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]

The evidence given in above post for the Talpiot tomb to NOT be tomb of Jesus' family is Biblical accounts say He rose bodily to heaven. This should be a faith-based explanation only. If we are talking scientific explanation, this cannot be included.

[Diane]

Falasha,
The reason I used the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ burial is because they were written by 3 eyewitnesses and 1 historical researcher. Their reports were not based on faith but on their own empirical evidence. They saw his death and burial and saw the empty tomb. (John 20:3-8)
You have been misinformed in your point that “Biblical accounts say He rose bodily to heaven.” They do not.
One of the reasons there were no remains in the tomb is because Peter tells us that Jesus was “put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.” As a spirit Jesus went and preached to “the spirits in prison,” the angels who had disobeyed God in Noah’s day. (1Peter 3:18-20) As a spirit Jesus was able to manifest human flesh as had angels in Abrahams time. He was able to appear in a room with locked doors and disappear. The disciples didn’t even recognize him because each time he appeared it was in a different body.—Luke 24:15-16, 31; John 20:14, 19, 26; 21:4
Jesus said that he came to give his “flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (John 6:51) Christians, Paul said, “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” (Hebrews 9:26, 28; 10:10) To keep his body in the resurrection would negate the sacrifice. Paul also said plainly that, “flesh and blood cannot inherit God’s kingdom.” So Jesus could not have taken his fleshly body to heaven. (1Corinthians 15:44-45, 50, 51, 53)

[falasha]

Diane,
Thanks for your polite reply.

Are you saying that it is possible then that this is the Jesus family tomb?

[Diane]

Falasha,
By no means did I mean to imply that the Talpiot tomb has anything to do with the family of Jesus. Matthew’s report refutes that idea by writing that Joseph of Arimathea  “placed [Jesus’ body] in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock.” (Matthew 27:58-60) Not a tomb of Jesus' family, Joseph's "own new tomb."
Matthew, Mark and John were eyewitnesses of the burial.  They wrote what they saw. As Peter stated, “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16)
Because of so many "invented stories" about Jesus Paul directed Timothy to order "certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith." (1Timothy 1:3-4)
Specualtion is a time waster and does nothing to help us acquire “full knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding.” (Colossians 1:9) Only a continuous study of the Bible can do that. It is the only book with all the answers to all the questions.

[falasha]

Falasha,
By no means did I mean to imply that the Talpiot tomb has anything to do with the family of Jesus. Matthew’s report refutes that idea by writing that Joseph of Arimathea  “placed [Jesus’ body] in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock.” (Matthew 27:58-60) Not a tomb of Jesus' family, Joseph's "own new tomb."

The tomb Jesus was placed in after crucifiction was temporary. He was placed in this tomb because of it's closeness to golgotha and because of Jewish law prohibits burial on Shabbat. Since the traditon was to place the bones in an ossuary after one year, what would preclude followers from moving this bone box to a family tomb? Especially since Joseph of Arimathea was not of the family of Jesus? It would make sense for Jesus to be interred with the rest of his family .

Thank you for your reply.

[archaeologist]

Matthew, Mark and John were eyewitnesses of the burial

just a point of clarification, mark was not an eye-witness but was a young man who became a companion to both paul then peter.

This should be a faith-based explanation only. If we are talking scientific explanation, this cannot be included.

this is why you can't trust science, it omits data vital to the explanation and creates false conclusions and takes people in the wrong direction.

if it was a family tomb, why are so many of Jesus' family missing from it and why was matthew included?  he wasn't a family member.

[falasha]

This should be a faith-based explanation only. If we are talking scientific explanation, this cannot be included.

this is why you can't trust science, it omits data vital to the explanation and creates false conclusions and takes people in the wrong direction.

if it was a family tomb, why are so many of Jesus' family missing from it and why was matthew included?  he wasn't a family member.

I disagree! Science can point us in the right direction.

We do not know if Matthew was a family member or not.  And it could be that other family members such as sisters, were interred in their husband's family tomb.

[Diane]

Since the traditon was to place the bones in an ossuary after one year, what would preclude followers from moving this bone box to a family tomb?
Each account of the women going to the tomb says they found it empty. Angels told them Jesus was not there for he had been resurrected. Peter and John found in the tomb only the bandages in which Jesus’ body had been wrapped.—Luke 24:12; John 20:3-8
There were no bones in the tomb to move.  Peter tells us that Jesus was “put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.” (Matthew 28:6-7; Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:2-6; John 20:1-13)
Since he was resurrected as a spirit person it stands to reason that his God and Father who resurrected him disposed of his body in his own way. It was the body of Jesus that was offered as a sacrifice for Adam’s sin. Jesus said that he would give his “flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (John 6:51) Christians, Paul said, “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” (Hebrews 9:26, 28; 10:10) If his flesh, his body, had still been in the tomb there would have been no sacrifice. So there were no bones in the tomb to move.

