfann [a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem] is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name 'Hanun.'"8
3. Alternate burial site locations. "James Tabor, a Biblical scholar at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and the leading academic voice who lends enthusiastic, if qualified, support to Jacobovici's claims, wrote that he looked for, and found, a legendary tomb of Jesus near the city of Safed."

this information came from: http://www.carm.org/evidence/Jesus_tomb.htm

1.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/page/2/

2.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/page/4/

3.http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html

4.http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html under Maria

5.http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/
02-25-2007/0004533923&EDATE=

6.http://www.answers.com/topic/acts-of-phillip

7.http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/26/jesus.sburial.ap/index.html

8.http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/26/jesus.sburial.ap/index.html

9.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17328478/site/newsweek/page/4/

Answer 1

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 2

Absolute cracks me up. Yes, Jesus' name was common.... but how common are graves found with ALL of those names in them? Not very common.... How many Ossuaries have the name "Jose" on them? NONE. How many have they found with Jesus, Mary, Jose, Peter all in the same tomb? Even the theologians in the debate afterwards admitted it would not be THAT common. lol Sukenik found One ossuary????? Was there a Mary, Peter and all those others in there with it? You are looking at One ossuary and leaving out all of the others by claiming the name itself is common. Mary's name was common, so was Peters. Yet, from what I can see, they haven't found a tomb that has ALL of these in them.

Roman's imposing rule would NOT make a Jewish name more common. It makes Roman names more common. And they aren't "Christian" names... Christianity is not a culture, it didn't derive from a single culture either. It came out of Rome, which was diverse in cultures. Greek names became more common, even among the Jews. A fine example of proof is America itself... the Native Americans/Indians, rarely EVER have tribal names anymore... they are given English names (even when they aren't English).


What's truly funny about all of this is when they found James, Brother of Jesus' ossuary, most Christians were "That is DEFINITELY the James of the Bible". Now that they show it is very likely that the James Ossuary came from that very tomb, people are trying everything they can to dismiss the whole thing. Of course, neither side has any absolute answers at this point... and the maker of the documentary even stated that Several Times.

I think I'll wait and see what the actual tests provide. You know, those tests the scientists and theologians use to determine these things. See what they actually come up with. By doing what you are doing (giving as much info as possible to debunk the whole thing before any definite info is actually given) you may have just helped support it later down the line and would then have to say the info you gave before was false. As many are trying to do now with James ossuary.

Answer 3

Very interesting indeed. What I found more interesting though is a while ago they found out that a "Joseph" was contracted to build something for the Romans, I think it was in Caesarea or thereabouts, and it was recorded that his two sons "James" and "Jesus" helped him out. But there are tons of Christian names in tombs dating to the first century. In one spot they found a "Mary, Martha and Lazarus".

Answer 4

A non-canonical gospel is meaningless. you will possibly be able to as properly quote from between the inane atheist internet internet site. there is theory that the "youthful guy who ran off bare" is in certainty Mark himself. the form is barely pronounced in Mark's gospel, and maximum in all probability Mark grew to become into between the 70 different disciples who traveled with Christ. And no.. Jesus grew to become into no longer "caught with a bare guy". they got here across the guy interior an identical section. you're purely attempting to study in something that isn't there. lots extra in all probability Mark (or whoever the guy grew to become into) grew to become into awoke as Jesus and the different disciples have been leaving for the backyard, and desperate to stick to bringing in straight forward terms his mattress linen. you besides mght seem to forget approximately that circumstances have been distinctive then than now. Nudity grew to become into no longer a brilliant deal then. in straight forward terms a sprint in the previous the Olympic video games have been all carried out interior the nude and oftentimes infantrymen have been nude in conflict. Does that propose that they have got been all gay? boost up please.

Answer 5

AMEN- you should make a documentary- but the only fact that I need is the fact that Jesus is alive!!! He rose He is not in the grave- He is sitting on the right hand of God the Father- praying for us- and will return one day for His own. Loved your facts though- great points!!

Answer 6

These tombs were founds about 20 years ago. Why did they take so long to make a documentary?

Answer 7

Joseph is not the father of Jesus the Christ, God is the Father of Jesus the Christ, So much for the PHd's

Answer 8

He was laid to rest in a rich man's tomb. Was that find of the tomb belonging to a rich man? The "so called" documentary does not hint at it at all. Makes one wonder about the documentary.

Answer 9

There are two many questions left by the articles and tv movie to count.

Answer 10

*drink* And the odds of finding all of these names in one tomb is 600 to 1. So, mathematically speaking, it's rare.
Personally, I think it's an amazing archaeological find. If it is the person that the bible speaks of, it'll be the first ACTUAL evidence that such a person even existed.