tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post4533081025127888909..comments2009-07-17T15:14:26.564-05:00Todd Bolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06156730661243501832tbolen91@bibleplaces.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-75028135990889389112009-07-17T15:14:26.564-05:002009-07-17T15:14:26.564-05:00Jesus was not buried in a family tomb, but in the tomb of Joseph of Arimithea. (matthew 27:57-60)Jeffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-58970208954180720142007-05-20T01:11:00.000-05:002007-05-20T01:11:00.000-05:00The holes in the documentary are quite clear. It is based on a significant amount of hype. While the earliest criticisms (the ones coming from those that haven't seen the book or the documentary) may have been over the top, the more calm yet swift kick in the butt by academics put the Lost Tomb of Jesus into the category of fiction.<BR/><BR/>A new site has been developed for those that want to see all the facts of the documentary reviewed without the director's bias. You can see it from this site: <BR/><BR/>http://www.TheLostTombofJesus.comJohn Stephenhttp://www.thelosttombofjesus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-19839639899657164672007-04-12T13:21:00.000-05:002007-04-12T13:21:00.000-05:00It is unfortunate that the Jesus tomb discovery was not given a more academic reception. Instead, it was pounced upon without looking at the facts. One thing that really helped me shape this view is the video I found just this morning with the director of the movie responding to criticism about DNA, the inscriptions, everything. Hopefully this will at last let the academic community consider this discovery in a more mature and deserving light. The site is www.jesusfamilytomb.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-1118007376569961722007-03-02T04:15:00.000-06:002007-03-02T04:15:00.000-06:00Erhm....if "Seven Star Hand" has a problem with the name Jesus or "Yeshua" (i.e. yud, shin, vav, ayin in Hebrew), then he's got a problem with the Hebrew Bible--since it occurs 28 times in the HB. <BR/><BR/>Take a look at the Hebrew of Nehemiah 8:14. Here Joshua the son of Nun is called "Yeshua bin-Nun".<BR/><BR/>Isn't it interesting that ALL of these occurences are in post-exilic books? Hence a clear development of the name Jehoshuah to the shortened form Jeshua (i.e. Yeshua) can be seen.<BR/><BR/>-BenjAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-88107260926838240382007-03-01T08:56:00.000-06:002007-03-01T08:56:00.000-06:00I am debating whether or not to watch the Discovery Channel's presentation of this stuff. Seems the popular media isn't overly concerned with what the majority of scholars think if there's a chance to "disprove" the historicity of the Bible. <BR/><BR/>You mention of DNA testing is interesting. So there was a Jesus who was unrelated to a Mary. If it weren't for Dan Brown and other like-minded "scholars" of an imaginative turn, would that even be newsworthy? The only real relationship that we know of that Jesus had with a Mary that would make it logical to be buried in the same tomb would be His mother, and they would have DNA that said they were related. It would not be a stretch to find a mother and a son in the same family tomb if multiple generations are buried together, would it? Get rid of "Jesus was married" and you are left with the conclusion that this is some other family. It is about as logical to automatically assign Biblical identities to these names as it would be to say that any reference from the late 18th or early 19th century in Virginia to a "George and Martha" that doesn't have any other identifying context must be a reference to the first US president and his wife.<BR/><BR/>Completely off topic, but I really stopped by to say that there is a great picture on p. 68 of the Jan/Feb issue of BAR. Brings back memories...The IBEX Scribehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05653642755796812958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-31917268445249517942007-02-28T05:41:00.000-06:002007-02-28T05:41:00.000-06:00when it comes to light that none of the bones in fact had any signs of crucifixion, then these agents of lies will than call into question the crucifixion itselfjmjnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-49851359379669364692007-02-28T02:05:00.000-06:002007-02-28T02:05:00.000-06:00"...there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts"(2 Peter 3:3)<BR/><BR/>"But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that brought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.<BR/>And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. <BR/>And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not..."(2 Peter 2:1-3)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-9485776773627934022007-02-27T21:11:00.000-06:002007-02-27T21:11:00.000-06:00The tomb at Talpiot is located about halfway between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. I have no idea if this story has any truth to it or not, and will withhold my judgment until more scientists and statisticians, and maybe even clergy weigh in, but I will point out that the objection in this blog's main feature holds no water. If the family lived in Bethlehem, this could have been the family tomb! If they lived in Jerusalem, this could have been the family tomb. The tomb is in between the two towns, which themselves are not far apart geographically.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-46221533786278840772007-02-27T20:24:00.000-06:002007-02-27T20:24:00.000-06:00in1980 the tomb was found the boxes were opened the bones were buried the bones were looked at by archeologists and such,any spike holes in the hands and feetAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-56326633599563918532007-02-27T20:06:00.000-06:002007-02-27T20:06:00.000-06:00Let us add to the mix that while there is a nice Rabbinic tradition that Jesus was a bastard, there is no tradition that "his tomb is just down the street" and everyone knows it (as anonymous asserts). <BR/>This so-called discovery was a non-issue in the field for 20 years. It came up in our discussions of the James Ossuary, and that, most likely, is how the producers stumbled on this lovely money-making concept. *yawn* Its a boring topic and has no scholarly credibility despite what Jim Tabor asserts (ans I am bothered by that and plan to take him to task on it privately).....