Hollywood Hype: The Oscars and Jesus’ Family Tomb, What Do They Share? (expanded version)

73 Comments

• 

  Anonymous

  February 26, 2007 at 6:47 pm

  Jesus Family Tomb
  All the information you’re talking about can be found on the official website: http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com
  There’s some interesting perspectives and detailed articles that you may find worthwhile.
• 

  Anonymous

  February 26, 2007 at 7:28 pm

  Jesus Tomb’s Official Site
  check out the movie’s official site at http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com.
  • 

    Kamagra

    December 30, 2008 at 4:45 am

    Thank you so much for this
    Thank you so much for this link. I couldn’t find this website for a long time. Thank you again and let the Lord bless you.

    —–
    Bob Kamagra
• 

  Steve Ray

  February 26, 2007 at 9:57 pm

  grammar
  Greetings,
  I just read your blog. You have many good things to say, but it is marred bypoor grammar.
  Please review it, and correct the many mistakes>

  i.e., in the aftermath of his death to *by* the tomb space

  Thanks, and blessings,
  Steve Ray
• 

  Jimmy Lang

  February 27, 2007 at 1:23 am

  Would Jesus DNA match with
  Would Jesus DNA match with anyone? You have many good arguments here. And we should not fear looking at the subject, we know the truth.
• 

  Anonymous

  February 27, 2007 at 1:45 am

  It sounds like there is no
  It sounds like there is no crediable evidence for what this documentary is claiming, why do these people still bother to make a film about it? Is there any integrity left in Hollywood? I just feel horrible for those that will be lead astray by this documentary.
• 

  Keith Britton

  February 27, 2007 at 4:55 pm

  Jesus, raised or buried?
  Hi,
  I find it a shamful waste of time giving the movie or it’s context so much attention.
  The Bible ,(which is the word of God)tells His truth and has been proven historicaly (as we find more evidence) as a very accorate history of Gods workmanship of bibical porportion.

  I often wonder why we don’t hear about other religions that have some very bizzare beginnings and even more bazzare practicec, even now.
  I would like the world to see a movie about the true beggining of the Muslim religion or the Mormon’s? But do people speak of that? No they don’t!! Why is that?
  But it’s OK to defile Christ and the Christian believes. why? Because Jesus told us that this would happen. Why then are we so afraid, as it seems we are?

  OK enough of all that. You know about all that.

  Why can not Christian Leaders simply say the truth, that the Bible is the writen word of God, and that Jesus Christ was in fact God who came in the person of Jesus to personally give us a way to be with Him forever by dying on the cross and resurrected so, that none should perish….You know the story.

  I believe we are very close to the end times. And the evil one is gearing up to confuse those who will be confused, he’s had a long time to get ready, and he know’s his time is short. Christian leaders should be proclaiming this truth not defending it.
  I don’t believe in being politicly correct unless it agrees with the word of God, and neither did Jesus. So why are we?

  So far the few Christins that have been on TV or such, have looked an acted some what confused as the real confused sits across from them and acts calm and in control.

  I’m afraid we’re just feeding the enemy as he prowls the earth like a roaring lion ready to devour all that will listen. I feel we are helping in glorifing Satans lies by responding in such a fashion…..

  When jesus was tempted did He defend God or use the word of God to shut Satan up?

  We need to have more faith in the writen word as it is writen in the Bible, not some speculation about some names on some tomb stone.

  I could go on, but that’s enough for now…

  I have learned in my 17 years as a born again Christian, to love all mankind, but hate the sin. It is diffucult at times.

  God Bless all of you with His wisdom to speak His truth.

  Keith

  P.S. please accuse my spelling and puctuation. .
• 

  jkaiseresquire

  February 27, 2007 at 6:21 pm

  Just another deception..
  Watch the paroxysms of joy that atheists and God-deniers are going through over this. Then think on this:

  “For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.” II Thessalonians 2: 11-12.

  Now watch how they take joy in “killing” God. How they revile those who continue to believe, while they worship their own reason.

  -J. Kaiser
• 

  John Hunt

  February 27, 2007 at 6:30 pm

  Sad that Jesus’ own son
  Sad that Jesus’ own son Judah (a/k/a Judas) betrayed him to the Roman guards in the Garden of Gethsemane. Now dont spread this around, but what I heard is that Jesus’ son Judah wanted very badly to buy a new camel with a fancy riding saddle but Jesus would’nt let him. So, to get the money to buy it Judah decided to turn his dad in to the Roman cops which he had heard were looking for him. What the heck, he knew his dad had not done anything wrong and that Pilot would have to let him go. Turns out the camel he bought with his pieces of silver had bad feet and wasnt worth a dracma. Judah sold him to Palestinian for twice what he had paid and when the Palestinian found out he had been defrauded he swore a vengence upon all Jews. That Palestinians name was “Something”…Bin Laden. Man those guys never forget a grudge.
• 

  gsheryl

  February 28, 2007 at 6:07 am

  Response to Jesus’ Tomb
  Dr. Bock,

  I’ve certainly appreciated your blogs of the past 2 days regarding this latest “Jesus-bashing” issue. The longer one that you did yesterday was especially informative and and interesting, but both were well-done. I also notice that these 2 blogs have generated a lot of “hits,” which demonstrates that this is a topic that has generated a lot of interest. I appreciate your responding to the latest attack on the historic credibility of Jesus and the gospels.

  As far as needing a high-visibility and scholarly response to these issues, I’m not so certain we need one, however. I think the apostle Paul probably nailed the appropriate response to this matter when he said,

  “But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations, knowing that they produce quarrels. The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.” (2 Tim. 2:23-26)

  I would be so bold as to suggest that a proper response to this absurd story might be to simply ignore it, and let it die the death it so richly deserves, rather than dignifying it by actually responsing to it. If someone asks about it, we could answer by saying something like, “You know, there’s a special theological term that New Testament scholars and theologians use to describe a theory like the one you just mentioned—-HA!” Or, alternatively, we could just start laughing or snickering. That might be the most appropriate response of all.
  • 

    bock

    February 28, 2007 at 1:04 pm

    Response – dlb
    Greg:

    I cannot think of a worse response than to ignore this. To let only one side speak to such a question is to leave millions with only one side of the story. Is that really wise? Timothy is discussing issues in the church! Think through the context. One thing Paul did was not to ignore issues in the public square that impacted God. Just look at Acts and his letters. You really need to think that kind of a reaction through. Sorry to be so direct, but to ignore this and things like it is to put one’s hands over one’s eyes and hope it will go away. That is not happening.

    dlb
    • 

      Ray

      February 28, 2007 at 9:10 pm

      Pastor Ray’s notes: James,
      Pastor Ray’s notes: James, the brother of John, was the first apostle to be martyred in Jerusalem (Acts 12:2) and sent shock waves through the Christian movement, hoping to stamp it out…Acts 1:8. That death was within a short time after the resurrection was preached all over Jerusalem (Acts 2). It is inconceivable that this movement would have continued when this first apostle was killed by Herod, making sure everyone knew that he was out for those 12. Certainly his own brothers, and family wouldn’t have been in the upper room in Acts 1:14 “These all continued with one accord in the prayer and supplication with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.” No doubt Mary Magdalene would have been in that group named “women”, but notice Luke did not singled her out as anything other than a disciple, not even mentioning her name in this setting… But notice now, Luke, who has been accredited as a complete and excellent historian by scholors, writes that his brothers are now with them in this upper room…having gone from distancing themselves to becoming believers, one of which later writes the book of James, and is killed in 62AD along with Peter. So the question is begged, why would Luke have not known of a family tomb, the end of a “Jewish rebel”, and thus the end of Christianity, which if so, there would not be an Acts written by this historian. All of the detailed stories in Acts, presumably known facts that followed the resurection, (Acts 1:1-4) would have been an ingnorant treatise to pass around in 50-70AD, since everyone would have known that the Jesus movement died with Jesus, was burried and who cares where or with whom.) Every known enemy of this movement would have pointed to the final tomb of Jesus (Rome, Jewish leaders, etc) esecpially since it is said to be that of a wealthy family, which wouldn’t have been a secret.
      Also, the name Mary Magdalene doesn’t mean Mary’s last name was Magdalene. It means her name was Mary of the town of Magdala, on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. She is never referred to as “Mary the Master” in any biblical or post biblical writtings. This will be an interesting spin.
      Gospel of Philip…150-200 AD, depicts Mary as Jesus’ koinonos, a Greek term indicating a ‘close friend’, ‘companion’, not wife. No mention of wife is used and had they been that, it certainly would have been chosen through out.
      Mary’s presence at the Crucifixion and Jesus’ tomb, while hardly conclusive, my sound consistent with the role of grieving wife and widow, although if that were the case Jesus certainly would have been expected to make provision for her care, as he did for his mother Mary at his crucifixion.
      We can contrast Jesus to the rest of the apostles, Peter, and the brothers of the Lord, all of whom are said to have had wives (1 Corinthians 9:5). This passage shows that the church was not embarrassed to reveal that its leaders were married-or to suggest that they had the right to be. The same would have been true of Jesus, if he had been married.
    • 

      Randy

      March 1, 2007 at 2:54 am

      ossuary and other comments
      As usual, Dr. Bock, you do good work and research. I have read 2 of your books. Yet I am curious if you know the answer as to why Elaine Pagels and Bart Erhman(?) who do much of the same work as you, folded on their faith? Did they find something that shook them or was it never there?

      Concerning the newly hyped lost ossuary of Jesus, why would the Jews/Romans/Gnostics or anyone other than Christians bother to bury Jesus and family when they would have been much better off to have exposed the body and thus killed Christianity with it’s resurection claims? Secondly, as you briefly pointed out, why would the Christians hide the bones, and then worship and die for what they knew to be a hoax? Most especially, why would they even inscribe the names on the ossuary if their intent was to hide any evidence? Notably, the DNA that was done rules out “Mary and Martha” as related to Jesus. So what could that possibly prove? We already knew that. It also rules out my wife Martha as well…..and her friend Maria. Why don’t they do and announce the DNA on the other Mary as compared to Jesus….and then Mary’s mitochondria as compared to Yose….and then Joseph’s Y chromosome to Yose? Then they could at least conclude that they indeed had a family. I would like to know the dating of the ossuaries as well…..and how do they know that some second century Gnostic graffitti artist didn’t come along and inscribe the names on some unknown Jewish family just to cause some trouble? Besides, in my little town of 20,000, I can show you where the graves of a James Brown and Grace Kelly are. I can even show you where a man and woman named Toy and Candy are buried….have we found the Ghost of Christmas past? In Mexico, I’m sure I can show you where many Jose and Marias are buried with several Jesus’s nearby. I noticed how Simcha Jacobovici continued saying that he wasn’t qualified as this and that but yet he never missed a beat in trying to defend the rediculi. Not once did he attempt the same or agree with the Christian point of view. If they are then trying to disprove something about Christianity, then I hope they have more than this. Yet, why do these cowards always pick on Christianity but never Islam? (I know the answer). You have to give Salmon Rushdie credit. In the future, I will have to categorize Cameron and the Discovery Channel in with Scorcesse, Maplethorpe, etc. I also notice how they never put any qualified apologists like yourself against these claims, but rather put up those sympathetic to the heresies as if they are attacking them.
      Lastly, I would like to ask you if you think that Hindu-Buddhist teaching supllied the Gnostic writings and teachings of the early centuries? I know Pythagoras believed in Hindu reicarnation (he was before Buddhism). I know Hipolytus said they were in Egypt in the 4th century. I read where the name Buddha could be substituted in place of Jesus name in the “Gospel of Thomas” and the doctrine would make more sense. But it occured to me that when Jesus said that he would make Mary into a man….that is the next step for women in the samsara ‘wheel’ of reincarnation! hinduism would explain the whole Gnostic scene? God bless you and keep up the good work.
      • 

        Bill

        November 4, 2007 at 4:09 am

        The Lost Tomb of Jesus
        It is not likely the Yashua’s followers went and preached resurrection after his death, it is very probable they did abscond the body for its proper Hebraic burial of those days. Most likely his immediate and true followers continued to preach and teach what he taught, the active living spiritual truths of the Torah, Prophets and Writings, and not its fantasies nor theological interpolations. About 30 years later, Paul confused “The Way” with his European mythologies and delusions which the later Catholic fathers namely Jerome (author of the Bible as we know it today) corrupted the gospels and other writings to increase the power of the church by further advancing the Pauline fantasies. Yah-shua (“Yah Saves”) said “I come in my Father’s Name and you do not receive me, but one will come in another name and him you will receive (another name such as Jesus?)”. He also said that “if every tongue were stilled, the noise would yet continue because the rocks and stones themselves would start to cry out” are they not crying out from the archaelogical findings around Jerusalem today? “Let those with ears to hear, hear and let those with eyes to see, see”.
        • 

          bock

          November 5, 2007 at 12:34 am

          Lost Tomb dlb

          Nice theory, just not very likely historcially.

          (1) How and why would Paul have converted, if he was persecuting the church as his own writings (which no one disputes) tell us and there was no preaching of the resurrection? There would be no reason to make this move.

          (2) When Paul converted the church had no power. Jerome was not reponsible because the 4 gospesl, Acts, and the Paul;ines were in use as canon before Jerome was alive. The church was a minority religion in a world full of options until Constantine, but the core of the canon was in place before that.

          (3) Jerome did not corrupt the gospels. We have evidence of what their content was before Jerome was alive.

           

          dlb
    • 

      Mike

      March 5, 2007 at 7:18 am

      A scientific and inquisitive mind responds
      The James Cameron documentary is DEFINATELY full of holes. It is unfortunate how much glamour and drama was used to portray their argument. However, there were some interesting questions about our current interpretations of biblical texts that do need to be examined. Moreover, the drama and glamour does have its place in getting people’s attention, especially with the very educational and unbiased critique that followed the presentation, commissioned by the presentation’s creators.

      A scientific hypothesis without holes, is not a hypothesis, it is a strong theory. This is not a strongly supported theory, but yet to be determined are whether these are the beginnings of one. True, the argument was conveyed as more than a string of coincidental discoveries and inferences, but in studying the elements of a good persuasive work of journalism, a strong stance and the use of conclusive wordage are essential elements in convincing one’s audience. More importantly, it gives the general population more interest in the gathering and presentation of further evidence leaning in either direction (such as the evidence and theories this blog presents). Therefore, to discredit this as an attack on Christianity and its beliefs are overly defensive at best; to credit this as an attempt to stir things up are 100% valid, as that seemed to be its attempt. Even if the probabilities were [1 in 1,000] compared to [600 to 1], would it not be worth investigating? Alot of impactful research begins simply as arbitrary research of a time period or geographical region, with little or no probabilty of some groundbreaking outcome. Its language, dramatizations, and selective-display of facts and statistical probablities increases the community’s interest, whether positively or negatively motivated.

      I think it’s also important to remember that questioning these findings is CRUCIAL. History shows us that religious/scientific disagreements can have many results, and in some cases, result in the restructuring of major Chrisitian ideals. Arguments such as this began in as early as a century after Jesus’ death/ressurection and have decided many of the beliefs of modern day Christianity, not to mention those that are still undecided such as evolution, extraterrestial life, and theories regarding mother nature and the life cycle. To be confident in the outcome of any of these arguments, is to be confident in the outcome of any of the many controveries revolving around biblical interpretations taking place between different denominations today. With so many contradicting beliefs between denomintations, how can one discredit ideas coming from non-christian sources?

      Anyway, don’t be to quick to dismiss the evidence, but allow it to propel us into a future of further research, and if nothing else, learn about mistakes we have made in the scientific process, and how to better it. We may find answers to some of the most extraordinary questions of mankind, or we may find nothing but holes in our techniques as scientists. Either way, we have been given the oppurtunity to grow closer as a singular human race. Our first impressions are not so important, as each is so different from the next. It is the discovery we go through together that we must cherish, not the ideas that separate us.

      In closing, don’t forget… in 3rd or 4th century Rome, many Christian’s believed the Bible contained all the knowledge anyone needed. A large majority of us have obviously grown FAR from this ideal as we cherish the education our children gain from our school systems in Mathematics, Communications, English, Science and History. To discount these discoveries as inconsequential, or their portrayl as lavish and overdramatisized, is to miss the big picture. We are all on the mission of discovery together, and NONE OF US know the answers despite what has been handed down to us for centuries. Let us find where we agree, and go from their. We cannot leave each other behind or we will end up in another widespread religious war.

      WITH GREAT LOVE, RESPECT, AND CONCERN FOR THE HUMAN CONDITION.

      A LATE NIGHT READER from BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA, US.
    • 

      Kaynmantis

      March 5, 2007 at 11:51 am

      Response – dlb
      Dr. Bock
      I lean towards not having to respond to foolish assumptions (like The lost Tomb of Jesus). However, like you emphasis on not letting only one side speak. That, I believe is also important. But then I think you will also agree that not every fancy idea deserves a response. What would be your take in how we balance when faced with such issues?
    • 

      Anonymous

      March 7, 2007 at 5:37 am

      Response
      Dr Bock,

      Thank you so much for the information you put here refuting the claims of this documentary. It is helpful for me as a Christian to know solid answers to the doubts the filmmakers are trying to raise. Additionally, I know a nonbeliever who is considering converting to Christianity. The release of the DaVinci Code movie last year seriously confused him and this documentary has the potential to make things worse. I thank God for scholars like you who can lend your expertise to help us sort through these issues.
  • 

    entee

    February 28, 2007 at 9:52 pm

    responding appropriately
    I agree wholeheartedly with Dr. Bock’s comment and I would add this: not only is it vitally important that we respond to situations like this with the appropriate lines of evidence and reasoning, but it crucial that we do so in a manner that reflects the character of Christ. If we fail to give those with whom we disagree the respect they deserve–not necessarily as scholars, historians, etc., but as men and women made in the image of God–we have done the gospel a disservice, even if we have factually defended the truth. I would question whether bare dismissal, laughter, or snickering does justice to the NT injunctions to love one’s enemy and give an account for our hope with gentleness and respect. Let’s all please think carefully about how we engage in this debate.
  • 

    anonymous

    April 29, 2007 at 7:01 pm

    oh my gosh. Why such
    oh my gosh. Why such hostility? This discovery and academic people are not personally attacking religion. You can believe in Jesus and science slash reality at the same time. I would like to point out that the Matthew osuary was not used in the satistics. A couple others were left out as well. This to me, is a wonderful and thrilling discovery. At no point have I felt that it “proves” Christains wrong in any way. Please take the time to look at the facts for yourselves, don’t trust just one person to relay them to you. Jesus is still Jesus, regardless of where he was buried.
• 

  Alan Branch

  February 28, 2007 at 3:25 pm

  Jesus and Hollywood
  Dr. Bock
  Well said. It seems conspiracy theories never die. I suppose Cameron’s next move will be to find the shooters on the grassy knoll!
  God Bless
  ab
• 

  gsheryl

  March 1, 2007 at 1:12 am

  “Jesus’ Family Tomb”
  Dr. Bock,

  I have no problem with your being so direct. I may, of course, be mistaken. I looked again at the Scripture passage in 2 Tim. that I quoted, and, although I may be in error, I don’t see anything that would limit this passage merely to application within the church. If I have overlooked something, I would welcome your pointing it out to me.

  My concerns with giving a serious response to the “Jesus’ Family Tomb” matter is, firstly, that I feel it lends legitimacy to something that is totally absurd. In Proverbs 26:4-5 it says, “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, that he may not be wise in his own eyes.”

  In so doing, it prolongs a discussion that is rooted in folly. Of course, if someone is asking the question in sincerety, we shouldn’t make them feel foolish for asking a sincere question. However, by laughing, I mean to ridicule the MATERIAL (i.e., Jesus’s family tomb), not the PERSON. To a person who asks the question in earnestness–if anyone WOULD ask such a question–we could merely reply that the matter in question has absolutely zero credibility. That should resolve the issue, without having to seriously engage an absurd issue.

  A second reason I think we should avoid getting sucked into seriously engaging this matter is that it takes away precious time, thought, and resources from issues that truly deserve serious engagement. If we seriously engage an issue that is this manifestly ridiculous, then we will have to contend with every Tom, Dick, and Harry theological absurdity that comes down the pike. What’s next? “Jesus’ body was abducted by aliens?” Can you imagine trying to seriously engage a discussion like that? Where does it end?

  I think it should end here and now, so that we can engage truly important theolgical issues–matters of weight and import. You would know, as I would not, just what sorts of issues these are. In my opinion, this issue doesn’t deserve serious engagement.
  • 

    veronicatoney

    March 1, 2007 at 3:57 am

    If cant find dna than why
    If cant find dna than why keep messing around tomb how do you explain jesus work god said that we will see these thing in the end and now here it is why do you take god work and do what you want
  • 

    Kaynmantis

    March 5, 2007 at 11:27 am

    “Jesus’ Family Tomb”
    gsheryl, my sentiments exactly. Personally I feel James Cameron himself does not serioulsy believe in the documentary. Maybe he simply doesn’t care as long as it creates a storm. That’s what these people are good at, capture people’s attention.
• 

  Randy

  March 1, 2007 at 2:53 am

  Ossuary and other comments/questioons
  As usual, Dr. Bock, you do good work and research. I have read 2 of your books. Yet I am curious if you know the answer as to why Elaine Pagels and Bart Erhman(?) who do much of the same work as you, folded on their faith? Did they find something that shook them or was it never there?

  Concerning the newly hyped lost ossuary of Jesus, why would the Jews/Romans/Gnostics or anyone other than Christians bother to bury Jesus and family when they would have been much better off to have exposed the body and thus killed Christianity with it’s resurection claims? Secondly, as you briefly pointed out, why would the Christians hide the bones, and then worship and die for what they knew to be a hoax? Most especially, why would they even inscribe the names on the ossuary if their intent was to hide any evidence? Notably, the DNA that was done rules out “Mary and Martha” as related to Jesus. So what could that possibly prove? We already knew that. It also rules out my wife Martha as well…..and her friend Maria. Why don’t they do and announce the DNA on the other Mary as compared to Jesus….and then Mary’s mitochondria as compared to Yose….and then Joseph’s Y chromosome to Yose? Then they could at least conclude that they indeed had a family. I would like to know the dating of the ossuaries as well…..and how do they know that some second century Gnostic graffitti artist didn’t come along and inscribe the names on some unknown Jewish family just to cause some trouble? Besides, in my little town of 20,000, I can show you where the graves of a James Brown and Grace Kelly are. I can even show you where a man and woman named Toy and Candy are buried….have we found the Ghost of Christmas past? In Mexico, I’m sure I can show you where many Jose and Marias are buried with several Jesus’s nearby. I noticed how Simcha Jacobovici continued saying that he wasn’t qualified as this and that but yet he never missed a beat in trying to defend the rediculi. Not once did he attempt the same or agree with the Christian point of view. If they are then trying to disprove something about Christianity, then I hope they have more than this. Yet, why do these cowards always pick on Christianity but never Islam? (I know the answer). You have to give Salmon Rushdie credit. In the future, I will have to categorize Cameron and the Discovery Channel in with Scorcesse, Maplethorpe, etc. I also notice how they never put any qualified apologists like yourself against these claims, but rather put up those sympathetic to the heresies as if they are attacking them.
  Lastly, I would like to ask you if you think that Hindu-Buddhist teaching supllied the Gnostic writings and teachings of the early centuries? I know Pythagoras believed in Hindu reicarnation (he was before Buddhism). I know Hipolytus said they were in Egypt in the 4th century. I read where the name Buddha could be substituted in place of Jesus name in the “Gospel of Thomas” and the doctrine would make more sense. But it occured to me that when Jesus said that he would make Mary into a man….that is the next step for women in the samsara ‘wheel’ of reincarnation! hinduism would explain the whole Gnostic scene? God bless you and keep up the good work.
• 

  Rosemary

  March 1, 2007 at 6:04 am

  Jesus Family Tomb
  Dr. Bock,
  Thank you for your enlightening presentation of the facts. I am extremely glad that you did not take the course of ignoring this issue. I am often discouraged by main stream coverage of issues relating to Jesus and God. They are so condescending and short on facts. We desperately need to have the other side presented in response to these “specials” that are fast and loose with the facts. I, personally, was strengthened and encouraged by your very good response to this issue. We can become weary and begin to doubt when we are so often “told” that faith in God and in the inerrency of the Bible is something for the simple minded. And that “most” people and “educated” people reject these notions. Once again I thank you for being “able to teach … correction those are in opposition.”
• 

  RR

  March 1, 2007 at 6:21 am

  Thanks!
  Dr. Bock,
  Thanks for your post. I am very thankful that academics now blog and get the information on controvertial issues out faster. My family is South Asian and last December National Geographic ran an episode on Jesus being in India, and a number of members of my family swallowed it alive… and I was totally unprepared for this, and unable to refute it. I am much more ready now.

  Anyway, my point it that your post really helps people like me. When I get back home during my next break, I know I will get hit with all this Lost Tomb stuff. I dont have a choice in the matter, as I do not come from a Christian family. To try to ignore it is not possible. I do not have that luxury.

  Thanks again,
  RR
• 

  gsheryl

  March 1, 2007 at 7:07 am

  With Apologies
  Dr. Bock,

  I was shocked by the bluntness of my own previous posting when I read it again just now. Let me say, Dr. Bock, that I certainly meant no disrespect toward you, regardless of how it might have come across. I have pointed several people toward your posting on the Jesus’ tomb issue, because I really appreciated the information that you presented and found it helpful.

  I guess I’m rather frustrated and angry at people like James Cameron and the Discovery Channel for taking cheap shots at the Christian faith, no doubt, for the purpose of stirring up controversy, making “a name” for themselves, and making BIG BUCKS.

  I DO feel the issue is absurd, as I have said: I believe this issue is a red herring, and that Christians must pick their battles wisely since we can’t fight everything that comes down the pike. We only have limited resources, and I think the devil would love for us to get involved in sensational issues that he might divert our attention from issues that might create less “buzz” from the media, but which may, in fact, be more important in the long run.

  I greatly respect you, Dr. Bock, and, as I say, I meant no disrespect to you personally by anything I have shared. I am very sorry that I came across so strong in my previous posting, and I hope that perhaps this posting will mitigate the strident tone of the earlier one.
  • 

