The Lost Tomb of Jesus | 
 enlarge | Actor: The Lost Tomb Of Jesus
Studio: Koch Vision
Category: DVD
List Price: $24.98
Buy New: $9.99
You Save: $14.99 (60%)
New (58) Used (24) Collectible (1) from $1.22
Rating:  24 reviews
Sales Rank: 24768
Format: Color, Director's Cut, Dolby, Dvd-video, Widescreen, Ntsc
Language: English (Original Language)
Rating: NR (Not Rated)
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 105
Aspect Ratio: 1.77:1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.2
Dimensions (in): 7.1 x 5.4 x 0.6
MPN: KCHDKOC6479D
UPC: 741952647997
EAN: 0741952647997
ASIN: B000OHZJSC
Theatrical Release Date: March 2007
Release Date: April 24, 2007
Shipping: Eligible for Super Saver Shipping
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Studio: Koch International Release Date: 04/24/2007 Run time: 105 minutes
Amazon.com
Stills from The Lost Tomb of Jesus (click for larger image)
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 19 more reviews...
 Not Very Convincing July 18, 2008
2 out of 2 found this review helpful
First of all, I'll mention some of the good qualities about the film. The production values were good, much of it was filmed in the Middle East, many of the actors were apparently Middle Eastern, the ancient scenes weren't filmed in English, and the story reads like a detective piece.
Now, for the negative part. This documentary apparenty shook people's faiths for no good reason. Yes I have watched the documentary. I also looked at some evidence listed in favor of it printed from the web (including either or both the Discovery Channel's website and the documentarie's). I have also seen people writing in defense of it. However, I also looked at numerous views from the opposing side and found out why so many biblical scholars trashed the film's claims. The term half-truth doesn't do justice to the level of overblown speculation seen in the film. Frankly, I have better things to do than write a book of my own on its failures. However, I will provide some resources in case anyone wants to check for themselves.
1. A book I reviewed by Gary Habermas on the subject
2. Ben Witherington III's Web site
3. Lee Strobel's interview with Craig Evans in "The Case For the Real Jesus"
4. I believe Darrel Bock's Website
Oh, I should mention one very glaring probable inaccuracy of less importance; in fact, Mel Gibson probably made the same error in "The Passion of the Christ." Christ was probably crucified on a Tau (T) cross rather than a Latin Cross (t). Anyway, a well made but exceptionally misleading film. I would like to expect better from the discovery channel. What ever happened to "Fields of Armor"?
 Quite interesting.. May 26, 2008
I think this video is pretty interesting and it is quite odd the grouping of all these names. It's also odd how the people in the warehouse brush it off like there's no chance it could possibly be Jesus. Also odd how the book of Phillip isn't included in the bible..
****************!!!!SPOILER!!!!*************************
But, for them to say that the one woman's remains in there HAD to be married to the Jesus in the tomb is kind of absurd. The woman could have been married to any of the men whose remains were in that tomb and it could also POSSIBLY be Jesus' wife. You know how you solve that? Do DNA tests on the child's bone box found! Why was that not done? or not covered in the movie?
*********End Spoiler********************
Favorite line in the movie: "1,000,000% certainty, that's ALL we needed"
A blind woman was THAT certain that was the location of the tomb they were looking for. Yes, a blind woman. Was she right? Guess you'll have to watch...
 You Decide May 24, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
While not all the facts are in, this film gives pause for thought, deep thought. In addition to the archaeological facts surrounding the find, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" gives us a good idea of what life was like in 1st Century Israel. The film is well done, convincing, and may very well prove to be the actual tomb of Jesus Himself. You decide.
Much Better Than I Expected April 27, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I took it for granted that there was something fundamentally flawed and overblown to the story of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus." But, actually, this film is a compelling piece of detective work. The filmmakers consult experts and piece together an intriguing thesis. And their admirable tracking down of the original tomb (buried under an apartment complex), makes for compelling filming. The film's thesis is very far from "airtight," but it is, nevertheless, quite interesting.
Usually, if a scientific thesis bypasses the scientific community, and scientific journals, and is laid out before the general public in the form of a popular film or book, you can bet that it probably has very little real evidence to support it. But in this case, it seems that the investigators have succeeded, by making a popular film about the Talpiot tomb, in renewing a debate among Biblical scholars, statisticians, and archaeologists about the nature of the Talpiot tomb.
On the downside, there are elements of sensationalism to the film, and there is no real attempt to cast serious doubt on the filmmakers' thesis. After watching the film, if one wants to follow current academic discussions of the Talpiot tomb, James Tabor's blog is a place to go (Tabor is one of the experts who appears in the film, and he seems inclined to favor the film's thesis). Just Google "James Tabor" and "Jesus Dynasty" and that should get you to his website.
 Good production values but potentially misleading April 12, 2008
6 out of 8 found this review helpful
I consider myself quite open-minded when it comes to these type of religious historical documentaries. In fact, I am usually thrilled at the idea that someone discovered archaeological evidence of a religious person. Thus, it's strange for this documentary to really turn me off.
I'm mainly annoyed by the narration and structure of the documentary. I think if it wasn't for that, I might have liked it more. Two things bothered me in particular: one was the way the documentary presented its arguments and the other was the omnipresence of the director, Simcha Jacobovici.
The documentary does a very misleading thing. Whenever it encounters a potential piece of evidence that doesn't fit into their argument, they find a way of suggesting that it could potentially fit, and then thereafter refer to it as if they've proven their point. For example, they bring up the problem of "Mariamne" - who could she be? Her mention in the Acts of Philip in reference to Mary Magdalene was cited as evidence that this could mean the real Mary Magdalene (never for once questioning the historical validity of the Acts of Philip). Then they show you a dramatic reconstruction of Mary Magdalene as the wife of Jesus, and from that point on, the documentary acts as if they've proven without a doubt that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene. They continue doing that with all the pieces of evidence that don't quite fit, without nothing that these evidence are all linked, so if even one of them is false, then the rest of their case falls apart.
Consider this line of thinking: You want to find out who stole your bicycle. You see a footprint that belongs to a shoe that maybe Billy wore, and maybe he was in your neighborhood even though he lives an hour away, and maybe his bicycle broke down which is why he needed yours, and maybe he liked your bicycle among all the others in the neighborhood. Well, if any one of these "maybe's" are false, your case falls apart.
I know they try to do the statistical argument, but what does 1 in 60,000 mean? It sounds like a huge possibility but they never to bother elaborating on that.
The other thing, and perhaps the most annoying thing, about the documentary is Simcha Jacobovici, who comes across as biased as Michael Moore (whom, incidentally, I actually like). His bias is so obvious that it puts into question the entire construction of the project, including how the film was edited, who and what did they leave out, and so on.
As I said, I would really like to believe the arguments in this documentary, and some of it is quite convincing, but the flawed line of thinking and the bias of the director makes it very suspect. There was some good production values, but other than that, it was a poorly conceived project on a potentially fascinating find.
|
|
|
|
