MERGED-->Jesus- Tomb found with body + James Cameron is... - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-26-2007, 05:25 PM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Angela Harlem
No, Mrs S. As I stated twice, it wasn't to anyone in this forum. I'm a little sad that a few times I've made comments in here (forum in general) which you've taken upon yourself to be about you, when it hasn't been, and then busted a gut to get an apology and clarifying it to you, when it's all been a bit in vain. I'll stop. I have respect for you and don't care to question anything you believe in. If I speak in general about people of religion and you take it personally, I am once again sorry. but I cannot keep chasing things up and apologising. I am wondering why I bother. It saddens me greatly. I'm not going to keep it up, though. This isn't for discussion on here though. Forget I said anything. For the last time I dont mean anyone in here and dont mean to offend anyone. It's too much effort to befriend anyone in this stupid forum.
No honestly I don't take it personally, what anyone here thinks about my religious beliefs and/or my religion honestly is of no significance to me. I am offended here sometimes at some of the comments about some of the things I believe in, but that's the way it goes. I have never once commented in a negative way on what anyone else here believes or doesn't believe in in terms of religion, I am proud of that fact. I say what I say here though about what I do believe, and I want to be judged on that and that alone. Not prejudged or misjudged or automatically assumed to think in certain ways and believe certain things. But when you make a statement that refers to something I said, even if it's not directed at me-it's hardly fair to then say it's not about me- because logically it is. So then I have a right to comment on it, do I not? I made the joke about Cameron, so I was responding in general to the comment about that.

I don't expect an apology from you at all, so I don't understand exactly why you are upset. I still consider you to be a friend here unless and until there's any real reason not to. And I know of no such reason.
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 05:32 PM   #77
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 12:41 AM
good. i am overreacting then. i dont take anything said in here to reflect what kinds of people we are... give or take! no, just kidding. none of you guys,
__________________

__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 07:38 PM   #78
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 08:41 AM
FYI - This is from Time.com. Interesting stuff. The objections at the bottom raise some good questions, too.


Quote:

