Jesus Family Tomb - Forum - Prove its not true

Home » Forum » General Discussions » Prove its not true

Hello, guest

Name: dougntam • Title: Prove its not true • Date posted: 03/05/07 15:15

Q: Most everyone here is so sure that it cant be true, because it goes against their faith. Can anyone prove that its not true that this isnt the remains of christ. It seems to me that all of this provieds more physical evidence to it being true than there is physical evidence to it not being true.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 15:39

A: Uh, first the burden of proof is on the film makers (since their theory is the new one). Second, there is a major question with the sources they are using to identify Mariamne with Mary Magdalene, which undercuts their argument substantially.

Name: dougntam • Date: 03/05/07 15:46

A: Why is it on the film makers because theirs is the new one. It seems to me that they already provide more proff than what the common belief has provided. What sources are in question?

Name: Mark-Tao • Date: 03/05/07 16:06

A: To even entertain this idea, you have to be willing to consider that everything the Christian Church has taught about God and man's place in the universe is wrong. It really is a revolutionary idea being presented.

If Jesus was married and had a child, then in order to keep that secret some lies were told. It would mean that the stories about Jesus were doctored for propaganda reasons.

We have no trouble accepting that our modern leaders spin versions of the truth to justify their agendas. And even though countless church leaders have been proven to be frauds, the idea that the very stories people put their faith in could be false is like telling people that they've been F-ed with on a very personal level.

It makes sense to me that people would be threatened. It's like insulting someone's mother. She may be a drunk and a horrible mother, but you just don't do it.

Name: christinme • Date: 03/05/07 16:10

A: The Bible is to be held as the living word of God given to men to write by the spirit of God which is the spirit of truth and as such is truth.The bible said that when Jesus ascended to heaven after the ressurection he was flesh and bones. How is he flesh and bones if his remains were left on earth?

Name: MsGreeneMBA • Date: 03/05/07 16:10

A: No one can prove it's not true. If someone can prove that these ossuaries can't possibly be those of Jesus, Mary, Mary Magdalene, and their family, can they also prove that the ossuary of Peter (Simon Bar Jonah) isn't his either? I think this is so compelling. And I read about the discovery of Peter's ossuary in the 1950s about 4 years ago. I think these discoveries prove that the world has been deceived by the great deceiver!!!

Name: MsGreeneMBA • Date: 03/05/07 16:14

A: Christinme, do you also realize that the bible has been doctored and powerful information removed? It was tailored to suit the ideals of Emperors and Kings. People need to remember that we also told in the bible that many people would be deceived, and this just proves that they have.

Name: christinme • Date: 03/05/07 16:17

A: I have no doubt that it could very well be the familial tomb of Jesus, yet to believe his bones are among them is totally against my very core belief that he rose from the dead and now sits on the right hand of his father making intercession on our behalf. I know that holding that same belief will one day find me with him in paradise and i hope that through all the debating,all hold tight to that belief for it is the only means of salvation.

Name: betty47 • Date: 03/05/07 16:17

A: That's probably why information on these ossuaries was not released when they were found 25 years ago. The whole concept that Jesus was human and buried in Jerusalem was too revolutionary from what we've been taught over thousands of years. No one could believe it. But maybe it's time we start to call the Greatest Story Ever Told, The Greatest Hoax Ever Told. So let's go find Mohammed and dig him up too. Maybe the world would be a better place if we have less people fighting over these so called "saviors".

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 16:21

A: Uh, because thats how debate works. The new idea, (affirmative) always bears the burden of proof, because they are claiming to introduce new theories into the question.

Second, very few scholars accept the Nag Hammadi texts as being useful for studying anything about first century Christians, and the few who do are generally considered the lunatic fringe to the theological left. This includes all the material they used to link Mary Magdalene to the Mariamne inside the tomb.

As to the gospels pedigree, The gospels, actually are fairly well substantiated. John was written by someone claiming to be an eyewitness, and this can be substantiated by the fact that he knows details that later historians tend to get wrong. Luke was proven by a man who was initially sceptical of the gospels to be a historian of the first rank in Acts, and its hard to assume he was any less capable in his work on the gospel (the man's name was William M Ramsey). Matthew was clearly written by a Jewish Christian (since he often translated OT texts himself rathe than relying on the commonGreek translation of the Old Testament), and Mark was linked by a man who lived at the turn of the second century with Peter. While the contents can't be proven or disproven by archeology, they have a better substantiation than any other text I know of from the ancient world.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 16:23

A: "Christinme, do you also realize that the bible has been doctored and powerful information removed? It was tailored to suit the ideals of Emperors and Kings. People need to remember that we also told in the bible that many people would be deceived, and this just proves that they have. "

Actually, there isn't any evidence for the kind of doctoring your talking about.

Name: christinme • Date: 03/05/07 16:23

A: magreenemba: yes but not by the very tool used by God to spread his promises to those who'd believe. Do you believe God would allow anyone to alter his living word to keep his words for their own purposes?

Name: dougntam • Date: 03/05/07 16:26

A: You are exactly right MSGREEN the bible has been doctored several times over. I was going to bring that up but i was responding to another message

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 16:26

A: Betty 47,

actually, the reason why scholars have ignored the find is because before this film came out is because these avenues weren't considered valuable sources of information. Few scholars have actually been convinced by the case these guys have made (even most of the scholars they quote disagree with them, and a few have indicated that their work was misrepresented).

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 16:28

A: Peter has a second grave site in Rome, and the archeological evidence goes back to the same era.

Name: dougntam • Date: 03/05/07 16:36

A: KRS actually there is evidence to doctoring of the bible. First there were many mistranslation from the hebrew to the king james version, second there have been books found that are "considered" missing books of the bible. But alas just this thing it goes unproven but if you put it all together makes a whole lot more sense. Even the discovery channel did a bit on possible altering of the bible back in the 1st constantanople period to make the masses more controlable by the king.

