|
Tomb of Jesus Discovered?
Quote:
As far as I see it, I don't believe there's any way to prove this one way or the other. Even if they did find a 2,000 year old tomb containing coffins with those names, how can we know that is is actually Jesus and his descendants. We have no DNA to test against. And if there is reason to believe it may be true, why wait to publish the news until a documentary is being filmed. Is it all one big publicity stunt? |
at best I can see how they might prove relationships to other's in the tomb...ie which of the bones were the parents of Judah, if joseph and mary's were the parents of Jesus
its interesting to see how the discovery site makes sure to explain how this discovery doesnt fly in the face of christian believe lol Quote:
|
It's an interesting study - as you say, there's no way to know for sure, one way or the other, but it certainly generates debate and thought about the nature of Christ. That's not a bad thing.
|
Marked that on my calendar.
I don't know that it will have much implication for the Christian community, despite the seemingly provocative subject. I asked my mom what she would do if the body of Jesus were found, proven unequivocally, awhile ago. She said she'd think it was a fake. I got a similar response at a Christian forum I was a member of when I posted a discussion of this. To be honest, although I'm not Christian, looking at this article I have to agree that it doesn't really prove anything completely. It could raise some really interesting theological discussion though, like highthief said. |
Old news. James Cameron is not a theologian or biblical archaeologist. He's just looking for publicity.
This was covered way back in 1996 by the BBC. They already did a documentary on this tomb discovery and pretty much refuted it. As in all things Hollywood, they just can't leave the original alone so they had to make a remake of an old documentary. |
It will either boost morale for the christians or it will give them something else to bicker over and divide themselves.
|
I say we clone Jesus and bring back the anti-christ. That would make a great movie.
If they did a DNA test, they should have enought for a clone then. I could just imagine the media backlash from that suggestion. :lol: :oogle: |
Ooooo I like it! Perhaps they will use any DNA found to clone whomever or whatever was there and we will get a look-see?
|
Thank you jorgelito. Very well spoken or typed as it were.
|
If it was the BBC special doc, I saw, they didn't refute anything.
They basically ended it by saying "We can't prove it is infact the JEsus Christ in the bible, We can't prove it isn't" |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I mean...it could be Jesus. Or...it could just as easily have been some guy named Fred. All in all, I'll probably watch the documentary. It seems to be up my alley. |
Some things that should be noted is that the names Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and Judah are the most common names of that time. In addition, It was Jesus of Nazarus not Jesus of Jerusalem. In addition, the location of this tomb is no where near the believed location of Jesus's tomb. Finally, there were also some reports that the names have been miss translated but I haven't verified this yet.
I was watching a story on MSNBC last night and it reported that archaeologists across the globe are lining up saying that this documentary is not archaeologically sound with some of them saying the odds of this being the real Jesus's tomb is about one in a million. James Cameron is merely trying to make money by dishonestly creating controversy. |
It's called faith, not knowledge. It doesn't matter what you show someone. If they have strong faith they won't believe you.
|
sorry double post.
|
Quote:
|
I've been trying to come up with a witty comment about this but...
I got nothing. |
Damn the Romans. They can't do anything right. They should have hired the Mafia to do the hit.
We can find the tomb of Jesus, lost over 2000 years ago, but we still can't find Jimmy Hoffa (how is that WK?) |
Quote:
|
I recall that Jesus, Mary, and Joesph were popular names at the time.
Simply going on the names of the tomb is not enough evidence. |
Quote:
As for the BBC special - yes, the issue has been examined before, but obviously this guy has studied it again. To say "Well, something was studied once and X was the result, so we should never study it again" is not a very logical statement. A lot of people studied things, go a negative result, before someone else came along and turned that result on its head. |
interesting that there are christian organizations coming out to say that discovery is mounting an attack on christianity.
anything that allows for the mortality of christ is bad. this doc, if true, suggests that christ had a child with mary madgeline and further that he did not physically ascend into heaven. all things that throw his divinity into doubt. |
Quote:
And I don't say that in a negative sense. IF this is ever proven, beyond an irrefutable doubt...and it is laid out, in plain and simple black and white, that we have been lied to for the past 2000 years...you think people aren't going to be dragged into this kicking and screaming? For some, their entire lives...their very reason for existence...centers around their firm belief in the divinity of Christ, and his physical ascention into heaven. I do have to wonder, though...why is it that everything these days seems to be viewed as an "attack on Christianity"? Are their walls weakening to the point that challenges are now becoming more of a threat? |
I think the best position for Christians to take is a wait and see attitude. In the end, these things always end up as hoaxes or dead ends, and the people who make these outrageous claims come off looking like fools. Of course Christianity at large is going to raise a bit of a stink because we don't like it when secular parties try to tell us that the things we believe in are all based on a lie. You can't challenge Muslims or any tennent of the religion of Islam without getting severe backlash from them, so why is it a surprise if Christians get their backs up when people try to refute the claims of their religion?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Fred's buried over there... Quote:
|
This tends towards the bizarre even more than I do.
|
I'm not so sure that Christians are panicking or claiming an attack. The discovery of the tombs really doesn't shake the foundation of faith. There are plenty of reasonable explanations for the existence of the tomb without comprising the core of Christianity.
Further, the point I was trying to make in my previous post is that I think James Cameron is just looking for a publicity stunt, that the subject had been covered before by experts, not Hollywood sensationalists, and that Cameron really hadn't done his research thoroughly. Basically, just trying to present two sides of the story instead of the bandwagoning here. The presence of a tomb of that size suggests a family wealth. The Jesus in question was not a wealthy man. The tomb is most likely NOT of a man named Fred as Fred was not a popular Hebrew name of that period. 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. And no, I'm not paranoid. Like in all things, we probably should NOT make sweeping assumptions. There are plenty of Christians who are not afraid or panicked just because a "tomb discovery" was made. Current objection is more to the sensationalization and rush to "see I told you so" type judgements that erupted after the discovery. In other words, a panicked few Christians are responding to the taunts of a (presumably) few atheist, etc. I agree with the wait and see. In either case, I remain fascinated at the possibilities and undeterred in my own faith. |
Quote:
|
this is getting curiouser and curiouser.
with respect to the op: while i doubt that anything like a definitive claim could possible be made about whether this tomb is or is not that of "the" jesus--but i confess that i really quite hope that it IS the tomb of The Man, his wife and child--not least because that would destabilize the relations between the main gospels and some of their gnostic contemporaries. i am pretty sympathetic to gnosticism (well, some kinds of it) and thought that almost every reason augustine outlined to oppose gnosticism--particularly the problems that system posed for social regulation--were in a way virtues. the wrong variant of christianity won with the conversion of constantine. other point: jorgelito's post is interesting, i think. first in the choice of the term "outing" with reference to his christianity--why that term? i find it more than passing strange. in terms of the "anti-christian" stuff: i dont see it that way--i see a great diversity of positions, some of which are amenable to active questioning of believers themselves (as in why do you believe this...) and many others that are not. one fairly obvious element that cuts across this (but even here, there is little consistency) is that most have had at least some experience of christianity and have broekn with it--and this for a variety of reasons. it seems to me that this break is not easy, particularly if in breaking with christianity you are breaking with signficant elements of your own frame of reference when you were younger. in these situations--and there are alot of them, if you read the various debates about atheism etc, of late--there is obviously a ton of affect from a variety of sources that gets displaced onto christianity---does this mean that the attitudes expressed are "anti-christian"? i dont understand what "anti-christian" actually means. would any expression of non-belief be anti-christian? where does anti-christian stop and start? there is a tendency within some christian communities to see in all expressions of beliefs that are not consistent with their own evidence of "anti-christian" attitudes--all of it gets associated with satan, yes? and from that association, what alternatives are possible? being-in-the-world is cast as warfare between two parties and everyone is of one party or the other. this is consistent, cutting across all denominations--what varies is the centrality of this position in a larger worldview--not all denominations make this notion of spiritual warfare the absolute center of their views--but some do--fundamentalist protestants in the us are particularly committed to it, it seems (from my experience as a kid with some of these groups, it IS central) it seems to me that many christian denominations operate from an assumption of hegemony and either will not or cannot adjust to being in a pluralist context--because within such a context, this notion of spritual warfare pitting the "good" (christians) against "evil" (everyone else) is wholly dysfunctional. but hey, that's just my opinion, man. |
Great post roachboy, I'm glad you asked those questions. I appreciate your honesty and sincerity. Allow me to address your curiosity.
