This show is trying to prove that the bones of Jesus still remain on earth and if they do then Jesus could not possibly have been resurrected. The host bases his finding in the scientific method and calls his work science. The problem I find is that I am pretty sure that the scientific body has already rejected the claim that a conclusively dead organism can be brought back to life. He is trying to show scientifically what has already been determined to be not possible. The practices of science and religion split on with regards to Gods ability to be omnipotent. In my mind this archeological find is in effect "preaching to the choir" .
I find it interesting that at the time of Jesus the Christ, He stated that if we had faith as a mustard seed, and greater works would ye do...etc. I'm not seeing any mountians moving from any of the formally recognised religions...therefore, I decided to try to use Reiki for planetery and humanity's healing and transformation. It is obvious that "man" is so far removed from his God, environment and responsibility therein, that the message of Jesus has been so lost...we are all children of God...gods...created and co-creators, divine. Accordingly as we enter the Aquarian Age, as has happened at ever turn of the zodiac, yet another manifestation of the Christ consciencness will be...let us hope that this One will not be brutilized and murdered for humanity's sake. It is time for each and every one of us incarnate souls to stop proliferating our differences and love one another.
you cant compare jesus' and josephs DNA all it would prove is that jospeh is not his father. which we all know well those who belive. since GOD doesnt have DNA you need jesus and virgin marys to prove it is the bones of jesus. jesus was part human cause of mary and the law and ways back then somone of jesus' age would have to be married does this make him a bad person if so? he could still be the son og god and the messiah and married to times were different back then and the only people that truely know what went on are the people that were there. jesus gave us the choice of faith to believe in him or not to.
My concern has nothing to do with my personal faith or belief. I am concerned that those undecided who would be influenced by this hack of a side show, narrow-mindedly aimed at proving Jesus had a tomb with remains still in it and was married. IF they truly wanted to investigate and report on this matter I would welcome it, but to selectively test "mary" and "jesus" remains, which happens to fall on the heels of the DiVinci Code is suspect to pre-determined investigation and not objective science looking for the truth, but rather seeking a way to influence others for their own profit. I believe Jesus Acsended completely, but I am open to the idea that my translation can be flawed. If it was a spiritual resurection it would not falter my faith, but I would like to know VIA a unbais invetigation targeted at find the truth whatever that maybe.
I am a Christian and I did'nt see any evidence to make me change my belief in Jesus, if anything this bolstered my belief. The resurrection (witnessed by over 600) took place in a tomb "donated" by Joseph of Arimethea and as for Jesus ascention- Why would you need a body in heaven? To eat? To sleep? To reproduce? I do think it a healthy thing that we are discussing this and reexamining the roles of James and Mariamne (Mary Magdelene).I believe that this tomb is genuine and if nothing else provides concrete evidence of the existance of these extraordinary people.
There is no magic in the world. This is your life here and now. live it and make it the best you can, for yourself and for others. dreaming of a hearafter is just that, dreaming. open your eyes,(for the most part) it's a wonderful life!
This is for the believers. I believe that this is something from GOD testing our faith. He put us on earth to love him, worship him and praise him. And he is testing our love and faith for him by putting this show on trying to make us believe that the bible is fake. BUT this is just another temptation from man that is trying to make us change our ways AWAY from the bible... READ 1 CORITHIANS 10:13. it'll help you.
Judaism has a view as to why Islam and the many forms of Christianity over time have attained such large numbers of believers. That G-d is allowing the larger world to get used to the fact there is only ONE G-d. Historically, all Christian nations and all Muslems, are of polythiestic religions. One G-d just wasn't enough and would be too harsh an understanding for them. So Islam was allowed. And Christianity only blossomed in Rome. Home of the Cult of Mithras, Mithras being born of an earthly virgin mother on December 25th, dying and coming back 3 days later. To enter this Cult, one had to drink wine which was his blood and eat bread which was his body... hmmm... this was around for over a thousand years before Pauline Christianity, and look how similar that is to Christianity. The fact is, G-d is getting the majority of the world ready for Torah Judaism. The oldest gospel, Mark, originally ENDED with the two Mary's running away and telling NOONE what they say, for they were in fear. The End. Also, the Catholic church, which ALL modern christianity descends from, has NEVER taught a literal body resurection. SO there would be bodily remains of Yeshua. He didn't ressurect, and if 600 people saw him (supposedly 500 in other gospel accounts) where is all that testimony? Modern Christians need to open their eyes and minds and see the truth. It's as Pope Leo put it best in a letter to a Bishop... "This Myth of Christ Has Served Us Well."
I find it interesting that the James Ossuary: is also featured in the Jesus Tomb documentary.
Forensic testing of the patina on the Jesus ossuary and that of James conclude that they came from the same tomb — seemingly proving the authenticity of the often-questioned James ossuary and further increasing the likelihood that it is the tomb of the holy family.
The documentary speculates that the James ossuary was stolen shortly after the tomb was found. The archaeologists examining the tomb 26 years ago found 10 ossuaries, but only nine are in storage at the IAA. In The Lost Tomb, it is alleged that the James ossuary is that missing box.
But there is one wrinkle that is not examined in the documentary, one that emerged in a Jerusalem courtroom just weeks ago at the fraud trial of James ossuary owner Oded Golan, charged with forging part of the inscription on the box. Former FBI agent Gerald Richard testified that a photo of the James ossuary, showing it in Golan's home, was taken in the 1970s, based on tests done by the FBI photo lab. Amos Kloner, plainly lists that (#10) ossuary as having “No Inscription.” If it had no inscription in 1980 how can it be an anciently-inscribed “James” ossuary? “A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiot,” ‘Atiqot 29(1996) page 17 Table 3
As you remember Amos Kloner was the first archaeologist to examine the East Talpoit Site where the ossuaries were discovered.
You have to ask yourself why does he continue to use the James ossuary as a centerpiece for his case, and as part of the calculations for supporting the probability of this tomb housing Jesus’ family, when the inscription is fraudulant. Also if it is fraudulant why wasn’t James ossuary in the tomb? Is this a fair representation of the facts?
The documentary filmakers experts claimed that Matthew ossuary could be explained by looking at Lukes geneaology. I do not see a Matthew (or interpreted as so) in the geneaology;the most recent possibility is Matthat but he is father of Eli who is the father of Joseph. You have to ask why would he be buried in Jerusalem when the family was from Nazereth and why is there no Eli in the tomb? So many problems where do you start?
to Jackie, no one wants to change your mind about what your believe.if people want to believe that the earth is flat they can do that too.you are the only one who can unlock you shackles of your beliefs. peoplewho believe in the supernatural are chained to it. set yourself free
Thought surfcitybanda might think this is interesting. Religious Diversity and Objective Truth But why think that the alleged links between religious diversity and openness on the one hand and between openness and relativism on the other are so firmly forged? Why cannot someone who believes in the normative truth of the Christian world view, as it comes to expression in the catholic creeds, for instance, be open to seeing truth in and learning from other world religions? Arthur Holmes has taught generations of Wheaton students that "all truth is God's truth," regardless of where it is to be found. The orthodox Christian has no reason to think that all the truth claims made by other world religions are false, but only those that are incompatible with Christian truth claims. So why must one be a relativist in order to be open to truth in other world religions?
No doubt the post-modernist answer to that question will be that the openness I contemplate here is insufficient; it opens the door only a crack. But religious diversity beckons us to throw open the doors of our minds to the legitimacy of religious truth claims logically incompatible with those of the Christian faith. Religious diversity requires us to view these supposedly competing claims as equally true as, or no less true than, or as equally efficacious as, Christian truth claims.
But why does religious diversity imply this sort of openness? The post-modernist is advocating much more than mere intellectual humility here. The post-modernist is not merely saying that we cannot know with certainty which religious world view is true and we therefore must be open-minded; rather he maintains that none of the religious world views is objectively true, and therefore none can be excluded in deference to the allegedly one true religion.
But why think such a thing? Why could not the Christian world view be objectively true? How does the mere presence of religious world views incompatible with Christianity show that distinctively Christian claims are not true? Logically, the existence of multiple, incompatible truth claims only implies that all of them cannot be (objectively) true; but it would be obviously fallacious to infer that not one of them is (objectively) true. So why could it not be the case that a personal God exists and has revealed Himself decisively in Jesus Christ, just as biblical Christianity affirms?
