Name:Red •
Title: O.K. Im starting to hear desperation here... •
Date posted: 03/07/07 23:54
Q: "Almost every scholar thinks it's bogus"
Do you have any realization what a scholar is, and how many they are??
'The entire scientific community thinks it's bogus'
Do You understand what you are claiming?
Hey, throwin copper at the flock might work, but consider who and how many mouths you put words into.....
Name:sadinoel •
Date: 03/08/07 0:17
A: WASHINGTON – Prominent non-Christian experts, using many of the same arguments as Christian scholars, have dismissed recent claims of the discovery of Jesus’ family tomb as a publicity stunt without scientific backing...
...Dever has worked on ancient sites in Israel for 50 years and is regarded by many as the leader of biblical archaeology among U.S. scholars.
“It’s a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich,” he added, “and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don’t know enough to separate fact from fiction.”
Name:slyfoxx •
Date: 03/08/07 0:36
A: Maybe its because many non-Christian scholars don't think he existed....maybe...possibly??
Name:tony34 •
Date: 03/08/07 1:02
A: Actually I am beginning to sense that there is alot more desperation amongst the supporters of this theory. Trying to keep it going while it is very quickly dying.
Name:sadinoel •
Date: 03/08/07 1:07
A: sly that is a very good point lol
Name:sadinoel •
Date: 03/08/07 1:08
A: actually though most scholars are pretty sure he did exist. even Jews. They just dont agree on who he was.
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 1:22
A: The socalled scholars should bring more to the table. Their refutes sofar are more or less based on biblical sources. As such, the bible is not an undeniable historical source. Also, the categoric denial of the gnostic gospels are hypocritical at best.
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to warrant a thorough investigation, and that is really what Cameron and Jacobovici wants. They know they don't have the scientific leverage, and I'm sure that they want this examined by someone competent. Something the IAA doesn't seem to be.
The statistical evidence is strong, but not undeniable. However, add James as the brother, and forensic evidence surely entertains that possibility, and the odds becomes good enough, that I would gamble a good deal on it. Nobody is asking anyone to bet their life on it. A scientific examination doesn't cost that much.
However, leaving this alone due to religious sensitivity, is out of the question. I've seen enough attempts by religious zealots as to curb science. It got to stop at some point.
Name:tony34 •
Date: 03/08/07 1:41
A: golfdane I think they are leaving it alone because the theory is laughable to begin with rather than they are leaving it alone due to religious sensitivity.
That is one thing I am really noticing from you guys who are supporters of this deal. You are holding on to it by saying the reason why it isn't being investigated is because of religious reasons.
When infact that is far from being the truth. When are you guys finally going to let go and let this thing die.
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 2:26
A: Dear Tony
All I hear are arguments, that this is laughable because the Bible states otherwise. We have NO proof that Jesus was poor. We have no proof he didn't move to Jerusalem. We have no proof he didn't marry or got a son.
In fact, the availble texts indicate, that someone in his closest circle was very special to him (the beloved disciple). It indicates, that he was the heir to the throne of Israel (doesn't go well with being poor). Non canonical texts indicate that Mary Magdalene was very special as well. All circumstantial evidence at best, but not rockhard proof. Still it opens up the possibilities of it being so.
Every argument I have seen against it, is religious dogma, and statistical uncertainty (arguing about frequencies of names).
It's true there's a saying, that there are lies, damned lies and there's statistics. However, they provided the best possible data to a professor of statistics. His calculations, though they doesn't prove anything, are showing a statistical probability, that is staggering even if it was 1/10th of what they said. I would have been impressed had they given a 60:1 chance, that this was the alleged tomb. The patina evidence was hard evidence in favor of the James ossuary originating from the Taliot tomb, That should indeed be examined more thoroughly.
Name:tony34 •
Date: 03/08/07 2:59
A: golfdane I think you really need to get out of lala land here.
People aren't saying it is laughable because the bible says so. They are saying it is laughable because all the 'experts' say it is (experts who are in the scientific realm not the religious realm infact).
And we have an expert who went on record saying the James ossuary was not the missing tenth one (like the program tried to state it was).
Your guy's arguments just keep on getting knocked down right and left. And you just keep on coming back with things that are false (like saying that people are saying it is laughable due to religious reasons).
Please just put this story to rest. Because there is really nothing valid you guys can say about this whole thing anylonger.
