|
Name: Gooch •
Title: HUGE : don't you think? •
Date posted: 03/07/07 21:21
|
|
Q: The only way this cannot be considered a huge development in modern day archeology is if the findings were made up. So ask yourself, were these findings completely made up or did the findings really happen? If they did happen and it appears they did then how could anyone say they are not huge. Many people are just so closed minded they don't even care if these discoveries were brought to peoples attention. It took modern day technology to even relocate the tombs and modern technology to do DNA.
|
|
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 21:38 |
A: No this is bogus not HUGE.
Check the data and sources and look at their methods then consult with the rest of the scientific community.
You can start here.
http://www.archaeologica-l.org/webinfo.php?page=10408
A- reasoned look at the evidence, instead of a media circus, yields an answer of NO!
by Jodi Magness
|
|
Name: lady andromeda •
Date: 03/07/07 23:36 |
|
A: You are correct Gooch. It has HUGE possibilities!
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 23:39 |
A: It's junk science according to most scholars. Are you a scholar lady?
Thought not.
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 23:41 |
A: And to even term it "This" as if it was an actual discovery is a slap in the fact to scientists everywhere.
THE THEORY IS REJECTED BY SCHOLARS.
It makes a good story. That's all.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/07/07 23:43 |
A: Well, The evidence is not bogus. The tomb was found as said and an IAA crew documented the find and the contents. Names and all. This much is fact. The scene was documented as a routine find.
The only real question that remains is the chances of these dead individuals being the jesus of the bible family. This is where the debate begins.
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/07/07 23:51 |
A: But it isn't a debate. The theory is rejected by nearly every scholar out there. That''s why they were forced to go through the media instead of a real avenue like a journal where they EXAMINE the study closely. It would have been rejected. This is a media event designed to make a buck.
I guess you could call it a "Debate" simply because anyone can pose anything no matter how ridiculous and call it a "Debate".
This is not a debate in the scientific community AT ALL.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/08/07 0:01 |
|
A: Your wrong. These guys are filmakers that investigated a find that was ALREADY DOCUMENTED. They had the math done and reported their findings and theories like anyone else who discovers something NEW.
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/08/07 0:11 |
A: If you want to call someone wrong call 99% of the SCHOLARS who support my argument wrong. "I" do not know enough on the subject to comment. Which is why I rely on the MAJORITY OF EXPERTS rather than the Discovery Channel and Hollywood.
If you disagree with them and support James Cameron, that's up to you. Wanna play some poker some time? Also, I work for a great company called Primerica. Can I schedule a visit with you?
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/08/07 0:23 |
A: OH.... Now your stating "99 % of the scholars who support MY argument. "
Sounds like your on a Quest....
According to your above statement, you rely on Experts to confirm your convictions. This is subjective thinking and has no place in objective science.
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/08/07 0:32 |
A: Yes you are right... i am so foolish to rely on the stupid Experts.
Simcha does not even have a phd. He has been widely discredited. For cryin out loud just read the wiki on the guy.
I'll stick with what the Experts say considering I do not know enough about the facts. you on the other hand think you have it all figured out by yourself. congrats, youare a genius.
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/08/07 0:34 |
A: just look at the credentials of the people who are disagreeing with him and cameron. your argument is reduced to personal attacks and speculation on what science is supposed to be.
like i said, find me some CREDIBLE source NOT INVOLVED IN THE MAKING OF THIS DOCUMENTARY that agrees with Simcha's claims.
I will find 10 that disagree for every 1 you find (if any) that support this nonsense. Get over it. Its bogus. now go on your own crusade through other avenues. this one is a dead end.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/08/07 1:08 |
A: I cant help the fact you or anyone else may be in denial of simple logic. It does not take 'a genious' to understand the real possibility that this discovery is valid. However, It does take some personal strength to over come inate fears of what we are looking at , and it's implications.
If this thing is true, which I so far believe, than it's not all that bad really because after all it would be a point in the right direction.... that being Truth.
I noticed the attempt to insult me with flatteries. I know personally that Im not guilty of your flattery so it does not bother me. But if I have made any sense in my posts, I will not feel guilt for the opprotunity to do so.
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/08/07 1:10 |
A: you are not a bad guy. i just dont understand how you can believe what is presented by film makers and one or two of their supposed "experts" vs the majority of the scholars out there.
ill take their word for it. you can take the titanic guys word and simcha, a non phd holding film maker who has a history of making outrageous claims to gain media attention,.
|
|
Name: sadinoel •
Date: 03/08/07 1:21 |
A: seriously i just cant get over it. when these kinds of things are "discovered" the responsible thing to do it put it up before your peers or to a scientific journal for evaluation of validity.
that clearly was not done here. instead they went to the media! its irresponsible, insulting, and arrogant.
the only thing that has "no place in science" as you stated earlier, is the methods by which these people operate. its an insult to the people who have dedicated their lives to archaeological studies and done their due dilligence when it comes to things like this.
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 1:28 |
A: Dear sadinoel
A scholar who claims this is impossible because the bible states otherwise is even worse than Simcha in regards to being scientific.
That is a fact.
|
|
Name: kbob •
Date: 03/08/07 1:35 |
|
A: All I have to say about the "scholars" is that Georg W. Bush has a degree from Yale University. And all the "Scholars and Experts" said there were WMD's in Iraq. A lot of people (not all) bought it hook line and sinker because it came from an "expert" and here we sit with a huge mess on our hands. Need I say more?
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/08/07 2:29 |
A: Look guys..... I dont care who filmed the damned thing. If Ozzy Osbourne investigated it and found the SAME evidence, i would be at the same point. It's the evidence that is key here. Simcha can postulate all he wants, but in the end it's the evidence that speaks for it or not.
We all get wrapped up with who found it, who filmed it ectt.... this is smoke. that's why I talk hard to you guys. Ive feel that I have to stay clear, and get a fan out. you know, blow away some of the smoke that hides the evidence. The evidence is true, factual, and documented. What the evidence objectively will tell us is being debated and hashed out. to some it's clear, to others it's not.
In the end it's the evidence. The evidence speaks many possibilities and alot of folks dont want to go there. I can understand this. Ive talked to my father about it (who is a literal bible believer), and he denied it too. I dont argue with him cause he is dad, but i can see the concern on his face. He deep down knows it's possible. Everyone does.
