James Cameron has found Jesus......Yes!..That Jesus!

[N.O.Bronco]

Theoretically this was found about 17 years ago but a bunch of new evidence, including DNA, statistical analysis and further tombs coinciding with biblical accounts have seeminglly uncovered the burial of Jesus son of Joseph. along with his 4 brothers, father joseph mother mary, Wife mary
magdaline and son judah

From TIME

Is This Jesus's Tomb?
There were two types of fame on display at the press conference Monday morning in a grand, sky-lit room at the back of the New York Public library. There was director James Cameron, towering like a a six foot-plus druidic monolith in a dark jacket and black turtleneck. And there was a light tan limestone box about two feet long lying on a table in front of Cameron — which the Titanic director was presenting as the burial box of Jesus Christ. All things being equal, we know who would be the bigger draw. (It was John Lennon who said he was bigger than Jesus, not Cameron, right?) But all things were not equal. Those in the room knew that Cameron was provably authentic. The other guy? Much more problematic.


Cameron (acting as producer), biblical film documentarian Simcha Jacobovici and a handful of their expert consultants were at the Library to publicize Jacobovici's The Jesus Family Tomb, which will run this Sunday on the Discovery Channel, and a HarperSanfrancisco book of the same name. Their claim is that there was indeed a Jesus family tomb in what is now suburban Jerusalem: and that the two bone boxes on the table in front of them, exported from Israel, had contained the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, whom the filmmakers assert was Jesus's wife and the mother of a son named Judah. Meet the Jesuses! Cameron told the press that when Jacobovici, who has been working on the project for years, laid it out for him in detail, he thought, "I'm not a biblical scholar, but it seemed pretty darned compelling." He added, "I said, this is the biggest achaeology story of the century. And I still believe that to be true."

If true, of course, it is more than that. If true, it is a contradiction, in the most earthy, concrete way, of the Bible, which claims that Jesus was taken up bodily into heaven.
But as its creators have revealed more and more of it over the last two days, key parts of it seem increasingly like debatable conjecture.

Here's the set-up. In 1980 a construction crew in the Jerusalem suburb of Talpiot chanced upon a first-century tomb, which are not uncommon in that city. The Israeli Antiquities Authority found 10 bone boxes there, and stored them in a warehouse. Some bore inscribed names: Jesus, son of Joseph; Maria; Mariamene e Mara; Matthew; Judas, son of Jesus; and Jose. Each name with the exception of Mariamene seemed common to their period, and it was only in 1996 that the BBC made a film suggesting that. given the combination, it might be that family. The idea was eventually discounted, however, because, as University of St. Andrews (Scotland) New Testament expert Richard Bauckham asserted in a subsequent book, the names with Biblical resonance are so common that even when you run the probabilities on the group, the odds of it being the famous Jesus's family are "very low."

Jacobovici, however, remained fascinated, and announced at the press conference what he had added to the equation :

—University of North Carolina scholar James Tabor told him that Mariamene was the name some Christians gave to Mary Magdalene. If true, that added a rather uncommon name to the statistical mix. (Or as Cameron put it, "If you found a John, a Paul and a George, you're not going to leap to any conclusions... unless you found a Ringo.").

—Jacobovici also contends that "Jose," a name that appears in the Bible as that of one of Jesus's brothers, is rarer than previous scholars thought.

— He came up with a new process called "patina fingerprinting," which purports to show that a different bone box that popped up in the hands of an Israeli collector some years ago and is alleged to have contained the remains of Jesus's brother James originally came from Talpiot, which would raise the coincidence level even higher.

—And Jacobovici managed to get tests done on DNA from the "Jesus" and "Mariamene" bone-boxes that indicated that they were not related on their mother's sides: therefore, Jacobovici quotes the DNA expert as saying, if this was indeed a family tomb, the two "would most likely have been husband and wife" (which is the source of his contention that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that the Judah in the tomb was their son).

That last bit alone should give some sense of how problematic some of Jacobovici's conclusions are. A sampling of difficulties:

— If "Jesus" and "Mariamene" weren't related matrilineally, why jump to the conclusion that they were husband and wife, rather than being related through their fathers?

— The first use of "Mariamene" for Magdalene dates to a scholar who was born in 185, suggesting that Magdalene wouldn't have been called that at her death.

— St. Andrews' Bauckham defends his probabilities, noting that Jacobovici was comparing his name-cluster to the rather small sampling of names known to have been found on bone boxes, while his own basis for comparison, which adds names from contemporary literature and other sources, makes the combo far less unusual.

