Jesus Family Tomb - Forum - Zero Plausibility

Home » Forum » Jesus a husband or father? » Zero Plausibility

Hello, guest

Name: CRosebrough • Title: Zero Plausibility • Date posted: 02/27/07 15:50

Q: In order for this film’s statistical analysis to have any weight or merit they must PROVE that the Mariamne of the Talipot Tomb is the Mary Magdalene of the New Testament Gospels and that she was married to Jesus of Nazareth.
This website and the film provide evidence for these two things from a 4th Century Gnostic text called the Gospel of Philip.

This is ‘Vapor Proof’.

1. There is no sound historical or archaeological reason to give greater weight to any historical document that was written 200-300 years after Jesus walked the earth of documents that were written a few short years after Jesus walked the earth. The eye-witness testimony provided by the New Testament gospels has far greater credibility than the ‘Gospel of Philip’.

2. Here’s a dirty little secret - The Gospel of Philip DOES NOT SAY that Jesus and Mariamne were married.

3. The only shred of evidence that the film makers are clinging to is the fact that the Gospel of Philip refers to Mary Magdalene as Mariamne. But NONE of the 1st Century Gospels refer to Mary Magdalene as Mariamne.

All of this evidence considered, the film’s producers are walking on quicksand when they include Mariamne in their Statistical Analysis for proofing that “high” probability that the Talipot Tomb is that of Jesus and his family.
Once Mariamne is removed from the statisical analysis the probability that this tomb is Jesus’ FALLS TO ONLY 3.8 TO 1.

I’ve written an comprehensive rebuttal to this film’s claims at ExtremeTheology.com. Please take the time to read it.

Chris Rosebrough
Theologian

Name: Heather • Date: 02/27/07 17:18

A: What about all those conflicts between Mary and Peter? The Gospel of Mary says: Sister we know that the Savior loved you more than the rest of woman

Name: CRosebrough • Date: 02/27/07 17:56

A: Heather,

Ummmm the "Gospel of Mary" is a gnostic text written hundreds of years after the fact. It cannot be relied upon to give us any accurate historical data.

You may want to spend some time studying up on the importance and primacy of PRIMARY sources as it relates to historigraphy.

Name: NormaPorter • Date: 02/27/07 19:12

A: How about letting people watch the movie and or read the book to make up their own mind. I may or may not agree with you depending on what I read and or watch on the movie, but I do not appreciate a person making comments that sound as if I am to stupid to decide on my own whether it is real or just hype. Ihave also studied the formation of the Christian religion and because of the information that I discovered I can not believe anything that has to do with it. .

Name: Abigail • Date: 02/27/07 19:17

A: And Jesus chose to appear to Mary Magdalene first after the resurrection, which obviously shows that he placed her above the others. I think there is some really strong significance to that.
There are a lot of sources that are not necessarily written at the same time that we look to, including the Bible. That doesn't mean it's not a valid and important source from a historical viewpoint, or a religious one!!

Name: NormaPorter • Date: 02/27/07 19:35

A: And where do you get your proof? I read your site, it reminds me of someone trying to steal attention from some one else's hard work

Name: DMS • Date: 02/27/07 20:12

A: I am a genealogist. My take on "The Christ Family" can be found here:
http://www.mismagicshouse.com/-genealogy499x/bottom.html#Jesus

My- research on The Magdalene is as follows:

She was the daughter of Herodias, Jewish Princess, daughter of Aristobulos IV; executed 7 BC, son of Herod I, Edomite; King of Judea; "The Great" (d.4 BC).

Her real name was Salome III (of the famous Veil Dance).

She was first with/married Herod-Philip II (John the Baptist); beheaded 34 AD).

She was second with Aristobulos III (Jesus), Lord; King of Chalcis; "The Christ"

She had one son by Herod-Philip II: Herod Timothy; "The Herodian".

She had three children by Aristobulos III :

Tamar (Phoebe) who married a Paul;
Aristobulos IV; "Jesus Justus";
Agrippa (Josephes); Nazarite Bishop of Saras (Gaza); "The Rama-Theo"; "The Grail Child"

Mariamne was not The Magdalene. When you say Mariamne, you speak of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Her mother was Olympias (Joanna/Anna); "St. Anne".