    Emery Nester

    March 10, 2007 at 9:12 pm

    What do you think? Will Bock use this in his stuff? I could use
    Skip to the main content
    ——————————————————————————–
    In Israel March 9 Submitted by bock on Fri, 2007-03-09 15:32. I contiunue to do interviews while here. Did three over the phone.
    But today was dedicated to getting to see some places I have always wanted to see: Qumran (home of the Dead Sea Scrolls) and Nazareth and the Sea of Galilee (where I am writing from).
    It is quite an experience to see the terrain Jesus had to traverse in his minstry, especially in the South as he went from Galilee to Jerusalem, no easy walk. The visit to Qumran was fun as I climbed around the area of the caves. (Yes, get in shape for this). I hope that many of the pictures I am taking will show up on bible.org one day.
    On Monday, hopefully, you will get to hear the fruit of some of my labor over here. We think we have our technical problems solved, but Sabbath in israel means nothing happens for a few days. So the audio files will hopefully make their way to the States in a few days.
    Trackback URL for this post:http://dev.bible.org/bock/trackback/124 bock’s blog · 119 reads »
    What are the chances? #4828 On Sat, 2007 03 10 15:03 jnjwallen said, What about the fact that the ossuary as being Jesus’s ossuary was plain compared to all the others? Scribbly. At first I thought fraud then remembered the Ossuary Judah Son of Jesus. That threw that out? Also thought of the fact if the first one dead was Jesus who could not afford a nicer one? Later the deciples stole the body to hide it from the Jews to save face and their own lives. They Hid it in a cave in the hills.. This tomb was a cave about 5 miles out of town where the cave they found this tomb in is. They did not need to then afford a tomb. Just make the ossuaries. After Jesus death they hid the body in the cave and made the first ossuary plain. Then as the others died afforded better ones. Now when the people found out the deciples were lying they killed them; not as martyrs but as liers as the Jews saw. They may have renounced their faith begging for mercy before they were killed; not as they say dying for their faith but instead dying because of their lies. ?? This is just a theory that I wish somebody could disprove with actual dated material or writings.. not with the bible..Circular reasoning. I just need a shadow of doubt.This stuff should be considered in a book to be written by Lee Strobel or somebody else on the issue. Read other below on this. The slim chances on the grouping in the whole number of names..the small sampling they had make this chance happening even more improbable. Then tack that Jesus was attributed to this Mary instead of Mathew or one of the others. Then the plain Jane ossuaryattributing only to Jesus, etc. The chances are slim. Barely hangin on, Jeff Wallen
    ps. Maybe all these slim chances was created by God as He had sent a deceiving spirit in the past; But why the plain ossuary for Himself. This tripped me up on that theory and the idea of sabatage because those sabataging would have given im a Nice ossuary. UGH!
    Read all below..
    One more thing in addition it seems very far fetched to state that because there are many more people that were born at that time that were not given tombs or ossuaries; that you can lower the statistic credibility. First of all you must go by the sampling of names that you have ; not by the dead you have no idea as to what their names were. The statistics still hold water because you must go by that name grouping out of all possible names found. It is still fantastic that this grouping was found in such a small sampling! Then they are trying to get around Mary being attributed to Jesus. Was not the ossuaries placed near eachother? Was there not a Judah son of Jesus in that tomb? They did not even use this fantastic piece in their statistics; this would make the odds 6000 to 1! What are the chances for this grouping and the fact that Mary was not attributed to Mathew or other? What are the chances? Let’s not gloss over the facts to prove a different point. I am seriously afraid of the facts here. Looks Bleak! The timeframe is possible. Location possible due to the idea Jesus had to be barried near for all to see or that He was in hiding from His people in His hometown of Galilee who would recognize Him. Also the fact this was in a cave far from stuff..in hidding? One more unforgettable stat. The ossuary attributed to Jesus son of Joseph was plain and different from the rest. That is hugely interresting in and of itself on top of everything else. Jesus was crafty with his hands he was a mason right? What are the chances?
    Claims on statistics credible! Help?
    Read my email. It answers all their claims; I have been reading up; They are avoiding some huge coincidences in their stats.Please get this to Lee Strobal. Let me know he can address this stuff. I am really scared!
    There are some issues with these statistics and statements That will undoubtedly be challenged. Wasn’t the oldest manuscripts we have written at a later era? Could the decipleshave been put to death publisizing the stories they compiled from lore? As far as the bodies being kept in Jerusalem; that most likely could have been for all to see; So that the Jews would not be swayed from their faith?Below are some ideas and stats that are being left out. First off the amount of names themselves are not spectacular; but the grouping and the placement in one place is! Read on..With this and my last thought you also have to factor how many of the other names that existed at that time; (other than the ten mentioned that could have been one of the ten in the tomb); or how many other even similar groupings they found that had Mary associated with Jesus. Was it common at all to have a tomb of ten blank ossuaries to attribute Jesus to? Also the fact one said son of Jesus and the placement of the ossuaries as well. This is pretty incredible! Also the tomb was further from the rest in a cave as we wonder if those who died in this Jesus party were placed there either in hiding or for all to see in Mockery following the death and the rumors that His body was left behind. This would not have been needed to be written down and the oldest Bible New testament script only dates after this supposed era. So the tomb could have been sanctioned by the Jews for all to see right in Jerusalem. So now considering one marked the son and one Mary attributing to Jesus instead of one of the others we have even higher stats on probability. Jesus if the swooning theory applies was a carpenter ..a wall maker and could have fashioned these ossuaries especially Mary’s whom he supposedly loved; Which was a pretty fancy ossuary. The fact that women had few ossuaries in that day; it is another big stretch to say that a common wife would have such an extravagant one in that day. Do not overlook or throw this stuff out. All stats and theories must be answered and then thrown out. That is what we believers need to defend against; prepared to have an answer to everything! On the James ossuary.. Given the Petit test and measurements taken on the stolen ossuary? Mathew being a brother was in question; but what about the others? Then add in the stats on Mary and the son being linked to Jesus and Joseph being associated with the whole family. Please respond. When it was written about the False Jesuses arising that if you hear Jesus is over here or there..Do not believe them.. That could be construed as a fore warning of the deceptive intent? Or it is as it is. Peter, James, and John may have been killed by the jews for making this stuff up; they may not have died a Martyers death? ps. Jesus was crafty.. Carpenter/ wall maker. Wasn’t the Mary attributed to Jesus ossuary a lot nicer than the rest? One more stat. Yes using the fact that there were many more men and women that are not being accounted for in these statistics raises probability but it is then again lowered given this grouping was actually produced out of what we can see. Then the fact if this is the Body of Jesus.. we can not state that He rose in spirit; because if that were true he could not have fathered a son? Help!
    There is still a lot to answer though like why Its just the slim chances.. The grouping is simple Jesus was the only one with a child, the only one who seemed to be married in that grouping who’s name happened to be Mary. If there were another grouping why in a cave far away and why not one of the other names like Mathew attributed to Mary. Also was James even included in these stats? That is why I am stirred up. The Christian side seems to be ignoring these facts. Add in what ever book is written on the issue? Hopefully there are answers.. Given these stats as well as the fact Jesus was next to Mary as if a couple and not others it looks bleak! The only evaluation is that Jesus may not have been able to afford the tomb but what if it were away from the others , in a cave and hidden, as it was. Also factor in the fact that Jesus and not one of the others were not placed next to Mary as if married. Wasn’t Jesus was handy and may have made the ossuraries as He was a carpenter? Wall Maker..How does this change the slim chances of that tomb and it’s names existing? I want to keep the faith but what are the chances? Given these stats as well as the fact Jesus was next to Mary as if a couple and not others it looks bleak! The only evaluation is that Jesus may not have been able to afford the tomb but what if it were away from the others , in a cave and hidden, also factor the fact that Jesus and not the others were not next to Mary as if married. Are they trying to prove that Mary is not nessesarily attributed to this Jesus; there is an ossuary that states Judah son of Jesus. What does that say? How does this change the slim chances of that tomb and it’s names existing?
    edit · reply Discovery Channel to Update Interpretation of 600:1 Odds Claim #4807 On Fri, 2007 03 09 22:53 joedmello said, I am pleased to state that as a result of several e-mail exchanges I have had with Dr. Andrey Feuerverger over the past few days, and a phone conversation with him this morning which confirmed our informal understanding reached by e-mail yesterday, he has agreed that the following two statements made on Discovery Channel’s website:
    1. “A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery
    Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in
    favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.”
    (from http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/about/about.html)
    2. Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics & mathematics at the
    University of Toronto, has concluded a high statistical probability that The
    Talpiot tomb is the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. In a study, Feuerverger examined the
    cluster of names in the tomb ……
    Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a
    family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the odds – on the most
    conservative basis – are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. A
    statistical probability of 600 to 1 means that this conclusion works 599 times
    out of 600.
    (from http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/media/tomb_evidence.pdf)
    ARE NOT A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF HIS STATISTICAL COMPUTATIONS. He has also confirmed for me that, at his urging, Discovery Channel has agreed to “undertake the required updates to their website”. As evidence of this, I have appended at the end of this message the relevant portions of the last few emails I exchanged with Dr. Feuerverger.
    Dr. Feuerverger indicates that an accurate interpretation of his results are to be found at his recently updated “Tomb Computation” link on his University of Toronto website. Please note the following excerpts from that website:
    A. It is not in the purview of statistics to conclude whether or not this tomb site is that of the New Testament family. Any such conclusion much more rightfully belongs to the purview of biblical historical scholars who are in a much better position to assess the assumptions entering into the computations.
    B. The role of statistics here is primarily to attempt to assess the odds of an equally (or more) `compelling’ cluster of names arising purely by chance under certain random sampling assumptions and under certain historical assumptions In this respect I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the NT family.
    C. The computations do not take into account families who could not afford ossuary burials or who did not have sufficient literacy to have their ossuaries inscribed, and does not take into account families living outside of the Jerusalem area.
    I wish to thank Dr. Feuerverger immensely for his efforts to ensure that the viewing public receives the honest and truthful reporting they are entitled to! I also hope and trust that Discovery Channel will follow suit and retract these inaccuracies quickly.
    As I have stated before, my efforts were never aimed at defending Christianity, because I truly believe that all religions must and will eventually reconcile themselves with science and our God-given reason. It is not Christianity that is at stake here but the honest and enlightened use, application, and interpretation of science and reason. Discovery Channel’s unqualified assertions that the 600:1 odds are specifically associated with the tomb in question being that of the New Testament Jesus family are, in my opinion, untenable and inaccurate in light of the clarifications on Dr. Feuerverger’s website.
    ======================================================
    Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:08:47 -0500 (EST)
    From: Andrey Feuerverger
    To: [email protected]
    i wanted to mention that thanks to your having pointed it out to me
    i have managed to get discovery to undertake the required updates
    to their website.
    best
    andrey f.
    ======================================================
    Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:56:59 -0800 (PST)
    From: Joe D’Mello
    Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Reference to “Dr. Feuerverger’s Study”
    To: Andrey Feuerverger
    Great, Andrey! …..By the way, while you at it, kindly also make sure that the following statement at http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/about/about.html on Discovery’s site
    “A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.”
    is reworded to appropriately reflect your statistical findings. I’ll call you tomorrow.
    Joe
    ======================================================
    Andrey Feuerverger wrote:
    Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:23:49 -0500 (EST)
    From: Andrey Feuerverger
    To: [email protected]
    Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Reference to “Dr. Feuerverger’s Study”
    hi joe
    you are right about the mismatch between the two sites and thanks for
    pointing it out. i will get on this right away.
    best
    andrey
    ======================================================
    Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:00:24 -0800 (PST)
    From: “Joe D’Mello”
    Subject: Discovery Channel Reference to “Dr. Feuerverger’s Study”
    To: Andrey Feuerverger
    Hi Andrey,
    I’ll talk to you tomorrow. I’m sure you have read this already, but just in case you have not, I’ve appended below (verbatim) the reference to you and your work on Discovery Channel’s website (which, of course, is clearly not consistent with your assertions in “The Tomb Computation” on your website).
    …
    Joe
    ——————————————————
    STATISTICS OVERVIEW
    Dr. Andrey feuerverger, professor of statistics & mathematics at the University of toronto, has concluded a high statistical probability that The talpiot tomb is the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. In a study, Feuerverger examined the cluster of names in the tomb.
    • This involved multiplying the instances that each name appeared during that
    time period with the instances of every other name.
    • To be conservative, he then divided the number by the statistical standard of 4
    (or 25%) to allow for unintentional biases in the historical sources.
    • He then further divided the results by 1,000 to account for all tombs that may
    have existed in First Century Jerusalem.
    Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the odds – on the most conservative basis – are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. A statistical probability of 600 to 1 means that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600.
    STATISTICS TABLE
    FREQUENCY OF NAMES
    INITIAL COMPUTATION
    SECOND COMPUTATION (Eliminating Matia since he is not explicatively mentioned in the Gospels)
    THIRD COMPUTATION (Adjusting for unintentional biases in the historical sources)
    2,400,000 ÷ 4
    FOURTH COMPUTATION (Adjust for all possible First Century Jerusalem Tombs)
    600,000 ÷ 1,000
    PROBABILITY FACTOR = 600 to 1
    Jesus Son of Joseph Mariamne Matia Yose Maria
    1 in 190 1 in 160 1 in 40 1 in 20 1 in 4
    Jesus Son of Joseph Mariamne Matia Yose Maria
    1/190 1/160 1/40 1/20 1/4
    Jesus Son of Joseph Mariamne Yose Maria
    1/190 x 1/160 x 1/20 x 1/4 = 1/2,400,000
    • 

      Darrell L. Bock

      March 10, 2007 at 9:27 pm

      No repeat posts please – dlb
      Please no multiple posts of the same material. Jn, you have done this twice now. Please post your points once only.
    • 

      bet365

      January 6, 2009 at 9:21 pm

      Wanted to thank you for
      Wanted to thank you for standing firm to scripture and sound theology during the show. It made me proud as I am also a DTS student. But I was wondering about the symbol over the tomb. (The inverted “V” with the dot under it) Have you ever seen it before? Any significant meaning?
  • 

    Kay Lady

    April 27, 2007 at 6:20 am

    “Cashing In” on Jesus
    While I share gsheryl’s frustration with those who seem to want to “cash in” on Jesus – I have to remind myself and others that this has always been the case: remember Simon the Magician?
    There was an interesting article in Time Magazine, 12 March 2007, p. 56: “Rewriting the Gospels” by David Van Biema, that addresses the issue. It’s not “just” Christianity that is falling victim to this trend, but all of history.
    Instead of taking the time to develop a reputation, this generation of “historians” publishes as quickly and sensationally as possible in order to develop a reputation. They no longer write for the respect of their peers, but for the popular audience – which isn’t equipped to evaluate.
    I think that the university system, which promotes a “publish or perish” attitude, is as much to blame as anyone.
    Our response is more important than ever. We definitely need the research that someone has suggested to Prof. Bock (I wish I had the expertise to help!) but we also need to educate Christians with the truth. Another Time Magazine article said that only 44% of evangelical teens could identify a quote as coming from the Sermon on the Mount!
    We also need to educate Christians in the skills needed to effectively defend the faith. Not only do we need to know the truth, but we need to learn how to more effectively communicate it both one-to-one and in the media.
    Thirdly, we need to remember that WE need to be doing this – not leaving it to Prof. Bock, our pastors, and/or other “professionals.”
• 

  Rev.C.Dunn

  March 1, 2007 at 10:39 pm

  Jesus Tomb(?)
  I have read every blog on every site I can think of concerning this outlandish claim, and I have to wonder at the audacity and sheer ego of the producers of this “documentary”. Their claims would probably make a popular novel, but that’s about it. If I jumped to conclusions like they have I’d be run out of the pulpit in my church. Remember Maude’s comment on her TV show? “God will get you for that.” Some folks would be well-advised to listen to the voice of Maude, since they are unable to hear the Voice of God.
• 

  Dianelos Georgoudis

  March 2, 2007 at 9:46 am

  the right statistical question
  I have computed that the probability of the tomb in the Talpiot district of Jerusalem being the family tomb of the Jesus of Nazareth is at least 12 to 1 *against*. Apparently the makers of the movie calculated the probability that more than one family living in ancient Jerusalem would produce a cluster of names like the ones discovered in the tomb in the Talpiot district of Jerusalem, and found that this probability is very small and that therefore this must be the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth’s family. But I think they asked the wrong question. The right question is: How many families living in ancient Jerusalem would produce a cluster of names in a tomb that would appear to be as similar to the names in Jesus’ family as the cluster of names actually found? And the answer is that more than 12 families would have produced such remarkable cluster of names in a tomb.

