I'm withholding judgement because i think both sides have an entreched agenda. I think even Rev Sensing will agree that although Cameron and his fellows may have an agenda, bible scholars certainly do, and I can't imagine any evidence remotely conceivable that would convince them that this finding is possible. Thats what makes it faith.

Im much more interested in what the archeoligists have say, and i suspect there will be loud voices on both sides.

I am certain the spin has already begun. The idea that this might simply be another family from 1st century Jeresulem who happened to share the precise names of Jesus immediate family (and no others).. and we just happened to find it is absurd bordering on fanciful. Either this is a forgery- contemporary or ancient, or its genuine. A professor of statistics at the university of Toronto published a study based on the incidents of those names in Judea at the time and found the odds of those names appearing together were at least 600 to 1 against.

I think the odds are that the tomb is ancient (which seems sure) and the inscriptions are modern- which makes sense combined with the missing James box which they seem to present compelling evidence did come from that tomb. By why would somebody take that box and leave the other, far more remarkable ones? Thats where the line of inquiry should lie, this seems like a set up to me. But if the inscriptions do somehow prove to be authenticly of the era, i think it must be acknowledged that this is an important historical find. But certainly nothing can prove the supposed body of Christ ever lay there- there are plenty of other explanations possible even if his family was placed in the tomb. But i dont think a lot of people are going to suffer that thought without going ballistic.

HWGA

Here We Go "Again"? It never stops.

Documentarians are not archaelogists.... they're the guys that follow archaelogists around on the discovery channel. Even if you could find a tomb, unless you find a body, and some known DNA to match(?), you're just going to be stretching your facts. Mainstream archaeology has already condemned this find, I think this documentry will dissapear on it's own.

This story was orginally done in 1998 by the BBC, Isreal has since seen 5 men charged with fraud involved with one of the bone boxes discovered in 1980 go to jail... will that stuff be in there? Hmmmmm?

BTW I am agnostic, and also to note these things are using Latin names like Jesus and Maria (Mary) instead of the ancient Hebrew counter parts? I am amazed thet people think Jesus is what would have been written on a tomb in an area where there was no Latin... heh. This is actually astoundingly silly.

It was written in Aramaic and it reads Yeshua bar Yosef.

This BS "documentary" is really pitifull Propoganda. I wish someone would go to Mexico and see how many married members grave plots have the names Jesus "hazus" & Mary side by side burried? Juda was a popular Jewish name not a very popular Spanish name so lets replace that one with say ehhh Hoviar.

Either way this is just more of the Aithiest/LLL quest to crush another pillar of the US "God".

Reading at the discovery link, I see that the documentary doesn't challenge the resserection story:

It is a matter of Christian faith that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead three days after his crucifixion circa 30 C.E. This is a central tenet of Christian theology, repeated in all four Gospels. The Lost Tomb of Jesus does not challenge this belief. In the Gospel of Matthew (28:12) it states that a rumor was circulating in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. This story holds that Jesus' body was moved by his disciples from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, where he was temporarily buried. Ostensibly, his remains were taken to a permanent family tomb. Though Matthew calls this rumor a lie circulated by the high priests, it appears in his Gospel as one of the stories surrounding Jesus’ disappearance from the initial tomb where he was buried. Even if Jesus' body was moved from one tomb to another, however, that does not mean that he could not have been resurrected from the second tomb. Belief in the resurrection is based not on which tomb he was buried in, but on alleged sightings of Jesus that occurred after his burial and documented in the Gospels.

This seems confusing when other reports indicate that DNA testing confirmed that the body believed to be Jesus was not related to the body believed to be Mary. I predict a muddled mess of speculation.

I'll mildly disagree with Mark:

I think even Rev Sensing will agree that although Cameron and his fellows may have an agenda, bible scholars certainly do, and I can't imagine any evidence remotely conceivable that would convince them that this finding is possible. Thats what makes it faith.

I think there are a number of bible scholars that try to view their subject objectively. Here is a roundtable discussion from Slate a few years ago which discusses what can be known historically about Jesus and I think many of the comments can be described as mildly skeptical, but more importantly, the biases appear to be towards certain histiographic tools, not certain outcomes.

