jorgelito

Hmm... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (at least for the time being). I t may be possible you missed the meaning of my posts or maybe I am misunderstanding yours. The analogy I used is not just part and parcel to roachboy's post but others as well, or in a more general sense.

I don't agree that the "War on Christmas" was BS hysteria. People were prevented from displaying Christmas paraphernalia. Your theory on "Holiday" signage is interesting and noted though.

Additionally, I don't recall claiming any "Christian persecution", but rather a more nuanced backlash against Christianity at large or fervor to "suppress" Christian elements. But no, of course not outright persecution of Christians.

Again, no one (at least I didn't) claim Christians are being persecuted, but there is certainly an anti-Christian subtext to the atheism threads and others. I'm not sure what your point about the Christians posting objectionable posts about other Christians implies. But, Christians are perfectly capable of being anti-Christian as well just like many black are anti-black etc, etc.

Bill O'Rights

No...not really.


Geraldo's was funny.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

jorgelito

Even so roach, I think we sort of owe it to ourselves to watch it even if it is bad in order to discuss it properly. Sort of intellectual honesty? After all, the OP is about the documentary so it sort of obligates us to give it a fair shake.

I think for me, as a person of faith, the establishment of the tombs validity would not deter my religious devotion. So, assuming the tomb is indeed that of Jesus Christ and family. Well, other than a slight geographical anomaly (already circumspect and unsure), I don't see much of a contradiction t the tenets of my religion's narrative.

Some alternate thoughts:

1. According to the Gospels, Christ rose after 3 days. Ok, well, the tomb/coffin is empty right? So in theory, if the body isn't there, then presumably he did rise and ascend to Heaven.

2. Maybe it's a ceremonial memorial coffin/tomb for JC long after the fact. I mean, the supposition is that his family is all buried there. Well, they could have fashioned a coffin for him as a stand in long after the events of the Bible. It isn't unheard of to move burial tracts is it?

3. I don't really see what the big deal is if JC was married to Madeline and had a son. I kind of like that story actually. It doesn't break my faith. I don't see how it could.

The only thing of the documentary (I have not seen it) that I would question is the "validity" or science/methodology of the work. James Cameron is a Hollywood director not a scholar or documentarian. Thus the sensationalized nature of his profession calls into question his credentials in context of a documentary like this one. That's just my opinion though.

Secondly, the set-up seems a bit off to me. Note, the outcome doesn't bother me, rather the method. It just seems a bit too convenient to find all these tombs in that way. The names etc. Almost like it was planned, or a hoax.

I think there needs to be more scrutiny, science, and scholarship involved before any pronouncements are made either way.

Bill O'Rights

Now, I don't care who you are...that's funny.

Would it have mattered?

I don't think that it would have. Look, I'm not being critical, but all the scrutiny, science, and scholarship in the world, would not have had the slightest impact on a true believer. Sure...you may pick off a few fence sitters, one way or the other...but the true believers will not be swayed one iota. And...that's fine.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

jorgelito

Ha!! I'm glad you enjoy the (subtle) humor in my posts.

On a more serious note. I think it does matter. At the very least it could help clarify some things and then the different sides could go on to argue something else. Also, "believer" is a bit vague and also dependent upon what you believe. For example, if the science etc proved correct that it was indeed the tomb of Christ then you could still believe that it is the tomb but it still wouldn't affect your faith.

In this case, the only thing it could/would prove is if an actual person of a certain namesake was entombed at that location.

Ourcrazymodern?

No pronouncements can be made in any way, except that they have been.
"Truth" and it's "opposite" go onwards in different directions and seem to be driving people (read "The World") crazy. Christ's DNA sounds like voodoo dolls to me. Whoops, should I have capitalized voodoo?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Bill O'Rights

IF...science poved, beyond any and all shadows of doubt, that the bones intered in that particular ossuary actually, and in fact, belonged to the one, and the only, Jesus Christ, your Lord and Saviour...then wouldn't that put one hell of a dent in "ascention"?

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

ShaniFaye

what if HE were the offspring of a prior marriage though?

nothing they did told the age of either of the ones tested, isnt it perfectly possible they were related paternally, him being the older and her being the younger of two diff mothers

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Bill O'Rights

Shani....you saw what I saw. Based soley on what was cooked up and served to us anything is perfectly possible.

Oh, hey...good call on the Noah's Ark thing that aired preceding this divel. Now that...I liked.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

NoSoup

Too bad Joseph, the adoptive father of Jesus wasn't there - wouldn't it be interesting if Jesus shared his DNA with the "Virgin" Mary and his "adoptive" father Joseph?

Although I suppose, one could argue that God simply used the DNA of Joseph because he knew that one day Joseph and Mary would be married...

__________________
I have an aura of reliability and good judgement.

Just in case you were wondering...

jorgelito

No, because there are a few outs for this.

1. Faith operates outside of science anyways. (EX: How do Creationists explain dinosaur bones, fossils etc?). For the faithful, it doesn't matter a whole lot, they believe what they believe. (obviously this does matter for many, especially dogmatic institutions of Christianity such as Catholics).

2. The Ascent: Who or what actually ascended? The soul/spirit? The actual body? Maybe he left the bones behind? Wait, was Jesus black?

None of us were there anyways so we are basically taking someone's word for it anyways.

3. For some, the allegory is more important than a literal narrative. I don't care too much about the details cause that isn't what is important to me as a Christian. That is it is possible to separate the collection of stories from the "message" intellectually and then spiritually.

4. Hard science versus ambiguity of faith - Hmmm.... maybe this discovery and proof is a test to test the faithful....... Pretty powerful...

5. And of course, it is quite possible that Jesus was a charlatan, a confidence huckster of such charisma he fooled so many people. I am very much open to this possibility and it doesn't bother me.

Why? Why would so many reasonable intelligent people of logic, science, education, profession believe in this mythology (I use this term to be fair)?

Well, that, is FAITH. They take it as a matter of FAITH, that Jesus is who he says he is regardless of any scientific reasoning or logic etc.

That is the main difficulties in debating religion between believers and non-believers.

smooth

It doesn't matter if they were related paternally, they would be in different tombs if they were born from different mothers.

__________________
"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

jorgelito

Ooh, that is a great point and very interesting too. (by the way, thanks for your well-thought out post NoSoup on the documentary).

But Shani, smooth is correct (as far as I know) regarding matrimonial lineage. It also makes sense that the "wife" (non-related DNA) would be buried in the family tomb.

smooth

Some scholars read the early passages as a young woman, or young virgin, not that she remained a virgin through immaculate conception...that's a gift from Roman Catholicism. So it'd be perfectly possible and acceptable that he have Joseph's DNA.

__________________
"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

ShaniFaye

I really wish I could convey my confusion because what I get from what you're saying is that even though "mary" was in there, and her father could have been there as well, who could have been the father of "jesus" as well...her mother who could have been a later wife wouldnt have been there? the ONLY reason "mary" was in there was because she was married to someone there?

What about all the other ones that didnt have names on them? How do we know "mary's" mother wasnt there as well?

I wish I could put this where it makes sense, if "jesus" and "mary" had had a female instead of this "judah" where would HER box have been?


****edit ok I am now watching the "after" show...the DNA experts state that they took his conclusion out of context and his official statement IS

There is a statement in the film that has been taken out of context. While marriage is a possibility, other relationships like father and daugther, paternal cousins, sister-in-law or indeed two related individuals are also possible.

which is what I was saying

I feel better now lol

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

smooth

I don't know why this is so confusing to you...

offspring are counted according to their mothers
if mary had a different mother, and that other woman was in some other tomb, then mary would have been buried in that other tomb with her mother

if jesus and mary had a daughter instead of a son, it wouldn't matter, because the child would have been buried with the MOTHER (mary) whereever she goes...regardless if mary (and jesus) had a son or daughter.


the DNA expert isn't going to make any ruling based off his findings other than the man (jesus) and woman (mary) are not related by maternal blood. that's as far as his scientific inquiry can go.

a biblical scholar, however, can tell you that it's unlikely for the two to be related paternally (and not maternally) and be in the same tomb because, according to Jewish law, the lineage is counted through the mother.

A jewish woman would be buried with her mother or her husband, not her father.

__________________
"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

ShaniFaye

and I *thought* I said what if "mary"'s mother IS in that tomb? If Mary's mother was married to Mary's father at the time of her (the mothers) death, and SHE was in one of the unmarked ones....wouldnt it make sense that "mary" was there as well? (remember I said "jesus" was the product of a birth of a woman BEFORE "mary")

ie "joseph" was married and had "jesus"....that woman dies and "joseph" remarries and has "mary" and was still married to that woman when everybody died (which means "mary" was buried with HER mother). How can you tell me that "mary" and "jesus"..based soley on the DNA they DID, couldnt be paternally related?

people are ready to believe "mary" was "jesus" wife and buried there, so why wouldnt "mary"'s mother be there as well and have been a dif mother from "jesus"

***and the show was edited to show that the DNA expert said they "must have been married", which is not what he said, he said they could have been married OR related paternally

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

smooth

well, I suppose you can come up with any odd derivatives of how mary came to be in the tomb. all I was answering was why matrilineage is the only thing that matters in Judaism. I'm not at all interested in devolving into an argument over any number of reasons two unknown remains came to be in a tomb together.

__________________
"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

roachboy

a couple odd points.

1) i want to say that nothing in this thread shakes my faith in not watching tv. strangely, i do not feel assaulted by the fact that members of other faith communities watch tv. people have gone so far as to argue that one SHOULD watch tv, but my committment to not watching tv remains unshaken somehow. now i know that folk could, were they so inclined, make arguments that by not watching tv i become something of a luddite--but against any such claim i could balance the low quality information tv provides, even at its best--and this doc does not appear to be something that one would describe as "at its best". but tv is everywhere, and i do at times feel assaulted by it. i react to this sense of being-assaulted by watching, preferably an english premiership game, which happens to be rountinely available for therapeutic viewing at the various publick houses i frequent, to the extent that i frequent.

2. drawing on my background as catholic boy, i would think that finding out that the physical jesus was not hoovered into the sky would pose a real problem for any christian who is not secretly a gnostic. it was gnostics like the manichees who argued that because spirit and body were irreconcilable that only the spirit jesus was involved with the resurrection and ascension--and those folk were stomped out--mostly we only know about them now via augustine's confessions.

same thing with the idea that jesus had a kid by mary magdalene, who was supposed to be madame jesus--this is a feature of a number of gnostic accounts of his life, but was not included in the nicea batch of authorized stories about the true jesus as understood from the 4th century viewpoint.

it would seem to me that either of these claims, should they turn out to be true, would pose basic problems for christians: that it is otherwise is perhaps a function of the fact that the material treated in the doc is not new and that it is beset with the predictable problems that accompany trying to locate stuff related to a specific individual from 2000 years ago. the debris field would be highly scattered and what survives arbitrary. it is that arbitrariness of that which survives 2000 years that is the ultimate bulkward of defense against the problems that would be raised.

anyway, i dont watch tv.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

ShaniFaye

and all Im saying is that just because the DNA they did proved they didnt share a mother, doesnt mean A. She didnt have the the right under the laws of Judaism to be buried there and B. That the two werent related paternally and doesnt prove they "had" to be married

smooth, I would like to add, I do understand what you're sayint to an extent. If proper DNA could have been done on all the boxes and she was not linked to anyone, then yes I would have to agree she would have probably been married to someone in there, but to conclude that those specific two had to have been married, when you only tested those 2...to me is not scientific

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

jorgelito

Well, Roach, the TV thing only came up cause we were discussing a documentary broadcast on TV (in the OP). Seems reasonable and sensible to watch the thing we're discussing. But I am with you, I don't even possess a TV either so I haven't seen the documentary yet.

Your second point is very salient and interesting. It is illustrative of the wide and diverse Christian community in general. But again, as such, it would only be a problem for some Christians, not all.

smooth

if by some, you mean those who understand Christian doctrine, then yeah, I'd agree with you.

but it seems that a lot of people don't really care or know about the history of this religion or the actual doctrines of their denomination. the only people who shouldn't have a problem with this, as roachboy correctly asserted, would be gnostic.

there are deep philosophical and theological complications with the loss of a bodily ascension or married jesus with child. or even the loss of immaculate conception...it doesn't simply boil down to I choose to believe and anything that crops up and problematizes my belief will just be accepted and explained away...

but I don't think very many church authorities are going to punish people too hard these days, lest they lose a fair share of lukewarm attendees. in the olden days they'd just burn em. which is where the ole poor gnostics went. luckily we have aprocryphal writings to read for leisure and further perspectives of the times other than mere canon.

it's a shame, in my opinion, that so many believers lack a nuts and bolts understanding of their religion. I suppose that comment can be taken as one of those famed anti-christian sentiments on the board...but the question remains, if you don't know the underpinnings of what you believe, what do you believe?

__________________
"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

jorgelito

Actually no smooth, I would definitely have to agree with you. Your post raises a very good point.

I must admit, although I consider myself to be devout, I think I may fall into that category of not "understanding my religion" enough. Or maybe I'm Gnostic then. Either way, it wouldn't hurt to do a little more studying on my part.

Smooth, I don't think your comment is considered "anti-Christian" at all, not sure where you would get that idea. It is very well-thought out and nicely articulated. In fact, I find much of this thread to be enjoyable, civil, and engaging. We might have to open up another thread to explore "interpreting anti-Christian sentiments" (or something like that).

Ourcrazymodern?

mitochondria

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

pig

hmmm....as to this documentary itself, haven't seen it, but it sounds like it could perhaps be something like the findings in roswell. people will fit this into their existing worldview; believers will not find it convincing, skeptics may cite it as another piece of the puzzle as to how jesus is a myth based on a regular joe who may have been a rebel rabbi.

as to the disconnect between the actual doctrine of various flavors of faith and the understanding that any particular believer or sect of the faith may have; well, i don't see any resolution to that one. seems that all groups based on some sort of organized set of doctrine have these sorts of issues; i don't think that we'll see any movement en masse to have significant portions of society become scholars any time soon. i don't think that most people's faith works that way; its a worldview based on some loosely agreed upon tenants that are shared throughout the community. given the social and philosophical functions it seems to take on, i just don't think its really that crucial for most people. whether it should be or not would seem to be a function of personality as much as anything.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

ObieX

They should maybe compair the "Jesus" DNA from the tomb to the "Jesus" DNA on the shroud of turin. If they dont match then one or both is a fake. This does have some problems tho because by now the shroud is so contaminated by other people's DNA that any tests probably wouldn't work.

__________________
We Must Dissent.

Ourcrazymodern?

I thought Jesus spent much time denying his divinity and that he wasn't elevated until Constantine, centuries later, decided the slaves were getting out of control? Control of the population requires controlling their thinking.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

ShaniFaye

there are many scriptures where Jesus outright claims his divinity

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Ourcrazymodern?

Please, ShaniFaye, name for me a few so I can find them!

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

jorgelito

This reminds me of Life of Brian. But I agree with Shani that the Scriptures show Jesus talk about his divinity.

Ourcrazymodern?

Please name one. I asked for three, but I'll settle for one...

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Cynthetiq

I've been racking my brain for one, as I did extensive Bible study in school. I know I have read the Bible, OT and NT from cover to cover.

I've been looking through some of the online Bible quotations and I can't find anything stating that Jesus stated that he is God. He only responds and the only on time that I recall is:

Matthew 26:62-64

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

jorgelito

Hmmm. I must say I am a bit stumped myself. Nothing comes to mind at the moment. A lot of innuendo though but no direct, "I am God" quotes. There are some "son of God" ones though.

Maybe some other well read biblical scholar's can come up with some.

ShaniFaye

Ok...

In John 8:54-59, Jesus makes perhaps his most obvious claim to be God:

"Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. 55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” 59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by."

Reference it back to God's statement Ex. 3:13-14

"Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” 14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’"

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Rekna

There is also "if you knew me then you would know my father"

Ourcrazymodern?

"If I honor myself, my honor is nothing." Operative words, which go far towards nowhere, yet express much. The humility Jesus expressed might enlighten.
Why hasn't anybody in this thread cried out about the sanctity of graves?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Bittertalker

I like Simcha Jacobovici’s previous series the Naked Archaeologist, and think it is an interesting TV show.

I liked Simcha Jacobovici’s previous series the Naked Archaeologist, and think it is an interesting TV show. I've been watching it on the History Channel, well the History International... whatever it is.

Ourcrazymodern?

...and it was a lot handier.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

fuzyfuzer

I just thought I might post my Professors thoughts on this matter

Feb. 28, 2007 -- Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., adjunct professor of religious studies, provides insight on the controversy surrounding a new Discovery Channel documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, which airs March 4. Flinn, a consultant in forensic theology, is an expert on religion and the law, including issues related to the separation of church and state, government funding of faith-based social program and the display of religious symbols in schools, courtrooms and other public places.

Jesus Family Tomb

By Frank K. Flinn

On March 04, 2007, the Discovery Channel will air a program "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" made by Simcha Jocobivici and James Cameron, the maker of the film "Titanic." A companion volume of the same name by Jocobivici and Dr. Charles Pellegrino has just been released by HarperCollins

In 1980 Israeli archeologists Shimon Gibson, Yosef Gat Amos Kloner examined a tomb in the Talpiyot district of Jerusalem where construction for new housing was underway. Archeologists have noted some 900 such tomb sites in this area of Jerusalem. Upon entering the tomb, the archeologists discovered ten ossuaries in six niches and three skulls on the floor of the main room. In 1st century Palestine it was customary to bury a person of some means wrapped in linen and spices, let the flesh decay, and then, a year or more later, place the bones in a stone ossuary, which literally means "bone-box." After this hasty excavation the bones were buried by Orthodox rabbis following Jewish ritual law. Fragments of the bones, however, remained in the boxes that were not washed out. The ossuaries were then stored in a warehouse of the Israeli Antiquities Authority.

Meanwhile in 2002 another inscribed ossuary appeared on the antiquities market in Jersusalem. Oded Golan, a Tel Aviv engineer, claimed he bought the box from Arab dealers and had not noted the Aramaic inscription on the side: "Yaakob bar Yosef ahiw de Yeshua" ("James, son of Joseph, the brother of Jesus"). The reaction in the scholarly world was explosive. Inscriptionist André Lemaire of the Sorbonne said that the box could well have belonged to James the Apostle. After much argument back and forth, scholars at the Geological Survey of Israel, while not tying the inscription to Jesus' family, concluded that the script fits the time period between 20-70 CE and that the patina throughout shows no later marks of forgery. New Testament scholar James Tabor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has argued that this ossuary came from what he calls the Talpiyot "Jesus Family Dynasty Tomb" in his controversial book "The Jesus Dynasty" (2006).

As noted above, six of the Talpiyot boxes have side inscriptions. There is some argument about the preservation and interpretation of the scripts, but Tabor, Simcha Jocobivici and James Cameron, the makers of the film "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" (to be shown on Discovery Channel March 04, 2007), say the box inscriptions should be read as follows:

1. Yeshua bar Yehosef - 'Jesus son of Joseph' (speaks for itself)

2. Maria - the Latin for the normal 'Miriam' or Mary (mother or sister of Jesus?)

3. Yose - alternate form of 'Joseph' ( Matthew 13:54 lists 4 brothers of Jesus—James, Joses, Simon, Judas—and unnamed and unnumbered sisters)

4. Yehuda bar Yeshua—'Judah son of Jesus' (some claim this refers to Jesus of Nazareth's son)

5. Mariamne e mara—'Miriamne the master' (some say Mary of Magdala's real name was Miriamne; mara is the same term as Maranatha "Come, oh Lord [mara]" in 1 Corinthians 16:22 )

6. Matya—'Matthew' or 'Matthias' (possibly a husband of one of the women in an unmarked ossuary)

Mitochondrial DNA tests on the bone fragments in the Yeshua and Miriamne ossuaries show that they were not related. Shortly after the initial discovery and the 1990's one of the original ten ossuaries went missing. Tabor and others are claiming that this is the much disputed James ossuary.

One of the chief arguments posed by Kloner and others that this set of names cannot be identified with the family of Jesus is that all of the names were common as water in the 1^st century. That is true, but Tabor and the filmmakers have elicited the support of statisticians to argue the likelihood that this set of names would match the names in the New Testament is extremely small. Tabor illustrates by saying that the approximate population of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus was 50,000. If you could get all into the local hippodrome, and started asking, would all those whose name is Jesus please stand, 2,796 would rise. Then if you asked, would all those who father is also named Joseph remain standing, 351 would be left. If you ask all those also who mother's name is Mary, 173 would remain. Add the brother's name Jose, and only 23 would be left. Add the name James, and you are down to one.

University of Toronto mathematician Andrey Feuerverger calculated that the odds that the tomb does not belong to the Jesus of the Gospels is1/600. Tabor's mathematician gives the startling odds that out of 42,723,672 families, the Talpiyot combination of names would occur only once. The general public needs to be a little wary of statistical calculations. They never give you the absolute truth but only an approximation of the truth. And Tabor is quick to admit that many of the associations in his book are "speculative." Still, it is important to point out that these numbers do not depend so much on the frequency of a particular name but on the occurrence of the /cluster/ of names, and here the numbers are telling.

The Talpiyot tomb findings are a serious challenge to traditional Christian denominations. Catholics have held as a matter of doctrine that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and that she remained a virgin. The phase "brothers and sisters," they argue must be taken in a "wide" sense of "friends and followers." Many traditional Protestants beg to differ with Catholics on this score. Most claim that Jesus was never married, but scholars of 1st century Judaism now argue that one had to be married to preach in the synagogue, and that is something Jesus did on many occasions (Luke 4:16). The single implication of the Talpiyot findings that strikes traditional Christianity at its root is that, if indeed this is Jesus of Nazareth's ossuary and bone fragments, then Jesus was not raised from the dead. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15: 13-14: "But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."

Is there no way out of the dilemma for the believing Christian? Do Christians, if they accept these harsh historical facts, have to give up all belief in resurrection. I believe they do not. In the Epistle to the Romans Chapter 4, where Paul talks about the physical condition of Abraham and Sarah, he does not say that they were infertile or barren, as many translations have it, but that they were "dead" in the womb and the loins. When Isaac was born, they experienced a resurrection of the flesh in the most literal sense of the term. Likewise, when the Prodigal Son returned to his grieving father, the father said to his resentful brother, "For this your brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found." I call this the resurrection of everydayness. The philosopher Hegel spoke of the "divine Man" whose particular death is transfigured into "the universality of the Spirit who dwells in His community, dies in it every day, and daily is resurrected." This sense of living "resurrectionally" seems to have escaped many segments of Christianity.

The recent discoveries about 1st century Palestinian Judaism have forced many Christians to rediscover the Teaching of Jesus rather than to place all emphasis on the later teaching about Jesus.

Many devout Christians are speaking up loudly saying the Talpiyot Tomb story is another hoax, like "The Da Vinci Code." To them I give a word of caution: Dan Brown wrote fiction that had everso fragile filaments to the truth, but ossuaries are ossuaries, names are names and bones are bones. I choose to remain interested but joyfully skeptical about all the new discoveries.

__________________
"The difference between commiment and involvment is like a ham and egg breakfast the chicken was involved but the pig was commited"

"Thrice happy is the nation that has a glorious history. Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat." Theodore Roosevelt

Ourcrazymodern?

Preaching is like drooling-

WITNESS:

my daughter's dog had a seizure the other day.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT