Tomb of Jesus Discovered? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

hagatha · 02-28-2007, 12:50 PM

Whether its Jesus or not, and likely it will be inconclusive, we're still curious. More importantly, the topic of Jesus is still generating debate among Christians and non-Christians alike.

jorgelito · 02-28-2007, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

on all sides of this issue it is not that all do. it is always that a few do. the few are just more vocal.

Well put. That is exactly why I chose to respond to this thread lest the voice of a few runaway and drown out the rest of us.

ShaniFaye · 02-28-2007, 01:00 PM

Well I for one intend to watch. I think its important for Christians to "know whats out there", why else would I take part in the never ending atheist/theist discussions since you KNOW they are never going to be resolved, I like knowing what non believers have to say, it only strengthens my own faith, and helps me know how to teach my daughter to deal with non believers of today.

I would rather watch this and be able to speak intelligently on the matter, than to just poo poo it, boycott it or whatever. IMO any christian worth a toot will watch it.

I spend a lot of time watching documentaries of ALL kinds because I want to further my mind with world thinking, not shut it off and just sit in my corner babbling all the heathens are going to hell

KnifeMissile · 02-28-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

There was a "war on Christmas" that took the form of knee-jerk banning of Christmas related items, decorations in some places. Whether banning of carols, Christmas trees, while not a literal war (I thought that was obvious), it was most certainly a social war of sorts. Then came the counter and "self-correction" that took place including reinstating of said formerly banned items. It got so out of hand that people were "offended" if they were wished a Merry Christmas. Wishing someone a Merry Christmas is a far cry from persecuting non-Christians or oppressing them. So yes, I most definitely feel there was a "crusade" of sorts or war if you will, carried out against Christmas.

As an atheist, I can agree that "the warn on Christmas" is ludicrous, as you describe it. I have only your description to go on since I haven't heard of it, before... but you make it sound ridiculous. You don't have to be religious to be merry during Christmas time...

Quote:

As a Christian, I liked the Pledge the way it is but at the same time, as an American, I appreciate the secular nature of our country. As such I can agree that a contesting of the constitutionality of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is reasonable. By the way, removal of "God" from the Pledge is NOT "addressing the fact that not all Americans are Christian" because Christians are not the only ones who believe in God (Muslims, Jews etc). Sure I realize the original intent of the phrase was a reaction to Cold War sentiments as a way of sticking it to the non-believing Ruskies. But the fight to remove "God" from the Pledge quickly devolved from a Constitutional argument to Christian bashing (in some circles). That is what I am referring to.

I am so glad to hear you say that you understand the desire to remove "God" from the pledge. There are other christians, even in this thread, who don't understand this or, it seems, the principles their country was founded on. Thank you...

ShaniFaye · 02-28-2007, 01:25 PM

hmmm since I think Im the only other one that mentioned the pledge I will guess that was aimed at me. All I said was that non believers rant and rave about their rights like we dont have any. I never said whether I agreed or disagreed it should be there.

as far as the "founding" of this country....The pilgrims that settled here came here after fleeing England,and going to Amsterdam first, so that they were free to practice the religion they wanted without persecution of the King of England. That was their purpose in coming here...TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION UNHINDERED. So Im not entirley clear what your point is?

roachboy · 02-28-2007, 01:45 PM

shani:
fact is that the history of the colonies is quite otherwise: it is not like the entire united states metastisized from the initial puritan cells around salem. the history of the colonies is quite diverse and had little or nothing to do with the puritans--who were as intolerant a bunch as you will ever read about (so i really have never understood why anyone in their right mind would hang theri hat on them as a way to hold heir hat--and mythology about america--off the floor)--and the country was founded by the constitution, not the puritans. before that it was founded by the articles of confederation, but we dont like to talk about that so much. before that, it was a revolt amongst colonials. there was no america before the revolution: there were english colonies (and french colonies, but we'll leave that aside as well). if you want to play this game, then you at least need to concede that the origins of what is now the united states is pretty diverse--there are even catholics involved (gasp! papists!)--and prisoners who were convicted of various offenses back in the old sod. and there were even settlements of no particular religious orientation that were founded for commercial purposes--like gloucester massachusetts, which is just north of the epicenter of the puritan blight and which was founded only a few years after salem.
so referencing the puritans doesnt really solve anything in the way of problems that circulate now about the status of christianity in the states. it just doesnt.

maybe rephrase your question?

ShaniFaye · 02-28-2007, 01:54 PM

ok so if Im understanding your post....the 3rd group of people to settle this country (native americans being the first) who fled here because of religious persecution had nothing to do with founding the country? It was only "founded" once we engaged in fight for independance and drafted the constitution? So in your words this country was "founded" over 100 years after the English arrive here?

(And I wasnt even talking about Salem which was 70 years later, I was talking about plymouth which was 2nd to Jamestown being settled in 13 years earlier)

And I never mentioned a denomination.....all I said was people wanting to escape religious persecution from the King of England

/sorry for jacking the thread, I will hush now

KnifeMissile · 02-28-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

hmmm since I think Im the only other one that mentioned the pledge I will guess that was aimed at me. All I said was that non believers rant and rave about their rights like we dont have any. I never said whether I agreed or disagreed it should be there.

Generally, when someone goes out of their way to not point you out by name, it's because they're trying to address what you are saying without singling you out. In my case, I was addressing both you and anyone else who may feel the same way you do.

However, it looks like you would like to talk about this so lets talk.

Don't give me this "all I said was..." line! This is exactly what you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

...and as for the pledge....that crap makes me sick....its perfectly ok for a non believer to say THEIR rights are being stepped on for having to say "one nation under god" but yet if WE get upset that OUR right to say it is coming under fire we get labled as forcing our religion on people....

I'll let people decide for themselves whether this sounds like a personal endorsement or not.

However, what you are saying is that it makes you sick to think that it's okay for a non-believer to support the First Amendment, particularly the Establishment Clause, while you (as a believer) trying to get the government to sanction your religion, you "get labelled as forcing our religion on people..."