Name: Mark-Tao • Date: 03/05/07 16:45

A: KRS, most excellent Thophilus:

"...few scholars accept the Nag Hammadi texts as being useful for studying anything about first century Christians, and the few who do are generally considered the lunatic fringe to the theological left. This includes all the material they used to link Mary Magdalene to the Mariamne inside the tomb."

Lame argument. Try this one, "Few scientists agree that the world is round, those who do are generally considered the lunatic fringe."

Since you are acting as an appologist for your religion, could you also appologize for the Inquisition and the Crusaids?

Name: OpenMinded • Date: 03/05/07 16:48

A: "there is a major question with the sources they are using to identify Mariamne with Mary Magdalene, which undercuts their argument substantially. "

Can you tell me HOW this undercuts their arguement?

Name: christinme • Date: 03/05/07 16:49

A: this whole thing looks like the intricate plotting for a deception of the highest degree.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 16:56

A: Mark, objection, since these issues aren't relavent to the discussion of the time, and seems to reflect a questionable knowledge of the crusades (as a protestant, my kind was the subject of the inquisitions).

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 17:01

A: Dougtamn, no there is supposition on the basis of logical principles, but there isn't this kind of evidence. If you compare the second century manuscripts to the fourth century manuscripts to the Byzantine manuscripts you don't find the evidence of doctoring. You do find scribal errors, and a possible recension to deal with Textual problems, but the differences are not significant enough for the claims you are making.

As for the lost books, they were never really lost. Almost all of the books of the New Testament are quoted by second century fathers (the exceptions being 2 John and 3 John, probably due to their short size). None of the works cited (at least among the NT sections) here have anything similar to substantiate their existence at a time before the late second or early third century.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 17:05

A: The Nag Hammadi texts compared to the earth being round . . . bad analogy, Mark. A more accurate one would be comparing the few fringe scholars who accept them with those who argue that aliens built the pyramids, both have the same kinds of holes in their arguments and both get more publishing than the quality of their work deserves. The entire work requires an intricate number of hypothetical arguments which don't have any kind of corroborating details, and for which there are other, more plausible explanations.

There is no evidence of anything that is distinctively gnostic before AD 85.

Name: graham • Date: 03/05/07 17:08

A: so why are you so sure it is true? This is the truth.....they found a tomb with names on the ossuaries.....names that may or may not have religious significance....that is the truth....you cannot anymore proove it is Jesus Christ or His mother then anyone can proove He rose from the dead.....that is where faith comes in....ok so you want to believe this documentary...it is all conjecture to say what was said in the documenary.....ok so you believe it is Jesus Christ.....that means you have to discount the whole biblical stories....that they were lies to propagate a conspiracy.....and that every one fell for it....even though christanity was an obsure religion back then....you now have to put your faith in an obsure person.......simcha ......who has nothing to gain at all from this documentary....heh heh....and trust that his vision of what happened is the truth.....wow talk about a leap of faith......

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 17:12

A: Basically, they have no real basis for arguing that Mariamne is Mary Magdalene, all they have is a late, gnostic work to base it on, a work that is historically less reliable than the New Testament. WIthout identifying Mariamne as Mary Magdalene, the statistical probablilities drop substantially.

Name: Mark-Tao • Date: 03/05/07 17:14

A: sorry KRS,

You can't just skip over the Catholic Church when considering Church history. Though you be Protestant, the Catholic Church made choices along the way that shape Protestant versions of Christianity to this day.

If the theory in the documentary is true, then the Gospel of Phillip would support the idea that the history has been altered at some point. It would not take away from their idea, it would support it. If the history was changed, then any version of the real story that remains would, by nature, be a "fringe story".

At the time when Christian Authority was established in Rome, those who held variant beliefs were killed. The gospels the Christian Church passed on were the ones that supported the power of the Roman Church. That has to be kept in mind when calling the Gnostic Gospels "Fringe".

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 17:39

A: Actually, I was talking about the crusades, you can't really deal with the accuracy of the New Testament on that basis, since they are happening after 11 centuries of Church history. Again, the crusades are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Your argument with Philip basically means you have a circular argument. How do you know Philip has any historically useful information? Because it shows Mariamne was Mary Magdalene. Why do you believe the tomb Mariamne is Mary Magdalene? Because the gospel according to Philip makes the identification. This may sell a lot of books but its bad scholarship.

There really isn't any solid evidence of the kind of pogrom your describing, its theorized a lot, but there isn't any hard, solid evidence to support it. Interesting? Maybe, scholarly, not in the least.

Incidentally, we can prove the gospels are first century works, most scholars believe the Nag Hammadi texts were composed in the late second to third century, so the logical presumption is that the gospels are more accurate, and if you compare the second century copies of the gospels to the fourth and fifth century Alexandrian manuscripts (which I have done, incidentally with a transcript of P66 to Siniaticus) the amount of scribal variation is so low, and the quality of the variation is so minor you can't argue that there has been an organized attempt to re-write them.

Finally, given the orthodox community's constant cry that nothing in the doctrine is to be altered in the New Testament, their strong reactions against Pseudonymity and the nature of the Hellenistic world, it is far more logical to deduce that the gnostics were derived from the orthodox community than to assume the orthodox community evolved from gnostic community within twenty years of Christ's death.

Name: Mark-Tao • Date: 03/05/07 20:01

A: It's not a circular argument. If the claims of the documentary are true, then the reference to Mary Magdalene is correct. Right now, the pieces of the puzzle only look like they fit together. More work needs to be done on the tomb and the information surrounding it.

For you to argue against the documentary because you claim to KNOW that the Gospel of Philip could not have contained a valid reference to the real Mary Magdalene just makes you look like a very smart person with a very closed mind.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 21:09

A: No, I'm not closed minded; I became interested in New Testament evidence after finding and reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail while I was a teenager, and spent a great deal of time in my masters and early doc work on related subjects. I came to realize that the evidence for the New Testament is far greater than most people actually appreciate. The Nag Hammadi texts, however, have only proven one thing - that the second century fathers accurately described them.

Again, no good scholar accepts Philip, not because they are close minded, but because the gospel according to Philip has nothing to commend itself as genuine. It was clearly written by second or third century gnostics (due to the truth's it espouses). There are somethings we know from the gnostics:

We know the gnostics practiced pseudonymity (the practice of writing in another person's name).
We know the gnostics were less concerned with the historical Jesus than with material that represented their own philosophical viewpoint, or by the orthodox party.
We know that this work is written at the least two centuries after the time of Christ, they also lack the historic and geographic linchpins we find in the gospels.

There is no good reason for accepting Philip as anything other than historically useless.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 21:16

A: Circular Reasoning

Actually, it still is circular reasoning. To avoid circular reasoning, you have to prove either the gospel of Philip or the Tomb independent of the other source of info., that means until you prove Philip you can't use the Mariamne ossuary in your statistical argument unless you can either prove Philip, or prove the tomb is legitimate (and not a second century hoax) without referencing Philip by any other means.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 21:27

A: As for close minded, I don't think I'm the one letting my bias blind me.

The evidence in favor the accuracy of the Canonical gospels is far greater than the evidence for the Nag Hammadi texts. The manuscript evidence of the New Testament proves that there isn't some third or fourth century hatchet job being done on the canonical gospels because the fourth century Alexandrian cases are substantially the same as the late second century manuscripts, and the variation between the Alexandrian texts and the western or Byzantine texts don't show that type of tampering either.

Frankly, from a purely evidentary perspective, I need to rely on faith a lot less than you do.

Frankly, you seem a lot more biased by your worldview than any Christian apologist.

Name: Jim D • Date: 03/05/07 21:43

A: Fact: Everyone of the Apostles, with the exception of John, was killed for their faith. The claim of Jesus’ resurrection, was part of the earliest, most primitive testimony regarding Jesus. And it was made by those very same people that the documentary suggests knew Jesus’ bones were actually secretly buried in Jerusalem. Why would so many of them die for this lie when they knew it was a lie? It doesn’t add up.

Fact: The Bible is the most reliable book of antiquity. It has been proven more factual than any other. No reputable historian would refute this claim.

Fact: Several people witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Several witnessed him in His resurrected state.

Fact: Jesus spoke in parables, like many of the teachers of His day, not in codes that needed to be deciphered. The "Tomb" story states He spoke in "code". This is simply not historically or culturally true.
How can DNA evidence suggest someone is married?

Point: How can DNA evidence suggest someone is married? DNA can’t “suggest” anything about legal relationships, only biological ones. In this case, the DNA evidence showed Jesus and Mary were not related by a mother, not that they were husband and wife. The truth is, she could have been married to any one of the males in the tomb, or to none of them for that matter. The DNA “suggests” nothing.

Check the evidence on both sides. You will find that the Biblical account of Jesus' death and ressurection, have more fact backing them up, than this "mockumentary".

Jim

Name: guahould • Date: 03/05/07 21:53

A: Dont ask the freaks to prove it not true ,, you`ll be banging heads with the same frame of thinking that will tell you to disprove their beliefs. Very very close minded thinking. I think the film makers scenerio is far far more believable than any of the rediculous stories that the sheep have come to believe. Sorry but that is how it is!!

Name: pat440 • Date: 03/05/07 22:51

A: Hey guahold, can you please prove to me how this documentary is more believable than holy Scripture. I don't call that logical, I call that desparate and gulliable. The evidence given in this documentary is purely circumstantial, and that we know is sure.

Name: NO FAITH LOST • Date: 03/05/07 23:19

A: This discovery should not be feared or pushed aside. Just because human remains of Jesus may have been found does not mean that Jesus did not ascend into Heaven as told in the Bible. As you all know, Jesus was capable of many powerful acts (miracles) ,that were shunned by ancients and which are still shunned in today's world. I believe that Jesus's spirit may have ascended into heaven in human form, for this may have been the only way to confirm to his followerers that he in fact had risen from the dead. So to find human remains says nothing. When we die, our human remains stay here on earth because it is no longer needed. It's the soul that is judged not the body. Why would Jesus need his human remains? The problem at hand is that we have been told only what the church wanted us to know for thousands of years and it's a bit hard for people to break from what they were taught about religion. Lets's look at this topic for what it is. If anything, this should be "enlightenment" for us all, not an attack on our faith.

Name: Larosa • Date: 03/06/07 1:19

A: Whatever remains that might have been found just goes to prove that we will not be needing or taking these old earthly bodies with us when our spirit returns to heaven. Remember that even Mary Magdelene did not recognize Jesus after he had risen because he was in a new body. Keep the fiaith Christians soldiers, we will understand it better by and by.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/06/07 2:17

A: Actually, back to the OP, one thing you might want to ask yourself is, why is that most of the scholars on record, including many that were in the film itself, are arguing that this is film is laughable?

This film seems to be an example of selling an idea through means of massmarketing because you realize your evidence isn't strong enough to convince most scholars.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/06/07 2:19

A: Guohold, you talking about Christians being closeminded is an extreme example of those living in glass houses needing to avoid throwing stones, check some of the evidence I've cited everywhere, if you really have any degree of objectivity about you.

Name: Mark-Tao • Date: 03/06/07 15:37

A: KRS,

"Me thinks you protest too much."

The only thing that has to be valid in the Philip Gospel, as it pertains to this documentary, is it's reference to Mary Magdalene. It's all about the way her name is spelled in the reference. That's it. It demonstrates that someone from the early church was spelling her name the same way it appears on the ossuary. That's the whole importance of that evidence.

You argue against it, as if people are suggesting it as an alternate holy book to compete with your holy book. It simply shows that SOMEONE in the early church was refering to Mary Magdalene as "Mariamene".

Now, it doesn't conclude the argument. It's only one piece of evidence. You protest too much.

Name: NormDoering • Date: 03/06/07 16:30

A: christinme wrote:
"The bible said that when Jesus ascended to heaven after the ressurection he was flesh and bones. How is he flesh and bones if his remains were left on earth?"

Where does the Bible say that exactly? Let's see it in chapter and verse.

You believe in Jesus' bodily ascension into the sky. So, where did his body go? You think heaven is up in the sky? What's up there is 350,000 feet worth of atmosphere and then the vacuum of space and the Van Allen radiation belts. Where did Jesus' body go? To the Moon? Is Heaven hiding behind a cloud?

http://normdoering.blogspot.com/

Name: KRS • Date: 03/06/07 17:31

A: Mark,

To use Philip as a reference, you must first prove that there is a reason to believe the reference to Mariamne might have a basis in fact, when most of what is present most clearly is not. Nor can this indicate that someone in the early Church used this reference, since the late second/early third century is not all that early when it comes to dealing with first Century Christianity. The only thing that Philip actually indicates is that one gnostic sect from the third century might have used the name Mariamne, and this is probably due to mixing Mary Magdalene up with one of the Herodians who had same name (considering some of the other historical errors in the document).

A modern equivelent of using Mariamne from Philip is would be to consider an alternate tomb of Napolean as being potentially accurate on the basis of a faniciful story from around 1900 indicates that some of Napolean's friends called him George. Philip is basically a fanciful tale written so far after the time that it requires some kind of corroboration to use as evidence in any reference.

Come on, guy, there is a reason why the scholars, (many of them who disagree with me theologically) are saying that this is docudrama is laughable.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/06/07 18:55

A: At the least they need to remove the presence of Marimane from their statistical argument, that hurts their case (significantly), otherwise they are including assumptions in their primary argument that are, at best, extremely questionable.

Name: Mark-Tao • Date: 03/06/07 19:05

A: KRS

I can't convince you to open your mind, and you can't convince me to close mine.

At the end of the day, I will remain open to the possibility that Jesus left his physical body on earth.

My faith needs no defending.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/07/07 3:13

A: Actually, my mind is open, but I'm going to use my brain, and not simply accept a bad argument because someone tells me its not a bad argument.

Name: truth • Date: 03/07/07 15:36

A: Betty, Muhammad (PBH) never said, "He was a savior." He said, "G-d is Savior. There is no G-d but G-d." Muhammad is amessenger of G-d. He never claimed to be nothing more. Muhammad (PBH) was sent to help a people who were lost. They worshipped icons. According to G-ds promise to Abraham he would make a great nation from the seed of Ishmael. G-d has done just that. Read a Quran, read about islam, it won't kill you. It will help you understand others and how they worship. You will be surprised at how misinformed we so often are.

Name: truth • Date: 03/07/07 15:44

A: Sorry for the typos

Name: ollypop • Date: 03/07/07 16:38

A: KRS,

What scholars are you referring too? I have read that "scholars" agree all the gospels were written in the second to third centuries. And if we are to believe that The Acts of Phillip are lunacy then where are the acts of Phillip we should be reading?
Why would gnostic Christians turn so much from the teachings of Christ?
The writers of the gospels were under tremendous pressure from the world they lived in and it is accepted by scholars that they wrote with Roman persecution in mind. IE: The Hebrews blamed for Christ's death
Knowledge had always been kept from the commom people and whether this documentary changes anyone's opinion of Christ (which i hopew it does not), you have to give it credit for bringing the topic to the forefront again.
You may be surprised when you find this documentary brings more people to Chrsitianity, although I doubt you'd accept anyone with beliefs built out of this.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 6:53

A: First, as to all the gospels being from the second to the third century, thats really a position that comes from the 19th century, and was rapidly abandoned in the twentieth. There are a few that will date John this late, but not the synoptics. The reason is that they were operating on the basis of a theory known as the Bauer hypothesis that built a logical framework for dating the gospels on the basis of the Hegelian Dialectic, and thus he accepted four Pauline epistles as genuine, and considered everything else to be later fakes. This theory was decisively quashed, however, by a historian named J B Lightfoot along with a New Testament scholar named Theodore Zahn. The ultimate effect is that it becomes almost impossible to date the synoptics that late, because of works that quote or allude to the synoptics in the early second century.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 6:59

A: gnosticism is effectively a turning away from Christ, but its origin isn't quite so brash. Non-Christian gnosticism is by nature a very eclectic study, it is built on bits and pieces from other sources. Another tendency in the hellenistic world at this time was the tendency towards syncretic worship systems. There are a few theories about the origins of the Christian gnostics; the most compelling, considering Occam's razor is that Christian gnosticism is a result of one of these syncretic systems - some people tried to marry Christianity and gnostic materials and in the process they changed Christianity into something different.

Name: chemba • Date: 03/08/07 7:15

A: In front of ‘nature’, we still are small child. Understanding the real concept of the nature is very difficult. If the nature is mere matter, then we too are matter not life. For understand the true knowledge of our life, first we should understand the true knowledge of nature as ‘how nature works?’ Our knowledge about nature is very small. To understand the full details of above we need to observe the nature. But it was found out by our ancient scholars before thousands of years from now. Scriptures are nothing but the above details in indirect or story form. If we want to know the true knowledge of god. life and universe, we need the capacity to observe the nature or understand the real meaning of the scholars’ words. But we have no knowledge about the both things.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 7:18

A: As to the world shaping the gospels, thats supposition, based primarily on bias. The big reason for this idea is that the gospels pictures of the pharisees differs from the Talmud, and because they claim that the sanhedrin could not have arranged for the death of Christ (or alternately that only the Saducees of the Sanhedrin was involved).

Actually, this is after the time of Sejanus - a Roman officer who basically ran the empire so Tiberius could go to his little island and brood, er, I mean think. When Sejanus was found guilty of treason, however, Tiberius began killing any Roman who looked at him funny. Meanwhile, Pilate had been doing such a great job in Jerusalem that the Jews had almost revolted two or three times, and the emperor had told him not to create anymore trouble, or else. Quite frankly, sending another letter to Tiberius about Pilate, indicating that Pilate wasn't loyal would probably have meant that Pilate's head would be found on a pike somewhere for a while. So there really is no problem with the Jews having the ability to force Pilate to execute Jesus.

As for the Pharisees (which was the party which ultimately became modern Judaism), considering that the Talmud was written much later and their tradition was largely oral rather than written, of course these differences would exist. However, it must also be remembered that after the Jewish War the Jews had what they call the Great Sanhedrin, which sort of defined Jewish orthodoxy. At this point, we start seeing more written material documenting Jewish belief - though much of this is alterations in the synagogue service, etc. I think that it is probable that one of the things that happened is that streams of Jewish thought that supported the Christian sect were edited out. (Mind you, I can't prove that this is the case, as there is not a definitive document to tell me this is what happened, its simply the best deduction I have). Considering some similarities between the New Testament treatment of the Pharisees and that found in Josephus, I think that part of the issue is due to a different shift. There were at least two major schools of Pharisees, that of Hillel, which was dominate and that of Shammai which is less influential at the time of the Talmud. However, I think that in the first century the reverse was true - the few pharisees that the gospels present in a relatively favorable often express notions that are typical of the school of Hillel rather than Shammai. One of the greatest members of the Hillel school was Paul's teacher, Gamaliel, and I would suggest that Gamaliel's school might have caused a population shift within the pharisaical community. Again, this is a deduction I'm making, I can't present solid evidence and prove it, so take it as you will.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 7:20

A: Chemba, believe what you wish, just remember that those are your presuppositions speaking not fact. Your welcome to your opinion, but I could never reconcile a subjectivist approach to the first law of logic.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 7:25

A: Ollypop,

sorry, I forgot John (Getting tired). The reason why John is usually dated to the first century is due to two major factors. The first is P53 - a fragment of a manuscript that has been dated to AD 120-125 (and there has been no debate on that fact). (Incidentally, this has also hardened the first century dates of the synoptics. Much of the material that John leaves out makes little sense, and some of his more cryptic references makes little sense if the synoptics were not already in circulation). The previous date (that was often considered the "surest results of modern literary science" was that it was in the last half of the second century, and probably in the last quarter, needless to say, a lot of scurrying resulted. The second factor has come as a result of archeology. John is remarkably accurate with respect to what archeology has discovered about the city of Jerusalem.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 7:37

A: Last point on your reply (I promise, sorry, I tended to be long winded, because I can't be sure what knowledge base to assume).

I assume a lot of people may become Christians due to this film, but not as you expect. I'm probably more disgusted with this film as a New Testament scholar than I am as a theologian. I think when the facts pointing out how bad a job has been done here are presented, it will be dumped like so many other over-sensationalized, pseudo-scholarly works have been in the past sixty years or so. Nevertheless, I think it may do what reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail did for me when I was young: As a Christian I realized I had nothing to fear if the Bible was true in exploring the matter and nothing to lose if the Bible turned out to be false. That's where my interest in serious New Testament studies really began. I expect a lot of people will come away realizing how poor the documentary is, and will search for the realities behind the New Testament. Christianity doesn't forbid investigation - it invites it. (Only, that investigation needs to be handled with some actual care rather than trying to find away to make things fit).

As for accepting those who accept this as Chistians, your right. Religion is not a thing of culture or ceremonial practice. Its ultimately a statement of belief - whether philosophical or theological about the ultimate questions and ones defining presuppositons to the questions of life itself. (Technically, everyone is religious and everyone has faith, the problem is that naturalists don't always realize that their own belief in their ability to understand the universe by the means of science alone is as much a faith system as anything else). All religions have certain irreducible minimums - beliefs that, if eliminated means that you have changed the essential nature of that religion. One of those for Christianity is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Name: Mark-Tao • Date: 03/08/07 15:56

A: The bible doesn't need to be "all true" or "all false".

The bible contains a mix of history, myth, propaganda, and art.

Just last night I was reading in the book of 1 Samuel about how over 50,000 people were instantly killed by God, just because they looked inside the Ark. OOOOO fear the ARK. It's 1 Samuel 6:19 for those playing the home edition.

My point being that there's nothing special about the scare stories in the bible. If you open the sacred box, you will be killed. Only the priest can even come in contact with the sacred box. I better give that priest some money, so I don't get killed by the sacred box.

If you need every story in the Bible to be a TRUE story in order for your faith to be valid, you might want to address the fact that God looks very sadistic in the Bible. Even the idea that God would require a ritual sacrifice in order to forgive people is sick if you just ask yourself how you would judge any human being who did the same thing.

I drove across your lawn last night, and I'm real sorry. Can you forgive me?

Sure, just kill a baby sheep in front of me and burn it. That would make me happy, after that you are so forgiven. LOL

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 16:38

A: Mark,

Your answer here requires one to accept your worldview a priori. God isn't sadistic - the problem is that He is just, and being just He must judge sin, at some point. Your argument requires that we assume that man deserves better, from a Christian standpoint, God is merciful that He has not erradicated our entire race from existence already. Your welcome do disagree - but your doing so from your preconcieved notions. I could just call you closed minded on the basis of your religion - but really you're trying to be ontologically consistent. So are those of us "closeminded" Christians.

As to the Philistine deaths, the ark wasn't simply a box, it was the symbol of God among His people, and it was to be accorded a respect due God. Putting the ark of God in the house of a pagan deity, to show that your pagan deity has conquered the God of the universe is, at the least, an affront to God's holiness.

That doesn't speak to the point at hand, however. The argument here isn't denied because its sub-Christian its being denied because the evidence they are offering is based on very poor thinking (speaking as a New Testament Scholar), and their use of sensationalistic propaganda tactics rather than sound, scholarly, methodological analysis.

Name: hbic3 • Date: 03/09/07 13:35

A: Prove it is.

Name: TFS • Date: 03/13/07 11:59

A: To: KRS

My questions:

Do you teach?

Who pays your salary today?

What beliefs do/did your parents cling to?

Were you proud or embarrassed by their beliefs?

Did you find their beliefs held true in your life experience?

Why did you read Holy Blood, Holy Grail?

Was it curiosity? Were you so angry with the possible contention(s) you needed to know intricately what the enemy’s foundation was? Or were you genuinely open to possibility?

Are you married?

If so, do you love your wife with agape love, or eros? I doubt, with what would take more time and space to define, divine love?

