Comments on: The Lost Tomb of Jesus http://www.nautis.com/2007/02/26/the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/ Jung, Sheldrake, Campbell, Bergson & Me Thu, 22 May 2008 20:12:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Matthew http://www.nautis.com/2007/02/26/the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-8611 Matthew Wed, 07 Mar 2007 23:15:48 +0000 http://www.nautis.com/2007/02/26/the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-8611 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. 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.

]]> By: wilma http://www.nautis.com/2007/02/26/the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-8313 wilma Thu, 01 Mar 2007 02:24:05 +0000 http://www.nautis.com/2007/02/26/the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-8313 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. 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.

]]>