Jesus’ burial site found - film claims

[Larry1700]

For Larry1700

I appreciate the sources you suggest for me, but I think it will be hard to re-convince an ex, once devout Catholic like me.

One additional comment on what you said…

I agree completely that science has been wrong many times. But the difference is that science keeps looking for the truth, and every mistaken theory is one more step on the journey. Moreover, in science, a theory is useless if it’s not tested, and it’s philosophy if it can’t be tested. Nobody holds to a disproved theory on faith alone.

I also freely admit a deep dislike for the kind of crass commercialism which the announcement by press conference of the book and forthcoming documentary represents. But that doesn’t mean that all evidence it presents should automatically be dismissed on the basis only of beliefs. I’ve seen most if not all of Jacobovici’s “Naked Archeologist” TV shows, and he’s just as likely to present evidence for various aspects of Christianity and Judaism as against. Sometimes, he simply raises possibilities. I see nothing wrong with that.

I’m sorry to hear that you left the faith, reason. I’ll pray for your return. I think if you look deeper into the foundations for our belief, you will see that we’re not simply Lemmings following a blind faith. For me, it was a long journey to the Catholic Church.

As far as “looking for the truth,” the Truth was revealed 2000 years ago, and has been under scrutiny ever since. There are many periods in Church history where she has had to defend the faith, so the debates you see here on Catholic.com forums are nothing new. This documentary is simply one more attempt to discredit it, and it will eventually be discredited.
When I started my journey to the Catholic Church, I was amazed at the wisdom found in documents by writers hundreds of years ago, which addressed my lack of faith in so many areas. I don’t know if you’ve read Faith and Reason yet, but please do so at some point. Try Aquinas. Try Augustine (a very “bad” guy until his own search lead him to the Truth).

As far as the search for Truth goes, I would venture to say that a great majority of the people here on Catholic.com have made that search. For some, like me, it took many years. For some, it starts a the very foundation: “Is there a God?” “If so, what is His relationship to humans?”, etc. My wife is a cradle Catholic, and I am a convert. There are many things she cannot readily defend about the faith, simply because she has not had to make the journey. Sometimes, that means that people like her can be easily led away, because they don’t have the answers to the tough questions. It’s like science. If you don’t have a good foundation about certain scientific disciplines, any one with a little “junk science” knowledge can easily make something sound believable.

Look, I’m 47 years old, so I don’t remember all the details from the science classes. I’ve read a few things recently, such as “Six Easy Pieces, Six Not So Easy Pieces,” and “A Brief History of Time.” What I do know is that there are various theories held as firm by the scientific community, and when someone comes along to dispute the “accepted theory,” sometimes they are shunned by the scientific community. Maybe eventually the larger community will come around, but for some their beliefs are not easily changed. Also, there is the money involved. Grant money, professorships, book sales, etc. lead some scientists to go for the sensational, dismissing or admitting evidence in order to fit their theory. What I’m saying is that I no longer believe that “science” is purely an evidence-driven, unbiased discipline.

No, I have not seen the documentary, etc., and my assumptions are premature, but they are based on years of experience hearing and reading about other “discoveries” which later proved to be false. I will not accept something as true simply because “many scientists agree” on it. I may take such things into consideration, and if they’re later proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, fine, but I start off as skeptical.

 

[Larry1700]

For Larry1700

I appreciate the sources you suggest for me, but I think it will be hard to re-convince an ex, once devout Catholic like me.

One additional comment on what you said…

I agree completely that science has been wrong many times. But the difference is that science keeps looking for the truth, and every mistaken theory is one more step on the journey. Moreover, in science, a theory is useless if it’s not tested, and it’s philosophy if it can’t be tested. Nobody holds to a disproved theory on faith alone.