[falasha]

Since the traditon was to place the bones in an ossuary after one year, what would preclude followers from moving this bone box to a family tomb?
Each account of the women going to the tomb says they found it empty. Angels told them Jesus was not there for he had been resurrected. Peter and John found in the tomb only the bandages in which Jesus’ body had been wrapped.—Luke 24:12; John 20:3-8
There were no bones in the tomb to move.  Peter tells us that Jesus was “put to death in the flesh, but being made alive in the spirit.” (Matthew 28:6-7; Mark 16:5-6; Luke 24:2-6; John 20:1-13)
Since he was resurrected as a spirit person it stands to reason that his God and Father who resurrected him disposed of his body in his own way. It was the body of Jesus that was offered as a sacrifice for Adam’s sin. Jesus said that he would give his “flesh in behalf of the life of the world.” (John 6:51) Christians, Paul said, “have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” (Hebrews 9:26, 28; 10:10) If his flesh, his body, had still been in the tomb there would have been no sacrifice. So there were no bones in the tomb to move.

I think Jesus dieing on the cross was the supreme sacrifice. I don't understand how seeing his body would preclude a sacrifice. It was the suffering of the man Jesus that was cleansing.

But if we are talking about archaeology, we are using scientific methods. Scientific methods cannot involve such faith-based beings such as angels. Also, rising from the dead, cannot be included as viable vehicle of removal from tomb when discussing science.

Every Christian church, Christian colleges and other religious organizations maintain the literal interpretation of bible. I think it's wonderful that there is at least ONE organization that looks at the story of the Passion through a scientific lense.

Thanks for responding to my post.

[Diane]

To archaeologist,
Thank you for reminding me that "mark was not an eye-witness but was a young man who became a companion to both paul then peter." When I was looking for what each gospel writer said about the burial of Jesus I remembered that Luke was not an eyewitness and when thinking about Mark entered a brain fog because I said to myself, 'he was the tax collector' though I knew Matthew was the tax collector.
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most!

[archaeologist]

We do not know if Matthew was a family member or not

we do know, he wasn't.

Science can point us in the right direction.

again you are wrong. science deals with such incomplete evidence that  itis nearly impossible for it do anything without the bible.

I don't understand how seeing his body would preclude a sacrifice.

because the ressurrection is what provides the hope.  if we find the body thenthere was no ressurrection thus no hope for heaven or salvation.  since Jesus was ressurrected then we know we will be too and we will have the salvation promised.

And it could be that other family members such as sisters, were interred in their husband's family tomb

a stretch since jame's ossuary was not in that tomb we know it isn't jesus' family tomb.  plus they lived in nazereth why would they have a tomb in Jerusalem?

But if we are talking about archaeology, we are using scientific methods. Scientific methods cannot involve such faith-based beings such as angels

which shows you the limitedness of science and why it cannot be relied upon.

[SpiritMatter]

Knowing human nature, we can understand why many claim allegiance to the truth but in reality have invested beliefs that they choose to continue to believe are true regardless of any facts to the contrary. Finding ossuaries that seem to witness to a family of Jesus, Yahshua, does not require the destruction of the belief that He was the Christ, ha Mashiach, because there are many potential scenarios for these two pieces of information to be consistent with each other. For example, Jesus' uncle, Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was a priest and may have been wealthy. After their son was beheaded and buried, they may have expected a need for a tomb and ossuary for Jesus, and with other wealthy supporters of Jesus, who did not have the advantage of hindsight that we do, expected Jesus to become another martyr for the reformation and liberation of Israel and so had a tomb and ossuary pre-made. Jesus did not necessarily use it but those loved ones who were left may have made use of it. The "rest of the story" is probably more exciting then we have yet imagined.
 
John 21:25  And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

[archaeologist]

yet john was not found in the tomb nor was zacharius or his wife.  then because the name jesus was very common as well as mary, miriam andothers you are assuming that out of the myriads of possibilities this is Jesus' family.  mary magdelene was not family so why would she be put there?

you are also forgetting that the greek word 'kai' means and that miriam does not translate into magdelene.

[falasha]

yet john was not found in the tomb nor was zacharius or his wife.  then because the name jesus was very common as well as mary, miriam andothers you are assuming that out of the myriads of possibilities this is Jesus' family.  mary magdelene was not family so why would she be put there?

you are also forgetting that the greek word 'kai' means and that miriam does not translate into magdelene.

"Kai" means "and". But why are you asking that question?

Noone has suggested miriam is translated into magdelene.