  Here is how I computed this number. According to the gospels Jesus’ family consisted of Joseph and Mary, Jesus, and four male brothers of Jesus named James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (besides unnamed female siblings). We also know the approximate frequency of names in ancient Palestine. According to http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/jesus-tomb-titanic-talpiot-tomb-theory.html these are: 9.2%, 8.3%, 6.2% and 3.8% for Simon, Joseph, Judas and Jesus respectively for male names, and Mary’s name frequency is a whooping 21.3% for female names. The tomb discovered in Talpiot contained 10 ossuaries, of which 6 carried inscriptions. The relevant inscriptions here are “Jesus son of Joseph”, “Mary”, “Mary”, and “Joseph”. These inscriptions were in different languages and used different forms for these names, but that’s about it. (see: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228135009.htm) I read somewhere that first century Jerusalem had about 50,000 inhabitants. As the period in question spanned various generations I used a population of 10,000 families.

  I wrote a computer program simulation that actually randomly produced 10,000 families of 10 members each (keeping the right name frequencies) and then proceeded to compute the following average numbers:

  111 families would have a “Jesus son of Joseph”. I understand that in fact other ossuaries have been found with the inscription “Jesus son of Joseph”.

  75 families would moreover have at least one Mary.

  71 families would moreover have one more name that belongs to Jesus’ family, be it Joseph, Simon or Judas, or maybe a second Mary (supposedly Mary Magdalene).

  43 families would have two more such names. One of such clusters might be: [Jesus son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Joseph], as is the one discovered in the Talpiot tomb.

  And 16 families would have three more such names. Here is in detail the very first family case my simulation produced: An unnamed (i.e. with no relevant names) couple have three children: a daughter Mary, a son Joseph, and an unnamed second daughter. Their daughter Mary marries Simon and produces an unnamed daughter. Their son Joseph marries an unnamed wife and produces two children, Jesus and Mary. Voila: A family cluster of 10 whose tomb might have had inscriptions “Jesus son of Joseph”, “Mary”, “Joseph”, “Mary”, and “Simon” – all names related to the circle of Jesus of Nazareth, but this is not Jesus Christ’s family. Nevertheless this cluster would appear to be even more statistically conspicuous than the one discovered in the Talpiot tomb.

  The film producers have tested the DNA of one of the Mary’s and discovered it is not maternally related to Jesus’ DNA. I compute that adding this condition we still get 12 families. Here is the very first such case my simulation produced: A Jesus (whose father was named Joseph) marries a Mary and has 4 children: Simon, Jesus, and two more unnamed ones. Their son Simon marries a second Mary but have no children that would be buried in the family tomb. One unnamed daughter marries Joseph and has a daughter Mary. That’s the second Mary who is also not maternally related to “Jesus son of Joseph”. – So, any of these 12 families might have produced tomb even more conspicuous than the one found, but at most one of these families could be Jesus’. Hence the chance of the Talpiot tomb being Jesus is less than 1/12.

  (I did the above computations in a hurry and it’s possible that I have committed some mistake. If you send me an email to [email protected] I will gladly send you a copy of the program I wrote, so that you can check it yourself. It’s written in Pascal, and it’s a simple 150 lines program that any programmer can read.)

  Further: Taking into account that Jesus’ family was not from Jerusalem, that his family was too poor to afford a family tomb, that if Jesus’ bones were put in an ossuary one would expect the ossuary itself or the inscription on it to be more special in some way, and that if Jesus’ body was buried in a tomb to decompose and then put in an ossuary then probably somebody would have found out back then when so much was made of Jesus’ bodily ascension to heaven – taking all that into account the probability of the Talpiot tomb being of Jesus is much less than 12 to 1 against. Finally, if the movie producers really believed that this was Jesus’ tomb one would expect that they would have asked neutral professional archeologists to evaluate their evidence or argumentation – which they haven’t done.

  There is some more arguments, such as the “James son of Joseph brother of Jesus” ossuary (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary) having come from this same tomb, but the archaeologist who first studied the tomb flatly denies it (see: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1171894527185&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) and the archeological report on the Talpiot tomb counts six ossuaries with inscriptions, all accounted for (go to http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/explore/explore.html and click on “Enter the Tomb”, then on “Download Documents” and then on “Download PDF”).

  I suppose my argument in a nutshell is this: Assume that Jesus’ family is in fact *not* entombed in Jerusalem. Even so there is a good chance that a tomb would be found in Jerusalem with a cluster of inscriptions that is remarkably similar to the names that, according to the gospels, belonged to members of Jesus’ family. And if people asked the wrong statistical questions they would conclude that this tomb almost certainly belongs to Jesus’ family.
• 

  James Snapp, Jr.

  March 3, 2007 at 4:11 pm

  Jesus and the Talpiot Tomb
  Dear Dr. Bock,

  I’ve written an analysis of the basis of the claims in “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” including the statistics. It’s online at http://www.curtisvillechristian.org/TombOne.html

  Feel free to use this analysis and share it with others.
• 

  Jody

  March 3, 2007 at 7:21 pm

  statistics
  Dr. Bock

  Speaking solely about the statistical analysis, I think you’re vastly oversimplifying. You wrote above “The chances of the people in the ossuaries being the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the New Testament must be very small indeed”, citing that 21% of Jewish women were called Mary, etc.

  However if you have taken any mathematical statistics classes, or are familiar with card-game odds calculations, you would know that the important thing is the odds of the combination of items, not the odds of any one item.

  For example, using the name frequency numbers you provided, the name Jesus occurs 1 in 12.8, Joseph occurs 1 in 5.8, and Mary occurs 1 in 5. Since there are two Marys, the combined probability is 1/12.8 x 1/5.8 x 1/5 x 1/5 which is around 1 in 1856 (1/1856), which is a very rare event.

  Of course there are other names involved in the tomb, which complicate the statistics even further, but I would suggest that you be aware that the odds of drawing a royal flush (1 in 649739) are much, much greater than the odds of drawing an ace itself, or the king, or queen, etc.
• 

  Jesus Tomb Exposed

  March 4, 2007 at 1:52 am

  Great Job Dr. Bock
  Excellent analysis Dr. Bock. I have started a new blog to refute the “Jesus Tomb” claims and I have added a link to your page. Please check it out:

  http://jesustombexposed.blogspot.com
• 

  mscott

  March 4, 2007 at 7:34 am

  Statistical Avoidance
  I see a lot of attention was payed to ideals and theory, and yet a simple paragraph toward the statistics of your own compiled data. It would seem responsible of you to crunch your own numbers and not provide such a dismissive generalization i.e. “numbers pot”. Is it because you are ignorant to how odds are calculated? You can’t both herald Prof. Baukham’s data showing how common the names are as if this proves they are equally common when calculating their occurrence in one place at one time, then throw dirt on the accuracy of said numbers by implying that variants disallow factual conclusions within said compiled data.

  Why even commit to Prof. Baukham’s compiled data to try to prove a point, when you have no interest in trusting the data? Makes a lot of sense.

  Furthermore, your analogy is flawed. It’s more like finding a john who’s married to a susan, then of those combinations, finding a Tom who is john’s father, then of those combinations, finding a Tina who is Tom’s wife, and so on. All of a sudden, common names are put in an uncommon situation and easily identifiable.

  You don’t need a “numbers pot” to understand this rudimentary logic. A Yellow Pages in New York City, the 6 most common names in New York and any specific relation would prove this simple logic beyond a shadow of a doubt, feel free to have a go at it.

  I also find it interesting that you use the scriptures verbatim to prove contradiction in the theories, when the existence of Jesus’ bones calls into question the validity of these scriptures. You must first assume that this is not Jesus in order to use this defense, thus making your whole essay subjective, tainted, and completely impotent. It holds zero objectivity and relies on itself as proof to its own validity. Poor form indeed.
• 

  probt777

  March 5, 2007 at 1:48 am

  Genuine or Fake?
  Dr. Bock,
  I was wondering if there has been any discussion as to the genuineness of the ossuary and/or inscriptions. Is it possible that either or both are fake, as has been alleged with the James Ossuary? this question is merely to satisfy my curiosity, not to look for new “ammunition” against the so-called Jesus Ossuary. By the way, thanks so much for your informative articles on this subject.
  • 

    bock

    March 5, 2007 at 5:49 am

    Genuine or False? – dlb
    Theer is no debate that these verious bone boxes are first century ossuaries. They were found “in situ” which means where they were originally laid. This was unlike the James ossuary which turned up with an Antiquities dealer without anyone knowing where it came from or how exactly it got to him. So these two cases are different in that regard.
    • 

      kenneth forrest

      March 5, 2007 at 7:18 am

      Genuine or False
      Dr Bock,
      I understand that you base alot of your facts on the Bible and the Christian faith but, why throw such a wrench into what is being presented in this program? All the dramatic sences in this film aside, what was shown and what was found are actually tangable evidence of the possibility that this very well could be the Jesus family tomb. On one hand you have Bible stories, and yes, they are stories interpreted over the centuries by many different people, and based on on what? faith? We dont know what actually happened or how it happened to Jesus. We only know what we have been taught and what we have read. I dont believe the journalist did what he did to disrupt the Christian faith. I think he is only trying to help us put Jesus into a human perspective. Was he the son of God? we dont know that and never will, we only have faith that he was some super natural force sent here by God. Even if what we watched tonight is or isnt Jesus and his family, He was still a human being with feelings, needs and emotions like the rest of us. I compare this to Martin Luther King, You and I know who and what he was, but in 2000 years what will they say about him? Of course, he’ll be imortal and there will be noone to tell the real story. it will have changed many many times over the years. The Bible is the Bible and the facts are the facts, open your mind and research this yourself.
• 

  Biblestudymom

  March 5, 2007 at 5:54 am

  God’s side of the story
  Dr. Bock,

  You are right. This is not going to go away and it is our duty to tell God’s side of the story. If you are a Christian, the claim that Jesus married Mary Magdalene or even had physical relations and children with her should matter to you. I have read your book “Breaking the DaVinci Code” which reveals a lot of truth on this subject, but I believe you missed a chance to explain the marriage of God. Here is what I have discovered about the marriage of God in my study of the Bible:

  1. Jesus is God in the flesh.

  As a Christian, I believe that Jesus is God in the flesh who came to reconcile the world to Himself. God has always wanted a close relationship with the people that He created in His image. The act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden caused all of mankind to be separated from God. So from the beginning, God’s plan was to come to us as a sinless man (Jesus) in order to redeem our sinful body and to save all of mankind from death.

  Rom_5:12-14, 2Co_5:17-19, 2Pe_3:9, Col_2:8-9, Rom_8:10-11

  2. God “married” the children of Israel.

  God predestinated us to be permanently joined to Him through the body of Jesus. In order to do this, God first made a covenant with the children of Israel. The marriage ceremony took place in the wilderness at the foot of His mountain and from then on, God considered Himself “married” to the children of Israel. He then lead her to Jerusalem to make His home with her there, but she was not a faithful wife, though.

  Rom_8:29, Exo_24:3-7, Isa_54:5, Jer_2:1-7

  3. God’s wife must be comparable to Him.

  Just like Eve was made as a helper comparable to Adam, God intended for His wife to be comparable to Him. She would need a body, soul, and spirit like His own, perfect, holy, and glorious. Jesus is the only other perfect Man that has ever been created. Because He was sinless, His only perfect match could be a sinless woman, formed from His body, just like Eve was formed from one of Adam’s ribs.

