Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Jesus tomb found and his ''bones'' are there.... :(

Here is an e mail I received this morning from Greg Koukl...He has spoken at my church before and he is very good....


Wailing at the Tomb?

Christians Should Face the Facts in The Discovery Documentary

By Gregory Koukl

The documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus†hadn’t even aired yet and many Christians were already in a panic. Just the suggestion that someone found Jesus’ bones in a limestone box had believers by the droves shaking their fists or sticking their heads in the sand in a don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts posture.

The Lost Tomb of Jesus Apparently, many Christians don’t even need to see the evidence to pass judgment. When one Evangelical web site polled its visitors with the question, “Do you believe the ‘Tomb of Jesus' documentary, which denies the resurrection of Christ?†97% said no. This was three days before the documentary even aired. Blind faith is so convenient, isn’t it? You never have to actually confront your critics.

Then there’s the bullies. One media watchdog demanded Discovery “cancel this slanderous ‘documentary.’†Another prominent Evangelical organization composed this letter for their constituents to hammer Discovery with:

"I resent the Discovery Channel's attempt to demean and belittle Christianity by saying it is based on a lie. It is hard for me to believe that The Discovery Channel would dare do such a 'documentary' on any other religion.

"It may turn out that you have done Christianity a favor by awakening millions of Christians to your anti-Christian bias and bigotry. Perhaps they will no longer stay silent."

This kind of bullying is profoundly embarrassing to me, a follower of Christ, and should be discomfiting to every thoughtful Christian. It is not only a dismal retreat from a legitimate challenge that must be answered; it’s obscurantist.

Look, if the Bible says it and you believe it, that might settle it for you, but it doesn’t settle it for millions who might be interested in your ideas and are waiting to hear a thoughtful response to what appears on the surface to be a fair challenge.

There are good reasons to doubt the conclusions of this documentary, but no one will ever know them if Christians pull up the drawbridge and bellow from the parapet. Having seen the documentary, here are some problems that quickly come to mind:

*
Scholars have known about these tombs for over 25 years. There’s a reason they haven’t taken these names seriously. Only three have any direct biblical significance: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. And that cluster of names is statistically unremarkable. In fact, it would be odd if a family with those three names was not found in a tomb together, given their common use (there are at least four ossuaries discovered inscribed “Jesus, son of Joseph,†and one in four women were named Mary, so it’s even money that one of these tombs would have that combination). And connection of Jesus to any of the other names? Wild speculation. So what you have here is a creative guessing game.
*
The entire argument is based on the statistical significance of the names in a cluster. If Jesus was married, and if Jesus was married to a woman named Mariamne, and if Mariamne was also a nickname for Mary Magdalene, and if Jesus had a brother named Matthew, and if Jesus had a son named Judas, and if the now-famous James ossuary belonged to James the brother of Jesus, then you’d have all the members of Jesus’ family together in one tomb. But that’s a lot of “ifs.
*
Even though this is called the “Jesus Family Tomb,†there is no hard evidence that any of these so-called “family members†is even related. The only DNA testing that’s been doneâ€â€between Jesus and Mariamneâ€â€came up negative. Let me repeat that: The DNA test came up negative. That is fact. The rest is speculation.
*
The documentary claims, “Jesus and Mary were married, as the DNA evidence suggests.†This is nonsense. Think about it. How can DNA evidence suggest someone is married? DNA can’t “suggest†anything about legal relationships, only biological ones. In this case, the DNA evidence showed Jesus and Mary were not related by a mother, not that they were husband and wife. The truth is, she could have been married to any one of the males in the tomb, or to none of them for that matter. The DNA “suggests†nothing.
*
The researchers claim they’re just trying to connect the dots? Fair enough. But why connect the dots the way they did? I’ll tell you why. Because it tells their story. There are many other legitimate ways to connect those same dotsâ€â€some much more probable than the way the documentary connects them, but won’t give the story they’re promoting. But, of course, that wouldn’t create breaking news, would it?
*
Jesus’ family was a poor family from Nazareth , not a middle- to upper-class family from Jerusalem . So this tomb is the wrong kind of tomb located in the wrong city.
*
The documentary claims Jesus spoke in codes. This is false. Jesus spoke in parables, like many of the teachers of His day, not in codes that needed to be deciphered. They say Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ most trusted apostle. But you have to wait 400 years before this evidence pops up in any alleged historical record. They said that Jesus’ family members were executed because He was a pretender to throne of Israel . This is pure fiction. Notice what this accomplishes, though. All of these little exaggerations and inaccuracies make an unlikely tale sound more plausible when, on its own unembellished merits, it is not.
*
What we have here are two different characterizations of what happened to the body of Jesus of Nazareth 2,000 years ago. One is based on artifactsâ€â€the ossuariesâ€â€and one is based on documentsâ€â€the historical records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul. Now granted, these kinds of things are not entirely exact science, but all things being equal, which do you think gives us more precise information, bone boxes or written records? The written records, obviously.
*
The claim of Jesus’ resurrection, was part of the earliest, most primitive testimony regarding Jesus. And it was made by those very same people that the documentary suggests knew Jesus’ bones were actually secretly buried in Jerusalem . Why would so many of them die for this lie when they knew it was a lie? It doesn’t add up. But that’s what you must believe if you take seriously the conclusions of this documentary.

If Christianity stands or falls on the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection, as the Apostle Paul said, then Christ’s followers have no liberty to retreat behind blind faith or hide behind an angry scowl.

No, if you’re a Christian you shouldn’t run, whine, scream, or have a religious tantrum. Instead, you should be thanking the Discovery Channel for giving you the chance to step up to the plate and knock this soft ball out of the park.



If you wish to no longer receive email like this from Stand to Reason, please click HERE.
 
jgredline said:
Here is an e mail I received this morning from Greg Koukl...He has spoken at my church before and he is very good....


Excellent post jg!

As I said earlier, it is a wonderful opportunity for witnessing. Anytime the Lord is brought to center stage in a secular theatre, Christians should be praying for direction as to who they can witness to, and how. I believe that the key in using this to reach the lost, is not so much talking about the garbage in the documentary, but allowing the seeker to speak first about what it was that caught their interest, then show them the truth of the matter in Scripture.
 
And back to my statistics, the concept is not too hard for the average person to understand. That should not be overlooked regarding witnessing to the falsehood of this tomb theory. Heck even if Jesus did not raise from the dead, I'd still be skeptical that this was his family's tomb with such common names.

For that matter, I am skeptical about the tomb regarding Caiaphas even if it is more probable.
 
tim_from_pa said:
I'd still be skeptical that this was his family's tomb with such common names.


John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Was John anywhere around?
 
Gabbylittleangel said:
John 19:26 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Was John anywhere around?

Good point. No John was not in that list! :-D

Yeah, they will do anything these days to discredit Christianity, but when I saw their statistics was all wet, and yet claim to be scholars that talk about that stuff, I just shook my head.
 
Good post jgredline! I have enjoyed Koukl's writings in the past and agree with everything he says in that email.
 
jgredline said:
Here is an e mail I received this morning from Greg Koukl...He has spoken at my church before and he is very good....

Excellent post JG. I will be passing this onto many people on my mailing list. Peace! Jeff
 
Hello All

Here is another very good commentary...its from Dr Al Mohler....Any comments?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rabbi Marc Gellman, senior rabbi of Temple Beth Torah in Melville, New York, is a familiar figure in the media. He is telegenic and witty, and he serves as half of the "God Squad" team on national television.

In a recent column in Newsweek, Rabbi Gellman responds to the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" controversy with a very interesting analysis. In the first place, he voices his regret that an Orthodox Jewish filmmaker, Simcha Jacobovici, had made a film casting doubt upon the resurrection of Jesus.

