MERGED-->Jesus- Tomb found with body + James Cameron is...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BonosSaint said:


I sense a little bit of unease, though. Not so much for people's personal faiths but as to how this religion will be perceived if there was no resurrection of the body, undoubtably one of the most powerful cornerstones of the religion. Will the religion be dismissed by the future generations, will it lose its influence and will it become easier to dismiss its teachings and to dismiss its followers?

Remember though, it doesn't negate the resurrection. It only puts into question whether the ascension was physical or spiritual. This isn't as big of a deal as the resurrection, in terms of the work of Christ and what it means to us personally, and how it affects our personal faith. You're right though, if it did put into question the resurrection, that'd be a much bigger deal.
 
Ormus said:


Of course, with great advances in science since the 19th century, fundamentalist Christianity has been threatened to go the way of Thor, but they have adapted too. The easiest way to do that has been making sure that their apocalyptic theology is now completely ambiguous. It used to be that Jesus was going to come on a specific date in a specific year. Then, when that didn't happen, it would get pushed back to a different date a year or two into the future. Well, when that failed multiple times, they learned to just say that Jesus was coming "soon." And that's kind of where we are today, in that regard. I'd say that there are many Christians today who sincerely believe that we're living in the "end times" and that Jesus is going to return in their lifetime--completely forgetting that this game has been playing almost non-stop for over 150 years now.

Actually, if people made predictions for Christ's return, that was bad theology. The Bible states nobody will know the time this occurs. So, really, Christianity didn't have to adapt -- just the loud, creepy few who like to neglect what the Bible actaully says for their own personal gain.
 
i am looking forward to watching this.

i know a certain SVP at Discovery who i'm having drinks with later this week is going to be thrilled at the ratings this show is going to get.

i'm a former Discovery employee, and, yes, like any other network, they are all about ratings (which actually translates to a more conservative agenda, like, they can't do global warming shows because god forbid it pisses off an SUV commercial), but then again, they also have a reptuation to maintain, so the fact-checking that goes on is quite rigorous.

what usually happens with these shows is less that it's about the misrepresentation of material for ratings and more that certain points that are more visually/dramatically interesting are emphasized in order to create a more compelling program. so while things might be somewhat misleading on Discovery -- or NatGeo, or any other program -- they are never "wrong" or totally sensationalized, they're just presented in the most interesting way possible.

if that makes sense.
 
coemgen said:


Remember though, it doesn't negate the resurrection. It only puts into question whether the ascension was physical or spiritual. This isn't as big of a deal as the resurrection, in terms of the work of Christ and what it means to us personally, and how it affects our personal faith. You're right though, if it did put into question the resurrection, that'd be a much bigger deal.



this is the mature, confident response i've been waiting to hear from Christians in regards to this program. as opposed to cries of persecution, here is an open mind that's looking for points of commonality between spirituality and science, not looking at one as a threat to the other.
 
The names of those tombs were quite common in that part of the world at that time, and exactly how do they plan to prove this is *the* family?

It's not like they can do DNA matches.
 
U2girl said:
The names of those tombs were quite common in that part of the world at that time, and exactly how do they plan to prove this is *the* family?

It's not like they can do DNA matches.



what i heard on CNN last night was, that while the names were common, the chances of an entire tomb being filled with all these names, and only these names, is extremely small.

sure, there are lots of, say, Michaels, Jennifers, Matthews, Alisons, and Pauls.

but if you had a family of Michael and Jennifer and Matthew and Allison and Paul, and you were looking for a family comprised of parents Michael and Jennifer and their three children Matthew, Allison and Paul, then that's something else entirely.
 
The Larry King show with Cameron and a few scholars? I watched some of that too and I remember this statistics argument they were making.

How do you get from getting any given Michael, any given Jennifer, any given Alison and and any given Paul together in a tomb to proving they're the real deal Michael, Jennifer, Alison and Paul? :shrug: I don't see it happening.
 
U2girl said:
The Larry King show with Cameron and a few scholars? I watched some of that too and I remember this statistics argument they were making.

How do you get from getting any given Michael, any given Jennifer, any given Alison and and any given Paul together in a tomb to proving they're the real deal Michael, Jennifer, Alison and Paul? :shrug: I don't see it happening.



i think the status of them being the "real deal" is contingent upon the unlikelihood of finding all 5 names together in a tomb.

if in a thousand years we came across a tomb in Dublin with the names Paul, David, Larry, and Adam, do you think we've possibly found U2?

i think that's the argument being put forward.
 
