The religious context I don't think should be effected by the outcome of this study in anyway. I see this as a big deal because this would be the tomb of an individual that has had a profound influence on the ppl of this planet. Yet his tomb was lost all these millennia and now found.I wasn't aware that Jesus had a family in the DNA sense of the word. I'm a Christian and if it were proven that Jesus had a son with Mary I would be thrilled to think that his bloodline went on. I can't speak for other Christians but I don't see how it is a problem. Jesus was a mortal man while here on Earth, he felt pain, sadness, hope, love, and sin at times. This does not take away from him being the son of God. I am not sure why this is such a big deal.
As for the poll you need to add an I don't know answer.
The religious context I don't think should be effected by the outcome of this study in anyway. I see this as a big deal because this would be the tomb of an individual that has had a profound influence on the ppl of this planet. Yet his tomb was lost all these millennia and now found.
The evidence is quite compelling indeed. It's baffling to me why so many are ignoring it.
Magness noted that at the time of Jesus, wealthy families buried their dead in tombs cut by hand from solid rock, putting the bones in niches in the walls and then, later, transferring them to ossuaries.
She said Jesus came from a poor family that, like most Jews of the time, probably buried their dead in ordinary graves. "If Jesus' family had been wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb, it would have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem," she said.
Magness also said the names on the Talpiyot ossuaries indicate that the tomb belonged to a family from Judea, the area around Jerusalem, where people were known by their first name and father's name. As Galileans, Jesus and his family members would have used their first name and home town, she said.
"This whole case [for the tomb of Jesus] is flawed from beginning to end," she said.
This is by far the biggest quibble I had with this documentary. That it was first "sold" before it was actually reviewed in a non-outside pressurized scientific method. Hence the quick conclusion of the "James" oscuary I think is highly questionable. It's probably from the same tomb, but whether or not it be "James" is questionable. How can that be tested? Well there are bone fragments within that oscuary and the mDNA can be compared to that of the "Jesus" DNA.So, from what i've seen (and i haven't seen the video), this is kinda hyped up, especially since this was never put forth into the scientific community, and made into a movie first.
I'd like to know how. So far all you've given us is a "some people say" argument, ie., nothing much to think about.Tashah said:Well... Jewish archaeologists in Israel have said that the methodology used for this documentary was scientifically fraudulent. Think about this.
Au contraré. It's not some lame 'some people say' argument...I'd like to know how. So far all you've given us is a "some people say" argument, ie., nothing much to think about.
Given the evidence I saw in the film, even if it's all 100% accurate, it's not possible to make a conclusion either way.
Lost Tomb of Jesus' Claim Called a Stunt
Archaeologists Decry TV Film
By Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 28, 2007; Page A03
Leading archaeologists in Israel and the United States yesterday denounced the purported discovery of the tomb of Jesus as a publicity stunt.
Scorn for the Discovery Channel's claim to have found the burial place of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and -- most explosively -- their possible son came not just from Christian scholars but also from Jewish and secular experts who said their judgments were unaffected by any desire to uphold Christian orthodoxy.
"I'm not a Christian. I'm not a believer. I don't have a dog in this fight," said William G. Dever, who has been excavating ancient sites in Israel for 50 years and is widely considered the dean of biblical archaeology among U.S. scholars. "I just think it's a shame the way this story is being hyped and manipulated."
I'd like to know how. So far all you've given us is a "some people say" argument, ie., nothing much to think about.
Given the evidence I saw in the film, even if it's all 100% accurate, it's not possible to make a conclusion either way.
I watched it and fell asleep when they had to call a plumber to do their excavating for them. :roll:
The obvious anti-religious bias was a turn off too. Specifically, the curly gray haired guy who kept criticising the foolish "magic" believed by Christians who claim Jesus' bodily ressurection. :roll:
Also--how many times could the filmmaker come face to face with an expert rolling his eyes at him as he kept asserting--"but it says "Jeshua Bar Joseph--Jesus Son of Joseph!" "but there's a Mary in there too..." "and if [note a huge "IF"] Mariamne is Mary the Magdalen--well!:shock: "
As I said...it looked like hype and was boring like hype. I'm just bummed I fell asleep and missed the discussion piece afterward. Anyone see that? Was that good?