  Gen_2:18, Gen_2:20-24, Isa_40:25

  Because of her sin, God’s wife was dying – turning to bones. God loved His wife and didn’t want her to die. He wanted her to be free from sin so that she could live forever with Him. He also wanted to have godly offspring from His union with her. So, to set her free from the Law that could only produce death, God came down to Earth in the body (flesh) of Jesus to die and to rise (live) again. He didn’t just die for one, but for all mankind. It takes all of us, those who believe in Him, to measure up to the “stature of the fullness of Christ” – a helper comparable to Him.

  Eph_4:13, Col_1:18-22, Heb_10:4-17, Rom_7:4

  4. God’s wife is joined to Him by one Spirit into one body – His New Bride.

  Believers are all “pieces” of the Bride’s body, so this transformation takes place individually in their own lives as well as corporately because His Spirit dwells within them. They will receive their new imperishable, glorified, and spiritual body when Jesus returns for His Bride. But, Jesus is giving his Bride a new heart and soul while she is here on Earth so that she can be joined to Him now in every way and be fully prepared for His return.

  1Co_15:42-49, Joh_17:18-23, 1Co_12:12-14, Mat_19:4-6, Eph_5:23-32, Act_4:32

  The Wife’s old body, the children of Israel, is not done away with, though. The Bride’s framework, or bone structure, is formed from the “bone” of Jesus – Israel under the Law. Jesus is the “last Adam” and the new, perfect woman (Bride’s body) will be formed just like Eve was formed from one of Adam’s ribs. This will happen right before her new heart of flesh and new soul is put into it. We can see an example of Israel being called “bones” during the time of King David. The tribes of Israel called themselves King David’s “bone and flesh”. Jesus came from the lineage of David to be the eternal King of Israel. Under God’s Law, Kings were only to have one wife.

  Deu_17:14-17, 1Ch_11:1, Gen_2:22-23, 2Sa_5:1, Psa_34:20, Joh_19:36, Eph_5:28-31

  God still loves the “bones” of His Wife and has never planned to get rid of them. Through Jesus, He will make those bones come to life again, forming the structure of His Bride. The Bride’s new flesh and soul is the Church and they will be placed upon the bone structure of Israel, joining the two together by the power of the Holy Spirit to make her complete as one, fulfilling prophecy.

  Eze_37:1-14, 1Co_15:51-57, Eze_37:21-28

  If Jesus had married Mary, then God’s Word to make us a part of His Bride is not true. Mary is a part of the Bride of Christ, not the Bride herself! If more Christians understood their identity in the Bride of Christ, then stories like these wouldn’t be and issue.
• 

  Brittany

  March 5, 2007 at 6:44 am

  whatever you make it.
  Hello, My Name is Brittany, And although people feel that “children” do not know little to nothing. I’m sixteen years old and, i would like to let you see what people of this age have to say.

  Now, You said “while also pulling off a stealing of the body and continue to preach that Jesus was raised BODILY, not merely spiritually. The bodily part of this resurrection is key because in Judaism when there was a belief in resurrection it was a belief in a bodily resurrection a redemption that redeemed the full scope of what God had created. If one reads 2 Maccabees 7.” And if the body of “jesus” was found this would be false. I and several of my friends have talked on this topic and we have all come to believe that no matter what the “bible” says person could not be ressurected, expesially bodily. The Body is weight, not “spirit” so if someone could be resurrected, it would only be spirit. The Body of jesus or anyone who is “resurrected” would be hidden, like Santa, when your a little child people tell you he is real, so you believe it, and with time you find he is false, like the truth. And The Truth is, they would most likely HIDE the bodys or Discard the evidence the body had not been “resurrected” So in fact the tomb would be the place of “resurrection” Maria and Joseph could of had the tomb or Mariamne or anyone of those people. The Tomb might also not of had to profit from money. So maybe your “religion” or what you have come to “believe” is false. Along with the christian beliefe. Have you ever thought of what if the Jews were correct and Jesus had no “spritual” power and there was no “God”?

  Religion is what you believe along with fact, fact is what is also true, either one – can and will be tested, and if possible, will be known true or in fact false. Science is one of the only ways you can infact test the “truth” and un-cover if it is false. You have also said; “The tomb is an old story now being recycled in an effort to make far more of it than the evidence really requires.” The evidence you know is the bible, and what you have known from past, What if someone really found the tomb of “jesus”? How can anyone know what happened 2007 years ago? or Even 1 million? You Honestly, cannot, you wern’t there, neither was I, My family, or anyone alive on the face of this Earth today. We know from Science, and documents written from people not living at the time but around the age, how do you, or anyone know what “jesus” did in his personal life, and if in fact he had a child with “mariamne” or “Mary Magdalene” what ever you have faith in calling her. The Name is still very un common from that time, “Mary known as master?” I do believe that if in fact he had a child with her he would not what it known because it would strike a fear or battle within the people who believed in them. “jesus” has no mighty powers or even in fact a way to make people heal, believe or see things they cannot. He is human, like you and me. Whatever you may believe he is, sometimes science has a greater force than documents, and yes the documents have dates, and real facts in it, but if “jesus” himself did not write it, how do we know that he doesn’t have a child? and if in fact he does, the descendents of his children would be royalty, because “jesus” and his family were in form of royalty from King David, “The crown rights of Jesus were inherited from his mother Mary who was of the royal seed of king David. Jesus was not the biological seed of Joseph and so inherited nothing from him in regard to the throne of David.” Meaning that the son of “jesus” and all his children would be royalty in a way. The Bible states: “But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 1:20). To be honest with you, I feel it is important for scientists to go back into the tomb they found and take the ossuarie with the title “joseph” and the title of “Maria” and do the best DNA testing they can do with “jesus” and his remains. If they could take “Mariamne” and “jesus” to do testing as in to see the relation, they could in fact do it to “Joseph”, “Maria” and “jesus” to find the relationship. And if in fact they match, the Christian faith of what is known today will be wrong, the Bible, all the documents and so forth will be false and religion as we know it will be false in facts too. Science can be a good thing to religion and anything needed. You just need to let it happen, It is always good to keep faith in your religion, your beiliefes, anything else you find interesting to you. I believe Faith is what you make of it. I have read the bible, and almost 15 other books on religion, i know plenty on the topic and i infact am only a teenager. So if someone of my age can find out all this information, why can someone of your age, and someone who was IN the tomb, could not think to do so? I do not believe in religion, or even government, I have the right not to, and I take any chance to show why, I am someone who has and always will believe in science before religion. Religion is a way to catagorize people as well as government, If people could just go back to believing what has been found true, then i personaly believe it could be a better and more knowledgible place. Scientists, archioligists, any person who has studied in a feild of knowledge, will tell you the World needs to know what has been and will be. You cannot predict the future or What is going to happen in the future, but you can dig as deep into the past as life lets you, with science, documents, verbal knowledge. Nostradamus had tried to say he saw the future and people went against it.. I think that they should just read the facts for what they are, and not try to re-write them as what they think. This country was not founded on what it has become, and we know more about our country and its history than we know about religion, the past, anything.

  I Have so much more to say on this topic, and If in fact this means anything to you or anyone you know, i would love to hear back from you, any scientists or any one who can enlighten me with what they know. I would love more than anything in this world to know if what I have to say matters or is even truth.

  Thank you and please, think about this.
  • 

    Belford University

    February 4, 2009 at 4:19 am

    I do agree with you.
    you
    I do agree with you.
    you placed really nice reply.
• 

  Lee

  March 5, 2007 at 8:18 am

  James The More Than Less
  Hi Dr. Bock,

  Thanks for your reasoned defense of the Christian faith. One of the problems I am having is sorting out the Mary’s, James’s, and Joses/Joseph’s in the NT…and I’ve read much of your work. I can only imagine what it must be like to try to sort out these names out of the entire population of the Jerusalem area (and Galilee for that matter). They seemed to state that Joses (in this form) in Mark was Jesus’ brother and the son of Mary and Joseph. We know that Jesus’ brothers were named James and Joses/Joseph according to Mark 6:3 and Matt 13:55. I’m not sure about the other Markan references though (Mark 15:40,47). Why do scholars generally assume that this group of Mary, James, and Joses is different than the one in Mark 6? How does Clopas fit in as well? It would seem that there are at least 2 “Joses'” in Mark alone; I’m guessing there would be more in Jerusalem. I know that Jose/Joseph and Maria/Mariamne are just variations on common names, but wow they are drawing some pretty hefty conclusions from nicknames! Doc./Dr./Doctor Bock, Please help me sort these things out, it would be a big help.

  Thanks

  Lee
• 

  Steve

  March 5, 2007 at 4:39 pm

  Ted Koppel roundtable
  Dr. Bock,

  Let me commend you for being willing to go on television to defend the biblical position against the premise put forth in the Jesus Tomb special. I taped it last night so that I could watch both when I got home from church, and ended up watching them both in one sitting. I know that Monday morning quarterback is an easy position to play, but I found myself a little frustrated by your responses to the questions. In my mind, a couple of key issues should have been addressed.

  First, the director of that show used the Matthew 28 account of the watch’s story that the disciples had taken His body to lend credence to the idea that the tomb could have contained the bones of Jesus. I really would have liked to hear you remind them that the biblical account was clear that this was a fabricated story, and that the guards were bribed to make it in order to keep people from believing that He had risen. Since this “docu-drama” was basically the same thing, it would have been good to draw the analogy.

  Second, the biblical record is clear about a physical ressurrection. Luke 24:39, where Jesus specifically told his disciples to handle him, and that he was flesh and bone rather than spirit, would have been a great place to start. Mentioning the next couple verses where he ate fish and honeycomb with them would also have been nice. John 20:27, where Jesus invites Thomas to put his finger in the nail holes and his hand in His side also came to mind.

  But what bothered me the most was that neither you nor the other two theologians clearly brought home the crux of the matter: If this is really the tomb of Jesus, then the biblical accounts are false, and Christianity is a sham. Paul said it best in 1Co 15:17, “And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.” If we cannot trust the gospel accounts of the ressurection, then we cannot trust the accounts of the atoning sacrifice, nor the accounts of His sinless life. If they are false, then the disciples were liars who were martyred for nothing, and we might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

  Again, thank you for being willing to go on the public record in this debate. My prayer is that if you get more opportunity to contribute to this discussion you will make the stakes clear to those involved.