By Bruce Feiler

Bruce Feiler is the New York Times-bestselling author of seven books, including Walking the Bible, Abraham, and Where God Was Born, and the host of the acclaimed series Walking the Bible on PBS. He is a frequent contributor to NPR and CNN and a contributing editor at Gourmet and Parade. He has a blog, Feiler Faster, at www.brucefeiler.com.


"The headline on CNN captured the question: Major Revelation or Titanic Fraud? And the first thing to say about the claims by "King of the World" James Cameron and "investigative journalist" Simcha Jacobovichi to have single-handedly debunked Christianity is that they're hardly the first to try. For 200 years, frauds and charlatans have popped up every few months claiming to "prove" that the Bible is true or that it's false.
As it happens, Cameron and Jacobovichi claimed only last summer to have "proved" the Exodus. Well, which is it? Either their first documentary is false, or this one is false. Of course, they don't care. They profit either way. (In fact, both are false.)

But for those who do care, here are the problems with their argument. First, at the risk of further promoting their hucksterism, the background. The filmmakers claim that burial boxes found 27 years ago outside Jerusalem contain the remains of Jesus, his mother Mary, and Mary Magdalene. DNA evidence "proves" that Mary was his wife and that they sired a son also found in the cave. If true, this would indicate that Jesus was never resurrected from the grave, thereby debunking a central claim of Christianity.

I'm not even a Christian, but I did live in the neighborhood where this cave was found, and I've spent most of the last ten years spelunking in far more important caves, from Jerusalem to Baghdad, looking at the relationship between the Bible and archaeology. Here's why they're wrong.

1. Caves like the ones where the ossuaries were discovered are commonplace in the area and were very familiar features of this neighborhood in the 1st century B.C.E. and C.E. The archaeologist who traveled with me for WALKING THE BIBLE and WHERE GOD WAS BORN, Avner Goren, made the fascinating point to me today that bodies used to be buried in groups but with the introduction of individualism from Greece, they started burying people in single boxes and labeling them. Basically, the bodies would be buried for a year, the family would come back and collect the bones and put them in an ossuary (a stone box). Then they would take the box out once a year and have a memorial service, as Jews still do today with candle lighting.

2. A family from Nazareth would not be buried in Jerusalem. Jewish custom holds that a body should be buried within 24 hours. I recently heard of a family that hired a private plane to get a body from Cleveland to Jerusalem in time. It would have been impossible to get a body from Nazareth, in the Galilee, to Jerusalem in this time period. Also, there's no way for a family to tend a grave this far away. So the idea of a multi-generational family tomb for Jesus in Jerusalem makes no sense. Even the archaeologist who discovered the cave originally, Amos Kloner, has dismissed the show as "nonsense."

3. The names on the ossuaries are very common. As Avner pointed out, 21 percent of names of women are Mary; Joseph and Jesus (Joshua) are among the top four male names. The presence of these names in a tomb would not have been rare. The name Jesus has been found in dozens of tombs over the years. Further, we have no evidence that this is a family tomb; it could have been a communal tomb, or a neighborhood tomb."There is no likelihood that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb," Kloner said. "They were a Galilee family with no ties in Jerusalem. The tomb belonged to a middle-class family from the 1st century CE."

4. The DNA evidence that Jesus was not connected to the Mary buried in the tomb does not prove anything, other than they are not related matrilnearly. For all we know, they could have been related patrilinearly. Or, they could never have met. There is no evidence the female body belonged to someone who was "married" to anyone else in the tomb. There is no evidence she was the mother of anyone else in the tomb. And we can be sure they checked that! So the claim that Jesus fathered a son with the "Mary" in the tomb is bogus.

Avner is a contemporary of Amos Kloner and has known him for decades. "It takes courage to say that the names on these ossuaries were very common," Avner said, "especially when it might benefit him to say otherwise." As for the filmmakers: "There is something cheap about playing on the emotions of people."

And therein is the truth of this tale: This exploitation of quasi-science is hardly new, but it's still tawdry. The bottom line: There is more truth in Dan Brown's fiction than in James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovichi's fact."
 
INDY500 said:

Good point.

Last year we had National Geographic's "discovery" of the 'Gospel of Judas'. Surprise, turns out Judas was a swell guy.
http://forum.interference.com/t157835.html

And The Jesus Papers, which like this, is another attempt at (re-) constructing history from iffy and "long suppressed" evidence.

Oh yeah, and Jesus walked on ice.
http://forum.interference.com/t157411.html



thinking about this, i wonder: do the stories themselves make such news, or is it the Christian reaction to these stories that makes the news?

i also wonder if the stories from last year have less to do wtih Easter or Christian-baiting and more to do with the upcoming "Da Vinci Code" movie.
 