I also freely admit a deep dislike for the kind of crass commercialism which the announcement by press conference of the book and forthcoming documentary represents. But that doesn’t mean that all evidence it presents should automatically be dismissed on the basis only of beliefs. I’ve seen most if not all of Jacobovici’s “Naked Archeologist” TV shows, and he’s just as likely to present evidence for various aspects of Christianity and Judaism as against. Sometimes, he simply raises possibilities. I see nothing wrong with that.

I’m sorry to hear that you left the faith, reason. I’ll pray for your return. I think if you look deeper into the foundations for our belief, you will see that we’re not simply Lemmings following a blind faith. For me, it was a long journey to the Catholic Church.

As far as “looking for the truth,” the Truth was revealed 2000 years ago, and has been under scrutiny ever since. There are many periods in Church history where she has had to defend the faith, so the debates you see here on Catholic.com forums are nothing new. This documentary is simply one more attempt to discredit it, and it will eventually be discredited.
When I started my journey to the Catholic Church, I was amazed at the wisdom found in documents by writers hundreds of years ago, which addressed my lack of faith in so many areas. I don’t know if you’ve read Faith and Reason yet, but please do so at some point. Try Aquinas. Try Augustine (a very “bad” guy until his own search lead him to the Truth).

As far as the search for Truth goes, I would venture to say that a great majority of the people here on Catholic.com have made that search. For some, like me, it took many years. For some, it starts a the very foundation: “Is there a God?” “If so, what is His relationship to humans?”, etc. My wife is a cradle Catholic, and I am a convert. There are many things she cannot readily defend about the faith, simply because she has not had to make the journey. Sometimes, that means that people like her can be easily led away, because they don’t have the answers to the tough questions. It’s like science. If you don’t have a good foundation about certain scientific disciplines, any one with a little “junk science” knowledge can easily make something sound believable.

Look, I’m 47 years old, so I don’t remember all the details from the science classes. I’ve read a few things recently, such as “Six Easy Pieces, Six Not So Easy Pieces,” and “A Brief History of Time.” What I do know is that there are various theories held as firm by the scientific community, and when someone comes along to dispute the “accepted theory,” sometimes they are shunned by the scientific community. Maybe eventually the larger community will come around, but for some their beliefs are not easily changed. Also, there is the money involved. Grant money, professorships, book sales, etc. lead some scientists to go for the sensational, dismissing or admitting evidence in order to fit their theory. What I’m saying is that I no longer believe that “science” is purely an evidence-driven, unbiased discipline.

No, I have not seen the documentary, etc., and my assumptions are premature, but they are based on years of experience hearing and reading about other “discoveries” which later proved to be false. I will not accept something as true simply because “many scientists agree” on it. I may take such things into consideration, and if they’re later proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, fine, but I start off as skeptical.

 

[Larry1700]

He has? The last I heard, the trial is still going on and there are scholars, including Ben Wetherington, I believe, who think it’s genuine.

I heard the Israel Antiquities Authority was taking some sort of action against him in 2005. Maybe I’m wrong. If someone else knows the details, please weigh in.

 

[Faith1960]

I heard the Israel Antiquities Authority was taking some sort of action against him in 2005. Maybe I’m wrong. If someone else knows the details, please weigh in.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary

 

[Nullasalus]

I heard the Israel Antiquities Authority was taking some sort of action against him in 2005. Maybe I’m wrong. If someone else knows the details, please weigh in.

biblereview.org/bswbOOossuary_06reports.asp

The entire Biblereview.org site is good for the James Ossuary debacle. What I’ve linked above is the IAA’s examination on behalf of the prosecution. The defense, of course, argues against the IAA’s findings - you can find that on the same site.

It’s hard to know what to think of it all, since even the IAA is saying that the ossuary itself is likely legitimate (There’s no shortage of ossuaries in Israel, even blank ones) while part or all of the inscription is considered fake by them. Other experts disagree.

 

[Franciscan]

Another good response…
catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0097.htm

 

[Nullasalus]

dev.bible.org/bock/node/111 - Here as well, mostly dealing with the statistics end of the discovery.

His reference to the Bible Code is spot on. That was another discovery situation where people were turning up all variety of ‘One in a million’ statistical likelihoods for their results - without realizing (or qualifying) that, given the loose boundaries they were working with in turning up their codes, there were billions of possibilities.

 

[Larry1700]

biblereview.org/bswbOOossuary_06reports.asp

The entire Biblereview.org site is good for the James Ossuary debacle. What I’ve linked above is the IAA’s examination on behalf of the prosecution. The defense, of course, argues against the IAA’s findings - you can find that on the same site.

It’s hard to know what to think of it all, since even the IAA is saying that the ossuary itself is likely legitimate (There’s no shortage of ossuaries in Israel, even blank ones) while part or all of the inscription is considered fake by them. Other experts disagree.

I read the link you provided. All of the committee members agree that the inscription on the James ossuary is a forgery.

 

[Larry1700]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary

This excerpt under “Aftermath” in the wikipedia article seems to be contrary to both what is said in Biblical Archaeology Review and within its own preceding text, unless I’m missing something:

The Israeli Antiquities Authority has never offered any report explaining why it concluded the ossuary is a forgery. Therefore, a number of international experts refuse to agree that it is a forgery until the IAA allows scholars to review its findings. For example, Ed Keall, the Senior Curator at the Royal Ontario Museum, Near Eastern & Asian Civilizations Department, continues to argue for the ossuary’s authenticity, saying “the ROM has always been open to questioning the ossuary’s authenticity, but so far no definitive proof of forgery has yet been presented, in spite of the current claims being made."[2] Meanwhile Biblical Archaeology Review also continued to defend the ossuary. In articles in the February 2005 issues, several experts in writing on stone argue that the James Ossuary is authentic and should be examined by specialists outside of Israel. Another article claims the cleaning of the James Ossuary before it was examined may have caused the problem with the patina.

When I read Biblical Archaeology Review’s summary, I got a completely opposite opinion.

 

[Nullasalus]

I read the link you provided. All of the committee members agree that the inscription on the James ossuary is a forgery.

Those are all of the IAA’s people, on the side of the prosecution. That site has plenty of testimony/opinions from the side of the defense who respond with their own views on the ossuary, as well as responses to the IAA’s views.

Check around on the site more - the reason I linked specifically to the defense is because, for whatever reason, it’s harder to find the IAA’s views than pro-authenticity views.

 

[Larry1700]

Those are all of the IAA’s people, on the side of the prosecution. That site has plenty of testimony/opinions from the side of the defense who respond with their own views on the ossuary, as well as responses to the IAA’s views.

Check around on the site more - the reason I linked specifically to the defense is because, for whatever reason, it’s harder to find the IAA’s views than pro-authenticity views.

I read the article you linked from the Royal Ontario Museum. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong, but my skepticism about the ROM comes from recent years of anti-Christian sentiment coming from Canada. If there are any Canadians out there, please tell me if my skepticism is unfounded. I can’t quote specific comments – I just have a general view based on listening to news over the years. My apologies if I’m wrong.

 

[Nullasalus]

I read the article you linked from the Royal Ontario Museum. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong, but my skepticism about the ROM comes from recent years of anti-Christian sentiment coming from Canada. If there are any Canadians out there, please tell me if my skepticism is unfounded. I can’t quote specific comments – I just have a general view based on listening to news over the years. My apologies if I’m wrong.

Specifically with the ossuary, it’s not really an anti-christian finding. Not even necessarily anti-Catholic (Jesus’ siblings would no longer be considered cousins if James was the son of Joseph, but there are strong reasons to believe Joseph had children by a previous marriage, and Mary was mother only to Jesus.)

