Does this disprove that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead?

[Jk_2022]

A few years ago, a controversial documentary was made about the Talpiot Tomb. I've never actually watched it myself. I read that it claims that Jesus's ossuary was found in the tomb. Most scholars have dismissed the findings. However this study seems to raise the chance that the Talpiot Tomb may indeed be Jesus's burial place. Jame's ossuary seems to share chemical similarities with ossuaries from the Talpiot Tomb. The study therefore seems to cast doubt on Jesus's resurrection. Here's the link:New Evidence on the James Ossuary and its Probable Connection to the Talpiot Jesus Tomb

 

[dev553344]

A few years ago, a controversial documentary was made about the Talpiot Tomb. I've never actually watched it myself. I read that it claims that Jesus's ossuary was found in the tomb. Most scholars have dismissed the findings. However this study seems to raise the chance that the Talpiot Tomb may indeed be Jesus's burial place. Jame's ossuary seems to share chemical similarities with ossuaries from the Talpiot Tomb. The study therefore seems to cast doubt on Jesus's resurrection. Here's the link:New Evidence on the James Ossuary and its Probable Connection to the Talpiot Jesus Tomb

I would just ignore it. I know Jesus was resurrected. Honestly, the more 'educated' people get involved the more doubt they seem to bring.

 

[Jk_2022]

I would just ignore it. I know Jesus was resurrected. Honestly, the more 'educated' people get involved the more doubt they seem to bring.

But people like William Lane Craig is highly educated and he has very strong arguments in favour of the resurrection. Same with Licona I'm sure but I haven't checked him out that much.

 

[dev553344]

But people like William Lane Craig is highly educated and he has very strong arguments in favour of the resurrection. Same with Licona I'm sure but I haven't checked him out that much.

OK, I don't need someone to prove or disprove the resurrection. God has spoken to me in a way that I can no longer have doubts. So even if the most educated evidence were to come forward, I still would believe in the resurrection.

 

[ScottA]

We have the word of God.

 

[dev553344]

A few years ago, a controversial documentary was made about the Talpiot Tomb. I've never actually watched it myself. I read that it claims that Jesus's ossuary was found in the tomb. Most scholars have dismissed the findings. However this study seems to raise the chance that the Talpiot Tomb may indeed be Jesus's burial place. Jame's ossuary seems to share chemical similarities with ossuaries from the Talpiot Tomb. The study therefore seems to cast doubt on Jesus's resurrection. Here's the link:New Evidence on the James Ossuary and its Probable Connection to the Talpiot Jesus Tomb

By the way, I didn't see in that article that it was casting doubt on the resurrection per say.

 

[Marymog]

A few years ago, a controversial documentary was made about the Talpiot Tomb. I've never actually watched it myself. I read that it claims that Jesus's ossuary was found in the tomb. Most scholars have dismissed the findings. However this study seems to raise the chance that the Talpiot Tomb may indeed be Jesus's burial place. Jame's ossuary seems to share chemical similarities with ossuaries from the Talpiot Tomb. The study therefore seems to cast doubt on Jesus's resurrection. Here's the link:New Evidence on the James Ossuary and its Probable Connection to the Talpiot Jesus Tomb

To conclude, we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb - either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative.

Signed,
Professor Mordechai Aviam, University of Rochester
Professor Ann Graham Brock, Iliff School of Theology, University of Denver
Professor F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary
Professor C.D. Elledge, Gustavus Adolphus College
Professor Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Professor Rachel Hachlili, University of Haifa
Professor Amos Kloner, Bar-Ilan University
Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professor Lee McDonald, Arcadia Seminary
Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University
Professor Stephen Pfann, University of the Holy Land
Professor Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University
Professor Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion
Professor Alan F. Segal, Barnard College, Columbia University
Professor Choon-Leong Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary
Mr. Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem
Dr. Boaz Zissu, Bar-Ilan University

Duke University Religion Department: The Talpiot Tomb Controversy Revisited (dukereligion.blogspot.com)

 

[T. E. Smith]

More likely, Jesus' body was stolen (only Matthew says there were guards, so we can't trust it), but we can't know what then came of it. Bart Ehrman proposes that soldiers found and attacked the people who took the body, then dumped the bodies in the river. It's also been proposed that scavengers ate the body.

 

[Marymog]

More likely, Jesus' body was stolen (only Matthew says there were guards, so we can't trust it), but we can't know what then came of it. Bart Ehrman proposes that soldiers found and attacked the people who took the body, then dumped the bodies in the river. It's also been proposed that scavengers ate the body.

Hi TE SMITH,

You present a fascinating theory. Your theory is that we can't trust Matthew since his letter is the only letter that says there were guards. Ok...lets pretend Matthew lied and there were no guards. Using your logic, can we trust the multiple other letters that say He rose from the dead? What about Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius who were students of the Apostles? Can they be trusted?

