Name:sadinoel •
Title: Discovery Channel to Correct Misleading Information! •
Date posted: 04/11/07 15:19
Q: The grand conspiracy has even reached their own experts now! lmao
(That was sarcasm for those drunk on Kool-aid who might think it was serious)
Read and enjoy the truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery- Channel to Update Interpretation of 600:1 Odds Claim #4807 On Fri, 2007 03 09 22:53 joedmello said, I am pleased to state that as a result of several e-mail exchanges I have had with Dr. Andrey Feuerverger over the past few days, and a phone conversation with him this morning which confirmed our informal understanding reached by e-mail yesterday, he has agreed that the following two statements made on Discovery Channel’s website:
1. “A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery
Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in
favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.”
(from http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/about/about.html)
2. Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics & mathematics at the
University of Toronto, has concluded a high statistical probability that The
Talpiot tomb is the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. In a study, Feuerverger examined the
cluster of names in the tomb ……
Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a
family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the odds – on the most
conservative basis – are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. A
statistical probability of 600 to 1 means that this conclusion works 599 times
out of 600.
(from http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb-/explore/media/tomb_evidence.pdf)
AR-E- NOT A CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF HIS STATISTICAL COMPUTATIONS.
He has also confirmed for me that, at his urging, Discovery Channel has agreed to “undertake the required updates to their website”.
As evidence of this, I have appended at the end of this message the relevant portions of the last few emails I exchanged with Dr. Feuerverger.
Dr. Feuerverger indicates that an accurate interpretation of his results are to be found at his recently updated “Tomb Computation” link on his University of Toronto website. Please note the following excerpts from that website:
A. It is not in the purview of statistics to conclude whether or not this tomb site is that of the New Testament family. Any such conclusion much more rightfully belongs to the purview of biblical historical scholars who are in a much better position to assess the assumptions entering into the computations.
B. The role of statistics here is primarily to attempt to assess the odds of an equally (or more) `compelling' cluster of names arising purely by chance under certain random sampling assumptions and under certain historical assumptions In this respect I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the NT family.
C. The computations do not take into account families who could not afford ossuary burials or who did not have sufficient literacy to have their ossuaries inscribed, and does not take into account families living outside of the Jerusalem area.
I wish to thank Dr. Feuerverger immensely for his efforts to ensure that the viewing public receives the honest and truthful reporting they are entitled to! I also hope and trust that Discovery Channel will follow suit and retract these inaccuracies quickly.
As I have stated before, my efforts were never aimed at defending Christianity, because I truly believe that all religions must and will eventually reconcile themselves with science and our God-given reason. It is not Christianity that is at stake here but the honest and enlightened use, application, and interpretation of science and reason. Discovery Channel’s unqualified assertions that the 600:1 odds are specifically associated with the tomb in question being that of the New Testament Jesus family are, in my opinion, untenable and inaccurate in light of the clarifications on Dr. Feuerverger’s website.
======================================================
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 16:08:47 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrey Feuerverger
To: [email protected]
i wanted to mention that thanks to your having pointed it out to me
i have managed to get discovery to undertake the required updates
to their website.
best
andrey f.
======================================================
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:56:59 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe D'Mello
Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Reference to "Dr. Feuerverger's Study"
To: Andrey Feuerverger
Great, Andrey! …..By the way, while you at it, kindly also make sure that the following statement at http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/about/about.html on Discovery's site
"A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family."
is reworded to appropriately reflect your statistical findings. I'll call you tomorrow.
Joe
======================================================
Andrey Feuerverger wrote:
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 20:23:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Andrey Feuerverger
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Discovery Channel Reference to "Dr. Feuerverger's Study"
hi joe
you are right about the mismatch between the two sites and thanks for
pointing it out. i will get on this right away.
best
andrey
====================-==================================
Date:- Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:00:24 -0800 (PST)
From: "Joe D'Mello"
Subject: Discovery Channel Reference to "Dr. Feuerverger's Study"
To: Andrey Feuerverger
Hi Andrey,
I'll talk to you tomorrow. I'm sure you have read this already, but just in case you have not, I've appended below (verbatim) the reference to you and your work on Discovery Channel's website (which, of course, is clearly not consistent with your assertions in "The Tomb Computation" on your website).
...
Joe
Name:onewhoknows •
Date: 04/11/07 18:38
A: About the statistics of 600 to 1. Does that take into consideration that several groups of people in the first few centuries A.D. would have loved to discredit the resurrection? What does it do to the stats if one of these groups actually set up a hoax tomb to mislead the early Christians or Crusaders?
Once, I bought a powder horn at an antique show for around ten bucks. On the way home, I realized that it had the name "Daniel Boone" carved in the side. Now, what is the probability that it was Boone's powder horn, as opposed to a hoax inscription?
