The tomb of Jesus....

I'm not really posting during Lent, but this whole nonsense has been amply refuted (even by SECULAR archaeologists). For example, check out Benwitherington.blogspot.com as there are about three blogs debunking the particular claims of James Cameron et al (and in the comments there's some good refutation of the "statistics" employed).

So I guess most Christians have moved on because it already HAS been amply debunked. Next.

 

I don't watch it because it's garbage, not because I'm scared. Being scared would mean a person isn't sure about who Christ says He is. I am positive about Him. Satan always has some trick to try and convince an unbelieving world that Jesus isn't who the bible says He is. This isn't the first time, and it won't be the last.

 

Here is the larger part of an article by Jodi Magness, of the Religious Studies Department of the University of North Carolina.


We have no contemporary accounts of the death and burial of Jesus. Our closest sources (in time) are the canonical Gospels, specifically the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke), which are thought to have been composed about 30-50 years after Jesus’ death. Although the canonical Gospels may not be accurate in every detail, most scholars agree they contain some historical information. The claim that the Talpiot tomb is the tomb of Jesus and his family contradicts the canonical Gospel accounts and means that we must reject our earliest traditions about Jesus. Those who identify the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus support their claim by citing later, non-canonical traditions such as the Gospel of Philip. .... [snip]


How did the Jews of Jerusalem bury their dead in the time of Jesus? The Gospel accounts describe Jesus as having been laid to rest in a rock-cut tomb. Rock-cut tombs consisted of one or more burial chambers hewn into the bedrock slopes surrounding the city of Jerusalem. Burial chambers were lined by single rows of burial niches (called loculi), with each niche cut into the walls about the length of a person’s body. Each rock-cut tomb belonged to a family and was used by the members of a family over the course of several generations. When a member of the family died, his/her body was wrapped in a shroud and placed in a loculus. The opening to the loculus was sealed with a stone slab, and the entrance to the rock-cut tomb was also sealed with a stone. Eventually, over the course of generations, the loculi became filled with burials. When it became necessary to make space for new burials, the earlier remains (consisting of bones and burial gifts) were cleared out of the loculi and placed in small boxes (ossuaries). Sometimes the relatives scribbled the name(s) of the deceased on the outside of the ossuary when they placed the remains in the box.

The Gospel accounts provide an accurate description of Joseph of Arimathea burying Jesus’ body in a loculus in his family’s rock-cut tomb. Because rock-cut tombs had to be cut by hand out of bedrock, only the upper classes (wealthy Jews like Joseph) could afford them. The poorer classes of Jewish society—the majority of the population—buried their dead in simple, individual trench graves dug into the ground, similar to the way we bury our dead today. This involved digging a rectangular trench in the ground, placing the deceased (wrapped in a shroud) at the bottom, and filling the trench back in with earth. Usually a crude headstone was set up at one end of the grave. Ossuaries are associated only with rock-cut tombs; bodies interred in trench graves were not dug back up for deposition in an ossuary.

Now let us reconsider the Gospel accounts. Jesus was crucified on Friday. This is consistent with what we know about Jesus’ background, as the Romans generally reserved crucifixion for the poorer classes, who they regarded as common criminals. Why did Joseph of Arimathea request Pilate’s permission to bury Jesus? Jewish law requires burial within 24 hours of death. However, burials are prohibited on the Sabbath (sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). According to the Gospel accounts, Jesus died on the eve of the Sabbath (late Friday afternoon), just before sundown. For Jesus to be buried in accordance with Jewish law, he had to be buried before the Sabbath started; otherwise, it would have been necessary to wait until Saturday night, thereby exceeding the 24-hour time limit.

Joseph of Arimathea, a wealthy follower of Jesus, was concerned to ensure that Jesus was buried in accordance with Jewish law. Jesus came from a poor family that presumably could not afford a rock-cut tomb. Under ordinary circumstances he would have been buried in a trench grave. However, there was no time to dig a trench grave before the beginning of the Sabbath. Therefore, as the Gospels tell us, Joseph hastened to go to Pilate and requested permission to take Jesus’ body. He laid it in a loculus in his own rock-cut tomb, something that was exceptional (due to the circumstances), as rock-cut tombs were family tombs.

When the women entered the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea on Sunday morning, the loculus where Jesus’ body had been laid was empty. The theological explanation for this is that Jesus was resurrected from the dead. However, once Jesus had been buried in accordance with Jewish law, there was no prohibition against removing the body from the tomb after the end of the Sabbath and reburying it. It is therefore possible that followers or family members removed Jesus’ body from Joseph’s tomb after the Sabbath ended and buried it in a trench grave, as it would have been unusual (to say the least) to leave a non-relative in a family tomb. Whatever explanation one prefers, the fact that Jesus’ body did not remain in Joseph’s tomb means that his bones could not have been collected in an ossuary, at least not if we follow the Gospel accounts.
Although the Gospel accounts of the death and burial of Jesus might not be completely accurate from an historical point of view, they are consistent with our literary and archaeological information about how the Jews of Jerusalem buried their dead in the time of Jesus. The Gospels also show familiarity with Jewish law, conveying Joseph’s concern to bury Jesus before the Sabbath. They make it clear that Joseph was not trying to “honor” Jesus by burying him in a rock-cut tomb (a modern, anachronistic concept, since there was no shame associated with burial in trench graves, which was the accepted practice). Instead Joseph wanted to ensure that Jesus was buried within 24 hours, in accordance with Jewish law.

