Archive for the ‘Tomb Controversy’ Category

Tomb Controversy Concluded

March 14, 2007

This research has laid to rest the last remaining thread upon which the tomb hung.

The tomb is doomed:

The point of the article is to show that the inscription on the ossuary is not “Mariamne”, as asserted in the blasphemous tomb movie, but “Mariame kai Mara” (Mary and Martha).

This kills the Tomb story at least two ways:

  • it is fairly conclusive evidence that at least two women’s bones were placed in the ossuary. Why would someone go to the trouble of carving, in a second hand, as we can see from the shape of the writing, a second woman’s name? It cannot be to foil DNA proof regarding the first body Mirame, since DNA was not understood when the names were inscribed. Nevertheless, it does foil the proof, because there is now no way to determine whether the DNA evaluated was Mary’s or Martha’s.
  • it destroys the alleged literary connection to the Acts of Philip, upon which the connection between Mariamne and Mary Magdelene was originally claimed.

Let’s see if any official retractions follow.


Tomb Blasphemy Addendum

March 12, 2007

Reviewing some clips from the blasphemous movie, I notice that:

  • the film additionally cites, as support, the apocryphal and heretical “Gospel of Mary [Magdalene].” It is important to recognize that this writing does not identify Mary as Mary Magdalene, and does not associate the Mary in question with Philip, as in the “Acts of Philip.” If any family relationship is suggested in the so-called Gospel of Mary, it is that Mary is Peter’s (not Philip’s) sister. Furthermore, it does not call Mary “Mariamne” as in the alleged inscription on the ossuary.
  • the film claims that the Acts of the Philip say that Mariamne dies in Jerusalem. It does not. Instead, it states in the Syriac account: “On board was a Jew, Ananias, who blasphemed and said: May Adonai recompense thee, and the Christ on whom thou callest, who is become dust and lies in Jerusalem, while thou livest and leadest ignorant men astray by his name. ” Similarly, in the main account: “15 Ananias’ address: how Jesus destroyed the law and allowed all meats -was crucified, the disciples stole his body, and did many wonders, and were cast out of Jerusalem, and now go all about the world deceiving every one, like this Philip. But I will take him to Jerusalem, for the king Archelaus seeketh him to kill him.” Likewise it states in the main account: “137 And the Lord said: Since you have been unforgiving and wrathful, you shall indeed die in glory and be taken by angels to paradise, but shall remain outside it forty days, in fear of the flaming sword, and then I will send Michael and he shall let you in. And Bartholomew shall go to Lycaonia and be crucified there, and Mariamne’s body shall be laid up in the river Jordan. And I shall bring back those who have been swallowed up.” Thus the Syriac account calls Ananias’ tomb claim blasphemy, and the main account attributes the traditional “stolen body” blasphemy to the Jews, in accordance with the Gospel. Furthermore, the main acocunt places Mariamne in the Jordan river, not in Jerusalem.

Praise be to our Risen Lord!


Tomb Update

March 2, 2007

I just thought I’d add a quick update on the Tomb blasphemy.

In addition to the excellent arguments that I’ve already heard:

  • The most that the mtDNA can do is establish that Miaramne and Jesus are not maternally related;
  • The names found on the ossuaries in the tomb are all common names at the time; and
  • The Acts of Phillip does not identify Mariamne as Mary Magdalene,

I will add my own which are:

  • mtDNA cannot even tell whether the remains found in the box labelled Jesus are male or female remains (and same for those in the boxes labelled Mariamne and Judah)!
  • The argument from the Acts of the Apostles that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene seems to be based on a double conflation:

First, here’s the passage that appears to be the basis:

Acts of Philip VIII:94-95 (An Apocryphal and Heretical Fabrication)

94It came to pass when the Saviour divided the apostles and each went forth
according to his lot, that it fell to Philip to go to the country of the Greeks:
and he thought it hard, and wept. And Mariamne his sister (it was she that made
ready the bread and salt at the breaking of bread, but Martha was she that
ministered to the multitudes and laboured much) seeing it, went to Jesus and
said: Lord, seest thou not how my brother is vexed? 95 And he said: I know, thou
chosen among women; but go with him and encourage him, for I know that he is a
wrathful and rash man, and if we let him go alone he will bring many
retributions on men. But lo, I will send Bartholomew and John to suffer
hardships in the same city, because of the much wickedness of them that dwell
there; for they worship the viper, the mother of snakes. And do thou change thy
woman’s aspect and go with Philip. And to Philip he said: Why art thou fearful?
for I am always with thee.

The first part of the double conflation is in misreading item 94 such that Mary is the sister not of Philip, but of Martha.

The second part of the conflation is confusing Lazarus’ sister Mary (who had a sister named Martha) with Mary Magdelene.

It is a bit incredible that someone is not afraid to blaspheme based on such lousy evidence. At least those who deny that God created the world make claims that are constantly rewritten to fit the available data. These claims appear to be simply wild speculation to sell books and DVDs.

Incidentally, one thing you will NOT see is a Roman Catholic rebuttal based on a comparison to the mtDNA found in the elements consecrated by the Eucharist, or in any supposed relics of our Lord. Why? With regard to the first, because the bread is physically just bread – it doesn’t have Jesus DNA, and the second, because that would open up the possibility of exposing the widespread fraud of the RCC on the people of God over the centuries in the promulgation of phoney relics.

May our Risen and Glorious Savior be praised!


Christ’s Tomb – Empty or Not

February 28, 2007

Some blasphemer has recently suggested that Jesus did not rise from the dead, and claims to have DNA and statistical proof. However, we can know (without examining any of the evidence that the blasphemer sets forth) that this blasphemer is wrong. How do we know? Because Jesus died, rose again, and is now on the right hand of God, where He makes intercession for us, according to the Scriptures:

Romans 8:34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

And again:

2 Timothy 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

There may be a Jesus in the coffins that the blasphemer found, but it is not Jesus, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Priase be to our Risen and Glorious Lord!


%d bloggers like this: