Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Title: "Symbols" are for Cult of Caesar •
Date posted: 03/27/07 13:52
Q: See: http://confirmedword.blogspot.com/
(March 23 entry)
It appears that some of those buried within this tomb were identifying themselves with the dynasty of Herod or with the temple of Augustus. The symbols match a coin of Herod Philip II (see examples of coins catalogued as Hendin 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, 538, 539, etc.) struck at Caesarea Philippi. It is universally associated with the Temple of Augustus in his territory by numismatists (Meshorer, 76-77; Roller, 191). See Hendin 530 where the shield feature is enlarged (here). It is thought that the temple appeared in this way at Sebaste as a tetrastyle. Such a tetrastyle temple of Augustus (with shield motif nicely matching the “circle”) may be seen at Pula, Croatia
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 03/28/07 1:08
A: Kirkpatrick:
I don't have any archeological or historical insight to add to your post. But, it would still be a greater likelihood that Pilate hunted down and killed the whole "royal family" (according to John's gospel, he used the claim that Jesus was a king to taunt the Sanhedrin and thereby increase the glorification of Rome) and then buried them in a tomb giving honor to the conqueror (Rome) than that Jesus literally rose from the dead. So, I don't see how you have proven the resurrection by associating the Talpiot tomb with a Roman temple.
This reminds me, in a way, of the Kennedy assassination controversy. The defenders of the official version of Kennedy's death - that he was killed by a lone gunman named Oswald - claim vindication anytime some piece of evidence points to Oswald, but completely ignore evidence that points to other people as well. Similarly, the opponents of Jacobovici's efforts seem to be saying: "Ah, that's not correct!!" (about some idea in his presentation - which I agree is overblown) - "Therefore, orthodox Christian belief IS correct!" That's not how logic works. It's more like the way king-on-the-hill works. Sooner or later, people are going to get tired of playing by a bully's rules and will choose to play something else.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/28/07 3:17
A: gsrysmplsmn:
If Rome had done such a deed, 1) they would have boasted of it; 2) the Jews would have known of it and used it to disprove the Christian movement that was turning both the pagan and Jewish worlds upside down.
I wasn't trying to prove the resurrection by associating the Talpiot tomb with a Roman temple. The resurrection of Jesus is not something that I can prove to your satisfaction. Neither can you disprove it. Faith is required for either view. Faith that Jesus did not rise from the dead or faith that He did indeed rise from the dead will be based on various things. From the earliest days of Christianity, the apostles claimed that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection were prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (1 Cor. 15:1-4).
You missed my point entirely. The "documentary" used what they considered mysterious symbols and strongly suggested that they were some kind of lost, early Christian symbolism. It is much more likely that some, many, or all of the 35 persons who were buried in this tomb were either devotees to Caesar or perhaps they were Jews who backed the Herods. My point was that to use this "symbolism" in this way is unscholarly, unethical, and sensational nonsense.
The common names found on the ossuaries prove nothing. The name Mariamme/Mariamne was a name associated with the house of Herod and of the Hasmonian lines. Flavius Josephus' own household contained several Joseph's, Matthews, and a Mariamne.
Name:Red •
Date: 03/28/07 4:08
A: Sir, A person does not need faith to understand that jumping out of a tree will break a leg. A person comes to KNOW this as fact through experience.
On the other hand, it requires FAITH to BELIEVE jumping out of the tree will not hurt you.
You cant disprove Physical facts with 'Faith' of any kind.
Name:Red •
Date: 03/28/07 4:15
A: Btw, If I do not believe Jesus rose from the dead, this is not an act of faith on my part. It is an act of accepting a reality that is currently being utilzed that does not allow for such goings on.
Name:lady andromeda •
Date: 03/28/07 6:06
A: Maybe Mary Magdalene was affiliated with the Herod family! It is also thought that she appeared before Tiberius giving testimony on Jesus and the Crucifixtion. She might have had connections. Just a thought. [smile] Take care now.
Name:Eagle •
Date: 03/28/07 6:17
A: I looked at the Herod Phillip II coin. Or at least at one. See this web site: http://members.verizon.net/vze-3xycv/RulersCoins/herodpic.htm-.-
There certainly is a shape similar to the tomb decoration. But it is the roof line of a temple with a circle under it. The thing that makes the tomb decoration different is the little "wishbone" shape above the inverted "V". This definitely does not look like the temple roofline to me.
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 03/28/07 16:42
A: Red:
Thank you for your comments. Many believers use a "teach the controversy" tactic to give equal weight to creation science in a public school science curriculum. Kirkpatrick and others on this site are doing the same sort of thing when they allege that all epistemology is based on "faith" of one kind or another. Science is a belief system based on the ability to independently test propositions derived from systematic evaluations of evidence. The only "evidence" for the resurrection is that it has been dogmatically asserted by believers for 1950 years or more. It is not science, nor is science based on faith.
Kirkpatrick:
I went to your website and derived from its stated mission that you intend to provide "evidence" (your word) for the New Testament accounts. It is in response to that general effort that I wrote. As for the interpretation of the tomb symbols and the names on the ossuaries, your hypotheses are worth considering, but are not necessarily more conclusive than those of the filmmakers.
I think this whole matter needs a lot more research. I commented on the "what would you ask Simcha" thread that I think Jacobovici rushed this whole matter to the public's attention because that is what journalists do. Sometimes they have a particular theory they want to promote (Jacobovici does seem to have latched on to the Da Vinci Code version with almost no real basis for doing so), or they may just want to sell books, films, newspapers, etc. with sensational inferences from very limited evidence.
But, bear in mind, the writers of the gospels were not even as neutral as journalists. They were more akin to propagandists for a given understanding of things. A lot of their ideas attributed to Jesus are quite inspiring, but there are also many assertions about miracles, which Jesus himself may not have wanted people to rely on for their "faith."
Name:Red •
Date: 03/28/07 16:59
A: Ive been in many debates with Believers here that use the same tactic over and over. And that tactic is a requirement on their part to turn me and my views as a 'religion' of sorts. They even have nice labels.
I suspect that this labeling is the only way for them to debate: (One religion against the other.) When doing this, long held facts of physics suddenly become 'unprovable acts of faith'. Stars all of a sudden operate on 'Faith', and not neccesity.
It's rediculous....
Name:onewhoknows •
Date: 03/28/07 19:21
A: I think there is evidence for the resurrection of Christ. I have been studying it for almost 30 years. The Shroud of Turin is an amazing artifact. As a medical lab tech, I thing the hard evidence of the Shroud trumps the evidence of the Jesus Family Tomb. The tomb could have been easily hoaxed in the eary centuries A.D. Research the latest on the Shroud. If you still think the carbon 14 is the end of its story, then you need to read the works of Ray Rogers, Marino and Bedford.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/28/07 19:30
A: Red:
If you want to call DNA samples taken from ossuaries that averaged 1.7 persons remains in each (10 ossuaries containing the bones of 17 people)--science... you're welcome to that kind of science. Exactly how did they know whether the DNA was from the person named on the inscription?
So far as facts are concerned, about 13% of males in the vicinity of Jerusalem were named "Joseph" and about 7 % were named Yeshua. Matia (Matthew was also common ) as was Mariamne, Mariamme, Miriam etc. Some of these names were names of Hasmonean (Maccabean) heros and as such many named their children after them.
Have you noticed the difference between the carved nature of the inscriptions and the grafitto nature of the Yeshua bar Yosef box. This tomb was opened in antiquity, had no goral closing the entrance in modernity, and was open for days and entered by workers for days before the site was drawn or conservation work began. The petrie lid was off... as an experiment it is disqualified.
Red... do you know everything that there is to know? Do you know half of everything that there is to know? Hmm. If the answer is that you do not, then perhaps in the half that you do not know God may be.
Name:onewhoknows •
Date: 03/28/07 19:46
A: Red: I have a joke for you and it comes from the Language of God by Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. He is a Christian and a scientist. Here it is as best I can remember. Some quantum physicists are climbing the mountain of knowledge. It is a long way to the top, but finally they get to the summit. As they excitedly take the last few steps and look over the top --- they are surprised to see a bunch of theologians. LOL (Well, I thought it was funny.)
Have you read The God Theory by Haish (sp?). I am reading it now. Although science and religion have taken a different fork in the road, quantum physics could some day put them at the same destinantion.
Name:onewhoknows •
Date: 03/28/07 19:51
A: Check out this blogspot http://amazingshroud.blogspot.com
Name:Red •
Date: 03/28/07 20:00
A: Look guys, It's not that hard. It's rather simple. Ive said this before, SCIENCE has to assume that the bone material in the "jesus' box was from a one "Jesus, son of Joseph". If there were other bones from other people in the box, Science Can not assume who they are. They have to go by the identifing inscription that identifies that a "jesus" was in the box.
It does not take a genious to realize this . Police investigators use evidence like this all the time. So do the courts.
I agree that these names were common ones. But the chances of a family with the same names of the Biblical Jesus family are not as common.
You claim the names mean nothing. They are common. How many families had the same names in a family unit.
My family is made up of common names too, but i suspect finding another family with 6 identical names would not be common.
This stuff isnt rocket science, it's elementary and alot folks are in complete denial.
To answer your last question........ "In the half you (I) do not know, God may be"...... Here we go...... That pesky little word "May"
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/28/07 21:30
A: Red:
They didn't test any bone material in the ossuary marked Yeshua. You did not understand what I said. Every one of the boxes contained the remains of more than one person. It is not scientific to assume that some material taken from the box is 1) uncontaminated; 2) unmixed; 3) belonging to the one named on the inscription. Ossuaries were used to store multiple remains (as these were--read Kloner's report.... 17 persons' remains in 10 boxes).
My whole point Red is that this show tried to convince us that they were carefully using science to draw their conclusions. That is not true. "Archeoporn" was generous as an assesment.
Name:Anchorite •
Date: 03/29/07 4:14
A: The strongest argument, the "statistical cluster" argument, is seriously affected by the piling of multiple bodies into single boxes. And I wonder how it is that the discoverers have not drawn any attention to any counter-evidence at all. I am wondering if they have not been overselective.
Name:betty47 •
Date: 03/29/07 4:38
A: it's too early to say. Time will tell what this tomb represents. People who want to believe will still believe no matter what. That's what faith is. I think scientists should continue to do their work, and I hope they do.
Name:Red •
Date: 03/29/07 13:02
A: What real proof do they have of 17 bodies worth of bones? All ANYONE knows is the fact that Bones were found, THEN buried. Science has no evidence of bones from anyone else. The 17 corpses worth of bones is nothing but hearsay. It is not documented.
They explained that no other boxes produced matrial because they were cleaned.
I have been reading here and there that there were - 17, 14,8, (insert number of choice), sets of bones stuffed in boxes. There is absolutely no evidence of this.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/29/07 13:44
A: Red:
Please get your facts straight before you try to represent science personified. There was no mention of the fact that 35 persons were buried in this tomb: “17 in the ossuaries (based on an average of 1.7 individuals per ossuary), and 18 outside the ossuaries” [See Amos Kloner, “ A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiot, Jerusalem,” ‘Atiquot (Jerusalem), vol. 29 (1996), 15, fn. 2]. With an average of almost two persons per ossuary, exactly how were they certain that they had the DNA of the person mentioned in the inscription? This is just one of many gaps in logic in this “documentary.” Kloner was one of the archeologists who dealt with the tomb and Joe Zias catalogued all ten ossuaries and both of these men see this for what it is--sensationalism.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/29/07 13:50
A: According to Amos Kloner’s report, the tomb was vandalized in antiquity and the blocking stone, known as a golal, was never found for this tomb. It was supposed to have been removed in antiquity. Or was it removed in more modern times? Though the original maps of the Talpiot tomb shows that the soil level was almost a foot above the buried ossuaries, the inscription on the “Yeshua bar Yosef” ossuary was scratched in a messy fashion near the lid. Only one or two of the first four letters are fairly legible.
In an article for MSNBC [“Have Researchers Found Jesus Christ’s Tomb?” March 5, 2007 issue], Lisa Miller and Joanna Chen related the Concern of John Dominic Crossan, “leader of the liberal Jesus Seminar and author of “Excavating Jesus.” According to Crossan, “the biggest questions relate to the early break-in: who vandalized the cave, when, what did they do there and why?”
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/29/07 17:17
A: Professor Amos Kloner, the archaeologist who was in charge of clearing the Talpiot tomb in 1980, was interviewed on 2-27-07 by David Horovitz of the Jerusalem Post:
Horovitz: What do you make of the assertion that Jesus and his family were buried there?
Kloner: It makes a great story for a TV film. But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense. There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb. They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The Talpiot tomb belonged to a middle class family from the 1st century CE.
Horovitz: But there is apparently such a confluence of resonant names.
Kloner: The name "Jesus son of Joseph" has been found on three or four ossuaries. These are common names. There were huge headlines in the 1940s surrounding another Jesus ossuary, cited as the first evidence of Christianity. There was another Jesus tomb. Months later it was dismissed. Give me scientific evidence, and I'll grapple with it. But this is manufactured.
Horovitz: What of the assertion that the 10th ossuary disappeared from your care and may be none other than the "James" ossuary?
Kloner: Nothing has disappeared. The 10th ossuary was on my list. The measurements were not the same (as the James ossuary). It was plain (without an inscription). We had no room under our roofs for all the ossuaries, so unmarked ones were sometimes kept in the courtyard (of the Rockefeller Museum).
Name:Nate Spain •
Date: 03/29/07 18:01
A: "I wasn't trying to prove the resurrection by associating the Talpiot tomb with a Roman temple. The resurrection of Jesus is not something that I can prove to your satisfaction. Neither can you disprove it."
The resurrection is easily disproved, and it is disproved by the Bible itself:
"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.
"40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?
42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb.
43 And he took it, and did eat before them"
Case closed. That is NOT a "resurrection." It is an ANNOUNCEMENT, by a living being, telling his friends, "Yeah, dudes, it's me! I made it!! I survived. And, DUDES, I need something to EAT!! I been whipped, beat, kicked, nailed to a cross. I'm HUNGRY."
And he ate. He ate FOOD. What need has some supernatural being to EAT? He lived. Just as Flavius Josephus, that Jewish historian, recorded about his friend who survived a crucifixion. I quoted it elsewhere.
The other reason it's easy to prove that he did not rise from the dead, is because dead people remain dead. Here comes this ONE case, written in something called the Bible, which offers no medical report; no pictures; no eye witnesses WHOSE HANDWRITING WE CAN SEE ON A DOCUMENT TESTIFYING THAT THEY WITNESSED THIS.
We have nothing but this ONE book, the Bible, claiming that out of all of the billions of human beings who lived lived and died, there is ONE guy lived, died, then lived again. There is NO precedent for a dead person coming back to life, except for the 30 "savior gods" that existed, all over the planet, long before Jesus was alive, and who ALSO "died" and came back to life.
Dead people remain dead. That, itself DISPROVES the resurrection.
Name:JUPITOR1 •
Date: 03/29/07 18:13
A: Why would you name your son Judah,if you know that this name is the last one on your list.
It means that His resurection was real.
It means that He asked Judah a favor in real.
It means that His marriage was real.
Does this mean that He was less than any human or God?
It means He did His job as He asked from God(Voice from meditation)
and He taught us: God lives within us .But it 's up to us to keep him in full
of love or in half of one.
It means that Satan is manmade,who will have lack of love to become full
of mud.
The second coming of Jesus was described that how He went to heaven
He would use the same way to come back,but at that time disaster flood has to happen like Noah' .
It means the famous Flood already happened in Asia and America recently, His tomb was discovered,but public was not informed.
It means that If we don't believe HIm now another false Magus comes with atomic bomb and then everybody becomes God or Spirit for 1000
years in peace.
Name:JUPITOR1 •
Date: 03/29/07 18:57
A: Jesus was ninth reincarnation. Is the Voice from meditation from His past life,that He was reincarnated,which most of us have,and He says that God lives within us.
Is the science very close to uncover secret between metaphysical and physical.
Does the mind make the wall between them?
Will the Spirit be seen physically as a body energy?
Does the human realize that the man is responsible for all the disasters on the planet Earth, He is here to save us once again.
Jesus is more then christian Religion.Ne possessed knowledge how to become God forever meditation,praing....by loving others as yourself or loving youself like others.And when you fulfill your duty as a human your Spirit never needs to reincarnate.Did Russion scientists found one at the same DNA from dofferent centuries in different countries? Is that kind of DNA prove for reincornation,that they have a mission?Who will be perfect candidate for that mission following the Stars and Planets,they will be granted to carry one by God.Is the chiromancy physical guide-map for reincarnated life, that up to us how we use our destiny. Why we need to become God? Maybe for a reason that one day it will be heaven of Gods.
Nothing is permenent in physical world.Maybe our Spirits take astral travel to be established on the other planet.we get this knowledge when we become God like him on other side,not here in this side.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/29/07 19:20
A: Nate
You sure do seem to get worked up over something that you don't believe.
If the dead are not raised, then you have nothing to fear. On the other hand, if the dead are to be raised and judged, then that is another story.
The account that you quoted about Jesus eating after His resurrection was to make the point that He was raised bodily and was not a mere apparition. You miss the point made in the Gospel and substitute your own interpretation.
You assume that there is no God and no supernatural to weigh in the equation. Your wager is as high as it gets.
Jupiter 1:
Please start with Genesis and keep reading. Idols can be carved with thought. If your view of God comes from you own mind, then it is man-made and an idol. The God of the Bible revealed Himself as real, holy, true, and as the only God.
Name:JUPITOR1 •
Date: 03/29/07 20:24
A: Now in the century of brain capacity discovery in science,we can prove physically what is happening with our body ,when our brain is in meditating state,where it goes,what changes are happening in the body energy.He said:Do your job on this side today,I'll take care of you at that side tomorrow. We know that everithing was in progress the Day on.
Believe is a way of thinking from the action,to be seen by eyes and translated by mind,then spread it by art of word,symbols,numbers.........
The religion is a manmade to base on believe,the way of calculated thinking,that serves a man and the groups of men.
A man is a human,hosting God or Spirit. Spirit is energy by science and metaphysical.It means if spirit lives in us we are physical and metaphysical.Spirit was named God by human.Spirit becomes physical when it numbered for a mission.It means,beyond that number' meaning to build energy in full love of God. Then metaphysical and physical make miracles. It means the wall is thinner between metaphysical and physical and you become God.It means you can do miracles.Saints are the prove.The scientists found that the priest who ddied several years ago,His blood didn't clot.He did miracles,even when he was preaching. His body was one foot up in air sometimes.Is is state of mind,which converts the body energy or spirit and the body weight becomes light.
Can we fly?Am I dreaming?.............
Jesus was not from a fantasy world unless He was from other planet with a certain misson.He was just very real.He came back to prove His name in the era of advence scince,physical,what He was lack in His life by half of believers.Mayby Planetary gathering that is occurring now,it was the same time on His birth,when Venus was bright like a star.
(April 8 or 10, if He was reincarnated from Buddha).Maybe we are waiting the first rainbow after the Flood,when 3 hours were the darkness(like on that Kislev time,happened once in100 years)during His resurrection, which He supposed to know from God. Maybe this is a perfect time for His appruval,if He will be excepted as a real,not manmade human.
But if somebody comes and claims His name in the future,the blood test has to be done, if he is the number 1,from virgin flash like we all know.
It must be unreal blood,other then we know.At least half of it. Dna must to be unrel also.Then we all believe.Maybe false Magus or his followers are waiting their perfect moment for stiking the planet. Maybe the Universe
wants to test our beleives by striking the comet.Maybe we people are the cause of disasters on our Mother Planet.
Just we have to be ready for any test together.If we find out our true mission on this planet by Him ,all religions make Him their spiritual leader,because He is the Key for all.By His son's Judah DNA can be find out His one. Maybe,meditation is emptiness of brains from the thoughts.
Maybe our body must to be lented to stay healthy.
Finally we have all evidences in hand,plus Gospels of Gnostics,Mary Magdalen and Judah.We were just waiting for Him.Is this just coincidence.He knew that it would come time when He and His loved one's name would be approved by the believers.But the same time
His true meaning would be spread. In the Age of Aquarius,that brings all
people together, with new mission and meaning of His life and death.
WELCOME BACK OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR!
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SECRIFICE!
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/30/07 3:49
A: The occurrence of this “symbol” or architectural feature raises many questions for the so-called “lost tomb.” ....
It appears that some of those buried within this tomb were identifying themselves with the dynasty of Herod or with the temple of Augustus.
Early Christians would not declare “Caesar is Lord.” To the contrary they declared “Jesus is Lord” in the face of martyrdom. Symbolism related to the cult of Caesar over a tomb doorway seems entirely unfitting for early Christians. It appears to be the "Lost Tomb" of some devotees to Caesar.
From: http://confirmedword.blogspot.com/
Name:Red •
Date: 03/30/07 13:27
A: R Kirk Patrick,
" If the Dead are not raised, Then you have nothing to fear". What kind of statement is this?
That sentence does not make sense. The only logic that can be applied to that notion is : ' So if the dead are raised, we have everything to fear'. ( remember, we are not talking spiritually, but BODILY ).
In the above context, Where does the notion of "fear" come from? Punishment for not Believing dead bodies are raised?
Based on Nate's post, There is nothing in it that assumes No God. You make an assumption that he is Godless because he made it clear he does not believe the same interpitation as you.
Even the above statement you made is an assumption. The key word is "IF". Who is assuming here?
Concerning the Bones. The facts I posted are correct. There is no - 1Evidence of bones. (they were buried)
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 03/30/07 19:29
A: Red
My post was to Nate; but, since you responded to it... I think you understood what I meant. Nate rejects the resurrection. That is his choice. The Bible speaks of two resurrections 1) the resurrection of the saved, and 2) the resurrection of those condemned to hell. He wrote: "Dead people remain dead. That, itself DISPROVES the resurrection." The resurrection is a welcome idea to some and an uncomfortable idea for others.
Now, Red, concerning the last part of your last post...
No, what you posted was not factual. I gave you the citation from the archeologist who saw the bones and had them examined and then buried. The quotation that follows is directly from that report.
There was no mention in the film ("Lost Tomb") of the fact that 35 persons were buried in this tomb: “17 in the ossuaries (based on an average of 1.7 individuals per ossuary), and 18 outside the ossuaries” [See Amos Kloner, “ A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiot, Jerusalem,” ‘Atiquot (Jerusalem), vol. 29 (1996), 15, fn. 2]. With an average of almost two persons per ossuary, exactly how were they certain that they had the DNA of the person mentioned in the inscription? This is just one of many gaps in logic in this “documentary.” Kloner was one of the archeologists who dealt with the tomb and Joe Zias catalogued all ten ossuaries and both of these men see this for what it is--sensationalism.
Red, if you don't believe me please look it up in the source given following the quotation.
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 03/31/07 0:54
A: Kilpatrick: "... With an average of almost two persons per ossuary, exactly how were they certain that they had the DNA of the person mentioned in the inscription? ..."
What is important, as far as identifying the tomb of Jesus is not the DNA, since we do not have an independent sample of it. The particular SET of names on the ossuaries is all that matters as far as making an estimate of the likelihood that the Jesus of the New Testament was buried there. Perhaps the statistical analysis of the SET of names needs to take other possibilities into account and the odds that it is the tomb of Jesus might drop, but it would still be pretty high - higher than the odds that Jesus actually rose from the dead and ascended bodily into "heaven."
The DNA is only important in determining whether the remains placed in the ossuaries were of people actually related - or not related - to each other. You are correct that multiple remains per ossuary means that more tests will have to be made before one can definitively say that "Jesus" and "Mary Magdalene" (as identified by the first DNA samples) were NOT related - and therefore possibly married. On the "What would you ask Simcha board," I raised this general request. But, Kirk, while the DNA tests by themselves don't prove much, at least the tests performed so far do not DISprove the possibility that these are the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Science is a slow process. Let the work continue.
As to the comment by Kloner that Jesus and his family were from Galilee: that may be true in general, as to origin. But, we know that James was the brother of Jesus and that he was the head of the church in Jerusalem from around Jesus' death to 62 AD. That is a long time. He certainly was a permanent resident. If his mother and wife wanted to stay in Jerusalem after his death, is it not possible that Jesus' remains might have been kept there? There is no indication in the New Testament that these women went back to Galilee. Rather, it appears from the account of the book of Acts that virtually all the disciples and Jesus' family stayed in Jerusalem. That being the case, I don't think it is accurate for Kloner to dismiss the possibility that Jesus and his family would be buried there.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/01/07 2:33
A: Gary... you wrote:
"The particular SET of names on the ossuaries is all that matters as far as making an estimate of the likelihood that the Jesus of the New Testament was buried there."
Please see:
Special Report: Has James Cameron Found Jesus's Tomb or Is It Just a Statistical Error?
Should You Accept the 600-to-One Odds That the Talpiot Tomb Belonged to Jesus? By Christopher Mims
Amon-g- the assumptions that Feuerverger made to yield his odds: that the scholarly text he used as a source of names (to determine the frequency and distribution of Jewish monikers in the era of Jesus) was a representative sample of the five million Jews who lived during that era. He assumed this even though the text, called the Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity was published in 2002 and only includes 2,509 names.
Scan The Lexicon of Jewish Names, which includes names from ossuaries, ancient texts and every other source available, and you will learn that the names unearthed in the so-called Jesus Family Tomb were among the most common of that era. One in every three women listed in the Lexicon was named Mary, for instance, and, at that time, one in every 20 Jewish men was called Yeshua, or Jesus.
Tal Ilan, who compiled the Lexicon of Jewish Names and who vehemently disagrees with the assertion that this could be Jesus' tomb, says that the names found in the tomb "are in every tomb in Jerusalem. You can get all kinds of clever people who know statistics who will tell you that the combination is the unique thing about [these names], and probably they're right - if you want just exactly this combination it's more difficult to find. But my research proves exactly the opposite - these are the most common names that you could expect to find anywhere."
See also: Wall Street Journal—
Odds of 'Lost Tomb' Being Jesus' Family Rest on Assumptions
March 9, 2007; Page B1
Excerpt:
B-ut- the one-in-600 calculation is based on many assumptions about the prevalence of the names and their biblical significance. For purposes of his calculations, Prof. Feuerverger relied on new scholarly research that links the inscription "Mariamene e Mara" with a name for Mary Magdalene. (The filmmakers suggest that she was Christ's wife and that they are buried with a son, Judah -- claims hotly denounced by traditional Christians.)
Had the professor assumed the inscription could be for any Mary, a very common name then, it would be far less likely that Christ's family is in the tomb. The mathematical finding would become "statistically not significant," Prof. Feuerverger tells me. Similarly, the name "Yose" -- as one of Jesus' four brothers was called in the Gospel of Mark -- is a derivative of Yosef, another common name. There, too, the finding would be less conclusive if the professor had considered "Yose" applicable to any Yosef.
Even if there was consensus on the interpretation of the names, there are no comprehensive records showing how frequently they occurred in the population at that time. Prof. Feuerverger relied on modern books about ossuaries and ancient texts to tally the occurrence of certain names in the area then. That falls far short of a complete census.
"As you pile on more assumptions, you're building a house of cards," says Keith Devlin, a Stanford mathematician and NPR's "Math Guy." (Scientific American also challenged the calculation on its Web site.)
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/01/07 2:55
A: See also:
http://www.uhl.ac/blog/
March 31, 2007
Prof. Bovon cries foul in the use of his work
Filed under: Uncategorized — drstephenpfann @ 4:56 pm
Disclaimers from Key Experts Used in the “Lost Tomb” Documentary, Part One:
Prof. Bovon: Mariamne is not the Historical Mary Magdalene of the First Century
The filmmakers of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” and their advisors have asserted Mary Magdalene’s name in the apocryphal Acts of Philip as being “Mariamne” and that this was also the current and accurate name for the actual historical person, Mary Magdalene of the first century. They based this upon the important discovery of Prof. François Bovon of Harvard University, who published a recently discovered copy of the Acts of Philip, the first complete copy to be discovered. However, Prof. Bovon wants to clarify that he did not in any way state that the name “Mariamne” of the Acts of Philip should be the linked to the historical Mary Magdalene of the first century. The Acts of Philip presents the figure “Mariamne,” who both evangelized and baptised, as–geographically improbably–both the sister of Philip of Bethsaida and of Martha of Bethany (and therefore, of Lazarus). Bovon actually proposed that this Mariamne was the same character whose persona in time evolved to become the fictitious Gnostic sage and evangelist, more closely linked to the Mary of Magdala in the Manichean Psalms, the Gospel of Mary, and the Pistis Sofia. Based upon apocryphal stories such as these, which speak of a close relationship between Mary Magdalene and Jesus, and which give a high prominence to her in the early church, the storywriters of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” have surmised that Jesus and Mary were married and even produced a family. Of these three assumptions—(1) that the name of Mary Magdalene was not Maria or Mariam, as recorded in the Gospels, but rather Mariamne; (2) that the Mariamne of the Acts of Philip is to be identified with Mary Magdalene, though the Acts of Philip never says so explicitly, and (3) that Jesus was married and fathered a child—none is supported by any of the earliest records dealing with these individuals, namely the canonical Gospels and Josephus.
Cf. Bovon’s disclaimer on this issue on the SBL Forum site:
http://www.sbl-site.o-rg/Article.aspx?ArticleId=65-6-
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/01/07 2:56
A: See also:
http://www.uhl.ac/blog/
March 20, 2007
Sticky Statistics
Filed under: Lost Tomb of Jesus — drstephenpfann @ 10:28 am
The starting point for the supposed scientific investigation of a tomb in Jerusalem’s East Talpiot neighborhood is an amazing claim that the viewer must accept a 600 to 1 probability that it is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. This statement is based upon a number of fallacies and a general misuse of statistics.
First, what database serves as the basis for establishing the probability of this claim? The names of Jesus’ family members have been preserved in the Gospels, but no other complete family lists from first century Judea or Galilee have survived for comparison. (The Census of Quirinius would have been useful with regard to this, but has not come down to us)
Even the records of who and how many individuals were actually buried in any given family tomb in 1st century Judea and Galilee are usually incomplete. This is due to the following circumstances:
a) Most tombs have already been visited and looted in antiquity or in recent times.
b) Not all ossuaries are saved during the excavations so as to be stored and registered. Oftentimes, only ossuaries with inscriptions, decorations or both are kept.
c) Only 25.2% of the 917 ossuaries in the collections of the State of Israel are inscribed with names. The East Talpiot tomb is unusual in that 6 of its 9 registered ossuaries (66%) were actually inscribed with names.
d) Those ossuaries which bear names have often contained the remains of more than one individual. The names of these individuals will never be known. (For example, the Caiaphas’ ossuary contained the remains of several individuals, including one middle aged man.)
Thus, the most one can hope to do in establishing a working database upon which to base a statistical probability, is to make a general overall survey of inscribed ossuaries.
Because some ossuaries contain two or three names in the formula “x son of y,” 286 personal names are found on the 231 inscribed ossuaries. Listing specific names together with their shortened forms or Greek or Latin equivalents brings the total down to only 72 unique Jewish names.
What does this mean? Compared with the large pool of individual personal names in use today in North America and Europe, a very small pool of personal names was normally used when naming a child in first century Judea and Galilee. In fact, a mere 16 personal names account for 75% of the inscribed names.
