I watched The Tomb of Jesus last night

[whosinpower]

To see if the naysayers are correct or not. This is the story of the tomb that was discovered that held 10 bone boxes with the names Joseph, Maria, Jesus son of Joseph, and others.

I thought it was well done--there were areas that were a bit of a stretch, but it was interesting none the less.

Anyone else see it?

[SaveElmer]

1. Yeah I thought they did a good job...

Laid out the case well that this is possibly the tomb of Jesus...not a slam dunk...but critics did not lay out a slam dunk case either...

Definitely deserves more study!

[rodeodance]

2. missed it but seems from my readings that it deserves scholarly attention

without a lot of hype.

[mainer]

3. I really enjoyed it. But it's getting attacked hard by rightwing zealots

Check out the Discovery Channel website -- they have an open discussion board, where you can ask questions of three experts. The board is packed with outraged Christians saying, "how can you air this stuff when you know the Bible contradicts it?"

[youthere]

23. The Bible is TRUE!

Just read it! It says so! Scripture supports Scripture! :sarcasm:

And the really sad thing is...not one of them recognizes the flaw in that logic.:eyes:

[solara]

4. Was it on cable or network TV? n/t

[earthside]

5. Very Good Presentation

It may very well be impossible to ever prove conclusively that Jesus (called the Christ by Christians) even ever actually existed.

So, proving with 100 percent certainty that his bones have been found is probably not possible either.

But, common sense, logic, reason -- as presented in this program -- make it highly probable that they have indeed found the resting place of the skeletal remains of Jesus and his immediate family.

The orthodox Christians will undoubtedly try to be dismissive and smear this documentary as being some kind of hoax ... or just a "Hollywood" trick. The Christian literalists and fundamentalists ultimately want to ignore this discovery and hope that word of it fades away. But, those ossuaries exist and they have those names on them.

My hunch is that as time goes by, it will become more and more accepted among 'reality-based' folks, that if the Jesus of the New Testament existed, then he was an historical figure whose final tomb was found in 1980 in Jerusalem.

Schweitzer, Tolstoy, Jefferson, so many other theologians and thinkers who appreciated Jesus message of peace and love would be comfortable with what has developed. Let's hope the rest of Christianity can finally be as calm and reasonable as those nontraditional 'believers'.

[Leopolds Ghost]

24. Common sense, logic, reason encourage us to be skeptical of claims to fact rather than faith.

The facts do not bear anything out here. This is like arguing that a man named "Jimmy" pulled out of a New Jersey swamp is Jimmy Hoffa, and the bones of the body found near him must be those of his wife because the DNA don't match.

[aikoaiko]

6. I watched it expect a Geraldo safe opening type of event.

It was better than that, but they still have a long way to go. It would be something if it were true. I was less skeptical after seeing the film, but I still remain doubtful. It will be nice to see academics not associated with any film making make some analysis.

There were some internal contradictions. For example, it was supposed to be a super secret tomb, but its marked in an unusual way (the chevron over the dot) and the bone boxes are marked with names. If you were trying to hide the bodies of the families of Jesus then why mark it so extravagantly and put his name on the boxes. Also, they make a big deal about the son of Jesus's identity being hidden but then the film says that the "mother behold your son" utterance on the cross was literal. Not very stealthy.

The statistical analysis would have been more convincing had they compared the likely of those names found in the Jesus tomb with the likelihood of other names found in other tombs for comparison.

[Leopolds Ghost]

25. Oh come on... they didn't actually put stock in that "secret bloodline of Chirist" BS from Da Vinci?

[aikoaiko]

28. They didn't allude to davinci code, but one of the bone boxes..

..was labeled 'son of jesus".

The film went on to say that the bible doesn't mention a son of Jesus, but that might have been due to fears of assassination.

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. If there was a Jesus in the tomb, it would follow his son there also. Jesus ("Joshua") common name.

Jeshua is an alternate variant/spelling of Joshua.

Like William and Giullermo.

Obviously it became less popular among both Jews and Christians,
for different reasons (except in Puerto Rico of course).

[DemBones DemBones]

34. When Jesus was on the cross,

He said "Behold your son" to Mary and to his disciple John he said "Behold your mother," meaning that John was to take care of Mary as if she were his mother, and vice versa.

