CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

People are fascinated by the person of Jesus Christ, no matter who they think he is.

I clicked on "enter the tomb", and it states that the existence of the tomb does not conflict with the central beliefs of Christianity, because the article states that ascension described in Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9-11 do not specify whether it was a physical or spiritual one.

The URL is not direct, because it's flash: http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html

My own theological view is that whilst Scripture does not explicitly cite it being a physical ascension, it seems pretty clear that it was one, for before the ascension, Jesus ate a broiled fish in their presence, and the text does not state that he left his physical body when ascending (which I think would have been an important bit of information!).

Also, to the best of my understanding, Christians have always understood Jesus' resurrection and ascension to be a physical one. So I think the article's author(s) is likely to be misguided on what Christians believe about Jesus Christ.

Well discussing this would take a while but here are some links for those who want to read more about it. J.P Holding has posted some info on this at TheologyWeb if anyone is curious for his response.

Archeological Identity Theft : The Lost Tomb of Jesus Fails to Make the Grade

Podcast: Rebuttal to the Claims of the Lost Tomb of Jesus

Reactions to "The Jesus Family Tomb"

The lost tomb of Jesus?

Ten reasons why the Jesus Tomb claim is bogus

Long list of link-reviews.

How do i know all these links? Well, let's just say that I'm very active in this arena. Especially when it comes to Creation VS Evolution debates.

macguy wrote:How do i know all these links? Well, let's just say that I'm very active in this arena. Especially when it comes to Creation VS Evolution debates.

...

Either way, I don't know how they're going to test these bones and prove they're Jesus. Maybe his bones are made out of little angels.

Joshua Christopher wrote:...

Haha, is that a bad thing? Debates just seem to follow me around for some reason. I hope that I'm not giving people the impression that i know more than them. I am pretty sure that there is someone here who keeps up to date with these debates and more informed than me.

Either way, I don't know how they're going to test these bones and prove they're Jesus. Maybe his bones are made out of little angels.

Let alone try to provide evidence that this really is the location. There a lot of assumptions here as well. The disciples never referred to Jesus as the "son of Joseph" neither is there any evidence for Mary Magdalene being the wife of Jesus. The only reference to such a thing is perhaps the Gospel of Thomas but that only says "kiss" which would simply mean a kiss in the cheek in those days.

But don't any of you find it at least somewhat plausible?

The point of saying this is to try to say "Ha! The Christians were wrong! The religion is teh corrupted and evil!"

This sort of thing has been attempted since the beginning. People are always trying to disprove Jesus. This whole "spiritual assenscion" thing is a farce, too... If it was just a spiritual assencion, why on earth would the disciples have stood looking into the sky, and been sad for him not being there anymore. There is NO historical basis for this... James Cameron is no historian. He's a film maker, and while Aliens was one of the best scifi movies of all time, he's got less sway when it comes to recent history, let alone ancient history.

This whole thing is one huge joke...

Hakaii wrote:Hey everyone! Tonight I watched a film on the Discovery Channel about a tomb that MAY have been the tomb of Jesus! Any thoughts on the subject?

A few. Mainly along the lines of, This is a big dishonest crock, as this tomb was found 27 years ago and speculation about it being the "tomb of Jesus" was dismissed way back then.

Hakaii wrote:But don't any of you find it at least somewhat plausible?

No.

Honestly, secular biblical scholars debunked the whole shibang when it was discovere 27 years ago.

Somewhat plausible? Yes. It would have to be to get this far.

Archeology and forensics are tools used to connect dots, not paint pictures. The scientist hopes to connect enough dots that the picture becomes clear, but there will always be dots that you can not connect empirically. Those dots you have to fill in yourself using the best data you have available mixed with your own intuition. Here is where error can creep in.

Archeology is especially difficult since the forensic evidence can be centuries and even millennia old. Generally that means more dots need to be connected by educated guesses. It may be also worth noting that statistics are not absolute. They rely on a sampling of data which is (hopefully) representative of the whole of the data. Once again, the farther back in time you are taking your sample from, the harder it is to get a good sample.

