[Southsider2k12]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17345429/

Claims about Jesus’ ‘lost tomb’ stir up tempest
Experts blast suggestions that his bones were found in 1980

Updated: 1 hour, 36 minutes ago
JERUSALEM - Archaeologists and clergymen in the Holy Land derided claims in a new documentary produced by James Cameron that contradict major Christian tenets, but the Oscar-winning director said the evidence was based on sound statistics.

"The Lost Tomb of Christ," which the Discovery Channel will run on March 4, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries — small caskets used to store bones — discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family, according to a press release issued by the Discovery Channel.

One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son. And the very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Cameron told NBC'S TODAY show that statisticians found "in the range of a couple of million to one in favor of it being them." Simcha Jacobovici, the Toronto filmmaker who directed the documentary, said the implications "are huge."

"But they're not necessarily the implications people think they are. For example, some believers are going to say, well, this challenges the resurrection. I don't know why, if Jesus rose from one tomb, he couldn't have risen from the other tomb," Jacobovici told TODAY.

Goes against conventional wisdom
Most Christians believe Jesus' body spent three days at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City. The burial site identified in Cameron's documentary is in a southern Jerusalem neighborhood nowhere near the church.

In 1996, when the British Broadcasting Corp. aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.

"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.

Cameron said his critics should withhold comment until they see his film.

"I'm not a theologist. I'm not an archaeologist. I'm a documentary filmmaker," he said.

The film's claims, however, have raised the ire of Christian leaders in the Holy Land.

"The historical, religious and archaeological evidence show that the place where Christ was buried is the Church of the Resurrection," said Attallah Hana, a Greek Orthodox clergyman in Jerusalem. The documentary, he said, "contradicts the religious principles and the historic and spiritual principles that we hold tightly to."

How possible is it?
Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.

"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

"How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 — 10 being completely possible — it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."

Pfann is even unsure that the name "Jesus" on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name "Hanun." Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher.

Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false.

"It was an ordinary middle-class Jerusalem burial cave," Kloner said. "The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time."

Bone-box controversy resurrected
Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker's claim that the James Ossuary — the center of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel — might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box.

"I don't think the James Ossuary came from the same cave," said Dan Bahat, an archaeologist at Bar-Ilan University. "If it were found there, the man who made the forgery would have taken something better. He would have taken Jesus."

None of the experts interviewed by The Associated Press had seen the whole documentary. Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israeli government agency responsible for archaeology, declined to comment before the documentary was aired.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Let's try to find out when the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was founded. I am sure it is a lot closer to New Testament times than Mr. Cameron's filming. I will take the word of the Greek priest over his.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Holy Sepulchre
Holy Sepulchre refers to the tomb in which the Body of Jesus Christ was laid after His death upon the Cross. The Evangelists tell us that it was Joseph of Arimathea's own new monument, which he had hewn out of a rock, and that it was closed by a great stone rolled to the door (Matthew 27:60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53). It was in a garden in the place of the Crucifixion, and was nigh to the Cross (John 19:41, 42) which was erected outside the walls of Jerusalem, in the place called Calvary (Matthew 27:32; Mark 15:20; John 19:17; cf. Hebrews 13:12), but close to the city (John 19:20) and by a street (Matthew 27:39; Mark 15:29). That it was outside the city is confirmed by the well-known fact that the Jews did not permit burial inside the city except in the case of their kings. No further mention of the place of the Holy Sepulchre is found until the beginning of the fourth century. But nearly all scholars maintain that the knowledge of the place was handed down by oral tradition, and that the correctness of this knowledge was proved by the investigations caused to be made in 326 by the Emperor Constantine, who then marked the site for future ages by erecting over the Tomb of Christ a basilica, in the place of which, according to an unbroken written tradition, now stands the church of the Holy Sepulchre.

