Name:DontBeNaive •
Title: Come on people, you can't really belive this crap! •
Date posted: 03/05/07 6:50
Q: Where to begin... There are so many problems to point out, forgive me if I miss some.
First, we're led to believe that James Cameron, maker of Titanic and Terminator, is producing a documentary about an archeologic discovery that will supposedly challenge 2 thousand years of Theology. In the Ted Koppel interview after the show, Journalist Simcha Jacobovici admits that the film is more of a "docu-drama" than a documentary. Herein lies many problems. The illustrations and dramatizations that the film makers use to support their evidence is incredibly biased. The "witch hunt" method they use is grossly evident in the way that they consistently follow leads that support their theories, rather than just following the trail of the facts they uncover. This is clearly the case when they pursue the notion that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife. They went down a very shaky path of evidence to begin with, but then they assert the theory to be fact after a DNA test confirms that the remains in one ossuary was a non-match to the remains in another. True, this indicates that the two bodies that were once entombed in these stone boxes were not blood related... but what about the DNA consistencies with the other 8 remains found in the tomb? Oh, and do I have to remind everyone that we are working under the assumption that these two ossuaries contained Jesus and Mary Magdalene? It's hard to even believe that much of the story. They grab at straws in deciphering and interpret the epigraphic evidence that supports this.
Next, let's look at the fact that this tomb was discovered in 1980. Are we to believe that the combined strength of acedmia, theology, archaeology, anthropology, and a bunch more "ologies" had just overlooked this for the past 27 years? What does James Cameron take me for? A big deal was never made of it for the simple fact that no one found it to have any legitimate scientific or historical significance. I can only guess the film maker felt that the more BS he threw at the story, the easier we'd be able to just forget about that little tidbit. Or maybe, he truly felt deep down in his heart of hearts that the world just overlooked this compelling evidence for 27 years. Hmm.
Simply put, if you have to add dramatic effect to support your facts, then your facts weren't strong enough to stand on their own. If anything, that just takes credibility away from the facts. If these guys set out to do a docu-drama, then call it what it is. Don't tell the world that this is a fact-based documentary if it is in fact a dramatic interpretation of one... that's just deceiptful. Kudos though to Ted Koppel for keeping it real during the debate. That was the only part of this whole thing that in my view saved the Discovery Channel. Had they not aired that 1 hour critical evaluation by Ted and the gang, I'd probably have a tough choice to make about my future relationship with one of my favorite channels.
Not only did Cameron throw stones at religion, but he put a big black eye on archaeology. Archaeology is a science of truth, not haphazzard theories mixed with dramatic inference meant to shock people. He made a big mistake here... He should have stuck with the big screen.
Name:mjva •
Date: 03/05/07 12:19
A: Well, I want to believe it but, you make some compelling points. What say you Simcha? Cameron?
Name:SpiritWoman •
Date: 03/05/07 13:05
A: Greetings Dontbeniave,
I think they did a very good job using all of the above Quote; ologies.
They also did say in the Film that it was clearly a Docudrama.
So what's the beef?
Have you seen anyone physically rise off thier feet and be swept away on a cloud lately?
Scientifically it can happen. During tornados and hurricanes maybe, but they are always assumed Dead and lost or usually are found somewhere on earth, dead or alive.
You forgot to add the superstitious nature of man into the mythology.
So, because 500 witnesses proclaimed to have "SEEN" Jesus after his ressurection 2000 years ago, that smacks as viable evidence more than a coincidence that a tomb holding the bodies of what is known to be Jesus family names is not. Where's the balance here? It's almost amusing how off the mark people will go when a lack of integrity holds the ego so steadfastly.
These filmakers never said this was fact. Never. So get off the podeum, clean your ears and eyes, and rewatch the film.
Cameron did a good job telling a story with viable evidence using historical documentation and scientific study.
He even had actors play the roles of these people that clearly identify them with thier indigenous roots.
Until someone can scientifically come up with a way to levitate all the way through the earth's atmosphere and live, I'd say they have a pretty good arguement.
Peace
SW
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/05/07 14:04
A: The reason no one has made the connection is the preconceived notion, that Jesus was poor. That he didn't live in Jerusalem, and that he didn't have a son named Judah.
Either that, or the socalled scientists were afraid of the flack they would catch from christianity......
Any true scientist would examine the case based on facts. That is a forensic examination of the evidence, and not just a categorically rejection based on where they thought Jesus lived, his maritial status or how wealthy he was.
Name:guahould •
Date: 03/05/07 14:19
A: You know what???? A big deal was not made of it because it was known that there would be too many gulls not wanting to see the possibilities. So,,, it sounds like you believe the bible to be fact,,,, do you realise how rediculous some of the stories are in there?? And you are trying to say that this docu-drama (however you wish to call it) is rediculous????? WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! THIS IS 2007 ,, HELLO ?? ANYONE IN THERE?????
-
Th-
Name:dougntam •
Date: 03/05/07 14:20
A: So fine they made it compelling for television. Does that make the fact that they found the tomb with the names any less valid. Facts are facts the names were there thats undisputed. On that basis alone people should take notice and more investigation should be done. The director himself said all he was doing was opening the door so the "ologies" that be could look.
Name:SpiritWoman •
Date: 03/05/07 17:07
A: greetings golfdane,
On the contrary, Joseph of Aramithea gave his tomb to the family for the burial of Jesus.
Jesus died in Jeruselum in Golgatha which is very close to the discovered tomb.
So what's the beef? Do you accept the evidence in the Bible?
Just because the bible does not account for a son doesn't make it an impossibility, nor does it debunct his being married as G_D first commandment to Adam was to be fruitful and multiply.
Jesus would, being a Rabbi, be bound by traditonal hebrew practice be married by a very earlly age. Even betrothed before puberty is an acceptable consideration.
Let's put it this way. The IA has proclaimed the discovery of Ciaphus tomb. They have proclaimed this tomb to hold the actual ossuary of the Ciaphus that condemned Jesus. If they found His wife and sons ossuaries would you state it was a Lie because no where in the bible is it documented?
People tour Isreal everyday, visit what is beleived to be the tomb of Jesus, the site of his crucifction, the path it was beleived he took during the passion. Did they rely on biblical text for these discoveries? Or was it just an historical assumption based on what facts?
Peace
SW
Name:graham •
Date: 03/05/07 17:18
A: heh heh well put.....but I think alot of people here would rather put there faith...in this fellow simcha....guess alot of these people feel slighted by christianity.....simcha after all can offer then .....everlasting life? naa just entertainment for 2 hours...and he has his pseudo investigation/science to back him....how can ya compete with that....? heh heh
Name:Wes Boll •
Date: 03/05/07 17:23
A: I agree , Ted Copple looked like an idiot!!! True or Not True the story does not effect my faith!! I find it very interesting and great history if it is proven true!! I DO FIND DISTURBING , That somewhere in the last 100 years or so sobody decided it was OK to dig up burial tombs, dump the bones in a graveyard and show and or sell the coffins with the dearly departed names on them!!!What is up with that!!!Hope we have not done that with the the Indian's. If anyone out there knows exactly how the bones were burried and or names were tracked PLEASE LET ME KNOW!!! ALSO,if the faithfull believed that when one rises to Jesus the Body goes with it didn't they have to wonder when they came back a year later after the body had decompossed and only bones were left that something was not going well with that belief????Thanks, WES
Name:Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/05/07 17:26
A: The world is full of dramitizations that depict Jesus as sexless. For there to be one version that offers Jesus as a man who had a wife and child doesn't mean that people are going to abandon their faith.
He had to compete with a lot of religious images. I'm glad he used the dramatizations. I watch a lot of documentaries, dramatization is very common. It's another way to communicate an idea. That's all it is.
Name:DontBeNaive •
Date: 03/06/07 4:51
A: Some good counter points... Thank you all for your comments.
To "mjva": Thanks!
To "SpiritWoman": No, I've never seen anyone rise off their feet and get swept away on a cloud lately. And, superstition and mythology are antiquated references to the point I was making. I wasn't making a case for my faith (simply because I knew that it would attract an army of replies like yours). I was debating the choice that the film makers made to label the show as a documentary (and yes, they did label it that way). So, although attacking the notion of faith was a noble effort (allbeit unrelated to the post), you failed to make any significant, thought provoking points.
To "golfdane": You answered your own questions. You're saying that no one made the connection because they were worried about the controversy that could arise... but then you say "ANy true scientists would examine the case based on fact." So, James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici were the first "real scientists" to come along (after 27 years)???
To "guahold": Yea, it's 2007, uhm thanks! By the way, it's "ridiculous"...
To "dougntam": Good point. My problem was moreso the way I felt the message was delivered. If, like Simcha said, they film makers truly wanted to just trigger a debate, why not just provide the facts and leave out the stuff that tries to "convince" people that their shaky hypothesis is fact? In my opinion, it would have been more appropriate to market the film in an editorial context.
To "graham": It's unfortunate. It's no secret I'm Christian, but with this post I really tried hard to just stick to refuting the film based on it's substance. The unfortunate part is I shouldn't have had to omit the importance of faith... but we live in strange world now. Many people are so quick to believe the sensationalized rants of a 2 hour television drama, over a couple thousand year old religion. Its a shame - and I don't want to pass judgement on people for their lack of faith. Faith isn't the belief in something that's ficticious; it's the trust in something that hasn't yet been proven. Very simple. A good modern day comparison might be global warming. No definitive proof has ever been found that hydrocarbons and greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere by humans has caused the planet's mean temperature to increase. Most scientists conceed that the increase in temperature could also be the result of a phased climate change that has occurred several times in Earth's history. But most of us put our faith in the fact that humans (who have only been around a few thousand years) have begun to destroy a planet that's endured millions of years of catastrophic environmental changes that mother nature has dished out to it. But try and get people to believe in a supreme being... much more difficult.
To "Wes Boll": I think Ted Koppel was biased in the debate; but, I think he needed to be. The film had two hours to get its point across... the people contesting it had one. And, I agree that we shouldn't be digging up tombs.
To "Mark-Tao": I agree that most people of faith will not abandon their beliefs. However, for those whose faith has been shaken, or for those who lack the intellectual tools to pick through the fluff presented to them... in that respect, the film may have been irresponsible. And, to the point of using dramatization to convey a point - Yes, it's a strong and compelling tool for film makers to illustrate a hypothesis... I'm just saying that this particular film drew its own conclusions, presented them as fact, and then used dramatization to reinforce it. Good points!
Name:tony34 •
Date: 03/06/07 4:55
A: And do you realize how ridiculous this story yesterday was?
Name:SpiritWoman •
Date: 03/06/07 13:32
A: Greetings DontBeNaive,
Your Response to me;
"To "SpiritWoman": No, I've never seen anyone rise off their feet and get swept away on a cloud lately. And, superstition and mythology are antiquated references to the point I was making. I wasn't making a case for my faith (simply because I knew that it would attract an army of replies like yours). I was debating the choice that the film makers made to label the show as a documentary (and yes, they did label it that way). So, although attacking the notion of faith was a noble effort (allbeit unrelated to the post), you failed to make any significant, thought provoking points.
My reponse;
How could I not miss the bias in your original post? Though you tried to leave it out you were doing a bad job.
I can't help it that I recognize a Bleeding Heart. Only "One of Faith" can see a lost sheep.
So that being said, I have faith, but it is and always will be led by a pure heart. You see I do beleive in the WORD OF CHRIST and not his false prophets. Which in the world are in multitude. Follow the cash flow.
And Yes, your point was Science is not to be trusted, but the superstitions of the mass should forever be first and foremost the thought provoking force of power used by those who would exploit it.
Let's keep those false prophets in the Money.
Your last post clearly defines your thought process.
Your Quote;
"Not only did Cameron throw stones at religion, but he put a big black eye on archaeology. Archaeology is a science of truth, not haphazzard theories mixed with dramatic inference meant to shock people. He made a big mistake here... He should have stuck with the big screen."
My reply;
Archeology is the discovery of truth of origin and if not for numerous theory, no truth can be discerned. And some times can only be theorized, most intellegent people know this, but still keep an open mind.
Get over the dramatization. Just because a filmmaker puts Creativity in his work, it does not make it true.
Or do you not read you bible and just look at the pictures to gather your knowledge of Creator?
Gathering from your last post, you pick and choose your catagory of sciences to defend. Is it only when it suits your ego?
Your point on global warming completely smells like one who picks and chooses what is right with science and what is wrong with it based on a imbedded human instinct of self destruction which unfortunately is promoted by Abrahamic Lore/Myth/Supestitions to dominate the earth and exploit it for personal wealth and purpose. The direct opposite of what Jesus taught.
You throw away any scientific theory or discovery that does not suit your personal need for redemption and transendance as well as guilt of self awareness and the need to satiate your life at the cost of future lives without so much as taking responsibility of investigating it's truth.
This I'm afraid is the true culprit to the demise of Christ. For Most Christians still idolize personal flesh, both themselves and thier misguided leadership, instead of the Spirit and It's future Hosts.
Simply put, your point on dramatic affects are plastered all over the cannon to dramatize the body/flesh of Christ/ManG_D to support false prophets , when they couldn't convince those il-literate and superstitious pagen folks that the Holy Spirit resided in ALL. That would make everyone to equal now wouldn't it.
Peace
SW
Name:slyfoxx •
Date: 03/06/07 15:13
A: I suppose a virgin having a baby, walking on water, parting waters, fitting species of every kind on one boat, 2 people starting the population, rising from the dead and the list goes on is so much more believeable???
Name:NormDoering •
Date: 03/06/07 16:09
A: One thing that Mr. Jacobovichi said still sticks no matter how bad you think the show was - and that's the fact that this isn't over.
I reviewed the show on my blog:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/
And while I was very critical in the end Mr. Jacobovichi still has a real possibility on his hands that needs to be further explored.
I like the fact that he is opening minds to the possibility.
Name:NormDoering •
Date: 03/06/07 16:15
A: DontBeNaive wrote:
"Next, let's look at the fact that this tomb was discovered in 1980. Are we to believe that the combined strength of acedmia, theology, archaeology, anthropology, and a bunch more "ologies" had just overlooked this for the past 27 years?"
Ah, yes!
You Can't Assume What You Don't Believe - nor can you even suspect it.
Why would Christians expect to find the body of Jesus? They'll look at that name and assume it's some other guy named Jesus.
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/
Name:Zazzle •
Date: 03/06/07 16:54
A: "Come on people, you can't really believe this crap! "
Did you know there are thousands among thousand of people that believed this and based a religions on, what you like to call "Crap", centuries before this tomb was even thought to be looked into. Have you heard of the word "Gnostic"? It is an actual religion and a Christian faith at that.
So for those who don’t believe, not necessarily if this is a valid tomb of Christ, but what these finding implies then don’t. But don’t accuse it of being ridiculous or "Crap" because all you are doing is bashing another's faith.
"ologies" had just overlooked this for the past 27 years? "
Why not? The mere mention of these findings have set such a sour note among the biggest and more powerful religions because of the belief it shakes their foundations of their faiths. So why not keep this "under the carpet" as long as possible?
"Not only did Cameron throw stones at religion"
What do you think what your post did?
I have studied several different religions through out the years. The history of their beginnings and what they are based on. If more people did this with just their own faith, there would be a lot of surprising changes made in some of the biggest faiths in the world.
I was very pleased that someone finally had the nerve to explore this subject as deep as they did and informed the public the way they did.