Irvine511 said:




i think the status of them being the "real deal" is contingent upon the unlikelihood of finding all 5 names together in a tomb.

if in a thousand years we came across a tomb in Dublin with the names Paul, David, Larry, and Adam, do you think we've possibly found U2?

i think that's the argument being put forward.

I understand, but I think it will/should take more than just "this is the right combination of names so this is it".
 
Irvine511 said:

i think the status of them being the "real deal" is contingent upon the unlikelihood of finding all 5 names together in a tomb.

if in a thousand years we came across a tomb in Dublin with the names Paul, David, Larry, and Adam, do you think we've possibly found U2?

i think that's the argument being put forward.

It is also contingent upon the assumption that the names "Mariamne", "Matthew" and "Judah son of Jesus" should appear in Jesus Christ's tomb and that the names Simon, Miriam and Salome (Jesus's other known siblings) shouldn't. If you found a seemingly authentic "Irvine511 son of Larry" tombstone in the tomb, you'd probably start to reevaluate the hypothesis that it is U2's tomb.

Remember that in real life, there is pretty much no way to ever make a statement that "the probability of X is Y". It is only possible to make statements tht "the probability of X, given that we know A, is Y". Conditional probabilities are all we can work with.

The 599/600 probability that Dr. Feuerverger gives for this being Jesus Christ's tomb is conditional upon some independent explanation for these surprise names. Otherwise they cannot be used as positive data, and can in fact be construed as evidence against the hypothesis that this is Jesus Christ's tomb.
 
PS Sir Bono will not be buried in a commoner's tomb with the rest of the band - and I imagine the perpetually unaging Larry Mullen dancing on the other's graves.


Will this documentary air on Discovery, N. Geographic (like the Judas gospel)...some other TV channel? I didn't see it mentioned during the interview.
 
speedracer said:


It is also contingent upon the assumption that the names "Mariamne", "Matthew" and "Judah son of Jesus" should appear in Jesus Christ's tomb and that the names Simon, Miriam and Salome (Jesus's other known siblings) shouldn't. If you found a seemingly authentic "Irvine511 son of Larry" tombstone in the tomb, you'd probably start to reevaluate the hypothesis that it is U2's tomb.

Remember that in real life, there is pretty much no way to ever make a statement that "the probability of X is Y". It is only possible to make statements tht "the probability of X, given that we know A, is Y". Conditional probabilities are all we can work with.

The 599/600 probability that Dr. Feuerverger gives for this being Jesus Christ's tomb is conditional upon some independent explanation for these surprise names. Otherwise they cannot be used as positive data, and can in fact be construed as evidence against the hypothesis that this is Jesus Christ's tomb.



oh i agree, and that's a very clear explanation of conditional probability. i find this subject interesting, but i don't expect anything conclusive to emerge from the show in the way that i find nothing terribly conclusive about the Bible.

what i find interesting, just to toss into the mix, is that the rigor and skepticism many in the media are applying to this particular show might also be good rigor and skepticism that they might then turn around and apply to their own Biblical scholarship.
 
Irvine511 said:

oh i agree, and that's a very clear explanation of conditional probability. i find this subject interesting, but i don't expect anything conclusive to emerge from the show in the way that i find nothing terribly conclusive about the Bible.

what i find interesting, just to toss into the mix, is that the rigor and skepticism many in the media are applying to this particular show might also be good rigor and skepticism that they might then turn around and apply to their own Biblical scholarship.

OK.

But if there's any chance you're Larry Mullen's son, you better get that cleared up double fast. We don't want there to be any controversies when somebody discovers his tomb 2000 years from now.
 
Irvine511 said:




oh i agree, and that's a very clear explanation of conditional probability. i find this subject interesting, but i don't expect anything conclusive to emerge from the show in the way that i find nothing terribly conclusive about the Bible.


Just curious — is there anything in particular you're talking about?
 
coemgen said:


Just curious — is there anything in particular you're talking about?



the whole thing.

it's preposterous, to me, to take anything literally from the Bible. it blows my mind the amount of time people spend parsing phrases, memorizing verses, and living their lives in strict adherence to an English translation of a text that's over 2,000 years old whiel applying our own modern values and sensibilities to language that was obviously meant to address the concerns and sensibilities of people living 2,000 years ago.

it's not that Biblical study is a waste of time, but i think it's a waste of time to, say, take Jesus's commands on the role of a husband and a wife and assimilate those instructions into our own culturally-biased notions of choice and freedom and say, "yup, that Jesus sure was right, i totally honor you like i would the church."
 
