|
Name: sadinoel •
Title: A Reasoned Look Instead of Media Circus says "NO" •
Date posted: 03/07/07 21:14
|
Q: There is no debate in the scientific community about this. The findings are bogus. The math is flawed. The conclusions are drawn from flawed data all around. There is no case. There is no credibility. The only thing there is here, is self promotion and bogus material.
The funny thing is all the people arguing about what this means to Christianity and other religions. There can be no religious debate unless there are legitimate scientific findings first. Given that the whole of this data and case are flawed SIGNIFICANTLY, then regardless of your opinion on religion, it DOES NOT APPLY.
What? You don't believe me??? What do I have to gain or lose? Ok, ok.... don't trust me...
CHECK THE WEBSITES OF THE
Archaeological Institute of America
The "Jesus Tomb" on TV March 3, 2007
by Sandra Scham
An unconvincing case, and an ulterior motive?
http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/jesustomb2.html
OR
Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?
A reasoned look at the evidence, instead of a media circus, yields an answer of NO!
by Jodi Magness
http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408
or maybe any other CREDIBLE SCIENTIFIC SOURCE like a JOURNAL PERHAPS!!!
These guys have done society an injustice by presenting flawed data in a media format rather than going through the proper proceedure and releasing this information to peers and journals for REVIEW like REAL SCIENCE is supposed to do.
Anyone who puts any "faith" (and I use the word liberally here because thats exactly what it takes to believe this "study") is buying into the hype and that's all there is to it.
It's not about Christians vs Science. THIS "case" is about $$$ vs REAL Science.
I am, as are many other scientists, DISGUSTED at this. And guess what? Most of us are not even Christian. It's a travesty to SCIENCE, not to religion.
People always claim that religious individuals are victims of just believing stories and what people say instead of looking at facts... if any of these people buy into this ridiculous argument, they need to also look into the mirror. Their arguments violate all the same rules.
|
|
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 22:00 |
A: It's bogus everyone. Please go back to work now. Nothing to see here. Thank you. Just check any credible scientific journal please.
THANK YOU this has been a public service announcemt for those not familiar with things like peer review and the scientific method.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/07/07 22:10 |
|
A: You probably aggreed with the first thing that supported your convictions.
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 23:09 |
A: Oh yes you are right of course. My source is completely more biased than a film producer and a crackpot.
"The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA) is North America's oldest and largest organization devoted to the world of archaeology with more than 8,500 members belonging to 104 AIA societies in the United States, Canada, and overseas, united by a shared passion for archaeology and its role in furthering human knowledge. "
Learn what science is and what is ACCEPTABLE science and not media hype then come back and post a legitamate argument instead of your fallicious personal attack at my "SUPPOSED AGENDA".
Learn to think for yourself instead of just believing what hollywood and the media spoon feed you,
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/07/07 23:21 |
A: Gee, thanks for assuming i only beleive what im told....... This issue of finding jesus's tomb isnt news to me.... Ive wondered for years when someone would stumble on something like this.
See, that's something alot of Fundies dont get. This documentry does not suprise alot of people. Get It?
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/07/07 23:25 |
|
A: BTW..... I didnt know that professor of mathmatics and statistics couldnt divide. Thanks for the link.......
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 23:26 |
A: This has nothing to do with Christians. This is about what is credible science and what is not. SCHOLARS DO NOT SUPPORT HIS DATA!!!! There isn't more to say. From your words about "fundies" you obviously have an agenda.
Again I ask, who do you put more credit to? The AIA or James Cameron and crew? If you answer the latter I have some great land in Florida to sell you.
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 03/07/07 23:39 |
A: This doesn't fly...
That is the repeated washing of hands that doesn't fly...
The scientific community have had 27 years to examine this. I repeat: TWENTYSEVEN YEARS.
Scham doesn't actually bring anything new to the table. Instead she seems to have a grudge on Simcha. Discredit the man, and then shoot a little at the statistics without really offering a reasonable rejection of why it doesn't fly. Even a 33% chance that this is the tomb, is worth a thorough examination. Would you buy a lottery ticket if there was a 33% chance of striking gold?