I thought that was rather ironic that they had to call a plumber in to excavate a tomb. But I hope you got to the part that stated how that tomb was not the right one.I watched it and fell asleep when they had to call a plumber to do their excavating for them.
If it was indeed the tomb of Jesus, then how is it in anyway anti-religious bias? How is investigation of a religious icon anti-religious bias? I would think it to be more enlightening then to be anti-religion. Would Jesus' not having bodily resurrection cast that much doubt onto your faith?Felicity said:The obvious anti-religious bias was a turn off too. Specifically, the curly gray haired guy who kept criticising the foolish "magic" believed by Christians who claim Jesus' bodily ressurection.
The statistical probability of all those names in the same tomb is very small, that doesn't strike you as intriguing? The names independently are of little significance other than of course Mariamne and brother's rare names, but that they are all there within the same burial tomb; all gospel names - I don't see how that's of "no interest".Felicity said:Also--how many times could the filmmaker come face to face with an expert rolling his eyes at him as he kept asserting--"but it says "Jeshua Bar Joseph--Jesus Son of Joseph!" "but there's a Mary in there too..." "and if [note a huge "IF"] Mariamne is Mary the Magdalen--well!:shock: "
Felicity said:As I said...it looked like hype and was boring like hype. I'm just bummed I fell asleep and missed the discussion piece afterward. Anyone see that? Was that good?
The names on the tomb were actually very common Jewish names in that era.The statistical probability of all those names in the same tomb is very small, that doesn't strike you as intriguing? The names independently are of little significance other than of course Mariamne and brother's rare names, but that they are all there within the same burial tomb; all gospel names - I don't see how that's of "no interest".
Dever, (William G. Dever, who has been excavating ancient sites in Israel for 50 years) a retired professor of archaeology at the University of Arizona, said that some of the inscriptions on the Talpiyot ossuaries are unclear, but that all of the names are common.
"I've known about these ossuaries for many years and so have many other archaeologists, and none of us thought it was much of a story, because these are rather common Jewish names from that period." he said. "It's a publicity stunt, and it will make these guys very rich, and it will upset millions of innocent people because they don't know enough to separate fact from fiction."
'Lost Tomb of Jesus' Claim Called a Stunt - washingtonpost.comSimilar assessments came yesterday from two Israeli scholars, Amos Kloner, who originally excavated the tomb, and Joe Zias, former curator of archaeology at the Israeli Antiquities Authority. Kloner told the Jerusalem Post that the documentary is "nonsense." Zias described it in an e-mail to The Washington Post as a "hyped up film which is intellectually and scientifically dishonest."
Simcha Jacobovici, the film's Israeli-born director, also made the 2003 Discovery Channel documentary about the 'James Ossuary' which he purported to be the burial ossuary of James the brother of Jesus. Israeli authorities have pronounced the James Ossuary a forgery and are prosecuting its owner.Yes, the discussion piece was good. The theological discussion wasn't so much, but the scientific and archaeological part was - lots of very valid points raised.
I have many problems with this...Sure, you can dismiss it as sheer coincidence, and it very well may be. However, it is without a doubt worth more investigation IMO. There may not be enough evidence to say it IS the tomb of Jesus, but there's also not enough evidence to say it's NOT. It's worth investigating further.
Here also... amatuer Egyptologist.But then again, I'm an ancient history nut. :mrgreen:
Here also... amatuer Egyptologist.
The religious context I don't think should be effected by the outcome of this study in anyway.
I'm interested in the DNA testing part.
Did they get some of God's DNA and see if it matched?
Whats the story on that bit?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?