Irvine511 said:




the whole thing.

it's preposterous, to me, to take anything literally from the Bible. it blows my mind the amount of time people spend parsing phrases, memorizing verses, and living their lives in strict adherence to an English translation of a text that's over 2,000 years old whiel applying our own modern values and sensibilities to language that was obviously meant to address the concerns and sensibilities of people living 2,000 years ago.

it's not that Biblical study is a waste of time, but i think it's a waste of time to, say, take Jesus's commands on the role of a husband and a wife and assimilate those instructions into our own culturally-biased notions of choice and freedom and say, "yup, that Jesus sure was right, i totally honor you like i would the church."

I see where you're coming from. It seems odd that it can be that applicable to today, but I think it can. And you're right, it's not all meant to be taken literally, but a lot of it is. Especially the New Testament, except for maybe Revelation. Having an understanding of the cultural and historical context of each book is important when studying it, as well as the writing style of the author. I'm sure too many Christians don't fully grasp that stuff, but many do. When you understand this stuff, then it's especially valuable to memorize and apply to your life. A lot of it, however, especially the New Testament, doesn't take a whole lot of that deeper understanding. It can be read and understood, knowing the context only enhances the understanding. The understanding may not depend on it. Does that make sense? Just curious — have you read the Bible yourself?

Also, the part you mentioned about the roles of husband and wife is very applicable to today.

 
Sometimes i wish Christ had displayed just the tiniest whif of ego. You know, kinda like American presidents, insisting upon a library in their name and what not; would've encouraged His followers do do better record keeping.

One thing's for sure, if this does turn out to be Jesus, He sure had cool taste in naming His kids.
 
coemgen said:


I see where you're coming from. It seems odd that it can be that applicable to today, but I think it can. And you're right, it's not all meant to be taken literally, but a lot of it is.


no, no, no. i can't accept this. this is precisely what's preposterous to me.


Also, the part you mentioned about the roles of husband and wife is very applicable to today.



no, no, no. it isn't. it was advice meant for people who didn't know each other and for wives who were probably 13 years old. it was advice for people living then. sure, you can take the spirit of what was said and make it fit your own situation, but a literal reading of it is self-delusional. it's so, so, so easy to read it and say, "yup, sweetie, that's just what we do."

ultimately, you're making the Bible work for you. and that's fine. that doesn't mean it's wrong. but, that certainly doesn't mean it's right. or right for everyone.
 
Robert Eisenman is the author of James the Brother of Jesus ( 1998 ) and The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians ( 1996 ) and co-editor of The Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls ( 1989 ) and The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered ( 1992 ). He is Professor of Middle East Religions and Archaeology and the Director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University Long Beach and Visiting Senior Member of Linacre College, Oxford.

He holds a B.A. from Cornell University in Philosophy and Engineering Physics, an M. A. from N. Y. U. in Near Eastern Studies, and a Ph. D. from Columbia University in Middle East Languages and Cultures.. He was a Senior Fellow at the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies and an American Endowment for the Humanities Fellow-in-Residence at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, where the Dead Sea Scrolls first came in.

His first book was Islamic Law in Palestine and Israel from E. J. Brill in Leiden, Holland in 1978 and this was followed by two other books from E. J. Brill In Leiden: Maccabees, Zadokites, Christians and Qumran: A New Hypothesis of Qumran Origins ( 1982 ) and James the Just in the Habakkuk Pesher ( 1984 ).

He was the leader of the worldwide campaign from 1987-1992 to break the academic and scholarly monopoly over the Dead Sea Scrolls, freeing them for research by all interested persons regardless of affiliation or credentials. As a consequence of this, he was the Consultant to the Huntington Library on its decision to open its archives and allow free access to the Scrolls. In 2002-3 he was the first to publicly announce that the ‘James Ossuary’, which so suddenly and ‘miraculously’ appeared, was fraudulent; and he did thison the basis of the actual inscription itself and what it said without any ‘scientific’ or ‘pseudo-scientific’ aids on the very same day it was first made public .

by Robert Eisenman

"The latest 'discovery' of the so-called "Jesus Tomb" or "Jesus Cave" is so preposterous that it has to be laughed out of court.