All of the names that are ascribed in the Gospels to Jesus of Nazareth’s father (Joseph), mother (Mary) and brothers (Jacob/”James”, Joseph/Joseh, Simon, and Judas) are found in the list of the 16 most commonly inscribed names. In fact, four of these names (Simon, Mary, Joseph and Judas) are among the top five most frequently used names.
Of the four names belonging to Jesus’ brothers, only one – Joseph/Joseh – can be identified on the inscribed ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb. (And unlike the nearby “Jesus” ossuary, his ossuary is not labeled as belonging to a son of Joseph, as one would expect in a “Jesus family tomb.”) All of the other siblings’ names, including “James”/Jacob, are lacking.
The names that are found in the Talpiot tomb: Mary/Mariame (2x), Joseph/Joseh (2x), Judas and even Jesus, should well be expected there (or in almost any other tomb in the area, for that matter). These are simply the most common names of the day. The Talpiot tomb is unique only because it has so many names preserved among its ossuaries!
There very well could be numerous tombs which could claim the title “a Jesus’ family tomb.” However in all cases, as in this, there would be no compelling reason to connect them with Jesus of Nazareth!
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 04/01/07 18:32
A: Kilpatrick:
Most of the information you've cited about the prevalence of names in ancient Israel was known and taken into account by Feuerverger in doing his analysis. Meanwhile, those who have criticized his "assumptions" (all statistical analyses must assume certain probabilities concerning sample size, frequency, etc. to be considered valid) have not - so far as I know - submitted a competing statistical analysis of their own. If they believe the sample size is different, or the frequencies of names (particularly of Mariamne e Mara) is different than Feuerverger assumed, let them submit their own estimate of probability that this is the tomb of the gospels' Jesus with their underlying assumptions, and then let scientists, archeologists, etc. debate the statistics and the validity of the assumptions.
None of the people you've cited as skeptics is above having an interest in a different result - even if it is just to make news by stirring up further questions. That certainly doesn't disqualify them from commenting, but until they produce and publish an alternate statistical analysis, they are mostly blowing smoke. Smoke suggests fire. Fire sells print space and broadcast time. The average reader and viewer does not have the time or expertise to challenge all these "experts." Unconsciously, we tend to accept the majority sentiment, even if it is not as rigorously explicated as the proponent's original assertion. So, qualified researchers should get together and challenge each other and come up with a more agreed-upon set of assumptions and a valid statistical analysis of the evidence. That is what I asked Simcha to do. It is what I would ask you and other skeptics to do.
Instead, there seems to be a lot of sound and fury from the devoutly religious to the effect that all of Simcha's hypotheses should be strangled in their crib and buried before anyone looks seriously into them. While I do not believe that all Simcha’s extrapolations are of equal merit, I do believe this find is worthy of further scrutiny, and that the critics’ summary judgments only impede the search for truth.
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 04/01/07 19:15
A: Kilpatrick:
You treat the orthodox version of events as established fact. But, you should look to the origins of that account as you question any alternate version. The New Testament contains almost no anti-Roman sentiment. The book of Acts ends before any of the apostles are martyred by Roman authorities. But, as I understand it, the earliest full texts of New Testament documents we have date to a time after the Church had become effectively the official religion of the Empire. Since we know independently of the N.T. that there were many persecutions by the Roman authorities, is it not quite possible that texts or segments of texts which contained information embarrassing to the Empire might have been edited or entirely deleted? Perhaps pre-Constantinian documents were mostly destroyed as part of an officially sanctioned censorship effort to control what people would be told about the N.T. period.
Some of this hypothesis is well known. But, what may be unrealized is the extent to which the Empire itself may have sought to promote the divinity of Jesus as part of an effort to restore a sense of divine mission to its governance. The divinity of Jesus and his blessing of Peter in gospel of Matthew is what serves as the Catholic Church's foundation of authority - an authority which goes beyond what any earthly government has claimed - and the divinity of Jesus is based principally on the account of his resurrection and ascension. I would argue that by 320 AD, the Roman Empire itself had a convergent interest in making this account as established a fact as the power of the emperor's legions.
So, the "gospel truth" you seek to defend may itself be a somewhat roman-ticized (pun intended) version of events aimed at consolidating the political power of a very worldly kingdom. Should you, or any pursuer of truth 1700 years on, be worried about the emperor's - or his successor, the pope's - popularity ratings? Haven't we moved well beyond that by now - for heaven's sake?
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/02/07 4:23
A: Gary...
You wrote: "Most of the information you've cited about the prevalence of names in ancient Israel was known and taken into account by Feuerverger in doing his analysis."
Not at all... He was under the assumption that Mariamene e Mara pointed to a rare name/identity. This assumption is wrong. S. Pfann has indicated that there are two names written in different script Mariame and Mara (short for Martha).
Also, he was under the assumption that Jose was a rare name. Not so when it is understood that many sons were named after their fathers and their own names shortened to avoid confusion (especially while both lived). Jose is short for Joseph--one of the most popular names for men of that time and place.
You wrote: "None of the people you've cited as skeptics is above having an interest in a different result - even if it is just to make news by stirring up further questions."
I gave you the opinion of Tal Ilan (not exactly a Christian fundamentalist here)--
Israeli born. Graduate and post-graduate studies at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. PhD on Jewish women in Greco-Roman Palestine. Teaching experience includes guest lectureship in Harvard, Yale, JTS New York, Frankfurt University, Leo Baeck College London, Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Trinity College Dublin.
"Tal Ilan, who compiled the Lexicon of Jewish Names and who vehemently disagrees with the assertion that this could be Jesus' tomb, says that the names found in the tomb "are in every tomb in Jerusalem."
and on the Stats... I gave you the view of:
Dr. Keith Devlin is a Senior Researcher at CSLI and its Executive Director, a Consulting Professor in the Department of Mathematics, and a co-founder of the Stanford Media X research network and of the university's H-STAR institute. He is a World Economic Forum Fellow and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His current research is focused on the use of different media to teach and communicate mathematics to diverse audiences. He also works on the design of information/reasoning systems for intelligence analysis. Other research interests include: theory of information, models of reasoning, applications of mathematical techniques in the study of communication, and mathematical cognition. He has written 25 books and over 75 published research articles.
Of the assumptions used for the films stats, he said:
"As you pile on more assumptions, you're building a house of cards," says Keith Devlin, a Stanford mathematician.
On the divinity of Jesus... it does not rest solely on the resurrection and ascension at all. The Old Testament has many allusions to the divinity of the coming Messiah (Isaiah 9:6-7; Micah 5:2; Zech 12:10; etc.).
If you think that this film used good archeological and scientific method, then you are certainly in a minority. To bypass peer review and to sensationalize this and dramatize a view that would remove the central hope of life for a billion people--without scholarly concensus or clear, objective proof--is immoral in my opinion.
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 04/02/07 13:53
A: Kilpatrick: "If you think that this film used good archeological and scientific method, then you are certainly in a minority. To bypass peer review and to sensationalize this and dramatize a view that would remove the central hope of life for a billion people--without scholarly consensus or clear, objective proof--is immoral in my opinion."
Mr. Kilpatrick, I have not even seen the film. I don't get cable. I have simply visited this website and viewed the interviews with Simcha Jacobovici. I have said elsewhere and on this board that I, too believe that Simcha has sensationalized his findings and extrapolated more than is reasonable from them. But, I do not believe the basic statistical effort is as flawed as you and others contend. If Tal Ilan is convinced that the names on the Talpiot ossuaries are "in every tomb in Jerusalem," then please tell us just how many other tombs have ALL these names.
Is Pfann from Israeli Antiquities? I don't know his position or what access he has to the ossuaries. I would agree that the name for Mary Magdalene is the statistically important name and, if that is in serious doubt, then the probabilities all change. However, some scholars have read the name as identical to the spelling for Mary Magdalene in a 4th century copy of one of the apocryphal gospels. That is why it was taken to be unique.
As I said, anytime a controversial assertion is made, people of any stripe are ready to contest it. It enhances their reputation. I say simply: let them provide a full counter hypothesis, not just a bunch of offhand rejections. I did not find any such alternative analysis in the Scientific American article you cited.
As to Jesus' divinity, I would say that without the assertion of resurrection and ascension, the claim would not likely have been taken seriously by either Jews or Gentiles, and he would probably have been remembered as a wise Jewish teacher. Paul - who did not meet Jesus prior to or at his alleged ascension - is the primary proponent of the resurrection in the N.T. and his followers had significant input to the gospel texts. Jesus' brother James does not mention the resurrection in his letter. Peter's letter does not even seem to have been written by Peter himself, but by a later emulator. Did these apostles really believe Paul's gospel? Or were they persuaded to allow him to preach it because Paul was intellectually intimidating AND he held out the prospect of bringing to the Jerusalem congregation aid offerings from Diaspora churches.
On a completely different track: John's gospel does not include the ascension. It might be read as consistent with a scenario in which Jesus went to Kashmir, perhaps in search of the lost tribes - with whom a true Jewish Messiah might be expected to return to Jerusalem with to liberate it from Rome. Perhaps, that is what many of the earliest followers of Jesus were waiting for. Not a return from above, but from abroad. As that did not happen, and as the gospel of Paul spread further among the gentiles, what we regard as orthodox today became the only sustainable belief for the church - a church which eventually came to be a theological analog of the Empire itself.
These are just ideas, Mr. Kilpatrick. I certainly agree that these and those of Simcha Jacobovici et al should not be taken too seriously until rigorous study has established whatever can be within a reasonable confidence interval. But, I must tell you that, if a group of people today who believed in literal resurrection and the coming of a messiah were making assertions similar to those of the N.T. about one of their recently executed leaders, you would rightly join with a huge number of contemporary skeptics in saying: "gee, I wonder why only his followers have seen him since he died."
That, my friend, is all the "evidence" you have for a belief that has been used to control the lives of billions of people. Control – not truth - is the obsession of people in authority. The Roman Empire knew a good means of extending its authority when it finally saw it. But, I really don't know that the historical Jesus - the person who really lived and died - would have approved of such an appropriation of his person or his original teachings - whatever they actually were. (I suspect you can find a lot of them in the letter of his brother James - a letter that does not mention his resurrection at all.)
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 04/02/07 14:26
A: Kirk,
I'll amend my comment about the gospel of John. His gospel does not speak of a return for conquest, but to take his disciples to the place he was going to prepare for them. A safe haven. I don't take the Kashmir scenario very seriously. It certainly is not consistent with Jesus being buried in Jerusalem. But, the legend about Kashmir is consistent with the idea of a safe haven.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/02/07 19:57
A: Gary... you wrote:
"But, I must tell you that, if a group of people today who believed in literal resurrection and the coming of a messiah were making assertions similar to those of the N.T. about one of their recently executed leaders, you would rightly join with a huge number of contemporary skeptics in saying: "gee, I wonder why only his followers have seen him since he died." "
Response: Saul of Tarsus was originally one of the most zealous persecutors of Christianity. Zealots and tax collectors, Romans and Jews, Jews and Samaritans, Jews and gentiles united around Jesus of Nazareth. Enemies became followers together. Consider the story of Sosthenes (rabbi at Corinth who had Paul taken before Gallio then became a Christian).
You wrote:
"That, my friend, is all the "evidence" you have for a belief that has been used to control the lives of billions of people. Control – not truth - is the obsession of people in authority."
Response: I gave you several references from the Hebrew BIble--all writen long before the time of Jesus. Those scriptures (Isaiah 9:6-7; Micah 5:2; Zech 12:10; etc, and many others) point to Him. That is exactly why they called Jesus the Christ... the Messiah. To the contrary, it is about Truth--and Jesus claimed to be just that (John 14:6).
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/03/07 14:48
A: Gary...
You wrote:
"Is Pfann from Israeli Antiquities? I don't know his position or what access he has to the ossuaries. I would agree that the name for Mary Magdalene is the statistically important name and, if that is in serious doubt, then the probabilities all change. However, some scholars have read the name as identical to the spelling for Mary Magdalene in a 4th century copy of one of the apocryphal gospels. That is why it was taken to be unique."
Response:
You asked about Dr. Stephen Pfann:
Stephen J. Pfann
University of the Holy Land
President; Chair, Department of Qumran Studies
Co-Director, Nazareth Village Farm Excavation
Qumran Studies; Ancient Languages; Cultural Geography
President Stephen Pfann, Chair, Dept. of Qumran Studies
Education: M.A., Graduate Theological Union; Ph.D., Department of Ancient Semitic Languages, Hebrew University
Publications: The Dead Sea Scrolls on Microfiche: A Comprehensive Facsimile Edition; "The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony and the Baptism of Repentance," Proceedings of the Provo Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls; "Khirbet Kerak Ware," Anchor Bible Dictionary
You mentioned that the basis for the assumptions regarding the name Mariamme... Tabor based this connection on Prof. Bovon's work. Bovon denies the association, see above:
Prof. Bovon cries foul in the use of his work
Filed under: Uncategorized — drstephenpfann @ 4:56 pm
Disclaimers from Key Experts Used in the “Lost Tomb” Documentary, Part One: Prof. Bovon: Mariamne is not the Historical Mary Magdalene of the First Century.
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 04/03/07 22:38
A: Kirk:
Yes, I know that Paul and other opponents became Christians, but the gospels and Acts do not include any nonbelievers as witnesses of the resurrection or ascension. Those who "witnessed" these "events" were people who had already followed Jesus. We know from John 11:24 that followers of Jesus believed - and other verses in Matt. 22, etc. include the Pharisees in this belief - in a resurrection "on the last day." The idea of Jesus as the "first fruits" of this resurrection was articulated by Paul, but Paul had not witnessed Jesus' resurrection. The story of his conversion in Acts refers to a "light from heaven" and a voice. My point was and is that we have no corroboration of Jesus' resurrection or ascension other than from someone who already followed him and believed in resurrection. Those who believed in resurrection but did not follow him did not corroborate Jesus' resurrection as eyewitnesses.
The account of Paul's encounter with "Jesus" today would likely be chalked up as a hallucination, though perhaps accompanied by some powerful spiritual insight. Many Jews or others who believe in a heaven might well believe that Paul had encountered the spirit of Jesus. Perhaps at the time of this event the followers of Jesus were known less for their belief in his literal resurrection as in other interpretations of scripture with which Paul and other Pharisees were uncomfortable. That is, Paul may have persecuted Christians for their lax attitude toward the law– their “Way” – and their criticism of those in the Sanhedrin, not so much their belief in a resurrected leader.
The gospels and the book of Acts were written three to six decades after the crucifixion. It is a common trait of nearly all movements that they interpret their past in light of their present issues. Statements attributed to Jesus and the interpretation of acts of his or those of his disciples were selected and edited so that, in John's words, "you might believe" (John 20: 30, 31). And, many people - including myself - did believe. But, the fact that Jesus calls himself the Truth, or John says of himself "and you know that his testimony is true" is not independent corroboration. If Jesus were known as a socialist, a God-fearing American capitalist would likely dismiss his statements as nothing more than propaganda, no matter how compelling or eloquent.
You may say that the Old Testament verses you cited are independent corroboration, but they could have been applied to others. The precise meaning of the Is. 9 passage has been debated for centuries. But, whether or not a literal virgin was implied by Isaiah, the virgin birth was not referred to by Paul and was likely appended as a Christian belief after followers were challenged on this point by hair-splitting Pharisees. For all anybody knows, that is also the case with the other citations you mentioned. When people are longing for a Messiah and their favorite candidate starts to look like he can grab the crown, they often attribute all the right things to him - even if they have to invent a little to make their case.
Jesus was a leading member of a larger movement within Judaism. He did not begin that movement. Some of the movement followed him - others John the Baptist, others went elsewhere. The greatest advantage Jesus may have had over the others was a convert like Paul - who could make an intellectually powerful case for his messiahship and spread it far beyond Jerusalem, to Jew and gentile alike. Paul is why Christianity is a world religion today.
I still affirm many of the moral and spiritual teachings of the N.T., but the history of the Church demonstrates as well as anything (“by their fruits shall you know them”) that it is a human message, devised and used by humans to do what humans do - either to guide oneself or to guide (and all to often misguide) others. In the end, it cannot be relied on to make our choices for us. We must use our own judgment - informed by these and any other texts we find of value to the task - to choose our path each moment. For our own lives are about the only facts we know for sure.
As to Pfann and Bovon, their interpretations of the Talpiot tomb may well prevail. Let them put forth a thorough critique. But, disproving Jacobovici does not "prove" the resurrection.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/04/07 2:01
A: Gary...
You wrote:
"You may say that the Old Testament verses you cited are independent corroboration, but they could have been applied to others. The precise meaning of the Is. 9 passage has been debated for centuries. But, whether or not a literal virgin was implied by Isaiah, the virgin birth was not referred to by Paul and was likely appended as a Christian belief after followers were challenged on this point by hair-splitting Pharisees. For all anybody knows, that is also the case with the other citations you mentioned."
The Isaiah 9 passage is not the passage dealing with the virgin birth. Isaiah 7:14 is what you had in mind. The Septuagint translates "Almah" as "parthenos." It is also articular and should be translated "the virgin." Just for the record I hold that the virgin birth is prophesied in Isaiah and fulfilled in Jesus, but I am not Catholic.
This is not the place to deal with many or all of the prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible, but I will have articles on my site to that end soon.
Til then a good site for consideration of some of those prophecies is:
http://www.bprc.org-/topics/fulfill.html
My- area of interest is languages, and I have a Ph.D. in the languages and literatures of the Old Testament (Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugaritic, Akkadian, and Middle Egyptian--96 hour masters and 4 1/2 years doctoral study). I have taught Hebrew and Old Testament since 1995.
Contrary to your quick dismissal of the passages I mentioned, it is exactly these scriptures and many like them that do point to Jesus. To quote from the website that I mentioned above:
"The mathematical probability that a person could fulfill even the prophecies listed here is astronomical, yet Jesus did it. To get a feel for the probabilities involved, consider this. An author and speaker named Josh McDowell calculated the odds of Jesus fulfilling only eight of the Messianic prophecies as 1 out of 10 [superscript 17 in original, to the 17th power] (a one followed by 17 zeros). This is equivalent to covering the entire state of Texas with silver dollars two feet deep, marking one of them, mixing them all up and having a blind-folded person select the marked one at random the first time."
The prophecies of the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible are worth taking time to study. I believe they point to Jesus.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/04/07 2:03
A: Take hyphen out of web address in the last post (after .org) and it should work.
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 04/04/07 21:13
A: Kirk:
There isn't time - and I don't have the expertise - to address all your references supposedly supporting the Messiahship of Jesus. I looked up the Isaiah passage and must have let my eyes and mind drift to the 7:14 passage on the facing page. Sorry for being so sloppy.
I guess the general resposne I would offer is that it is questionable logic to start with an effect and then attribute all causal influences as working consciously toward that outcome. At the beginning of the universe, the probability that we would be having this discussion was probably astronomically low (literally!!). But, from the perspective of any given point in history, it is possible for people to infer that everything has been leading up to a given point of realization.
But, has it really? The verses cited are taken out of context. Whether the writer of each verse saw “the Messiah” in their fulfillment is doubtful. When did the concept of a Messiah actually begin? I don't think the term is used until the intertestamental period. Many of the verses cited describe a "messiah" - if you insist - who is victorious. How do those verses really square with the others cited which describe one who will suffer? Do ANY of the citations use the term Messiah, and describe someone who will suffer, then rise from the dead, then go to heaven for thousands of years, come back on the clouds to defeat evil, and then reign victoriously - and, of course, justly and peacefully - virtually forever? I've read the bible through a number of times myself, and I'll wager that no such prophecy is found in the Old Testament.
The Isaiah 9 passage, for instance, is as yet unfulfilled. A child is born (so far, so good) ... and -
Jesus never attained the leadership of any government. The passage would seem to be referring to a child-king. But, that is not applicable to Jesus. So, since Jesus falls short on this one required prophecy, should we just throw out his candidacy for Messiahship altogether? It would save a lot of time, after all. Spending the rest of eternity reading every conceivable verse as pointing to Jesus, by means of applying theological assertion rather than observable fact, really does seem a questionable use of our limited time on this planet. While engaging in such endless controversy, we are likely to completely miss the work of God in some other fashion altogether.
By the way, if Jesus is referred to in Genesis 3:15, which role is he to play? Was his not the "sacred head now wounded?" It was Achilles who suffered a mortal wound to his heal. Perhaps he was the messiah! Should we infer from this verse that both Lincoln and Kennedy were at the least precursors of the antichrist? That's about how ridiculous all these post-facto claims of prophetic references to Jesus (and why on earth wasn't he named Immanuel, as prophesied? Hmm???) are to any casual observer. Does it really require a PhD in (twisting) languages and literature of the Old Testament to "understand" what a writer of 3000 years ago was actually saying? Your analysis would seem to suggest that.