These scholars contend that the original members of the nascent Christian Church in Jerusalem visited the Holy Sepulchre soon, if not immediately, after the Resurrection of the Saviour. Following the custom of their people, those who were converts from Judaism venerated, and taught their children to venerate, the Tomb in which had lain the Foundation of their new faith, from which had risen the Source of their eternal hope; and which was therefore more sacred and of greater significance to them than had been the tombs of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, which they had hitherto venerated, as their forefathers had for centuries. Nor would Gentile converts have failed to unite with them in this practice, which was by no means foreign to their own former customs. The Christians who were in Jerusalem when Titus laid siege to the city in the year 70 fled, it is true, across the Jordan to Pella; but, as the city was not totally destroyed, and as there was no law prohibiting their return, it was possible for them to take up their abode there again in the year 73, about which time, according to Dr. Sanday (Sacred Sites of the Gospels, Oxford, 1903), they really did re-establish themselves. But, granting that the return was not fully made until 122, one of the latest dates proposed, there can be no doubt that in the restored community there were many who knew the location of the Tomb, and who led to it their children, who would point it out during the next fifty years. The Roman prohibition which kept Jews from Jerusalem for about two hundred years, after Hadrian had suppressed the revolt of the Jews under Barcochebas (132-35), may have included Jewish converts to Christianity; but it is possible that it did not. It certainly did not include Gentile converts. The list of Bishops of Jerusalem given by Eusebius in the fourth century shows that there was a continuity of episcopal succession, and that in 135 a Jewish line was followed by a Gentile. The tradition of the local community was undoubtedly strengthened from the beginning by strangers who, having heard from the Apostles and their followers, or read in the Gospels, the story of Christ's Burial and Resurrection, visited Jerusalem and asked about the Tomb that He had rendered glorious. It is recorded that Melito of Sardis visited the place where "these things [of the Old Testament] were formerly announced and carried out". As he died in 180, his visit was made at a time when he could receive the tradition from the children of those who had returned from Pella. After this it is related that Alexander of Jerusalem (d. 251) went to Jerusalem "for the sake of prayer and the investigation of the places", and that Origen (d. 253) "visited the places for the investigation of the footsteps of Jesus and of His disciples". By the beginning of the fourth century the custom of visiting Jerusalem for the sake of information and devotion had become so frequent that Eusebius wrote, that Christians "flocked together from all parts of the earth".

It is at this period that history begins to present written records of the location of the Holy Sepulchre. The earliest authorities are the Greek Fathers, Eusebius (c.260-340), Socrates (b.379), Sozomen (375-450), the monk Alexander (sixth century), and the Latin Fathers, Rufinus (375-410), St. Jerome (346-420), Paulinus of Nola (353-431), and Sulpitius Severus (363-420). Of these the most explicit and of the greatest importance is Eusebius, who writes of the Tomb as an eyewitness, or as one having received his information from eyewitnesses. The testimonies of all having been compared and analysed may be presented briefly as follows: Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, conceived the design of securing the Cross of Christ, the sign of which had led her son to victory. Constantine himself, having long had at heart a desire to honour "the place of the Lord's Resurrection", "to erect a church at Jerusalem near the place that is called Calvary", encouraged her design, and giving her imperial authority, sent her with letters and money to Macarius, the Bishop of Jerusalem. Helena and Macarius, having made fruitless inquiries as to the existence of the Cross, turned their attention to the place of the Passion and Resurrection, which was known to be occupied by a temple of Venus erected by the Romans in the time of Hadrian, or later. The temple was torn down, the ruins were removed to a distance, the earth beneath, as having been contaminated, was dug up and borne far away. Then, "beyond the hopes of all, the most holy monument of Our Lord's Resurrection shone forth" (Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", III, xxviii). Near it were found three crosses, a few nails, and an inscription such as Pilate ordered to be placed on the Cross of Christ.