I don't know how they came up with that meaning Jesus had a son.

[mnhtnbb]

7. Saw it Sunday night. To me, it's all speculation without the bones.

The documentary suggests the bones were put back in the ground (to honor Orthodox Jewish tradition)without any record of where they were buried.
A re-enactment in the film showed them being put into black plastic trash bags and buried outside of town in unmarked graves.

Seems rather bizarre that the Israelis go to such trouble to maintain all the ossuaries, but do nothing to track the disposition of the bones. I wonder whether someone did that on purpose.

Conspiracy theory, anyone? If the Jesus bones had nail holes from crucifixion and were shown through DNA analysis to be the son of the Maria bones...well...um, might be some VERY unhappy Christians.

In 1980 when the bones were discovered, DNA analysis could not have linked the bones, but physical exam surely would have shown trauma to hand and foot bones
if the individual had been crucified.

[earthside]

15. Assuming crucifixion

You're assume that there really was a crucifixion of the fellow Jesus.

That is just a story, so far as we know. There is no proof that Jesus died on the cross ... so even if the bones were dug up and they did not have nail holes in them ... it would not mean that these were not the remains of the Jesus, son of Joseph and Mary, that we are talking about.

[Virginia Dare]

22. Crucifixion was also common in the Roman Empire...

so similarly, finding that evidence alone would not necessarily mean that it was Jesus.

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. Earthside, you don't understand ancient historiography.

By your standards of evidence, there's no evidence Alexander invaded India, or Xerxes existed, much less invaded Greece.

Detailed single-source evidence (multiple separate sources, in fact) establish the basic story of Jesus' life and his sayings every bit as accurately as that of Confucius or any number of other ancient figures.

You can't go beyond that and ask for a modern standard of proof unless you're willing to throw out everything we know about history of the world prior to Charlemagne. It is ALL second-hand, much of it single-source info, before that.

And legend, even tribal histories in places like Africa and the Americas, has proven not to be lies, but surprisingly reflective of real events in the distant past.

[ldf]

42. interesting

"Detailed single-source evidence (multiple separate sources, in fact) establish the basic story of Jesus' life and his sayings every bit as accurately as that of Confucius or any number of other ancient figures."

that's remarkable, since the first account of jesus' life was 70 years later.

i can't remember what i said yesterday.

but we have, verbatim, the entire sermon on the mount, amongst much more...

go figure...

people won't believe because they don't WANT to believe. truth has little to do with it.

that is the core of "faith".

[earthside]

43. Oh, no.

For Alexander, Xerxes, Charlemagne there is scads of contemporary evidence of their existence and accomplishments.

As for Confucius or Lao Tze, for instance, whether or not they existed or not is pretty much irrelevant to the belief systems they are reputed to have established. Their followers readily concede that they may be composites or amalgamations of several different teachers. What counts is the intrinsic wisdom in the teachings and philosophy.

For orthodox Christians, however, the actual existence of Jesus is absolutely necessary -- after all it is the physical ressurrection and ascension that proves Jesus was god, took on our sins and conqueored death.

But, there is, in fact, almost no contemporary accounts, documents, inscrpitions, etc., that Jesus existed.

So, assuming he did live, it is to be expected that when he died, his remains would eventually be placed in an ossuary and then in a family tomb.

That is why, it seems to me, that the odds are very high that what Simcha Jacobovici has presented is likely the truth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. No conspiracy

you answered your question yourself. You think the Israelis were going to PURPOSELY go down that road?

If you do, read any comprehensive history of the last 2000 years for your answer is in there.

Rightly so the Israelis probably feared the consequences of this information, can you say Progroms? Perhaps Crusade?

I knew you could...

As to them burying them back in... the irony oh man... and you can bet a dime on that damn dollar they HAVE records of where those bones were buried... by orthodox tradition they have to have been buried in a Cemetery.

[Firepit 462]

8. I liked the show about Noah and his ark that was on before it.

It had a more tangible feel to it. The aspects of the river flood, the regional flood rather than a world wide flood, the building of the ark by an influential merchant trader (Noah), etc. The Tomb of Jesus was alright, but I like the stories of the bible that have a more plausable historic possibility.