— Asbury Theological Seminary professor Ben Witherington, a early Christianity expert who was deeply involved with the James Ossuary, says there are physical reasons to believe it couldn't have originated in the Talpiot plot.

Darrell Bock, a professor at the conservative Protestant Dallas Seminary, whom the Discovery Channel had vet the film two weeks ago, adds another objection: why would Jesus's family or followers bury his bones in a family plot and "then turn around and preach that he had been physically raised from the dead?" If that objection smacks secular readers as relying too heavily on scripture, then Bock's larger point is still trenchant: "I told them that there were too many assumptions being claimed as discoveries, and that they were trying to connect dots that didn't belong together."

Your move, Mr. Titanic.




more on the program and in the list on the left is the conference(watch it!! if you plan on commenting harshly)
http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/tomb.html

And for all that is anything, please!!!!, i repeat and beg please dont let this get like other threads ive seen at other sites. Before dissenting this watch the press conference, its pretty convincing stuff and this is coming from a person who is an atheist and pretty much doubted the exsistence of the historical jesus as laid out by the christian bible.

Still not a 100% convinced but its pretty convincing stuff to say the least and on a scale from one to ten right now id weight this in at a 7 or 8.

[Bronco Bob]

—And Jacobovici managed to get tests done on DNA from the "Jesus" and "Mariamene" bone-boxes that indicated that they were not related on their mother's sides: therefore, Jacobovici quotes the DNA expert as saying, if this was indeed a family tomb, the two "would most likely have been husband and wife" (which is the source of his contention that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that the Judah in the tomb was their son).

One priest I saw on the news scoffed at this, saying are they going to
get God's DNA to prove God was the father? How do you get God's DNA?
he asked. :D

[Bronco_Beerslug]

One priest I saw on the news scoffed at this, saying are they going to
get God's DNA to prove God was the father? How do you get God's DNA?
he asked. :D

I don't know but speaking of DNA...

Family tree researchers (http://tinyurl.com/2mqns3) show Rev. Al Sharpton's ancestors were once owned by the Thurmond family of South Carolina. (Feb. 26)

But back on topic, if they do find it would Christians accept it?

[ant1999e]

If it is proven wrong, will you believe?

[N.O.Bronco]

I don't know but speaking of DNA...



But back on topic, if they do find it would Christians accept it?

yes and no. the fundies will make up some excuse trying to skew the science the average layman doesnt understand, like statistical analysis or the DNA stuff. Or holding on like dogma to the people that doubt the claim.

For others like in the conference video(which features a couple of Biblical scholars) it might actually cement some of their faith. I mean think about it if it is his burial ground most christians(other then fundies and evangelicals) dont think his body literally rose up through the clouds, more like his soul was ressurected and ascended.

For me though it just goes to show what a reach it is to think that jesus was ressurected based of a little heresay evidence.

[cutthemdown]

most experts dispute the burial jars say jesus on them. This whole thing is just another Al Capones vault.

[spdirty]

::)

[N.O.Bronco]

most experts dispute the burial jars say jesus on them. This whole thing is just another Al Capones vault.

No they dont!!!!! Hence why i insisted before anyone make any harsh criticisms to watch the damn press conference. One guy said that, one guy! then they had several others who spoke and knew the ancient language very well, read the name with no effort and no knowledge of what they were even going to be reading and said without a beat jesus, son of joseph was the name inscribed on the tomb.

[Bronco Bob]

But seriously folks, just how do you go about getting a sample of God's DNA?
Until you can do that, all you have shown is there is a tomb with a man,
his mother, his wife, and his son that all had names that were common
in that time.

BTW, Ringo's real name is Richard, so if you found a tomb 2000 years later
with the names Paul, John, George, and Richard, would that prove you
had found the tomb of the Beatles?

[N.O.Bronco]

But seriously folks, just how do you go about getting a sample of God's DNA?Until you can do that, all you have shown is there is a tomb with a man,
his mother, his wife, and his son that all had names that were common
in that time.

BTW, Ringo's real name is Richard, so if you found a tomb 2000 years later
with the names Paul, John, George, and Richard, would that prove you
had found the tomb of the Beatles?

You dont need it and there argment has nothing to do with the need for getting it. there is no 100% certainty but as the statician said the likely hood of this not being him, based on the DNA evidence, time period, connection, names and so fourth is around 2,000,000 to 1, meaning out of every 1,999,999 times this scenario came up only 1 time would it be incorrect or there be another one just like it, weighng all the variables. meaning its pretty much a sure thing, not a 100% but pretty damn close. Again people pleases just watch the darn conference every question raised is anwsered, and even better questions are raised by the reporters at the end and anwsered their too.

The scenario they used as an example was having a football stadium full of around 50,000 people and saying to everyone(assuming the names are around biblical times and of that amount and such) anyone with the name jesus stay standing(you would probably have a couple thousand or so). Now anyone with the name jesus with a father named joseph and mother named mary stay standing(at this point you would probably only have about a few hundred left) now anyone also with a brother named jose stay standing. Now at this point statistically you wouldnt even have a whole person standing anymore. let alone when you factor in 3 other siblings and mary magdaline. so the probability of this being wrong soley on the basis of the argument that there are a lot of those names back then is pretty weak statistically speaking, not impossibel ut highlly, highlly improbable.

[Falconer]

Scholars, clergy criticize film of 'Jesus tomb'
By Karen Matthews
Associated Press
Advertisement


NEW YORK — Filmmakers and researchers on Monday unveiled two ancient stone boxes they said may have once contained the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, but several scholars derided the claims made in a new documentary as unfounded and contradictory to basic Christian beliefs.

``The Lost Tomb of Jesus,'' produced by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and scheduled to air March 4 on the Discovery Channel, argues that 10 small caskets discovered in 1980 in a Jerusalem suburb may have held the bones of Jesus and his family.

One of the caskets even bears the title, ``Judah, son of Jesus,'' hinting that Jesus may have had a son, according to the film.

``There's a definite sense that you have to pinch yourself,'' Cameron said Monday at a news conference. He told NBC'S ``Today'' show earlier that statisticians found ``in the range of a couple of million to one'' in favor of the documentary's conclusions about the caskets, or ossuaries.

Simcha Jacobovici, the Toronto filmmaker who directed the film, said that a name on one of the ossuaries — ``Mariamene'' — offers evidence that the tomb is that of Jesus and his family. In early Christian texts, ``Mariamene'' is the name of Mary Magdalene, he said.

The very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Most Christians believe Jesus' body spent three days at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City. The burial site identified in Cameron's documentary is in a southern Jerusalem neighborhood nowhere near the church.

In 1996, when the British Broadcasting Corp. aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.

``They just want to get money for it,'' Kloner said.

Shimon Gibson, one of three archaeologists who first discovered the tomb in 1980, said Monday of the film's claims: ``I'm skeptical, but that's the way I am. I'm willing to accept the possibility.''

The film's claims, however, have raised the ire of Christian leaders in the Holy Land.

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.

``I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this,'' Pfann said. ``But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear.''

``How possible is it?'' Pfann said. ``On a scale of one through 10 — 10 being completely possible — it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half.''

Pfann is even unsure that the name ``Jesus'' on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name ``Hanun.'' Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher.

Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false. ``The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time,'' he said.

William Dever, an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years.

``The fact that it's been ignored tells you something,'' said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. ``It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people.''

Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israeli government agency responsible for archaeology, said the Antiquities Authority agreed to send two ossuaries to New York, but they did not contain human remains. ``We agreed to send the ossuaries, but it doesn't mean that we agree with'' the filmmakers, she said.

Associated Press Writer Marshall Thompson contributed to this report from Jerusalem and AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll contributed from New York.

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/02/26/freetime/doc45e3657f6e570111278525.txt

[Bronco Bob]

But you are missing my point. Unless they can find DNA proving that God is
the father of the man found in the tomb, all you have is a man in a tomb
named Jesus, who is related to other people found in the tomb, who had
names just like people related to the Jesus in the Bible. Yes, there is
a statistical probability that the Jesus in the tomb is the Jesus in the
Bible, but is that alone hard proof? The problem with statistics is that
they can be manipulated to prove whatever you want them to prove.
I'm not sure how you fake DNA.

[N.O.Bronco]

Scholars, clergy criticize film of 'Jesus tomb'
By Karen Matthews
Associated Press
Advertisement


NEW YORK — Filmmakers and researchers on Monday unveiled two ancient stone boxes they said may have once contained the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, but several scholars derided the claims made in a new documentary as unfounded and contradictory to basic Christian beliefs.

``The Lost Tomb of Jesus,'' produced by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and scheduled to air March 4 on the Discovery Channel, argues that 10 small caskets discovered in 1980 in a Jerusalem suburb may have held the bones of Jesus and his family.

One of the caskets even bears the title, ``Judah, son of Jesus,'' hinting that Jesus may have had a son, according to the film.