I would hope that bible scholars would be brought into the show and that the responsive pieces aren't simply reduced to "faith." For instance, I would like to know what type of scholarship consensus exists for a family from Galilee to have a tomb in Jerusalem?

Shaw i believe what you are talking about is that the 'Jesus' DNA isnt related to the 'Mary Magdalene' DNA, which is why they speculated they were husband and wife.

I still think this is a hoax by grave robbers- possibly even an ancient hoax. But to argue that if the names were genuine that it was just a coincidence is fantastic. It would be like 2000 years from now digging in Boston and finding a tomb with the names John, Robert, Edward, Joe, Joseph, and Rose and noting that they were all common names in the era. How far do you want to stretch coincidence?

If this somehow was true I dont think it challenges Christian dogma. Just because there is a grave marked Jesus son of Joseph doesnt mean he was ever in it. Beyond that we know Jesus ascended into heaven after his resurrection, but we dont know if that included his corporeal body or not.

Regardless, i think this is a potentially interesting historical find, and i think its just as bad to dismiss it out of hand for a social agenda as it is to claim it is genuine for a social agenda.

"For instance, I would like to know what type of scholarship consensus exists for a family from Galilee to have a tomb in Jerusalem?"

I feel like im advocating for this find and thats honestly not how i feel, but im going to play Devils Advocate on this thread just so everyone knows.

Lets remember this was never an ordinary Jewish family from Galilee. The son was crucified and the rest of the family was certainly in danger from the local authorities, especially since they proselytized that their son was resurrected from the dead. Its more than plausible that the Nativity family would be buried in an unlikely location for safety of their remains. They also demonstrably had wealthy friends which is how Jesus was entombed in Jerusalem immediately after crucifixtion- so that argument already has a precedent.

HWGO?? Oh, brother. Thanks, M. Simon. I'll try to correct it.

Mark, I think you clarified my confusion. Discovery made a big deal about not challenging the resurrection story that I overlooked that the documentary expressly challenged a physical reserrection:

If Jesus’ mortal remains have been found, this would contradict the idea of a physical ascension but not the idea of a spiritual ascension. The latter is consistent with Christian theology.

If Jesus ascended spiritually, I assume that means his body was not reserectud, but remained in the tomb while his spirit wandered. This strikes me as gnosticism, something the early church defined itself against and which AFAIK the reformers never challenged.

So "the discussion"http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/theology/theology.html still strikes me either as muddled or disingenuous. Not a good sign for the documentary.

I think they are suggesting Christ could have resurrected from the tomb he was placed in (that belonged to Joseph of Arimathea and which fufilled several messainic prophesies about buying buried as a rich man) which is now thought to be under the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, appeared to his followers, and then ascended into heaven spiritually while his body was placed in this other tomb. Resurrection intact. Not sure how badly that plays theologically but the Gospels all end rather abruptly after his ressurection and the ascension isnt really described in much detail as I recall.

But like i said, just because Jesus' name was on the box doesnt mean his bones ever resided there even if the site is authentic. One could spin up plenty of reasons why a resting place was made for a beloved family member who was taken up to heaven and left no body to mourn. I think the devout would do well not to pin their faith on attacking evidence that could have other interpretations, just so the dogma neatly holds up. If the discoveries are proved to be fact, suddenly they are at odds with faith. Better to say there may be a tomb of the holy family found but nothing changes the fact that Jesus was resurrected and ascended into heaven. Just my two cents.

Mark, or should I say chief counsel for Satan?

The account of Jesus' ascension has his followers looking up as he ascends beyond the clouds, and then two men in white telling his followers that he will return the way he departed. (Acts 1:9-11); I don't want to argue religion, but I find this passage makes it very hard to believe that there is a Christian theology of mixed bodily resurrection/ spiritual ascension. I'm not arguing the merits of any Biblical interpretation, I just think the Discovery site is either ignorant of Christian theology or they are simply making stuff up for their own purpose.