Her father was Joseph Ben Elim of Sepphoris; (Heli/Eli/Ellemus/Ailem/Illem/Ulam/Joachim), High Priest; "ho tekton",
grandson of Antipater II, King of Judea; "The Idumaean".

Mariamne IV (Mary), Princess, was with/married to 3 men.

First was with Herod-Archelaus (Zebulun/Zebedee), Ethnarch of Judea.
Second to cousin Antipater III (Gabriel); the union which produced Jesus.
Third to cousin Herod III (Joseph) of Chalcis.

Name: Heather • Date: 02/27/07 20:28

A: RE: Ummmm the "Gospel of Mary" is a gnostic text written hundreds of years after the fact. It cannot be relied upon to give us any accurate historical data.
You may want to spend some time studying up on the importance and primacy of PRIMARY sources as it relates to historigraphy.

I believe the Bible itself was written based on oral traditions and only compiled centuries after the events took place. Let's not forget the various translations. If King James could have produced new versions of the Bible years later, who's to say other opinions didn't affect the original? Isn't it possible that other writings that were also true had been left out? Don't get me wrong, I support the Bible. I'm just trying to keep an open mind.

Name: ollypop • Date: 02/28/07 0:35

A: So why casn't i bring up Extremetheology.com????

Name: factfinding • Date: 02/28/07 1:13

A: You know what, it's so simple.... Jewish society, even Jesus Christ Himself, refer to having marriage certificates and certificates of divorce. That was part of the Mosaic Law. So, if Jesus Christ was indeed "married", as the Jesus-Magdalene proponents suggest, where is the marriage certificate to prove the consumation? How come these people haven't provided this smoking gun as hard evidence? Because there was no marriage certificate.
http://www.you-tube.com/watch?v=PVzDK0b0MWc-

Name: genuinebeliever • Date: 02/28/07 18:12

A: The evidence from the book attempts to seemlessly weave together the plausability of the mortality of Jesus. However, it's just a little too convenient with the timing and collection of identitiesin the tomb are exactly translated to the ones we know. You have to doubt this as a genuine believer of faith. However, those that only have a passive knowledge of the Lord Jesus and the bible will flock to it. They believe anyting on the big screen.

Name: BeanSidhe • Date: 03/01/07 0:36

A: 1. There is no sound historical or archaeological reason to give greater weight to any historical document that was written 200-300 years after Jesus walked the earth of documents that were written a few short years after Jesus walked the earth.

so does that mean that we should ignore genesis?
since obviously it was written a couple hundred years after the fact
I am not trying to be rude or put you down its just a question

Name: BeanSidhe • Date: 03/01/07 0:39

Name: bella • Date: 03/01/07 1:26

A: Let me start by saying 1st that none of the canonical gospels were written "a few short years" after Jesus walked the earth. If you read about the history of the patriarchs, you will be astounded to notice that in fact they very early on did not want people to seek or question and therefore choices of what was relevant were based on their "anyone who questions us is out" attitude. Be that as it may, the gospel of Phillip does not state that they were married, it is not even concerned with that rather it is veiled in symbolism, take a look:

As for the Wisdom who is called "the barren," she is the mother of the angels. And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them,"Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness."

Note the answer Jesus gives as to why he does not love them like he loves her: because she is not blind. This is something entirely different from a husband/wife relationship which is fairly ordinary and undermines MM in actuality, but it does symbolize a spiritual bond, union of opposites which is very common in Gnostic texts as represented by the figure of MM and Jesus metaphorically speaking.

Name: Kerry • Date: 03/01/07 3:42

A: The bottom line is there is no way to prove beyond all doubt this is the tomb of Jesus the Christ. This all makes interesting discussion and I for one appreciate the opportunity to hear the evidence, but let's face it; this will be a memory of a theory in a very short time. (Unless there is a sequel and they can use mitochondrial DNA to prove relationships in the tomb). So far they've only told us who isn't related. This is the biggest dent in the evidence for me.