The accounts of the finding of the Holy Sepulchre thus summarized have been rejected by some on the ground that they have an air of improbability, especially in the attribution of the discovery to "an inspiration of the Saviour", to "Divine admonitions and counsels", and in the assertions that, although the Tomb had been covered by a temple of Venus for upwards of two centuries, its place was yet known. To the first objection, it is replied that whilst the historians piously attributed the discovery to God, they also showed the human secondary agents to have acted with careful prudence. Paulinus is quoted as saying that "Helena was guided by Divine counsel, as the result of her investigations show". As to the second objection, it is claimed that a pagan temple erected over the Holy Sepulchre with the evident purpose of destroying the worship paid there to the Founder of Christianity, or of diverting the worship to pagan gods and goddesses, would tend to preserve the knowledge of the place rather than to destroy it. What appears to be a more serious difficulty is offered by writers who describe the location of the basilica erected by Constantine, and consequently the place of the Sepulchre over which it was built. The so-called Pilgrim of Bordeaux who visited Jerusalem in 333, while the basilica was building, writes that it was on the left hand of the way to the Neapolitan--now Damascus--gate (Geyer, "Itinera Hier.", pp. 22, 23). Eucherius, writing 427-40, says that it was outside of Sion, on the north (op. cir., 126); Theodosius, about 530, "that it was in the city, two hundred paces from Holy Sion" (op. cit., 141); an anonymous author, that it was "in the midst of the city towards the north, not far from the gate of David", by which is meant the Jaffa Gate (op. cit., 107). These descriptions are borne out by the mosaic chart belonging to the fifth century that was discovered at Medeba in 1897 (see "Revue Biblique", 1897, pp. 165 sqq. and 341). The writers must have known that the New Testament places the Crucifixion and the Tomb outside the city, yet they tell us that the Constantinian basilica enclosing both was inside. They neither show surprise at this contradiction, nor make any attempt to explain it. Nor does anyone at all, at this period, raise a doubt as to the authenticity of the Sepulchre. Was it not possible to trace an old city wall belonging to the time Christ outside of which was the Sepulchre, although it was inside of the existing wall that had been built later? As the difficulty was seriously urged in the last century, it will be fully considered and answered at the close of this article.

The edifice built over the Holy Sepulchre by Constantine was dedicated in 336. The Holy Sepulchre, separated by excavation from the mass of rock, and surmounted by a gilded dome, was in the centre of a rotunda 65 feet in diameter. The basilica, extending eastward from this to a distance of 250 feet, embraced Calvary in its south aisle. An atrium and a propylaeum gave a total length of 475 feet. The magnificent monument was destroyed by fire in 614, during the Persian invasion under Chosroes II. Two hundred years later new buildings were begun by the Abbot Modestus and finished, in 626, with the aid of the Patriarch of Alexandria, who had sent money and one thousand workmen to Jerusalem. These buildings were destroyed by the Mohammedans in 1010. Smaller churches were erected in 1048, and stood intact until the crusaders partly removed them and partly incorporated them in a magnificent basilica that was completed in 1168. As in the basilica of Constantine, so also in that of the crusaders, a rotunda at the western end rose over the Holy Sepulchre. This basilica was partially destroyed by fire in 1808, when the rotunda fell in upon the Sepulchre. A new church designed by the Greek architect, Commenes, and built at the expense of Greeks and Armenians, was dedicated in 1810. The dome of its rotunda was rebuilt in 1868, France, Russia, and Turkey defraying the expenses. In the middle of this rotunda is the Tomb of Christ, enclosed by the monument built in 1810 to replace the one destroyed then.