  Grace & Peace,
  Steve
• 

  Reid Karr

  March 5, 2007 at 7:13 pm

  Dr. Bock,I was wondering
  Dr. Bock,

  I was wondering why you chose to use 2 Maccabees (in your blog and in your interview on the Discovery Channel) as your evidence supporting the necessity of a bodily resurrection for the Christian faith when the New Testament provides plenty of evidence for a bodily resurrection. The Gospels clearly state that the women found the tomb empty, no body, nothing. What about the post-resurrection appearances where Jesus asks Thomas to touch and feel His wounds, and the fact that He ate? I ask this knowing that you are an evangelical. Thank you for your commitment to Jesus Christ and His glory!
  • 

    bock

    June 6, 2007 at 1:26 am

    Why 2 Macc for Resurrection? dlb
    Ried:

    I used this text because (1) it is so clear about the physical nature of the resurrection expectation of many Jews, and (2) because the meaning of resurrection of Christians is what is being debated, making use of the Bible a problem for some who are listening to the discussion. Many of the biblical texts from the OT discuss a resurrection but are not clear about how physical it is.
• 

  Bobby

  March 6, 2007 at 11:22 pm

  symbol over the tomb
  Dr. Bock,

  Wanted to thank you for standing firm to scripture and sound theology during the show. It made me proud as I am also a DTS student. But I was wondering about the symbol over the tomb. (The inverted “V” with the dot under it) Have you ever seen it before? Any significant meaning?

  Thanks!

  Bobby
• 

  Bob Harris

  March 6, 2007 at 11:28 pm

  Mary/Mariamne
  You state that there were 42 occurences of the names, Mary and Mariamne inscribed on the ossuaries.

  Of those, how many were named Mariamne?

  Also, you state that there were no Matthews in the family of Jesus, but in the documentary, it is claimed there were a considerable number of Matthews on Mary’s side of the family tree, who could have been buried in that tomb.

  Was their claim correct?

  Thanks in advance,
  Bob Harris
  • 

    bock

    June 6, 2007 at 1:28 am

    Mary/Mariamne dlb
    The issue here is whether Jesus had a brother with the name Matthew. There is no evidence for this at all.
• 

  Amarita J

  March 7, 2007 at 12:41 am

  Questions!
  Hi Doctor. I just watched the show, because my agnostic dad made me and wants to convince me that my faith is wrong. On the Simon ossuary they found, it had that upside-down V with a dot in it inscribed. This same symbol is on the Talpiot tomb. And the “documentary” says that the tomb beside the Talpiot one had ossuaries of persecuted Christians. Is there any way this symbol could relate to Christianity? If not, why is it there, on top of the entrance to the Talpiot tomb? Also, in the movie, they said that the name “Jose” was given to Jesus’ brother, and that this nickname for Joseph has never been found anywhere else. Does this prove that the Jose in the tomb is Jesus’ brother?
  More questions:
  How does the IAA know that the James Ossuary is a forgery?
  Has the name Mariamne been found on ANY other ossuaries?
  Why were the ossuary inscriptions written in different languages, and why did some not have any at all?
• 

  Bob Harris

  March 7, 2007 at 3:58 am

  Mariamne and Matthew
  I posted these questions before, but they seem to have fallen through the cracks.

  You stated, “..there is the name Mariamne, a variation of Maria, one of the most common of names of the time.”

  Did you mean that Maria was a common name then or Mariamane? You also stated there were a total of 70 occurences for “Mary/Mariamne”. How many of those were Mariamne – the name that was actually inscribed on the ossuary?

  You stated “There is no record of a Matthew being a part of the family of Jesus.”. According to the documentary, Mary had a considerable number of relatives on her side of the family, named Matthew. Are you claiming they were wrong about that? Also, have you found that it was uncommon for aunts, uncles, etc to be interred in family tombs?

  Why did you state that a DNA match between Jesus and Mariamne was “..a one in several thousand likelihood.”? This was a family tomb. Shouldn’t we expect that most of those people’s DNA would match? And would you agree with the documentary makers, that this at least excluded the possibility that Mariamne was either a sibling or the mother of Jesus?

  Thanks in advance,
  Bob Harris
• 

  Ryan Doyle

  March 7, 2007 at 5:12 am

  Curious…
  First off, thank you for your ministry. I’m so grateful you have gained an audience with Television, so that when issues like this become “hot topics,” there is an educated, God fearing man who is able to respond calmly in truth and love.

  I have four questions:

  1. Is it common or uncommon in 1st century Israel to find burial tombs with more than one family in them?

  2. Where does the burden of proof fall? Is it always assumed to be one family until proven otherwise?

  3. How is it that the Acts of Philip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene are admitted as factual evidence in this “documentary,” yet the biblical record is mostly ignored, and then implied to be intentionally deceptive?

  4. Of all the assumptions made in the film, there is one important assumption never asked.
  Who, in the 1st century, would have had the most to gain from marking Jesus’ Family Tomb?

  Would Jesus’ family, who taught about a bodily resurrection, really permanently etch in the ossuary, “Jesus, son of Joseph”?
  Or would it be more beneficial for the Temple elite and the Roman goverment to point people to Jesus’ tomb and ossuary (IN JERUSALEM) whenever Jesus’ followers spread word about Jesus coming back from the dead? They would just say to His followers, “Come, let us show you where his body lay.” It would seem to me that the Caesar and the priests would have more to gain.
  (I used the Discovery channels method of logic in devising this final question)
• 

  jdm

  March 7, 2007 at 3:41 pm

  Christain TV reply
  Dr. Bock,

  Do you know if anyone is planning on producing a documentary to rebutt the claims in the Discovery Channel show?
• 

  john lake

  March 7, 2007 at 4:31 pm

  Jesus family tomb
  Dr. Bock,

  I found the film to offer a very compelling argument. The filmakers really believe they have found something profound here. They encourage discussion and further scientific study & I saw no attempt to try and discredit Christianity. Unfortunately, too many already had their minds made up. Enjoy your day!
  John – johnlakeart.com
• 

  Biblestudymom

  March 9, 2007 at 3:03 am

  God’s side of the story
  Dr. Bock,

  You are right. This is not going to go away and it is our duty to tell God’s side of the story. If you are a Christian, the claim that Jesus married Mary Magdalene or even had physical relations and children with her should matter to you. I have read your book “Breaking the DaVinci Code” which reveals a lot of truth on this subject, but I believe you missed a chance to explain the marriage of God. Here is what I have discovered about the marriage of God in my study of the Bible:

  1. Jesus is God in the flesh.

  As a Christian, I believe that Jesus is God in the flesh who came to reconcile the world to Himself. God has always wanted a close relationship with the people that He created in His image. The act of disobedience in the Garden of Eden caused all of mankind to be separated from God. So from the beginning, God’s plan was to come to us as a sinless man (Jesus) in order to redeem our sinful body and to save all of mankind from death.

  Rom_5:12-14, 2Co_5:17-19, 2Pe_3:9, Col_2:8-9, Rom_8:10-11

  2. God “married” the children of Israel.

  God predestinated us to be permanently joined to Him through the body of Jesus. In order to do this, God first made a covenant with the children of Israel. The marriage ceremony took place in the wilderness at the foot of His mountain and from then on, God considered Himself “married” to the children of Israel. He then lead her to Jerusalem to make His home with her there, but she was not a faithful wife, though.

  Rom_8:29, Exo_24:3-7, Isa_54:5, Jer_2:1-7

  3. God’s wife must be comparable to Him.

  Just like Eve was made as a helper comparable to Adam, God intended for His wife to be comparable to Him. She would need a body, soul, and spirit like His own, perfect, holy, and glorious. Jesus is the only other perfect Man that has ever been created. Because He was sinless, His only perfect match could be a sinless woman, formed from His body, just like Eve was formed from one of Adam’s ribs.

  Gen_2:18, Gen_2:20-24, Isa_40:25

  Because of her sin, God’s wife was dying – turning to bones. God loved His wife and didn’t want her to die. He wanted her to be free from sin so that she could live forever with Him. He also wanted to have godly offspring from His union with her. So, to set her free from the Law that could only produce death, God came down to Earth in the body (flesh) of Jesus to die and to rise (live) again. He didn’t just die for one, but for all mankind. It takes all of us, those who believe in Him, to measure up to the “stature of the fullness of Christ” – a helper comparable to Him.

  Eph_4:13, Col_1:18-22, Heb_10:4-17, Rom_7:4

  4. God’s wife is joined to Him by one Spirit into one body – His New Bride.

  Believers are all “pieces” of the Bride’s body, so this transformation takes place individually in their own lives as well as corporately because His Spirit dwells within them. They will receive their new imperishable, glorified, and spiritual body when Jesus returns for His Bride. But, Jesus is giving his Bride a new heart and soul while she is here on Earth so that she can be joined to Him now in every way and be fully prepared for His return.

  1Co_15:42-49, Joh_17:18-23, 1Co_12:12-14, Mat_19:4-6, Eph_5:23-32, Act_4:32

  The Wife’s old body, the children of Israel, is not done away with, though. The Bride’s framework, or bone structure, is formed from the “bone” of Jesus – Israel under the Law. Jesus is the “last Adam” and the new, perfect woman (Bride’s body) will be formed just like Eve was formed from one of Adam’s ribs. This will happen right before her new heart of flesh and new soul is put into it. We can see an example of Israel being called “bones” during the time of King David. The tribes of Israel called themselves King David’s “bone and flesh”. Jesus came from the lineage of David to be the eternal King of Israel. Under God’s Law, Kings were only to have one wife.

  Deu_17:14-17, 1Ch_11:1, Gen_2:22-23, 2Sa_5:1, Psa_34:20, Joh_19:36, Eph_5:28-31

  God still loves the “bones” of His Wife and has never planned to get rid of them. Through Jesus, He will make those bones come to life again, forming the structure of His Bride. The Bride’s new flesh and soul is the Church and they will be placed upon the bone structure of Israel, joining the two together by the power of the Holy Spirit to make her complete as one, fulfilling prophecy.

  Eze_37:1-14, 1Co_15:51-57, Eze_37:21-28

  If Jesus had married Mary, then God’s Word to make us a part of His Bride is not true. Mary is a part of the Bride of Christ, not the Bride herself! If more Christians understood their identity in the Bride of Christ, then stories like these wouldn’t be and issue.

