Not tomb of Jesus

[Diane]

The lost tomb of Jesus documentary says: “the remains of Jesus were transferred to a family tomb.” The recorded eye witness reports of Jesus’ death and resurrection say there were no remains in the tomb to be transferred.
The notion that Jesus' family used their tomb in Jerusalem is clearly refuted by the 4 gospel accounts. Matthew, Mark and John were eyewitnesses and Luke says he traced all thing from the start with accuracy.
Matthew said Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus.  When it was given to him he “placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock.” (Matthew 27:58-60) Not a tomb of Jesus' family, "his own new tomb."
Mark's account is similar.
John also says it was "a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid... since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. (John 19:41-42)
Luke's research is in agreement with the other 3.
Each gospel writer says that when several female disciples went to the tomb they found it empty. Angels told them Jesus was not there for he had been resurrected. (Matthew 28:6-7; Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:2-6; John 20:1-13)  Peter and John found in the tomb only the bandages in which Jesus’ body had been wrapped.—Luke 24:12; John 20:3-8
Professor Jodi Magness had some very interesting insights in the Biblical Archeology Review as to why this tomb could not be the tomb of Jesus. She pointed out that the reason Joseph of Arimathea put the body of Jesus in his own tomb was because the family had no tomb in Jerusalem and he had to be buried, according to Jewish law, before 24 hours passed. And that if Jesus’ family had a tomb it would have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem. Read her comments at,
 Biblical Archaeology Society
Questions? joy2teach1@yahoo.com

[falasha]

From James Tabor's blog:

"Kloner and others have shown, this tomb (whether the site of the 4th century Church of the Holy Sepulcher or not) was a temporary burial. Since neither historian nor believer maintains Jesus’ body remained in that initial tomb, one must hold, from an historical point of view, that he was moved to another location. So, if he was moved to another location, how can one possibly exclude the Talpiot tomb? This does not prove the Talpiot tomb was the place to which he was moved, but it fits well with the gospel accounts, "

Magness and others use as evidence against the Talpiot tomb being the tomb of Jesus that His family tomb would be in Nazareth. But there is evidence that Jesus was not from Nazareth;
1. Jesephus does not mention Nazareth when sumarizing the villages of this area.
2. There was no 1st century synogogue
3. Isaiah did not prophesy the messiah would come from Nazareth.

[archaeologist]

Since neither historian nor believer maintains Jesus’ body remained in that initial tomb, one must hold, from an historical point of view, that he was moved to another location. So, if he was moved to another location, how can one possibly exclude the Talpiot tomb?

how could he have been moved? there were guards at the entrance to make sure thatdidn't happen.

also, all the enemies of Jesus and his disciples were alive at the time, they could have easily refuted the event but they didn't.  this is not the tomb of Jesus, His body wasn't moved and it wasn't a spiritual ressurrection as charlesworth thinks.

even the histodical accounts from secular sources do not even refer to one writing which refuted the event and they would have been aware of such works and they would have searched for the body to prove their case.

none of those things took place and no search was recorded in the historians books so we know the ressurrection was real and included the physical body of Jesus.

[falasha]

Since neither historian nor believer maintains Jesus’ body remained in that initial tomb, one must hold, from an historical point of view, that he was moved to another location. So, if he was moved to another location, how can one possibly exclude the Talpiot tomb?

how could he have been moved? there were guards at the entrance to make sure thatdidn't happen.

also, all the enemies of Jesus and his disciples were alive at the time, they could have easily refuted the event but they didn't.  this is not the tomb of Jesus, His body wasn't moved and it wasn't a spiritual ressurrection as charlesworth thinks.

even the histodical accounts from secular sources do not even refer to one writing which refuted the event and they would have been aware of such works and they would have searched for the body to prove their case.

none of those things took place and no search was recorded in the historians books so we know the ressurrection was real and included the physical body of Jesus.

This may or may not be the Jesus family tomb. I just think the facts support further investigation.

The ossuary could have been moved at the same time the bones were collected (one year anniversary of death.)

[serapha]

This may or may not be the Jesus family tomb. I just think the facts support further investigation.

The ossuary could have been moved at the same time the bones were collected (one year anniversary of death.)

Hi there...

 


I guess it all depends on whether you want biblical facts or secular facts.   According to the Biblical text, there would be no bones to be collected at a later date.   

According to secular archaeologists, anything is feasible.... and sensationalism sells.... When something sells, that creates money for achieving personal projects.   

Did anyone do a survey for BAR a couple of months back, and the "gift" for participating in the survey was a DVD of Dr. Tabor presenting a location for the Temple off the Temple Mount.   It was an older presentation, I think from about 2001, but as we all know now... off the area of the Temple Mount which was presented in that DVD as a feasible location for the Temple according to secularism, is now the location of the old "City of David", and Dr. Eilat Mazar didn't find the remains of the Temple there, did she?

The thing with selling on sensationalism... sooner or later, it is usually proven untrue.     Don't hold your breath waiting for the ossuaries to be proven to be the family of Jesus... that is going to happen.   


~serapha~

[falasha]

With the names on the ossuaries I believe this tomb warrants further study. I am not willing to dismiss it because of belief in bodily resurrection. And I am not holding my breath. I just think we should take another look.

[archaeologist]

Since neither historian nor believer maintains Jesus’ body remained in that initial tomb, one must hold, from an historical point of view, that he was moved to another location. So, if he was moved to another location, how can one possibly exclude the Talpiot tomb?

how can he come to this conclusion, he presents no facts just assumptions.  this is why his credibility has taken a very big hit.

[falasha]

Since neither historian nor believer maintains Jesus’ body remained in that initial tomb, one must hold, from an historical point of view, that he was moved to another location. So, if he was moved to another location, how can one possibly exclude the Talpiot tomb?

how can he come to this conclusion, he presents no facts just assumptions.  this is why his credibility has taken a very big hit.

Actually it is you that is not presenting facts. There are many facts pointing to the Talpiot tomb as family tomb of Jesus. There are none pointing away yet. As soon as evidence is discovered that excludes this tomb, then we can all turn our attention to something else. But until then, it would be irresponsible to seal it up and forget about it.

[RamboPreacher]

...There are some evidences pointing to the Talpiot tomb as family tomb of Jesus.

fixed for clarification, please see MY emphasis above.

...There are none pointing away yet. As soon as evidence is discovered that excludes this tomb, then we can all turn our attention to something else. But until then, it would be irresponsible to seal it up and forget about it.

I believe this is a matter of opinion also as a lack of evidence, does not equate evidence of lack.  this very well MAY be a family tomb of Jesus, though I have my doubts.  the archaeological record (what little there is currently), is too fragmentary to say that it absolutely is, and especially that the Jesus of the Bible died and was laid to rest here and boned collected a year later for ossuary.

[archaeologist]

Actually it is you that is not presenting facts

#1 please point to any 1st century record which denies the claim of the gospels that Jesus bodily rose again.

#2 please point to the evidence which declares and states that Jesus' bones were moved.

#3. please pointto the evidence that says jesus' family could have afforded a jerusalem family tomb.

#4. why is matthew there?  he was not a family member

#5. where are the uncles and aunts cousins and so forth?

#6.  please point to the evidence that the carved names actually refer to Jesus' family.

#7. we do not know where matthew was killed or died so how could we know that this is the disciple matthew?

#8. we know that James' ossuary was not one of the 10 inthe tomb and he was buried on the spot that he died, why didn't they move his bones to the family tomb?

as for evidence against it being the family tomb

#1.  it would call Jesus and God liars.

#2. it would undermine and destroy the message of the Bible

#3. it would make the Bible untrue

#4. no 1st cwntury book or record refuting the gospels' claim

#5. the Bible says He rose again bodily, as thomas found out.
you can't stick your hand inside a spirit.

your turn:

There are many facts pointing to the Talpiot tomb as family tomb of Jesus.

itemize and provide the facts.

But until then, it would be irresponsible to seal it up and forget about it.

not at all.  it is a waste of time to continue to pursue a dead end.

As soon as evidence is discovered that excludes this tomb

evidence has already been provided, read the craig evans article again as well as the original archaeologist's reports.

[falasha]

The participants in the recent conference on second temple burial practices (Jesus Family /tomb) did not use resurrection as legitimate explanation for why there should NOT be a Jesus Family Tomb. To me this is a great leap forward in the evolution of awareness.

[archaeologist]

then they are wrong aren't they and show they are not scientific by omiting data that is germane to the issue and seeking only to prove a pre-conceived idea.

the omitting of data causes people to come to the wrong conclusion.  the scribes and pharisees sought and received a guard for the tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body and falsely  proclaiming Jesus' claims as true.

if after 3 days the body was still there (bones and all), no gospels would have been written, no new testament written and no hope of salvation provided.

the ressurrection is a legitimate explanation for it is the cornerstone of christianity and salvation, without it, you have nothing.

also, if there was no ressurrection, we would have had ancient accounts debunking any claim made by Jesus' disciples andpointingto the location of the bones themselves.  plus we would have the guard's accounts as well andnot some fabricated story, 'we were asleep when it was taken'

since these were roman soldiers on gaurd, they would not have fallenasleep as such an act received the death penalty.  sorry but the facts point to the ressurrection as a true and legitimate event

[falasha]

In 70 A.D. the entire city of Jerusalem was destroyed. Any tradition of a tomb would have been lost in the maelstrom.  Which is why followers of "the way" must have seen things go from bad to worse. First Jesus was crucified and then James and then the complete destruction of Jerusalem. The earliest stories of the reserrection wasn't until 125 A.D.

[notalent]

The earliest stories of the reserrection wasn't until 125 A.D.

Scholarly opinion doesn't agree.  For starters:

"And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 )

[falasha]

The earliest stories of the reserrection wasn't until 125 A.D.

Scholarly opinion doesn't agree.  For starters:

"And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those that are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless other marvels about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day." (Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63 )

Are you quoting Josephus? Or should I say are you quoting Josephus forger?