This monument, an inartistic Greek edifice, cased with Palestine breccia--red and yellow stone somewhat resembling marble--is 26 feet long by 18 feet wide. It is ornamented with small columns and pilasters, and surmounted at the west end by a small dome, the remainder of the upper part being a flat terrace. Against the west end, which is pentagonal in form, there is a small chapel used by the Copts. In each of the side walls at the east end is an oval opening used on Holy Saturday by the Greeks for the distribution of the "Holy Fire". The upper part of the facade is ornamented with three pictures, the one in the centre belonging to the Latins, the one on the right to the Greeks, and the one on the left to Armenians. On great solemnities, these communities adorn the entire front with gold and silver lamps, and flowers. The only entrance is at the east end, where there is low doorway conducting to a small chamber called the Chapel of the Angel. In the middle of the marble pavement there is a small pedestal, which is said to mark the place where the angel sat after rolling the stone away from the door of Christ's Tomb. Immediately beneath the pavement is solid rock, which Pierotti was able to see and touch while repairs were being made ("Jerusalem Explored", tr. from the French, London, 1864). Through the staircases, of which there is one at each side of the entrance, he was also able to see that slabs of breccia concealed walls of masonry. Opposite to the entrance is a smaller door, through which, by stooping low, one may enter into a quadrangular chamber, about 6 feet wide, 7 feet long and 7 1/2 feet high, brilliantly lighted by forty-three lamps of gold and silver that are kept burning by the Latins, Greeks, Armenians, and Copts. This is the Holy Sepulchre. On the north side, about two feet from the floor, and extending the full length, is a marble slab covering the sepulchral couch. Floor, walls, and ceiling have also been covered with marble slabs in order to adorn the interior area and to protect the rock from pilgrims who would break and carry it away. Pierotti declares that when he made his studies of the Sepulchre he succeeded in seeing the native rock in two places. Breydenbach tells us that in the fifteenth century it was still exposed ("Itinerarium Hier.", ed. 1486, p.40). And Arculph, who saw it in the seventh century, describes it as red and veined with white, still bearing the marks of tools. Over the sepulchral couch there had been an arch such as is seen in so many of the ancient Hebrew tombs about Jerusalem. The walls that supported the arch still remain. The door closely corresponds with that of the Tomb of the Kings, where a great elliptical stone beside the entrance suggests the manner in which the Holy Sepulchre was closed by a stone rolled before it.

It was not until the eighteenth century that the authenticity of this tomb was seriously doubted. The tradition in its favour was first formally rejected by Korte in his "Reise nach dem gelobten Lande" (Altona, 1741). In the nineteenth century he had many followers, some of whom were content with simply denying that it is the Holy Sepulchre, because it lies within the city walls, while others went further and proposed sites outside the walls. No one, however, has pointed out any other tomb that has a shred of tradition in its favour. The most popularly accepted tomb among those proposed is one near Gordon's Calvary (see CALVARY, Modern Calvaries). But this has been found to be one of a series of tombs extending for some distance, and did not, therefore, stand in a garden as did Christ's Tomb. Moreover, the approach to this tomb is over made ground, the removal of which would leave the entrance very high, whereas the door of the Holy Sepulchre was very low. It has been suggested above, that when Constantine built his basilica, and for long afterwards, there may have been evident traces of an old city wall that had excluded the Holy Sepulchre from the city when Christ was buried. From Josephus, we know of three walls that at different times enclosed Jerusalem on the north. The third of these is the present wall, which was built about ten years after the death of Christ, and is far beyond the traditional Holy Sepulchre. Josephus describes the second wall as extending from the gate Gennath, which was in the first wall, to the tower Antonia. A wall running in a direct line between these two points would have included the Sepulchre. But it could have followed an irregular line and thus have left the Sepulchre outside. No researches have ever yielded any indication of a wall following a straight line from the Gennath gate to the Antonia. That, on the contrary, the wall took an irregular course, excluding the Sepulchre, seems to have been sufficiently proved by the discoveries, in recent years, of masses of masonry to the east and southeast of the church. So convincing is the evidence afforded by these discoveries that such competent authorities as Drs. Schick an Gauthe at once admitted the authenticity of the traditional Tomb. Since then, this view has been generally adopted by close students of the question. (see JERUSALEM).


Book recommendations

Catholicism for Dummies $21.99
Buy Now | Read More
The Imitation of Christ - Leather Gift Edition $21.95
Buy Now | Read More
Compendium - Catechism of the Catholic Church $14.95
Buy Now | Read More
Dark Night of the Soul $11.95
Buy Now | Read More
Reasons to Believe - How to Understand, Explain, and Defend the Catholic Faith $19.95
Buy Now | Read More
Immaculate Heart of Mary Gold Leaf Plaque - 9 x 14 $79.00
Buy Now | Read More
Divine Mercy Framed Print - Vilnius Image - 10x18 $180.00
Buy Now | Read More
Jesus of Nazareth $24.95
Buy Now | Read MoreSponsored by The Catholic Company in conjunction with New Advent. All proceeds benefit the New Advent website!

