MERGED-->Jesus- Tomb found with body + James Cameron is...

[deep]

Jesus - Tomb found with body.

Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.

Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.

There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God.

But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East (check out a personal favorite: Israelity Bites) Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics. Stay tuned.

 

[deep]

link here

 

[martha]

So now James Cameron is some kind of scientist/scholar?

And all this time I thought he just made crappy movies.

 

[DrTeeth]

They have DNA samples of Jesus?

 

[Dreadsox]

They have DNA samples of Jesus?

My thoughts exactly.....although, any chance they have DNA in the davidic line?

 

[coemgen]

I was intrigued by the “Exodus Decoded,” although I know many scholars – even Biblical ones – saw many holes in it.
I have respect for Jacobovici’s intellect, but I don’t know that he’s on the right trail with this one.
1. I guess I don’t understand how DNA evidence will prove this. (Or how they have DNA evidence in the first place, and know it’s correct.)
2. The trouble I have with the assumption that it’s Christ’s tomb is the absurdity that it wasn’t found earlier. I think leaders of the time of the crucifixion would’ve known where his body was. Heck, they guarded it. If they’d found Christ’s remains, it would’ve been the end of Christianity, too. I’m sure it would’ve been widely known, or easily known, where Christ’s remains were if they were in fact there. However, this isn’t what history tells us. Instead, we see the explosion of a new faith based on an empty tomb.
3. Jacobovici’s Jewish. Is there an agenda to his work? If he’s going to try to disprove Christ, he should start by explaining the many prophecies Christ fulfilled in the OT – especially the ones that weren’t up to him to fulfill.

Whatever the case, this will be interesting. It also will stir up discussion, which is always a good thing.

 

[AEON]

I thought Mary Magdalene went to France to found the Merovingian Dynasty with the daughter of Jesus - how could this be her tomb?

 

[blueeyedgirl]

They have DNA samples of Jesus?

They got the Shroud of Turin, don't they?

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Be open minded Christian believers!
This will be VERY interesting if it's true, let's hope many people just don't write it off because it threatens their faith.

 

[Liesje]

Be open minded Christian believers!
This will be VERY interesting if it's true, let's hope many people just don't write it off because it threatens their faith.

It shouldn't even threaten faith. From a Christian perspective, Jesus was both fully human AND fully divine. Thus, it's not outrageous for him to have a bodily form that was left behind, or whatever.

I'm open-minded b/c this stuff is really interesting to me, but I also agree with coemgen's speculations.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Did he find the remains of his dead career in there too?

 

[martha]

This will be VERY interesting if it's true, let's hope many people just don't write it off because it threatens their faith.

I'm writing it off because I have no time for James Cameron.

 

[Irvine511]

I'm writing it off because I have no time for James Cameron.

you didn't like Terminator 2?

 

[BonosSaint]

Did he find the remains of his dead career in there too?

 

[speedracer]

This article claims that the tomb is the one that contained the box labeled "James, brother of Jesus" which turned up a while back.

I'm not sure how they know that, or why they don't mention that the James ossuary is thought to be a forgery.

Still, I wonder if I should hedge my bets by practicing Judaism. Giving up pepperoni is going to be a drag, but at least I went under the knife when I was a kid.

 

[martha]

you didn't like Terminator 2?

um, no.

I'm a Californian. We live that everyday now.

 

[coemgen]

I read through the chapters of John this morning that deal with the resurrection. The thing that struck me is that if Jesus did die and there was no resurrection, Christianity would've died with him. His followers didn't expect the resurrection. They thought they'd reached an end. The Bible should've ended at the Old Testament if this were the case.
However, instead history tells us the faith exploded and many of the early followers were tortured and killed for believing in a risen Christ.

So, not only would the religious elite of the day have the power to stop Christianity with the remains of Christ, but the jumpstart of the faith wouldn't have happened if Christ were, in fact, dead.
Instead, there's millions of people like me throughout the world 2,000-some years later following Christ.

 

[deep]

I read through the chapters of John this morning that deal with the resurrection. The thing that struck me is that if Jesus did die and there was no resurrection, Christianity would've died with him. His followers didn't expect the resurrection. They thought they'd reached an end. The Bible should've ended at the Old Testament if this were the case.
However, instead history tells us the faith exploded and many of the early followers were tortured and killed for believing in a risen Christ.