Back to the statistical point. Jesus and his family were from Galilee. His father was a carpenter which would have been a lower class occupation at that time, particularly if he lived in a small town like Nazareth. Galilee had only recently been Judaized, and was referred to in the Bible as Galilee of the Gentiles and by historical accounts as a frontier area of dissenters. The people that Jesus and his family would have to fear most would have been the Temple priests and the establishment officials in Jerusalem. See, by example, the Crucifixion.

From this I see no reason why his family would be buried in Jerusalem, nor why a statistical analysis of names in Jewish tombs would reflect anything about them.

That last sentence should read "tombs in Jerusalem."

Ah, but does not I Corinthians 15:50 read: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;" ;) I dont doubt that you are ultimately correct though- but just because a man has a tomb doesnt mean he ever lay in it.

As to the possibility of the tomb- Shaw, by your analysis, Jesus could never have been buried in Jerusalem to begin with, in defiance of Christian dogma.

Ouch, misattribution! That verse was from Colossains chapter 2! Rap my knuckles!

I don't think one little doc is going to prove/disprove anything to anybody anyway. People generally read into faith as they see fit.

There was a really good sci-fi short story that I read a while back about a priest searching for signs of christian religion on uncharted planets (ie if another advanced life form shows a previous interest in Christ, it proves that God is working across the universe). Before this I had kindof assummed that life on other planets would kill any 'earthly' religions, but it got me to realize that that this debate will always take place.

Yes, they're will be little arguments about the Sun rotating around the earth, the exact age of the planet, where/if Jesus was buried... but these are all trivial questions when faced with the big one .... are we created by a 'God'? Is he/she/it leading us down a specific path? Is there a divine will we should follow? These questions are unanswerable by science (except by the number 42), and therefore faith will be more important in these questions than science (or badly produced documentries).

Here is a list of problems from someone who has read the book:

• One of the names on the ossuaries is in Hebrew, several in Aramaic and one in Greek, suggesting a multi-generational tomb.

• The tomb's location (away from the temple mount) suggests that it was built after AD70 when the temple mount was destroyed and Christians fled the city.

• Josephus reported that James was executed in AD62. Early Christians placed his burial site near the Temple.

• The symbol on the tomb is unique, suggesting that the tomb's presence was intended to be notorious, not secret.

• The given names on the ossuaries are variations not previously known to have been used. For instance, Mary Magdeline was sometimes referred to in early texts by the diminutive form "Mariamenon," but on her purported ossuary, a different diminutive form is written. Jesus was not called "Son of Joseph" by his followers.

• The James ossuary is currently at the center of a fraud trial, but it doesn't really appear to have come from this tomb in any event due to stylistic differences.

• Only the Jesus & Mary ossuaries were DNA tested, so its quite possible that other inhabitants are not related. In fact, if it was a Christian tomb, none of the inhabitants might be related since early Christians saw each other as their true family.

More Here

Actually a really interesting question for historians is whether early Christians kept the habit of taking new names.. and or named their children accordingly. If this is a second generation Christian tomb it would make a lot more sense that those names would appear in concert if that is the case.

Mark, it appears that names like Joseph, Jesus and Mary were already common names during this period. There were several Marys in the New Testament, including three Marys at the Crucifixion. Almost a third of all women's names on ossuaries is Mary. Which is why the statistical conclusion seemed so odd, until I read this "comment:":
https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11840313&postID=6717557589313089017

The authors got 600 to 1 because they asked what are the chances that, in 4 tries, we would get a Jesus, a Mary, a Joseph, another Mary. In actuality, the correct analysis is -- what is the probability that, in 10 tries (as there are 10 ossuaries), we would get at least one Jesus, at least one Joseph and at least one Mary (the only three known to have been linked to Jesus). . . . This is the correct way to do it. And it yields a 1 in 400 chances that it IS Jesus, not a 1 in 600 chance that it is not Jesus!

Seems like classic selection bias. The documentary selected the four ossuaries they were interested in and ignored the ossuaries that don't fit the comparison they want to make.

BTW/ It doesn't appear that early Christians changed their names, at least for the first few centuries according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

Or this could have been the work of 'chief priests' of that time an extension of the verse in Matthew 28:12

jesus rose form the dead all that was left was a cloth in the toumb