Can your wife speak her mind in your presence? Does her perspective have credibility in your mind? Do you believe she will go to heaven? Is her work here as important as your work?

Or, have you suffered with intimacy issues?

You may say all these questions are irrelevant, but the answers to these questions,and others, is what you filter all information entering your mind through.

Since wealth and power have controlled what is viewed as scholarly, to be truly balanced, you need to turn off your “thinker,“turn on your “feeler” and, after discovering what the later teaches you, apply what your education has taught you. Likely, you’ll find your perspective of what the scholars taught you will be modified in a way that is much larger, more inclusive and complete than your present perspectives. If you tune in to your "self," where the Temple of God lives (this is biblical), you'll wonder how in heavens name you ever could have had the perspectives you own now. God Bless all of us on our journey.

Name: sadinoel • Date: 03/13/07 14:17

A: The burden of proof is on the people who are making the claim.

Allow me to illustrate.

I hereby make the claim that I have psychic powers!

Prove it's not true.

Name: Red • Date: 03/13/07 21:45

A: "the burdon of proof is on the people making a claim".......WELL......

It is the Bible that makes the claim of Bodily accension. Christains have been CLAIMING this for years. It's YOUR claim. It' s the BIBLE's claim.

Whose burden?

Name: sadinoel • Date: 03/14/07 15:12

A: Red what the heck does that have to do with the data in this case or proving if Jesus bones are in this tomb. First you assume I am Christian simply because I dont buy into this garbage. Next you create a red herring argument. Look it up. You do it frequently.

Was it purposeful that you chose the name "Red" or just a lucky conicidence? Stick to the subject at hand please.

Name: sadinoel • Date: 03/14/07 15:15

A: And to answer your red herring argument, yes the burden of proof is on Christains when it comes to their religious claims.

Just as the burden of proof is on Simcha to prove these are the bones of Jesus. Which so far he has not done in a responsible, scientific way. There is something else you can look up while you figure out what a red herring argument is. "The Scientific Method". Google it.

Name: Red • Date: 03/14/07 15:33

A: Look, This find would mean absolutely nothing if it was not for the biblical claims. Dont you understand that?

You say stick to the subject at hand.... This IS the subject. A find that challenges a Biblical claim.

You want to argue from a purely scientific point of view. This conversation would not be happening if that was the case. There wouldnt be an arguement. That find would be accepted as any other.

The fact is, the find and the Science is challenging something.

Name: sadinoel • Date: 03/14/07 15:40

A: I want to argue from a scientific point of view because that is the only way to PROVE anything. I do "get it".

And yes the argument would still be happening if say we found the bones of some major historical non-religious figure. Say perhaps the bones of Alexander the Great or something (not sure maybe we already have that but you get the picture).

There would be studies, and archaeologists would argue and it would be in the public light. It would not be as controversial for sure, but we would be talking about it and there would be scientific debate.

The only way to prove these are the bones of Jesus is through science. Or if we can't prove it, at least we can make a reasonable claim.

Simcha has failed to do so. His claim is quite weak and requires huge jumps and ignoring many holes as well as his own very questionable credibility in the academic community and the fact hs is a producer and not an actual archaeologist to boot.

I just don't buy it. But I am a skeptic by nature.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/14/07 17:11

A: sadinoel,

"There is something else you can look up while you figure out what a red herring argument is. "The Scientific Method". Google it."

Burn... haha

"The only way to prove these are the bones of Jesus is through science. Or if we can't prove it, at least we can make a reasonable claim."

Yeah, I'm about sick of the probability argument. Thats all they have, well since these names are all together, "it has to be" the Jesus of the bible. Bad science... did you read my article in the "Laying the probability idea to rest"?

"I am a skeptic by nature."

Good to hear that, to many people are robots to what scientists / religious figures say. They should do their own research.

Name: sadinoel • Date: 03/14/07 17:27

A: I will answer with an old German proverb:

"The eyes believe themselves -- The ears believe other people."

Name: dahkdg • Date: 03/14/07 19:08

A: This is addressed to both KRS and sadinoel.....

I've been following these boards since the movie came out and I'm seeing a pattern with the two of you. I haven't said anything, because I thought perhaps I was just turned off by the fact that you both seem so negative to the possibilities... but I have several friends also on here who actually agree with your ideas and are ALSO turned off personally by the fact that you both seem to attack anyone who disagrees and that you both come across as pompous, overbearing, and condescending. My friends and I agree to disagree, but we respect that each other has opinions on the possibilities... obviously, they don't believe it's possible, and I, while not convinced, find that there is a possibilty. I would NEVER speak to any of them, even though we don't agree, the way that we have seen both of you retort to people. You aren't the only ones guilty, it goes both ways, but the two of you are the ones that we all noticed. I'm sure you'll both come back with something to "put me in my place", but I honestly just wanted you both to be aware that being insulting does NOT sway people to your side. And even some of those who agree with you are a bit embarrassed at this point. Perhaps it would work a bit better if you lightened up on the insults and remembered that EVERYONE on here has some kind of personal, passionate, and VALID investment in this subject.... otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/14/07 19:30

A: dahkdg,

"being insulting does NOT sway people to your side"

When their being ignorant you cant help but be insulting. When somebody argues laws, scientific methods, etc... when their completely wrong, you try to be understanding and correct their mistakes and help them understand, but when their persistent then you should "put them in their place" as you described.

Though I have not followed the posts of these two as thoroughly as you must have. I have seen good posts by both of them. KRS has actually been working pretty hard to gather facts on this subject and try to submit a counter argument to the theory. Though he doesn't hold a Ph.D he's done more work then 95% of the people on here who just submit opinions and not facts or evidence.

Name: Dez • Date: 03/14/07 19:46

A: Interesting that you see it that way. I thought they were both being quite respectful considering I've been called a "gullible freak" among other things because I simply choose to put my faith in something other than science.

Name: dahkdg • Date: 03/14/07 20:03

A: Dez, I'm sorry that you were called a gullible freak.... as I said, it goes both ways.

I wasn't attacking their or your beliefs.... it was their manners that I was addressing.

jsm-

"When their being ignorant you cant help but be insulting."