It is a VERY sensitive thing and very painful to those who take the bible literally. If i offend anyone , which i know I have, I apoligize. But i can not stop ateempting to keep the smoke from shrouding the evidence. It is imperative it be done.
|
|
Name: tony34 •
Date: 03/08/07 3:07 |
|
A: The evidence just isn't very good red and that is why this theory is being shot down right and left. Ask any expert in the world if you want proof about how lame this story is.
|
|
Name: OldTimer •
Date: 03/08/07 3:24 |
A: In just my own life time I have seen discoveries which in the beginning were denounced by “experts” only later to be proven correct! I have also seen discoveries which were lauded by “experts” that fizzled out! History is filled with all kind of examples.
I don’t know if this “study” is “bogus” (personally I think it is still too early to really tell) or not but I wouldn’t say it is just because those with “credentials”, at this juncture, say it is. I don’t care whether it’s 10 to 1 or 100 to 1 or 1000 to 1. That 1 just could be right! In five years that 1 could have a lot of company (Sir Arthur Clark's four stages of new idea's and discoveries)
I know that one of the “experts”, who, while publicly denouncing the information proudly admitted that he hadn’t reviewed the information…????? Duh!!!
This IS sensitive stuff. More then you know and yes it is “hugh”. There are a lot of people who, not only, do not want this to be true but don’t want to even be talking about it and wishes it was still on the shelves collecting dust! Only an outrageous person would tackle it but then again sometimes it takes outrageousness to wake people up! I have been on this earth quite a while and what I’m seeing from the ones with “credentials” is the possible use of denouncing to create distant for themselves! I have seen this before. History does repeat itself. Since I don’t have a “dog in this fight”, I'm going to leave it at that.
|
|
Name: lady andromeda •
Date: 03/08/07 4:31 |
A: sadinoel, you sound seriously threatened. Are you? If you are not interested in this find then WHY do you care what others think about it !? How about letting EVERYONE else decide for themselves or do you honestly consider everyone else incapable of making informed decisions without you shoving scholars down our throats.
Thought Not!
OldTimer, I totally agree with you.
|
|
Name: sweetandsimple •
Date: 03/08/07 4:51 |
A: sadinoel
you say you dont believe this documentary because the supposed "Experts" in YOUR books say it's "bogus" however.. did the bible.. come from a scholar or was Jesus a man with a phd?.. or the did the prophets take courses on how to reach god??? It's called faith.. and knowing in your heart the truth ...All these people have done was take peice by peice and put it together like a puzzle.. it just so happens that all the peices fit......now..you tell us exactly how the people who re-discovered this tomb were supposed to inform the world about this??? the radio??? word of mouth??? you should come up with a good way of passing news around the world without being IRRESPONSIBLE..INSULTING or ARROGANT.. I do beleive they did their best not to do that.. and to inform us before someone covered it up or hid it from the world.. like so many other things......i think people should be happy that James Cameron and Simcha took the bullet and helped us all understand more about early christiany and what its all about.
|
|
Name: Xcavate •
Date: 03/08/07 5:15 |
|
A: This "IS" a Huge discovery! We are just at the tip of the iceberg here.I find it hard to listen to all the critics.that will lead us down the road to doing the same thing that happened in 1980, just putting this all back on the shelf sorta speek.Lets keep an open mind. Give some good idea's as to what to do next. Whether it be true or not in the end researching more is really the only way to find out. So lend your support! It will probably take an army of Christians to keep the research moving ahead I don't think the IAA has any reason to really care either way. I for 1 am really looking forward to hearing more. Great job Simcha! Thank's for an enjoyable program.
|
|
Name: tony34 •
Date: 03/08/07 5:37 |
A: It's funny that the only people backing this theory are some crazy joes on the official website for the film.
I'm beginning to think some of you ARE the film makers for all the crazy things you are saying. Give it a rest. The theory is awful. End of story.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 5:43 |
A: The problem is that the way the evidence has been presented is deceptive. One problem I've dug through today: they figure their 1 in 600 number on the basis of 1000 tombs, so what their stats really prove is that someone name Ioseh, Yesua, Mariamne and Marya would be found in 1 tomb out of 600. This doesn't tell us anything about the possibility that the tomb belong's to Jesus family. For one thing, they need to figure things on the basis of the population statistics rather than on the basis of a number of tombs. The difference is that the first set of assumptions only works if you know for sure that Jesus had a tomb in Jerusalem (as opposed to Nazareth, for example), or that he had the money for a tomb; they simply assume this without. I've found a few other potential flaws here as well, but I want to double check them with a Mathmatician before I run with them.
As to putting it together like a puzzle, I would argue that their methodology was flawed from the beginning. I'm writing this as a New Testament scholar, though I'm not an archeologist, I can analyze their literary technique. They are using a method known as cherry-picking - that is, they cite evidence that fits the theory without some type of critical methodology to establish what material is a useful source of evidence and what material is not a useful source of evidence. (I.E. they assume that Jesus family was not poor as the gospels clearly indicate, but they do assume that Jesus brothers were named correctly in the gospels).
|
|
Name: lady andromeda •
Date: 03/08/07 7:54 |
|
A: tony34 and KRS, If you want people to stay interested in this *theory* then continue doing what you are doing. You are single handedly keeping the fire going! I am beginning to think that that is your real intention here. But, you would think you would understand that by now. More times than not, lack of interest is the death of a theory than heated debate.
|
|
Name: tony34 •
Date: 03/08/07 8:11 |
|
A: Or the end of a debate comes when one side really has no ground to stand on anylonger. Which is pretty much where you guys are at right now.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 8:22 |
|
A: Actually, its almost becoming a guilty pleasure tweaking you guys . . . As a fundamentalist, no matter how well read I am, or how many more degrees I accumulate, I will always be considered someone who has a closed mind. Its rather fun to watch you guy's start your, "don't start confusing me with the facts, routine."
|
|
Name: lady andromeda •
Date: 03/08/07 8:42 |
|
A: tony34 and KRS, *You guys* are soley responsible for keeping this going. No, you cannot overwhelm *us* into submission to your point of view. In the meantime, you create more sensationalism regarding the topic than was originally present. I have never been *confused with the facts*. Only fascinated by them! However, what you accomplish is causing the opposing side to dig their heels in. Power to you! I don't want this discovery to be forgotten or lost. Apathy = Death.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 8:54 |
|
A: I don't think the opposing side was ever interested in facts, and I won't try to beat them into submission. I hope they do more studies, its the only way to ultimtely rebutt anything; but frankly, when nothing is found out of this, all you would hear is cries of coverup anyway; men have freewill.
|
|
Name: lady andromeda •
Date: 03/08/07 9:39 |
A: KRS, I agree with you.
