|
Name: seasickgirl •
Title: DNA •
Date posted: 02/27/07 14:57
|
|
Q: I'm wondering why the DNA evidence was only being used to establish that "Jesus" and "Mariamne" were NOT related? Why can\'t DNA evidence also show that "Maria" IS related to "Jesus" and that the "brothers" and "son" ARE related to "Jesus"? It seems like the obvious question any unbiased investigator would ask. P.S. I'm not religious or non-religious, just a normal open-minded person.
|
|
|
|
Name: Jesus •
Date: 02/27/07 15:52 |
|
A: How could a comparison be made to conclude it is the DNA of Jesus.? I don’t get that part. Anyone else.?
|
|
Name: followingchrist82 •
Date: 02/27/07 16:24 |
|
A: This line of "evidence" is failed from the start because you don't have anything to compare it to. Jesus never visited a blood bank or left a hair follicle in a hairbrush! All you can establish is that some people in the tomb are related. You still have yet to establish this is the tomb of Jesus Christ, so of course, what can your DNA prove? It can't show it's Jesus, so any other evidence is useless. Of course the people in the tomb are probably related. It's a family tomb! You have to prove it's Jesus Christ's family first before DNA means anything! And I guarantee you, you will never find evidence of that.
|
|
Name: Abigail •
Date: 02/27/07 17:47 |
|
A: DNA testing today is so effective that it can be used to trace the residue in the ossuaries to the specific period and place in which an individual lived.
|
|
Name: Merovingian •
Date: 02/28/07 10:33 |
A: It is evective, when you can compare it with something....
I watched a movie in Discovery and they tried to taka the DNA from the bones of a woman, lived 18 and smth and they didnt succeed....so tell me about before 1000 or 2000 years:)
|
|
Name: Merovingian •
Date: 02/28/07 10:36 |
|
A: Opa.... effective and a woman lived in in 19th century.. 18 and smth
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 02/28/07 13:13 |
A: DNA can show the relationship IF you got something to sample. The ossuaries were emptied shortly after the find in 1980, and the bones have been reburied. Only fragments remained. Whether there were only fragments in the 2 ossuaries where the relationship has been tested, is not known to me.
It's not possible to link the DNA to anything else.
No one is claiming, that this is indeed the DNA of Jesus (the biblical Jesus). It's a possibility, that is corroborated by the names in the tomb. The relationship on the inscriptions and the DNA relationships that has been established also corresponds to the myth. Whether the other relationships are known (or left untold because they don't corroborate the above), is not known to me (I have to trust that the producers are telling all the facts).
|
|
Name: BeanSidhe •
Date: 03/01/07 0:48 |
|
A: here is my experience with volunteering on excavations and let in by real scientists that they do not tell full truths cause as they explained to me that it would to dangerous at that point to there research, when I was working I was not allowed anywhere near the research area I was given buckets of dirt to sift through many yards away under heavy servaliance
|
|
Name: osirius608 •
Date: 03/01/07 20:15 |
|
A: You need a source of absolute identification in order to compare...watch CSI, it'll teach you so much! But in this case, I have to agree with followingchrist82...there's nothing already existing from ANY of the parties in question to compare with.
|
|
Name: psidreamer •
Date: 03/05/07 4:30 |
|
A: One would think that since they did the DNA to show that Jesus and Mary were not related, and that the child's remains were also found, why did they not do a DNA analysis to see if the child held the same DNA as Jesus and Mary.....that might confirm a little bit more....
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/05/07 5:01 |
A: The DNA showed only that the Jesus in the ossuary and the Mariame did not share the same mother, and the supposition is they must have been married. Of course, its also likely that they are related paternally, that Mariname is married to someone else in the tomb, is a paternal cousin, etc.
The assignment of Mariame to Mary Magdalene is also questionable, since it seems to be based on a Nag Hammadi text, and very few scholars consider them of use in studying first century Church history, and the few who do seem to be more often ideologically driven than on a purely evidentary perspective.
|
|
Name: InterestedParty •
Date: 03/12/07 0:45 |
A: Any DNA testing requires funding, as I was told today in email. I can imagine that it is quite expensive to submit samples for testing.
They did the first DNA on the Jesus and Mariamne bone boxes to determine if they were maternally related.
Personally I look forward to future discovery and if in fact the other bone boxes contain DNA that links them to the Jesus and Mary boxes.
Especially the child.
|
|
Name: bbsmommy •
Date: 10/27/07 19:57 |
A: James Cameron could get millions if he really wanted to complete this research!! This is why the story died.... too many holes.
I agree with seasickgirl, while watching the program, I was screaming,
"TEST THE KID! TEST THE KID!"
Or, if they can only get mitochondrial DNA from the remnants, test Mary and her other sons.
Again, Cameron could definitely afford at least one more DNA test!!
Please!
|
