|
Name: philoalethinos •
Title: Christian apologist responds to to the tomb findings •
Date posted: 03/03/07 4:05
|
Q: Greetings group
For any here who are interested who have been following the newest attempt to discredit Christianity in the finding of the ‘Jesus family tomb,” Christian author James White was interviewed in a downloadable audio program today concerning the evidence for and against this theory.
It is available here:
http://www.callingfortruth.org/cft/content/view/343/10/
White has been taking the lead among many Christian apologist in asking the questions that the main stream media has failed to ask about this supposed finding, from questioning the meaning of the DNA evidence presented, to the usage of the “ Acts of Philip” to make the name “Mariamne” mean Mary Magdalene, to the common usage of the Jewish names, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus, as well as the likelihood of Jesus family having burial tombs in Jerusalem, among other interesting related issues.
I am glad that persons like Mr. White has taken the time to challenge this supposed finding and who challenges the utter lack of any serious scholarship in this matter that has thus far been presented. I think that many here will enjoy this presentation.
In Christ,
philoalethinos
|
|
|
|
Name: playaut0785 •
Date: 03/05/07 20:26 |
|
A: The interview fails to address many of the other findings. There were some arguments that Mr. White made that I agree with. Unfortunately, he claims that the entire idea of the "Jesus family tomb" should be forgotten because Mariamne isn't Mary Magdalene. Also it appeared to me that during the DNA segment of the television program, the producers made it perfectly known that the results obtained could only determine maternal relationships. In the end, Mr. White provides needed debated in the issue albeit unimpressive.
|
|
Name: Shlomo •
Date: 03/05/07 21:41 |
|
A: The idea of the likelihood of Jesus family having burial tombs in Jerusalem is very high. Historically and by your own covenant, philoalethinos, it is very plausible. Joseph of Arimathaea was of certain wealth as was Jesus father when he was alive. Carved out tombs went to the wealthy in Jerusalem, all others were buried in the ground. To your other comment pertaining to DNA likelihood. A family tomb is just what it is, a family tomb, not for strangers or gentile people to be included, which makes the probability that Mary Magdalene was related whether through marrige or otherwise. Most people do not know that most of the followers / desciples of Jesus were his immediate family. The Galileans, just like the Maccabeans were family oriented in their politics and warfare.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/05/07 21:47 |
A: Actually, Jesus family was not wealthy, we know this because Mary's offering at the temple at his birth was that of the poor not (two turtledoves) not that of the rich. Additionally, we have no early record of any of Jesus family living in Jerusalem other than Mary and James.
I think Mr White's argument makes a lot of sense on the basis of Mariamne, without that piece of evidence the statistical odds drops substantially.
|
|
Name: NormDoering •
Date: 03/06/07 12:24 |
A: Mr. Jacobovichi also argued how his own evidence was better than that of an archeologist who believed that back in 1990 the tomb of the "Caiaphas" family had been discovered and that this tomb had the bones of the very "Joseph, son of Caiaphas" that was the Jewish high priest who organized the plot to kill Jesus. The Caiaphas who convinced the Sanhedrin that Jesus should die and was also involved in the trial of Jesus after his arrest in the garden of Gethsemane.
If this Jesus isn't the Jesus of the New Testament, then why believe that their Caiaphas is the Caiaphas of the New Testament? Did anything in their tomb suggest any of that Caiaphas family had been high priests? Well, if that archeologist had anything it was edited out. It was a point that didn't boost Jacobovichi's own credibility but rather one that gave me less confidence in biblical archeology overall, which was pretty low to begin with.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 17:56 |
A: norm,
The difference is the amount of data available to corroborate with the find. We know a lot about Caiphas from the historical records and no one doubts. The only first century data we have on Jesus and His family is the New Testament gospels - their historic value is debated (my own conclusions from the externals is that it is quite high), and they don't provide a lot of details about Jesus homelife, since the focus primarily on his ministry, when he was away from home, and about a third of the references are devoted to the death and resurrection accounts.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/07/07 18:08 |
A: norm,
Think of Archeology as the sidekick of the historian, and for the Biblical archeologist, also the Biblical scholar. He provides data and can provide corroboration for conclusions previously made, but can't determine very much without historical/literary references (except, of course, where the archeology provides tablets or literary sources itself, those materials are the provience of both the archeologist and the other relavent fields).
|
|
Name: Xcavate •
Date: 03/08/07 5:36 |
|
A: Wow! I can't believe how close minded some people are. This is just the begining of this research. If Simcha and his team have made mistake's time will fix them but to just forget about this or to suggest that christians look away is a big mistake for christianity in my opinion.science should be our friend not our enemy. In the End the bible will Be Vindicated by science.
|
|
Name: Achaney •
Date: 03/09/07 8:10 |
|
A: You know whats ironic? In 1996, Author Paul L. Maier, wrote a christian fiction book called, "A skeleton in God's Closet", the kicker is, is that it's about a tomb being discovered with Jeus' body inside! Life has a strange way of reaching out to us. It's a good thing his book was fiction, because that's all it's really left as being.
|
|
Name: Mazzula •
Date: 03/13/07 18:17 |
A: Without getting to whose tomb this is, I don't think that the Scriptural testimony of the dove offering is ironclad evidence that Jesus' family was poor and it is even less evidence that they remained poor.
After all, the Magi had brought them kingly gifts just a short time before, so if Mary was willing to spend some of that gold she could have bought a lamb. Possibly the family had some means, but Mary interpreted her obligation as to offer the sacrifice out of her own separate wealth rather than out of family assets. Either that or the standard of affordability was ambiguous enough that the offering of doves was acceptable.
Consider the wedding at Cana. This was seemingly a lavish affair, so Mary's social circle at least intersected that of the wealthy of the neighboring town. And she was enough of an insider that she could give orders to the host's servants to obey her child, and these orders were obeyed without question. At the party, Mary is there with Jesus, no mention of Joseph. So it seems that perhaps she is living on her own, and by this time at least, as a woman of means and respected even before her son's ministry begins.
Still later, at the last supper, there is testimony that people thought Jesus and Judas were discussing finances--funding a feast or giving to the poor. If a poor man and his banker have a conversation, those topics aren't what most people would assume it was about. There were enough assets that when Jesus and Judas talked between themselves, people assumed it was about spending money.
And I don't think it is necessary that Jesus' family had money in order to explain a burial site. Wouldn't the many followers of Jesus have wanted the venerated family to have had a fitting tomb? The story of Joseph of Arimathea hints that wealthy people might have been interested in providing such a tomb. Jesus spoke to multitudes. The apostles were baptizing new converts by the thousands. Families at the center of sweeping religious movements may have few nominal possessions, but their lifestyles are often well-supported.
On the other hand, I don't agree with the statistical analysis of the names. That analysis underestimates the likelihood of systematic error. Followers of Jesus could have decided to name their family members after the family of Jesus--much as many families today have members all named after canonized saints. What is the likelihood that some random, wealthy Mary and Joseph, having becoming Christians, decide to name their children after the family of Jesus?
|
|
Name: Beth •
Date: 03/14/07 0:46 |
|
A: What does this have to do with "discrediting" Christianity? I am a Christian and I am excited about the findings. I follow the teachings of Jesus, his LIFE was his mission-not his death. Those who believe that he had to take his spleen with him to heaven are not the only Christians. Please don't assume to speak for all of us.There are those of us (many) who follow his teachings of peace. He taught us how to grow close to the Father through a pure heart--our own.
|
|
Name: lady andromeda •
Date: 03/14/07 5:10 |
|
A: Beth, I LOVE your philosophical view of it all! I truly believe you may be the wisest person on these forums! You are an excellent example of faith without fear! God Bless You Dear.
|
|
Name: A.R. •
Date: 03/15/07 20:33 |
A: The Church amongst other religious institutions have discreited themselves. How much money does a good teacher need to go amongst our fellow humans without profits? Greed and Profits for themselves while Millions have been abused, murder, raped, sicken, the list is endless. And for what BIGGER CHURCHS, HOMES, CARS, WARDROBES, JEWELRY, etc. While the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer.
Furthermore, DOES GOD REALLY NEED ALL THAT MONEY, HOMES, CARS WARDROBES, JEWELRY?????????
|
|
Name: TheNakedBoneHunter •
Date: 03/15/07 20:51 |
A: VERY IMPORTANT - SEE BELOW - email of JOE ZIAS, March 1, 2007 - CAN SOMEONE VERIFY THIS AS BEING THE GENUINE EMAIL FROM JOE ZIAS, if it is, then this is critical news ( Note: I am not the author of the following excerpt , The Naked Bone Hunter )
Time magazine again reports: "Asbury Theological Seminary professor Ben Witherington, a early Christianity expert who was deeply involved with the James Ossuary, says there are physical reasons to believe it couldn't have originated in the Talpiot plot." Following the lead of Time, I did my own detective work and checked out Ben Witherington's blogspot (see, www.benwitherington.blogspot.com).
Witherington claims: "Joe Zias is a fine archaeologist of long standing and good reputation. He is the person who catalogued the ten ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb, and personally catalogued the tenth ossuary. He worked with Amos Kloner as part of the team who made the original discovery. In two emails this morning to someone I have been talking to he made crystal clear that the tenth ossuary was blank, certainly was not the James ossuary at all despite the assertions of those involved in making the (Vision TV) special. These emails have been sent along to me, and I will let them speak for themselves.
Joe Zias [email protected]: Subject: Re: Jesus Tomb Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2007 6:02 AM
"Amos Kloner is right as I received and catalogued the objects, the 10th was plain and I put it out in the courtyard with all the rest of the plain ossuaries as was the standard procedure when one has little storage space available. Nothing was stolen nor missing and they were fully aware of this fact. It just didn't fit in with their agenda." Shalom, Joe.
The filmmakers were fully aware that the tenth ossuary in the so-called "Jesus family tomb" was blank, but it didn't fit in with their agenda. So they deliberately misled viewers with a spurious assertion that this was the James ossuary
END OF EXCERPT
CAN SOMEONE CONFIRM THIS WITH JOE ZIAS ?
|
|
Name: JoanieD •
Date: 04/06/07 4:08 |
A: http://www.joezias.com/tomb.html
To TheNakedBoneHunter, I can't answer your question about Joe Zias' email, but check out what Joe writes at the above URL I placed here. In that he says that one of the ossuaries in the tomb contained the bones of at least SIX people. He also said the way the DNA testing was done was terrible and the DNA that was found could have been the DNA of anyone who handled the ossuaries, including himself!
|
|
Name: JoanieD •
Date: 04/06/07 4:13 |
|
A: Oh, and about Joe Ziaz again....on his website at http://www.joezias.com/cv.html he shows his email address as being [email protected] which is one letter different from the one you posted in your email.
|
|
Name: QuebecIndieAnna •
Date: 12/26/14 2:44 |
A: .
December 25th 2014
Have just read a good article on the controversies.
The article is dated Feb 2014.
See is at
http://www.cjnews.com/news/jacobovi-ci-defends-his-reputation-court
Also-,- I believe Mr. Zias' education is in anthropology, not archaeology.
.
|