(finally) [smile]
|
|
Name: TAS •
Date: 03/08/07 14:19 |
|
A: I find this entire subject to be very interesting. I appreciate Simka for bringing this to light. Does anyone realize that it has been over 25 years since this tomb was documented and no one discussed it with this much openness in all that time? My question for those that say experts have discredited the information is-- how much research have they done to outright say it's all bogus? At least Simka has actually been inside the tomb. People attack documentarians for bringing us information to assimilate for ourselves, yet they proclaim these experts (who's entire responsibility is to decipher fact from fiction) for outright condemning the possibilities. I don't know the answers. It doesn't destroy or uphold my faith.
|
|
Name: tony34 •
Date: 03/08/07 14:25 |
A: They have done enough research to know that there isn't anything to this story.
That's how you guys are keeping this thing alive. By saying they are religiously sensitive or that they just havn't done enough research yet or other such thing you can think of to continue hanging on by a thread.
You have absolutely no valid proof to make anybody want to bother with this. And it shows in the way you guys are trying to carry on this argument.
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 15:10 |
A: "They have done enough research to know that there isn't anything to this story."
Actually, they have not. They excavated a tomb in 1980. In 1996, Amos Kloner writes a report based on the notes of the now deceased archeologist Gath. The report holds no information on any bones in the ossuaries, and still is the IAA claiming they were buried. The report holds no information as to the position of each individual ossuary.
The IAA has done NO forensic testing on the ossuaries, but dismisses the possibility purely on the notion, that the names were common (but elegantly forgets to take the appearently uncommon Yose into that equation). The IAA also dismisses the claim on basis of religious dogma.
To call that a scientific examination (research), is hilarious at best.
When the BBC made the preliminaries to the documentary "The body in question", did the then curator of the Rockefeller Museum (Joe Zias)claim, that the cluster of names was peculiar. He's suddenly backtracking, and suddenly remembers that the missing ossuary was not kept together with the others because it was plain, regardless of 3 of the 9 ossuaries also being plain and with no inscriptions. Something he didn't recall in 1996....
I smell fish......
Giving this a proper examination will either shut this case, or blow it wide open. If you indeed have faith, then you wouldn't mind the research.
|
|
Name: arimeth1 •
Date: 03/08/07 15:11 |
A: It seems to me, from reading the posts on this board and others, that most people have their minds already made up, on both sides. That is sad since the evidence just has been put out there.
This documentary says to me that, "Here is what I found now let's study it". It'll be up the the archaeologists, scholars and other experts to look and study (hopefully with no predrawn conclusions either way) and present what they see.
There is no religious implications for me either way but from a historical viewpoint the implications are huge. We cannot deny that one person had the greatest impact on our world than any other. That would be true even if he never lived at all.
|
|
Name: guahould •
Date: 03/08/07 15:28 |
A: Well we all know how easy it would be for the freaks to keep it from becoming huge,, but it is huge already !!! So let it go freaks!! Unbelievable how blind these lemmings are!!!
THIS IS VERY VERY HUGE!!!! THE PIECING TOGETHER AND SPECULATING AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS FAR EASIER TO IMAGINE BEING THE TRUE STORY!
|
|
Name: guahould •
Date: 03/08/07 15:35 |
|
A: arimeth1: And who really knows how true any of the writings were?? The believers call it the "truth", but it is only that because they believe it. The truths they believe in is really quite unbelievable,, It would be hoped that this HUGE eye opener would do that,, but anyone who has experienced and arguement with one of these folks,, it is clear that they have been brainwashed......They cannot be reasoned with,, totally blind to reality and fact. They are the ones that plug their ears when you talk to them or start humming so they cannot hear reality.. IT IS VERY SAD
|
|
Name: janorama2001 •
Date: 03/08/07 15:42 |
|
A: You're absolutely right - this is HUGE! If for no other reason, it gets people thinking and talking. Maybe we'll even start asking the big questions like, "Why did the Council of Nicaea drop certain historical and sacred documents?' "What does this mean for the millions of people on Earth right now if this information is true?" and..."Why are there so many people in Science and Theological circles who want to squash this story?"
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 15:45 |
|
A: We don't want to squash the story. We also don't like the way the film misrepresents the strength and quality of their evidence.
|
|
Name: Bob •
Date: 03/08/07 16:07 |
A: This is huge, but for all the wrong reasons. Ladyandromeda, it's important that the discussion continue, but in a polite and respectful way, of course (which seems to be the case, for the most part, on this site). Oldtimer, yes there have been times when the experts were proved wrong, but more often the people who know what they're talking about are ignored because everyone's mesmerized by the famous, charming and beautiful celebrity advocates of a particular cause. Remember alar? The important thing is to consider the evidence, and the evidence just doesn't stand up. What is more, Cameron and Jacobovici have been intentionally misleading in their presentation of the evidence, most often but what they chose to leave out of their documentary.
Consider:
1. All of the ancient written evidence, from friend and foe, from Christian, Gnostic or other documents, points to the tradition that Jesus' tomb was found empty. Even his enemies didn't dispute this. They disputed why the tomb was empty, but not that the tomb was empty. The Jewish authorities controlled the records of the first century Talpiot tomb and the Romans controlled Jerusalem. Both groups had reason to oppose the early Christian movement. Neither pointed to the obvious -- here is Jesus' tomb! Here are his bones! Had Jesus of Nazareth's remains been extant in the Talpiot tomb, or any other, the resurrection claim never would have gotten off the ground, and probably never would have been made -- the early Christians would have turned the tomb in to a shrine. Cameron and Jacobovici never consider seriously the overwhelming tradition of the empty tomb, documented in every ancient source. They simply dismiss it.