Curious

 

[T. E. Smith]

Hi TE SMITH,



You present a fascinating theory. Your theory is that we can't trust Matthew since his letter is the only letter that says there were guards. Ok...lets pretend Matthew lied and there were no guards. Using your logic, can we trust the multiple other letters that say He rose from the dead? What about Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius who were students of the Apostles? Can they be trusted?



Curious

It is not that fascinating, most critical scholars believe he made them up. But here is the difference: guards at a tomb is an unremarkable claim, thus it does not require much evidence, we still don't have enough though. Resurrection? That's an amazingly unbelievable claim and so requires much more evidence. But the evidence we have for that is not enough.

 

[Marymog]

It is not that fascinating, most critical scholars believe he made them up. But here is the difference: guards at a tomb is an unremarkable claim, thus it does not require much evidence, we still don't have enough though. Resurrection? That's an amazingly unbelievable claim and so requires much more evidence. But the evidence we have for that is not enough.

The testimony of multiple people is not enough? Well then, throw out every court case that had multiple people testifying.

 

[T. E. Smith]

The testimony of multiple people is not enough? Well then, throw out every court case that had multiple people testifying.

The testimony of multiple people is enough for many claims but not enough for others. If all my sisters (I have five) tell me they saw a pink dragon in the backyard, well, I'm obviously not going to believe it just because multiple people claimed it. The resurrection is too unbelievable to require only multiple testimonies.

 

[Marymog]

The testimony of multiple people is enough for many claims but not enough for others. If all my sisters (I have five) tell me they saw a pink dragon in the backyard, well, I'm obviously not going to believe it just because multiple people claimed it. The resurrection is too unbelievable to require only multiple testimonies.

Your pink dragon scenario is not a very good example…but I get the gist of your point.

The problem with your scenario is that dragons are not real so your sisters could not see something that is not real. Since they are not real they could be any color.

Based on your study of history and Christianity do you believe that the PERSON Jesus was real?

Curious Mary

 

[T. E. Smith]

The problem with your scenario is that dragons are not real so your sisters could not see something that is not real. Since they are not real they could be any color.

Based on your study of history and Christianity do you believe that the PERSON Jesus was real?

Curious Mary

I don't believe the resurrection was a real event. I seriously doubt the person Jesus ever existed.

 

[Deborah_]

Does this disprove that Jesus was physically resurrected from the dead?

No. Because James, Joseph and Jesus were all such common names in first century Palestine that there could easily have been dozens of families with that combination of names.

 

[Marymog]

I don't believe the resurrection was a real event. I seriously doubt the person Jesus ever existed.

Hmmm....I get your disbelief in the resurrection being a real event. So it sounds like you do not accept Scripture as even a historical document since you discount the person Jesus being a real person.

Do you discount the non-Scriptural accounts of Jesus also? Do you believe Aristotle ever existed?

 

[ChristisGod]

It is not that fascinating, most critical scholars believe he made them up. But here is the difference: guards at a tomb is an unremarkable claim, thus it does not require much evidence, we still don't have enough though. Resurrection? That's an amazingly unbelievable claim and so requires much more evidence. But the evidence we have for that is not enough.

would you die for something you know is a lie ?

or would you admit it was a lie to save your life ?

 

[farouk]

would you die for something you know is a lie ?

or would you admit it was a lie to save your life ?

1 Corinthians 15.58 and the motives for faithful continuance ('Therefore, my beloved brethren...') is intimately linked with the victory of 1 Corinthians 15.57....

 

[ChristisGod]

1 Corinthians 15.58 and the motives for faithful continuance ('Therefore, my beloved brethren...') is intimately linked with the victory of 1 Corinthians 15.57....

Yes the Resurrection is undeniable when you examine the evidence. There are also secular sources that testify to Jesus crucifixion and Jesus followers seeing Him after His crucifixion. They boldly preached the Resurrection from Pentecost forward and gave their lives for Him because He Rose from the dead and was alive. They were transformed and literally turned the world upside down with the gospel which at its heart/center is the bodily Resurrection of Jesus.

Saul was killing the Christians until the Lord appeared to him personally and Paul gave his life up as a martyr because he was a witness to the risen Lord.

 

[farouk]

Yes the Resurrection is undeniable when you examine the evidence. There are also secular sources that testify to Jesus crucifixion and Jesus followers seeing Him after His crucifixion. They boldly preached the Resurrection from Pentecost forward and gave their lives for Him because He Rose from the dead and was alive. They were transformed and literally turned the world upside down with the gospel which at its heart/center is the bodily Resurrection of Jesus.

Saul was killing the Christians until the Lord appeared to him personally and Paul gave his life up as a martyr because he was a witness to the risen Lord.

There was a man - Frank Morrison - who set out to write a book disproving the Resurrection. By the time he got to the last page of the book he wrote, he believed in the Resurrection.

(The book is called: "Who Moved the Stone?")