Name: DSand • Date: 03/01/07 3:58

A: Just one thought, for your consideration:
-Why does the Bible exist? Do you believe it is a collection of information about a particular person, religion, historical event.....or do you believe it is God's Word to man about Who He is and His plan is for mankind? I think if you take the Bible as a mere book, then you can argue and debate and chop it up into errors and omissions, just like people do about other historical accounts or literary works.
However, if you believe the Bible is sincerely from God to man, then you must ask yourself one very important question in regards to the cannon, the errors, the contradictions, etc - Can man trump God? I mean, do we really believe that God wanted us to know Him through this book, and then He is just sitting up there thinking, "Well, I really wanted them to know Me, but they sure screwed that book up. I hope they figure it out." I mean, if you really believe that He is all powerful and that He really wanted us to know Him through this book, can't we at least give Him the credit to have held it together? Isn't the Bible one of the most translated and circulated books in all time? So, although He has the power to control what goes on, He has allowed an error soaked book be circulated in mass?
Again, you may have a different take on this. This is just something that is central to why I believe the Bible is how God wants it to be. Can you pick it a part and scrutinize every punctuation mark? Sure. Does that change the central message and the overall theme of God's message to man? Absolutely not.
You can stand around spending your time with your nose in the book - I would rather spend mine living the book the way God and His Son Jesus has shown us through the book.

Name: Jokaanan • Date: 03/04/07 14:01

A: I am a genealogist. My take on "The Christ Family" can be found here:
http://www.mismagicshouse.com/--genealogy499x/bottom.html#Jesus
My-- research on The Magdalene is as follows:
She was the daughter of Herodias, Jewish Princess, daughter of Aristobulos IV; executed 7 BC, son of Herod I, Edomite; King of Judea; "The Great" (d.4 BC).
Her real name was Salome III (of the famous Veil Dance).

Okay...according to information on this website http://dsc.discovery.com/conver-gence/tomb/explore/explore.html-,- that would make Mary Madgalen (Salome) the sister of Jesus????

Acctually that would make a lot more sense than all the cracked-up theories I've heard so far today.

And I just wanted to say...IS JERUSALEM REALLY THIS SMALL? Why is everyone related? Are we treating the Bible/other Holy Texts as historical evidence or literature? I believe that we're treating them as literature, because in a novel all the characters have to be related/tied up with each other some how. That would explain why everyone's always trying to find connections between people in the New Testament. Maybe the people in the Bible were just people. Does Paris Hilton have to be related to Tom Cruise? No! But I'm sure there's some tabloid out there that has "explicit evidence" that they are.

Name: golfdane • Date: 03/05/07 12:20

A: "Ummmm the "Gospel of Mary" is a gnostic text written hundreds of years after the fact. It cannot be relied upon to give us any accurate historical data.

You may want to spend some time studying up on the importance and primacy of PRIMARY sources as it relates to historigraphy. "

As do you. The Nag Hammadi library might be younger than the Synoptic Gospels, but we really don't know. However, they have not been edited, rearranged or had parts removed to provide clarity.

Neither the synoptic gospels nor the gnostic gospels can be viewed as accurate historical data.

Just out of curiousity: How old is the oldest known manuscript of the synoptic gospels? The codexes that lays the foundation to the Gospel of Mark is dated around the 4th century (according to Wikipedia). For instance Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Why should this be any more accurate as the gnostic gospels?

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 15:25

A: Bella, Actually, the synoptic gospels are dated to between AD 50-60 by conservatives, and around AD 80 by most leftists. The idea that any part of the NT was written centuries later was disproven some time ago. Also, King James did not produce something new he translated (not created) the AV in 1611. The Bible

As for your opinion of the gnostic gospels, very few scholars consider your position teneable, and most who do are transparently ideologically driven.

Heather, the appearance to the Magdalene first seems to be Jesus way of thumbing his nose at the Jewish power structure of the time, since they had argued that a woman could not testify in a court of law - it does not imply anything else about their relationship. The fact that he tells her to stop touching him (some translate don't touch me).