Now, I agree with you that this is sliding off topic but I think it would make an excellent thread of its own...

Quote:

as far as the "founding" of this country....The pilgrims that settled here came here after fleeing England,and going to Amsterdam first, so that they were free to practice the religion they wanted without persecution of the King of England. That was their purpose in coming here...TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION UNHINDERED. So Im not entirley clear what your point is?

My point is that a bunch of malcontents hanging around a piece of land does not a country make. The foundation of the US of A is the United States Constitution, which you seem to abhor. You make it sound as if you'd prefer a more theocratic country...

ShaniFaye · 02-28-2007, 06:22 PM

I just love when people put words in my mouth or pretend to know what I think about the constitution....

and ok....the early settlers of the colonies had no influence in the founding of this country....got it

ObieX · 03-01-2007, 12:38 AM

Quote:

The presence of a tomb of that size suggests a family wealth. The Jesus in question was not a wealthy man.

Just curious.. what makes you say/think this? I dont really recall anything pointing to Jesus being poor (correct me if i'm wrong.) His father was a carpenter and I'm sure Jesus himself worked with him as well.. so it wasn't as if he didnt have a job. From what i hear, Jesus was able to support his closest disciples, even buying them meat which was sorta a luxury item at the time.

You may bring up the fact that he was supposedly born in what amounts to a barn. Well, that was only because the Inn was full. You need to have some cash to afford an inn, and taking the trip to that location must have cost some money for supplies and again for supplies to stay over there. This to me points to the family having some money.

Also Jesus' father dies at some point yet Mary is still around. Jesus had to have had some money to be able to support his mother and himself (and possibly even disciples and even a child as well). The odds of his mother having a job are probably rather slim.

And that thing about the rich man and the difficulty of them entering the kingdom of heaven (that camel through the eye of a needle thing) that just means they have to work that much harder to get in, which Jesus seemed to do.

smooth · 03-01-2007, 01:15 AM

I wouldn't go too far off on a tangent about the wealth or lack thereof of Jesus' family. It's far more likely that a wealthy patron purchased a luxury "suite" for him and his family.

jorgelito · 03-01-2007, 01:25 AM

Good question Obie, I'm not sure. For some reason, I am under the impression that Jesus was poor and that their family was poor but I can't remember specifically why or what the source of that info was.

Sure I remember the whole manger birth, but I haven't mentioned that in this thread. I know he and his dad were carpenters. But were carpenters well off in his time? I always had the impression that they just got by, but by no means were they wealthy. Ultimately, I really don't know for a fact.

I cited that aspect (wealth) because I had read one of the archaeologists (from the BBC documentary) mention that Jesus and family were poor so most likely could not afford a tomb like the one uncovered. I guess I just took it at face value.

Although smooth's contention about a wealthy patron is intriguing. My curiosity is definitely aroused though and I would like to know more (regardless of the religious context, it is still interesting).

Hey, whatever happened to MartinGuerre? He was well versed on the bible and in Christian theology if i remember correctly. He may be able to shed some light.

smooth · 03-01-2007, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

I know he and his dad were carpenters. But were carpenters well off in his time?

AFAIK, the notion that he was a carpenter is only mentioned once in the New Testament. It's used as an expression of surprise from people watching him preach, but that's never explicitly stated anywhere. In fact, the only mentions of his profession are that of a teacher...a rabbi.

we also know that the early church had all sorts of wealthy patrons...my suggestion earlier wasn't pure conjecture. The apostles always gave alms to the poor, for example. Wasn't Judas the keeper of the purse

The ministry had money, that's not disputed, although they kept everything in common (oops, not to anger anyone by suggesting the early followers of "The Way" were communists or anything, LOL).

EDIT: you might this analyses intereesting:

Quote:

All who make idols are nothing, and the things they treasure are worthless. Those who would speak up for them are blind; they are ignorant, to their own shame. Who shapes a god and casts an idol, which can profit him nothing? He and his kind will be put to shame; craftsmen are nothing but men. Let them all come together and take their stand; they will be brought down to terror and infamy. The blacksmith takes a tool and works with it in the coals; he shapes an idol with hammers, he forges it with the might of his arm. He gets hungry and loses his strength; he drinks no water and grows faint. The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine. He cut down cedars…he makes a god, his idol; he bows down to it and worships. He prays to it and says, "Save me; you are my god." They know nothing, they understand nothing; their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see, and their minds closed so they cannot understand…a deluded heart misleads him; he cannot save himself, or say, "Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?" (Isaiah 44:9-20)

When Mark told us the people of Jesus' hometown took offense at him and dishonored him, he may never intended the word "carpenter" (Greek, tekton) be a description of his trade, but as a metaphoric description of one who is misguided and deluded, who knows and understands nothing, and is to be shamed, like Isaiah's carpenter. This is powerful irony, almost certainly deliberate on Mark’s part. Here was the son of God--the man Mark had reach out to those who had eyes to see and ears (Mark 8:18, 25)--being accused by those who knew him best of being like the one who worships false gods and who has not eyes to see.

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/The_Carpenter.htm

highthief · 03-01-2007, 06:28 AM

Whatever happened to those gifts the wise men gave him - all that gold and myrrh?

Charlatan · 03-01-2007, 06:32 AM

it was used as baksheesh

roachboy · 03-01-2007, 07:06 AM

shani: since the thread looks like it's winding down, i'll say more about the history digression above.

1. i wrote the last post in kind of a rush because i had to be somewhere: whence its unclear character. mea culpa: i wanted to post but fundamentally didnt have time to do it properly.