2. Amos Kloner and Joe Zias, both involved in documenting the find in 1980, are on record as having told the documentary team that the James ossuary could not have come from this Talpiot tomb because the ossuary was not missing -- it was blank, with no special features, and discarded. It's measurements were not consistent with the James ossuary, and there is written and photographic evidence of the James ossuary prior to 1980, when the Talpiot tomb was discovered. The documentary team knew all of this. They simply didn't include it in the documentary, and basically lied about the realities behind the James ossuary. This alone destroys any credibility the documentary team held.
3. The DNA evidence is worthless. It is possible, even likely, that more than one set of human remains were placed in each ossuary. This was common practice. There is no way the documentarians could be assured that the remains they collected from the bottom of the ossuary were the remains of the person named on the ossuary, and not from another named on the ossuary. They knew this. They chose not to share it. Also, just because the two set of remains were not blood related hardly leaves marriage as the only possible alternative. They could have been related by marriage in any number of ways. Or, the remains could even have come from two different generations, decades apart.
4. Mary Magdalene is never referred to as Mariamne in any ancient document prior to the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries. In all four canonical gospels, all written in Greek and dating from the 1st century AD, she is called Maria. Why would the documentarians use a fourth century reference to Mary Magdalene as Mariamne to translate a 1st century inscription on an ossuary. That's like taking something written today and using it to decipher a document found at Jamestown. Also, according to Richard Bauckham, NT professor at St. Andrew's University, Mara is a form of Martha. Given that the inscription is found on an ossuary, it's more plausible that the inscription is a name, not a title. Bauckham speculates that one woman with two names is buried in the ossuary (Mary, also known as Martha). Having two names, one Greek and one Semitic, was common in those days. Others speculate that a woman is buried with her child (Mary with Little Martha). Again, the documentarians were aware of the likelihood that the name on the ossuary could more plausibly be interpreted otherwise, and that it's ridiculous to interpret 1st century inscriptions using fourth century documents. They simply chose not to point that out in the documentary.
Anyone who casts doubt on Cameron and Jacobovici's premise is going to be accused of reacting out of closed-mindedness and fear. This is an ad hominem attack. You have to look at the evidence. The documentary team has been irresponsible and unethical in their approach to this matter. They have included wild speculation on the thinnest lines of evidence and have purposefully chosen to exclude, and even lie, about evidence that contradicts their premise. As I said, this is huge, but for all the wrong reasons.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 16:21 |
A: Thanks bob,
I have a document that has a list of problems with the documentary that I may post to the net (if I can find someplace to put it, since I don't have a site myself). I don't want to put it here because of the statement about works posted belonging to the documentarians; I like to maintain my freedom in these things. (Not that I would expect them to use this against me, but because I tend to be picky with that sort of thing). If I post it to the net, I'll put a link, but Bob has several good points.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/08/07 16:34 |
A: You are right. There is no way to determine if the bones in the Jesus ossuary were from some guy named jesus. THEN WHY IS THE BOX INSCRIPTED THAT WAY? There could have been 3 or 4 relatives squeezed In there, but that does not negate the fact the box identified a Jesus as one of them, or at one time used the box.
You guys take evidence like that, and test against something irelevent. Like "we dont have evidence who owned the bones". It has to be assumed a guy named JESUS was there because the inscription identified that. My God, this is elemental Boys, and not that complicated.
|
|
Name: Bob •
Date: 03/08/07 16:40 |
|
A: Thanks, KRS. I do need to apologize. My in-expert attempts to edit my post left the impression that there is more than one name on the ossuaries. With thexception of the one attributed by the documentarians to Mary Magdalene, I understand that there is only one name on each ossuary. However, this doesn't exclude that more than one person's remains could be in the ossuary. Bottom line, Cameron and Jacobivici cannot be certain that the remains given DNA analysis are the remains of those named on the ossuary, and not another, unnamed, set of remains. Not every person buried in an ossuary was listed on the outside, as is evident from the innumerable ossuaries found in Palestine that are full on the inside but blank on the outside.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 16:46 |
|
A: Dead right, but I didn't take your point that way; the only place where you seem to have pointed too two names on an ossuary is the Mariamne ossuary.
|
|
Name: Tara •
Date: 03/08/07 19:08 |
|
A: People may queston the implications of the find, but the find itsself is not bogus.
|
|
Name: Tara •
Date: 03/08/07 19:09 |
A: KRS it does not seem dead to you- you probably have the most and longest comments in the forum.
If its dead then why are you so invested?
|
|
Name: Bob •
Date: 03/08/07 23:36 |
|
A: Red, of course it's elemental that somebody named Jesus was buried in that ossuary. Read my post again, this time more carefully. What I said was that, since more than one person's remains may have been buried in the ossuary labeled Jesus, the documentarians cannot be sure that the remains tested for DNA analysis are those of the Jesus who was buried in that ossuary. The same is true for the ossuary they claim to be inscribed with Mary Magdelene's name. They could be analysing the DNA on two people who were not listed on the ossuary, or on one who was and one who wasn't, or on two people seperated by two or three generations. The point is, they don't know whose DNA is being analysed. All they know is, they grabbed some remains from the one ossuary that MAY be labeled "Jesus, son of Joseph" and some remains from another that MAY be labeled "Mary, known as master" and analysed them. But this doesn't stop them from making the huge leap to Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married. That's not elemental. That's, to borrow a phrase, archeo-porn.
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/09/07 2:04 |
|
A: Tara, I'm a teacher by nature. Ignorance attracts me like a moth; and those who sell something as scholarship when it is not need to be answered. however, willful ignorance is a different matter, and so far things are getting into that realm real fast.
|
|
Name: Tara •
Date: 03/09/07 6:20 |
A: KRS it seems that all you do is chat in this forum, by the times in you posts, and the amount of times you have posted in this forum, I would say that you would have no time to teach....unless it is that you think you are schooling all of us poor ignorant souls.
Then again you could just simply be a paid blogger in which case I would say that some one is really afraid of the truth.
There is such thing as an over kill, and would say that you hit that point along time ago
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/09/07 6:44 |
A: Tara,
I've been on here primarily because I've been working over this material; I'm almost done, so I'll be out of your hair soon. As to teaching - I keep seeing the error of referring to ones conclusions as if they are bear facts, etc. its the teacher in me to point out that out. No one is paying me to do this, I started out wanting to see what they really had.