So, not only would the religious elite of the day have the power to stop Christianity with the remains of Christ, but the jumpstart of the faith wouldn't have happened if Christ were, in fact, dead.
Instead, there's millions of people like me throughout the world 2,000-some years later following Christ.

Do you believe the claims about Mohammed, ascending to heaven and the like, because there are millions of believers?


On a side note do you believe that Lazarus, was risen from the dead?

 

[coemgen]

Mohammed didn't come back from the dead though, deep.

Yes, I believe Lazarus was risen from the dead.

 

[coemgen]

The article speedracer provided the link for is better than the Time article, which makes it sound like Cameron is trying to debunk Christianity altogether. (Which Cameron said he's not in the second one.)

The second article says: “Nothing in the film or book challenges traditional Christian dogma regarding the resurrection. But it could pose a problem for those that believe Jesus' ascension, 40 days after the resurrection, was both physical and spiritual.”

Here are scriptures referencing the ascension. Keep in mind the Psalms are prophetic, written well before Christ’s birth.

Psalm 47:5
God has ascended amid shouts of joy, the LORD amid the sounding of trumpets.

Psalm 68:18
When you ascended on high, you led captives in your train; you received gifts from men, even from the rebellious— that you, O LORD God, might dwell there.

Mark 16:19
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.

Luke 24:26
Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?

Luke 24:50, 51
When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.

It doesn’t necessarily say it was his physical body, too, although I guess it’s implied. I guess, theoretically, it could’ve been his spirit that his followers saw ascend to heaven. The body might not have been mentioned because it wasn’t important.
Who knows? It’s certainly interesting and worth talking about. If he did have a child and he did ascend only in spirit, I don’t think either threatens the faith. I could be wrong though, I’m just throwing that out there as I now understand it. I’m definitely going to be doing some research of my own.

 

[deep]

Mohammed didn't come back from the dead though, deep.

true,
There are many claims about Islam that believers take as truth and non-believers do not accept

Yes, I believe Lazarus was risen from the dead.

I can accept that Lazarus was dead or believed to be dead and was entombed.

And either Jesus did raise him from the dead

or

Lazarus returned to the living

there are stories today where one is believed dead and they actually are not

The main thing about the Lazarus story is that he appeared dead and the Jesus arrived and Lazarus lived again.

The followers of Christ witnessed this and the non-believers saw the resurrected Lazarus live out the rest of his days.

Now, that is powerful and most likely won converts to Jesus teachings.


One thing that has always bothered me about the Jesus resurrection story versus the Lazarus resurrection story is that while everyone got to see Lazarus live the rest of his life

The resurrected Jesus was of less benefit than Lazarus resurrection

What if Lazarus only appeared to a few of his family members for a few days and then vaporized, would it even be remembered, or the claim believed?

Why did Jesus' resurrection not take as well as Lazarus'?

Why didn't Jesus came back from the dead and give a second "Sermon on the Mount" for hundreds to see, like the High Priests, and Herod, and Pilot?
and live the rest of his days. like Lazarus?

Why is the testimony only from people that had something to gain by keeping the Jesus story going?

 

[speedracer]

One thing that has always bothered me about the Jesus resurrection story versus the Lazarus resurrection story is that while everyone got to see Lazarus live the rest of his life

The resurrected Jesus was of less benefit than Lazarus resurrection

What if Lazarus only appeared to a few of his family members for a few days and then vaporized, would it even be remembered, or the claim believed?

Why did Jesus' resurrection not take as well as Lazarus'?

Why didn't Jesus came back from the dead and give a second "Sermon on the Mount" for hundreds to see, like the High Priests, and Herod, and Pilot?
and live the rest of his days. like Lazarus?

Why is the testimony only from people that had something to gain by keeping the Jesus story going?

I practice theology without a license, so caveat emptor.

That being said, the apostle Paul claims in 1 Corinthians that 500 witnesses saw the risen Christ simultaneously. It is generally accepted that this letter was written ~50-60 AD, within the lifetime of Jesus's contemporaries.

 

[speedracer]

Ack, I didn't mean to post that quite yet.

Why didn't Jesus stick around longer before ascending to heaven? Beats me, you'll have to ask him. But his purpose for existing wasn't just to tell stories and heal people. His preaching and miracles were just supposed to be signs indicating that he was the Messiah who had come for an even greater purpose -- to save all of us from our sins. The gospel of Mark has the following story:

When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."

Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, "Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

And yes, the clearest claims of Jesus's resurrection are all from his followers. What did they have to gain from propagating the story of his resurrection? A following of believers, and death. Evaluate that how you will.

Finally, about the statement that Jesus's resurrection need not be physical for the gospel to still be valid -- in 1 Corinthians 15 (same link as in the previous post), Paul vehemently disagrees. Again, take his argument for what it's worth.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I've never thought anyone could rise from the dead, but you don't give me a thread about it!

I guess it's easier to zone in on Cameron as a target for ridicule than give any credit or even the time of day to absolutely anything, factual, scientific, or other, which might give too much evidence that Christianity is built largely upon a lot of stretching the truth. I'm not directing this at martha or anyone specifically. I've often wondered at why 'we' snub archaeologists, historians, scientists, geneologists or even somewhat less than scholarly studies yet steadfastedly hold onto a view based on pitifully little fact and evidence. Seems mighty odd to me. But whatev.

 

[MadelynIris]

I've often wondered at why 'we' snub archaeologists, historians, scientists, geneologists or even somewhat less than scholarly studies yet steadfastedly hold onto a view based on pitifully little fact and evidence. Seems mighty odd to me. But whatev.

I've felt the same way about so called "Biblical Archeologists" who rarely get the time of day when the do discover evidence to support biblical history.

 

[MadelynIris]

I just saw this interesting post in response to the Time magazine article...

. The earliest known copy of the New Testament archaelogists have discoverd is dated around 130 AD...shortly after we had approximately 25,000 copies in existence that archaelogists have found.

2. Caesar's Wars written between 100-44 BC - the earliest copy we can date is 900AD and we only have 10 copies.

3. Tacitus' Annals written in 100AD - with an earliest known copy found in 1,100 AD and we have 20 copies

4. Plato's Tetrologies written between 427 - 347 BC - earliest known copy 900AD and we have 7 copies.

5. Aristotle - any one work written between 384-322BC. Earliest known copy 1,000AD and we only have 5.

Now here is some VERIFIABLE evidence regarding the New Testment (just a sampling).

1. 1 Corinthians was written by PAul about 55AD
2. Only 25 years after Christ's death.
3. Succinctly shows the Gospel of the early church
4. "Hundreds" of eyewitnesses are noted, most of which would still be alive at this time and presumably would have easily refuted a contrived Resurrection story.

Just to put in perspective...none of us (at least I assume) question to much the history (oral or written) of World War II, Vietnam, or even the year 1982...these events occurred roughly 60, 30 and 25 years respectively.

However, some so-called enlightenend people would never question Plato or Aristotle (very few copies and known 1200 - 1400 years following their origination), yet they question eyewitnesses recorded less than 30 years after Christ's Resurrection and of which we have over 25,000 original copies.

As the noted Jewish historian Nelson GLueck has noted, "It may be stated categorically that no archaelogical discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

I am sure Mr. Cameron's alleged discovery will not change Mr. Glueck's opinion.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I've felt the same way about so called "Biblical Archeologists" who rarely get the time of day when the do discover evidence to support biblical history.

Yep, likewise is true, too. I guess we naturally seek that which supports our own views. Interesting, huh.

 

[AEON]

I just saw this interesting post in response to the Time magazine article...

Excellent post!

 

[maycocksean]

I've often wondered at why 'we' snub archaeologists, historians, scientists, geneologists or even somewhat less than scholarly studies yet steadfastedly hold onto a view based on pitifully little fact and evidence. Seems mighty odd to me. But whatev.

I don't think that I "snub" what archaelogists etc have found, but I also know I can't depend on these scholars to define my faith for me. After all, science can't prove there is a God, so I'm already in trouble on that count long before I get to the resurrection of Jesus.

The reason I choose to believe despite the dirth of scientific evidence, is because of the overwhelming personal evidence and experience I've had with God. Without that, I can see why this whole Christianity caper would seem like a lot of bunk to you.

My favorite singer/songwriter, Rich Mullins once said at one of his concerts: "If you're looking for a religion that make sense, well, I don't know if this is the one. But if you're looking for a religion that makes life, well, I think this is it."

That's what my faith is for me. . . more than just a set of "beliefs" or "doctrines" that I cling to. It's a life, a Person. That's why I believe.

 

[speedracer]

Angela,

As mentioned above, the documents in the New Testament do hold up pretty well when subjected to historical inquiry. The question is how you evaluate it against the empirical observation that people generally don't rise from the dead.