  What do you think? If you want to see more details on my study, please check out http://toknowandtolove.blogspot.com/2006/09/mystery-of-kingdom.html

  Thanks!
  • 

    Anonymous

    March 18, 2007 at 4:32 am

    What??????
    First of all, let us begin by reminding you that Jesus was a Jew, from birth to death. Secondly, as he studied the old testament all his life and accepted that it was the word of G-d, he understood, and so should you, that it says TWENTY-THREE TIMES that G-d does not change, and that His word does not change, therefore, there is no “new” testament. There was nothing wrong with the old one, G-d does not change his mind. Furthermore, G-d is infinite, and He created a physical being. He created Adam and Chava “in his image” meaning in his spiritual image, and if you studied further, you would learn that before the sin, Adam and Eve did not need clothing because their souls shone on the outside of their physical bodies, they were holy until that moment, then they no longer resembled G-d, therefore losing the ability to dwell with Him. G-d would not limit Himself to a minute physical being, He is too great and He fills inner and outer space, He is all. He created Jesus, and there is no way in hell He would send a messenger who contradicted every word He ever said. He already came to give us the Old testament and a warning of what false prophets are, it is up to us to figure out who is a true or false prophet. Yeshua did what is forbidden in G-d’s eyes, he performed magic with stolen instruments, all was recorded in the Gemorras. Next, G-d’s promise that a Messiah would come so that the Jewish people could serve Him, there was certain criteria: He would have to fit into the category of what a prophet is, and he would have to be a descendant of King David. Now, Mary (actually Miriam, the Jewish records of her life depict her as a hairdresser) was promised to Joseph, and he was a direct descendant of King David. I believe 28 generations. They had made a kinion, sort of a promise, more than just verbal. Today, the kinion is made on the same day of the wedding day, but back then, it would be one year prior to the marriage ceremony. There are spiritual consequences for one who is unfaithful after that promise. Joseph went off to war and Miriam met and fell in love with a soldier who was not a Jew. I’m sorry, I cannot remember his name, it started with an S. That will explain her belly being full when Joseph returned. I believe he proceeded with the marriage, but I cannot be sure, because it has been many years since we studied to sacred texts of the generations after King David. Now, whether or not you believe in the virgin birth, one way or another, Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because if he is a descendant of Miriam, his mother, only, then he is not from the House of David. He performed certain “miracles” but the bible warns of a false prophet obtaining the ability to do so.

    I don’t know what to believe of this new infomation coming about, it can be of no surprise as truth is being revealed in Messianic times. I think the writer of this article has some valid points and should be taken into consideration however, judging from his article I read, and a line in particular, “the Palistinian Jews,” I can already see where his opinion stands. There are no Palestinian Jews. Israel was established as a state in 1948. Nearly 60 years. Prior to that, it was called Palestine for only 30 years. It is no coincidence that the land now belongs to the Jews, just before the coming of Messiah.

    And if G-d promised the Messiah to the Jews, wouldn’t it be ironic that the Messiah would not be for the Jews????? Something to think about.
• 

  Michael Jude Felock

  March 12, 2007 at 3:55 pm

  Resurrection
  ….I pose the opportunity to anyone in the media or any religious or academic level to contact me if they wish to understand the elemental, compositional means by which the actual identity of a person, physical and otherwise, will be redintegrated for the eventual purpose of being resurrected. I’ve known this for years, have written about it and true to the source which inspired me to to do, need to share this with others. Remember….Jesus once said, “there are many more things I have to tell you but you are not ready to hear them”….alas, that time is now upon us……..Michael Jude Felock
• 

  Wolf

  March 15, 2007 at 7:33 am

  I heard about this story the
  I heard about this story the first time today. Over here in Germany it is no issue at all. I agree with Greg that a proper response to this story might be to simply ignore it. In the light of Luke 16, 20-31 it will not make any difference, whatever the outcome of this story is. Not a single soul more will be saved or lost because of this.
  It’s not worth spending any time and energy.
• 

  Oki

  March 22, 2007 at 4:24 pm

  Respecto a la inscripción Mariamene e Mara
  Disculpeme por escribir en castellano es que soy hispanoparlante y se un poco de ingles.
  Estuve investigando un poco sobre la inscripción, no soy arqueologo, ni nada, pero ya que cameron y los que hicieron el film tampoco son arqueologos que mas da.

  Para mi no son dos mujeres como bien dijo Phan, puede ser que hallan sido puestas dos mujeres,en el osario de Caifas se encontraron huesos de seis personas diferentes pero para mi fue una y mi argumento es el siguiente:
  Mariamene= Maria
  Mara= Marta

  Mariamene conocida como Marta.

  Yo tengo un libro de A.T.Robertson “Una armonia de los cuatro evangelios” no creo que me haga falta aclarar las cualidades de Robertson, creo que uds lo conocen bien, pero en las ultimas paginas el discute ciertas “discrepancias” una de ellas la de los nombres de los apostoles, en Mateo y Marcos, un apostol es llamado Lebeo por sobrenombre Tadeo, en Lucas el mismo apostol es llamado Judas, hermano de Jacobo, y en hechos de los apostoles también, Robertson conocedor de la cultura del primer siglo, dice que era común en esa epoca poseer dos nombres. Es mas estuve averiguando por internet y cai a una pagina donde tienen un lexicon de nombres griegos, en esa pagina tienen links a la universidad de Oxford en clasicos, asi que pienso que debe ser confiable, en ella dicen que los griegos antiguamente usaban dos nombres, pero con la influencia romana, algunos de ellos adoptaron la costumbre de poner tres nombres, el ultimo seria el apellido diciendolo modernamente, yo pienso que la mariamene era una proselita de origen griego o de Padres griegos convertidos al judaismo, ya que la inscripción esta en griego, la suposición no parece descabellada, porque parece extraño que sea la unica inscripción en griego, las otras, una en arameo y las restantes en hebreo. Una cosa mas Josefo dice que Herodes el grande se caso con Mariamne hija de un sacerdote alejandrino llamado Simón. Digo esto porque los del filme dan la impresión, no quiero decir adrede, pero el film da esa impresión, como que a la unica que le llamaban Mariamne era a Maria Magdalena, aunque se que esta en debate lo del apocrifo, sobre el nombre de Maria Magdalena= Mariamne, yo no tengo ningun problema que a Maria Magdalena la hallan llamado Mariamne, porque Mariamne quiere decir Maria o Miriam, no se porque se hacen tanto problema alla en norteamerica por esto. Otra cosa mas para reforzar mi argumento, si suponiendo que las dos Marias de la tumba se encontraron en vida y convivieron en vida, es natural ademas de posiblemente también tuvieran
  conocidas llamadas Marias, que a esa Mariamene se la llame por su segundo nombre Marta para distinguirla de la otra Maria de la tumba. De tanto llamaral Marta,aunque su primer nombre halla sido Maria, la habran conocido todos por Marta. Es una suposición, igual que las de Cameron y compañia pero que mas da. Un saludo.
• 

  Kay Lady

  April 30, 2007 at 5:26 am

  Details
  I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusions you draw in this blog and on the episodes of the John Ankerberg Show (JAS). The people responsible for the Lost Tomb Of Jesus (LToJ) repeatedly play fast and loose with the facts. What distresses me is that on the John Ankerberg Show, I see the same thing happening.
  In LToJ, they rejected the notion that the Matthew of the “Matthew Ossuary” referred to the disciple – claiming instead that a number of variants of the name Matthew occur in the genealogy of Jesus through Mary’s line, and that therefore, this Matthew might be a hitherto unnamed relative. In the JAS, the discussion centered around the former, rejected hypothesis.
  In LToJ, and in the Ted Koppel program which followed it, one of the reasons they claimed that they didn’t do additional DNA tests was because the other ossuaries did not contain bone fragments that would have allowed said tests. (Not that those tests would have proved anything, either.)
  In LToJ, they didn’t claim that the so-called son of Jesus was born after the crucifixion. In fact, they dramatically presented the boy as being almost as tall as his mother. In that case, while they ignored the fact that Jesus was well aware that Judas Iscariot was going to betray Him, they aren’t suggesting that Jesus named the boy after Judas. They would have considered the naming independent. And if – as is not unlikely – they were to add the mythology of the Gospel of Judas into the mix of their own mixed up mythology, they would claim that Jesus would be very likely to name a son after Judas.
  If we are going to justifiably accuse “their side” of sloppy scholarship, shouldn’t we be absolutely certain that “our side” is not guilty of the same?
  • 

    bock

    June 6, 2007 at 1:37 am

    Details dlb
    Thank you for taking the time to respond.

    Matthew: There can be an appeal to Matthew of the geneaology, but our point is that there is no evidence that there was such a relative in Jesus’ family. There is no evidence for this in the texts that name his relatives. That is the point.

    DNA: In fact it is difficult to be sure if bone fragments or biological matter is left behind. One should check as not just bone fragments could work. The no “bone fragments” argument is a problem because the claim was simply made on the show that they did not try to test any of the other ossuaries.

    Judas: It is true they did not say the boy was named after Judas but that does not really matter given the name chosen. It is Jesus’ understanding that was the point here.
• 

  Michael Adam Reale

  November 1, 2007 at 7:01 pm

  The Historical Jesus
  Personally, I think, that when one deifies another human being, one takes away from their work, their life and their ministry. By deifying Yashua Bar Josef, have we not absolved ourselves from ever having to do what Jesus asked us to do and to follow the path that he asked us to follow. It is easier to say that he is God and therefore I could never achieve the things that he did. What one might fail to realize is that we may have done the historical man a great disservice. I find more joy and grace in the understanding of the actual historical Jesus rather than a mythical one. The more I learn about the real Jesus, the more I come to realize that he was far ahead of his time. Jesus was, in my opinion, a strong advocate of social justice and a positive force for social change. Apparently, issues such as gender equity, justice for the poor and the oppressed, et al. were issues that were close to his heart. His message, as it has come down through the canonical and non-canonical sources speaks of one who worked towards changing a world bent on putting profit before people. He was the front-runner and model for future generations in non-violent conflict resolution and in active suffering and passive resistance. Both Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King followed his example and both achieved remarkable results.
  • 

    bock

    November 1, 2007 at 10:14 pm

    Historical Jesus dlb

    Michael:

     

    These categories are not mutually exclusive. Read Philip Yancey’s The Jesus I Never Knew. He addresses the issue you raise and the concerns you have.

     

    dlb
• 

  Anonymous

  October 31, 2008 at 11:19 pm

  The lost tomb of Jesus
  http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/TheLostTombofJesus.html

  Behind the link can be new aspects and proves relating to document for those who don’t believe the message of the Bible!
• 

  water damage

  November 12, 2008 at 9:08 am

  All lies
  Hollywood has no interest in telling the truth about Jesus since most of what they make money on is contrary to the teaching of Jesus. When you have big business fighting truth, it is easy to see their motive, and that is to destroy the real truth of his life, death and ressurection and bringing slavation. If the people have no hope, then sin can run rampant, and they can “make merchandise” of the people of God.

  It is that simple.

  Want to know who is not telling the truth, follow the money trail.
• 

  buses air jordan

  January 14, 2009 at 1:57 am

  very helpful
  good post. Thanks, very helpful!
• 

  Anonymous

  February 10, 2009 at 5:36 pm

  Most Admirable..
  Dear Dr. Block,
  This reallya very good post .I gone through all this Lost Tomb and this really gives me very sensible thoghts..thanks for writing really heart reaching article.
  Thnks ..
• 

  altın fiyatları

  February 23, 2009 at 3:04 am

  thanks
  thanks for this great article. i’ll always read this website.
• 

  wwe

  May 12, 2009 at 8:04 am

  NICE POST
  NICE POST
• 

  Anonymous

  May 12, 2009 at 12:58 pm

  hi
  hi
• 

  Anonymous

  October 10, 2009 at 10:00 am

  re:
  If we cannot trust the gospel accounts of the ressurection, then we cannot trust the accounts of the atoning sacrifice, nor the accounts of His sinless life. If they are false, then the disciples were liars who were martyred for nothing, and we might as well eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die….