But the main trust of the rabbi's argument was far more interesting. In his words:

If this was indeed the tomb of Jesus, then not only is the Christian Testament false but, worse, Christianity is a cruel deception, à la "The Da Vinci Code," foisted on the world by Jesus' panicky followers to help market a faith led by a dead messiah. I don't think that is how Christianity was born, and I don't think interfaith relations are improved when a Jewish filmmaker implies such a thing.

The really interesting part of Rabbi Gellman's analysis is his argument that, if Jesus was not raised from the dead, and if his disciples participated in a cover-up, then "Christianity is a cruel deception" pushed by charlatans.

The rabbi is right, of course. If Jesus was not raised from the dead -- really raised from the dead -- then Christianity is a huge lie and a cruel deception.

Here is the most interesting section of the rabbi's article:

Some Christian respondents to this film have said that even discovering the bones of Jesus would not seriously undermine their faith. They say that 2,000 years of tradition does not just get canned because somebody found some bone boxes in the basement of the Israel Museum. I know many Christian clergy who have told me that the main truth of Christianity for them is to love as Jesus loved and that no archeological discovery can change that spiritual lesson. I love these folks but, as an outsider, I just don't agree that decisive refutation of Jesus' resurrection would have no effect on Christian faith. Unlike Judaism and Islam and Hinduism and even Buddhism, which are built on God's teachings, Christianity is built both on God's teachings as well as on an historical event proving a transcendental miracle.

Once again, the rabbi gets it -- and the clergy identified as Christians, but who think the denial of the resurrection is no big deal, do not.

The rabbi understands that Christianity is founded upon clear and unambiguous historical claims. He sees what so many liberal theologians do not -- that without those historical claims Christianity ceases to be Christianity.

More:

The divide separating Christians from non-Christians is not between those who think loving all people is good and those who think loving all people is bad. The real divide is between those who believe that Jesus rose from the dead on the third day as proof that he was indeed the Messiah sent by God, and those who do not believe this article of faith and this audacious historical claim.

Yes Rabbi Gellman, this is an "audacious historical claim." Christians do believe and teach that Jesus Christ rose from the dead -- a physical and historical resurrection. The rabbi is absolutely correct in asserting that, if the bones of Jesus had been found in this tomb, Christianity would be proved to be false. Those bones were not found, of course, and the scholarly community has responded to the claim with dismissal and disdain.

The more interesting question is why so many who identify themselves as Christians seem to miss what the rabbi sees. Rabbi Gellman does not believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, but he does believe that Christians must believe that Jesus was raised from the dead. He is right, of course. The rabbi gets it.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog.php
 
Judah didn't fit in with the biblical family of Jesus.
DNA tests showed the bones in the boxes labeled Jesus and Mary weren't blood-related.
To explain the appearance of "Judah" to fit the theory the one piece of data from the DNA test was used to show:

1) Marriage between the two.
2) A son was born from that marriage.
3) They named him Judah.
4) Judah was kept "under-wraps".

Quite a leap of faith for science to say the least.

5 boxes weren't marked. If however, it's found somehow that another name can be connected to another box that doesn't fit the family of the biblical Jesus then I suppose he/she too would be claimed as an offspring.

If Judah is a son of the Joseph found in the tomb then they have the wrong family.

There must be proof presented that Jesus was married.
There must be proof they had a son whose name was Judah.

Speaking of statistical probabilities what are the odds that:
1) Jesus was married.
2) A son was born from that marriage.
3) They named him Judah.


What are the odds that :
1) Judah is a son of the Joseph found in the tomb.
 
Years and years ago as a teen, I 'predicted' that one day some news like this would eventually arrive. Now, it is here, and it has turned out to be just another flash in the pan...haven't heard any more about it for several weeks, now. All these silly theories...Christ is buried in Japan, and then in Nepal; the James ossuary; that miserable Dan Brown crap; Holy Blood, Holy Grail; now this. People really need to get a life.
 