. ..[snip] ...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! If Jesus’ family did not own a rock-cut tomb, it means they also had no ossuaries.

... [snip] ....


L. Y. Rahmani, an Israeli archaeologist who compiled a catalogue of all of the ossuaries in the collections of the state of Israel, observed that “In Jerusalem’s tombs, the deceased’s place of origin was noted when someone from outside Jerusalem was interred in a local tomb.” On ossuaries in rock-cut tombs that belonged to Judean families, it was customary to indicate the ancestry or lineage of the deceased by naming the father, as, for example, Judah son of John (Yohanan); Honya son of Alexa; and Martha daughter of Hananya. But in rock-cut tombs owned by non-Judean families (or which contained the remains of relatives from outside Judea), it was customary to indicate the deceased’s place of origin, as, for example, Simon of Ptolemais; Papias the Bethshanite (of Beth Shean); and Gaios son of Artemon from Berenike. Our historical and literary sources (such as the Gospels, Flavius Josephus, etc.) often make the same distinctions between Judeans and non-Judeans (for example, Galileans, Idumaeans, Saul of Tarsus, Simon of Cyrene, and so on). If the Talpiot tomb is indeed the tomb of Jesus and his family, we would expect at least some of the ossuary inscriptions to reflect their Galilean origins, by reading, for example, Jesus [son of Joseph] of Nazareth (or Jesus the Nazarene), Mary of Magdala, and so on. However, the inscriptions provide no indication that this is the tomb of a Galilean family and instead point to a Judean family.


The identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family is based on a string of problematic and unsubstantiated claims, including adding an otherwise unattested Matthew (Matya) to the family of Jesus; identifying an otherwise unknown son of Jesus named Judah; and identifying the Mariamne named on one of the ossuaries in the tomb as Mary Magdalene by interpreting the word Mara (which follows the name Mariamne) as the Aramaic term for “master” (arguing that Mariamne was a teacher and leader). To account for the fact that Mary/Mariamne’s name is written in Greek, the filmmakers transform the small Jewish town of Migdal/Magdala/Tarichaea on the Sea of Galilee (Mary’s hometown) into “an important trading center” where Greek was spoken. Instead, as in other Jewish towns of this period, generally only the upper classes knew Greek, whereas poorer Jews spoke Aramaic as their everyday language.
Taken individually, each of these points weakens the case for the identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family. Collectively these points are devastating, since the statistical analyses presented in the film are based on certain assumptions made about these names.

The identification of the Talpiot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family contradicts the canonical Gospel accounts of the death and burial of Jesus and the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus. The claim is also inconsistent with all of the available information—historical and archaeological—about how Jews in the time of Jesus buried their dead, and specifically the evidence we have about poor, non-Judean families such as that of Jesus. It is a sensationalistic claim without any scientific basis or support.

 

The number one reason you have so much trouble with things like this is because you so far have refused to join yourself with a church body, and learn. Being with christians, learning together and wroshiping God is how your going to grow spiritually and be able to more easily move past things like this.

 

One interesting point to note. I am a member of an Islamic forum, But no one has brought this up at all. Quite probably because they too think it to be all rubbish. The man quite simply has no evidence whatsoever to build a case. One important point which has been brought up by someone else is the fact that Jesus came from Galilee and not Jerusalem. He went to Jerusalem for one purpose alone and was to die. The opponents of the resurrection still have to explain the sudden disappearance of Jesus from this worldly scene. Also if he had to hide from the authorities, he would probably have changed his name. So this chap should be looking for a box of bones with the name Jack smith scratched on it. I reckon that when examined more closely the writing on this box will turn out to be graffiti and probably says "Kilroy was ere".

 

I can not agree that "the data" is conclusive on this point --

"They make it clear that Joseph was not trying to “honor” Jesus by burying him in a rock-cut tomb (a modern, anachronistic concept, since there was no shame associated with burial in trench graves, which was the accepted practice). Instead Joseph wanted to ensure that Jesus was buried within 24 hours, in accordance with Jewish law."

It would be very hard to argue that a burial associated with wealth vs one associated with poverty 'had no meaning" to humans in ANY society - much less one where they viewed wealth as "the approval of God".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Also, wasn't Joseph well dead at this point? There is no mention of Joseph after Jesus was a child.

 

Last night, I searched the archives of The Way Of The Master radio show, and a week or so back they had James White from aomin.org on.

In about 15 minutes, he soundly refuted any credibility these tomb of Jesus guys had.

They also played a clip of Al Mohler on Larry King Live, more really great stuff.