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/11/07 18:42
A: Cluster of a group of certain names plus DNA results plus a plausible theory with biblical explanations or references and the probability ratio should be upgraded to more than a possibility.My answer would be ABSOLUTE.There is no question in my mind that The Tomb is the real one.
Name:onewhoknows •
Date: 04/11/07 19:14
A: Dear Panluna... So there is DNA. How do you know it is Jesus'? If the tomb was hoaxed in the early centuries, the bones could have belonged to ANYONE....a Roman soldier, a Crusader, or a murdered family.
I have studied the Shroud of Turin for almost 30 years now. The evidence that it has in favor of a resurrected Jesus, FAR out weighs a tomb with inscriptions that could have easily been hoaxed. Before you attack the Shroud... you need to read about the latest on it. Work is being done in Holland now, that shows the image is like a quantum hologram. AND this is just scratching the surface of some really mind boggling information that will soon be unlocked.
Name:OneGod •
Date: 04/11/07 23:32
A: @onewhoknows
I think it's funny how the "Tomb" has to be hoax but you think the shroud is genuine. That image on the shroud just looks way too fake to me. I'm not saying the tomb is the tomb of Jesus but the shroud is a real leap of faith.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/12/07 15:22
A: @Onewhoknows,
Does the material on the Shroud of Turin match the material found in the ossuary of Jesus Son of Joseph mentioned in the book The Jesus Family Tomb?Also is there any way they can do DNA testing or at least get the results to see if there is match with the test done on Padre Pio and the residue found in ossuary of Jesus?I have a theory that the Saints in the Catholic church along with other visionaries of different faiths could have a common genectic origin and may be related.You seem to have scientific access to these items and I'm only stuck with reading about everything and drawing my own conclusions based on the facts presented.
I don't feel that the Tomb is a hoax.and I believe that the Cloth of Turin is genuine for its date of origin.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/12/07 15:46
A: The inscriptions on the ossuaries were in Aramaic and the inverted V and the circle at the entrance are the Aramaic letters of Gamel and Teth.You can look those up on the website WIKIPEDIA under alphabets.Unless you have hard evidence that there was a switch in the contents of the ossuaries then the bones can still be matched with their boxes.I doubt who ever disturbed that Tomb ,maybe IT was the Templars who set those three skulls in a ritual pattern or someone else possibly ,but the bones were layed to rest according to the custom of Jesus' time.The Ossuary funeral practise lasted a hundred years.Also the Cloth of Turin could have been removed from any crypt during the Crusades.They will just have to do some testing on the material from the ossuary and the cloth to know for sure.
Name:hayomtov8 •
Date: 04/12/07 18:01
A: A: HEY GUYS,
RELIGIOUS OR NOT ,BELIEVER OR UNBELIEVER, NATURALIST OR CREATIONIST.COME ON! YOU ARE NOT DOING YOUR HOME WORK . THIS IS A FORGERY! A HOAX ! ALL OF YOU WHO ARE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THIS FAKE FRAUDAULENT FIND ARE GOING TO HAVE EGG ON YOUR FACES!! THIS IS GOING TO END UP STRENGTHENING THE CHRISTIANS POSITION WATCH!!! IT IT IS A STRAW DOG FOR SURE. THERE ARE SO MANY RED FLAGS TO THE DISCRIMINATING MIND. MARK MY WORDS!! I PROMISE I WILL POST NO OTHER STATEMENTS UNTIL THAT DAY WHICH HAS ALREADY BEGUN . THE TRICKLE OF DETRACTIONS,RESHUFFLELING,RETRACTIONS WILL BECOME A RAGING RIVER!!!!! ON THAT DAY I WILL POST AGAIN,SO UNTIL THEN KEEP......(FILL IN THE BLANKS WITH WHAT EVER YOU CALL YOURSELVES DOING).
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/12/07 18:20
A: @Hayomtov8
Do you know something we don't know????SPILL!!! Inquiring minds want to know.There was a second tomb under the Talpiot apartment complex.Have the archeologists been able to examine it?And was it a section set aside for ancestors and descendants of Jesus and close relations?
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/12/07 18:55
A: @Hayomtov8
P.S. HAVE YOU READ THE JESUS FAMILY TOMB yet?The evidence is very compelling and convincing.The odds of 600 to 1 will be changed to 100%absolutly and positively NO Doubts whatsoever that this the Jesus family tomb.Believing the truth which is based on facts doesn't eternally damn someone.It just opens their eyes and mind.What are you afraid of?The world ain't going to end at least not at this time.
As far the ressurection was concerned He was raised in spirit just like all the rest of us when we die.Believing in the afterlife is just psychological comfort for the living.You can read the bible literally or read between the lines.and study how the Bible evolved resulting in it present format.As a matter of fact there is method on soft ware which used for bible prophecies.You can even find out your own fate from it.
Name:sadinoel •
Date: 04/13/07 16:57
A: Panlua,
You are apparently lacking in critical thinking ability. I can help.
1) the DNA they do have only proves that the "Mary" and "Jesus" were not related. This proves nothing to assert the case that its the historical Jesus of the NT.
2) EVEN IF they had Jesus ACTUAL DNA to compare the bones to, the odds can NEVER be 100%. The best that you could ever hope to claim would be that there is a very high probability. DNA testing NEVER provides 100% proof. It is scientifically impossible.
3) The cluster of names and the 600:1 odds are BEING REFUTED BY THEIR OWN STATS doctor. Didn't you read my post? Go back and try to make sense of it before posting meaningless comments next time. You make a lot of assertions but you have not once backed up anything with a fact that I have seen.
4) To compound the numerous problems with their case and your supporting it, the name that supposedly means "Mary Magdalene" on the Ossuary, was NOT USED IN that form to mean Mary Mag. until the 4th century. This is the MOST damaging to the case. How could a reference to a person used in the first century mean something that did not appear until the 4th century? It's not possible. Once this is removed from the equation, the statistics are totally blown. WHich of course Simcha knew, which of course is why he backfit the data to match his supposition. Again, its shoddy, if not downright deceptive, pseudo-science.
Now please attempt to digest this information free of whatever personal feelings you may have on the subject. Also, sign up for a critical thinking class at your local community college. It will not only help you identify hoaxes like this one, but will help you protect yourself from panhandlers, televangelists, and AMWAY salespeople.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/13/07 17:48
A: @Sandinoel,
I sell AMWAY products!!!!haha just kidding.Do you honestly think that I am incapable of making a logical deduction based on the facts presented?The fact of Mary Magdalene represented as Mariame was verified in the book .Magdalene was the village she came.People in those days were indentified by where they come or what they did as living or their relationship.The practise of using sur-names namely last names wasn't used by everyone.Examples:Joseph OF Aramethia or Joseph THE Carpenter Or Jesus Son Of Joseph Or Judah son JesusThe chances of a cluster of names fitting the New Testament family of Jesus plus the inscriptions with their names that a specialist in rare languages(Aramaic) identified plus the tomb markings and the fact that untill 1980 the ossuaries had remained undisturbed---the tomb was entered by someone possibly during the Crusades and may have been discovered at other times before the State of Isreal was established after World War Two.The main point is:the ossuaries were undisturbed and the Aramaic inscriptions identified these citizens of antiquity as His family.And as different groups of pilgrims visited and the bible evovled the spelling of the names were changed from the original Aramaic.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/13/07 18:50
A: The DNA tests proved that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not related.Due to carelessness in handling the find in 1980 and the events surrounding the discovery they were unable to test Judah's bones. Fitting the pieces of the puzzle together with the scriptures from the books excluded from the New Testament sheds a new light on the whole story.Those books are mentioned in The Jesus Family Tomb,along with the facts and the sequence of events leading to this discovery.As far as I'm concerned I'm 100% sure. that this discovery is genuine.Religious scepticsm could keep anyone from viewing this event clearly.It would put someone in a state of denial if they had been raised with strong Christian beliefs and don't want to deal with the facts.It's like having the rug pulled out from under you.And you just don't where you are going to land.
@Sandinoel,
I did take a Philosophy course in college which taught me logical deductions dealing with facts.My only problem is typos and sometimes I miss a word or two.I'm not a copy-editor.When it comes to percentages there is always an element of doubt that is allowable room for error if or when a new factor emerges.Untill something is proven I can be very difficult to sell to.
Name:onewhoknows •
Date: 04/14/07 13:34
A: Dear Panluna and others, You say that the DNA of Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not related.... Again I ask how do you know it was their DNA? It could have been ANYONE's DNA and ANYBODY could have forged the names on the ossuary. It is interesting that you talked about "the rug being pulled out". Yes, I think the rug WAS pulled out, perhaps from underneath the feet of the Crusaders. It is very possible that the hoax tomb was intact during the Crusades and this probably did all kind of damage to their morale. The knowledge of it may have led to the Knights of Templar and other secret societies. BUT it still doesn't prove that it wasn't a ruse, that some people who thought they were "enlightened" fell for. (Please don't be one of them!)
As for the Shroud, I will give you some websites and a new video to watch. Many of you won't accept the Shroud research, because you have a strong mindset of not wanting to believe in the Resurrection. I didn't believe in the Resurrection for a while either, but the Shroud has made a believer out of me. If you want to find the TRUTH you need to study this one of a kind relic with an unbiased mind . The Shroud image is amazing, and actually beyond comprehension of modern science, right now, although its secrets are being unlocked gradually. One of you said it "looks fake". Well, that isn't very scientific, is it? Instead you should study the VP3 image analysis (the same kind that NASA uses in space exploration). Its 3D properties are one of the properties that intrigues modern scientists. Also the NEGATIVE photographic image is what is amazing (because it is actually a positive!)