You know, I have a 3 year old. And I tell her quite a bit when she gets angry at her brother, or me, or another child.... It is absolutely OK to be angry, frustrated, and upset. It is NOT ok to lash out, hit, or try to hurt, whether it be physically or verbally, the person who you're angry with. My mother taught me that and I'll instill it into my children. Again, I said that it's been both ways. Would it make my post more valid, if I named a few others that go in the other direction? The two I named are because I see them on almost every thread doing the same thing. It's not ok. It's never ok. As I said before, I am not attacking anyone's beliefs.... I am taking offense at their tone.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/14/07 20:39

A: dahkdg,

"My mother taught me that and I'll instill it into my children."

She must have forgot to instill sticks and stones...

Name: sadinoel • Date: 03/14/07 21:24

A: dahk which glass house do you live in? I will drop off a much nicer soap box than the one you are currently preaching off of.

yes, i tend to get a little worked up (like now) and these emotions may carry thorough at times. i do not pride myself on being "politically correct" and I call it like I see it. if someone is fat they are fat. if someone is ignorant of fact, i will state so. if they take it as insulting so be it. im not here to sugar coat things. that imo is a waste of time. i am direct, to the point, and i don't hold back.

additionally you talk about respect. the "simchians" here are equally disrespectful but I dont see you calling them out? why? maybe because you take their side in things. if that offends you so be it.

Name: Mark-Tao • Date: 03/14/07 21:31

A: dahkdg,

thank you for pointing out the need to be respectful. I don't know if anyone considers my posts to be rude or not, but I will throw myself in as one who has been a bit of a smart-butt at times toward the other side. I appologize if any of my posts went too far.

Name: Scott • Date: 03/14/07 22:09

A: I don't believe this needs to be proven true. Church leaders have lied all through the years. Just look at what they have done to cover up the child molestation cases. (Is that what God wants, to cover that up.)

The part about Mariamne. I was reading on the internet that a scholor was saying that this was a box that held the remains of two women, (can he prove that different sets of bones belonging to two different women were in fact in the box?) I would say not, but he wants you to believe that what he says is how it happened. Is this how a scholor does things. He just says something and it is suppose to be true. He knows no more about this than me. Neither of us were there.

The part about Jesus having a son and hiding his identity to keep him safe would would really shake up the churches. If this is what Jesus done, then I would have to think that he did not beleive in god the father. God fears no one and he who believes in god should fear no one.

I have more to say about these things but don't want to get in to much detail at this time but I will leave this thought to everyone out there:

Can the church prove the bible is true, yes it was written, but can they prove that everyword in the bible is true and that nothing is missing are has the words changed to fit the churches needs???? If this is true, a lot of churches could loss a lot of money.

Name: dahkdg • Date: 03/14/07 22:27

A: sadinoel.... I rest my point. I do believe that I said in BOTH of my earlier posts that it went both ways. Mark-Tao and Red were also noticed in doing the same thing. However, as I said before.... you can be found on almost every thread so it's really hard not to mention you. You said
"i am direct, to the point, and i don't hold back. "
It could also be called rude, mean spirited, and arrogant.
No, I'm not offended or insulted by what you said.... it's exactly what I thought would come back. I was expecting a retaliation. As for being a "simchian".... because I'd like more research to be done, I'm now in an entirely new species? I was not encouraging "them" against us... I just thought it should be pointed out that you've been unbelievably rude. Being "to the point" doesn't mean you have to be a jerk.

.

It's obvious that all 4 of you are extremely intelligent and highly passionate about the topic... and in all truthfulness... I admire that passion in ALL 4 of you. I just wish that passion didn't have to be like a jackhammer down on others who are just trying to share their belief's and questions too.

By the way, thank you Mark-Tao. That was seriously appreciated by at least one person.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/14/07 22:49

A: dahkdg,

"It's obvious that all 4 of you are extremely intelligent and highly passionate about the topic... and in all truthfulness... I admire that passion in ALL 4 of you."

Thank you

"I just wish that passion didn't have to be like a jackhammer down on others who are just trying to share their belief's and questions too."

I only get upset when the classical retaliations against creation is presented. Most people here don't hold a B.S. a M.S. or a Ph.D in a science related field, so their all going by hearsay. So who are they to try and correct me? These are the same people that believe we have tails in our embryo state. (Which was disproven in the 50's, known that Haeckel faked his drawings, and just about every professional evolutionist admits its not true and a fraud.) But yet I still get to here about nonsense like this from immature minds that are still being indoctrinated in high school and all the sudden have more knowledge then me and honest scientists. Not to mention its still used to fuel abortion (its still in its fish stage, its not human yet, so its ok)

I appreciate your efforts to calm down some people, I like calm environments, but calm down the ignorant people with the IQ of my toe.

Name: Mark-Tao • Date: 03/14/07 23:11

A: dahkdg,

thank you.

I have nothing bad to say. It's as if your comment snapped me out of it. Actually, I was already thinking that I had been taking myself too serious. No need to act like a clown, just 'cause we're at the circus.

Name: BMillikan • Date: 03/14/07 23:30

A: In science, you assume something is true until evidence disproves it. We have that evidence. So, the burden on proof is on the theorist. Not the "general population". You should read the book series "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" and then you'll have all the proof you need.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/15/07 2:23

A: BMillikan,

"In science, you assume something is true until evidence disproves it."

You assume its false until its proven to be true. Either way, the evidence they've submitted has been disproven. So they need to counter, but they have nothing, so I don't even know why theres an argument right now.

Name: joe joe • Date: 03/15/07 4:57

A: That is definitely true. There is overwhelming evedince that this is not a hoax. It has to be all true. I don't get why so many people will not except it. This is not about faith, this is purely evidence.

Name: jesus • Date: 03/16/07 2:55

A: Probe this isn’t true!
All we know about Jesus is from the New Testament. There is not even ONE single evidence (agreed by scholars) to Jesus existence. Prove me wrong !. For such an important individual we would expect plenty of evidences (at least written) and ther is nothing.
The Christians world should jump on the opportunity that for the first time in 2 millennia, there may be solid evidence to Jesus existence.
Jesus is the fabrication of the New Testament and the best PR ever done and since Jesus never existed, this can’t be his tomb!.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/16/07 3:23

A: "There is not even ONE single evidence (agreed by scholars) to Jesus existence."

