Upcoming Documentary: Jesus Dead, Tomb Found

I KNEW he was banging Mary Magdelene!

Cameron and Jacobocici collaborated in an earlier production for The History Channel they called "The Exodus Decoded" in which they try to prove the Hebrew slaves in Egypt story through spurrious reasoning and a whole lot of question begging. Among other things, they try to tie the erruption of Santorini with the story of the plagues in the Exodus narrative.

Odd that, for 20 centuries, Jewish scholarship has not tried to make a case that this tomb is that of Jesus.

Wouldn't it seem that the Jews of Jesus' time would have been able to easily verify that this prominent and expensive tomb was that of Jesus?

Wouldn't the Jews have had great motivation to disprove the basic tenets (i.e. the resurrection) of the divisive sect that they struggled with?

That's a truly, spectacularly ignorant objection, rl, displaying as flimsy a grasp of history as the twisted grasp of science you've evidenced throughout your posting history here.

By the time Christianity was becoming an organized, cohesive religion, say around the period from 70-150 CE, the Jews were not in a position to do much more than hang on in the face of Roman pressure; they had more important things to do than quibble over sects and heretics ... like, survive as a people. The Jewish Revolt of 66-73 CE, and the Bar Kokhba rebellion of 135 CE pretty much brought an end to any Jewish effective influence and authority in Palestine with but slight exception in Galilee.

Following Hadrian's brutal suppression of the Bar Kokhba rebellion, Jews were forbidden even to enter Jerusalem and its immediate environs. Ongoing Roman and, later Christian Byzantine, anti-Jewish efforts occasioned the Diaspora. The mid-4th Century Jewish revolt, put down in draconian manner by Byzantine general Urscicinus, commander of the forces of Constantius Gallus, brother-in-law of Eastern Emperor Constantius II, all but put an end to Jewish presence (even the Hebrew language fell into disuse in the region).

Not untill the mid 5th Century, with the settling of Empress Eudocia, Byzantine Emperor Theodosius' estranged spouse, in Jerusalem were Jews again allowed to enter the by-then thoroughly Byzantine Christian city.

In the early 6th Century, another revolt, in Samaria, brought further Byzantine repression of Jews, and in the early 7th Century yet another abortive Jewish revolt occurred in concert with the Persian invasion of the region, a circumstance which saw some truly Byzantine political maneuverings culminating with a Persian/Byzantine peace treaty under which once again the Jews (such of them as escaped slaughter and slavery) were expelled from Jerusalem and environs.

By the mid 7th Century, the Christian Byzantines had lost the entire region to the rapidly expanding Arab/Islamic Caliphate under Umar, and with exception of a brief period (less than a century) during the Crusades, Jerusalem remained under Islamic rule into the 20th Century, a part of the Ottoman Empire.


Breathtaking inanity seems to be all you've got, rl; at any rate, its all you've been bringing to these discussions. Breathtaking inanity indeed.

If this is true and Israel has deliberately destroyed the remains of Jesus Christ, to ensure it has a hold over Jerusalem. Then as far as I am concerned it is a declaration of war against Christendom by the people of Israel. As it would be if Israelis had found that Christians had deliberately destroyed the remains of Moses.

No offence. I'm just thinking what others may be thinking.

(It's not what i believe)

Just wanna add Cameron's hypothesis is no less absurd than rl's objection to it - but then what are facts against either faith or box office? Not much contest there at all ... fairytales always sell well.

Can't we sort of hush this up for a little while? I'm expecting to be off for Easter.

I saw that. It was very annoying.

DNA? How would they do that? It could still be any other family... Will have to watch I guess. Just can't figure out how they would know from DNA unless they have Gods, Joseph's and Mary's in storage.

Haven't you read the book Choke?

Jesus foreskin for years has been held (loosely speakly) at the Vatican.

Ahhh! Right.

Yeah, that's a great image for me to go sleep on. Thanks, Chia!

This should proce once and for all if he's Gods kids or someone elses!

How dare you question science, squinney.

I received the following information through a pastor from an apologetics website. I think it may be helpful:

Important issues and questions
Following is a list of issues and questions that I think are worth examining in regard to this recent discovery.
1. The names on the ossuaries were very common at that time.
1. "Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary says he has a first-century letter written by someone named Jesus, addressed to someone else named Jesus and witnessed by a third party named Jesus."2 This demonstrates the commonality of the name Jesus. Isn't it likely that other names would be common as well? If Christianity were on the rise in the culture, it makes sense that people would adopt Christian names as they eagerly moved away from the imposing Roman Empire's rule.
2. "'Jesus' and 'Joseph' were common names of the time, and another ossuary bearing the same inscription [Jesus son of Joseph] was revealed by archaeologist Eleazar Levi Sukenik in a 1931 lecture in Berlin. However, this ossuary is set apart by its presence in a tomb alongside others bearing names associated with Jesus' family..."3 The fact is that "Jesus son of Joseph" exists elsewhere in archaeological findings.
3. 25% of the Jewish women in the first-century Judea had the same name of Mary.4
2. The ossuaries are inscribed in different languages: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek.
1. Jesus, James, Judah are inscribed in Aramaic. Yose (Jose, Joseph), Maria, and Matthew are in Hebrew. "Marianmene e Mara" (Mary Magdelene) is the only one written in Greek. If the tomb is of Jesus' family, why are the inscriptions in different languages?
2. Does this suggest that different individuals, perhaps in different times, and of different backgrounds were buried in the tomb?
3. Families were buried in their home home towns.
1. In this case it would have been Nazareth, not Jerusalem. Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth. If this really is the tomb of the biblical Jesus, then why is he buried somewhere other than his hometown, Nazareth? This would have gone against Jewish culture and custom.
2. Wouldn't the burial inscription have read "Jesus of Nazareth" or "Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph" if it were the Jesus of the New Testament?
4. The same ossuaries were used for generations to store bones
1. Point three is supported by the fact the same ossuaries were used for several generations to house bones, sometimes containing as many as six sets. This would mean that the contents therein could be of family members long after the time of Christ. It could even be of non genetically related individuals, by marriage, who get added to the tomb later on.
2. Having similar genetics in the ossuaries doesn't prove it is Jesus' tomb. It only proves there are similar genetics. There is no known way to establish that the genetics in the ossuaries are those of Jesus. At best, it can only be inferred and inferences are not fact.
5. The family of Jesus was poor, Joseph was a carpenter and couldn't afford such an elaborate burial.
1. To have a tomb and various hostelries constructed, was an expensive undertaking. Since Joseph was a carpenter, Jesus would've learned his trade from his father. Carpenters were not rich. Therefore, how is the existence of an expensive tomb with ossuaries explained in light of this information if it is supposed to be at the family of Jesus?
6. What of the existing documents (gospels).
1. The gospels in the New Testament are excellently preserved historical documents that are consistent with the time, place, and culture in which they claim to describe. If Jesus did not in fact rise from the dead, then what about the gospels accounts? Are they fakes, compilations, or forgeries? Are these eyewitness accounts less valuable than names on ossuaries found in a tomb? Surely, an explanation needs to be established to account for the claims of the gospel accounts if in fact, they were lies.
7. If the gospels are used to verify the names on the ossuaries, why are they not also used to verify that Jesus rose from the dead?
1. There seems to be an inconsistency in using the Gospels to verify the names on the ossuaries but then deny the claim of those same Gospels concerning Jesus' resurrection. Why accept the names but reject the resurrection when both are described in the same document? Is it because the presuppositions of those who examine the evidence do not allow for the miraculous? If that is the case, then beliefs are forced upon evidence and the evidence is interpreted in light of those beliefs.
2. See Since the New Testament writers were biased, can we trust their testimony?
3. See The Christians were mistaken about Jesus' resurrection
4. See The Disciples stole Jesus' body and faked His resurrection.
8. The Acts of Phillip