2. what i meant was: the usual history of the states does what you did--links everything back to plymouth/the puritans (who were much more fully in force politically/culturally in salem than in plymouth as it turns out)---what i was pointing out is: that is but one origin point for the colonies----and that chronological sequence is not particularly determinate.
the history of the colonies does not move in a single line ordered chronologically--it did not build on itself--rather, the colonies had multiple origin points, each of which entails a different storyline--and this multiple history is not adequately crunched into a single overaching narrative. the history of, say rhode island is tied to the puritans--but that of new york, pennsylvania, maryland, virginia, the carolinas and georgia are not. and if chronology alone were determinate, then why doesnt the Official Story start with jamestown and present the entire history of the united states as unfolding from virginia? because it does not serve the same ideological purpose. that's the only reason.

anyway, these places (the colonies) had discrete histories that did not really intertwine in any meaningful way until the revolution--and even then, communication laterally (across colonies) was a problem. the colonies were economically organized around england as the hub, not laterally. this doesnt mean that they were wholly isolated from each other--but it does mean that there is no single history--making of this diversity of histories a single one is basically a myth of the birth of a nation-and a particular nation--a protestant nation. well, the united states aint like that. its history aint like that.

the subtext for it was something i wrote to jorgelito earlier in the thread about christians someone being accustomed to working from a position of domination--that is being THE dominant religion in the states--and not being able to adjust to finding themselves in an explicitly pluralist context. i was going to say that the strange defensiveness that runs across the thread from folk who identify as believers is demonstrates this inability to adjust--in the confusion of statements of non-belief with anti-christian sentiments, for example--and you can see the results in the thread as a whole.

so there we are.

Ourcrazymodern? · 03-01-2007, 08:00 AM

And here we are, believing whatever we want to. It's the same old story, over and over again. And then there's argument and fighting. 'taint right and I don't think Jesus would approve even as dust.

jorgelito · 03-01-2007, 12:13 PM

It's not that bad. We're not really "fighting" here, more, discussing I think. And that's a good thing. I enjoy hearing the diversity of opinions on such weighty subjects. There's a lot to digest and it looks like we're gonna have to open up a few new threads to further the discussion.

Cynosure · 03-02-2007, 09:01 AM

Whatever, let us bear in mind the last time there was a radical and much publicized ossuary discovery, back in 2002; that is, the "James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus" ossuary, which has since been determined by most scientific/historical experts to be a modern-day forgery.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

And BOR, the reason why Christians are getting riled up is because they ARE being attacked. The TFP is a great example. Look at all the atheism threads and the Christian bashing that goes on inside of them. I only recently, and reluctantly "outed" myself as a Christian whereas I was loathe to do so due to all the anti-Christian attitudes that is prevalent on these boards. It isn't 100% blatant but it does exist.

I've noticed that, too; not just on this board, but on other boards as well. I think it has to do with the shared beliefs (or non-beliefs) and attitudes of the admin and the moderators, as well as that of the more popular members, of the message board, along with the general tone of the message board itself.

Be that as it may, I also think this "anti-Christian" attitude ("anti-religion", really) has a lot to do with how fearful and polarized this country has become, ever since 9/11, and with our President, for the past six years, being a self-proclaimed Christian and claiming he has some kind of hotline with God; and all the while, this President and his administration has shown numerous conflicts of interest, has run the federal government deep into debt, has fed the public misleading if not outright false information, and has gotten us ensnarled in a costly, controversial, and losing war.

Bill O'Rights · 03-02-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynosure

I think it has to do with the shared beliefs (or non-beliefs) and attitudes of the admin and the moderators, as well as that of the more popular members, of the message board, along with the general tone of the message board itself.

I'm gonna have to disagree there. I think that if you took a serious critical look at the politics, and the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of the staff, you would find us to be a very varied lot. The same goes for the "more popular members". Some are this, and some are that.

I think...that this impression may be given by the fact that you tend to notice more when someone of any stature, perceived or otherwise, is in direct conflict with your own personal philosophy.
Or...I could be full of crap, too.

Ourcrazymodern? · 03-02-2007, 12:03 PM

(foc,2): if Jesus X was lifted bodily to heaven, are we thinking he left DNA behind? Do gods rely on DNA to get themselves around the universe like the rest of us do? What are the fantasists hoping to prove except that they can make money off others and in that how do they differ from preachers and storekeepers and people who invest in the stock market, et al?

Rekna · 03-02-2007, 12:33 PM

If the USA was not founded on theistic beliefs then why do the first couple sentences of the deceleration of independence use the word's "Natures God" and "Empowered by their Creator"?

I'm not saying we should force religion on people in any way but in the same way we shouldn't force non-religion. The constitution does not say anywhere in it "freedom of religion" or "freedom from religion". It says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Show me the laws that congress has made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Cynosure · 03-02-2007, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I'm gonna have to disagree there. I think that if you took a serious critical look at the politics, and the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of the staff, you would find us to be a very varied lot. The same goes for the "more popular members". Some are this, and some are that.

I think...that this impression may be given by the fact that you tend to notice more when someone of any stature, perceived or otherwise, is in direct conflict with your own personal philosophy.

I disagree with your disagreement.

That observation of mine (which you quoted) was based purely on the frequency and the tone of pro-atheist/anti-religious threads and posts, on this message board, and not on any conflicting or otherwise personal reaction of mine. But, again, this is a trend I'm seeing on other like-minded, similar-themed message boards. So, it's not like I'm singling TFP out.

jorgelito · 03-02-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I think...that this impression may be given by the fact that you tend to notice more when someone of any stature, perceived or otherwise, is in direct conflict with your own personal philosophy.
Or...I could be full of crap, too.

You are not full of crap. This is a very salient point. Perception is very important in how we evaluate things. There are many who agree with Cynosure, myself included. I was trying to allude to that as well in terms of "anti-Christian bias" in view of the spate of atheism threads and also in other areas. The whole "cliquey" thing that Cynosure hints at is also pertinent and not just to this thread. It seems to have tapered off a bit (ever since the great TFP self-examination), but there were many concerns about that before.

However it is fair to point out that the view from within is necessarily biased (not necessarily a bad thing); that is only natural, that which forms the basis of our opinions.

In the greater context of Christian identity, I think it is also fair to observe that, as roachboy and BOR point out, where Christians once viewed from a position of power or dominance, they are finding themselves (as a collective whole) under "attack". Meaning that the once dominant position is being challenged. It should be no surprise that people are uncomfortable, it is natural. A good non-Christian example is the Sunni-Shiite divide in Iraq. The power structure and social framework drastically changed causing all sort of friction. Sunnis are uncomfortable with losing their power and finding themselves in the minority.