Current studies are being done on the Shroud in Holland, and they are finding quantum holographic information. In fact there is four times the amount of information in the image than they expected. Particle physicists are kicking around words like "event field" and "singualrity" when the theorize how the image was made. These terms are also used when they talk about "the big bang theory". These terms are somewhat over my head, but I know it has to do with properties of physics that we don't often see in our world. What some non scientific people would describe as "miraculous".
So here are two resources (out of the thousands available) you really SHOULD look into. New DVD "The Fabric of Time" (You can get it off amazon.com.) and the website www.shroudstory.com. Also you are invited to my personal blog -- http://amazingshroud.blogspot.com. I would love to discuss the Shroud research with you further.
Name:OneGod •
Date: 04/14/07 15:57
A: I watched Secrets of the Dead, Shroud of Christ? wednesday night on PBS. I don't really care enough to argue the point but it looks like an obvious fake to me. It reminds me of crop circles and "the evidence" that the circles aren't man made. Both are such obvious fakes with crack pot science saying they aren't fakes.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/14/07 15:59
A: The only thing I know about the Cloth of Turin is that it was brought back from Jerusalem during one of the Crusades,survived a fire with little damage and is still an object of tests and debate.Did the material from the Cloth match the blood on the shroud sample from the ossuary?Results can go either way.But I'm in favor of the ossuaries being genuine after reviewing the ALL Factors.I'm not saying THE CLOTH OF TURIN is a fake either .Do the fiber and blood samples match ?
Name:Todd •
Date: 04/14/07 18:01
A: onewhoknows,
Déjà vu all over again,
I have just browsed the link you gave to The Shroud of Turin. Compelling reading. Thank-you.
I remember the big press conference denouncing the validity of the Shroud being a 1st century relic. Fast forward…better technology, better methodology, and it may be from the 1st century. This is why I love History, Science, and Archeology so much. It seems just when you figure it all out and say, “this is definitely the way it is or is not”, something comes up and turns it on it’s ear. Almost as if it is living, breathing and changing with the culture of the times.
To me the Shroud debate and the Talpiot tomb debate have similar synergies’.
Quotes from the article,
“Nature published a commentary by scientist-journalist Philip Ball. "Attempts to date the Turin Shroud are a great game,” he wrote, “but don't imagine that they will convince anyone . . . The scientific study of the Turin Shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than settle it.” Later in his commentary Ball added, “And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artifact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made.”
I think this is just what Jacobovici has done, albeit from the perspective of a film maker and an investigative journalist. He has inflamed the debate more than settled it.
“Ball, who understood the chemistry of the Shroud of Turin images, rejected a notion popularized by conspiracy theorists that Leonardo da Vinci created the Shroud's image using primitive photography. He called the idea flaky. He also debunked the sometimes reported speculation that the image was “burned into the cloth by some kind of release of nuclear energy” from Jesus’ body. This he said was wild.”
I’m surprised no one is saying that da Vinci did the Talpoit tomb. He seems to get credit for almost every alternative theory/discovery about Christianity.
“Almost all serious Shroud of Turin researchers agree with Ball on these points. When flaky and wild ideas appear in newspaper articles or on television, as they often do, scientists cringe. Rogers referred to those who held such views as being part of the “lunatic fringe” of Shroud research. But Rogers was just as critical of those who, without the benefit of solid science, declared the Shroud of Turin a fake. They, too, were part of the lunatic fringe.”
O.K. where am I going with this….
I think the last paragraph has eloquently put my thoughts about the Talpiot Tomb into the same perspective. What we think today as being definitive might turn out tomorrow to be different. The evidence today raises way more questions than it settles but the dialogue that has ensued is, to me, what is great about this “discovery”.
Todd
Name:OneGod •
Date: 04/14/07 20:31
A: Addressing the original topic:
Change 1:
"Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics & mathematics at the University of toronto, has concluded a high statistical probability that the Talpiot tomb is the JESUS FAMILY TOMB."
changed to
"Dr. Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics at the University of Toronto, has concluded (subject to the stated historical assumptions) that it is unlikely that an equally ”surprising” cluster of names would have arisen by chance under purely random sampling."
Change 2:
"Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the odds – on the most conservative basis – are 600 to 1 in favor of this being the JESUS FAMILY TOMB. A statistical probability of 600 to 1 means that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600."
changed to
"Taking into account the chances that these names would be clustered together in a family tomb, this statistical study concludes that the probability under random chance of observing a cluster of names as compelling as this one within the given population parameters is 600 to 1, meaning that this conclusion works 599 times out of 600."
Change 3:
"A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family."
changed to
"A statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters (Discovery Channel/Vision Canada/C4 UK) concludes that the probability factor is in the order of 600 to 1 that an equally "surprising" cluster of names would arise purely by chance under given assumptions."
These changes really don't change anything do they?
Name:onewhoknows •
Date: 04/14/07 22:16
A: To OneGod ... "Under given assumptions" could mean a lot! For example.... "under the given assumption that the tomb was not hoaxed in the first few centuries"..... I don't accept this assumption and don't see how it can be proven. Unless this assumption is proven, the statistics are moot (doubtful/debatable/worthless).
Name:onewhoknows •
Date: 04/14/07 22:41
A: To Todd: I see you know a lot about the Shroud. I have portions of the last interviews that B. Scwortz had with the late Ray Rogers. He thought that the "invisible weave theory" (Benford/Marino) that explained the medieval carbon dating of the Shroud was from the "lunatic fringe". He was somewhat disgruntled by this "off the wall" theory, and set out to disprove it with samples he had of the Shroud.
Within an hour, instead of disproving it, he proved that the carbon 14 sample was very different in composition than the linen in the rest of the Shroud.
So sometimes the "lunatic fringe" is crazy, and other times they are right :-) !
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/14/07 22:48
A: Sounds like someone is running around in circles saying the same thing two different ways.Where did you get the report from?
Name:OneGod •
Date: 04/14/07 23:02
A: @Panluna
What I posted came from uhl dot com. Dr. Pfann has posted a list refuting the movie. Everything posted is as flimsy as the claims in the movie.
Name:onewhoknows •
Date: 04/14/07 23:05
A: Dear Panluna, The DNA from the blood stains on the Shroud are degraded by age, but there has been some testing done on them by the University of Texas. However, this testing was not done on "officially approved" samples by the Vatican, so they do not call the results official.
But here is what was reported: The blood came from a male, possibly mideastern ethnicity, and the ABO blood type was AB (the rarest). AB blood is also found on the Sudarium (face cloth) that has been kept in Oveido, Spain since around 700 A.D. The blood stains on the Shroud and the Sudarium have many congruent (similar) patterns. However, the Sudarium does not have the image.
I personally would not expect the DNA on the Shroud to match the DNA in the ossuary box, because I don't think Jesus was ever in the box. (or in a tomb in India, as many Muslims believe).
Name:Todd •
Date: 04/15/07 0:24
A: Onewhoknows,
I’m not really up on Shroud research. Your link got me interested again.
Just a dude with an internet connection.
I’m interested in the in variegated patterns and the computer enhancement-Fourier transform filters.
Invisible reweaving, from my understanding, was a common repair method from medieval times.
Plausible explanations for the carbon 14 dating errors.
“The process for making linen in medieval times was
“field bleached” after weaving. In field bleaching, the woven cloth was soaked in hot lye solution, washed, soaked in sour milk and washed again. Then it was spread out in fields in the sun. This process avoided the variegation produced by the more ancient methods of bleaching the thread before weaving. And it removed most of the lignin.” from www.innoval.com/C14/
In Thermochimica Acta, Rogers wrote:
“The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud. “
“In the years following the carbon 14 dating, in the years when careful reexamination seemed warranted, other compelling reasons to be suspicious emerged:
Chemical analysis of the lignin of the flax fibers did not test positive for vanillin. If the Shroud was medieval, it should have. Vanillin disappears slowly from the lignin in flax fibers and all of it has disappeared except in the immediate vicinity of the carbon 14 sample. This indicated that the cloth was much older than the carbon 14 dating suggested and that the carbon 14 sample area was certainly chemically different.” www.shroudstory.com/breaking02.htm
Todd
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/15/07 0:34
A: Onewhoknows,
When Jesus was placed in the ossuary it would have only been His skeleton that was set to eternal rest in the box.Was He still wrapped in His shroud for the year that was customarily allowed for decomposition before His bones were placed in His box?That could explain the presence of the piece of cloth.Also what kind of material is The Cloth of Turin made from?Some accounts say his family was rich other accounts say they were poor(Ebionites).Wouldn't he have been wrapped in the appropriate material for His status?
Also I don't believe the Catholic Church allows its relics to be tested.I don't know what they are afraid of after all its Faith and Belief in miracles that keeps the people going and we could all use a little of that sometimes.Its a sign of our spirit side connecting with the Divine.
Thank you for giving me the results from the cloth.There are other possibilities that can point to its place of origin.I'm not skeptical just curious about the truth and its connection.Please bear with me. This could be funny:A Templar could have bought it at a Bazaar while seeking The Grail and had been duped by some bedouin tribesman trying to make a shekel or two off some unsuspecting seeker knowing they were looking for the tomb etc..(Sorry about this but people really haven't changed much for eons).....then he brought it back to his home in Europe thinking he found proof that gave him power as long as he owned it.That could be the same reason why someone in Scotland owns a cup from Jesus' time--perhaps the missing items plundered from the little room in front of the tomb's entrance.That ancester thought he brought back the Holy Grail.Some legends say its a plate.I saw this on a program about the Grail legends awhile ago.
For the records I still feel that the Talpiot tomb and the ossuaries and contents are genuine.Until officialy told otherwise I'm going to accept the results.
Name:Todd •
Date: 04/15/07 1:08
A: Panluna,
Todd again.
Here’s a link about the chemical make up of the Shroud.
www.shroudstory.c-om/faq-chemistry.htm
“I-t- was later that a chemical reaction to occurred that selectively changed the carbon double bonds of some of the layers of impurities. This may have been a perfectly natural phenomenon. A Maillard reactions of amines from a human body with the carbohydrate layer will occur within a reasonable time, before liquid decompositions products stain or damage the cloth. The gases produced by a dead body are extremely reactive chemically. Within a few hours, in an environment such as a tomb, a body starts to produce heavier amines in its tissues such as putrescine (1,4-diaminobutane), and cadaverine (1,5-diaminopentane). This does produce the color we see in the carbohydrate layer. But it raises tough questions about why the image are so photo-realistic and why the images were not destroyed by later decomposition products. “
www.shroudstory.com/faq-chemistry.htm
My big question is the fact that the Shroud survived at all during the decomposition process. Given all the organisms and animals that would have eaten at the body I’m surprised any Shroud would survive the one year process to even make it to an ossuary..
“Many kinds of organisms live by feeding on dead bodies. In the process, their activities result in the decomposition of the body and the recycling of nutrients. The dominant groups of organisms involved in decomposition are bacteria, flies, beetles, mites and moths. Other animals, mainly parasitoid wasps, predatory beetles and predatory flies, feed on the animals that feed on the corpse. A dead body is therefore an ecosystem of its own, in which different fauna arrive and depart from the corpse at different times. The arrival time and growth rates of insects inhabiting corpses are used by forensic scientists to determine the circumstances surrounding suspicious deaths.” www.deathonline.net/decompositio-n/corpse_fauna/index.htm
Todd-
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/15/07 15:49
A: Was the material silk,cotton or made from an animal's fur or wool?There were no synthetic textiles 2000 years ago and I don't think they wore anything woven from other plants.I doubt very much of it would be left on the body after the process of decomposition and it could have been removed after the body was moved and possibly rewrapped in something else..When you consider the extent of His injuries they might not have left Him wrapped in the original shroud.Could the Turin shroud be that one or did it belong to some else?The marks are supposed to correspond with the injuries inflicted during the crucifiction but how could it have stayed in such good shape for two centuries and does it perform miracles?
Name:onewhoknows •
Date: 04/19/07 3:32
A: Panluna, in regards to your last post, the Shroud was made of linen, which is made out of the flax plant. You are right in saying that the Shroud would be a real mess after holding a dead body for a year while the body decomposed. So how DID the Shroud stay in such good shape? RESURRECTION. Please study the Shroud, because the Jesus Family Tomb is a dead end.
Name:Shlomo •
Date: 04/19/07 4:25
A: You need to start from the beginning and find out who the unknown soldier is, as it were, by first ascertaining if there are factual documents to the persons identity or existence. Then you can try and match DNA or other forms of evidence to substantiate the persons identity. Circumstantial evidence only meets a certain threshold, but not that strong to compel a reasonable person to conclude in fact that this is the person. If there is one unsubstantiated truth, it will make the entire identification false.
Name:jsm •
Date: 04/19/07 4:46
A: Though I am a Christian, I don't know what to think of the shroud. Being a scientist I am not quick to jump on things of this sort. There are a lot of people that are searching for that "proof" of God, as in the shroud, Noah's ark, and the ark of the covenant, but Christians should not be searching for artifacts of these sorts. The whole idea of Christianity is based on faith. You do not make it to heaven by believing in proof, but by believing Jesus died for your sins.
John 20:29 "Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
Name:zartan •
Date: 04/21/07 4:11
A: Back to the original post:
A. He is saying that he computates the statistics, and the biblical scholars apply them to their theories. So?
B. He is saying that the odds are based on the combination of compelling names, but that he doesn't feel comfortable with drawing hypothetical conclusions from them. He doesn't have to... people can draw their own conclusions.
C. The computations do not take into account families without tombs. Exactly. We are only interested in families with tombs for this scenario. Who cares? The non-tomb families were ommitted because the were irrelavent.