[Leopolds Ghost]

27. Disaster tales have quite a bit of basis in real events.

Noah's flood is a story old enough to show up throughout the Old World in ancient times; it is probably based on dramatic climate change disasters (the flooding of the Bosporus; the ebb and flow of the Persian Gulf which flooded out Biblical Elam, the traditional home of the Garden of Eden, where the pagan Marsh Arabs (Elamites) live today.

The city of Ur was a seaside town in ancient times.

Then there are Native American tales of the Bridge of the Gods (which fell, creating the Bonneville rapids) and the explosion of Crater Lake
7,000 years ago.

[Firepit 462]

31. Exactly what I meant,

The stories told in the bible that catch my attention, have enough of an historic record that they are more plausible than myth. An exaggerated story that can be somewhat explained thru logical thinking, and a left in the mind of the viewer to judge the physical, and social evidence against the written myth is always a good watch. Nearly all the miracles, and Heavenly acts in the bible are a good topic to study.

Other than a man named Jesus that closely fits the family heritage profile in the bible, the story loses steam pretty quickly. I thought the show about Jesus tomb was more based on it's own theory, and time line than any real evidence. But in it's defense that is all you will ever have when trying to piece together the life of a man written about thousands of years ago. I will also concede that I did not pay as much attention the the tomb show as I probably could have.

Every myth, or prophecy has a grain of truth to seed from. There are physical changes to the earth described in 1000 ways from 1000 areas. The interesting part of them is the physical evidence left behind to shore up a civilizations claims. The earth will always be more interesting to me than the life of anybody.

Cheers.

[Blue Belle]

41. Actually, Crater Lake didn't explode so much as it fell in on itself...

I learned about it yesterday in Geology. It's a classic caldera. It did happen about 7,000 years ago, however, and it probably did give out a hell of a noise when it happened.

[mmonk]

9. Did he get up and leave?

[moc]

10. I thought it was interesting. Did you see the Ted Koppel moderated

discussion afterward? I thought that was helpful to keep it all in perspective.

[Rosemary2205]

11. The Ted Koppel special afterward was quite interesting too.

They pretty much blew all the proof of the film (not the filmaker per se but the facts contained in the film) right out of the water but the panel all agreed the debate and further investigation is a very good thing.

For instance the guy shown in the film doing the DNA test was edited to say "these two had to be married to each other" seemingly agreeing that the bones were of Jesus and Mary Magdeline, but Ted Koppel read an email from the DNA tester saying he'd been edited and the full quote really completely changed the DNA testers view.

Another was concerning the "missing" coffin that the private owner says he has and it reads "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" but Koppel read a statement from the original archeologist who processed the tomb that stated the missing coffin had absolutely no markings on it whatsoever. While the filmakers said "well maybe he just couldn't see it because of the dirt" the 3 archeologists on the panel - 2 of which Koppel said are atheists - said there's no way an archeologist as good as that original guy would miss something that obvious. -- plus there is a lawsuit about that "James son of Joseph" coffin because the Israelis are convinced it's a forgery.

There were also the chemical tests done on the coffins at a NY state crime lab and the findings were edited to show an exact match, but Koppel read an email from the crime lab people who did the test that made it clear the test is not a slam dunk because there are too many other possibilities still out there that have not been tested plus the samples they tested were what they consider to be very small samples. The crime lab said there is no way to draw any conclusions from that test.

In spite of all that everyone on the panel, including the religious figures in the 2nd half of the show, agreed a discussion and investigation is important.

[shrike]

12. Hasn't Cameron's partner in this whole thing been arrested twice

for antiquities fraud?

Don't know for sure if this is true, but if they are linking the so-called "box of James" to this whole thing that fills me with doubt, since some pretty credible sources have already said this box is a forgery.

[Beelzebud]

14. When they started in about the "James Ossuray" my red lights started blinking.

That has been established, by every expert that has been allowed to examine it, to be a forgery.

[shrike]

20. People believe what they want to believe, though

The Shroud of Turin has been debunked a couple of times, many years ago, in fact, yet people still look for reasons to believe in it.

[SaveElmer]

32. Well my understanding...

Is that the portion of the inscription "Brother of Jesus" is forged...

I think they made this point in the documentary...

The age of the ossuary is not in dispute I believe, or the name James that is inscribed...