For starters one must say that one most be glad that ossuaries of this kind in Israel are finally getting the publicity they deserve and that sites in which they occur will, as a result, finally be open to and become visited by the public.
They are so rich and beautiful that they demonstrate what a richly beautiful life was being led in Eretz-Israel or "The Holy Land" at the time before - as D.H. Lawrence might have put it as he did the Etruscans - the Romans crushed the breath or spark of life out of it

First of all, all these names -- which are mostly "Maccabean," primarily demonstrating the popularity of the Maccabean family in Israel at the time and not what our intrepid 'archaeologists' seem to think they demonstrate -- found in the "Jesus Burial Cave" on the outskirts of Jerusalem (as many have now already said) were so widespread at the time that finding a family tomb with ossuaries inscribed with them proves nothing at all.

But even more to the point:

1) To think that an inscription seemingly bearing the name of one "Mariamne" has anything whatever to do with some character we think was called "Mary Magdalene" (only mentioned about three times in the Gospels and this cursorily or in passing) is a stretch of immense proportions. All "Mary"s in Josephus are called "Mariamne" in Greek. First disinformation. And what of this "Mary"'s other descendant all Gnostic Gospel enthusiasts and those wishing for the eternal feminine (to say nothing of "the bloodline of the Holy Grail" ) fantisize over, "Sarah"?

2) Then, of course, "Jesus"' father (if he existed or there was one) probably wasn't even called "Joseph" ( really the patronymical tribal name of the Samaritan Messiah). Most contemporary texts give Jesus' father or Mary's husband as "Clopas" or 'Cleophas". Even the Gospel of John does this, unless this was her second husband or there were two "Mary"s or three!

3) And what was "Matthew" (diminutive or otherwise) doing in this tomb - a "statistical" outlier, no? And "Mary"'s DNA didn't match "Jesus"', so they were married, right?

4) And "Jose" was Jesus' brother, right? Why not father - meaning,the one mentioned on the alleged "Jesus ossuary"? And what is Jose's DNA, since we seem to have "Jesus"' and "Mary"'s, or weren't we able to get a sample?

5) And who is this mysterious "Judas"? Of course, "Mary's child" by "Jesus" - why didn't I think of that? Again, another 'statistical outlier". And what were the results of his DNA if they were taken? Did we get a fix on this? Who was his mother?

6) Oh yes, and I forgot, "the James ossuary" was pilfered from here. Why of course. How sensible. And therefore, it wasn't forged (or was it from the Antiquities Authority's storeroom) - again, why didn't I think of that?

"Though I am no statistician" (sic - as they say), I would say that the statistical probability of this kind of primeval stupidity is about 666,000 to one.

Still, let's not take one's eye off the ball - the fact of a cave with such beautiful ossuaries is interesting in itself and should be examined for and by itself and not just sealed or stored somewhere out of sight. Hoorah, that it will now become part of the tourist itinerary. One plus from this sorry charade and display of historical ignorance anyhow! How beautiful and comely was thy daughter, O Children of Zion."
 
Irvine511 said:


no, no, no. i can't accept this. this is precisely what's preposterous to me.

Why? Have you read and studied the Bible? (I don't mean that to sound jerky, just asking.)




no, no, no. it isn't. it was advice meant for people who didn't know each other and for wives who were probably 13 years old. it was advice for people living then. sure, you can take the spirit of what was said and make it fit your own situation, but a literal reading of it is self-delusional. it's so, so, so easy to read it and say, "yup, sweetie, that's just what we do."

ultimately, you're making the Bible work for you. and that's fine. that doesn't mean it's wrong. but, that certainly doesn't mean it's right. or right for everyone.

What verses are you talking about here?
 
Last edited:
coemgen said:


Why? Have you read and studied the Bible? (I don't mean that to sound jerky, just asking.)



i have read some, been to church, went to CCD, and i pay attention, somewhat, to religious issues, but that doesn't matter. but more importantly, i read a lot, i was an english major, and i know how texts work and i know how readers work with texts.



What verses are you talking about here?

1 Peter 3.
 
Irvine511 said:
ultimately, you're making the Bible work for you. and that's fine. that doesn't mean it's wrong. but, that certainly doesn't mean it's right. or right for everyone.

In practice, this has already happened in history. How the Bible has been interpreted has varied widely over its lifetime and many cultures. Today's conservative Christians just happen to be particularly myopic, romanticist, and revisionist on this point.
 
Irvine511 said:

1 Peter 3.

That's interesting, since Peter was writing to comfort women who refused to dress like the prostitutes of the day, and who didn't understand how to obtain self-worth without soliciting men for sex.

And telling husbands to treat their wives as equal partners in the gift of life they had received was pretty amazing for their day. (And ours.)

You're right, absolutely incendiary.
 
Back
Top Bottom