I purposefully chose to use the term "outing" to evoke a feeling. In other words, for me, I felt I had to "hide" my religious identity amidst a hostile environment to my chosen religion. I wanted to offer that perspective to the board at large to share what it's like to be on the other side in the hopes of eliciting empathy. Secondly, my use of the term "anti-Christian" is specifically aimed at prevailing attitudes towards that peer cohort by the mainstream which I define as non-religious or atheist (I'm using these labels for convenience and arguments sake). Some of these attitudes include attacking Christian belief, snide remarks, and downright hostility. In context of the OP and reference article, there has been a lot of reaction that can be reasonably defined as "anti-Christian". What you are saying roachboy I actually do agree with but within the given context. In fact, we could open up another thread on that. The problem isn't the disagreement. Disagreement is healthy and stimulating. It's when it turns nasty or personal that all semblance of civil debate or "higher evolved learning - what the tfp is all about, (ironic isn't it) is decayed and discussion ceases and bashing begins. So roachboy, no, "anti-Christian" does not mean non-belief. I think some of the reactions we see are due in part because of the high-intensity level of emotions involved and the rush to "defend", or the panic effect when one group feels it is under attack. I would also contend that the Christian community is very diverse and not easily stereotyped. As such, wholesale assumptions and generalizations are not useful. What exacerbates the communication is the inherent laziness in people to reduce things to simple binaries: us vs them, good vs evil, Christians vs everyone else, everyone else vs Christians, Democrats vs Republican - when the reality is, in fact, much more complex, much more subtle, and much more deserving of a qualitative examination instead of the usual perfunctory glance over and typing. I suppose this would be part and parcel to the memes you always speak of. The reduction of complex issues to overly simplified sound bites. And Roach, this is just my opinion too ;) note - Minority in a social context does not necessarily denote a literal numerical minority, but rather a power one. So while there could be a numerical Christian majority, it is possible for that group to be underrepresented in the power structure or otherwise feel unempowered in a social context. |
Quote:
Again...I could be wrong (it's happened once before ;) ), but I dont see Christians being "attacked". I don't see Christians being hauled off and beaten. I don't see churches being burned. Nor do I see public demonstrations condemning Christianity. You are being questioned...not attacked. As a whole Christians do not...affect me? Phase me. Whatever. I have some very good friends, both on these boards and in real life that are devoutly Christian. That's great. I don't know if they are better people because of it, or in spite of it, but I respect them all the same. You included, Jorgelito. But, don't accuse us atheists of attacking your belief just because we don't believe in it and are becoming more vocal about it. |
No we are just being told in another thread that we can be "cured" of our christianity. I have to say I feel the same way as jorgelito sometimes. I have yet to tell an atheist they are stupid or ridiculous or delusional if they think "this is all there is" because I so firmly believe the opposite, but yet its perfectly ok to tell ME that.
As for this "tomb". Im not at all "scared" about it....and I do think the reactions I've seen from other christians are too over the top and borders on showing how much faith they DONT have |
Ah, I think I get what you are saying; that the axe swings both ways. But I suppose that in itself should prove both points. One would think that seeing both sides would bring more understanding.