As to others - uh linking the Magdalene to Salome of the Heroidians? Boy thats a stretch.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 15:28

A: Actually, the oldest NT Biblical Manuscript extant is in P53, which dates to AD 125, but its only a fragment of the gospel of John. There are also several manuscripts from right around 200, most of which are in various states of disrepair, but what is signficant is that they are all very close to Siniaticus and Vaticanus. There doesn't happen to be a Papyrus copy of Mark, but considering these two manuscripts track record, its safe to say they are accurate.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 15:34

A: Actually, the gnostic gospels aren't considered historical for a lot of reasons. Most experts I've read (since I don't read coptic) have dated the gnostic gospels to having been written in the third or fourth century. They also seem to have been composed in coptic rather than in Greek (again, according to the experts I've read).

As for the synoptics, your idea that they have been edited seems to be a very popular view, but its a major overstatement. There is a type of text that does precisely what you are describing (typically known as the western text), but the Alexandrian text is generally considered very accurate since there are second century corroboration for the text type, and it resists the types of changes scribes tended to make.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/05/07 15:37

A: OK, lets not gang up on the OP here, I think his point has a lot of merit, and I like seeing what the stats are within Mariamne taken out. There isn't a lot of evidence to identify Mariamne with Mary Magdalene. Norma, etc., he is allowing you to make up your own mind, but he is providing you with facts that the film makers didn't seem to think you needed to know about.

Name: factfinding • Date: 03/08/07 17:12

A: TO: BeanSidhe

The Jesus-Magdalene marriage proponents not only cannot produce a marriage certificate, they don't even know the date of the supposed marriage. And in all the Pauline Epistles, not even one reference to this at all. Seems strange indeed that the Apostle Paul would ignore such a topic in his evangelistic campaigns across the Mediterranean. He must have known that this wasn't a real issue at all.

Name: endthefish • Date: 03/10/07 5:21

A: factfinding--

the apostle paul would certainly not make a note of such an event as it would discredit his authority among his following. paul claimed to have known jesus better than anyone, although he never met him in real life, only in his visions. if he were to acknowledge that jesus had a wife, then that logically would mean that jesus's wife would be a much better source of information about the man, than paul. in fact, arguments in many theological circles have led to a belief that the apostle paul is responsible for most if not all of the historical elaborations that make jesus appear to have posessed abilities of a godly or supernatural quality, the resurrection, the virgin birth, miracles, etc.

while i am not disputing the existance of jesus, what i am disputing is paul's accountability. he reports back events with the fervour of a man intoxicated, whether spiritually or otherwise, in what for all intent and purpose seems like nothing more than a crude attempt to inspire awe and reverence based on power rather than reason. other accounts of jesus as a man, those by the people who lived with him in physical life, are not so hokey.

if one were to sit back and consider, not just the texts accepted ultimately by the roman catholic church as dogmatic truth, but the whole of literature available written from roughly the same time period about jesus, the pauline epistles appear as what they truly are; an elaboration, technically speaking, propaganda.

Name: endthefish • Date: 03/10/07 5:23

A: factfinding---

p.s. also, the apostle paul and the family of jesus did not get along well.

Name: Just_Jax • Date: 04/09/07 4:18

A: People who obviously have not read this book are writing it off as absurd because they have been conditioned to believe certain things, even if common sense or substantial evidence suggest otherwise. Perhaps one day those of us who are pretty sure that this tomb held the remains of Jesus, his wife, and his son will be proven wrong. At the same time one most also admit there is the possiblity that one day those of you who are certain it is not their tomb will go down in history with those who believed the world was flat, or better yet- those who believed Mary Magdalene was a prostitute who found redemption in Jesus's ministry.

Name: Just_Jax • Date: 04/09/07 4:27

A: We should also take into account that A LOT of people in power saw Jesus as a huge threat to their authority. Not only did the Roman Empire make it a point to execute anyone who threatened their power, they also executed the wives and children, just to make sure the threat was taken care of. If Jesus was married and did have a child- that wouldn't necessarily be common knowledge, as it could put them in serious danger. You know- crazier things have happened . . .

Name: Rob • Date: 05/18/07 16:07

A: It is possible that the tomb is that of the Biblical Jesus and that the Mary Jnr of the Tomb is not Mary Magdelan but another Mary not mentioned in the Gospels.

Design and Marketing by TalMor Media