Name:Anchorite •
Date: 04/05/07 2:46
A: Kilpatrick,
I laugh with delight. Man, do you do your job! You are a friend to mankind, IMHO.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/05/07 13:26
A: Gary...
You wrote:
"Does it really require a PhD in (twisting) languages and literature of the Old Testament to "understand" what a writer of 3000 years ago was actually saying? Your analysis would seem to suggest that."
Response:
When it comes to discussion, it is obvius when ad hominem attacks begin to replace the desire to focus on the topic under consideration. Your bitterness toward the beliefs of Christians comes through clearly in your posts. I have not attacked you, but have tried to answer some questions you posed. If you were really interested in considering the possibility of what I was saying, then you would not resort to attacking the messenger.
Name:CanuckChick •
Date: 04/05/07 13:47
A: "The gospels and the book of Acts were written three to six decades after the crucifixion." garysmplsmn
I doubt that is fact. Since the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 CE and none of the gospel writers mentioned this fact, I tend to believe the gospels were written some time before then.
Name:garysmplsmn •
Date: 04/05/07 21:47
A: Kilpatrick: "When it comes to discussion, it is obvius when ad hominem attacks begin to replace the desire to focus on the topic under consideration. Your bitterness toward the beliefs of Christians comes through clearly in your posts. I have not attacked you, but have tried to answer some questions you posed. If you were really interested in considering the possibility of what I was saying, then you would not resort to attacking the messenger."
Kirk:
I don't know whether it is the beliefs themselves (which I probably share a number of, by the way) as the WAY those beliefs are defended. It simply isn't fair to say that all these verses refer to Jesus when that is far from certain. Yet, you present them as "evidence" that Jesus was in fact the Messiah, divine, and immortal. I say that is largely a matter of interpretation and that much of people's acceptance of those assertions is based acceptance of his reported resurrection - for which there is no hard evidence.
I agree that one COULD believe that Jesus was the Messiah, divine, and at least spiritually immortal WITHOUT believing in the resurrection as a literal fact. But, those who do are a much smaller group of people who have a less literal acceptance of scripture and a less orthodox or dogmatic theology. They tend to accept the spirit of the Church and its service mission without great emphasis on the need to convert people to believe a particular creed (lest their souls be damned to hellfire for all eternity).
As far as I'm concerned, those less zealous Christians are closer to being children of God than those who - without evidence - presume to say whether someone is fit for heaven on the basis of whether or not they accept a set of theological propositions. You may feel offended at my criticism of your methods of reasoning and arguing your case, but a large fraction of humanity is at least as offended at the certainty with which you "superlative apostles" so to speak determine the absolute truth of things and the eternal destinies of those who agree or disagree with your so-called "reasoning."
Pope Benedict is fond of saying in effect that Europe is based on the rule of reason and that the Church is the fount of all western reason; therefore, the Church is central to the nature and existence of Europe. For about 1500 years, the Church employed "reason" to defend its dogma and then excommunicated (and sometimes persecuted to death) anyone who didn't accept their “reasoned” doctrines. This isn't what the Age of Reason - or the Enlightenment - came to consider reasonable, however. Europe - western civilization - today is based much more on the willingness to accept evidence from virtually any source so long as it can be tested and verified by experiment or experience. The way you subordinate all questions to the acceptance of the divinity of Jesus is frankly an affront to a civilization based on reason and the right of the individual to determine for him- or her-self what they believe. I think your approach and the Church's authoritarian tradition of developing doctrine have actually undermined the credibility of the person and values you claim to defend. That is why Europe - a civilization based on reason - is largely secular now. It no longer accepts the authority of assertions that cannot be verified.
I for one say "thank God they don't."
Name:Red •
Date: 04/05/07 22:55
A: It's really strange. If A person does not belive in some religious matter,they are refered to as ignorant of God by those who do believe. BUT, if that same person Questions the validity of that belief, they are then refered to as 'Attacking the Religion". A simple disaggreement in opinion all of a sudden becomes an "Attack".
It's become quite obvious that many folks on this forum dont beleive some of the things I do, but I dont walk away feeling 'Attacked". I just simply accept that not everyone wears the same size jeans I do.
Roy has already Threatened ALLAH on me because I told him in very realistic terms whats going on in his world today. Not that I know anything more than anyone else, it's all over the news for everyone to see.
I guess maybe what is happening with religions that have outgrown their underwear is ..... "you can observe, just dont question what you observe".
It's Gangland mentality......
Name:nothing_but_the_truth •
Date: 04/05/07 23:05
A: 'garysmplsmn' wrote:
"Similarly, the opponents of Jacobovici's efforts seem to be saying: 'Ah, that's not correct!!' (about some idea in his presentation - which I agree is overblown) - 'Therefore, orthodox Christian belief IS correct!' That's not how logic works."
Amen to that!
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/12/07 4:37
A: Interesting article in Jerusalem Post online today:
Apr. 11, 2007 0:58 | Updated Apr. 11, 2007 8:35
Jesus tomb film scholars backtrack
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS
"Several prominent scholars who were interviewed in a bitterly contested documentary that suggests that Jesus and his family members were buried in a nondescript ancient Jerusalem burial cave have now revised their conclusions, including the statistician who claimed that the odds were 600:1 in favor of the tomb being the family burial cave of Jesus of Nazareth, a new study on the fallout from the popular documentary shows.
The dramatic clarifications, compiled by epigrapher Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem in a paper titled "Cracks in the Foundation: How the Lost Tomb of Jesus story is losing its scholarly support," come two months after the screening of The Lost Tomb of Christ that attracted widespread public interest, despite the concomitant scholarly ridicule.
The film, made by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and Emmy-winning Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, prompted major criticism from both a leading Israeli archeologist involved in the original dig at the site as well as Christian leaders, who were angered over the documentary's contradictions of main tenets of Christianity.
But now, even some of the scholars who were interviewed for and appeared in the film are questioning some of its basic claims."
....
The most startling change of opinion featured in the 16-page paper is that of University of Toronto statistician Professor Andrey Feuerverger, who stated those 600 to one odds in the film. Feuerverger now says that these referred to the probability of a cluster of such names appearing together.
Pfann's paper reported that a statement on the Discovery Channel's Web site, which previously read "a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters...concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family," in keeping with Feuerverger's statement, has been altered and now reads, "a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters... concludes that the probability factor is in the order of 600 to 1 that an equally 'surprising' cluster of names would arise purely by chance under given assumptions."
Another sentence on the same Web site stating that Feuerverger had concluded it was highly probable that the tomb, located in the southeastern residential Jerusalem neighborhood of Talpiot, was the Jesus family tomb - the central point of the film - has also been changed. It now reads: "It is unlikely that an equally surprising cluster of names would have arisen by chance under purely random sampling."
Israeli archeologists have said that the similarity of the names found inscribed on the ossuaries in the cave to the members of Jesus's family was coincidental, since many of those names were commonplace in the first century CE.
....
In the film, renowned epigrapher Prof. Frank Moore Cross, professor emeritus of Hebrew and oriental languages at Harvard University, is seen reading one of the ossuaries and stating that he has "no real doubt" that it reads "Jesus son of Joseph." But according to Pfann, Cross said in an e-mail that he was skeptical about the film's claims, not because of a misreading of the ossuary, but because of the ubiquity of Biblical names in that period in Jerusalem.
"It has been reckoned that 25 percent of feminine names in this period were Maria/Miriam, etc. - that is, variants of 'Mary.' So the cited statistics are unpersuasive. You know the saying: lies, damned lies, and statistics," Cross is quoted as saying.
The paper also notes that DNA scientist Dr. Carney Matheson, who supervised DNA testing carried out for the film from the supposed Jesus and Mary Magdalene ossuaries, and who said in the documentary that "these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely be husband and wife," later said that "the only conclusions we made were that these two sets were not maternally related. To me, it sounds like absolutely nothing."
See the rest at :
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1-176152766396&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull-
Name:hayomtov8 •
Date: 04/12/07 18:18
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:Anubis •
Date: 04/13/07 13:02
A: Greetings on this Friday the 13th.
I find it strange that all these experts are now changing their tune on the Jesus Family Tomb documentary? (per the Jerusalem Post article.) Doesn't it seem a bit peculiar to you?
Even if the odds changed, they'd still be good odds, no doubt, and worth betting on. The article was vague, and left me puzzled. Pfann's argument is weak, that's already been proven, so why are they still promoting it? Because it suits somebody's plans?
Another example: just because Professor Francois Bovon, "issued a disclaimer stating that he did not believe that "Mariamne" stood for Mary of Magdalene at all" well, there are certainly enough other scholars, some who specialize in research on Mary Magdalene, who've come to the conclusion that Mariamne and Mary Magdalene are one and the same.
Not stating any of the next as fact, necessarily, but did you ever pause to consider if perchance those scholars in the documentary who "have now revised their conclusions" are apprehensive about their reputations, as many in academia do worry about that? Are some now having second thoughts due to this, or is it more than that? Going out on a limb, taking a chance, is a scary thought for many of them. Such delicate creatures. Not having to worry about a reputation is one of the greatest freedoms.
How do we know some weren't paid off by someone? by those who may have a lot to lose if this Jesus tomb theory is the Truth and thus have a high interest in discrediting these findings?
And/or how do we know whether or not some of them weren't threatened and thus altered their conclusions? Could Fear have gotten the better of them? It happens to the best of people at times. Fear is used by those in power to keep people in line.
What's quite intriguing is, I noticed as of yesterday, that the SBL site no longer has anything on their website front page about the Jesus Family Tomb. Why is that, pray tell?
Back when this documentary was first announced in late February, there were those already disputing this theory in full, (some of these people make me rather $u$piciou$), noting things at that time such as: "By the
way, 'Mara' in this context does not mean Master. It is an abbreviated form of Martha. probably the ossuary contained two women called Mary and Martha (Mariamne and Mara)."
Aha!, so it was premeditated all along, just as I had conjectured. The earthly powers that be just needed to find an expert to back up their truth, which they did soon find. . .
V ('for Vendetta'): ". . .It is at this point in our story that along comes a spider. He is a man seemingly without a conscience; for whom the ends always justify the means . . ."
V: "...The building [Talpiot tomb] is a symbol, as is the act of destroying [disputing] it. Symbols are given power by people. Alone, a symbol is meaningless, but with enough people, blowing up a building can change the world."
Just as fully establishing that this is the Jesus Family Tomb can change the world, and some don't appreciate the change, don't want a breath of fresh air of truth, prefer the old stale one full of errors, because it's more comfortable for them.