[Roger Kaputnik]

The above is from the www.new advent.org site, quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia. I would have to see the film by Mr. Cameron and test his theory in order to discuss this further. Barring that, I think the article quoted is definitive.

[Ang]

Well, I just find it hard to believe that there was only ONE man named Jesus in 33 years in Israel. I suppose it's possible that other people didn't start using that name until after he died, but to find a tomb simply labelled "Judah, Son of Jesus" DOES NOT mean that the man buried there is the son of Christ. Sorry, I'm not Catholic, and I didn't take the time to read the short novel Roger posted here, but I really don't have to. I stand firm in my belief of the Bible and don't need no movie director telling me it's a lie.
I think this is another movie that I'll be skipping.

This post has been edited by Ang: Feb 26 2007, 10:21 AM

[Ang]

This was on Yahoo news today...
I have to side with the scholar

Yahoo! News

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The burial site of Jesus has been found and suggests he had a wife and son, according to highly sensitive claims in a documentary by "Titanic" director James Cameron and Israel-born Simcha Jacobovici.

The claims inject controversy into the issue of resurrection central to Christianity and, if accurate, could reignite questions about Jesus' earthy family life popularized in the book "The Da Vinci Code."

Cameron and Jacobovici, an award-winning documentary director, said their research suggested Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a son, Judah.

"DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggest a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family," a statement from Discovery, which will broadcast the documentary, said.

The tomb was located in Talpiot, Jerusalem, March 28, 1980 by a construction crew developing an apartment complex.

Scholar L.Y. Rahmani later published "A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries" that described 10 ossuaries, or limestone bone boxes, found in the tomb, the Discovery statement said.

Five of the 10 discovered boxes in the Talpiot tomb were inscribed with names believed to be associated with key figures in the New Testament: Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph and Mary Magdalene. A sixth inscription, written in Aramaic, translates to "Judah Son of Jesus."

"Such tombs are very typical for that region," Aaron Brody, associate professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion and director of California's Bade Museum, told Discovery News.

In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary."

Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master," the television network said.

Jacobovici, director, producer and writer of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," and his team obtained two sets of samples from the ossuaries for DNA and chemical analysis. The first set consisted of bits of matter taken from the "Jesus Son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara" ossuaries. The second set consisted of patina, a chemical film encrustation on one of the limestone boxes.

The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related.

Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest Jesus and Mary Magdalene could have been a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper, they argue in their documentary.

Israeli archaeologist and professor Amos Kloner, who documented the tomb as the Jewish burial cave of a well-off family more than 10 years ago, is adamant there is no evidence to support claims that it was the burial site of Jesus.

"I'm a scholar. I do scholarly work which has nothing to do with documentary film-making. There's no way to take a religious story and to turn it into something scientific," he told AFP in a telephone interview.

"I still insist that it is a regular burial chamber from the 1st century BC," Kloner said, adding that the names were a coincidence.

"Who says that 'Maria' is Magdalena and 'Judah' is the son of Jesus? It cannot be proved. These are very popular and common names from the 1st century BC," said the academic at Israel's Bar Ilan University.

[Roger Kaputnik]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a great resource for early Church history and information about people, things, and buildings like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Whether you are Catholic or not, you can find out lots from this collection.

To find out about the Church itself, you can look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In any case, if you read just the first and last paragraphs of the article I reproduced, you will get the gist of the whole thing and why I think Cameron is full of filafel.

Incidentally, wasn't Jesus's name in Aramaic Yeshua, akin to our own Joshua? It seems that there would be tons of guys named after the great judge. And howsabout another ton of kids named Judah? Come on, Mr. Cameron et al., let's get your thinking cap on!

[RexKickass]

I don't understand how this really challenges anything to be honest. Jesus had a son, so what? How does this change the foundation of anyone's belief? The bible is so full of symbolism, even physical evidence of Jesus' body wouldn't shake the foundations of Christianity.