But that does not disqualify some Christian views that they are under "attack" or observe "anti-Christian" behavior and sentiment. The social changes we are witnessing are not a clean and smooth process. It is bound to be messy and sometimes confrontational. Some will be civil, others not. For some, the so-called "rise" of atheism is a good, natural thing, an evolution of sorts. Nothing wrong with that. However, some choose to act out in ways that can be interpreted" as unseemly or attacking, such as "war on Christmas" etc, etc. so on and so forth. I think that is more to what "upsets" some Christians or religious people in general.

smooth · 03-02-2007, 07:34 PM

I don't agree with you using the sunni/shiite analogy.
what roachboy is talking about is not the the structure is changing and the Christians are no longer in power...

what is true is that Christians are a numerical and cultural majority...yet, they perceive themselves as a persecuted minority. And this in turn creates feelings of persecution when there are none intended.

For example, this "war on Christmas" notion you and others reference. That was BS hysteria. People weren't prevented from saying or displaying the words "Christmas." Who knows the motivation for some stores changing their signs to "Happy Holidays" (although that's always been the signs I've actually seen in Macy's and Target and around malls). I think it's more likely that signs need to last longer than one day in the retail business and generic holiday signs can even be used longer than one season.

But to the persecuted mind, it looks like discrimination.

The same holds true for "all these atheism" threads and "anti-christian" posts. A number of those objectionable replies were actually made by Christians themselves about other Christians. I only saw a few atheism threads, but I don't understand why that would translate into persecution toward Christian believers. If anything, I would think the pornography would be anti-christian...but that at least to be central to many members of this site so I don't understand if that's being objected to.

Ourcrazymodern? · 03-03-2007, 05:24 PM

Is this still about the family tomb?

ShaniFaye · 03-04-2007, 02:24 PM

So who is watching tonite so that we can have discussion on it tomorrow?

roachboy · 03-04-2007, 04:17 PM

i have guests coming over tonight, so wont be able to watch...even if i did the tv thing, i wouldn't: so could someone who watches/watched please post something about the "dna evidence" and what the film-makers do or try to do with it?

Ourcrazymodern? · 03-04-2007, 08:00 PM

The thing's on right now, and a lot of senseless noise has already been made about it around here, meaning within this house, differing belief and communication systems and techniques being pervasive. As earlier posters said, could this matter; would we know how it did if it did?

NoSoup · 03-04-2007, 09:38 PM

So, I watched it.

I would have to agree with the sentiment that there certainly is quite a bit of compelling evidence that the Jesus of Nazereth was, in fact, buried in that tomb.

However, I am not a scholor of religion or philosophy, so I am taking many of the assertions of the program as fact - ie, that the Gospel of Phillip exists, or that Jose is a nickname for Jesus' brother.

**For those of you that haven't watched it yet and would prefer not to learn the details of the program - stop here. I'll try and summarize the main points for those that missed it and want to jump in the debate**

There are a great number of assertions that are given by the "documentary" - of which, like I said, I have no idea whether or not they are valid. However, from what I saw of the show following it (there was an after-documentary show debating the science, assumptions, conclusions, and impact on beliefs) there weren't any challenges to the information that was given to the viewer, so if I had to guess, I would say that at the very least the assumptions are somewhat credible....

Here is some of the information from the documentary - this is from only memory, so please excuse me if I am incorrect. Also, forgive my spelling in advance

The tomb was discovered initially by a construction crew building an apartment complex. Due to pressure from various agencies, archeologists only had three days to study the inside of the tomb, which included an inventory and a diagram.

One thing to note, however, is that there was a specific symbol carved above the entrance to the tomb - picture an inverted V with a circle in the center of the bottom.

Now, without going to explicit detail, from my understanding it was customary for the time to have a temporary tomb, then be transfered to the family tomb wrapped in a shroud. One year later, after only there are only skeletal remains, they place the bones inside a small coffin.

In the tomb, there were 10 small limestone coffins initially found. I believe that at least six of them were labeled with names, something that isn't all that unusual. However, one went missing shortly after the tomb was discovered....

The names, as far as I can remember, were translated literally into:
Jesus, son of Joseph
Maria
Mariamnde
Jose
Matthew
Judah - Son of Jesus
and one controversial one - James, son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus.

The film examines the names initially -

Jose is a "nickname" that was given to Jesus' brother Joseph - a very rare name at the time.
Mariamnde could definately has "maria" in it - the equivalent of Mary, but it is suggested that the whole word means Master Mary, which is a relatively common term for religious leaders in that time period. What also lends credence to this is that this is actually a latin word, and Mary Magdalene reportedly went to France - where her name was latinized.

According to what is commonly believed of the ancestry of Jesus, all of the names not only fit and would likely be buried in the same tomb, the Jose and Mariamnde are incredibly rare - the only coffins to have been found inscribed with those names.

It is important to understand that many of these names are very common - for instance, I believe it said 25% of women at the time were named Maria
4% of men were Jesus.. well, you get the point. However, the probability of all these names being buried together and it just being a coincidence - not including the controversial coffin - is 600:1. With the controversial one included - and there is evidence that links it to the same tomb, potentially the one that went missing - it is 30,000:1 that this is, in fact, Jesus' tomb.

As far as the scientific evidence that leads one to believe that James' coffin was in the same tomb, the filmmaker had the residue on the coffins tested and compared them with a number of other samples - including some of the coffins from inside the tomb in question. Although I hesitate to use the word, the coffin in question matched the other coffins located in that same tomb, while none of the others did. Other circumstantial evidence includes that the inital map of the tomb that was sketched by the archeologists who first documented it showed 10 coffins, only 9 were cataloged. The dimensions of the coffin in question matched the sketched one, and the private collector who purchsae the coffin purchased it in the very same time frame that the tomb was discovered, admittedly, though - he wasn't sure of the exact year.