Name:JMD •
Date: 04/21/07 6:18
A: The Jesus Dynasty Blog
April 18, 2007
Those Backtracking Scholars
Filed under: Tabor's Blog — James Tabor @ 12:48 pm
While I was in Jerusalem last week a story appeared in the Jerusalem Post headlined “Jesus Tomb Film Scholars Backtrack” by Etgar Lefkovits. Its essential claim was that several prominent scholars interviewed in the controversial film, “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” had now revised their conclusions two months after the screening of the film. These “dramatic clarifications” reported by Lefkovits were based on a Web site article by “epigrapher Stephen Pfann of the University
of the Holy Land.” Of the thousands of stories that have appeared on the subject of the Talpiot “Jesus” tomb since February 26th this one by Lefkovits has to be ranked, from a journalistic standpoint, as one of the worst of the worst, and given the multiple contenders, this ranking is not an easy one to earn.
Unfortunately, the Lefkovits story (try Google: “Lefkovits tomb backtrack” for a small sample) was flashed around the world, picked up by media that understandably found such a headline irresistable and a host of Christian bloggers eagar to feed on any scrap of major media coverage that might cast into doubt the claims of the film–that the Talpiot tomb likely once held the bones of Jesus of Nazareth. After all, once the story is published it is no longer “Lekkovits says that Stephen Pfann says that Prof.X says,” as reported on a Web site that has the word “New” flashing on-and-off over its “Tomb” discussions, but it is now “The Jerusalem Post reports this or that.”
Lefkovits mentions five scholars who have “backtracked” from their positions in the film–Andrey Feuerverger the statistician, Shimon Gibson, the archaeologist involved in the original excavation, Frank Cross, the renowned Harvard epigrapher, Carney Matheson who did the DNA tests, and Francois Bovon, another Harvard professor who works on Mary Magdalene traditions. Lefkovits ends his story with a naively formulated theological affirmation that seems strangely out of place in a news story: “According to the New Testament, Jesus rose from the
dead on the third day after his crucifixion, and an ossuary containing Jesus’ bones–the explanations of the movie director notwithstanding–would contradict the core Christian belief that he was resurrected and then ascended into heaven.”
The problem is none of these five scholars have backtraced or repudiated what they presented in the film and Lefkovits did not bother to talk to any of them.
As it happens, the day the Jerusalem Post story appeared I was sitting with Shimon Gibson in the lobby of the American Colony hotel and we read the piece through together. He was quite upset at how he had been partially quoted as saying “I’m skeptical that this is the tomb of Jesus” as if this was a new position he was taking reflecting his “backtracking.” His full statement, even as produced on Pfann’s Web site, Lefkovits’s one source for his story, plainly says the filmmakers did a good job, carrying out their work with integrity and vision, and that he was keeping an “open mind” about the possibilities. One of my purposes in being in Jerusalem was to work with Gibson on our ongoing research on the Talpiot tomb which we have carried out for two years now in complete and cooperative harmony.
I am also in very close touch with Prof. Feuerverger, the renowned statistician at the University of Toronto. Over the past few weeks we have spoken at length on the phone and exchanged dozens of e-mail. I am thoroughly familiar with his work and his conclusions and he told me this week that his major academic paper on the statistics related to the Talpiot Tomb is very close to final completion. According to the Lefkovits story Feuerverger’s is the “most startling change of opinion” of all the “backtracking” experts, but he then goes on to quote his “new” position which is identical to the one he expressed at the initial New
York press conference on February 26th, and one he has held all along–namely that his 600 to 1 figure refers to the rarity of the cluster of names found in the Talpiot tomb. I have offered an extensive discussion of this in earlier blog posts so I won’t repeat it all again here, but even better are Dr. Feuerverger’s own words on the subject that I just received today: “I would like to make it clear that I stand by the statements I had made in my probability calculations. I have retracted nothing. My website makes clear the assumptions of my calculations. Subject to these assumptions, my estimates have not changed.”
Prof. Frank Cross of Harvard, a renowned epigrapher of Hebrew and Aramaic of this period, provided readings for the ossuary insciptions including “Jesus son of Joseph.” He has not in the slightest way changed his views on these readings so to cast him as one of a group of scholars who have revised their views as stated in the film is totally irresponsible. Cross said in the film that the names were common, indicating his own view that connecting this particular
"Jesus son of Joseph” to the one in the New Testament is not a self-evident task. I have discussed this with him and he is rightly skeptical of statistical claims in any field, but he would be the first to admit that he is not a statistician and anyone who knows Frank Cross knows that he keeps an open mind. His official position is that he stands by the readings and what he says in the film and that his business is not to draw conclusions about whether this is or is not a tomb connected to Jesus of Nazareth.
Dr. Carney Matheson, who supervised the DNA tests on the bone fragments in the Yeshua and Mariamene ossuaries, has not backed off in the least from the results achieved by his laboratory. I have been involved in the whole thing from start to finish and I was present when his results were presented. I have also since been in touch with Dr. Matheson, to be sure he is okay with what I write here.
