|
Name: Schwar3Kat •
Title: This is old news BBC did it in 1996 •
Date posted: 03/01/07 10:13
|
|
Q: Why the fuss. The BBC did this Talpiot tomb story at Easter 1996. Produced by Ray Bruce called 'The Body In Question', it produced headlines in all the major papers and was debunked by a number of prominent archeologists even though it was more accurately reported. Nothing has changed except that now there is more hype and less fact.
|
|
|
|
Name: exact55 •
Date: 03/01/07 11:07 |
A: I googled this BBC story and found a whole lot of Newspaper reports with some interesting arguments from some experts at the time (1996).
Israel Antiquities Authority spokesman Motti Neiger -
"It's a nice news story for Easter, But the archaeological evidence
shows that chances of these being the actual burials of the Holy
Family are almost nil."
Mr Amos Kloner of the Israel Antiquities Authority - "I would not say
that it deserves a special interest other than the chance of the appearance of the names ... I can't say a possibility that it is the tomb of the Holy Family does not exist at all, but I think such a possibility is very close to zero." (He is still one of the main experts today).
Israeli archaeologist L.Y.Rahmanim - "What we have is a tomb containing the remains of three generations
of a nice Jerusalem family, It's absurd to think that the urn will cast doubt on Christianity."
|
|
Name: mikegs •
Date: 03/01/07 13:45 |
|
A: The fuss is obviously economically driven. In 1996 there had not been a book & movie that had made hundreds of millions of dollars out of the (fictional) idea that Jesus had a wife.
|
|
Name: exact55 •
Date: 03/02/07 9:43 |
A: I wonder if James Cameron's claiming credit for for discovering this could perhaps be considered plagiarism or fraudulent.
Very dissapointing - it made for such exciting headlines with so much potential, but it has turned out to be nothing more than a second hand poorly constructed hoax. :(
|
|
Name: wygantsh •
Date: 03/04/07 11:31 |
A: As an anthropologist I would like to point out to the detrators that Acrcheologists opinions are just that. Professionals can disagree however that doesn't give more weight to the dissenting opinion. A perfect example is the decision of the supreme Court regarding ROE vs WADE. The majority opinion is DEAD WRONG and they had scientists who testified that life begins at conception, and now we have over 40 million children murdered because of their EXPERT OPINIONS.
The coffins may or may not be Jesus's family tomb however the investigation and documentary and book are IMPORTANT research because it helps us learn new things and quite possibly find out that Jesus was a father and had a wife. This wouldn't negate the ressurection or the asenscion it would elevate the status of fatherhood to the importance that it should be, in that one of histories greatest heros was a father and husband who not only gave his love to the world but also to his family.
|
|
Name: guahould •
Date: 03/04/07 16:05 |
|
A: The fuss may be this,, many did not see the BBC show?? And who knows what kind of freak put together this show or that show ?? If there is no worries of disrupting the flock of seagulls then the show should go on!!!!! Imagine the possibility of making so many look so dumb? Like they don`t already !!! I`m sorry but man it is so true!!!!!
|
|
Name: archaeologist992000 •
Date: 03/04/07 16:17 |
|
A: I don't think this documentary is meant to take the place of this story or was even the same theory. From what Ive seen of that story, this documentary seems to build on that theory. And when all is said and done in archaeology all you have is theory in most cases. I mean if you look at Schliemann's excavation of Troy as a metaphor, is it really Troy? I mean circumstance, geography, lierature, and the archaeological evidence show us by time, place and correspondance the possibility of it being Homeric Troy, but is it really? How can you know archaeologically if it actually is or not? A lot of times when you work in archaeology you hope for the best and that you are finding what you set out to find. But in the end any argument you could make against this documentary is one you can make broadly based on archaeology in general and any biblical archaeology in the specific. Archaeological evidence is largely circumstantial evidence...
|