1. In the book The Acts of Phillip is the term "Mariamene" which some scholars think it refers to Mary Magdelene. Therefore, the inscription in the tomb which uses that term has been linked to the biblical Mary Magdelene via this old document. However, the oldest copy of the Acts of Phillip is from the fourteenth century and is a copy of a fourth century text.5 How reliable is the document known as the Acts of Phillip? "The text is generally considered to have been a late 4th or early 5th century fantasy, involving miracles and supposedly clever dialogue, which it claims caused Phillip to win many converts."6
9. Why aren't there any accounts of Jesus having a family recorded in any reputable ancient writings?
1. This is, essentially, an argument of silence and is not the best argument. Nevertheless, there is no credible historical evidence suggesting that Jesus had a family. If Jesus were that important of a figure in the area and if he had a family, in contradiction to the gospel accounts, then why are there no reliable records of this recorded anywhere?
2. If Jesus had a son, and a wife, and was walking around Israel, it would have been around the time that the gospels were being circulated which were written anywhere from the 40's to the 60's, with John possibly written later. See "When were the gospels written and by whom?". You'd think that the Jews and Romans would have countered the circulating gospels by simply saying, "Hey, Jesus lives with his wife and kid over in Jerusalem." But, no such account exists.
10. Why didn't the critics of Christianity produce Jesus' body?
1. Since the Jewish culture as well as the Roman authorities did not want Jesus' resurrection to be believed since it contradicted both of their theological and social power structures, and if Jesus did get married and have children, then why is their no record of those authorities producing the person and/or body of Jesus?You'd think this would have been settled long ago if Jesus really did live and breathe after the gospels' recorded resurrection and Acts account of his ascension.
11. Statistical analysis of the names
1. How do they know which names were and were were not common in those days? Isn't this a relevant question to ask when making statistical analysis?
2. Statistics can be manipulated. We're not suggesting that these statistics were, but there needs to be an explanation dealing with how common the names were in the culture at that time and the criteria needs to be examined.
12. Counter evidence
1. Archaeologist says it isn't Jesus' tomb. "In 1996, when the BBC aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea [of the tomb being that of Jesus] fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television....It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave...The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time...The cave, it [Kloner's report] said, was probably in use by three or four generations of Jews from the beginning of the Common Era. It was disturbed in antiquity, and vandalized. The names on the boxes were common in the first century (25 percent of women in Jerusalem, for example, were called Miriam or a derivative)."7
2. Incorrect reading of names? "Pfann [a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem] is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name 'Hanun.'"8
3. Alternate burial site locations. "James Tabor, a Biblical scholar at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and the leading academic voice who lends enthusiastic, if qualified, support to Jacobovici's claims, wrote that he looked for, and found, a legendary tomb of Jesus near the city of Safed."9
13. Decomposition
1. How long does it take for a human body to decay so that all that is left are bones? This might be significant, or it might not be. If Jesus lived a normal life and died as early as age 50, then that would mean he died in roughly 50 A.D. If he were buried in a small tomb, covered with spices, and wrapped in a cloth, how long would it take his body to decompose into only bones (or mostly just bones)? I've been told that it takes less than five years. If it took five years (or less) then it would be after sufficient decomposition that the bones would be moved to an ossuary, a "coffin" designed not for body burial, but for the storage of the deceased's bones. If it took as long as 5 years, then that would make the placement of the bones in the ossuary around 55 A.D. The tomb has been dated to around
2. and ossuaries dated to? Could the relationship between the decomposition and the dating of the tomb/ossuaries thus become significant? Did the Jews of the time move the bones A.S.A.P.?
3. If the tomb and ossuaries are dated at 100 A.D., then that would be "generally consistent" with the claim that the ossuaries contain Jesus' family (though it is not conclusive). If it were dated to 60 A.D., in my example here, then that would be even better.
4. Is this worth looking into? Perhaps, perhaps not.
5. Additional notes: "According to Jewish rites, bodies would be left for a year or so to decompose in the "kokhim" before relatives came back to gather the bones and store them in ossuaries."