That said, even I’m not entirely convinced it’s authentic. And thoughts of it coming from Cameron’s ‘Jesus Tomb’ seem dead in the water at this point. The more I read about this story, the more it seems that we’re all getting worked up over nothing. Perhaps I’m simply being optimistic, but I say this after going through the documents and information myself, as well as checking out various blogs (Tabor’s included.) I’ll wait until after the documentary and the resulting professional commentary to be sure (There’s plenty ongoing now, but more should be coming I suppose), but it seems like the moment ‘Jesus, son of Joseph’ and ‘Mary’ were found in the tomb, all bets were off. Any other names found could either be linked tenuously, or explained away as ‘Must be someone close to them that wasn’t in the family or we never heard of’.

 

[Larry1700]

…The more I read about this story, the more it seems that we’re all getting worked up over nothing. …I’ll wait until after the documentary and the resulting professional commentary…

I agree. I’ve spent alot of time reading and posting regarding this issue, and the documentary hasn’t even aired yet. But guess what? I gave up TV and radio (and chocolate) for Lent!!! So I won’t be able to watch the show. I guess I’ll tape it.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

If there was a great deception by an anti-christ wouldn’t something like this scientism to disprove the ressurection be it?

 

[reason]

The Jesus character’s divinity was in doubt even among the very earliest Christians, so it couldn’t have been that obvious at the time, could it?

I’ve always found that Christian believers are always ready to at least discuss the divinity issue, but they will fight tooth and nail any suggestion about there not having been any historical Jesus. The divinity thing can be argued, but proof of no historical Jesus would remove all basis for Christianity except as a gnostic mystery religion. If anything, a suggestion that remains of Jesus may have been found could be seen as a positive thing for Christianity. If that were the case, a Christian could still think of the resurrection as a more spiritual event rather than a bodily one (that’s exactly what I did before I finally left the Church). Even many of the early Christians thought of it that way, and they were a lot closer to the actual events than we are.

Larry, yes, I’ve read Aquinas, Augustine, etc. I see them as simply rationalizing in order to make philosophical ideas and theological ideas fit together within the religious box they lived in (the same as apologists do today). Religious mythologies throughout history have simply been ways of making ordinary people follow a certain philosophy without having to understand it (and almost always one suitable as a way of keeping the populace where the rulers wanted them).

A mythology serves the same purpose on a larger societal scale as a parable does on a smaller personal one. Christianity is merely the mythology wrapper around a way of life which is the gradual marriage of Stoicism, Cynicism, Platonism, various mystery religions and Jewish mysticism, combined with the rituals and images of Mithraism (a traditional Roman Catholic church is basically a Mithraic temple, where just the names things have changed and some of the imagery has been revised). And even all of that goes back further to other ancient civilizations. All of these mythologies were honed gradually over thousands of years.

That there might be natural law really has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, or any other religion’s personal god. This is the big mistake religious people make. It could just as easily be any kind of New Age god we can imagine (no matter how we define the word “god”, or it could just be evolution, or something we can’t even begin to imagine. I don’t know if there’s a God. Nobody does. Neither do I know how the universe started. I’m just reasonably certain that there’s no God who needs to be worshipped by me or anyone else (or who intervenes in human affairs), and that while any historical Jesus might have had nice things to say (and some not so nice ones too if we believe the New Testament), all of these nice things were said before, outside of Christianity.

I do hesitate to post such ideas, because it’s not really my intent to convince anybody to abandon their faith. I only want to introduce them to the uncertainties because I feel the entire world is moving towards a very destructive and dangerous kind of religious fundamentalism, and I don’t want the rest of us to go down with it. The Catholic Church did seem to get on the right path the last century or so, but now it’s reversing itself and heading back to its very darkest ages (and those were very dark indeed). Even today, we have this news item:

“Christians tempted to set aside their belief in Christ as the only savior in order to promote dialogue with others are being tempted by the Antichrist, retired Italian Cardinal Giacomo Biffi told Pope Benedict XVI.”

This is a very dangerous concept in this small world of ours.

The less certainty there is about the “truths” every religion claims to represent, the less fundamentalism there will be. In fact, I sometimes wish there had been and still was a Jesus Christ, because I think that what he really intended was to free people from the religious fundamentalism of his time.