And they did make a pretty good case that that particular ossuary may have come from that tomb

[Beelzebud]

36. They did not make a good case at all that the "James Ossuray" came from the tomb....

The archeologist that excavated the tomb says the "missing" ossuray was blank with no writing on it.

[mainer]

16. Cameron's partner? umm, no.

Simcha Jacobovitz (director of the film) hasn't been arrested. You're talking about the guy connected with the James ossuary -- which was mentioned in the show, but the guy wasn't Cameron's partner.

[shrike]

21. Just googled his name (couldn't remember it, thank you)

and did find this reference which, while not mentioning any arrest record, was interesting.

The ensuing joke is a good one, too, although a golden oldie.
http://gath.wordpress.com/2007/02/27/tomb-of-jesus-in-jerusalem-and-a-joke/#more-332

[Beelzebud]

13. Well produced infotainment that presented lots of speculation but nothing factual.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Hate to disagree

but the names were quite factual, as well as the epigraphy done

What I found funny is that Koppel tried to shoot it down and he could not

And the reaction from the Catholic priset was exactly what I expected from the Church

This has OPPENED an area of investigation that for GOOD reason the Israeli Anquitquities Body has kept bottled up as long as they have... mostly Christians have gone on crusades over this shit

[Beelzebud]

37. The names are factual, in that they are on the ossuaries.

The only thing that suggests it's Jesus Christ and his family, is wishful thinking.

[SaveElmer]

33. It produced plenty that was factual...

Just not a slam dunk that what they did find pointed to it being the tomb of Jesus...

Well worth continued study though...

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. What it opened, watching the program that Koppel

led after it, was discussion... valid, discusion

No archaeologist can say 100% we found the bones of Jesus, or for that matter Caiphas... but the discussion has been opened and I am sure this will be fascinating to follow in the Scholarly litarature...

And yes, some will try to shoot this down for religious reasons, and no not all of christianity, just the brand that also believes the world was made in six days and on the seven God rested, and that we were made in his image (oh never mind chapter 2 that mentions in their image)

And that was the goal of the exercise, so goal accomplished

[Goblinmonger]

29. So did anyone in the show or the Koppel follow up

even bring up the possibility that the Jesus story is very likely just a myth or was the debate all about whether these were the bones of the guy or not.

[mainer]

30. Christ a myth? Horrors, no!

No one even mentioned the possibility. Most of the post-show discussion was an attack on Jacobovitz and his religious scholar colleague. Koppel and gang pretty much turned it into a firing squad against the director. They spent a lot of time criticizing the film for being "too entertaining" and "too powerful" and using dramatic re-enactments of the theory. (Right, they would have preferred a really, really boring film.) There was actually very little in the way of concrete scientific arguments against the theory -- mostly, the attackers said "It was wrong because I knew it was wrong. And I know that because the Bible tells me so."

[DemBones DemBones]

35. I've read that the archaeologist who discovered the tomb/cave

seventeen years ago said the filmmakers were really stretching things to claim they'd found ossuaries containing the remains of Jesus and family. He was puzzled by the leaps of imagination they had taken. He pointed out that the family was from Nazareth so that would be the logical place for them to be buried, not Jerusalem. He said that the names on the ossuaries weren't as clear as Cameron and his crew claim, and that the names were common names at the time.

As for DNA, the most that could be proved is that this was a family, which can be expected from their being buried together. Nobody thought to save any of Jesus's hair for DNA testing.

I think this is a fraud, just like the ossuary that was claimed to contain the bones of Jesus's brother James.

[judaspriestess]

38. In the end its all subjective

People are going to believe whatever they choose to believe. I'm ok if Jesus did not ascend to heaven BODY and soul. His soul ascending is good enough for me and I believe in what he taught. I just never bought into all the glamorizing of Jesus the Catholic church did when I was growing up. I think many(evangelicals and the Catholic church) have turned Jesus into some kind of fairytale and glorify the wrong things. Like the resurrection of Christ is now Easter and the Easter bunny. but like I said its all subjective.

[GreenPartyVoter]

40. Exactly, they get all hyped about the death an resurrection. Why? Because they

need them to support Original sin and creationism and all of that. Their version of the faith falls apart when Christ loses some, if not all, of His divinity.