As far as the DNA evidence is concerned, I was unimpressed. They tested only Jesus' and Mary Magdalene's coffins, and there was obviously not a match. From this, the concluded that for a woman to be buried in the same tomb as another family that wasn't blood related, that she was likely someone's wife. Judah, the possible son of Jesus, was not matched. The reasoning given after the film for only testing those two was due to the fact that the others did not have easily accesible DNA - which, from what they showed, the two that they tested did have bone fragments on the bottom - you didn't really get a good look at the others. However, they were unable to obtain nuclear DNA, so it was mitochondrial DNA testing, proving only no maternal link.

Throughout the documentary, there were a number of additional coincinces that, at least in my opinion, build a relatively strong circumstantial case that it is Jesus of Nazereth's tomb.

One thing that struck home with me was towards the end. According to the bible, Mary and a "beloved disciple" (unnamed thoughout the bible) are at the cross moments before he dies. His finals words were "Woman, behold your son" - throughout all my years of Catholic School, we were told he was talking about Mary, his mother. However, it would make a lot more sense to me if he was in fact talking to the mother of his child, and the beloved disciple was his son - kept secret to keep him safe from further persecution.

However, I think I hit on the main points....

I'm interested to see where this discussion leads

Rekna · 03-04-2007, 11:28 PM

I only have time for one quick comment but here is the verse you are referring to.

John 19:26

Quote:

King James Version

When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Quote:

New International Version

26When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son,"

Both of these translations have Jesus saying it to his mother by name. I don't know what the Greek says but i'm guessing it also uses a word to say mother as adding the word mother would have been exposed from the Greek version along time ago.

ShaniFaye · 03-05-2007, 04:28 AM

To be honest this thing was so boring and had SO many commercials I fell asleep before it was over, so I still need to watch the last 30 minutes and the "after" show

The one thing that bothers me is the DNA. The following has no basis on my being a beliver...They went to all the trouble to explain that 80-500 and 80-503 ("mary m" and "jesus") could not be maternally related, showing they did not share a common mother. What bothers me is they in no way discussed other ways in which they could be blood related and "her" presence still be accepted in the tomb. Unless I totally misunderstood their explanation, because they were looking at Mitochondrial DNA and with all the cloning they had to do to get enough to test, it wouldnt show if they were related say on the paternal side.

someone tell me if I'm understanding what they said right? I prob need to watch that part again to see if I fell asleep at some point during something crucial because I remember telling Dave, their explanation doesnt say anything about if they could have shared a father or been cousins on the fathers side. IMO they were more focused on proving they didnt have the same MOTHER.

Simcha Jacobovici just made me want to smack him, he was really annoying during the whole thing...

on the whole I really didnt enjoy what I saw of the show

smooth · 03-05-2007, 05:07 AM

in this case, all that matters is lineage through the mother

ShaniFaye · 03-05-2007, 05:16 AM

Why is that the only lineage that "matters"?

Like I said, I dont totally understand it, but it would seem to me that they would want to prove or disprove a connection with anyone else buried there.

The only thing I understood they proved was that these two samples did not share a mother

Bill O'Rights · 03-05-2007, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

To be honest this thing was so boring and had SO many commercials I fell asleep before it was over

Yeah...me too. Still...that which I did manage to watch, and pay attention to, did not impress me. Damn, that thing was dry. And...about an hour longer than it should have been, considering there was no dashing hero, in a leather jacket and fedora, rescuing the ossuary from a band of evil Germans.

I suppose that I was a victim of the hype. I never expected for them to come to any definitive conclusion, but I did expect a little more than the 97% conjecture that was offered. Those ossuarys could have said "Do not open 'till X-mas", for all I know. I'm guessing that no one's opinion is going to be swayed by the offerings of this documentary.

ShaniFaye · 03-05-2007, 05:52 AM

Well I didnt expect a "definitive" conclusion either, but I thought it would be at least "intersting", hell the Noah's Ark doc before it and the anti-christ one earlier in the day were way more interesting than this was.

I got confused with all the, Jesus name is written this way, and Mary M's name is in greek, and Jose is that (tell me who puts someones "nickname" on a "coffin", when I die, I seriously doubt Dave is going to put shanifaye on my tombstone lol)

I think this show is going to do exactly what they wanted, cause controversy and discussion so I'm sure they are happy about it, but Im really sorry that I lost that time it took to watch it....you're right it needed Indiana!!!

Cynthetiq · 03-05-2007, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

To be honest this thing was so boring and had SO many commercials I fell asleep before it was over, so I still need to watch the last 30 minutes and the "after" show

And that was what their goal was... get people to watch the advertisements.

Ourcrazymodern? · 03-05-2007, 11:23 AM

Yee-hah, cynthetiq!

smooth · 03-05-2007, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

Why is that the only lineage that "matters"?

Talmudic law determines lineage through the mother
If Mary was a cousin she would have been buried in her own family's tomb
If she had been the offspring of a prior marriage, she would have been buried in her mother's family's tomb

regardless, from the description it appears as though the only DNA samples they were able to recover tested for maternal relations

roachboy · 03-05-2007, 12:51 PM

well, it sounds like having guests over was better than not and watching the doc. i was curious about what possible functions the dna sampling could have served, beyond adding an element of pseudo-science to this advertising delivery system. i had figured either:

(a) if the tomb was that of the jesus everyone thinks of when the name jesus is used in this kind of context that maybe there would be some kind of anomaly at the genetic structure level as a function of the halfsharkalligatorhalfman status jesus is said to have occupied--and the idea of there being a claim to have isolated strands of god-dna made me laugh...or

(b) it could be used for "identification" purposes, which seemed just bizarre: "this is definitely the right jesus and we have proven it using dna" made me wonder what that evidence could possibly be compared to. this, too, made me laugh.

but using it to establish relations amongst elements of a set the status of which remains indeterminate is i guess as far as you could really go with this kind of evidence and stay within rational bounds--tho i had hoped they wouldn't.

so if i understand the reactions to this advertising delivery system correctly, it provided much the same kind of infotainment as the "geraldo find al capone's safe" thing did.
that right?

02-28-2007, 12:50 PM	#41 (permalink)
hagatha Addict	Whether its Jesus or not, and likely it will be inconclusive, we're still curious. More importantly, the topic of Jesus is still generating debate among Christians and non-Christians alike. __________________ Thats the last time I trust the strangest people I ever met....H. Simpson

02-28-2007, 01:00 PM	#43 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	Well I for one intend to watch. I think its important for Christians to "know whats out there", why else would I take part in the never ending atheist/theist discussions since you KNOW they are never going to be resolved, I like knowing what non believers have to say, it only strengthens my own faith, and helps me know how to teach my daughter to deal with non believers of today. I would rather watch this and be able to speak intelligently on the matter, than to just poo poo it, boycott it or whatever. IMO any christian worth a toot will watch it. I spend a lot of time watching documentaries of ALL kinds because I want to further my mind with world thinking, not shut it off and just sit in my corner babbling all the heathens are going to hell __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

02-28-2007, 01:25 PM	#45 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	hmmm since I think Im the only other one that mentioned the pledge I will guess that was aimed at me. All I said was that non believers rant and rave about their rights like we dont have any. I never said whether I agreed or disagreed it should be there. as far as the "founding" of this country....The pilgrims that settled here came here after fleeing England,and going to Amsterdam first, so that they were free to practice the religion they wanted without persecution of the King of England. That was their purpose in coming here...TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION UNHINDERED. So Im not entirley clear what your point is? __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

02-28-2007, 01:45 PM	#46 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	shani: fact is that the history of the colonies is quite otherwise: it is not like the entire united states metastisized from the initial puritan cells around salem. the history of the colonies is quite diverse and had little or nothing to do with the puritans--who were as intolerant a bunch as you will ever read about (so i really have never understood why anyone in their right mind would hang theri hat on them as a way to hold heir hat--and mythology about america--off the floor)--and the country was founded by the constitution, not the puritans. before that it was founded by the articles of confederation, but we dont like to talk about that so much. before that, it was a revolt amongst colonials. there was no america before the revolution: there were english colonies (and french colonies, but we'll leave that aside as well). if you want to play this game, then you at least need to concede that the origins of what is now the united states is pretty diverse--there are even catholics involved (gasp! papists!)--and prisoners who were convicted of various offenses back in the old sod. and there were even settlements of no particular religious orientation that were founded for commercial purposes--like gloucester massachusetts, which is just north of the epicenter of the puritan blight and which was founded only a few years after salem. so referencing the puritans doesnt really solve anything in the way of problems that circulate now about the status of christianity in the states. it just doesnt. maybe rephrase your question? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

02-28-2007, 01:54 PM	#47 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	ok so if Im understanding your post....the 3rd group of people to settle this country (native americans being the first) who fled here because of religious persecution had nothing to do with founding the country? It was only "founded" once we engaged in fight for independance and drafted the constitution? So in your words this country was "founded" over 100 years after the English arrive here? (And I wasnt even talking about Salem which was 70 years later, I was talking about plymouth which was 2nd to Jamestown being settled in 13 years earlier) And I never mentioned a denomination.....all I said was people wanting to escape religious persecution from the King of England /sorry for jacking the thread, I will hush now __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!* Last edited by ShaniFaye; 02-28-2007 at 05:33 PM.. Reason: because I obviously have forgotten how to do arithmetic

02-28-2007, 06:22 PM	#49 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	I just love when people put words in my mouth or pretend to know what I think about the constitution.... and ok....the early settlers of the colonies had no influence in the founding of this country....got it __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

03-01-2007, 01:15 AM	#51 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I wouldn't go too far off on a tangent about the wealth or lack thereof of Jesus' family. It's far more likely that a wealthy patron purchased a luxury "suite" for him and his family. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

03-01-2007, 01:25 AM	#52 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Good question Obie, I'm not sure. For some reason, I am under the impression that Jesus was poor and that their family was poor but I can't remember specifically why or what the source of that info was. Sure I remember the whole manger birth, but I haven't mentioned that in this thread. I know he and his dad were carpenters. But were carpenters well off in his time? I always had the impression that they just got by, but by no means were they wealthy. Ultimately, I really don't know for a fact. I cited that aspect (wealth) because I had read one of the archaeologists (from the BBC documentary) mention that Jesus and family were poor so most likely could not afford a tomb like the one uncovered. I guess I just took it at face value. Although smooth's contention about a wealthy patron is intriguing. My curiosity is definitely aroused though and I would like to know more (regardless of the religious context, it is still interesting). Hey, whatever happened to MartinGuerre? He was well versed on the bible and in Christian theology if i remember correctly. He may be able to shed some light.

03-01-2007, 06:28 AM	#54 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Whatever happened to those gifts the wise men gave him - all that gold and myrrh? __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

03-01-2007, 06:32 AM	#55 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	it was used as baksheesh __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-01-2007, 07:06 AM	#56 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	shani: since the thread looks like it's winding down, i'll say more about the history digression above. 1. i wrote the last post in kind of a rush because i had to be somewhere: whence its unclear character. mea culpa: i wanted to post but fundamentally didnt have time to do it properly. 2. what i meant was: the usual history of the states does what you did--links everything back to plymouth/the puritans (who were much more fully in force politically/culturally in salem than in plymouth as it turns out)---what i was pointing out is: that is but one origin point for the colonies----and that chronological sequence is not particularly determinate. the history of the colonies does not move in a single line ordered chronologically--it did not build on itself--rather, the colonies had multiple origin points, each of which entails a different storyline--and this multiple history is not adequately crunched into a single overaching narrative. the history of, say rhode island is tied to the puritans--but that of new york, pennsylvania, maryland, virginia, the carolinas and georgia are not. and if chronology alone were determinate, then why doesnt the Official Story start with jamestown and present the entire history of the united states as unfolding from virginia? because it does not serve the same ideological purpose. that's the only reason. anyway, these places (the colonies) had discrete histories that did not really intertwine in any meaningful way until the revolution--and even then, communication laterally (across colonies) was a problem. the colonies were economically organized around england as the hub, not laterally. this doesnt mean that they were wholly isolated from each other--but it does mean that there is no single history--making of this diversity of histories a single one is basically a myth of the birth of a nation-and a particular nation--a protestant nation. well, the united states aint like that. its history aint like that. the subtext for it was something i wrote to jorgelito earlier in the thread about christians someone being accustomed to working from a position of domination--that is being THE dominant religion in the states--and not being able to adjust to finding themselves in an explicitly pluralist context. i was going to say that the strange defensiveness that runs across the thread from folk who identify as believers is demonstrates this inability to adjust--in the confusion of statements of non-belief with anti-christian sentiments, for example--and you can see the results in the thread as a whole. so there we are. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-01-2007 at 07:11 AM..

03-01-2007, 08:00 AM	#57 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	And here we are, believing whatever we want to. It's the same old story, over and over again. And then there's argument and fighting. 'taint right and I don't think Jesus would approve even as dust. __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

03-01-2007, 12:13 PM	#58 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	It's not that bad. We're not really "fighting" here, more, discussing I think. And that's a good thing. I enjoy hearing the diversity of opinions on such weighty subjects. There's a lot to digest and it looks like we're gonna have to open up a few new threads to further the discussion.

03-02-2007, 12:03 PM	#61 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	(foc,2): if Jesus X was lifted bodily to heaven, are we thinking he left DNA behind? Do gods rely on DNA to get themselves around the universe like the rest of us do? What are the fantasists hoping to prove except that they can make money off others and in that how do they differ from preachers and storekeepers and people who invest in the stock market, et al? __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

03-02-2007, 12:33 PM	#62 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	If the USA was not founded on theistic beliefs then why do the first couple sentences of the deceleration of independence use the word's "Natures God" and "Empowered by their Creator"? I'm not saying we should force religion on people in any way but in the same way we shouldn't force non-religion. The constitution does not say anywhere in it "freedom of religion" or "freedom from religion". It says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Show me the laws that congress has made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

03-02-2007, 07:34 PM	#65 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I don't agree with you using the sunni/shiite analogy. what roachboy is talking about is not the the structure is changing and the Christians are no longer in power... what is true is that Christians are a numerical and cultural majority...yet, they perceive themselves as a persecuted minority. And this in turn creates feelings of persecution when there are none intended. For example, this "war on Christmas" notion you and others reference. That was BS hysteria. People weren't prevented from saying or displaying the words "Christmas." Who knows the motivation for some stores changing their signs to "Happy Holidays" (although that's always been the signs I've actually seen in Macy's and Target and around malls). I think it's more likely that signs need to last longer than one day in the retail business and generic holiday signs can even be used longer than one season. But to the persecuted mind, it looks like discrimination. The same holds true for "all these atheism" threads and "anti-christian" posts. A number of those objectionable replies were actually made by Christians themselves about other Christians. I only saw a few atheism threads, but I don't understand why that would translate into persecution toward Christian believers. If anything, I would think the pornography would be anti-christian...but that at least to be central to many members of this site so I don't understand if that's being objected to. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

03-03-2007, 05:24 PM	#66 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	Is this still about the family tomb? __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

03-04-2007, 02:24 PM	#67 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	So who is watching tonite so that we can have discussion on it tomorrow? __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

03-04-2007, 04:17 PM	#68 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i have guests coming over tonight, so wont be able to watch...even if i did the tv thing, i wouldn't: so could someone who watches/watched please post something about the "dna evidence" and what the film-makers do or try to do with it? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-04-2007, 08:00 PM	#69 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	The thing's on right now, and a lot of senseless noise has already been made about it around here, meaning within this house, differing belief and communication systems and techniques being pervasive. As earlier posters said, could this matter; would we know how it did if it did? __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

03-04-2007, 09:38 PM	#70 (permalink)
NoSoup Non-Rookie Location: Green Bay, WI	So, I watched it. I would have to agree with the sentiment that there certainly is quite a bit of compelling evidence that the Jesus of Nazereth was, in fact, buried in that tomb. However, I am not a scholor of religion or philosophy, so I am taking many of the assertions of the program as fact - ie, that the Gospel of Phillip exists, or that Jose is a nickname for Jesus' brother. For those of you that haven't watched it yet and would prefer not to learn the details of the program - stop here. I'll try and summarize the main points for those that missed it and want to jump in the debate There are a great number of assertions that are given by the "documentary" - of which, like I said, I have no idea whether or not they are valid. However, from what I saw of the show following it (there was an after-documentary show debating the science, assumptions, conclusions, and impact on beliefs) there weren't any challenges to the information that was given to the viewer, so if I had to guess, I would say that at the very least the assumptions are somewhat credible.... Here is some of the information from the documentary - this is from only memory, so please excuse me if I am incorrect. Also, forgive my spelling in advance The tomb was discovered initially by a construction crew building an apartment complex. Due to pressure from various agencies, archeologists only had three days to study the inside of the tomb, which included an inventory and a diagram. One thing to note, however, is that there was a specific symbol carved above the entrance to the tomb - picture an inverted V with a circle in the center of the bottom. Now, without going to explicit detail, from my understanding it was customary for the time to have a temporary tomb, then be transfered to the family tomb wrapped in a shroud. One year later, after only there are only skeletal remains, they place the bones inside a small coffin. In the tomb, there were 10 small limestone coffins initially found. I believe that at least six of them were labeled with names, something that isn't all that unusual. However, one went missing shortly after the tomb was discovered.... The names, as far as I can remember, were translated literally into: Jesus, son of Joseph Maria Mariamnde Jose Matthew Judah - Son of Jesus and one controversial one - James, son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus. The film examines the names initially - Jose is a "nickname" that was given to Jesus' brother Joseph - a very rare name at the time. Mariamnde could definately has "maria" in it - the equivalent of Mary, but it is suggested that the whole word means Master Mary, which is a relatively common term for religious leaders in that time period. What also lends credence to this is that this is actually a latin word, and Mary Magdalene reportedly went to France - where her name was latinized. According to what is commonly believed of the ancestry of Jesus, all of the names not only fit and would likely be buried in the same tomb, the Jose and Mariamnde are incredibly rare - the only coffins to have been found inscribed with those names. It is important to understand that many of these names are very common - for instance, I believe it said 25% of women at the time were named Maria 4% of men were Jesus.. well, you get the point. However, the probability of all these names being buried together and it just being a coincidence - not including the controversial coffin - is 600:1. With the controversial one included - and there is evidence that links it to the same tomb, potentially the one that went missing - it is 30,000:1 that this is, in fact, Jesus' tomb. As far as the scientific evidence that leads one to believe that James' coffin was in the same tomb, the filmmaker had the residue on the coffins tested and compared them with a number of other samples - including some of the coffins from inside the tomb in question. Although I hesitate to use the word, the coffin in question matched the other coffins located in that same tomb, while none of the others did. Other circumstantial evidence includes that the inital map of the tomb that was sketched by the archeologists who first documented it showed 10 coffins, only 9 were cataloged. The dimensions of the coffin in question matched the sketched one, and the private collector who purchsae the coffin purchased it in the very same time frame that the tomb was discovered, admittedly, though - he wasn't sure of the exact year. As far as the DNA evidence is concerned, I was unimpressed. They tested only Jesus' and Mary Magdalene's coffins, and there was obviously not a match. From this, the concluded that for a woman to be buried in the same tomb as another family that wasn't blood related, that she was likely someone's wife. Judah, the possible son of Jesus, was not matched. The reasoning given after the film for only testing those two was due to the fact that the others did not have easily accesible DNA - which, from what they showed, the two that they tested did have bone fragments on the bottom - you didn't really get a good look at the others. However, they were unable to obtain nuclear DNA, so it was mitochondrial DNA testing, proving only no maternal link. Throughout the documentary, there were a number of additional coincinces that, at least in my opinion, build a relatively strong circumstantial case that it is Jesus of Nazereth's tomb. One thing that struck home with me was towards the end. According to the bible, Mary and a "beloved disciple" (unnamed thoughout the bible) are at the cross moments before he dies. His finals words were "Woman, behold your son" - throughout all my years of Catholic School, we were told he was talking about Mary, his mother. However, it would make a lot more sense to me if he was in fact talking to the mother of his child, and the beloved disciple was his son - kept secret to keep him safe from further persecution. However, I think I hit on the main points.... I'm interested to see where this discussion leads __________________ I have an aura of reliability and good judgement. Just in case you were wondering... Last edited by NoSoup; 03-04-2007 at 09:42 PM..

03-05-2007, 04:28 AM	#72 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	To be honest this thing was so boring and had SO many commercials I fell asleep before it was over, so I still need to watch the last 30 minutes and the "after" show The one thing that bothers me is the DNA. The following has no basis on my being a beliver...They went to all the trouble to explain that 80-500 and 80-503 ("mary m" and "jesus") could not be maternally related, showing they did not share a common mother. What bothers me is they in no way discussed other ways in which they could be blood related and "her" presence still be accepted in the tomb. Unless I totally misunderstood their explanation, because they were looking at Mitochondrial DNA and with all the cloning they had to do to get enough to test, it wouldnt show if they were related say on the paternal side. someone tell me if I'm understanding what they said right? I prob need to watch that part again to see if I fell asleep at some point during something crucial because I remember telling Dave, their explanation doesnt say anything about if they could have shared a father or been cousins on the fathers side. IMO they were more focused on proving they didnt have the same MOTHER. Simcha Jacobovici just made me want to smack him, he was really annoying during the whole thing... on the whole I really didnt enjoy what I saw of the show __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

03-05-2007, 05:07 AM	#73 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	in this case, all that matters is lineage through the mother __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

03-05-2007, 05:16 AM	#74 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	Why is that the only lineage that "matters"? Like I said, I dont totally understand it, but it would seem to me that they would want to prove or disprove a connection with anyone else buried there. The only thing I understood they proved was that these two samples did not share a mother __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

03-05-2007, 05:52 AM	#76 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	Well I didnt expect a "definitive" conclusion either, but I thought it would be at least "intersting", hell the Noah's Ark doc before it and the anti-christ one earlier in the day were way more interesting than this was. I got confused with all the, Jesus name is written this way, and Mary M's name is in greek, and Jose is that (tell me who puts someones "nickname" on a "coffin", when I die, I seriously doubt Dave is going to put shanifaye on my tombstone lol) I think this show is going to do exactly what they wanted, cause controversy and discussion so I'm sure they are happy about it, but Im really sorry that I lost that time it took to watch it....you're right it needed Indiana!!! __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

03-05-2007, 11:23 AM	#78 (permalink)
Ourcrazymodern? still, wondering. Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge	Yee-hah, cynthetiq! __________________ BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

03-05-2007, 12:51 PM	#80 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, it sounds like having guests over was better than not and watching the doc. i was curious about what possible functions the dna sampling could have served, beyond adding an element of pseudo-science to this advertising delivery system. i had figured either: (a) if the tomb was that of the jesus everyone thinks of when the name jesus is used in this kind of context that maybe there would be some kind of anomaly at the genetic structure level as a function of the halfsharkalligatorhalfman status jesus is said to have occupied--and the idea of there being a claim to have isolated strands of god-dna made me laugh...or (b) it could be used for "identification" purposes, which seemed just bizarre: "this is definitely the right jesus and we have proven it using dna" made me wonder what that evidence could possibly be compared to. this, too, made me laugh. but using it to establish relations amongst elements of a set the status of which remains indeterminate is i guess as far as you could really go with this kind of evidence and stay within rational bounds--tho i had hoped they wouldn't. so if i understand the reactions to this advertising delivery system correctly, it provided much the same kind of infotainment as the "geraldo find al capone's safe" thing did. that right? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-05-2007 at 12:55 PM..