So what does it all mean? At least, I believe, it is an interesting exercise, but all I know is this:

Jesus died a physical death to atone for our sins as an eternal sacrifice for all who love God. After a period of time that is approximately three days, Jesus underwent a physical resurrection. At this point there is no body to be entombed anywhere because He lives. After a time, He ascended into heaven.

Outside of this, as far as I am concerned, is a mater of faith and conjecture. I’m not a big fan of “If it happened that way the Bible would have said soâ€

Ultra Magnus wrote:because the article states that ascension described in Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9-11 do not specify whether it was a physical or spiritual one.

I am fairly certain that the disciples proclaimed that Jesus physically rose, as if they wanted to lie, they would have said he "Spiritually Rose", this being unable to be proven false.

Edit: XD Ultra Magus, I didn't read the rest of your post XD My bad.

And Hakaii, there is a difference between "Possibility" and "Plausibility". If Jesus was given a proper burial, there wouldn't be little "scribbles" on the wall with his name and the name of "relatives" and so forth. It would be slowly and neatly carved out.

Seriously, this sort of stuff has been debunked a while back. People just like to present one-sided arguments on mainstream media, people we live in a pro-secularist society.

Heh. One thing people are failing to take into consideration is if the Jews of that age built this tomb hoping people would buy into it. Because if you think about it, to think that the whole bit about Jesus coming back is wrong...we are all wasting our time. So make a tomb, and hope people spread info around about it. They killed Jesus, you don't think they would lie about it?

That is really a good point, Shatter-sama. Jesus, for all the good He did whilst walking this earth, made some powerful [at least politically] enemies. Would they want to discredit Him and the people determined to carry on His legacy? Heck yes! Now, the wrench in that plan is Joseph of Arimathea [sp] and possibly the soldiers present at Christ's crucifixion [as they or another group were likely there to supervise the body's transfer to Joseph of A.]. The soldiers were dogs of the military [/pretendingtobeclever], so they could have been dealt with. Joseph would have to be dealt with in an altogether different manner, but he certainly knew of the real tomb. It was his tomb, after all. However, considering the primitive nature of investigation at that time [no forensics labs or anything], assassinations or other ways of making people disappear would be easier.

It's a theory worth considering ~ not perfect, but certainly plausible.

Of course, I'm still skeptical that they've got anything worth value, but I haven't set aside the time to examine what they're showing in any detail. I'll make that a goal this week.

.rai//

I'm still questioning how they could possibly get DNA confirmation. What are the gonna do, dip his bones in a 2,000 year old casket of wine?

I haven't seen the special, so I can't really comment on it or any supposedly hidden agenda it's sponsors may or may not have. That said, however, this could easily be a string of coincidences, or as Shattered said, a 2,000 year old farse. And I'm still wondering just how they were planning on proving the bones' authenticity after 2,000 years; Jesus wasn't much of an organ donor.

Check his dental records and pull some DNA from the bloodbank (after all, he is rather free with the blood donations) so they have a DNA control to check the bones against.

Hmm. I don't really pay much attention to those kind of shows on Discovery anymore. They seem to just be making stuff up.

Ultra Magnus wrote:My own theological view is that whilst Scripture does not explicitly cite it being a physical ascension, it seems pretty clear that it was one, for before the ascension, Jesus ate a broiled fish in their presence, and the text does not state that he left his physical body when ascending (which I think would have been an important bit of information!).

Also let's not forget, Thomas said he didn't believe Jesus was alive, so Jesus said, "Feel my hands and side." If it wasn't a physical resurrection, why would He have wounds, and how would Thomas have been able to feel them?

Furthermore, the Bible does speak of how the disciples went into the tomb and saw it was empty, with just the linen sitting there. This makes it pretty clear Jesus' physical body had risen.

