Q: If you've read "Professor" Jodi Magness' twisted, distorted, lying and reprehensible treatment of the Tomb of Jesus and would like to see her definitively refuted point by point, email me at [email protected]
Nathaniel J. Merritt M.Msc.
Name:JMD •
Date: 06/24/07 1:58
A: Jodi Magness still has a right to her opinion, and I wouldn't say she's necessarily 'lying' - it's her own bias she is unaware of. So no need for me at least to bother emailing somebody who hates others. Jesus taught me to love others, not hate them. I may not like them, or not agree with them, and some people have treated me very poorly, are even my enemies, but I still don't hate them.
Peace,
JMD
JMD
Name:Nate •
Date: 06/24/07 5:52
A: I'm pleased you have the Divine Gift of judging my heart! You might want to back off on your hubris, sport. I don't hate Jodi Magness either, but the statements she makes are lies. A woman of her education knows there was no Nazareth in the time of Jesus, etc. She knowingly makes false statements and builds her arguments on lies...unless you're telling me that someone of her academic stature is that ignorant?
Perhaps she IS that ignorant...and pigs fly! One does not ascend to her position by being ignorant of basic facts. You probably are unaware of the lies she has told, and the arguments she had built on her lies. Yes, she knows they are lies because she is well aware of the facts.
She's a highly educated woman who knows what she is doing. Lying to defend a position, rather than investigate the facts. Keep on honing that ability of yours to read the hearts of others, sport. I will continue to call liars on the carpet for their lies.
Ciao 4 niao
Nate
Name:Ladyhawk •
Date: 06/24/07 13:28
A: Nate,
I went and read Jodi Magness' essay on the Tomb, expecting, on your recommendation, to find an ignorant, right-wing diatribe of the sort we have come to associate with conservative religious advocacy--and found instead--gasp!--academic debate.
I think you have fallen into the modern trap of polarizing apologia. It is perfctly acceptable to write opinions, based on academic and scientific inquiry, that oppose other opinions. It is not a foregone conclusion that to do so one must twist, distort and otherwise obscure The Truth. Sometimes an opposing opinion is just that--a different viewpoint. From what I can see, Jodi Magness comes from a more conservative academic tradition than do Simcha, James Cameron and James Tabor do, and her opinions are mor simply reflective of scholarly caution.
Whether she's right or wrong is not the point; she is professional and sincere in her reservations. To label this "reprehensible treatment" sadly puts your age and experience at about 25. Please understand the world was not always this way; debate can be polite and it is not necessary to brand an opponent the AntiChrist when they disagree with you.
As for your dismissal of JMD, you seem to have missed the main point of following a Christian faith path. Do unto others, sport.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 06/24/07 14:44
A: What exactly is the dispute with Professor Jodi Magness?And was your website the guest book?
Name:Nate •
Date: 06/24/07 21:28
A: Dear Ladyhawk
Your respons beetrays the fact that you're unaware of the false statements Magness makes, and that is exactly what she's counting on. I am a Mythicist and am convinced Jesus Christ is no more historical than Zeus, and this tomb is a fraud. Yet, I wish this tomb to be shown to be a fraud via honest, up-front, scholarly means. By actually presenting the facts as they are, wrestling with them as they are, and not trying to undermine this find by twisting facts, leaving out facts, knowingly making misstatements, building arguments on disproven ideas, and using underhanded debate tactics to gain "points" for ones position rather than forward the cause of truth.
So, I wrote my refutation and rebuttal in an attempt to alert people to the tactics she is using. I compare this situation ot the shroud of Turin. It's a fraud and I always knew it was a fraud. Yet rather than discover the actual means by which this fraud was perpretrated, debunkers such as Joe Nickell and Walter McCrone traveled the world "exposing" the shroud by using methods that approximated the image but did not in fact share the strange features of the shroud image. These men did not further the cause of truth, they merely disocvered a way to make some extra money.
It took a south African scientist to finally demonstrate that the shroud image is the first known photograph using optics and materials available at the time the shroud made it's appearance. I was a vociferous critic of Nickell and McCrone not because they attacked the shroud as a fraud, but because their methods were dishonest. The shroud image is composed of dehydrated fibers on the uppermost layers of fibers. Nickell and McCrone's methods used paint. The shroud image is not made of paint. The shroud image flouresces under ultraviolet light, the images made my Nickell and McCrone do not. The shroud image contains 3-D information. The images made by Nickell and McCrone do not. Yet, these men ignored the real facts about the image and paraded their false "solution" to the problem as having actually demonstrated how the image was made. These men accomplished nothing in the furtherance of the facts.
Jodi Magness is doing the same. If you read my rebuttal you would see what she's doing. Like her, I want this tomb to be exposed as a fraud, but on honest grounds via honest factual methods and arguments. Magness is the equivalent of Nickell and McCrone as regards the tomb.
I hope that clarifies my posiiton, as well as what Magness is doing, and piques your curiosity. I tried to post my entire response to Magness here but it will not fit.