Name:daki •
Date: 03/08/07 4:22
A: Hi all !
I think there is quite a problem about all the reactions this scientific investigation is raising .
First of all after the announcement (26/02) about the release of this documentary and BEFORE the show get on TV . Many , many people were reacting very defensivly , trying to bury that theory before even knowing all the details . That tells us something ...
Did Cameron made this for money ? Hey wake up all , it's James Cameron , if he really only want to make money of a movie , he only have to shoot a titanic 2 or a Terminator 4 ... Still everybody is strongly accusing him of this ... That tells us something ...
Every single critics i saw AFTER the show get on TV don't bring any arguments about the scientific evidences demonstrated ,only critics based on canonical text (forgetting the non-canonical one as if they never existed ... )
Well on my thougths on this documentary , i think this CAN definitly be close to truth ... But still it needs further investigations & i strongly believe Cameron rushed to show the movie to gain attention on this and hopefully get deeper in investigations (as it will right now be very hard for authorities to keep the tomb sealed ) . Still , IAA did stop the investigation with utterly falacious reasons ... That tells us something again .
Another strange fact is the way media are treating the news outside USA (i'm french) , well if this theory was so laughable , i don't see any reason why Mass-media(TV / radio / newspapers) wouldn't report it broadly . Stupid assertions and sensationalism are very good at making audience . But I can hardly find echoes of this story in the news . That tells us something ...
What i'd like (and I think many people would ) is a non-truncated investigation that gets as close as possible to the truth. Not a early bury without a glance of consideration about the seriousness of this study , because it seems to me Jacobvici used perfectly viable sientific means & methods .
Still , i can perfectly understand the anger of christians . This study is hard to consider as it is a direct clash between science and religion and might seem blasphemous for any strong-belivers . But it had to happen . What would serve Christianity most is certainly not a early bury of this theory (which can't happen now the show has gone public) , but a deeper study of the tomb even if at the end of the day the truth is what most christians seems to fear ... (or a scientifical fact blowing up the theory , who knows ? noone & this ain't gonna get solved by sealing the tomb)
PS : sorry for my terrible english but it ain't my native langage .
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 6:14
A: Daki, actually, I agree that they need to excavate the tomb, not because they have a shred of useful evidence, but because its the only way to dispell the myth. Then again, this is getting into the realm of faith for the film's supporters (at least, that seems to be the best way of dealing with the conspiracy theories).
As for texts, as a New Testament Scholar, let me explain it this way. They are using texts uncritically. They accept the elements of the canonical gospels that fit their theory (such as the diminuative Yoseh) but they reject evidence that doesn't fit their theory (Jesus family was poor). This is known as cherry picking (or chosing what fits your theory and rejecting the rest) and its a major error in any study. If you assume that the Canonical texts are ultimately untrue, but you assume they do contain historically accurate material, you must provide some sort of critical methodology to establish some validity for why they are accepting the material they consider valid - using it because it fits isn't critical methodology.
As for the later gnostic texts, there is a debate over some possibly historical value in a few gnostic texts (Thomas being the biggest examples), but the acts of Philip is not one of them. As an Evangelical I accept none of them, but I would make a different set of arguments if one of those sets of arguments was being raised (in the case of Thomas, I think it can be established that the document is a composite of several different types of gnosticism and a probable Ebionite work, so enough time must be allowed for these groups to have written, and had their material incorporated in the work). I can also raise general arguments against the historicity of the gnostic texts (which I have done, to be fair) but my acceptance isn't based solely on my canonical position; its also based on my examination of the books. Arguing from Philip, however, is the equivelent of arguing that Napolean was really named George on the basis of a twentieth century novel where Napolean is referred to as George.
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 9:31
A: "experts who are in the scientific realm not the religious realm infact"
Read the refute by Jodi Magness, one of your precious experts. Large proportions are refuting the theory based on religious dogma. That is, that Jesus was poor, and didn't live in Jerusalem on the time of his death. Her "testimony" on the burial ritual is in contrast to that of Amos Kloner. Which one are we to beleive??
"Experts" launch attacks on the statistics, but doesn't wanna give an estimate themselves on the probability, and base that with facts.
Even if there were 10% more occurences of each name, would the odds still be pretty good.
Give me ONE valid reason why I should disregard the Suffolk CSI lab conclusion, that the patina of the James ossuary is identical to the other ossuaries. Somehow, a report (that is the Amos Kloner report) that comes SIXTEEN years after the initial discovery is unreliable as to the data on the missing ossuary.