``There's a definite sense that you have to pinch yourself,'' Cameron said Monday at a news conference. He told NBC'S ``Today'' show earlier that statisticians found ``in the range of a couple of million to one'' in favor of the documentary's conclusions about the caskets, or ossuaries.

Simcha Jacobovici, the Toronto filmmaker who directed the film, said that a name on one of the ossuaries — ``Mariamene'' — offers evidence that the tomb is that of Jesus and his family. In early Christian texts, ``Mariamene'' is the name of Mary Magdalene, he said.

The very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

Most Christians believe Jesus' body spent three days at the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City. The burial site identified in Cameron's documentary is in a southern Jerusalem neighborhood nowhere near the church.

In 1996, when the British Broadcasting Corp. aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.

``They just want to get money for it,'' Kloner said.

Shimon Gibson, one of three archaeologists who first discovered the tomb in 1980, said Monday of the film's claims: ``I'm skeptical, but that's the way I am. I'm willing to accept the possibility.''

The film's claims, however, have raised the ire of Christian leaders in the Holy Land.

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight.

``I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this,'' Pfann said. ``But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear.''

``How possible is it?'' Pfann said. ``On a scale of one through 10 — 10 being completely possible — it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half.''

Pfann is even unsure that the name ``Jesus'' on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it's more likely the name ``Hanun.'' Ancient Semitic script is notoriously difficult to decipher.

Kloner also said the filmmakers' assertions are false. ``The names on the caskets are the most common names found among Jews at the time,'' he said.

William Dever, an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years.

``The fact that it's been ignored tells you something,'' said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. ``It would be amusing if it didn't mislead so many people.''

Osnat Goaz, a spokeswoman for the Israeli government agency responsible for archaeology, said the Antiquities Authority agreed to send two ossuaries to New York, but they did not contain human remains. ``We agreed to send the ossuaries, but it doesn't mean that we agree with'' the filmmakers, she said.

Associated Press Writer Marshall Thompson contributed to this report from Jerusalem and AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll contributed from New York.

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/02/26/freetime/doc45e3657f6e570111278525.txt

Im gonna say this again now for the third time

almost all the questions that have been poised before are anwsered and even better new ones are posed and anwsered, WATCH THE CONFERENCE.

all of these things are addressed in the conference. This article is based off of the previous info wihout regard to the info that had yet to be revealed until now.

[Hogan11]

The truth is that science could prove all this beyond a shadow of a doubt and it still wouldn't make a bit of difference to the faithful, so what you have left is the same old skirmish that leads ultimately nowhere......I think I'll watch Deal or No Deal instead.

[N.O.Bronco]

But you are missing my point. Unless they can find DNA proving that God is
the father of the man found in the tomb, all you have is a man in a tomb
named Jesus, who is related to other people found in the tomb, who had
names just like people related to the Jesus in the Bible. Yes, there is
a statistical probability that the Jesus in the tomb is the Jesus in the
Bible, but is that alone hard proof? The problem with statistics is that
they can be manipulated to prove whatever you want them to prove.
I'm not sure how you fake DNA.
no!! but very highlly probable proof, given that they are correct on their findings and conclusions.

refer to my first response for your anwser. and watch the conference. Your basing this reasoning on an assumption that the bible is infallable and correct. and that god has DNA. Neither of which have any real merit, based on science and history. Now if what you are saying is this is not gonna change peoples minds who believe what it is you said, then yes i agree, hence my referell to my first response for your question as to how i think people will handle this.

Again my position as an atheist is that this finding is a debunking of an assumption i had, which was that jesus was probably not even real in the way the bible historically presented him(meaning family geneology, time period, basically a real person minus the faith based stuff i still think is bogus.)

The statistics they used were a culmination of several outside staticians independent of one another who more or less concluded what i said.

[alkemical]

But you are missing my point. Unless they can find DNA proving that God is
the father of the man found in the tomb, all you have is a man in a tomb
named Jesus, who is related to other people found in the tomb, who had
names just like people related to the Jesus in the Bible. Yes, there is
a statistical probability that the Jesus in the tomb is the Jesus in the
Bible, but is that alone hard proof? The problem with statistics is that
they can be manipulated to prove whatever you want them to prove.
I'm not sure how you fake DNA.

That's why I think jesus was an avatara of sorts.

[defenseman]

If it is proven wrong, will you believe?

Religion, is a belief. Either you believe or not. I'm thinking any truly "hard" evidence will not deter either side of the house from changing their position. I know it hasn't affected my beliefs..dman

[Rohirrim]

I think James Cameron is morphing into Geraldo Rivera.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If it is proven wrong, will you believe?Of course, science is far more reliable than legend, rumor and fairy tales.