Anyway, as for this tomb? One, no proof this is His actual tomb, and two, no proof that those are His actual bones. It could literally be anyone's skeleton in there.

ShatterheartArk wrote:Heh. One thing people are failing to take into consideration is if the Jews of that age built this tomb hoping people would buy into it. Because if you think about it, to think that the whole bit about Jesus coming back is wrong...we are all wasting our time. So make a tomb, and hope people spread info around about it. They killed Jesus, you don't think they would lie about it?

*frowns * That sounds rather cynical, judgemental and paranoid. I'm not sure if you're joking or being serious?

bigsleepj wrote:*frowns * That sounds rather cynical, judgemental and paranoid. I'm not sure if you're joking or being serious?

Well, we do know the pharisees tipped off the guards to spread the rumor that Jesus' disciplines had come in the night and stolen his body.

Nate wrote:Anyway, as for this tomb? One, no proof this is His actual tomb, and two, no proof that those are His actual bones. It could literally be anyone's skeleton in there.

Quite. These documentaries are just as credible as things such as "Loose Change".

Fish and Chips wrote:Well, we do know the pharisees tipped off the guards to spread the rumor that Jesus' disciplines had come in the night and stolen his body.

Yes; telling a lie is one thing, but claiming the Pharisees constructed a hoax tomb goes wholly into the realms of cynicism and paranoia, which is why I expressed uncertainty.

Besides, who's to say there was only one Jesus during that time period? Even now we have a quite few donning the name of Jesus in the world. Joseph and Mary weren't remarkable names either. It's like immediately assuming that just because a married couple, Bill and Hillary, who happen to have a daughter named Chelsea are named such that they are the Clintons. It could be anyone's tomb. The only information that can be gathered is that there was a family buried long ago. We can't prove that that Jesus is THE Jesus for physical and spiritual reasons.

Smarty, don't even get me started on Loose Change. The US government would be the single largest employer in the history of the world.
[quote="bigsleepj"]Yes]
Perhaps, I was just throwing that in there.

Puguni wrote:Besides, who's to say there was only one Jesus during that time period? Even now we have a quite few donning the name of Jesus in the world. Joseph and Mary weren't remarkable names either. It's like immediately assuming that just because a married couple, Bill and Hillary, who happen to have a daughter named Chelsea are named such that they are the Clintons. It could be anyone's tomb. The only information that can be gathered is that there was a family buried long ago. We can't prove that that Jesus is THE Jesus for physical and spiritual reasons.

And every third boy in those days was named Simon, or at least it seems that way when you read the Bible.

*sigh*

Ok, I am not going to get into theology here (hint hint, it's not allowed) and I was really hopeing that someone here might have taken something from the video rather than just taking it at face value. I don't think for a second that some filmmaker has unlocked the secrets of Jesus's past. But I am very interested at the prospect of there being tangeble, physical evidence of events in the Bible. Isn't there anything anyone can learn from the evidence? Perhaps there is something there that we as Christians can take from it? Something usefull rather than just rebuking the video? For example, someone mentioned that this could be a 2000 year old prank/fake. Well, couldn't that be evidence that the people mentioned in the Bible existed and had some real impact on the people? Enough of an impact that someone would want to make a mockery of them? If nothing else, it is definately a very old Jewish tomb that has at least some archeological value.

A worthwhile hint as to the credibility of this story might be obtained from the reaction of actual archaeologists. They have panned the whole thing as patently silly, and have essentially written him off as being in the same category as Ron Wyatt and his ilk.

I heard about this on EWTN. Man, Satan just never gives up!

Hakaii wrote:But I am very interested at the prospect of there being tangeble, physical evidence of events in the Bible.

And there's plenty (lots of good books written on the subject). But this isn't it.

If There's One Thing I've Learned...

...it's not to believe everything I see on TV.

All this is pretty interesting, but I've found skepticism to be a handy tool in general, and particularly handy in cases like these.

YMMV.