When Dr. Careney Matheson first broke the news of the DNA test results live on camera in his laboratory he offered the passing observation that given the small grouping in that tomb, with only two women named, it was possible the two were “husband and wife.” He did not intend to be understood to say that was the only possibility, and he would be the first to make clear that DNA tests often elimnate relationships as well as establish them. Some times, in that sense “no match” can be as informative as a “match.” The DNA results did not tell us what
the relationship between the two was, but what it was not—the female sample was neither the mother nor the maternal sister of the male. At that time I am not sure if he even knew anything about the possible identity of the samples. Had the two turned out to be related then we would have been able to add another “relationship” to our statistics. As it stands two relations were eliminated making the husband and wife one of the possibilities, but certainly not the only possibility. However, as I have often pointed out, since Jesus had three “intimate” Marys in his life, his mother, his sister, and Mary Magdalene, in this case, getting “absolutely nothing” in terms of a maternal match between
Yeshua and Mariamene does indeed turn out to be quite significant for overall possibilities of interpretation.
Finally, Professor Francois Bovon has not in any way backed off from what he said in the film regarding the use of the name Mariamne as an appropriate name for Mary Magdalene in later Christian sources. His article is on the SBL Web site for anyone to read. What Bovon has clarified is that he is dealing with literary sources and traditions, and in his work in that regard he does not intend to claim that the historical Mary Magdalene was called by this name in her own lifetime. But he has reiterated his view that Mariamne, besides Maria or Mariam, is a Greek equivalent, attested by Josephus, Origen, and the Acts of Philip, for the Semitic Myriam, and that the portrayal of Mariamne in the Acts of Philip fits very well with the portrayal of Mary of Magdala in the Manichean
Psalms, the Gospel of Mary, and Pistis Sophia. Professor Bovon does not accept the overall thesis of the film, either that Jesus was reburied in a second tomb or that he was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child with her.
There is no doubt that Jacobovici’s film has a point of view and that it seeks to present a case, namely that the Yeshua of the Talpiot tomb is indeed Jesus of Nazareth, and that based on evidence in this tomb he had a child, most likely with the one we know as Mary Magdalene in the N.T. gospels. How well he makes that case is subject to debate and discussion. However, it is ludicrous to fault Jacobovici, who is neither archaeologist, epipgrapher, statistician, DNA expert, nor historian for consulting with those experts considered among the best in each of these areas, presenting the results of their work, and then making use
of that data in formulating his own presentation. In the same way, if I consult a lexicon or translation of an ancient work from a language in which I am not trained, even as a scholar and a historian, by using such a source, I am not implying the editors of these works somehow agree with some historically reconstructed model that I might construct, based on such linguistic evidence.
Coming:
A Critical Evaluation of Pfann’s paper as the source of the Jerusalem Post article
Getting the Facts Straight on the Patina Studies related to the Talpiot & James Ossuaries
Pfann “Teaches” Rahmani and DeSegni Greek 101
Name:betty47 •
Date: 04/23/07 13:09
A: Here's an alternate theory on the shroud as well by wikipedia. Just a thought. I'm not saying it's true or false, as I'm not one to profess that I know much about the shroud. I tend to believe it's a fake, but I find the discussion on this to be interesting.
Quote: "The Second Messiah by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas argues that the Shroud's image is that of the final Knights Templar leader, Jacques de Molay.
On Friday 13 October, 1307, the Templars were arrested by Philip the Fair under the authority of Pope Clement V. De Molay was nailed to a door and tortured but not killed, and his almost comatose body was wrapped in a cloth and left for 30 hours to recover. According to the hypothesis of Dr. Alan A. Mills in his article "Image formation on the Shroud of Turin" in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1995, vol. 20 No. 4, pp 319-326, convection currents from the lactic acid in the De Molay's perspiration created the image. The image corresponds to what would have been produced by a volatile chemical if the intensity of the color change were inversely proportional to the distance of the cloth from the body, and the slightly bent position accounts for the extension of the hands onto the thighs, something not possible if the body had been laid flat.
Further, according to Knight and Lomas, De Molay and co-accused Geoffrey de Charney were then cared for by brother Jean de Charney, whose family retained the shroud after Molay's execution on 19 March 1314.
Apart from Knight and Lomas' scenarion, there is a reliable connection between Shroud of Turin and the Templars: Geoffroi de Charny's widow Jeanne de Vergy is the first reliably recorded owner of the Turin shroud; his uncle, Geoffrey de Charney, was Preceptor of Normandy for the Knights Templar. This uncle is the same Geoffrey de Charney who was initially sentenced to lifetime imprisonment with de Molay, and was burned with de Molay in 1314 after both proclaimed their innocence, recanting torture-induced confessions."