Even the Israeli scholars and scientists regard it as a hoax, and I think that says a whole lot.


Soli Deo Gloria,
Dustin

 

They wanted to add some drama to the show and bolster the idea that the church has something to hide by putting the worst spin on things. Good Old Jacobovici didn't go through the appropriate channels to open up the grave and the Antiquities Oversight shut him down. Israel isn't protecting Christianity persay as much as they are protecting national treasures and trying to preserve the dignity of the dead.

 

xdx, pay close attention to what is being said about DNA. They have no baseline to compare the DNA to. There is NO WAY they can determine identity without a living descendant. And...even if you find a Jew whose ancestor 125 generations ago was a "Jesus"...heck, probably 3/4 of those on the BB has an ancestor named "John," but it doesn't mean that it was "John the Baptist." Also, more randomness...

• Early writings would tell us if Jesus were married or had children. The early church would have mentioned it. The Romans would have exploited it. It would have been written about...at least refuted (or explained) in early Christian writings. No credible witness from that era gives any indication of such.
• Jesus' words on the cross indicated His concern for his mother, NOT His wife or kids. A minor but significant issue.
• If Jesus' bones were found, we're back to some pretty flimsy theories about His death...Jesus would have either:
  1. Died from Crucifixion;
  2. Not died from Crucifixion, but died later;
  3. Died at the Crucifixion, was raised from the dead, and then died later;
  4. done exactly what the Bible said He did.
• If you were to believe this garbage, then only option 1 would be plausible. Option 2 brings the ridiculous "swoon theory" to the table (Jesus was only wounded when He was buried...then He recovered enough to roll the stone away and overpower the guards. Silly, it is.) Option 3 simply holds no water. If God could raise Jesus from the dead, then why would He allow Jesus to die later? That one's absurd. THat leaves us with #4...the truth.

BTW...you asked why this theory hasn't been put out there for Mohammed...If you made the same assertions about the "prophet" Mo, you'd have scores of enraged folk at your door, ready to carry out the fatwa of death pronounced by an imam. One is much less likely to become dead if Jesus is misrepresented/slandered/lied about/blasphemed.

BTW, BobRyan's points are great.

 

First, Israel is pretty protective of their historical treasures anyway.
Second, (not arguing this point, but rather coming from a purely secular line of thought)...If your country is trying to promote tourism, and you have virtually all of the significant sites foundational to a huge world religion...and someone comes along to discredit said religion...wouldn't you, from a purely economic standpoint, also want to protect it?

Please understand...I'm just rationalizing here from a secular perspective...similar to what many folks in power might do in this situation. I know my Redeemer lives.

 

Good point and very sad that anyone can say anything about Jesus Christ and get away with it. I've had a Muslim say to me "I do not honour Jesus and I object to you calling him Lord". If I would say that kind of thing about Muhammed I would most certainly be charged with blasphemy for disrespecting Allah's "holy" prophet. I object to those people who treat Muhammed as some kind of god. They even say that he was infallible. But Jesus they will not listen to. Isn't it true what Our Lord said of such people, "I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not, if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive." ?

 

It just so happens that I talked about this today in my column.

Mountain Monergism....3/6/2007...The return of the Gnostics

There were a ton of holes in the make believe story. To many to address in a short Column.

 

BTW - your PM inbox is full xd.

I skipped a few mintues now and then - but I pretty much saw the whole thing and they did bring up the DNA evidence to prove that one of the Mary's was not related to one of the other group members.

I don't think so either - they already made the claim that Christian could hide behind the idea that although the facts totally disprove Christian beliefs - that spiritually Christ may have risen - in some way that is outside of reason, logic and science. You know the same way they argue that the flood did not really happen and Creation week did not really happen but Christians should not confuse their faith with actual facts, reason and logic --

They have been playing the game of "you Christian should just think of your beliefs as easter-bunny religion not as real facts" for a long time.

AT the same time this was playing the History channel was busy discrediting the Genesis account of Noah and the flood with a bunch more "maybe..mabye..mabye" scenarios just like the Discovery channel was doing with the Tomb.

Agreed. In fact if anything they were over-inflating oveblowing the few facts they DID have rather than covering up important facts.


"Mary also called Mara" was twisted around in the crocumentary to "Mary called MASTER" -- how silly!

In Christ,

Bob

 

At the risk of derailing the thread - the "great delusion" mentioned in 2Thess 2 is in reference to the appearance of Satan himself who appears as if he is god - sitting on the throne of God. In other words the great delusion at the end of time is Satan impersonating God Himself. A being of great light and power and miracles and healing.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am watching it now. One of the few believable (very few) things that they have said is: "There never has been any credible archaelogical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome." His tomb also is supposedly there in Jerusalem.
So much for Peter being the Pope in Rome!

 

Ok, maybe a shameless plug or maybe not I don't know. On my blog I have linked articles by some of the top New Testament/Historical Jesus scholars. You will have to scan the blog to get all of them but there are some really good articles out there if you just know where to look. See my blog link in my signature.