I cannot attest to the years of suppression that you speak of as I have not lived through them and I think it would be geographically dependent. Religious attitudes vary from place to place which would affect our attitudes. Obviously I am not referring to any "hauling off and beating" of Christians or "churches being burned" or "public demonstrations condemning Christianity" (although the war on Christmas and the fight to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance come close). On these boards, I have not seen any religious or Christians "attacking" non-religious or atheists but I have seen a lot of digging at Christians here. That is what I am referring to and in a broader context, the popularity of "anti-Christian" sentiment in our popular culture. As I said before, questioning is good, it is healthy and stimulating. I would even go so far as to argue that instilling doubt every now and and then is a good "tool" or exercise in reaffirming one's faith regardless of religion. For the record Mr. O 'Rights, I am not "accusing atheists of attacking Christian belief just because you're questioning it and becoming more vocal", I am pointing out that there is an anti-Christian pattern going on outside of just questioning a belief. I would also like to point out that the discussion is hardly singular. There are many facets to the "Great Debate" as it were and sometimes gets lost in an oversimplifies "us vs them" framework. |
Quote:
the american state is a secular state. there is no war on christmas and the removal of god from the pledge is just addressing the fact that not all americans are christian. just because it gets said a lot doesn't make it a true thing. |
I guess that depends on your outlook....I know in these parts its very rampant talk radio discussion during the christmas season on how offensive it is to hear "merry christmas" 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....but thats another discussion for another thread that Im sure exists somewhere already
(and before any one gets on their horse here....I AM a christian that understands that factual evidence has proven Christ was born in April and that the catholic church put it in december to try to take away from the winter solstice that the pagans practiced, but until the world decides christmas is in april instead of december, I will continue to say merry christmas in december) |
It is not hogwash. First of all, you are taking it too literally.
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 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 do realize not everyone or every atheist was like that but I thought it fair to point it out within the context of the discussion. In the same way that "just because it gets said a lot doesn't make it a true thing" then you have to extend the same courtesy regarding Christians when many make blanket statements that "Christians are this or that...". |
Quote:
Gays, atheists, Muslims, and Jews get attacked on a daily basis on the radio, in print, and during sermons. Although our laws aren't formally Christian based, in practicality, a hell of a lot of them are. Yes, the other sides have started pushing back. Its about damn time. Christians have shown they can't handle it and hence we have the 'War on Christmas' Nobody is trying to take your Bible away from you. We are only shoving it out of our faces. |
Whoa, calm down there buddy.
First of all, I never said Christians were a minority and I was not talking about the dominant power super structure, I was explaining the social definition. In some populations segments (sub divisions of the main), it is understandable why some would feel they were in the minority. Funny you mention sermons because I have never ever heard one which "attacked gays, atheists, Muslims, and Jews on a daily basis". Let's not paint the whole group with the same brush. By the same token, all I hear is vitriol and hatred spouted at and directed at Christians on a daily basis on campus and in class. But I do not assume that all atheists or other believers to be this way. I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian's can't handle" the "other sides pushing back". Did you expect that Christians would just sit here and let the attacks fly without any counterpoints? And I'm not sure who is shoving a bible in your face here. I certainly haven't, nor any of my Christian brethren in my community (but I am sure some do, just not all of us). |
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.
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
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 |
Quote:
Quote:
|
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? |
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? |
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 |
Quote:
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:
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:
|
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 |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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. |
Quote:
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:
|
Whatever happened to those gifts the wise men gave him - all that gold and myrrh?
|
it was used as baksheesh
|
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
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:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
(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?
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Is this still about the family tomb?
|
So who is watching tonite so that we can have discussion on it tomorrow?
|
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?
|
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?
|
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 :D 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 :D |
I only have time for one quick comment but here is the verse you are referring to.
John 19:26 Quote:
Quote:
|
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 |
in this case, all that matters is lineage through the mother
|
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 |
Quote:
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. |
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!!! |
Quote:
|
Yee-hah, cynthetiq!
|
Quote:
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 |
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Geraldo's was funny. :D |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
Quote:
Oh, hey...good call on the Noah's Ark thing that aired preceding this divel. Now that...I liked. :thumbsup: |
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... |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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 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. |
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 |
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.
|
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. |
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 |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:07 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project