E-mail
Print
RSS
G-bookmarks
Live
Technorati"In view of the above, there is no longer any reason to be tempted to link this ossuary...to Mary Magdalene or any other person in Biblical, non-Biblical or church tradition," concluded Pfann, who made a brief appearance in the film as an ossuary expert.
Another archaeologist – Jodi Magness of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – also questioned why Jesus, who is known to come from a poor family, would be found in a tomb for middle class and wealthy families.
Moreover, she noted last year that if for some reason his family could afford the tomb, his bones should be found in Nazareth not Jerusalem, according to the Washington Post.
Other arguments given by leading biblical scholars opposed to the film’s claims include that the earliest followers of Jesus did not call him “Jesus, son of Joseph” and the body of James, the brother of Jesus, was buried alone near the temple mount – making it highly unlikely that the tomb in the film is Jesus’ “family tomb.” Furthermore, many scholars have said the filmmakers’ arguments were based on circumstantial evidence of exceedingly common names of the time.
“My personal conclusion is that in no way can we say – with the conclusion postulated by the film – that the ‘lost tomb of Jesus’ is one in the same with the tomb in East Talpiot," said Duke University professor Eric Meyers, who was among the panelists at this week’s conference.
Despite strong arguments against the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” claims, conference attendees decided that the tomb should be reopened and examined more carefully. The tomb site is currently sealed over with concrete in the garden of a suburban apartment building.
aritonang »
Agree: 
Disagree: 