 

[Sober24]

He has? The last I heard, the trial is still going on and there are scholars, including Ben Wetherington, I believe, who think it’s genuine.

Mr. Wetherington has written a scathing review on his blog,
benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/jesus-tomb-titanic-talpiot-tomb-theory.html
“THE JESUS TOMB? ‘TITANIC’ TALPIOT TOMB THEORY SUNK FROM THE START”. I highly reccommend reading it, as he thoroughly debunks this nonsense point by point.

With regard to the James ossuary fraud he has this to say:

"One more thing of importance. The James ossuary, according to the report of the antiquities dealer that Oded Golan got the ossuary from, said that the ossuary came from Silwan, not Talpiot, and had dirt in it that matched up with the soil in that particular spot in Jerusalem. In fact Oded confirmed this to me personally when I spoke with him at an SBL meeting. Why is this important? Well because the ossuaries that came out of Talpiot came out of a rock cave from a different place, and without such soil in it. To theorize that there was a Jesus family tomb, and yet the one member of Jesus’ family who we know was buried in Jerusalem for a long time did not come out of the ground from that locale contradicts this theory. Furthermore, Eusebius reports that the tomb marker for James’ burial was close to where James was martyred near the temple mount, indeed near the famous tombs in the Kidron valley such as the so-called tomb of Absalom. Talpiot is nowhere near this locale.

Scholars and archeologists worldwide have already lambasted the supposed “Jesus Tomb” as a sensationalistic hoax. Here are some assorted headlines & snippets.

JESUS’ TOMB DISCOVERY IS TITANIC FRAUD
catholicleague.org/07press_releases/quarter_1/070226_jesus_tomb.htm

“Israeli archeologist Amos Kloner was in charge of the 1980 investigation of the tomb that Cameron-Jacobovici have seized on 27 years later to make their allegations. ‘The claim that the burial site has been found is not based on any proof, and is only an attempt to sell,’ Kloner says. He adds, ‘I refute all claims and efforts to waken a renewed interest in the findings. With all due respect, they are not archeologists.’ Indeed, Kloner has branded their claims ‘impossible’ and ‘nonsense.’ Moreover, he says there is ‘no likelihood’ that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. ‘It makes a great story for a TV film,’ he concludes.

“Joe Zias, who spent a quarter-century as an archeologist at the Rockefeller University in Jerusalem, said that ‘Simcha has no credibility whatsoever.’ Zias isn’t shooting from the hip: Jacobovici’s credibility explodes when one considers that he still believes the 2002 tale about an ossuary with the inscription, ‘James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.’ On June 18, 2003, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) condemned this claim as a modern forgery—this was the unanimous decision of a 15-member IAA committee. Agreeing with this decision were Harvard’s Frank Cross and Tel Aviv University professor Edward Greenstein.

Jerusalem Experts Trash Jesus’ Bones Claim
cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200702/FOR20070227b.html

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Claims in a new documentary that an ancient tomb discovered decades ago outside of Jerusalem contained the bones of Jesus and his family may be a great money-making gimmick - but scientifically, it is nonsense, according to leading archeologists and scholars in Jerusalem.

’Jesus tomb’ documentary ignores biblical
& scientific evidence, logic, experts saybpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=25053
"NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)–The controversial claim by an upcoming television special that researchers have discovered Jesus’ “tomb” falls apart under both scientific scrutiny and simple logic, scholars in New Testament and archaeological studies say.

’Lost Tomb of Jesus’ Claim Called a Stunt. Archaeologists Decry TV Film
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022600442.html
"Leading archaeologists in Israel and the United States yesterday denounced the purported discovery of the tomb of Jesus as a publicity stunt.

Scorn for the Discovery Channel’s claim to have found the burial place of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and – most explosively – their possible son came not just from Christian scholars but also from Jewish and secular experts who said their judgments were unaffected by any desire to uphold Christian orthodoxy."

 

[Nullasalus]

Larry, yes, I’ve read Aquinas, Augustine, etc. I see them as simply rationalizing in order to make philosophical ideas and theological ideas fit together within the religious box they lived in (the same as apologists do today). Religious mythologies throughout history have simply been ways of making ordinary people follow a certain philosophy without having to understand it (and almost always one suitable as a way of keeping the populace where the rulers wanted them).

To a point I’d agree. Except boxing it in as ‘religious mythologies’ is too limited - any metaphysical claim, whether atheistic or theistic, has been employed for much the same reason. The examples range from social darwinism to Dawkins’ brand of atheism. The reality is that any understanding of ‘how the world/universe truly works’ inevitably leads to rationalization and justification. Augustine and Aquinas started with certain preconceived notions about the universe, and then put themselves to the task of considering what those implications are for us in thought. Start with different notions, get different results - but you have to start with some.

Christianity is merely the mythology wrapper around a way of life which is the gradual marriage of…

Without getting into debating specific points (Mithra’s been done to death)… yes, Christianity has absolutely evolved, improved, and in the process acquired truths from a variety of sources. Pope John Paul II said outright that the various world’s religions all contained some amount of truth. One of Christ’s messages was that people outside of your personal faith and belief are not only worthwhile, but can actually be instructive (Good samaritan, etc.) So the idea that Christianity has absorbed various concepts, new and old, isn’t saying much - certainly not to Catholics, who obviously allot for the need of a growth of knowledge and understanding, rather than maintaining a static state.

That there might be natural law really has nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God,

Sure, but once you assent to the possibility of a God existing, some can argue that certain revelations and understandings may be more reasonable than others. And the ‘Judeo-Christian-Islamic’ God (alongside others, perhaps) is one which those faiths immediately describe as eternally unknowable in whole. Infinite. They simply believe an aspect of that God can be understood, and indeed should be.

I’m just reasonably certain that there’s no God who needs to be worshipped by me or anyone else (or who intervenes in human affairs), and that while any historical Jesus might have had nice things to say (and some not so nice ones too if we believe the New Testament), all of these nice things were said before, outside of Christianity.

I’d disagree. Christ’s teachings were simple in word, extraordinary in concept and result. And I’d think it’s far less the claim that God thrives on our worship, than we may thrive on the worship of God. Worship is for our benefit, not God’s.

I feel the entire world is moving towards a very destructive and dangerous kind of religious fundamentalism, and I don’t want the rest of us to go down with it.

I only hope your criticisms are equal when it comes to atheist fundamentalism, really. And I disagree that Catholicism is on some downward slope of good, or even that christianity in general is; even setting the context of your quote aside, Pope Benedict XVI has been exemplary with his diplomacy, despite claims that he was the Panzer Pope. I couldn’t help but notice that when he made his gaffe about Mohammed, there was finger-pointing about his alleged extremism and the dangers of religion. But when he visited Turkey and was conciliatory and resoundingly courteous and inspiring, well - that’s just politics.

 

[Michael038]

Anyone strong in their faith will see this for what it is and not be moved. This only affects the lost.
Any word on the religion of those making this film?

the sad thing about this is that those poor people whoever they are are having their remains ripped out of the grave and made a spectacle of! its not Jesus I believe, but whomever it was has been very disrespected by all of this. jesus and mary were two of the most popular names of that time.

 

[puzzleannie]

don’t know if this is the thread I promised to post this link, which contains within it other links I referred to
catholicexchange.com/node/34065

we seem to have several duplicate threads on this inane topic.

 

[puzzleannie]

I think I promised a link here it is, within the article are the link I suggested plus a couple more good ones (this is in response to question in OP)
catholicexchange.com/node/34065

I guess this is the same thread, lots of duplicate threads

if this challenges your faith in the slightest, please enroll in a remedial CCD class right away.