Jodi Magness is even more "impresive".
She has the boldness to declare, that archeology is a scientific discipline. She then proceeds to discredit the evidence by using biblical accounts as the only evidence. The canonical scripts are not rock hard evidence. They are disputed both for temporal accuracy and interpretation.
She claims that crucifixion was used for poorer criminals who were regarded as common criminals. That is in stark contrast to the common notion, that it was reserved for the enemies of the roman state; rebels.
She also claims, that bodies normally were buried in a way that is in stark contrast to even naming ossuaries at all.
So, if science should discredit it, should it resort to scientific evidence only. Not hunches or religious convictions or preconceived notions.
Science have had 27 years to examine this. The first official report is from 1996!!! In the mean time, one ossuary is gone missing, and one might suspect that Kloner made up the measurements of the last ossuary to cover up the incompetence of the IAA.
One might also suspect, that they'd rather have this find capped. That is, that jewish authorities wouldn't be a part of an attack on the divinity of Jesus. It might cause a wave of antisemitism.
IOW, the travesty is, that science is trying to sweep this under the mat due to religious sensitivity. What is next? That we cannot do research in Big Bang cosmology or evolution theory?
Science should instead take over the reigns. Examine the find. Establish the genealogy.
The original BBC documentary mentioned among the finds, a 6 inch shard with the name of Jesus and the emblem of a fish. Where is that??
The $$$ argument is hilarious. Whatever is made from this film is peanuts compared to the capital invested in the christian church.
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 23:47 |
A: NEARLY EVERY SCHOLAR CALLS THE CLAIMS BOGUS.
These guys have NOTHING to gain.
Cameron has $$$ to gain. To "sweep that argument" under the rug as you put it is what is hilarious sir.
The AIA has NOTHING TO GAIN here.
You sound like a moderator hired by the creators of this "event".
Just like you said, they have had YEARS to examine this data and it's widely known as bogus by most ... nearly EVERY scholar on the matter.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/07/07 23:47 |
|
A: You guys are leaving out the most important thing THE FIND. A routine , documented find. Are you calling the fact that this tomb was found, and the contents documented A ThEORY??
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 23:52 |
|
A: The theory is that its the family of the Jesus mentioned in the Bible. Nearly every scholar rejects that theory. Sure you can play lotto but would you bet your life savings on James Cameron or on what 99% of the scholars say about his "theory"?
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/07/07 23:57 |
|
A: Mathmatics doesnt play the lotto. It determines the lotto.....
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 23:58 |
|
A: you dodged my question. thought so.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/08/07 0:05 |
|
A: No, I answered your question. Try using logic to decipher it......
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/08/07 0:07 |
A: an answer is in the form yes or no.
now you are shifting the argument.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/08/07 0:13 |
|
A: My answer is not a 'shift'. It is answer to your question. I surmise a loaded question that cults use all the time. the problem is , logic gives you an answer you dont want to hear.
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/08/07 0:21 |
A: I don't care one bit what the answer is since I am agnostic. I just feel sorry for people duped by bogus information. I have a B.S. from a good university and always value science as the only tool we have to prove anything. These guys are making a mockery of science. That's what upsets me.
Sorry but I will go with this guy over your opinion.
William G. Dever
Not to mention the other scholars I have been quoting.
Now go find me a bunch of "Scholars" who support your side. Or place your bet.
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 0:29 |
A: If the scholars think this is bogus, then they certainly HAVE to bring something VALUABLE to the discussion.
What I see, are arguments like this:
1: The tomb is wrong. That is not the tomb of a poor person, and the bible says that Jesus is poor (actually it doesn't, they just assume so because his father is a carpenter). That is not science. The bible cannot serve as factual evidence.
2: Jesus did not live in Jerusalem, and they say he should have been buried in Nazareth instead. Again, the bible cannot serve as factual evidence.
