have you heard The Tomb of Jesus DID not have Any bones in it?

Question

Again i was listening to coasttocoastlive.com with Ian Punnet as he interveiwed Charles Peligreno. Charles Peligreno confirms that there was nothing in the Jesus Ostuary except wood fibers and fragments of some kind of cloth.
Do you still believe they were declaring that bones were found?

if you want a copy of the audio file i can send it to you if you ask

Answer 1

Who cares... this was not the ossuary of Jesus of Nazareth. Did you watch the documentary? There are some obvious problems with it:

First, these were extremely common names.
Dr. Amos Kloner (who led the excavation in 1980) said, “The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time.”
Dr. Craig Evans indicates that approximately 100 tombs have been discovered in Jerusalem with the name “Jesus,” 200 with the name “Joseph,” and the name “Mary” is on far more.
It has been said, “This is the ancient equivalent of finding adjacent tombs with the names Smith and Jones.”

Also, how do we know it was a family tomb in the first place? There were only six niches in this tomb, but there were 10 ossuaries in the niches. Each of the niches could have held a different family. We don’t know the niche locations of the specific ossuaries. This could easily have been a tomb shared between families. And since there are three different languages on these ossuaries (Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek), some believe this indicates they were not from the same family or not buried in a similar time period.

Another problem is, what is a poor family from Galilee doing with a upperclass tomb in Jerusalem, since it was the custom to bury the dead in their home town?
Dr. Jeff Kloha said, “...the tomb clearly belonged to a wealthy family. Its architectural style matches that of tombs of other wealthy families from the period. It seems highly unlikely that a carpenter from Nazareth, or his son, made it big in Jerusalem, especially when the available evidence shows that the first followers of Jesus were not accepted within the power circles in Jerusalem, and in fact the book of Acts portrays them as being persecuted and driven out.”
Dr. Jodi Magness (Archaeologist and professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) said, “Jesus’ family, being poor, presumably could not afford a rock-cut tomb, as even the more ‘modest’ ones were costly. And had Jesus’ family owned a rock-cut tomb, it would have been located in their hometown of Nazareth, not in Jerusalem . . . In fact, the Gospel accounts clearly indicate that Jesus’ family did not own a rock-cut tomb in Jerusalem—for if they had, there would have been no need for Joseph of Arimathea to take Jesus’ body and place it in his own family’s rock-cut tomb!”

And there are other problems along this line. Dr. L. Y. Rahmani (an Israeli archaeologist who compiled a catalogue of all of the ossuaries in the collections of the state of Israel) said, “In Jerusalem’s tombs, the deceased’s place of origin was noted when someone from outside Jerusalem was interred in a local tomb.”
And Dr. Joe Zias said the same: “The important thing to remember here is that individuals outside of Judea, buried in Judea were named according to their place of origin, whereas in Judea this was not necessary. Had the names been Jesus of Nazareth, Mary of Nazareth, Joseph of Nazareth, etc., I would have been totally convinced that this may be the family tomb, but as none of the names have place of origin, they are all Judeans.”

Another problem is, why was the “Jesus” ossuary not decorated like some of the others?
Dr. Stephen Pfann said the ossuary ascribed to Jesus was very plain compare to some of the others found in the cave. He said, “The idea that the originator of a religion like this would end up in such a plain ossuary is kind of telling as to whether this is really potentially the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth or not.”
And as Dr. Darrell Bock has said, “They had to secretly buy the tomb space from someone, prepare an ossuary over a year’s period and then choose to adorn this ossuary of Jesus with graffiti-like script to name their dead hero. Surely if they had a year to prepare honoring Jesus, whom they had highly regarded, they would have adorned his ossuary with more than a mere graffiti like description.” And he talks about how some of the other ossuaries in the tomb are quite adorned.

And yet another problem is simply the way the documentary was made. As Ted Koppel said to Simcha after the documentary aired, “Visual imagery caries a certain power that even the spoken or written word does not. You put into this documentary recreations—recreations in which you show Jesus and Mary Magdalene, recreations in which you even show the son of Jesus. You don’t say we know for sure that it happened, but by depicting it that way, you lend a power to the theory that it wouldn’t otherwise have.” And later Ted Koppel called it an “artificial credibility.” You always have to be careful about a documentary like that—if it’s a little too entertaining.

It’s also important to note that this is not a recent discovery. The site was unearthed in 1980 and it, along with its contents have pretty much been ignored by archaeologists—they haven’t though it was anything special.
Now in 1996, BBC did a documentary on the ossuaries (giving this suggestion), but the documentary was not a success; it was pretty much ignored, and there was no follow-up. That’s probably what put Simcha and these guys on to this idea.
As Dr. William Dever (an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology) said, “The fact that its been ignored tells you something. It would be amusing if it didn’t mislead so many people.”
And Dr. Amos Kloner said, “Their movie is not serious. They are ‘discovering’ things. But they haven’t discovered anything. They haven’t found anything. Everything had already been published. And there is no basis on which to make a story out of this or to identify this as the family of Jesus.”