The statistical odds on Jesus, son of Joseph, Mary and Jose (a name that seems to close to the biblical account to be a coincidence, and a name never seen on an ossuary before, so it could be considered reasonably rare) are good enough to warrant a forensic examination by professionals.
I don't care if it comes out negative (that Mary proves not to be the mother or Yose isn't the brother). At least everyone would gain certainty (until the next revolutionary claim).
Name:golfdane •
Date: 03/08/07 9:58
A: "They are using texts uncritically."
And the experts aren't doing the same when using the biblical accounts to refute the theory?
Sure, gnostic gospels doesn't hold more value than the ORIGINAL versions of the text. However, I would certainly say, that the KJV is NOT the original text.
We shouldn't assume, purely based on the bible, that Jesus was poor. Actually, we could very well assume the opposite, being a Davidean heir. We shouldn't assume, that Jesus didn't live in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion.
Somehow, hard evidence, like the patina evidence, weighs IMO more than the testimony of someone in the IAA, who can't account for the ossuary, or even got a clue as to when it went missing.
One of the more curious omissions of the program (and I haven't got a clue as to Simcha actually knowing this) is, that in Dominus Flevit (the place where they found an ossuary with the name Shimon bar Jonah, and the ossuary with the chevron with the dot) was also found three oosuaries with the names Lazarus, Martha and Mary (also pretty common names, but surely something that puts the Mariamne in lesser value statistically speaking.
Name:MsGreeneMBA •
Date: 03/08/07 16:38
A: I also believe that people are trying bury this quickly without giving it a proper analysis. It's just like they did with Peter's ossuary found in 1953, the very same one they showed on the documentary. I believe that things have been altered and the truth kept from the people for centuries. People have been fooled into worshipping a false god. There are too many similarities between the stories of Mithra, Dionysis/Osiris and Jesus Christ. I don't believe in the Jesus Christ created by Paul, but I do believe in the Yoshua of Nazareth and his teachings, like I believe in Abraham and Moses.These great men were chosen by GOD to spread his message.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 16:54
A: Being a Davidian heir, we can assume that he was poor. Think it through, the Hasmoneans and the Herodians weren't exactly looking to be replaced.
As to uncritical methodology, I can back up the way I use the NT, some other scholars may debate it, but its not unreasoned. However, what I don't do is find what I like and leave the rest, or find what fits the theory I'm advocating at the moment and leave the rest.
As to the latter, you have to operate on the assumption that the two tombs are related - that has to be proven, a priori before you can use it in your analysis. Considering that we have a second site with credible arechological evidence to support an identification with Simon Peter specifically, that is a strong mark against this site.
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/08/07 16:55
A: The problem with conspiracy theories is that they aren't testable.
Name:Bob •
Date: 03/08/07 17:55
A: The patina evidence is worthless. No one is surprised that the patina on the James ossuary was similar to the ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb. It would be surprising if they weren't similar, given the make-up of the soil of the region. Test all of the ossuaries of the region and you'll probably find similar patina results. But the documentarians didn't tell us that in the film because they wanted us to think that the evidence pointed to their premise. In other words, they lied. All experts agree that the James ossuary is genuine -- it's a real first century ossuary. The claims of forgery are against the inscription, not the ossuary itself. There is written and photographic evidence for the existence of the James ossuary prior to the discovery of the Talpiot tomb in 1980. The documentarians knew this. They chose not to reveal it.
Scholars who don't believe that Jesus is God still regard the NT gospels with respect because they are genuine first century documents that speak to the political, social, religious milieu of first century Palestine and because they reflect the faith of the early Church, which is a historical entity. The Gnostic gospels were written beginning in the mid-2nd century, most considerably later, so they really don't offer much in the way of genuine, recongized commentary on first century Christianity.
The 600 to 1 stats are useless because they're based on the assumption that the people in the ossuaries had the relationships the documentarians assume they had. There's no evidence that these people don't come from as many as four different generations, or even that it was a Christian tomb. There is not one Christian symbol on or in the tomb or ossuaries. But the chevron and circle are recognized pagan symbols found all over temples and coinage of the day. There are 98 other tombs in the Jerusalem area with a "Jesus" buried in them. There are at least four other tombs with a "Jesus, son of Joseph" buried in them.
