Jesus Burial Tomb Found?
Published by Matt Glover February 27th, 2007 in Articles of InterestIn todays Age Newspaper:
The findings of a controversial documentary claiming that a cave found 26 years ago in Jerusalem held the remains of Jesus Christ have been unveiled in New York.
The doco is being made by Terminator and Titanic director, James Cameron. In an interview I heard today, it was also reported that bones had been found that were meant to be those of Jesus. I’m not sure whether the two stories are related or not, but it will be interesting to see what sort of debate is generated.
What I find so interesting is, much like with the DaVinci Code, most of the arguments used to disprove the gospel story as we know it have been around for years and are easily answered. For instance, if Jesus had died and stayed dead, why did the authorities not show the city his remains and end once and for all this new movement?!
For whatever reason, it seems some find it easier to have faith in something that is paper thin when it comes to credibility rather than in something that has changed lives for thousands of years.
Go figure.
If any bones are found in the tomb, it completely disproves the “this is Jesus’ tomb” thing. For one, I believe that he is alive- didn’t he appear at various times to something like 200 people? Plus the disciples who where martyred- would you die for a lie? Also-
The soldiers and the Jewish Sanhedrin’s version of the empty tomb is that the disciples stole the body to fake that what Jesus said would happen was true (because he said it, they posted guards in front of the tomb…) I’m sure you could find this tale (the “yes, they stole the body” story) in non biblical historical accounts. Therefore, if you believe or not, if there are bones, it’s not his tomb.
Another theory is that they mixed up which tomb Jesus was in- with Jewish beliefs about burial and cleanliness, (one use or family tombs, I think) it was a big gift of love by Joseph (of Arimathea) [this is according to Matthew- the other gospels just say it was a tomb nearby] and I don’t think they would mess up and go to the wrong tomb- it was important that they new where it was. One theory is that the women, (weak as the are…) messed up in their grief- Peter and John also went and checked it out for themselves. So that smashes the misogynist theory as well.
Posted more on the following post.
grr. “knew where he was” not “new where…”
How does the finding of bones disprove it was his tomb? What if it was his tomb and the bones were in there all along? You can’t read all four gospels and be sure of some other things as fact, why would this be any different.
This reminds me of the argument that the world simply must have been created in 168 hours because the BIBLE SAYS SO.
Some of us were talking about this last night, and debating the resurrection and ascension. It was one of the non-christian guys who suggested that, post ressurection, when Jesus ascended to heaven, his spirit ascended and his body remained behind, flopping lifelessy to the ground. They had to put it somewhere.
But it was my impression that the discovery of the bones in a family tomb with a seeming son and wife, that Jesus lived to an older age than we are led to believe - so there is still room for a ressurection, but after that, Jesus spent a loner time on Earth, raised a family, and died a natural death later.
Of course, I actually believe that they are talking total crap. Firstly, Jesus is actually Yeshua, a fairly common name at the time. So are Joseph (Yosef), and Mary (Or Maria, or Miriam, both of which have been reported). In the gospels alone we come across 4 Joesphs, 2 Jesus’ and 3 Mary’s. From another article, it states that the deciphering of the script is incorrect, and that other scholars had interpereted the name as ‘Hanun’, not ‘Yeshua’. Nothing that particuarly compels me, but I’ll be keeping an ear open for more.