In my research, I’ve found that the vast majority of archeologists (Jewish, Christian, and secular) have completely dismissed this documentary as “impossible,” a “publicity stunt,” “nonsense,” and so on.
Dr. Jodi Magness said the same: “[They] have set it up as if it’s a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly rejected this.”
Dr. William Dever said, “I’m not a Christian. I’m not a believer. I don’t have a dog in this fight, I just think it’s a shame the way this story is being hyped and manipulated.”
And then you get the ones like Dr. Jonathan Reed that said, “It’s what I would call ‘archaeo-porn.’” And Dr. Joe Zias who said, “He’s pimping off the Bible.”

Their biggest “evidence” is in their statistics. They say yes, these names were very common, but it’s about looking at all the names together. The documentary presents a statistical study indicating that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot tomb being the Jesus family tomb because of the connections between the names found.
One of the problems is, we don’t know all the relationships in this tomb. As Dr. Andrew Feuerverger (the statistician they employed in the documentary) later said, “I did permit the number one in 600 to be used in the film—I’m prepared to stand behind that, but on the understanding that these numbers were calculated based on assumptions that I was asked to use.” He also said, “I must work from the interpretations given to me, and the strength of the calculations are based on those assumptions.” You see, statistics are only as good as the assumptions behind them. These statistics are based on assumptions and conjecture, not facts.

The amount of “ifs” in this documentary are astounding. If you do some research, you will find that their statistical analysis is filled with an amazing amount of faulty assumptions and bad scholarship.

Answer 2

First of all the Bible tells us that Jesus was buried in a borrowed tomb.Second he rose on the third day he was not there! His body was taken up into Heaven! So his bones could not be in that tomb.Jesus was a popular name back then so the people would use the name of the town that the person came from to tell which Jesus they were talking about. Henceforth Jesus of Nazareth! Mary was also a very popular name. I would not watch that program but I did hear News reports that stated the the Tomb was not marked Jesus of Nazareth. Well ashes to ashes Dust to dust, so I would think that yes he was declaring that the bones had decayed. No thanks on the audio copy.

Answer 3

Ossuaries are for storing bones after the body has decomposed. I believe that bones were originally in this ossuary, but in Jewish digs there is a mandate to get the remains buried quickly for religious reasons. Similar issues with Native American finds.

This does not mean that this was Yeshua's tomb, and most of the scholars (even liberals) are highly skeptical of that claim. Many reasons for this, such as the fact that Jesus, Joseph, and Mary were extremely common names of the time. In fact, they've found about 4 ossuaries so far inscribed with the name "Jesus, son of Joseph." And about 1/4 or more of the women of that time were named Mary, or some variant. Additionally, Jesus' family was not wealthy, nor did they live in Jerusalem. This tomb was both in Jerusalem and it was the type that would belong to the upper class.

Answer 4

There were no bones in the tomb or ossuaries at the time the film makers examined them, but that is because the bones were removed from the tomb and buried back in 1982 when the tomb was first found. There was, however, some human residue which they did DNA testing on.

The documentary explains this. I would go to the original source before trusting a radio program. Please stop spreading this misinformation.

Answer 5

Ok, Every single Jew in the world knows that bones don't stay in the Ossuaries. They are buried seperately. Secondly they did find bone fragments thats how the Did the DNA testing. Jews are the ones who started the entire religion, It was a small group of Judeo Christians who started the Jesus as messiah myth. Real Jews have always know it was bogus.

Answer 6

The original team re-buried the bones at another site. I mean I have no idea rather that is really Jesus's tomb or not. But what was on the Discovery Channel covered this.

Answer 7

There will be not be any bones found that could possibly be said to come from the tomb used by Jesus, or to be His bones.

Did you not here the Good News?

Jesus Christ has risen from the dead. Our Saviour and Redeemer lives.

Answer 8

Charles Pelligrino is himself a fraud. A former rocket scientist (I know but he worked for NASA), he wrote a book stating that Atlantis was really the island of Santorini. He is an expert on nothing.

Answer 9

If you found the tomb of Jesus, you wouldn't find any bones. Jesus didn't stay in the grave long enough to be decomposed. Sure he died for our sins, but unlike any of us he was resurrected, never to die again. If any regular person, by some miracle, was resurrected, they would most likely die again.

Answer 10

They can declare anything that they would like. Jesus rose into heaven in his body. There could not possibly be bones left on earth. He will come again soon.
Lets see whose jaw drops the lowest then......