<BR/><BR/>Let's get the public on something "real", like the Illuminati....DMhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07766610157125671346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-13172664246010368942007-02-27T12:01:00.000-06:002007-02-27T12:01:00.000-06:00Christopher - good thoughts and I agree. It certainly isn't out of the question that Jesus' family was buried in Jerusalem, but it's hard to believe that Jesus and his son were. If anything, it makes more sense that they went to France so that no one knew. On Pfann's reading, I'm not putting too much weight on that since it seems that no one else is reading it the same way.<BR/><BR/>An interesting thing on many posts that I have written on this subject - someone anonymous puts a very short comment with a link to the official website. If I didn't know better, I'd think that someone was getting paid to drive traffic there.Todd Bolenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06156730661243501832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-21417987789281289612007-02-27T11:36:00.000-06:002007-02-27T11:36:00.000-06:00Here's the official site if you're interested. It may not provide all the facts, but its a good start for further investigation:<BR/>www.jesusfamilytomb.comAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-8607877787605510572007-02-27T11:08:00.000-06:002007-02-27T11:08:00.000-06:00Well.. . this debate sure brings some interesting people out of the woodwork. . . .<BR/><BR/>Thanks Todd for this longer, albeit, preliminary report.<BR/><BR/>A couple comments: <BR/>1) It seems plausible that Jesus' family could have been buried, against custom, in Jerusalem, given their special status in the community of faith, and given that the community largely centered around that city at the time when most of them would have died.<BR/>2) It also seems plausible that if the early followers of Jesus wanted to "cover up" his death, they might have gone to great lengths to bury Him without advertising it. However, this brings up another problem for the conspiracy theorists: that is, if they were trying to cover it up, why put the names on the ossuraries?!!!<BR/>3) I agree with you that the suggestion about Mary Magdalene and Jesus and Judah is REALLY far fetched. There is no way in heck to prove that or even suggest that!<BR/>4) Pfann's analysis could be the biggest smoking gun. I want to know more about it.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your faithfulness and scholarship.Christopherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01007093069888736130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-14002052762180395872007-02-27T10:10:00.000-06:002007-02-27T10:10:00.000-06:00<B>Lying about the name of Jesus, again and again...</B><BR/><BR/>Hello Todd and all,<BR/><BR/>The most interesting aspect of this Jesus Tomb story revolves around the actual names on the bone boxes compared to what is being asserted in the effort to make a profit. Pay special attention to the tortured explanations of how names like Jesus, Mary, Matthew, and others were translated from inscriptions that actually say otherwise. As Christians rally to "prove" that this archeological find can't be the "Jesus" and "Mary" of the New Testament, they too must answer the questions about why it is correct to translate those names in a special way to support the veracity of the most profitable story in history. Christians must truthfully answer the question of why it is wrong to use their own methodology to arrive at the names now being asserted as appearing on those bone boxes.<BR/><BR/>A pivotal component of the strong delusion of Christianity revolves around the name/title Jesus Christ. Christians and others have rallied around the weak and blatantly deceptive assertions surrounding the source of the name Jesus, among others in the so-called New Testament. All of the purported uses of this name in ancient settings are actually the Hebrew and Aramaic names that we call Joshua, <I>in all other instances</I>. Why then all of the tortured explanations to convince people that the Hebrew name translated <I>in all other instances</I> as Joshua should in some special cases become the dubious name/title Jesus Christ? If these stories were the truth, why has so much deception accompanied them and those who have profited from them throughout most of the last two millennia?<BR/><BR/>Ever consider that the New Testament and the stories of Jesus Christ are the great deceptions that the original Hebrew texts warned about? Isn't it odd that the New Testament is full of Greco-Roman names from Europe, not from Judea? Isn't it odd that all of the purported authors of New Testament books have European names and made numerous geographical and factual errors. For example, the proven fact that there was no town named Nazareth during the Second-Temple period. What then does the term Nazarene truly allude to and why did the Vatican and its predecessors go to such lengths to obscure the truth? Why have the Vatican, Papacy, and Christianity been characterized by such extreme duplicity and deception for their entire existence if they were truly representatives of the Creator?<BR/><BR/>You do understand that Gog from Magog actually refers to Greeks and Romans (Greco-Romans) who invaded, subjugated, and scattered the children of Israel? Isn't it at all worrisome that the Vatican and Christianity have "whitewashed" the names, images, and activities of all of the purported Judean characters in the long-dubious New Testament that history proves would have been dark-skinned, dark-haired locals, not blue-eyed European invaders, had they truly existed. Consequently, billions of people have long been deceived into worshipping a false god with a name and image that never could have existed in ancient Second Temple Period Judea!<BR/><BR/>Ever heard of strong lies and strong delusion? Read 2 Thessalonians 2:11 again.<BR/><BR/>Can you say woe, woe, woe?<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/sevenstarhand/" REL="nofollow">Here is Wisdom !!</A>Seven Star Handhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15707393570093417590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-42623027089813607672007-02-27T09:30:00.000-06:002007-02-27T09:30:00.000-06:00There is a nice story in the gospel of Matthew (28:11-15) about rumours of Jesus body being stolen from the tomb. The gospel says: “this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day”. The gospel of Matthew has been written around the 70 AD. Why should people have circulated the story, if nearby there was a tomb with the remains of Jesus, his wife and his son?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20570989.post-11431894513822362842007-02-27T09:12:00.000-06:002007-02-27T09:12:00.000-06:00This worries me, I hope it's not true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com