I am back home with my mother who was pretty badely injured recenty, but she isn't needing as much care now as she was not long ago, so I have some time on my hands; other than this, I'm looking for an interim pastorate but that takes some time. I'm not teaching yet, I still have a little work to do on my doctorate.
If you want to see what I'm doing, I have a post on recalculating the stats and on the Miriamne ossuary if you wish to see for yourself, I welcome things being double checked.
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/09/07 13:59 |
|
A: KRS....you're saying that this is dead and gone.....yet here you still are. Worried??
|
|
Name: OldTimer •
Date: 03/10/07 15:48 |
|
A: Yes Bob, I am aware of that problem also. Quite well as a matter of fact.
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 03/10/07 17:32 |
A: slyfoxx,
I'm a Christian, and a scientist, and completely opposed to this. Not based on my religion, but based on the scientific method and I am still here, not because I am worried, but because I think its funny, cause like 2% of the people here are actually credible, and I'm a scientist, I love arguing. Sadinoel was right, they went about this completely the wrong way scientifically. They have no defense to their theory. They just threw it out there for the community to chew on, but in the real science world. We submit theory's to be peer reviewed along with having to defend our theory among a "jury" like setting of scientists. I have yet to hear a response (defense) from the crew, maybe its because they did no actual work in this at all. They were already dug up, they had some guy from Toronto do the math, his work is flawed, full of more holes and assumptions then anything I've seen before. So what work did they actually do except put make up on?
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/10/07 18:10 |
A: Sly,
I'm not worried in the slightest. Primarily, I'm trying to prepare a document for some churches to point out the problems in the film, as well as the evidence that they left out. I understand a lot about the rules of evidence in this kind of study, and so I understand the poor research done here. Some people, however, don't know the rules of evidence, and aren't very skilled at critical thinking.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/10/07 18:27 |
A: Your a scientist ( i assume), In your post you (as a scientist) neglect to mention the physical evidence. You state "they have no defense to their theory". As a scientist (i assume) when someone puts forth a theory about anything, what do you normally require from them? Usually some sort of evidence is required to support their theory. This is not an opinion, we all require proof to anyone's claim. However, You stated "they have no DEFENSE to their theory".
When is it ever in the theoretical world required to defend a theory?? Your a scientist, so it should be obvious to you that the burdon on a theory is evidence. The only thing that can 'defend' a theory is some sort of evidence.
Albert Einstein postulated his theory of relativity E=mc2 at a time when it was impossible to provide physical proof to back it. It wasn't provable nor was it defended because there was nothing to prove it with and nothing to defend it with. It remained a theory for sometime.
In the abstract world of Algebra however, it was saying something. Of course the only people it was talking to were Mathmaticians. Still there was no way to prove physically that this theory explaned anything about our reality. As you know, in th 20's they were able to physically test the theory during a solar eclipse and the light of a distant star passing by our star (G-2), and it was observed that this light was bent by the mass of the sun, according to the theory's prediction.
I am in no way wanting to debate relativity. (there is no debate), My point being, this is a perfect example of how theories are proven or disproven. They require EVIDENCE. Evidence is the magic bullet.
Alot of folks are saying this whole tomb thing is a theory. The evidence is no theory. The mathmatics are based on the evidence. This is no theory. The only theory that exists is if this is the tomb of the Biblical jesus. The evidence rules out the 'IF' of this theory to 600-1 that it is.
The only diffrence between this thing and the example I gave above is that Einstein theorized first, then got evidence. The tomb guys got evidence first, then a theory. Which way would you perfer to discover a new element? or a new life form? If you state they are reading the evidence wrong, then by all means investigate it further. Einstein did have two seperate teams doing the same expeirment above so it would rule out errors.
Everyone is claiming faulty #'s, (600to 1) but no one is claiming a real number. I suspect that if there were mistakes in the crunching and the process was rectified , oppisition would still be shocked at what it said...
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 03/10/07 19:08 |
A: Red,
I've searched all over the internet trying to find the paper they supposedly submitted to be peer reviewed. My efforts thus far are futile. Using probabilities to support you theory would not be the route to take. Probabilities contain many assumptions all of which will never give you a solid answer. They say if you flip a coin twice the probability that you will get heads is 1:2. But we all know that is not the case, you could get two heads, you could get two tails. The only law of probability is whether it happened or it didn't. Why do you think they choose to use probabilities, because you can fudge the numbers anyway you want, non of which giving you ground to stand on. There are to many variables in this experiment to use probabilities.
|
|
Name: slyfoxx •
Date: 03/10/07 19:43 |
A: Why do i have this sneaky suspiscion that there is a couple ID's in here that are the same person???
I'm just going to throw this out there.....for being prodominant scientists you guys spend an awful lot of time posting in a forum that you apparently consider false. *laffin* I am by no means a scientist but I have spent my fair share of time in a lab. I'm a holistic practitioner and work with natural therapies. i must say when we have breaking news or found something we think might be of importance the last place I am is talking in a chatroom about it with layman.
To sit and then argue with them would be not only a waste of my time but bad work ethics to be discussing it with the public. People who know they are absolutely right don't feel the need to go into a forum and try to convince everyone how right they are.....*chuckling*....because they will actually be sitting around discussing it with the fellow scientists working on the find.
Sad that people have to make themselves out to be someone more important then they really are to try to make people resepct and agree with them.......truly sad.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/10/07 20:31 |
|
A: Thank you for your concern.....
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 03/10/07 21:16 |
A: slyfoxx,
Its nothing more then fun, I love people that try to jump on Christianity any chance they get, just to later be proven false. Just like the recent article submitted saying that Neanderthals are being taken off the "missing link" board of human origins. Everybody jumps on these bandwagons just so they can try and falsify Christianity, but in the end their always proven to be wrong and I find it to be nothing short of entertaining.
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 03/10/07 21:20 |
|
A: And before you jump on me, heres the link for the Neanderthal article. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/co-ntent/abstract/0608053104v-1-
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 03/10/07 21:21 |
|
A: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/co-ntent/abstract/0608053104v-1-
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 03/10/07 21:21 |
|
A: it end with v1. not v-1-
|
|
Name: lightwoman •
Date: 03/10/07 23:28 |
A: jsm wrote: "I love people that try to jump on Christianity any chance they get, just to later be proven false....Everybody jumps on these bandwagons just so they can try and falsify Christianity, but in the end their always proven to be wrong and I find it to be nothing short of entertaining."
My goodness! "Everybody?" "Always?" For a scientist, your qualifiers are very telling that you are waaaaay too invested in this, and you must ask yourself -way deep down, why. Strong needs to be right, to defend or attack all point to an underlying root issue or fear - ask any psychologist or other degreed expert in that field. I'm not saying you need therapy, of course, but we ALL have issues/root fears we need to uncover and heal, which is part of the spiritual journey to becoming whole, Christed human beings. "For entertainment" is a superficial cover for deeper underlying issues/beliefs/fears - it's like when someone gets a nervous laugh or a physical symptom (say an ulcer) that hides the deeper, core issue...
BTW, there is a possibility that down the road those you *perceive* as attempting to "jump on" or "falsify" Christianity could actually turn out to be right - nothing is ever 100% set in stone, as OldTimer point out. Such strong reactions make one ask, do you always go to such lengths and get your jollies at the expense of others when you perceive they are wrong? What happens if they are right? Ouch. Doesn't really do one any good either way - duality/judgment is a double-edged sword.
If you're not on the defensive (a victim), or attacking (a persecutor), why are you still on the merry-go-round of this fight? Some here (on either side of this issue) are in this so deep and thick they are lost in the mire of duality, and it illustrates very well what Yeshua was teaching - how to rise above the world of duality and save ourselves in Spirit/unity, where there is no reason to fight, or judge that anyone is right or wrong? Maybe it just IS, like the tomb and the ossuaries just ARE - they exist (we can speculate on and on ad infinitum what that MEANS until there are more definitive studies - it may turn out to mean nothing, or it could be huge, but we don't know yet).
A note to all Christians (or anyone!) who are so deeply invested in this "fight" and stuck on the wheel of "I'm right and you're wrong": What happened to His lesson that when we are struck, we do not strike back, but we turn the other cheek?
Until each individual receives the wisdom (or grace) to "wake up" from duality and turn the other cheek, each side keeps taking swipes at the other and the wheel just keeps goin' 'round and 'round....
My wish is for everyone to wake up, get off the wheel and see the Light...
|
|
Name: lightwoman •
Date: 03/11/07 0:31 |
A: Can't get your link to work.
BTW jsm, that's nothing new. I'm not an expert, but I took a university anthropology class way back in the late 70s, and even then it was taught that the Neanderthal line went extinct (some may have interbred with Homo Sapiens sapiens, but this is less likely).
There were many lines of hominids that interacted and led to the evolution of modern man, not just one long, unbroken link. Neanderthal was an unsuccessful offshoot that died out. So, feel better, none of us are related to Neanderthals anyway.
Now, some people believe the reason a missing link can't be found is because ETs interfered and bio-engineered our species, mixing in their own DNA. So, from that worldview, God could be an ET (the angels, too, even Jesus - he could have been "taken up" on a spaceship disguised by a cloud...and there's your bodily ascension... oh, and he'd return the same way...) and you could have evolved from a being hailing from the Sirius star system. Suddenly worldview becomes galactic view (but that's another forum). ;-) I'm j/k with you.
People accuse the filmmakers of cherry-picking. Who's cherry-picking now? Anybody can dig up articles and expert opinions to validate one's point of view. Works both ways. Just making a point that this can get ridiculous if one gets carried away trying to push a point of view.
Geesh, why do I feel like a mom trying to separate two hopelessly bickering children? ;-)
I'm outta here. Have a good day, all.
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/11/07 3:29 |
|
A: Jsm ,Your right about the coin tossing. But they did not toss a coin. what you say has meaning, and a coin toss seems 'random', but in reality, it is predictable through the law of averages. That 1-2 ratio will show itself over ten tosses. or be REAL close.
|
|
Name: jsm •
Date: 03/11/07 4:26 |
A: Red,
They really shouldn't try to prove this through probabilities. Its a start for funding purposes, but not for being peer reviewed. It leaves way to much leeway when theres a lot of variables. They should try a biological approach, not mathematical. Probabilities are like a person being tried for murder using the defense of "well prove that everybody else in the world didn't do it". Thats the only way you could get around the laws of probabilities, if you wanted to use probabilities (which they are) would be to prove that all the other parts of the probability (as in all the other people named Jesus, and Mary, etc... could not have been involved) which as we both know would be just about impossible. So thats why I believe they should get away from probabilities.
lightwoman,
"ask any psychologist"
I don't believe in psychology. I believe in Biology and Chemistry and the interaction of the two. Psychology gives people an excuse for their actions. There is no excuse in Gods eyes. That is just my opinion, I don't speak for the majority of creationists, just myself.
"Such strong reactions make one ask, do you always go to such lengths and get your jollies at the expense of others when you perceive they are wrong?"
Yes
"What happens if they are right?"
Rarely happens, but I have the ability to admit when I'm wrong.
"If you're not on the defensive (a victim), or attacking (a persecutor), why are you still on the merry-go-round of this fight?"
Merry-go-rounds are fun, as I stated before.
"A note to all Christians (or anyone!) who are so deeply invested in this "fight" and stuck on the wheel of "I'm right and you're wrong": What happened to His lesson that when we are struck, we do not strike back, but we turn the other cheek?"
Your right, but I'm still working on that, after all I'm only human, not perfect.
"BTW jsm, that's nothing new."
Then why are we still funding it then if it was disproved in the 70's?
"Neanderthal was an unsuccessful offshoot that died out."
Its a little more complicated then Natural Selection.
"Now, some people believe the reason a missing link can't be found is because ETs interfered and bio-engineered our species"
Your lucky I seen the J/K at the end of that paragraph haha
Have a good day also!
|
|
Name: Red •
Date: 03/11/07 5:19 |
A: If they had every type of dna jesus had to offer, problem is, the dna lab was closed 2000 years ago. What would you compare it to? I understand if we had all the bones from everyone, we could determine relations, but you still couldnt prove identities tied to 2000 years ago.
That's why I push the boxes and probability. You got a "jesus , son of Joseph". We dont need dna to determine that This jesus had a dad names joseph. Same goes for 'yose'. I also understand the MAIN question 'is this the Biblical Jesus and co. ? Based on the NAMES only, Logic demands probability even before crunching any numbers.
All the sciences use probabilities in some instances. they have to for no other reason than not having a crystal ball, and if done reasonably can be reasonably accurate.
Take a weather forcast for instance. For a particular forecasting ZONE, no-one can tell where it's gonna rain in any given place within that ZONE. All they know is rain is gonna fall. Being it's immposible to forecast exactly WHERE in the zone it will fall, they set a Probability in a percentage form. "the veiwing area has a 40% chance of rain today. All they are saying is "40% of the forecast ZONE will recieve rain. If it doesnt rain on your house , you dont think too much about it because after all, you knew your house only had a 40% chance of getting wet. If you did get wet, you become a statistic.
Statistics mean nothing until you become one.
This tomb is a statistic. It was a statistic before the math. There was some probability in those names alone. They just didnt know how much probability until the math was done.
We get upset when the forecast call for rain and we dont get any, but 40% of the zone did.
|
|
Name: Nate Spain •
Date: 03/11/07 5:27 |
A: Let the studies proceed to their end. They have not completed their studies.
Here is my prediction: They will complete their studies, and they will conclude that the evidence they have gathered is not enough to definitely conclude that any of the bones found in that ossuary belong to Jesus; that the bones of one "Judah," found in that tomb cannot be traced to Jesus.
The second tomb that they talk about will be found to contain nothing indicating that Jesus was in the second tomb either. So what will be next?
Kashmir. They've been ducking Kashmir for decades. Fine. But, they will not ever find Jesus in Jerusalem or anywhere in that area.
In the Rauza Bal tomb, which is located in the Kan Yar section of Srinagar, Kashmir, India lies the underground grave of a man who's grave faces east/west--as the Jews bury their dead. The grave is actually located under the building known as the Rauza Bal, or Roza Bal.
Over 1900 years ago, a man named "Yuz Asaf" arrived in Kashmir. He came from the Holy Land--1900 years ago, i.e., around the time Jesus lived. He proclaimed himself to be a Prophet.
Some of the books that mention the soujourn of Yuz Asaf (Jesus) are:
Bhavishya Mahapurana
Tarkih-i-Kabir-i-Kashmir
-
Wajees-ut-Tawarikh
Ain-ul-Hayat
Th-e- Acta Thomae (A Christian document declared false by the Church)
The Glass Mirror (Tibetan document translated from Chinese)
The Rauza-tus-Safa
And others.
Yuz Asaf spoke in parables, using some of the same parables as Jesus used. As mentioned in another post, inside the Rauza Bal mausoleum, on the ground floor, are carvings of the feet of Yuz Asaf. Those carvings bear wound marks that correspond to crucifixion marks.
[For complete information on this subject, visit The Tomb of Jesus Christ Website at www.tombofjesus.com ]. The oral tradition, as well as the written tradition, equate Yuz Asaf with Jesus.
Why have not the Western scholarly "authorities" attempted to study this tomb (except for Holger Kersten)? There are a few simple answers.
First and formost is the hundreds of years of CONDITIONING that most people have regarding who Jesus was and how he lived his life. To most, the idea of his surviving the crucifixion is "bogus." The fact is, as attested to by Flavius Josephus, a Jewish historian who witnessed his friend survive a crucifixion, people DID survive crucifixions back then.
But even the "scientists" BEGIN with the assumption that Jesus died. The STURP team that studied the Shroud made that mistake. As such, they do not see that the markings on the Shroud do not reveal that a person was dead. The contrary: The markings on the Shroud of Turin reveal that the heart of whoever was wrapped in that Shroud WAS BEATING. But the science begins with, "Well, he was alive, so let's figure out how these marks got here."
Same with the Kashmir. People begin with the assumption that crucifixion equated to death. Then the next assumption they make is that no one could travel, "all the way to Kashmir" back then. This is absolutely a-historical, as the routes from Jerusalem to Kashmir are well known.
In Kashmir, Jewish tribes that had been previous settled had migrated there. This is the reason that Jesus, after surviving the crucifixion, migrated to Kashmir: to continue his preaching, and to find a safe haven.
Another reason that the scholars avoid Kashmir is, quite frankly, the fear of their very lives. Fanatic sunni Muslims do not make it easy to do full scale investigation of the Shroud. Sue Olsson, a world traveller and journalist, reached the tomb, and sought permission to dig up the grave. The sunni Muslims went berserk, due to their DOCTRINAL belief that Jesus is physically alive in heaven, waiting to return to earth accompanied by Imam Mahdi, where both of them will force Islam upon the world.
With Jesus buried in the Rauza Bal, the apocalyptic ideas of these Muslims are also buried. They can't have it. So, they have recently attached a sign to the Rauza Bal that reads, "Books about this tomb are false," or something to that effect.
Another reason that the scientists avoid this tomb (though books have been written on the tomb for over the last 100 YEARS) is because the tomb is outside of Euro-Western control. It is in Eastern (Indian) hands. It cannot be pushed away into a lab; it cannot be re-interpreted. It's raw, and it ain't Western.
There is absolute no reason for any Kashmir, 2000 years ago, to have built that tomb to create a ruse. It's ridiculous to think so. Older Kashmiris, when asked, "Who is in that tomb," routinely answer, "Hazrat Isa," meaning, Jesus. Or, they will say, "Yuz Asaf." The name "Isa" is the named used by both Hindus and Muslims for Jesus.
And the name "Isa" is the name that appears in the Bhavishya Mahapurana, a Hindu document. In that document, Jesus meets King Shalivahana in the mountains of Kashmir. And he introduces himself as Isa Masih (Jesus the Messiah). You can read the full translation of that document, as well as the transliteration, at www.tombofjesus.com .
The other reason that Western scholars do not study the tomb is simply because they often do not have the depth of understanding of the Indian languages, as does Dr. Fida Hassnain, Dr. Aziz Kashmiri, and other Indian scholars who KNOW where Jesus is buried.
One rather subtle reason, I suspect [and this is my own suspicion] that the Western scholars avoid the Rauza Bal is because the theory of Jesus in Kashmir takes Jesus OUT of the West, and places him squarely in the East. Now, we just can't have THAT, now can we!!
Jesus was a prince who had been to Kashmir before the crucifixion. He was destined to take the throne of Kashmir. This is why when Pilate asked him if he were a king, he answered, "You said it." In other words, "Damn straight!"
The idea of Jesus having spent the VAST majority of his life in the East [the VAST majority] is NOT appealing to Western scholars, Christian or otherwise. It's uncomfortable for them.
Jesus was not "Western." Indeed, he was not "Eastern" He was universal. But if we're to talk about West and East, then the truth is that he was much more Eastern than Western.
Also, in India, he continued his same style of ministry. He fought on behalf of the Sudras and other lower casts, against the Brahmans. He married a peasant woman [after The Magdalene died] named Maryan, and fathered children through her. He did not marry "in his status" as prince, or king. He married a peasant woman, had PEASANT SEX, liked it, and made some babies.
Sounds like a happy, and well-deserved, ending to me! It is astonishing that people recoil at the idea of Jesus surviving the crucifixion, but would PREFER that he had died on the cross.
But no one recoils at God saving Moses from Pharoah; or Daniel from the lion, or Joshua, or David from Goliath, or Jonah from the belly of the whale. But for some reason, people recoil at the idea of Jesus being saved from death.
Why? In the Garden of Gethesemen, he prayed to God that God will "take this cup" away from him. Why would got NOT answer his prayers?
Well, God did. And that's the happy story, NOT the idea that he was nailed to a cross and DIED. The beautiful story is that he survived the crucifixion, and went on to live his live. So, everybody say, "Amen!" :-)
You will witness these people run all over the place, looking for Jesus in every cave. When you finish watching them do that; when they get tired and give up, then stop on by The Tomb of Jesus Christ Website, and find out what really happened to Jesus.
Regards,
Nate Spain
|
|
Name: KRS •
Date: 03/11/07 5:45 |
A: Sly,
If you're implying that I am JSM, I'm not, though I am honored. My background is in NT interpretation and theology (though I have a lot of training in OT and Church history as well). I started over here because I think this is a case where those who don't have critical thinking skills, or a background in the subject won't know how to deal with a film that is low on scholarship, but high on good editing and marketing. I've been working on a packet for churches, where people will ask about the validity of this material, and I've been coming here primarily to look for source material.
Thats why I'm becoming somewhat less active on the boards of late, the first version of the packet is almost done, so I'm basically monitoring three or four threads and topics, at the moment; primarily my re-calculation thread and the thread on Miriamne e Mara.
|
|
Name: Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/12/07 19:15 |
A: KRS,
your own words:
"I started over here because I think this is a case where those who don't have critical thinking skills, or a background in the subject won't know how to deal with a film that is low on scholarship, but high on good editing and marketing."
So, your arguments are designed to apeal to people who don't have critical thinking skills.
Why can't you just be here for your own reasons?
|
|
Name: samepstein •
Date: 03/12/07 23:34 |
|
A: KRS: Why on earth would you assume that people on this board do not have critical thinking skills? That is rude and proves that you believe things without knowing the truth. Of course you are working on church packets. What would happen if the people in your church thought for themselves? I think they are the ones lacking in critical thinking skills. You are very judgemental yet consider yourself a follower of Jesus...hmmm...
|
|
Name: dahkdg •
Date: 03/13/07 2:23 |
A: You know, it used to be generally accepted by scientists that the world was flat too... and that the sun was closer than the moon.... I imagine... no, I know that most scientists were quick to attack and scoff at the few who believed otherwise..... and who's laughing now? Scientists and scholars, even in the majority, CAN BE WRONG.
Maybe they're right, in which case you can, and I'm sure will, go around telling everyone who will listen, and a few who won't, "I told you so". Maybe they're not.... in which case.... well, I've heard crow tastes like chicken.... so won't be to hard to choke down. I'm not sold either way yet. Either way, I think those of us, and it seems we're in the majority, who want to know have the right to ask that more research should be done.
|
|
Name: hayomtov8 •
Date: 04/12/07 18:28 |
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: TFS •
Date: 04/20/07 18:38 |
A: Dear Sadinoel,
I see your posts everywhere; you must be quite obsessed with the outcome of this subject. I note that you aren't objective though. The only thing the scholars are rejecting is that there is not enough information to "prove" this is the family tomb of our Jesus. On the other hand, there isn't enough information to prove it isn't either. When a scholar "leans" one way or the other, they still can't give a total rejection of either possibility - as there is not enough information.
Scholars are a "tool" in the process of getting the larger picture. All who are posting on this site have literate brains that deduce perspectives from given information, as scholars do. The trick is getting all the information for there is evidence on both sides of the issue that the information has been manipulated to suit various perspectives. I don't believe your screaming (capitol letters) and repeated one-sided possibilities is going to seduce anyone.
I question the impetus behind the energy you have spent posting your perspective. Have you sacrificed something of huge value based on your present perspective? and your heart dare not consider the sacrifice was made in vain?
Waiting for more information/evidence with an open mind. Who knows where God is leading us?
Pat
|
|
Name: zartan •
Date: 04/21/07 3:43 |
A: There are a few claims from hoax accusers that need to be argued with.
1. Jesus couldn't afford a tomb. Isn't the fact that Jesus was buried in a tomb of a wealthy friend a new testament fact? Jesus was of royal lineage and considered a messiah. I'm sure his wealthy friends could afford a permanent home for his bones.
2. Jesus would have been laid to rest in his hometown of Nazareth. Unless, of course, his tomb was a secret. And why keep it a secret? Because the true hoax was the resurrection.
3. Jesus' tomb was found empty so there can't be remains. Perhaps because his body was taken from the tomb and relocated to another tomb to imply a resurrection.
4. Mariamne is ONLY found to = Mary Magdelene in a later secret gospels. Is this the same secret gospel that claims she went to Greece? Wasn't the name on the ossuary oddly written to be read in Greek? I forgive the filmmakers for making such a wild leap in logic when they found actual evidence that supported their theory. Are you suggesting that the writer of the Gospel of Philip made up the name so that a Discovery Channel documentary would be interesting thousands of years later??? And I love how skeptics attack the Gospel of Philip for having "fantastical" stories, and then go back and use THE BIBLE as evidence. WHAT???
|