Here is another one Al Mohlers blogs....3 13 07


A. N. Wilson is a prominent British man of letters. Once headed for the Anglican priesthood, he later experienced what has been called a "deconversion" from Christianity. A skilled historian, his book God's Funeral: The Decline of Faith in Western Civilization, traces the Western world's slide into secularism.

He understands, at least, what he now rejects. He recently responded to the "Lost Family Tomb of Jesus" controversy in the Sunday Herald Sun [Australia] and made two crucial points. In the first place, Wilson stressed the fact that if it were proved that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, Christianity must necessarily fall. His second point is as accurate and important as his first -- there is no form of proof adequate to the challenge of proving that Jesus Christ was not raised from the dead.

In this section of his article, Wilson refers to the claim by producer James Cameron that the bones of Jesus had been found in a tomb near Jerusalem:

If such a find were found to be what Cameron claims, it would be historically revolutionary.

It would prove, among other things, that the traditional Christian belief was false, that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Long ago, Paul the Apostle wrote to his friends in Corinth that if Christ did not rise from the dead, their faith was in vain. No doubt, if Cameron's find were proved to be authentic, it would destroy the Christian religion. The Pope could shut up shop. The Church of England could be absorbed by the National Trust as just a collection of medieval buildings.

Unbelievers in the resurrection would feel that their scepticism had been justified and the vast majority of Christian believers, who profess their faith in Christ risen from the dead, would be compelled to admit their faith had been based on a mistake.

Faith based on a mistake? If Jesus Christ was not raised bodily from the dead, Christians are mistaken at the very core of our beliefs. This would indeed "destroy the Christian religion."

More:

But the only serious written "source" for the life of Jesus is the Gospels. They were all the products of an institution that still survives in our world: the Christian church. The Gospels were not written to make a quick buck in Hollywood. Nor were they trying to attract a publisher. They were the record, probably dating from a generation after Jesus, of what people believed about him.

The four books attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written to sustain the communities of faith in Rome and Palestine and Asia Minor, which believed Jesus to be Lord. They contain stories of Jesus rising from the dead. That, believe it or not, is the story of Jesus. You either accept it or you reject it.

Yes, Mr. Wilson, you either accept or reject the claim that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead by the power of God, and we cannot avoid the consequences of that choice.

We should appreciate A. N. Wilson's honesty. After all, these words come from one who once considered himself a Christian, but now calls himself merely a "Christian fellow traveler." He understands what Christians believe, and has the intellectual honesty to trace those beliefs to their source and consequences. Now, if only others were so honest.

Here's one who doesn't get it. Steve Gushee of The Palm Beach Post argues that Christians need not worry that Christianity would fall if the resurrection of Christ were disproved.

From his article:

The claim that one held the bones of Jesus of Nazareth is highly unlikely. The documentary assumes much and conjectures more to make its case. Even if true, that should not destroy faith in Jesus' resurrection. It might restore a measure of spiritual integrity to a faith awash in false literalism.

Religious truth is seldom expressed literally but in images, with poetry and mystery. Resurrection stories are no different.

The disciples were convinced that the crucified Jesus was with them. They knew that his living spirit was the driving force in their lives and that, when breaking bread in his name, he was with them. They were convinced that Jesus was alive. That conviction changed the world.

The resurrection of Jesus is, for the faithful, a profound spiritual truth about the nature of God and God's relationship with his creation. They need not read the stories that tell of that wonder literally in order to embrace that truth. The resurrection is about new life, not old bones.

A seminary dean told me 40 years ago that, even if someone dug up the body of Jesus, he would not believe in that cadaver but in the Jesus embraced by the community that proclaims his resurrection.

This is an amazing argument -- that disproving the resurrection would "restore a measure of spiritual integrity to a faith awash in false literalism." This turns the entire Christian faith on its head. We have only Mr. Gushee's recollection of the conversation with a "seminary dean," but that dean offered a pathetically perverse portrait of Christianity. His dichotomy relies on the old (and false) distinction between the "Jesus of History" and the "Christ of Faith." They are one and the same, or Christianity is a lie. It's as simple as that.
 
Back
Top