Some fear the Truth of the Talpiot Tomb, perhaps due to loss of personal power/authority, while for others it's because it goes against what they've been taught in spoon-fed fashion, to not question, and thus deep thinking is beyond them-easier to write it off as part of the Great Satan Conspiracy, instead of admitting it just might be truth coming to call.
Yet there are others who are interested in the theory, are mostly concerned with finding out what the truth is, wanting more investigation done-such as the tomb itself, and the unexplored tomb nearby, with at least 3 ossuaries in it. And that's what has certain power figures that be concerned, because the documentary (and book) "attracted widespread public interest, despite the concomitant scholarly ridicule."
Evey: "My father was a writer. You would've liked him. He used to say that artists use lies to tell the truth while politicians use them to cover the truth up."
V: "A man after my own heart."
V: [Quoting Macbeth from Macbeth Act I Scene 7] "I dare do all that may become a man; Who dares do more is none."
V: ". . .There are of course those who do not want us to speak. . . . And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's
to blame? . . . . Well certainly there are those more responsible than others . . . . but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? . . . . There were a myriad of problems which conspired to
corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you . . . . in return was your silent, obedient consent. . . . . But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside . . . ":
The Jesus Family Tomb Theory
Evey: "Are you like a crazy person?"
V: "I am quite certain they will say so."
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/14/07 2:04
A: I agree with you Anubis but I'm going to add one more point that if Mariamne Mara is not the Mary Magdalene then the legends of the Holy grail can now have validity.She could have gone to Gaul(France)after the crucifiction and lived out her life there and raised her daughter Sara after Judah was killed.His ossuary was one of the smaller ones found in the tomb and marked with his name in Aramaic..The website: Saintes Sara a la Kali contains one version of the legend about Sara and the two Maries.There are others,too.The fact that the DNA doesn't match proves the Mary found in the same tomb was not related to Jesus by blood----who was she?,Certainly not His mother.
Also right after the James Ossuary was made public SOMEONE tried to discredit that find.It came out in the wash that the person who had it in his possessions alledgedly bought the James ossuary from someone who had been at the 1980 discovery of the Talpiot Tomb then when someone who could read Aramaic told him what the inscription meant James brother of Jesus the ossuary became an object of much debate and attention.They thought part of the inscription was a forgery.The Archeological team followed up on the records contacted the witnesses who were at the 1980 tomb opening including the person who drew the pictures and went to the warehouse were the nine remaining ossuaries were still stored and went to work verifying the contents with DNA testing.The people who did the tests were not told at first who they were.What makes this conclusive is the cluster of names in Aramaic(Jesus's native tongue) names familiar in The New Testament,an Aramaic symboles Gamel,the inverted V and Teth the circle over the entrance and the fact that the ossuary funerary culture was practice for around hundred years by the sect Jesus and his relations were members of.I believe the stats favor the validity of this important archeological discovery and it will soon become a historical event.The Mary factor doesn't change the rest of the find.All it does is raise one more question:Did she or didn't she live the rest of her life in Gaul and Avalon with her daughter Sara?
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/14/07 14:55
A: In the book The Jesus Family Tomb it was proven beyond hypothesis that the Mary found in the tomb with Jesus was Mary Magdalene.Only family members could be buried in the tombs------ very much like family plots today.
Name:Anubis •
Date: 04/14/07 18:08
A: Panluna: Yes, I believe Mariamne (Mariamme, Mariham) is Mary Magdalene. And since not related maternally, per tests run on the two ossuaries, chances are they were married. (Some just don't like this part of the theory, is what is boils down to.) Now I suppose they want to find Joseph, who's somewhere in Nazareth most likely?, and see if maybe he's Mariamne's father!? Some are so desperate, that they dispute this tomb, because "Jesus' sisters aren't here!" Well, chances are, his sisters got married, and maybe had children, and if they stayed in Jerusalem, were placed in family tombs of their husband's family. Makes sense to me.
And here's a question for you: do you think, if this ossuary was that of a man's, would there be all the controversy? Would there be those claiming it to be one man's ossuary, while others would claim it to be the ossuary of two men, possibly brothers? or, would the title 'Master' be a given, with no questions asked, and no controversy? Just speculating.
There are numerous Grail Legends out there, not just ones surrounding Mary Magdalene and Jesus, and many are beautiful stories, rich in symbolism for the soul, but I don't take them literally so much, I read them as myth, metaphor, archetypes. However, it could be said that there is some truth contained within the Grail stories, so while mostly read as fiction or myth with meaning, there's metaphoric truths about them. The Feminine is the Grail/Chalice, the Masculine is the Blade.
Regarding certain subjects, such as religion/spirituality, my preference is the more serious and scholarly reads, though not exclusively, as I sometimes like to read for fun. But I like all the details and notes, and references, appendixes, bibliographies, in the more academic works; the side dishes to the main meal, which enrich and balance the experience, and sometimes illustrations or maps - dessert - are included.
Maybe Mary Magdalene was pregnant at the time of Jesus' crucifixion? I've even seen artwork depicting this, but that doesn't thus mean it is true - but it does plant the idea in one's head, and causes one to wonder "Is this what really happened or not?" I do have some personal thoughts about this, but some things are best kept to oneself.
The Magdalene is a representative/symbol for the Divine Feminine, which has been coming back to our consciousness for some time now, as she's been ignored or hidden, or ridiculed - the Magdalene turned into a prostitute to slander her (The Divine Feminine/Goddess/God the Mother -whichever terms one prefers- is there as the Holy Spirit, as Sophia/Wisdom, as Shekinah) - to try to help balance our world as it has been too male dominated for far too long, and is thusly the reason why the world is in the unjust and violent and destructive and unbalanced state it's in.
That's what happens when you favour the masculine over the feminine in all ways in religions and society, and do not fully acknowledge/respect her - you get a big sorry mess to clean up, which is what we have now, as everything is inter-connected. We need the Mother, and many have been working towards that goal (note: physics can be viewed as the Science of the Goddess), to fully incorporate her into our lives and world -because without nurturance and compassion and environmentalism, without justice and equality and wholeness, human rights abuses -especially those aimed against women- will contine without any one doing anything about them, and in our greed and stupidity we will keep destroying nature, and, it's likely going to be nuclear world war time eventually, baby, if we stick to the macho Marlboro man path as we have been doing for centuries.
"Although the patriarchal ego prides itself on being reasonable, the twentieth century has been anything but the Age of Reason. In our collective neurosis, we have raped the earth, disrupted the delicate balance of nature, and created phallic missiles of mass destruction. Ironically, in our desperate attempt to keep death at bay (or prevent dissolution, from the point of the ego) we have brought ourselves to the brink of extinction. So long as we deny the Great Mother and refuse to integrate her as Goddess in our psychic development, we will continue to act out neurotic fantasies and endanger our very survival as a species."
(Marion Woodman & Elinor Dickson, "Dancing in the Flames-The Dark Goddess in the Transformation of Consciousness")
The timing on this Talpiot Tomb discovery couldn't be better though; I believe it was meant to be found now - just 60 years ago would have been too soon. Even in 1980 the world wasn't quite ready for it. Though I think it'll take some time -years even- to sink into the general consciousness, as it's still all so new, and I think some people are almost in 'shock.' ? Which is perhaps why some have truly gone over the edge about it. One man was railing on a message board awhile ago, about how this tomb theory had psychologically damaged him, and he therefore didn't want this 'truth' out there. Well, there's always therapy. De-brainwashing programs. A new church. Pain is worth it, if it means getting to the truth in the end.
Nonetheless, given time, I think this will go down in history as one of the greatest archaeological finds. So I willingly handle all the ridicule and insults, be it online or in person. (I can only imagine what those who are in the spotlight are going through - I will keep them in my prayers.)
Though I spoke to a friend of mine on the phone recently, a Christian, who goes to church, and they had not yet heard of this documentary when I mentioned it - yes, they live a bit of a sheltered life - though they were full of awe and inquiry when I brought it up in conversation: "when, where, who, really?" Of course I immediately highly recommended they watch the documentary, and read the book, and to make up their own mind about it.
I had someone actually laugh at me, right to my face, so surprised they were that I supported this tomb theory, and had noted "and here I'd always thought of you as above average intelligence, so I'm surprised you buy into this sham!", though I responded with "It can be said, that it's because I am above average intelligence, which is the reason why I'm open to this theory - the dots connect pretty good so far, even if there are still a few to connect yet. And until someone can prove this isn't the Jesus Family Tomb, which they haven't at least so far done, I stick by this theory. And theories can and do grow and adapt, and change, but the basic premise, of this being the Jesus Family Tomb, remains." At least that wiped the smirk off their face, even if they still rolled their eyes when they walked away from me!
I especially get tired of those who say this theory destroys Christianity, when it does no such thing. It changes things, challenges you to think (which some people don't like) but doesn't destroy it - fortunately there are many Christians out there who are excited and curious about this find.
I think some people just have very little faith. Having faith isn't about being secure; if anything, you should be anxious and unsure and not always have all the answers and all the absolutes. You should hunger for a spiritual life, question things, work towards it, it's not just handed to you.
And just the thought of a physical resurrection (the spiritual is all that is needed, the one that counts, the only one I believe in) is rather creepy, and makes me think of zombies and movies like "Night of the Living Dead." It's the living Christ Consciousness which is important to me, not any of the churches and their dogmas, which are mostly based on Paul's teachings anyway, not Jesus' NT teachings so much. It can be said, that to follow Jesus Christ often means not going to church.
Didn't Jesus say that the Kingdom is within you?
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/15/07 6:42
A: Let's see... based on the above referenced articles (see my last posts):
1) DNA experts sing different tune from "documentary"...
2) Inscription about "Mariamne" is actually Mariamme and Mara (Martha) two names written at two different times in two different scripts for the burial of.. yep you guessed it.... two different people...
3) Statistician backing away quickly as he discovers taht the "facts" given to him as assumptions are not facts at all...
4) Tabor's only support for his connection between Mariamne and Mary Magdalene crumbles (Bovan disclaimer)...
5) Other scholars who were USED in the film told them that they were on the wrong track based on many factors...
6) Minus Tabor and the Statistician thereis no scholarly support...
Hmmm... DNA support gone... Key inscription misread... Statistician changing statements adding rooooom to place blame on those who brought him the assumptions used in his equations... Literary evidence for Magdalene claim evaporates...
But those who want to believe in the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" will not give it up. Faith in poorly done work based on faulty assumptions that were based on conspiracy theory and DanBrownesque fictional foundations will not be discouraged. That's what I call blind faith.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/15/07 6:45
A: PS to above post...