More than that, it needs to be seriously questioned whether the post-modernist, pluralistic position even makes sense. Here we need to ask ourselves what it means to say that an assertion is true and how we may test for truth. A statement or proposition is (objectively) true if and only if it corresponds to reality, that is to say, reality is just as the statement says that it is. Thus, the statement "The Cubs won the 1994 World Series" is true if and only if the Cubs won the 1994 World Series. In order to show a proposition to be true, we present evidence in the form of either deductive or inductive arguments which have that proposition as the conclusion. In both sorts of reasoning, logic and factual evidence are the keys to showing soundly that a conclusion is true. Since a proposition that is logically contradictory is necessarily false and so cannot be the conclusion of a sound argument, and since a proposition validly inferred from factually true premisses ought to be regarded as factually true, one may generalize these notions to say that a world view ought to be regarded as true just in case it is logically consistent and fits all the facts known in our experience. Such a test for truth has been called systematic consistency: "consistency" meaning obedience to the laws of logic and "systematic" meaning fitting all the facts known by experience.{3} Although such a test precludes the truth of any world view which fails it, it does not guarantee the truth of a world view which passes it. For more than one view could be consistent and fit all the facts yet known by experience; or again, a view which is systematically consistent with all that we now know could turn out to be falsified by future discoveries. Systematic consistency thus underdetermines world views, and so (as in the case of all inductive reasoning) we must be content with plausibility or likelihood, rather than rational certainty.
Now under the influence of Eastern mysticism, many people today would deny that systematic consistency is a test for truth. They affirm that reality is ultimately illogical or that logical contradictions correspond to reality. They assert that in Eastern thought the Absolute or God or the Real transcends the logical categories of human thought. They are apt to interpret the demand for logical consistency as a piece of Western imperialism which ought to be rejected along with other vestiges of colonialism.
What such people seem to be saying is that the classical law of thought known as the Law of Excluded Middle is not necessarily true, that is to say, they deny that of a proposition and its negation, necessarily, one is true and the other is false. Such a denial could take two different forms. (1) It could be interpreted on the one hand to mean that a proposition and its negation both can be true (or both false). Thus, it is true both that God is love and, in the same sense, that God is not love. Since both are true, the Law of Contradiction, that a proposition and its negation cannot both be true (or both false) at the same time, is also denied. (2) On the other hand, the original denial could be interpreted to mean that of a proposition and its negation neither may be true (or neither false). Thus, it is not true that God is good and it is not true that God is not good; there is just no truth value at all for such propositions. In this case it is the classical Principle of Bivalence, that for any proposition, necessarily that proposition is either true or false, that is denied along with the Law of Excluded Middle.
Now I am inclined to say frankly that such positions are crazy and unintelligible. To say that God is both good and not good in the same sense or that God neither exists nor does not exist is just incomprehensible to me. In our politically correct age, there is a tendency to vilify all that is Western and to exalt Eastern modes of thinking as at least equally valid if not superior to Western modes of thought. To assert that Eastern thought is seriously deficient in making such claims is to be a sort of epistemological bigot, blinkered by the constraints of the logic-chopping Western mind. But this judgement is far too simplistic. In the first place, there are thinkers within the tradition of Western thought alone who have held the mystical views in question (Plotinus would be a good example), so that there is no warrant for playing off East against West in this matter. Secondly, the extent to which such thinking represents "the Eastern mind" has been greatly exaggerated. In the East the common man--and the philosopher, too--lives by the Laws of Contradiction and Excluded Middle in his everyday life; he affirms them every time he walks through a doorway rather than into the wall. It is only at an extremely theoretical level of philosophical speculation that such laws are denied. And even at that level, the situation is not monochromatic: Confucianism, Hinayana Buddhism, pluralistic Hinduism as exemplified in Sankhya-Yoga, Vaishesika-Nyaya, and Mimasa schools of thought, and even Jainism do not deny the application of the classical laws of thought to ultimate reality.{4} Thus, a critique of Eastern thought from within Eastern thought itself can be--and has been--made. We in the West should not therefore be embarrassed or apologetic about our heritage; on the contrary it is one of the glories of ancient Greece that her thinkers came to enunciate clearly the principles of logical reasoning, and the triumph of logical reasoning over competing modes of thought in the West has been one of the West's greatest strengths and proudest achievements.