When we talk about the Ascension into heaven of Mary or Jesus, I never pictured the body being lifted up into nothingness, but I pictured instead the soul lifting up and shedding its mortal coil. Anything else seemed too Wizard of Oz for me.

His teachings didn't change at all. The base of what he says, and how he told us to live doesn't change.

So if Jesus' ascension was not a physical event, why does it matter?

[Roger Kaputnik]

It really only shakes up the Sola Scriptura crowd, especially the Literal groups, who, incidentally, only came to prominence in the 1800s, in America. Teachings of Christ: No change!

[Ang]

http://www.michigancityin.com/articles/200.../10/news/n1.txt

Clergy discuss ‘Lost Tomb'

By Andrew Tallackson, The News-Dispatch



Naysayers ready to take a swipe at Christianity will always exist. “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” is just the latest example.

That's how seven area clergy feel about the documentary, produced by Oscar-winning director James Cameron (“Titanic”) and having aired March 4 on The Discovery Channel.

The film argues 10 small caskets discovered in 1980 in the Jerusalem area may have contained the bones of Jesus Christ and his “family,” including a son known as Judah. The information contradicts Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

“This is something like an annual tradition just before Easter,” said the Rev. Rick S. Jones of Pines Bible Church, 4274 W. U.S. 12. “Something usually is released that says historical Jesus contradicts the Scriptural record.

“I am not at all concerned ... because these things come and go, like ‘The Da Vinci Code.' This will be forgotten in a couple of years, and we will still be relying on the Bible.”

This isn't the first time a documentary tackled the same subject. The British Broadcasting Corp. aired a short film in 1996. Its claims were disputed by Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site. When interviewed, he said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards, but makes for profitable television.

Cameron, on the other hand, told The Associated Press the evidence is “pretty darn compelling.”

“We don't have any physical record of Jesus' existence,” he said. “So what this film ... shows is for the first time tangible, physical, archaeological and in some cases forensic evidence.”

The Rev. Bill Fine of St. John's United Church of Christ, 101 St. John Road, isn't surprised by such comments.

“We live in a culture that is very scientific,” he said. “Western culture always tries to use science to measure, to prove and disprove. I would hope that those folks who pursue this kind of research at some time come to feel that Jesus is real. God can do all kinds of things.”

Nancy Kahaian, pastor of First Presbyterian Church, 121 W. Ninth St., finds it interesting that Cameron, in a People magazine article, refers to the excavation site as a “discovery.”

“It is fascinating to me to observe one's intention and motivation in pursuing such a ‘discovery',” she said. “If one's intention is to discredit the claims of Christianity, i.e., ‘a resurrected Christ,' then I think that is more of a reflection on Mr. Cameron than the Christian religion.

“The witness of Jesus Christ is not only a historical event, but an ongoing event in human history. Basically, Jesus Christ was the manifestation of God's love in the world. It is by love that Christians live, not historical accuracy nor scientific fact.”

Pastors like Dewitt Jackson of Revival Center Church of God in Christ, 938 W. Eighth St., refuse to let the documentary chip away at their faith.

“My faith, my belief in Christ, are according to Scripture,” Jackson said. “Our faith is rooted in what we believe. Something like this is trying to make a mockery and contradict what we know is true as Christians.”

The Rev. Jack Andrews of Michigan City Free Methodist, 3001 S. Ohio St., believes the same.

“We have to take the Bible as our guide, and if we don't, then we can believe in anything,” he said. “Now, if someone wants to stand on some other claim, they can make that claim. But this is our beginning point (as Christians), so I automatically stand on God's word, and God's word is true.”

The Rev. Kevin Palmer of Immanuel Lutheran Church, 1237 E. Coolspring Ave., said he's been approached by a few parishioners about the documentary, but none suggested it challenged their faith.

“They know it is a bunch of nonsense,” he said. “People have been trying to disprove Christianity and the Resurrection for 2,000 years now. This is just the latest in all those attempts.”

The Rev. Walter Ciesla of St. Stanislaus Kostka Roman Catholic Church, 109 Ann St., is even more emphatic. He wants nothing to do with “The Lost Tomb of Christ.”