What better way for true faith

"The Christians world should jump on the opportunity that for the first time in 2 millennia, there may be solid evidence to Jesus existence."

I don't need proof, I have faith

"Jesus is the fabrication of the New Testament and the best PR ever done and since Jesus never existed, this can’t be his tomb!. "

Nice theory, but I already have a religion, I'm not interested in yours. But thanks for the offer.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/16/07 3:29

A: Here, I found a good article for you to read http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm

Name: Bones327 • Date: 03/16/07 9:44

A: 1. Since the leaders of the Pharasaic movement in the 1st century had a vested interest in disproving the diety of Messiah Yeshua, they would have spared no time, effort or treasure to discover a "tomb of Yeshua" and his family. If it was right in their backyard, why did they not discover it back then? 2. "Yeshua," "Miriam," "Joseph," "Jacob" were among the most popular names of the era. How does finding a grave with these names on the ossuaries prove whose bones were contained therein? 3. Hundreds of people saw the risen Yeshua and went to their deaths refusing to disavow what they had seen. If all it would have taken to avoid a painful death and live, would have been to disavow a lie, what rational person would not disavow the lie? 4. Yeshua and his family were poor and could never have afforded a family ossuary cave. Even if they could have bought one, don't you think that would have bought a burial spot closer to the family's home town of Nazereth, or at least near Capernaum? 5. This cave was "discovered" in 1980. One of the "discoverers" put forth the "ossuary of James, brother of Jesus" as proof of the existence of the biblical family. However, his "discovery" was found to be a hoax by the Israeli Department of Antiquities by virtue of the patina found on the stone box. The "discoverer" was prosecuted by the authorities for fraud and fled from the country. If the box and the cave were proved to be frauds in the 1980s, does James Cameron's recent "discovery" of the same thing make it not a fraud today? Please, take a moment and apply logic to the situation. When you answer my questions, then you can talk about the refutation of the claims regarding the Messiah. He is risen and He is alive. Tanach prophecies regarding Messiah require two appearances, once as the suffering servant, and the return as the conquering king. I pray you will consider these words and then make a decision. It could have eternal consequences for you.

Name: Bones327 • Date: 03/16/07 9:49

A: Of course you realize that Magdala is a city from 1st century Israel. Do you know how many Miriams Magdala produced inthe first century?

Name: Bones327 • Date: 03/16/07 9:53

A: To Ms. Greene: Obviously, you have not read the Dead Sea Scrolls. The scrolls prove that the biblical tests in use 2000+ years ago are the same texts in use today.

Name: Bones327 • Date: 03/16/07 9:59

A: To Ms. Green:

Peter, Simon Bar Jonah, was put to death in Rome. His remains are deep under ground under the vatican in the catacombs there. I am not a catholic. I do not subscribe to that faith. But the antiquity of Simon Bar Jonah's grave is not really open to serious argument. I do not accept the papacy nor do I accept the claim that Peter was a bishop in Rome or the 1st pope. There was no catholic church when Peter was executed in Rome.

Name: Bones327 • Date: 03/16/07 10:03

A: To Betty47:

Jesus never advocated war or violence to win people over to his point of view. That the roman church did so is a tribute to the Romans, not to Messiah. Mohammed, on the other hand advocated conversion of the infidel or killing the infiel who would not convert. Quite a different message, no?

Name: Bones327 • Date: 03/16/07 10:30

A: Almost every writer of the Biblical texts (excepting Luke) was Jewish. If the synoptic gospels had been written after 70 A.D., don't you think they would have referenced the historical fact of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem as an accomplished fact? It was one of the most important historical facts of the post-resurrection period. They included Jesus prophecy concerning the future event, but not the confirmation of the prophecy. This dates the writing. Jesus prophecy of his own death, burial and resurrection was written in the gospels, as was the confirmation of these facts.

Name: jesus • Date: 03/16/07 10:56

A: To JSM
Here, I found a good article for you to read http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d740101.htm

Thanks for the link.

"The execution of Jesus Christ was not done in a corner with just a few witnesses around to testify to it. On the contrary, Josephus tells us that at least two million people used to gather every year around Jerusalem at the Passover season (the time when Christ’s crucifixion took place) (Wars, 6. 9. 3).”

I rest my case. If so many people witness Jesus crucifixion, why nobody wrote/mentioned anything for more then 40 years? Josephus was like a reporter of our days, but lived in Jesus time. Why Josephus never mentioned Jesus in his writings? Many insignificant facts can be find in his writings but nothing about Jesus or his family?!
i.e we are not discussing faith ( this is good) we talking about religion ( this is bad).

Name: hayomtov8 • Date: 04/12/07 18:26

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: roy • Date: 04/12/07 23:10

A: Bones327 wrote:
Jesus never advocated war or violence to win people over to his point of view. That the roman church did so is a tribute to the Romans, not to Messiah. Mohammed, on the other hand advocated conversion of the infidel or killing the infiel who would not convert. Quite a different message, no?

Roy wrote:
Bones has learnt hatred by rote for Mohammad. Do you have evidence except any false claims from visceral opponents? During Mohammad wars altogether, only 120 people were killed from both sides in total. All wars has been done as defence batles, even not one was for offensive. Mecca was captured by Medina state without hurting even a man. He ordered not to kill anybody upon their conquer. He gave the servant to his original appointment, concerns of merit to care for Kabaa, although the man was not muslim.

Yes sure muslims only kills and converts. Nothing else they did past 1430 years. Swim in your dark universe.

Name: roy • Date: 04/14/07 16:37

A: dougntam
It can not be tru because if a prophet is burried somewhere there should be a copy of Bible in its grave.

There should be a firm belief passing from generation to generation till today that the tomb belongs to Jesus.

Design and Marketing by TalMor Media