Why think then that such self-evident truths as the principles of logic are in fact invalid for ultimate reality? Such a claim seems to be both self-refuting and arbitrary. For consider a claim like "God cannot be described by propositions governed by the Principle of Bivalence." If such a claim is true, then it is not true, since it itself is a proposition describing God and so has no truth value. Thus, such a claim refutes itself. Of course, if it is not true, then it is not true, as the Eastern mystic alleged, that God cannot be described by propositions governed by the Principle of Bivalence. Thus, if the claim is not true, it is not true, and if it is true, it is not true, so that in either case the claim turns out to be not true. Or consider the claim that "God cannot be described by propositions governed by the Law of Contradiction." If this proposition is true, then, since it describes God, it is not itself governed by the Law of Contradiction. Therefore, it is equally true that "God can be described by propositions governed by the Law of Contradiction." But then which propositions are these? There must be some, for the Eastern mystic is committed to the truth of this claim. But if he produces any, then they immediately refute his original claim that there are no such propositions. His claim thus commits him to the existence of counter-examples which serve to refute that very claim.{5}
Furthermore, apart from the issue of self-refutation, the mystic's claim is wholly arbitrary. Indeed, no reason can ever be given to justify denying the validity of logical principles for propositions about God. For the very statement of such reasons, such as "God is too great to be captured by categories of human thought" or "God is wholly other," involves the affirmation of certain propositions about God which are governed by the principles in question. In short, the denial of such principles for propositions about ultimate reality is completely and essentially arbitrary.
Some Eastern thinkers realize that their position, as a position, is ultimately self-refuting and arbitrary, and so they are driven to deny that their position really is a position! They claim rather than their position is just a technique pointing to the transcendent Real beyond all positions. But if this claim is not flatly self-contradictory, as it would appear, if such thinkers literally have no position, then there just is nothing here to assess and they have nothing to say. This stupefied silence is perhaps the most eloquent testimony for the bankruptcy of the denial of the principles of logical reasoning.
This same debate between certain Eastern mystical modes of thought and classical logical thinking is being re-played in the debate between modernism and radical post-modernism. I want to say clearly that I carry no brief for Enlightenment theological rationalism. According to this modernist viewpoint, religious beliefs are rational if and only if one has evidence on which those beliefs are based. While I am convinced that there is sufficient evidence to make Christian belief rational, I do not believe that such evidence is necessary for Christian belief to be rational.{6} Not only is theological rationalism predicated on an epistemological foundationalism which is overly restrictive and finally self-refuting, but the Christian belief system itself teaches that the ground of our knowledge of the truth of the Christian faith is the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8. 15-16; I Jn. 5. 7-9). Argumentation and evidence may serve as confirmations of Christian beliefs and as means of showing to others the truth of those beliefs, but they are not properly the foundation of those beliefs. In a sense, then, my own religious epistemology could be called post-modern, and the provisional character of systematic consistency accords with intellectual humility advocated by post-modernism. But radical post-modernists would scorn these sops. They would regard me (perhaps justifiably!) as hopelessly pre-modern. They reject altogether Western rationality and metaphysics, claiming that there is no objective truth about reality. "The truth," as John Caputo says, "is that there is no truth."{7} But such a claim falls prey to precisely the same objections that I raised above{8}--indeed, the post-modernist claim is not really distinguishable from certain Buddhist philosophies. To assert that "The truth is that there is no truth" is both self-refuting and arbitrary. For if this statement is true, it is not true, since there is no truth. So-called deconstructionism thus cannot be halted from deconstructing itself. Moreover, there is just no reason that can be given for adopting the post-modern perspective rather than, say, the outlooks of Western capitalism, male chauvinism, white racism, and so forth, since post-modernism has no more truth to it than these perspectives. Caught in this self-defeating trap, some post-modernists have been forced to the same recourse as Buddhist mystics: denying that post-modernism is really a view or position at all. But then, once again, why do they continue to write books and talk about it? They are obviously making some cognitive claims--and if not, then they literally have nothing to say and no objection to our employment of the classical canons of logic.