“It's just an anti-Christian media spin. It's an outrage,” he said. “It's building on the same thing as ‘The Da Vinci Code,' which is filled with all kinds of flaws. “The whole thing is fiction. It's a shame that this has to take place.”

Associated Press reports were used in this article. More information about “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” is at www.dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html.

[Max Main]

sounds like pre release movie hype, now

[Southsider2k12]

It really only shakes up the Sola Scriptura crowd, especially the Literal groups, who, incidentally, only came to prominence in the 1800s, in America. Teachings of Christ: No change!

I am about halfway through the first episode detailing the ossuaries and the statistical analysis of the chances of finding this group of names in one place. I find it interesting that this hadn't achieved as much interesting as say the Shroud of Tourin, but I also find it interesting that the initital reaction to it has been so skeptical. I am guessing that is because of the literal believers who feel that there should not be a body to find. I do have one question I have not heard adressed yet, which hit me right away... did they find bones specifically in the Ossuary marked Jesus son of Joseph?

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a great resource for early Church history and information about people, things, and buildings like the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Whether you are Catholic or not, you can find out lots from this collection.

To find out about the Church itself, you can look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In any case, if you read just the first and last paragraphs of the article I reproduced, you will get the gist of the whole thing and why I think Cameron is full of filafel.

Incidentally, wasn't Jesus's name in Aramaic Yeshua, akin to our own Joshua? It seems that there would be tons of guys named after the great judge. And howsabout another ton of kids named Judah? Come on, Mr. Cameron et al., let's get your thinking cap on!

This is talked about in the special. It isn't that one name is rare, in fact 1 in 4 women was named Maria back then, but the rarity comes from the collection of names collected off of the ossuaries, and they odds of each them added up together. (ie what are the odds of finding a Maria, Jesus son of Joseph, Mathew, Jose, etc all in one place, and it not being this specific family?

I don't understand how this really challenges anything to be honest. Jesus had a son, so what? How does this change the foundation of anyone's belief? The bible is so full of symbolism, even physical evidence of Jesus' body wouldn't shake the foundations of Christianity.

When we talk about the Ascension into heaven of Mary or Jesus, I never pictured the body being lifted up into nothingness, but I pictured instead the soul lifting up and shedding its mortal coil. Anything else seemed too Wizard of Oz for me.

His teachings didn't change at all. The base of what he says, and how he told us to live doesn't change.

So if Jesus' ascension was not a physical event, why does it matter?

I do believe that certian liberties have been taking with somethings that might not have been kosher with the early church. I do think it makes sense that Jesus would have had a family, in fact more sense than if he had not, and it doesn't take away from who he was, what he achieved, and the saving of the world.

I don't believe the discovery of Christ's body would make a bit of difference to me, in fact, it only serves as more evidence to me.

[Max Main]

I am researching some of the old claims that this flick is based on. BBC has some info...

[Southsider2k12]

I'd be curious to see links, and/or your impressions on this.

[Max Main]

Here is an exchange to consider:

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbKCtombmagness.html
Biblical Archaeology Society


http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbKCtombtabor.html
James Tabor's Response to Jodi Magness


http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba3302f3.html
Losing Faith: How Scholarship Affects Scholars

[Southsider2k12]

A new update...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid...rticle/ShowFull

Jesus tomb film scholars backtrack
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS

Several prominent scholars who were interviewed in a bitterly contested documentary that suggests that Jesus and his family members were buried in a nondescript ancient Jerusalem burial cave have now revised their conclusions, including the statistician who claimed that the odds were 600:1 in favor of the tomb being the family burial cave of Jesus of Nazareth, a new study on the fallout from the popular documentary shows.

The dramatic clarifications, compiled by epigrapher Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem in a paper titled "Cracks in the Foundation: How the Lost Tomb of Jesus story is losing its scholarly support," come two months after the screening of The Lost Tomb of Christ that attracted widespread public interest, despite the concomitant scholarly ridicule.