There is evidence that Jesus was poor -- every ancient document abut Jesus testifies to it. His being in the Davidic line would not make him wealthy, since the Davidic line had been dethroned for centuries by the time Jesus came along.
Is that proof? No, of course not. You won't get proof. It's impossible to prove pretty much anything with the certainty moderns believe we achieve with our sophisticated techniques, which can be so easily manipulated. Charlatans rely on this, along with people's distrust of established authorities and their eagerness to embrace conspiracy theories. The question is not, "Is it possible?" ANYTHING is statistically POSSIBLE! The real question is, "Is it reasonable?" "Can it be supported by the evidence?" In this case, clearly Cameron and Jacobovici's premise is untenable. It is not reasonable because it is not supported by the evidence.
Name:Red •
Date: 03/08/07 18:08
A: Your right..... Modern technology hasnt proven anything with certainty
SO E= P x I
doesnt hold true? Next time you flip a light switch, and it comes on, challenge your self and disprove it's certainty.
Name:Yaqov •
Date: 03/08/07 18:43
A: Everyone keeps arguing about whether Jesus' family was rich or poor. Does that matter in light of the fact that the NT clearly says in Matt "When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who himself had also become a disciple of Jesus. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. And Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a large stone against the entrance of the tomb and went away."
Ummmmm, hello? McFly?
Name:Red •
Date: 03/08/07 18:58
A: Good point. that thought crossed my mind many times but never gave it relevence because technically, it doesnt matter in this situation.
Being poor does not rule out being buried in a family tomb. The tomb could have been aquired from many diffrent ways. Joseph from Arimathia placed him in a tomb very near golgotha according to the church. This scenario is used to rule out the talpiot tomb that lies a few miles south. The bible is not clear with coordinates however.
What the bible is clear about is the fact that wherever the tomb was located, Jesus got gone. Some say he was taken to another tomb. The church says he rose on his own and walked out to never return to it. That's the crux of the biscuit.
Name:Bob •
Date: 03/08/07 19:09
A: Red, the point is that it's statistically possible that, on any given attempt, the light won't come on. Anything can be shown to be statistically possible. Are you certain that the light will come on THIS time? We don't make decisions based on what's statistically possible, because anything is. We make decisions based on what the evidence says is reasonable to hold. So we hit the switch expecting that the light will come on every time.
You're right about the crux of the matter.
Name:contemplation7 •
Date: 03/08/07 20:11
A: I watched the so-called "Debate" with Ted Koppel after the documentary aired. My wife and I were completely iritated at how this "debate" was run. I was amazed at how partial Ted Koppel was.
What's most remarkable to me is that these scholars won't even state that it's POSSIBLE that this can be the Jesus Family Tomb, which to me is very telling. Even for those scholars who do not have fundamentalist Christian beliefs, admitting that this could be the tomb seems to be problematic. I think it's fear of the public's reaction.
Name:Red •
Date: 03/08/07 20:19
A: My light bulb thing has nothing to do with statistics... it had to do with your post saying in part " It's immpossible to prove pretty much anything With the certainty moderns believe we achieve with our sophisticated techniuqes".
I said E=PxI Nix that....... Let's use I = P/E. This is one solution in Ohms law that states...... Current Equals Watts multiplied by voltage. This is used daily to help make your lighting system function This law , along with others, is absolute, is not variable, and can not be violated. It was a response to your above claim.
Your right, statistics can prove alot of things, and while the light scenario would be roughly 1 in 10000. Why? modern switches are test rated to that point. That figure does not take into account a blown bulb fromm time to time, but you see my point.
Now as far as " we dont make decisions based on what's statistically possible", Then why do you buckle up in an auto?
The Stats with regard to the tomb issue are roughly 600 to 1 in favor of the biblical jesus family. That ratio is not astronomical in the least. Especially when you buckle up due to a 1 in 45000 chance of being killed in anautomobile accident.
The evidence you say we make decisions about are those Numbers or "stats".
Name:Red •
Date: 03/08/07 20:21
A: Im sorry I =P/E is current equals watts DIVIDED by the voltage.....
Name:guahould •
Date: 03/08/07 23:24
A: The freaks will keep doing all they can to refute this very enlightening Documentary. If their faith is so strong they should let the archaeoligists and scientists conduct a full blown investigation into this and settle it once and for all . Instead they hide evidence and claim it never existed and will contunue to do so as soon as anyone gets close to discovering the realities.
