Tomb of Jesus

The big news of the day is that the tomb of Jesus may have been found in a tomb beneath Jerusalem.
Not surprisingly the religion community is up in arms, ready to jump at any claims that this is the tomb of Jesus, because then it might show that he lived life like a typical male of the time, had a wife and had children. I find it kind of hypocritical of the church that they aren’t open to the possibility that this could be the tomb of Jesus, while they worship religious relics. Religious relics are either parts of saints (i.e. bones, blood, etc.) or things they have touched. The problem is that the majority of these relics are likely fakes, due to the trade in relics in Medieval Europe.
In a time where a town with a relic drew worshippers from far and wide (thus increasing the economy of the area), the supply of religious relics wasn’t lacking. Many of those facts are likely still out there, but still religious leaders don’t question these things. Though they find that it is their place to speak out about something that hasn’t been fully investigated or debated yet.
In my mind I doubt that they will ever be able to prove that this is the “tomb of Jesus” and even if they did the Christians wouldn’t want any part of it. In their mind it is better to stick to your faith than adapt to new truths.
P.S. I highly doubt that this is the tomb of Jesus, but I am still open to possibility and will likely watch the documentary on the Discovery Channel.

4 Replies to “Tomb of Jesus”

  1. It’s interesting that ‘the Church’ – not having read the original story, I assume you mean the RC church? – is unenthusiastic. I can see why: if there is anything in the tomb, it disproves the resurrection, but if there isn’t anything in the tomb, the discovery offers nothing conclusive. Given that Christ reportedly spent 3 days in the tomb – which wasn’t prepared for him specifically anyway – I’m not sure how they will determine anything conclusive unless there is a body in there (wasn’t there a Michael Crichton book on this? ‘Body of Evidence’?). But I have to pull you up on your argument in the second-to-last paragraph: “…Christians wouldn’t want any part of it. In their mind, it is better to stick to your faith than to adapt to new truths”. That sounds a bit narrow-minded and overly generalized from someone I know to be extremely broad-minded and accepting. Is that really what you mean?

  2. K&N: I guess I was being overly harsh in my last paragraph. I know not all Christians (or religious people in general) are that close-minded. I was thinking of the religious administration (specifically the RC church), who are stubborn to accept new truths (i.e. the Pope pardoned Galileo in the 90’s).
    I have nothing against relgion. I only critisize those who are so close-minded and in some cases hypocritical.

Leave a Reply