The film, made by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and Emmy-winning Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, prompted major criticism from both a leading Israeli archeologist involved in the original dig at the site as well as Christian leaders, who were angered over the documentary's contradictions of main tenets of Christianity.

But now, even some of the scholars who were interviewed for and appeared in the film are questioning some of its basic claims.

The most startling change of opinion featured in the 16-page paper is that of University of Toronto statistician Professor Andrey Feuerverger, who stated those 600 to one odds in the film. Feuerverger now says that these referred to the probability of a cluster of such names appearing together.

Pfann's paper reported that a statement on the Discovery Channel's Web site, which previously read "a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters...concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family," in keeping with Feuerverger's statement, has been altered and now reads, "a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters... concludes that the probability factor is in the order of 600 to 1 that an equally 'surprising' cluster of names would arise purely by chance under given assumptions."

Another sentence on the same Web site stating that Feuerverger had concluded it was highly probable that the tomb, located in the southeastern residential Jerusalem neighborhood of Talpiot, was the Jesus family tomb - the central point of the film - has also been changed. It now reads: "It is unlikely that an equally surprising cluster of names would have arisen by chance under purely random sampling."

Israeli archeologists have said that the similarity of the names found inscribed on the ossuaries in the cave to the members of Jesus's family was coincidental, since many of those names were commonplace in the first century CE.

The film argues that 10 ancient ossuaries - burial boxes used to store bones - that were discovered in Talpiot in 1980 contained the bones of Jesus and his family. The filmmakers attempt to explain some of the inscriptions on the ossuaries by suggesting that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that the couple had a son, Judah.

One of the ossuaries bears an inscription reading "Yeshua son of Yehosef" or "Jesus son of Joseph;" a second reads "Mary;" a third is a Greek inscription apparently read by one scholar as "Mary Magdalene;" while a fourth bears the inscription, "Judah, son of Jesus." The inscriptions are in Hebrew or Aramaic, except for the one in Greek.

But Shimon Gibson, who was part of the team that excavated the tomb two and half decades ago and who appeared in the film, is quoted in Pfann's report as saying he doubted the site was the tomb of Jesus and his family.

"Personally, I'm skeptical that this is the tomb of Jesus and I made this point very clear to the filmmakers," Gibson is quoted as saying.

"We need much more evidence before we can say that the Talpiot tomb might be the family tomb of Jesus," he added.

In the film, renowned epigrapher Prof. Frank Moore Cross, professor emeritus of Hebrew and oriental languages at Harvard University, is seen reading one of the ossuaries and stating that he has "no real doubt" that it reads "Jesus son of Joseph." But according to Pfann, Cross said in an e-mail that he was skeptical about the film's claims, not because of a misreading of the ossuary, but because of the ubiquity of Biblical names in that period in Jerusalem.

"It has been reckoned that 25 percent of feminine names in this period were Maria/Miriam, etc. - that is, variants of 'Mary.' So the cited statistics are unpersuasive. You know the saying: lies, damned lies, and statistics," Cross is quoted as saying.

The paper also notes that DNA scientist Dr. Carney Matheson, who supervised DNA testing carried out for the film from the supposed Jesus and Mary Magdalene ossuaries, and who said in the documentary that "these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely be husband and wife," later said that "the only conclusions we made were that these two sets were not maternally related. To me, it sounds like absolutely nothing."

Furthermore, Pfann also says that a specialist in ancient apocryphal text, Professor Francois Bovon, who is quoted in the film as saying the enigmatic ossuary inscription "Mariamne" is the same woman known as Mary Magdalene - one of the filmmakers' critical arguments - issued a disclaimer stating that he did not believe that "Mariamne" stood for Mary of Magdalene at all.

Pfann has already argued that the controversial inscription does not read "Mariamne" at all.

The burial site, which has been contested from the start by scholars and church officials alike, is some distance from the Church of the Holy Sepulchrr in the Old City, where many Christians believe Jesus's body lay for three days after he was crucified.

According to the New Testament, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion, and an ossuary containing Jesus's bones - the explanations of the movie director notwithstanding - would contradict the core Christian belief that he was resurrected and then ascended to heaven.