Name:Bob •
Date: 03/08/07 23:25
A: Red, my comment on the certainty moderns insist on and think we can achieve was a comment on a social/cultural phenomenon. See contemplation7's post for a fair example of what I mean. Moderns think that our sophisticated methods can pretty much prove anything with certainty, so these charlatans put together a film, get a few midguided or misrepresented experts to bring out their scientific machinery and blackboards (or, in the case of the DNA lab, don't give them the entire scoop on what all is going on) and poof! It must be true! Then, when people who actually know what they're talking about provide huge amounts of damning evidence to the contrary, they fall back on "Well, anything is possible. Can't you just admit that it's possible?' And, of course, there will be many who say, "Golly, I guess it is possible. Wow!" Throw in a good dose of "Hey, we're the rebels challenging the established authorities, who are trying to suppress our findings because they're power-hungry, closed-minded and afraid" and you'll successfully draw in the conspiracy theorists to boot.
The 600 to 1 odds favoring this being the Jesus family tomb are based on the premise that the relationships between those in the tomb are what Cameron and Jacobovici claim they are. But we don't know that. That's why the stat is useless. If you simply ask, what are the chances that these people with these names all found together in this tomb are, in fact, the family of Jesus, then the chances are astronomical against it.
BTW, the stat you quoted on the chances of being killed in an auto accident are influenced by the fact that a good many people do buckle up, thereby decreasing the numbers of people who are killed in auto accidents every year. The chances of my being in an auto accident on any given day are pretty low. But, if I am in an auto accident, and I'm not buckled up, the chances of my being killed are way beyond a mere statistical possibility, and much closer to a statistical probability, more probable the more severe the accident. That's why I buckle up. Why do you think seat belts were invented in the first place? Because people were being killed in auto accidents. Everybody, please buckle up! :)
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/09/07 2:10
A: All the stats prove is that, given a total of one thousand tombs in Jerusalem, one can expect to find 1/600 of them with the names Yoseh, Yesua, Miriamne, and Marya. If they want to even start trying to produce a valid statistical model, they need to remove Miriamne from the statistical model, and do the calculations based on the number of families living in or near Jerusalem - the problem is that if they did these calculations the numbers wouldn't sell, so you have to find a way to make them sound more impressive. Additionally, to have anything more than a preliminary number you would need to figure a margin of error based on some issues such as geography, the possible disproportionality of names in rich families (that will be overly representative in the data available to compile stats), and the unknown number of people named Joseph that were also known as Joseh, etc. Again, this would make the numbers look much too small.
Name:Red •
Date: 03/09/07 3:37
A: Here we go again....... You guys always leave out the most crucial thing. The incriptions on the boxes. Your wrong about their premise. They had a guy figure what the chances are of these names being together in one tomb . Relationships have NOTHING to do with it at this point. At this point they are only NAMES, and nothing but names. The 600to1 figure is saying ' you will find this combination of names in 1 out of 600 tombs.
It is assumed they are a family because it's a FAMILY TOMB. But,
Name:KRS •
Date: 03/09/07 4:05
A: Yes, it indicates that these are families, but the results don't prove that this is the odds of any given family containing those names, because they did not calculate the data correctly to find that information. But the data doesn't speak to how many families would have these names, they based the data on a hypothetical number of tombs - they need to have based the data based on the estimated number of families taken from estimated population.
I can't argue that the following is strictly accurate, I'm try to find a way to re-run the stats, but I think the following is far more accurate than what has been used in this study, so far.
I don't have the source I would use for this handy, but if I recall correctly, Jerusalem (not including Judea or Galilee) have estimates ranging from around 200,000 people to about 2,000,000 people. If we take a conservative number (10 per family group) and use the low ball on the population that gives us 20,000 families. Using their information and calculations, except altering the data for this time for the number of families, we come out with 1 in 30.4. There are other changes that I think need to be made, including the elimination from Mariamne from the stats - the historic source is unreliable, and there are indications that the second name is a form of martha. Therefore, without her data being included, its 1 in .76. Again, I can't guarantee that some of the assumptions here aren't off, I'm not a mathmatician, I have some further questions about their data pool, I have further questions about their method of figuring stats, and I have don't know what happens statistically in a case how to interpret a stat where the probability is lower than 1 in 1. Still, thats where I am now.