3: Claims that Joseph could not have been in the tomb..... Actually, No one has claimed that he is. The Jose ossuary could indeed be Jesus' brother Joses mentioned in the gospels. Indeed a rare occurence of a name, and one that heightens the statistical probabilities tremendously.
4: The gnostic gospels are unreliable as a historical source. That is the most hypocritical argument I've ever seen. The gnostic gospels are contested by the church for a heretic message, but has the advantage of not being edited for close to 1800 years. The bible however, has repeatedly been edited to add clarity...
Instead, the scholars should offer their take on the statistical probability.
Science should request exclusive access to the ossuaries, and give them the forensic examination they deserve. That is, determine the genealogy of all ossuaries if possible. Reexamination of the patina evidence of the James ossuary being what Simcha claims.
The find, if verifiable, deserves the full monty so to speak, and not to be discarded on the loose argument, that it doesn't fit the canonical texts.
If indeed Jesus was poor, why wasn't he taken directly to a trench grave, as some scholars claims was the normal burial customs if you couldn't afford a rock hewn tomb?
Was it easier to fullfill the prophecies, if you could remove the body without trace to an unknown location?
Is it possible, that Jesus did have a tomb? After all, he was of Davidean heritage.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/08/07 0:39 |
A: Now that's what I like to hear. I value your opinion, I really do. My point to all this is this.
People are confuseing Cameron and crew with faulty science.
Those who dont agree with thier postulate, blame faulty science on them. The fact is, Cameron and crew ARE NOT scientists. They are admitted film makers/ journalists that investigated an already documented find. They had an "expert" do th stats to determine how much validity their postulate had.
The professor they used in the documentary came up with a 600 to one odd. Ive been seeing other numbers from other people on the net, t.v. and at work. The numbers are all over the place I admit.... This is do to to many reasons including bias.. However, the lowest odds i have ever seen where in the 100 to 1 vicinity. This is still a substantial odd and the reason I agree with the claim.
This is where the debate mostly lays, and it should. There are plenty of experts crunching numbers as we speak.
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 0:44 |
A: If you have a B.S. from a good university, then you shouldn't accept the Bible as factual evidence!
"These guys are making a mockery of science"
What? They contacted a professor at statistics. They used the best possible forensic techniques on the evidence they had access to.
They present a plausible conclusion based on the evidence they gathered.
What they have done, is to send a signal to the scientific community, that "here is something worth examining. We have exhausted our resources, and it is now up to you."
I don't give a rat's ass about scholars that claims this is impossible because the bible states otherwise, or people that claims the statistics are flawed, but don't supply the statistics they think are correct.
Many of them don't even seem to know that Jesus, according to the gospels, had a brother named Joses (in the english translation). They repeatedly claims that one of the ossuaries is Joseph's, and that he surely was buried somewhere else. The presence of Jose (Yose), a possible brother is a strong factor in favor of the statistics.
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/08/07 0:55 |
A: Sorry that does not fly.
The stats are flawed according to experts in the field.
Find me some really good credible sources (as I have done) that argue your case that ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF THE FILM and then you will have a foundation for your speculative arguments.
|
|
Name: kbob •
Date: 03/08/07 1:27 |
|
A: Ever notice how "find me a credible source to back up your claim" is constantly thrown out? Who decides what is and is not credible? Is my credible source better than yours or vise versa? No matter what source is cited you wil come back with it's not credible so why even ask?
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 1:32 |
A: "The stats are flawed according to experts in the field."
Yeah, so they say, but doesn't offer the correct probability? Why is that? Because the odds are probably still fairly good.
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 1:37 |
A: "Find me some really good credible sources (as I have done)"
A person who uses the Bible as her primary evidence, and at the same time claims that Jacobovici is unscientific, is hilarious.
Jacobovici used an independent forensic lab for the DNA test, and the patina test. The results for the DNA are ambigious, and the implications many. However, the patina test was pretty convincing.
The theories are not outside the realm of possibilities. It's not a slam dunk case, but there is indeed basis for an investigation. Anyone who states otherwise is either deeply religious or afarid to tramble on religious feelings.
|