[alkemical]

Of course, science is far more reliable than legend, rumor and fairy tales.

The earth is the centre of the universe!

Coffee is bad for you, no wait coffee is good for you, wait.....

It's not that i have a problem in science - but it's not always been correct in it's time. It's only correct in so far as the technology we have. So I'd guesstimate that about every 20yrs science is proven wrong. To err is human, and well sometimes we forget to carry the one.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The earth is the centre of the universe!
Coffee is bad for you, no wait coffee is good for you, wait.....
It's not that i have a problem in science - but it's not always been correct in it's time. It's only correct in so far as the technology we have. So I'd guesstimate that about every 20yrs science is proven wrong. To err is human, and well sometimes we forget to carry the one.
So far, water is water, has been for thousands of years. Like I said I'll take science over legend any day. So do the religious until science finds something that doesn't agree with their legends.

[ant1999e]

Of course, science is far more reliable than legend, rumor and fairy tales.

You seem to be happy in your fairy tale world.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

You seem to be happy in your fairy tale world.
LOL

Like I pointed out above, the religious will accept science if it disproves the "Jesus finding" but discount it if it might prove otherwise.
Hypocrisy was coined for just these people, I'm sure.

[Rohirrim]

I think the whole Jesus "myth" was created within the hundreds of years following his death, when all sorts of prophecies and assorted mythologies were simply grafted onto Jesus' story - take the virgin birth, for example. I doubt that 30% of it is fact. I imagine the gnostic gospels discovered in Egypt are closer to the truth than anything that came out of the Council of Nicea, given that they were contemporary. But still, the idea that you would find the ossuaries of that one, particular family after 2,000 years? What are the odds?

[TailgateNut]

A couple of months ago I decided to stay out of the religious discussions in this forum, but I do still enjoy watching feathers get ruffled.

Great entertainment! This story should be good for a few laughs.

[alkemical]

So far, water is water, has been for thousands of years. Like I said I'll take science over legend any day. So do the religious until science finds something that doesn't agree with their legends.

Funny - Some religions believe in the 5 elements as well - and well - it seems that the knowlege has been around since long ago - in the worlds of "myth and legend"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentacle

[Stormontheplains]

If the bible were proved beyond a dout to be true, then there would not be FREEWILL. The whole mystery is about a person making a choice on belief or not.

[fontaine]

That's why I think jesus was an avatara of sorts.


An avatara of who?

[fontaine]

So far, water is water, has been for thousands of years. Like I said I'll take science over legend any day. So do the religious until science finds something that doesn't agree with their legends.

Science, and the metric system is the tool of the devil!

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Science, and the metric system is the tool of the devil!
:thumbsup:

[Dudeskey]

A couple of months ago I decided to stay out of the religious discussions in this forum, but I do still enjoy watching feathers get ruffled.

Great entertainment! This story should be good for a few laughs.

No doubt, but I have to call bull**** on this... it has to be a hoax... experts will have this debunked within the next 3 weeks. Hell Camron's talking about a tomb that was discovered 27 years ago.

[alkemical]

An avatara of who?

I dunno. But i'm perfectly ok with that.


http://www.reference.com/search?r=13&q=Avatara


In Hindu philosophy, an avatar, avatara or avataram (अवतार, ), most commonly refers to the incarnation (bodily manifestation) of a higher being (deva), or the Supreme Being (God) onto planet Earth. The Sanskrit word literally means "descent" (avatarati) and usually implies a deliberate descent into lower realms of existence for special purposes. The term is used primarily in Hinduism, for incarnations of Vishnu whom many Hindus worship as God.

The word has also been used by extension to refer to the incarnations of God in other religions, especially by adherents to dharmic traditions when explaining figures such as Jesus.

[Falconer]

Im gonna say this again now for the third time

almost all the questions that have been poised before are anwsered and even better new ones are posed and anwsered, WATCH THE CONFERENCE.

all of these things are addressed in the conference. This article is based off of the previous info wihout regard to the info that had yet to be revealed until now.

I have just finished watching the press conference, and these are my first impressions and questions that I have.

1) James Cameron introduces Simcha Jacobovici as an investigative journalist who is well verse in archeology and is a biblical scholar. Herein is the rub for me. I have watched his show a few times very recently (Naked Archaeologist). I already had some concerns that he was not a person who was balanced in his reporting.

The show I had a problem with in question was his show on Josephus. He was investigating whether or not Josephus was a reliable historian. Near the end of the show the inevitable question of what Josephus said about Christ came up. He was very one-sided on two accounts. First he presented as fact that the only known written historical evidence outside the New Testament came from Josephus. This in fact is far from the truth. There are many written historical documents that mention Christ. These include Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Julius Africanus referencing the lost work of Thallus, Celsus, and Rabbi Akiba.

The second issue is with the work of Josephus itself. He only interviewed those who agreed that the passage in question was either an outright forgery, or a very broad interpolation. However, there is good evidence that it is probably not even close to being a full forgery, and that there might not be that much is added if anything at all. One of the best pieces of evidence is the 10th century Arabic version. I can not believe that he could present an impartial account of Josephus’ writing on Jesus without even mentioning these things.

2) Simcha then spoke about his producers and broadcasters reviewing his work and making sure that he was being held accountable. Now maybe it is just me, but I would not exactly call that a ringing endorcement.

3) Simcha references the gospel of Luke when referencing the beloved disciple that laid his head on the chest of Jesus. His theory is that this was Judah the son of Jesus. The writer just did not name him to protect him from the Roman authorities. However, the fact that the person that has his head on the chest of Jesus and is called a disciple should quickly render that argument mute. Only the twelve disciples were in attendance at the last supper. All twelve of the disciples are mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts.

4) They talk about the link with the ossuary of James with the other nine ossuaries found in the tomb. This should be troubling on two fronts. The first difficulty is the fact that the ossuary of James is now widely thought to be a forgery. Secondly they make a big deal out of the chain of custody in regards to these ossuarys, but then say that somehow one of them might have been stolen or misplaced. Dr. Shimon Gibson later states that the tomb might have in fact been looted previous to the excavation of the site by his team in 1980.

5) The DNA between the remains found in the ossuary of “Jesus Son of Joseph” and that of “Mariamene e Mara” was not a match. This is what leads the team to theorize that the two must have been married. Again there are two problems that I found with this pronouncement. The first was raised by a reporter at the press conference. The DNA is only from the maternal side, so it is possible that the two still could be related, but just not maternally. Secondly, while speaking about why they have not tested the other ossuaries yet they cited the fact that it is hard to get samples from all the ossuaries because they had been cleaned when they were originally warehoused in 1980. That is quite a revelation. Not only would there be problems with the analysis if there had been chemical contamination, but the fact that there was probably cross contamination from those individuals who had cleaned the ossuaries back in 1980.

6) My final objection is that Mr. Cameron said that this was the culmination of 2 years worth of work. You have to be kidding me. There is a lot more analysis that should be done in every facet of this undertaking from what I could gather. This seems more likely that this was a deadline they had to meet from those producers and broadcaster that were holding them accountable. I mean, those individuals would never put their return-on-investment over the scientific process would they.

I know that you said that they answered all the questions posed before the conference had taken place, but I do not know if they answered them sufficiently in my mind. Also, the fact that they were only taking questions from reporters (some of which were good, but I thought overall they were pretty elementary), does not exactly speak to a good peer review. I would also state that although they gave an answer, some of the questions were far from answered.

[Falconer]

LOL

Like I pointed out above, the religious will accept science if it disproves the "Jesus finding" but discount it if it might prove otherwise.
Hypocrisy was coined for just these people, I'm sure.

Do you just say stupid crap like this to get a rise out of people, or do you actually believe it?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Do you just say stupid crap like this to get a rise out of people, or do you actually believe it?

Are you one of them (people with religious views who use science only if it suits their religious views)? If not, it isn't directed at you.

[Bronco Bob]

Funny - Some religions believe in the 5 elements as well - and well - it seems that the knowlege has been around since long ago - in the worlds of "myth and legend"....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentacle

Just to be a wise ass and get technical about it, science knows of 118 elements, including the man made elements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

And water is a molecule made up of the elements hydrogen and oxygen.

Interestingly, though, the 5 states of matter could corespond to the 5 classic elements:

Earth - solids
Water - liquids
Wind - gases
Fire - plasma
Aether - dark matter

[Falconer]

Are you one of them (people with religious views who use science only if it suits their religious views)? If not, it isn't directed at you.

The problem with your statement is that you don't differentiate between the two. You just lump all people who are religious together.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The problem with your statement is that you don't differentiate between the two. You just lump all people who are religious together.The statement you quoted was directed @ the post I quoted but you're right, I should have made that clear and not generalized.

[alkemical]

Just to be a wise ass and get technical about it, science knows of 118 elements, including the man made elements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_table

And water is a molecule made up of the elements hydrogen and oxygen.

Interestingly, though, the 5 states of matter could corespond to the 5 classic elements:

Earth - solids
Water - liquids
Wind - gases
Fire - plasma
Aether - dark matter


See now you are getting into one of my true loves: Alchemy. ;)

[epicSocialism4tw]

Hey, I hear that a mosoleum was found in a New York graveyard containing John, Bill, James, Tom son of John, Mary, and Mary Anne.

What are the odds?

[alkemical]

Well......

This is just me being me here - not that i really can say one way or the other...

But for me - whether jesus "existed" as the bible states is not of importance. I personally believe jesus was an avatara (divine incarnation) - but wasn't nec. a virgin birth/etc.

In Jesus' teaching - he more or less states that he is the way to god. "HE" as in, not jesus himself - but his incarnation of the christos/christ consciousness. His way (he) the path to god, is his way of teachings he has given to mankind.

Those whom wish to show there is a body of jesus (jesus was the man, christ was his incarnation/divine self IMO) - are missing the point, as with those whom are devout fundamentalists who believe because he is "arisin" means there is no body.

Both are missing the big picture, and focusing on the unimportant IMO.

[bendog]

When Cameron couldn't keep his pants zipped except for Linda Hamilton, I figured he'd dissapated himself into senility. But, still, there could be something to this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2155745

[epicSocialism4tw]

When Cameron couldn't keep his pants zipped except for Linda Hamilton, I figured he'd dissapated himself into senility. But, still, there could be something to this:
http://www.slate.com/id/2155745

Cameron chose to ignore Israeli archaeologists on this one. I cant say that I trust James Cameron more than I do the experts in Jewish antiquities.

[RMT]

If it is proven wrong, will you believe?

Good question :)

[alkemical]

Jesus tomb film scholars backtrack (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152766396&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)


Jesus tomb film scholars backtrack


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 11, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

The film argues that 10 ancient ossuaries - burial boxes used to store bones - that were discovered in Talpiot in 1980 contained the bones of Jesus and his family. The filmmakers attempt to explain some of the inscriptions on the ossuaries by suggesting that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that the couple had a son, Judah.

One of the ossuaries bears an inscription reading "Yeshua son of Yehosef" or "Jesus son of Joseph;" a second reads "Mary;" a third is a Greek inscription apparently read by one scholar as "Mary Magdalene;" while a fourth bears the inscription, "Judah, son of Jesus." The inscriptions are in Hebrew or Aramaic, except for the one in Greek.

But Shimon Gibson, who was part of the team that excavated the tomb two and half decades ago and who appeared in the film, is quoted in Pfann's report as saying he doubted the site was the tomb of Jesus and his family.

"Personally, I'm skeptical that this is the tomb of Jesus and I made this point very clear to the filmmakers," Gibson is quoted as saying.

"We need much more evidence before we can say that the Talpiot tomb might be the family tomb of Jesus," he added.

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."

Furthermore, Pfann also says that a specialist in ancient apocryphal text, Professor Francois Bovon, who is quoted in the film as saying the enigmatic ossuary inscription "Mariamne" is the same woman known as Mary Magdalene - one of the filmmakers' critical arguments - issued a disclaimer stating that he did not believe that "Mariamne" stood for Mary of Magdalene at all.

Pfann has already argued that the controversial inscription does not read "Mariamne" at all.

The burial site, which has been contested from the start by scholars and church officials alike, is some distance from the Church of the Holy Sepulchrr in the Old City, where many Christians believe Jesus's body lay for three days after he was crucified.

According to the New Testament, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion, and an ossuary containing Jesus's bones - the explanations of the movie director notwithstanding - would contradict the core Christian belief that he was resurrected and then ascended to heaven.

[Rohirrim]

In Hindu philosophy, an avatar, avatara or avataram (अवतार, ), most commonly refers to the incarnation (bodily manifestation) of a higher being (deva), or the Supreme Being (God) onto planet Earth. The Sanskrit word literally means "descent" (avatarati) and usually implies a deliberate descent into lower realms of existence for special purposes. The term is used primarily in Hinduism, for incarnations of Vishnu whom many Hindus worship as God.

The word has also been used by extension to refer to the incarnations of God in other religions, especially by adherents to dharmic traditions when explaining figures such as Jesus.

The Greeks believed in that too. Of course, when their gods "descended" it was to take the form of some other creature (like a swan) and their "special purpose" was usually to hump some poor field maiden. Poor old Achilles comes home from a couple of years of campaigns in Ionia to find his wife has a new kid and she says, "Zeus did it." Whatcha gonna do?

