Jung, Sheldrake, Campbell, Bergson & Me
“The Talpiot Tomb could be soon the most famous holy relic in the Christian empire. Canadian Titanic director James Cameron and filmmaker archeologist Simcha Jacobovici have set to prove that it once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. The evidence and interpretations of the artifacts will be presented in a documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” on the Discovery Channel March 4th on the Discovery Channel at 9 p.m. ET/PT.” Find out more?
Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.
I finally had a chance to see the documentary. The conclusions are all based on circumstantial evidence. There’s no “smoking gun”. However, the conclusions are not that surprising. Whether or not this is the tomb or not, it’s pretty obvious the family is buried somewhere, Jesus included. I can’t imagine people taking the ascension to heaven literally. If so, then even at the speed of light he’d still not be out of our galaxy yet.
I’ve always believed that the ascension should be read metaphorically: Jesus transcended this life, just as we can. It seems reasonable that Jesus was married and had children. Most rabbis of the 1st century were married and most had children. It would have been unusual for him not to have been married. I do agree with one point that they made in the documentary (and that I’ve mentioned here before) that for whatever reason women were seen as a threat to the hierarchy in the early church and their influence and importance was diminished though the conscious (or perhaps unconscious) mistranslations of New Testament books and complete omission of several early Christian texts into the cannon.
In short, I wasn’t convinced by the evidence in this particular documentary. Nevertheless, I don’t have a hard time believing their conclusions.
Unless otherwise specified, all content is made available under the Creative Commons License.
And what say you? It seems that the author’s statement, “If Jesus’ mortal remains have been found, this would contradict the idea of a physical ascension but not the idea of a spiritual ascension. The latter is consistent with Christian theology. . .” is not quite on the mark - the former is what I’ve always heard was the Christian belief. In addition, there is no mention in the gospels of a son, which might suggest that if there was one, could it be possible that he was born after the crucifixtion? I guess what I’m suggesting was if one is true then perhaps the other is not.