This is a portion of William Craig's Politically Correct salvation
This message has been edited. Last edited by: notapologetic,
It hurts that so many Christians only believe what they believe because a VOTE was taken in 325. And at that vote, the kids with the more popular vote won. Here are some facts. Messiah isn't unique to ONE person. Moshiach was used for any King or High Priest ANNOINTED. The Moshiach reffered to by Jews, is the FINAL messiah. He will bring almost all Jews back to Israel, usher in world peace, teach the world of Torah Judaism and the world will follow, and build the 3rd Temple. These are facts. When a Christian is asked if Jesus did any of these, they answer he'll do it in the second coming. But didn't Jesus say to those STANDING AROUND HIM, that none of that generation would pass before all his predections and his return? He failed, he tried, but he failed. Bar Kochba got closer. And how much sense does it make to believe Jesus got his own mother pregnant with himself? That's what what it means to believe in the Trinity. And what about Paul growing up around the Cult of Mithras? Mithras was born of an earthly virgin on December 25th. He died, but came back 3 days later. To enter his cult, one had to drink wine which was his blood, and eat bread which was his body. Hmmmm. Sounds a bit familiar. And it was around well over a thousand years before Jesus. And why did Jesus' own brother James BAN Paul from ever returning? Because he was making claims about a guy he never even met. G-d told us all, that anyone coming claming to be G-d and changing the Word and Promises of G-d, was a false Moshiach, but that the gift of miracles would be given to test Israel. This discovery only proves more and more that Jesus wasn't the final Moshiach. Read the Talmudic story of a well-loved and followed Teacher named Yeshu (Josh/Jesus) whose mother was raped by a semetic Roman soldier while enganged to a man. And her name was Mirriame. Mary. And this Yeshu was arrested and tied to a tree and killed the night before Passover. In Acts, Paul refers to Jesus as "He whom you tied to a tree and killed." It's time for the truth to get told. And minds just need to be opened. Even if this documentary only does that, open minds, it's done more than Christianity has in a thousand years.
kmmanual...this is for you, DNA is needed to connect Jesus to his mother and Jesus to his brothers and sisters. If they do exist the entire lineology of the family needs to be established and proven. With out the rest of the family the connection cannot be established. Therefore, you still have the mysteries of God. He lives on in all of us...God Bless everyone!
jacthered, I dont think that this would affect the people who believe or those that don't believe as much as is anticipated. If anything, Jesus was doing as His Father wanted the rest of the world to do. Get married and reproduce. Nothing wrong with that. I think it will bring back the sanctity of marriage though. Maybe you can give me your take on this.
surfcitybanda...believing in God and having faith in general isn't magic. There isn't any magic about it. It is about the power of people to believe in something higher than them, a chance to hopefully come together and realize that the different religions throughout the world aren't all that different from Christianity. Of course there is nothing wrong with some people living in the here and now...ignorance is bliss i guess....
jazzsky..."After the Sabbath, at the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdelene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, and going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, 'Do not be afraid , for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and and tell his disciples; He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him.' Now I have told you." Matthew 28: 1-7
This is all I need to know that His body may be found but He has been resurrected as He had said would be done. Seeing isn't believing, some who see and have proof in front of them still do not believe. You just believe.
robertsaint...You should think about what you said..."The oldest gospel, Mark, originally ENDED with the two Mary's running away and telling NOONE what they say, for they were in fear. The End. Also, the Catholic church, which ALL modern christianity descends from, has NEVER taught a literal body resurection. SO there would be bodily remains of Yeshua." Modern Christianity, like it or not, has come from many forms of religion, not Catholicism. In fact, some come theoriologists compare Islam, Buddiasm, Taoism, Catholicism, Protestants, and many forms of Protestant to each other and for the most part they all have the same beliefs just different names in place for what we "Modern Christians" believe to be true. Even in Judiasm do they believe Jesus existed they just don't recognize Him as the Messiah. They, and please correct me if I am wrong, thought of Him as a PROPHET. That is why the Christians have their calander and Islam has theirs and Judiasm has theirs.
tburr03, just because His bones remain on earth does not discredit that Jesus, The Son of God, came down to us, was crucified, and saves us from our sins. I hope you read my message to jazzsky and the quote from Matthew 28: 1-7
As for judith613, if you think your god then this world is in a lot of trouble and you need psychiatric care quick!!!
Faith is essential, but seeking proof is not wrong either, and I firmly believe God thinks this way as well. Take the Apostle Thomas "DOUBTING THOMAS" let's keep in mind that he was weary of Jesus after he appeared to them from the ressurection. He asked to touch his wound so may believe or know. Unless I am mistaken you can't touch the wound of a spirit.
Jimharness, thanks for your reply. My humble take is simply this. Before Adam and Eve sinned they did not realize their nakedness. Reproducing was not needed until after they were cast out of the garden, therefore woman shall bare children in pain is one part of reproducing or Sex if you will. Jesus is sinless and to do so world mean to me that he has no desires of a normal mortal man-lets face it, we may love our wives, but lust starts it. I just cannot bring myself to say okay Jesus was married and had sex with a known prostitute, but somehow remained sinless. I believe he had a unique relationship with Mary, but not one like we mortal men experience, rather a God-Creation relationship. She got what many of them then and us now do not get. She saw him for what he was. Anyways thats my take on it
.