[alkemical]

The Greeks believed in that too. Of course, when their gods "descended" it was to take the form of some other creature (like a swan) and their "special purpose" was usually to hump some poor field maiden. Poor old Achilles comes home from a couple of years of campaigns in Ionia to find his wife has a new kid and she says, "Zeus did it." Whatcha gonna do?

It's amazing how many civilizations have stories of "gods" coming down to mate with "earth women".

If "Zeus" did it - i might tell Odin - he's a bad ass MF'er too.....

[Rohirrim]

It's amazing how many civilizations have stories of "gods" coming down to mate with "earth women".

If "Zeus" did it - i might tell Odin - he's a bad ass MF'er too.....

Makes you wonder about some of those "virgin" births. ;D

[alkemical]

Makes you wonder about some of those "virgin" births. ;D

lol

[epicSocialism4tw]

Jesus tomb film scholars backtrack (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152766396&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull)


Jesus tomb film scholars backtrack


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Etgar Lefkovits, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 11, 2007

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

The film argues that 10 ancient ossuaries - burial boxes used to store bones - that were discovered in Talpiot in 1980 contained the bones of Jesus and his family. The filmmakers attempt to explain some of the inscriptions on the ossuaries by suggesting that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that the couple had a son, Judah.

One of the ossuaries bears an inscription reading "Yeshua son of Yehosef" or "Jesus son of Joseph;" a second reads "Mary;" a third is a Greek inscription apparently read by one scholar as "Mary Magdalene;" while a fourth bears the inscription, "Judah, son of Jesus." The inscriptions are in Hebrew or Aramaic, except for the one in Greek.

But Shimon Gibson, who was part of the team that excavated the tomb two and half decades ago and who appeared in the film, is quoted in Pfann's report as saying he doubted the site was the tomb of Jesus and his family.

"Personally, I'm skeptical that this is the tomb of Jesus and I made this point very clear to the filmmakers," Gibson is quoted as saying.

"We need much more evidence before we can say that the Talpiot tomb might be the family tomb of Jesus," he added.

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."

Furthermore, Pfann also says that a specialist in ancient apocryphal text, Professor Francois Bovon, who is quoted in the film as saying the enigmatic ossuary inscription "Mariamne" is the same woman known as Mary Magdalene - one of the filmmakers' critical arguments - issued a disclaimer stating that he did not believe that "Mariamne" stood for Mary of Magdalene at all.

Pfann has already argued that the controversial inscription does not read "Mariamne" at all.

The burial site, which has been contested from the start by scholars and church officials alike, is some distance from the Church of the Holy Sepulchrr in the Old City, where many Christians believe Jesus's body lay for three days after he was crucified.

According to the New Testament, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion, and an ossuary containing Jesus's bones - the explanations of the movie director notwithstanding - would contradict the core Christian belief that he was resurrected and then ascended to heaven.


That is absolutely classic.

You have to love it when amateurs like these guys get their weak hypotheses blown out of the water by the very scholars that gave them information that they brutally misinterpreted.

What a bunch of clowns.

Stay out of scholarship, Jacobovici. Stick to mindless pursuits like Emmys.

[Bronco Bob]

You dont need it and there argment has nothing to do with the need for getting it. there is no 100% certainty but as the statician said the likely hood of this not being him, based on the DNA evidence, time period, connection, names and so fourth is around 2,000,000 to 1, meaning out of every 1,999,999 times this scenario came up only 1 time would it be incorrect or there be another one just like it, weighng all the variables. meaning its pretty much a sure thing, not a 100% but pretty damn close. Again people pleases just watch the darn conference every question raised is anwsered, and even better questions are raised by the reporters at the end and anwsered their too.

The scenario they used as an example was having a football stadium full of around 50,000 people and saying to everyone(assuming the names are around biblical times and of that amount and such) anyone with the name jesus stay standing(you would probably have a couple thousand or so). Now anyone with the name jesus with a father named joseph and mother named mary stay standing(at this point you would probably only have about a few hundred left) now anyone also with a brother named jose stay standing. Now at this point statistically you wouldnt even have a whole person standing anymore. let alone when you factor in 3 other siblings and mary magdaline. so the probability of this being wrong soley on the basis of the argument that there are a lot of those names back then is pretty weak statistically speaking, not impossibel ut highlly, highlly improbable.


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."




2,000,000 to 1? So now it's whittled down to 600 to 1? Do I hear 0 to 1?

And I have yet to hear an explanation of how do we get God's DNA to prove
He was the Father of the Jesus in the tomb.