In my opinion the man who was part of the Ted Koppel discussion (a real archaeologist) after the show got it right... this film was nothing more than "Archeoporn." What's worse is that it is archeoporn that has spun a new urban legend that will probably be with us for a very long time.
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/15/07 7:07
A: For Pfann's discussion of the "Mariamne" ossuary inscription see his entry on the UHL school site:
http://www.uhl.ac/MariameAndMartha/
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 04/15/07 7:48
A: PS to last several entries:
A good site for reconsidering the "statistics":
http://www.inge-rmanson.com/jesus/art/stats2.php-
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/15/07 15:18
A: R.Kirk Kilpatrick,
Have you read the book THE JESUS FAMILY TOMB byJacobovici and Pellegrino?It is the book the movie The Lost Tomb Of Jesus was based on.There are more understandable facts based on the evidence and it gives the results of the investigation.It actually has more impact than the movie.It could change your mind and it isn't fiction.Enjoy!!
PS-:- Panluna... The book does not change the fact that scholars saw this film and book for what they truly are: sensationalism with an agenda.
1) DNA experts sing different tune from "documentary"...
2) Inscription about "Mariamne" is actually Mariamme and Mara (Martha) two names written at two different times in two different scripts for the burial of.. yep you guessed it.... two different people...
3) Statistician backing away quickly as he discovers taht the "facts" given to him as assumptions are not facts at all...
4) Tabor's only support for his connection between Mariamne and Mary Magdalene crumbles (Bovan disclaimer)...
5) Other scholars who were USED in the film told them that they were on the wrong track based on many factors...
6) Minus Tabor, the "DNA analysis" and the Statistician there is no scientific or scholarly support...
Hmmm... DNA support gone... Key inscription misread... Statistician changing statements adding room to place blame on those who brought him the assumptions used in his equations... Literary evidence for Magdalene claim evaporates...
But those who want to believe in the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" will not give it up. Faith in poorly done work based on faulty assumptions that were based on conspiracy theory and DanBrownesque fictional foundations will not be discouraged. That's what I call blind faith.
Name:Anchorite •
Date: 04/25/07 23:24
A: Thank you Kilpatrick,
I have said before that I suspect the "discoverers" are only connecting some of the dots. I see they are perhaps ajusting the dots as well. Sad. What effort wasted! Fellow enthousiasts, please hold onto your wallets. These marketers shall fade. But you, you need your bucks for another day.
Anchorite
Name:Panluna •
Date: 04/26/07 1:42
A: Welcome back Anchorite!
Name:R. Kirk Kilpatrick •
Date: 06/21/07 15:28
A: It has been a while since I posted here. Upon returning to the site I am amazed that the discussion lingers and the gullible continue to swallow the premise of the Director and of the Producer of this film. If you have never examined the premise I offered on this thread, please do.
Name:sam •
Date: 06/21/07 22:19
A: R. Kirk Kilpatrick ,
You mentioned this:
"From the earliest days of Christianity, the apostles claimed that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection were prophesied in the Hebrew Bible (1 Cor. 15:1-4)."
1 Corinthians is not in the Hebrew Bilble, but it is one of the many personal letters which PAUL sent to his friends and associates in other churches, and those letter been added to the Gospels to become a part in the Christian Bible.
Paul information came from the followers of Jesus and His apostles, because Paul never met or spoke with Him, and he is one of those who hated Him, but he joined in knowing that he is much smarter and more educated, than those who followed Jesus, and he can create for himself better place as a leader, and he did. His letters and words in the Gospels more than the words of Jesus Himself.
God bless you.
Name:Panluna •
Date: 06/22/07 14:25
A: The tomb belonged to Joseph of Arimethia--the rich merchant uncle of Mary,mother of Jesus.The ossuary culture lasted about a hundred years which could account for the number of family members who's remains were found.The DNA testing was done from bone and cloth fragments found in the limestone coffins.The story can be pieced together from the written sources included and excluded from the New Testament. and the Messianic prophecies.When the Bible was revised some of the wording could have been lost in translation or eliminated completely.The originals were hand-copied (until the printing press was invented.I believe the Guttenberg Bible was the first book ever "published")and all it takes is one error to change future edtions.As far as the Chevron and circle is concerned that could have been a very popular design in those days.People haven't changed very much in all our generations:we make mistakes and we copy.The Talpiot tomb findings proved that Jesus died from his injuries and was buried there with the rest of his family..And the mythos surrounding the grain of truth grew as followers wanted to believe in the miraculous promise of life-eternal and the political power it gave their leaders.Even with the modern medical advances science has achieved I don't believe that anyone could have survived the brutal death that Jesus suffered.Just think what medicine was like 2000 years ago( comas were called The Deathless Sleep and if you rose from one it was considered a miracle) or how or long it took for news to reach everyone.Was it recieved verbatum?or did each messenger edit or revise their own version that they delivered?
Name:JMD •
Date: 06/23/07 16:18
A: Panluna noted "The Talpiot tomb findings proved that Jesus died from his injuries and was buried there with the rest of his family..And the mythos surrounding the grain of truth grew as followers wanted to believe in the miraculous promise of life-eternal and the political power it gave their leaders.Even with the modern medical advances science has achieved I don't believe that anyone could have survived the brutal death that Jesus suffered."
I recall a show on TV I watched some years ago, about 'out of body' experiences, and one woman was telling how she was being tortured, and due to the immense pain/suffering she was in, she felt her spirit rise, and looked down upon her 'physical body' screaming in pain. Could it not be, that Jesus 'resurrected' before his 'physical' body was 'dead' ? Just a thought.... After all, what do I know? I'm no professional 'scholar' just a 'working class stiff'. :b However, I think it's much more 'bizarre' to hang a dead Jesus around your neck on a crucifix (which creeps me out), than finding the living Christ within.
And as noted in Gospel of Thomas:
(59) Jesus said "Take heed of the living one while you are alive, lest you die and seek to see him and be unable to do so."
Sam
"Paul never met or spoke with Him, and he is one of those who hated Him, but he joined in knowing that he is much smarter and more educated, than those who followed Jesus"
I disagree - James the Just and Mary Magdalene, in my belief, were two of his 'true' followers, who actually 'knew' him and received personal teachings; Paul didn't know him. James -who Jesus put in charge, but many like to just conveniently 'forget' about it- and Mary Magdalene, are both 'beloved disciples' of Jesus. Just as Jesus' family was 'downplayed' in the NT, including John the Baptizer.
"His letters and words in the Gospels more than the words of Jesus Himself."
Yes, it's unfortunate that churches today are more about Paul than Jesus. So, those people follow Paul, and should maybe build churches of Paul? -which is what many of them sort of are, anyway.
Jesus' message and teachings have been so twisted, and peverted, and such nonsense is taught in churches, it's very sad, sad, sad.
Myself, I prefer to go by Jesus' words, rather than Paul's - Jesus never tells women they have to be 'silent' nor does he tell them that men 'rule over them' as so many churches like to still teach, but then, the blind and jealous God rules them.
Jesus' parables/sayings mostly, be it from Q-source, the NT or Nag Hammadi, are what I prefer to mainly focus on; though those too have to be taken with a grain of salt (of wisdom/Sophia), and that's why I meditate upon passages, as well as apply them to myself 'within'. Everyone's inner 'trip' will be different, and there can be various translations to scripture, based on the individual, which some people have a hard time with, though I certainly don't.
And even though James in the NT is a short book -due to him getting 'ripped off' (Vatican even going so far as to call him James the 'Less' rather than his proper title, James the Just, but what more would you expect from them? "those people are dry canals.")
James was/is a 'threat' to their macho church, so they 'downplayed' his role, just as they did with Mary Magdalene, writing her off as a whore - anyway, still, in the book of James, in the NT, there are parts where it's as though he is arguing with Paul! Right on, James the Just!
It seems so many people look for God 'out there' or for their enemies 'out there', constantly 'blaming somebody else' for their own problems, or whatever psychological fears/hangups they may have.
Lots of people prefer to remain in denial, rather than do the hard soul work, looking within, that they maybe should be doing. They take advantage of others (which I've personally experienced), and just don't care; as long as it'll mean less work for them, they are happy to just remain in denial.
Ah, and then we still have Kirk and his Krap. *rolls eyes at his machismo*
"Mary known as the Master" -I like it a lot!
Gospel of Thomas
(58) Jesus said "Blessed is the wo/man who has suffered and found life."
Goddess bless you!
JM:D
Name:Panluna •
Date: 06/23/07 17:27
A: And blessed are those who appreciate the daily bread and daily breath and reckognises the equality of the soul within each of us.I think Jesus could have appeared in his astral body several times.There are people who still see him and Mary.I wonder how haunted Isreal is?Or if the Tomb is haunted.
The Romans were resposible for carrying out the death sentence but Jesus did have an enemy.There is an account of it in The Devil's Apocrypha by John A.DeVito.
Name:JMD •
Date: 06/24/07 2:41
A: "I think Jesus could have appeared in his astral body several times.There are people who still see him and Mary.I wonder how haunted Isreal is?Or if the Tomb is haunted."
I believe Christ could have appeared in spiritual form, and likely did, which is maybe why we have all these 'tombs' of Jesus? -with Talpiot being 'the' tomb. Rabbi Luria, who introduced the 'spark' (a gnostic concept), to Kabbalah, has a tomb for Jesus in Gaililee - this is something not talked about much, but Luria felt Jesus is 'righteous'. I think it's likely Luria had a vision of Christ, and built this tomb for him... a memorial in a sense. I think it's great!
Is Jerusalem haunted? Well, in any case, I will continue to pray/meditate, and light candles, and send love and Divine light that way. I today just bought a box of 12 Shabbat candles, and they are handcrafted, from Israel. It notes on the box
"In the ancient city of Safed, nestled in the hills of the Galilee, skilled craftsmen create candles to bring the light of the Holy Land into your home. Our candles are dipped in the age-old traditional manner and burn with a clear and bright flame." (I have one lit right now - for Jerusalem.)
"... and illuminate our flames so as never to be extinguished. Shine your countenance upon us that we may be rescued. Amen."
Love & Light,
JMD
Name:Panluna •
Date: 06/24/07 14:48
A: Bright Blessings and Peace
Amen
Name:Nate •
Date: 06/28/07 6:45
A: Hello R. Kirk Kilpatrick
When posting information such as yours it would be most he;pful if you included a URL or two. It saves folks from having to waste time searching, when, you yourself have already spent the time searching and all you have to do is provide the URL you viewed and save your readers valuable time.
