Friday, February 23, 2007

BREAKING: Jesus’ Burial Site Found - Film Claims

New film documents discovery of Jerusalem cave containing ten caskets believed to hold remains of Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene and others:
The cave in which Jesus Christ was buried has been found in Jerusalem, claim the makers of a new documentary film.

If it proves true, the discovery, which will be revealed at a press conference in New York Monday, could shake up the Christian world as one of the most significant archeological finds in history.

The coffins which, according to the filmmakers held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene will be displayed for the first timeon Monday in New York.

Jointly produced by Emmy award-winning documentary filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici and Oscar winning director James Cameron, the film tells the exciting and tortuous story of the archeological discovery.

The story starts in 1980 in Jerusalem’s Talpiyot neighborhood, with the discovery of a 2,000 year old cave containing ten coffins. Six of the ten coffins were carved with inscriptions reading the names: Jesua son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Matthew, Jofa (Joseph, identified as Jesus’ brother), Judah son of Jesua (Jesus’ son - the filmmakers claim).

The findings in the cave, including the decipherment of the inscriptions, were first revealed about ten years ago by internationally renowned Israeli archeologist Professor Amos Kloner.

Since their discovery, the caskets were kept in the Israeli Antiquities Authority archive in Beit Shemesh, but now two have been sent to New York for their first public exhibition.

Although the cave was discovered nearly 30 years ago and the casket inscriptions decoded ten years ago, the filmmakers are the first to establish that the cave was in fact the burial site of Jesus and his family.
(emphasis added)

The findings challenge the traditional Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected three days after his burial and only later rose to heaven. [ED.: But of course. Why else would this be news if it didn't involve an attempt to debunk traditional Christianity?]

[More]
My Comments:
Also discovered in the cave were the remains of the patriarch Enoch, the prophet Elijah, pilot Amelia Earhart, and former Teamsters leader Jimmy Hoffa.

And isn't it funny how these new "discoveries" and/or new "understandings" of Jesus always come to light during Lent?

Labels: , ,

9 Comments:

At 2/23/2007 12:38 PM, Blogger Rich Leonardi said...

Don't forget Generalissimo Francisco Franco. (That is, if he's still dead.) I sent the link to Jimmy Akin, who can usually get to the bottom of reports like this one.

 
At 2/23/2007 3:41 PM, Blogger Paul, just this guy, you know? said...

If that's Jesus, then who cares?

If there's really a grave with the body of Jesus of Nazareth, then Jesus of Nazareth is of no importance. Jesus sole significance lies in the fact that he's not dead.

What I want to know is, how do they know?

I'm reminded of an old piece in the National Inquirer claiming to have found the grave of Robin Hood; they knew this because he had ID on him that said he was Robin Hood, as well as a medal commemorating some honor to him from King Richard I in 1213 AD (Richard actually died in 1199).

 
At 2/23/2007 6:49 PM, Blogger Jeffrey Smith said...

The Discovery Channel's involved. I might have known. They have a reputation for playing fast and loose with the evidence. They did a documentary about some young academic who claimed to have identified Nefertiti's mummy. Never mind the evidence. The theory had holes in it a mile wide from the start. It took three quarters of the film to get around to an expert in mummified bodies pointing out the body was of someone the wrong age. They passed over that right snappish to get to more exciting speculation. As it turned out, the body was a man. They didn't bother to include that little piece of information.

 
At 2/24/2007 6:07 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The comments all debase the finding. One question: What IF these really are the bodies of Jesus and his family??? Then what????

 
At 2/24/2007 6:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The blog comments debase the finding. One question: What if these bodies are Jesus and his family??? Then what????

 
At 2/24/2007 7:13 PM, Blogger Jay Anderson said...

"What IF ... Then what????"

Paul already answered your question. Besides, how does one prove the proposition that this is the actual Jesus of the Bible?

It's much more likely that this whole thing is an attempt at (1) getting some cheap publicity, and (2) denigrating traditional Christianity, than it is that these guys could actually prove that this is Jesus of Nazareth.

 
At 2/25/2007 1:13 AM, Blogger Publius said...

The blog comments debase the finding. One question: What if these bodies are Jesus and his family??? Then what????

If that were true, that would mean Christianity is a false religion and we should all look into buying turbans, beard Rogaine, and maybe some high explosives (if one's into that sort of thing). Note the use of the subjunctive in the previous sentence.

The whole thing seems extremely dubious. First of all, the actual data has been around for ten years. Even assuming it is accurate, why did it take so long to hear about it. Second, why on earth would they assume that one of the Mary's is Mary Magdalene? It sounds like an attempt to ride the wave of Da Vinci code fever.

 
At 2/25/2007 2:33 AM, Blogger Literacy-chic said...

A couple of things, here. The "archaeologist" Simcha Jacobovici is, as the article states, merely an investigative journalist-turned-documentary filmmaker. His credentials are shaky at best, though his show calls him the "Naked Archaeologist" (archaeologist without credentials, I'm assuming). I am actually disappointed, though, because I found his History Channel documentary on the Exodus excellent and very convincing, but he was proving the veracity of Judaism--something he is clearly more qualified to investigate. Of course, now I don't trust anything he's done. Most disappointing.

One more comment--why Mary of Magdalene indeed? Maybe it's the Mary of the Martha-Mary pair! (Oh, but then she couldn't have been Jesus's wife, could she? Or maybe she could have!) How common were these names in Hebrew, anyway?

 
At 2/27/2007 5:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

THe evidence needs to be verified accademically. One may be a Christian without being a fundementalist. There are plenty of Chatholic priests teacing in divinity departments that know that no emasculate conception, resurrection, walking on water, etc. ever took place. They are not less religious for that. There are plenty of Jewish scholars who are experts in New Testament and Christianity - just like many Christian scholars are expert in Old Testament, Judaism or Islam.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

hit counter for blogger