Documentary makers claim tomb of Jesus found in Jerusalem

[snopes]

The Israeli-born, Canadian-based filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici is reigniting claims, first made over a decade ago, that a burial cave uncovered 27 years ago in Talpiot, Jerusalem, is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

[Canuckistan]

Another case of life imitating art.

I don't think any evidence will be enough to convince people one way or the other.

Still, I'm looking forward to seeing the documentary.

[hambubba]

The only way it would really be news would be if there was a body in it.

[Logoboros]

According to this description, there are bodies. Though it looks like one should wait for the actual press conference for confirmation.

And even this does nothing to really challenge the faith of believers. There are lots of ways a body can get into an ossuary in 2000 years (especially is you presume it had been left inexplicably empty)...

--Logoboros

[Amigone201]

Maybe they should have Geraldo open it.

[Canuckistan]

Another story with more detail.

And another one.

[hambubba]

It could also have been an early attempt by the Jews opposed to the new Christian movement to discredit the resurrection.

Planted bodies and inscriptions. An early hoax?

[Richard W]

Does all seem very neat...

They say that there's only a period of 100 years that the bodies could have come from based on the style of the tomb, so if they were an "early fake", either it was within 100 years of the actual death, or the people making the fake had a fair amount of knowledge and took care to get the details right. Would it have been worth creating an elaborate hoax that early on? If it was an early hoax to discredit Christianity, then how come it wasn't dug up and publicised at the time?

[Admiraldinty]

As far as I can tell, there are a number of problems with this:

1) The names inscribed on the tombs are the most common Jewish names possible.

2) If it's such a large tomb, wouldn't have the disciples, early Church members have known about it/tried to do something to hide or destroy it?

3) I'm having flashbacks to the "James ossuary".

4) This was already publicized some eleven years ago by the BBC, and it was discredited then. Article here.

[matches]

I bet if you look hard enough you can find a guy named Jesus, married to a chick named Marry in Newark tomorrow.

I bet if you looked, you could proabbly find someone somwhere named Homer Simpson married to a woman named marge with kids named bart, lisa, and maggie.

Essentially, the flaw in this whole story is this.

If there are bodies in the tombs, the Jesus in the tomb can't be the Jesus mentioned in the bible because his tomb was empty.

If you say, ah, but no, you see this is the Jesus from the bible, but in fact he didn't rise from the dead, but instead stayed dead.

Well, then I would ask, how do you know this Jesus is the Jesus we're talking about then since the details in question don't match up?

Unless there is something in the tomb to imply that this is the man the Gosples are talking about, it seems like its just another guy named Jesus, married to some chick named Mary.

I could see Gnostics (who didn't belive in physical resurection of the Body) going ape over this discovery, but short of a string of miracles associated with the tomb or the director of the film dropping dead of a strange unexplainable, and horrific desease (probably invovling boils) I don't think this story will change anyone's opinion on anything.

[KingDavid8]

I thought they already found Jesus' grave in Japan, and France, and Kashmir.

David

[KingDavid8]

One thing that could convince me was if this Jesus showed signs of having been crucified. If there were clearly marks from nails that had gone through his wrist at some point in his life, this would point to it being "our" Jesus, since practically all historians agree that Jesus was crucified with nails through the wrists (with the skeptical historians generally believing that He either stayed dead after the crucifixion, or somehow managed to survive it altogether). There aren't many historians who believe that the crucifixion itself never happened, except for that small (and IMO very illogical) minority who believe Jesus was a fictional character, which, if true, would mean that the grave site ain't His, since fictional characters don't get buried.

Another would be if there were references on the grave site strongly suggesting that it is "our" Jesus, such as references to the events of the Bible or His being known as some sort of miracle worker.

But so far, just having some names in common with Biblical characters doesn't impress me much.

David

According to the article linked in the OP, the archaeologist (or one of them) interviewed for the film says it's not that Jesus, it's just a Jesus (or Jesua). I think it highly unlikely that this film will resolve anything regarding the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth.

[Logoboros]

This quote from this AP story bothered me:

Most Christians believe Jesus' body spent three days at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City. The burial site identified in Cameron's documentary is in a southern Jerusalem neighborhood nowhere near the church.

Really? Most believe that? I've always thought that most of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem were taken wiht a grain of salt (at least in the Catholic church, which takes its saints and relics pretty seriously). The site of Golgotha, the tomb, the place of the Ascension -- medieval folks believed in them, but I was under the impression that most contemporary theologians see these as nice enough places for a church or shrine, but pretty dubious in terms of historical authenticity.

--Logoboros

[Ali Infree]

Does this mean that Easter is cancelled?

[matches]

Originally Posted by Logoboros

This quote from this AP story bothered me:



Really? Most believe that? I've always thought that most of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem were taken wiht a grain of salt (at least in the Catholic church, which takes its saints and relics pretty seriously). The site of Golgotha, the tomb, the place of the Ascension -- medieval folks believed in them, but I was under the impression that most contemporary theologians see these as nice enough places for a church or shrine, but pretty dubious in terms of historical authenticity.

--Logoboros

Although that is the official statment from the Church, individual members of the church are more than welcome to belive that something is really the place or relic that they say it is with no official statment from the Church. If you go to Turin, you will see many people who choose to belive the Shroud is infact Jesus' burial shroud, even though the official statement is that it probably is not.

Likewise, Most Christians (I belive) aren't Catholic, so who knows what all those heathens belive.

It is very possible that most Christians belive that the sights with the signs out front in Isreal that say, birth place, death place, and first kiss of Jesus are what they claim to be. Wheather the places actually are or not however is a completely differnt story.

[matches]

Originally Posted by Ali Infree

Does this mean that Easter is cancelled?

Why would this prevent the Bunny from laying chocolate eggs?

[Logoboros]

Originally Posted by matches

Although that is the official statment from the Church, individual members of the church are more than welcome to belive that something is really the place or relic that they say it is with no official statment from the Church. If you go to Turin, you will see many people who choose to belive the Shroud is infact Jesus' burial shroud, even though the official statement is that it probably is not.

Oh, I realize that. But I still doubt that if you went up to your average Christian-on-the-street and said "What's the exact location of Christ's tomb?" you'd probably get a blank stare in most cases, and the few who might actually say "Why, it's a the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, of course!" would almost certainly be Catholic or Orthodox.

My understanding (though I could be wrong) is that at least most American protestants (admittedly not the majority of Christians, but still) would most likely say that the actual locations of the Passion story (and the Nativity story) are lost to the mists of time. But maybe I'm way off in that assessment...

--Logoboros

[Admiraldinty]

Originally Posted by Logoboros

My understanding (though I could be wrong) is that at least most American protestants (admittedly not the majority of Christians, but still) would most likely say that the actual locations of the Passion story (and the Nativity story) are lost to the mists of time. But maybe I'm way off in that assessment...

--Logoboros

Many Protestants believe that the burial site of Christ is the "Garden Tomb". From what I recall, this theory doesn't hold water, since the site would have been within the Jerusalem city walls in ca. 29 AD.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

. . . since practically all historians agree that Jesus was crucified with nails through the wrists . . .

Um... I think, instead, you might say: practically all historians agree that the Roman method of crucifixion involved nails through the wrists.

Only one historian (and four Evangelists) mention Jesus' crucifixion, or even mention Jesus at all.

Silas ("the pedant with the pendant reads the tome that's from Rome")