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

Cameron (acting as producer), biblical film documentarian Simcha Jacobovici and a handful of their expert consultants were at the Library to publicize Jacobovici's The Jesus Family Tomb, which will run this Sunday on the Discovery Channel, and a HarperSanfrancisco book of the same name. Their claim is that there was indeed a Jesus family tomb in what is now suburban Jerusalem: and that the two bone boxes on the table in front of them, exported from Israel, had contained the remains of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, whom the filmmakers assert was Jesus's wife and the mother of a son named Judah. Meet the Jesuses! Cameron told the press that when Jacobovici, who has been working on the project for years, laid it out for him in detail, he thought, "I'm not a biblical scholar, but it seemed pretty darned compelling." He added, "I said, this is the biggest achaeology story of the century. And I still believe that to be true."
If true, of course, it is more than that. If true, it is a contradiction, in the most earthy, concrete way, of the Bible, which claims that Jesus was taken up bodily into heaven.
But as its creators have revealed more and more of it over the last two days, key parts of it seem increasingly like debatable conjecture.
Here's the set-up. In 1980 a construction crew in the Jerusalem suburb of Talpiot chanced upon a first-century tomb, which are not uncommon in that city. The Israeli Antiquities Authority found 10 bone boxes there, and stored them in a warehouse. Some bore inscribed names: Jesus, son of Joseph; Maria; Mariamene e Mara; Matthew; Judas, son of Jesus; and Jose. Each name with the exception of Mariamene seemed common to their period, and it was only in 1996 that the BBC made a film suggesting that. given the combination, it might be that family. The idea was eventually discounted, however, because, as University of St. Andrews (Scotland) New Testament expert Richard Bauckham asserted in a subsequent book, the names with Biblical resonance are so common that even when you run the probabilities on the group, the odds of it being the famous Jesus's family are "very low."
Jacobovici, however, remained fascinated, and announced at the press conference what he had added to the equation :
—University of North Carolina scholar James Tabor told him that Mariamene was the name some Christians gave to Mary Magdalene. If true, that added a rather uncommon name to the statistical mix. (Or as Cameron put it, "If you found a John, a Paul and a George, you're not going to leap to any conclusions... unless you found a Ringo.").
—Jacobovici also contends that "Jose," a name that appears in the Bible as that of one of Jesus's brothers, is rarer than previous scholars thought.
— He came up with a new process called "patina fingerprinting," which purports to show that a different bone box that popped up in the hands of an Israeli collector some years ago and is alleged to have contained the remains of Jesus's brother James originally came from Talpiot, which would raise the coincidence level even higher.
—And Jacobovici managed to get tests done on DNA from the "Jesus" and "Mariamene" bone-boxes that indicated that they were not related on their mother's sides: therefore, Jacobovici quotes the DNA expert as saying, if this was indeed a family tomb, the two "would most likely have been husband and wife" (which is the source of his contention that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that the Judah in the tomb was their son).
That last bit alone should give some sense of how problematic some of Jacobovici's conclusions are. A sampling of difficulties:
— If "Jesus" and "Mariamene" weren't related matrilineally, why jump to the conclusion that they were husband and wife, rather than being related through their fathers?
— The first use of "Mariamene" for Magdalene dates to a scholar who was born in 185, suggesting that Magdalene wouldn't have been called that at her death.
— St. Andrews' Bauckham defends his probabilities, noting that Jacobovici was comparing his name-cluster to the rather small sampling of names known to have been found on bone boxes, while his own basis for comparison, which adds names from contemporary literature and other sources, makes the combo far less unusual.
— Asbury Theological Seminary professor Ben Witherington, a early Christianity expert who was deeply involved with the James Ossuary, says there are physical reasons to believe it couldn't have originated in the Talpiot plot.
Darrell Bock, a professor at the conservative Protestant Dallas Seminary, whom the Discovery Channel had vet the film two weeks ago, adds another objection: why would Jesus's family or followers bury his bones in a family plot and "then turn around and preach that he had been physically raised from the dead?" If that objection smacks secular readers as relying too heavily on scripture, then Bock's larger point is still trenchant: "I told them that there were too many assumptions being claimed as discoveries, and that they were trying to connect dots that didn't belong together."
Your move, Mr. Titanic.
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 07:42 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 08:41 AM
I should add that I don't like how Time is making this out to be a battle against Christianity, when Cameron and Jacobovici have said it's not. Plus there's the fact that it doesn't really threaten the faith (as of now).
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 09:05 PM   #80
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
CTU2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,366
Local Time: 09:41 AM
^ But pitting Cameron against the Christians will sell...

And James Cameron rocks...just watched The Abyss again, highly underrated film.

I don't think this is a recent find is it? I seem to have read something about this burial cave and the occupants possibly being Jesus & his family a few years ago...
__________________
CTU2fan is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 09:52 PM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
Lancemc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Ba Sing Se
Posts: 17,664
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Don't want to comment on the actually IMPORTANT subject here, but it seems as though afew people can't get off slamming Cameron for whatever reason.

You know, that untouchably innovative, visionary, talented, and extremely director who's helmed the creation of several of the most ground-breaking and breathtaking films in the past 30 years? Yeah that guy.
__________________
Lancemc is offline  
Old 02-26-2007, 10:36 PM   #82
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Well, I did pop my head in here earlier, but I never really had the time to comment further. So I'll do that now.

I think people have every right to be skeptical here, regardless of whether you're an obviously skeptical atheist or a disgruntled "believer." When they say that Jesus had a common name back then, they would be correct--because "Jesus" was never His name. It's a Latinized translation of the Greek word, "Iesous," which is, itself, a transliteration of the Hebrew "Yehoshua" or Aramaic "Yeshua"--which correctly translates into English as "Joshua." Since that's the name of the Israelite leader who followed Moses, it stands to reason that it would have been a very common name (and the symbolism of "Joshua" returning, him having been the person who led the Israelites into the Promised Land, is certainly not lost).

So, basically, the first question I have to ask is what the inscription says for "Jesus"? If it says either "Jesus" or "Iesous," it's an automatic fraud.

The second reason to be skeptical is in matter of "proving" it. So you connect some DNA together to prove that the people buried in the tomb are related...so what? The fact that they are buried in a tomb together lends itself to the logic that they are, more than likely, related. But as to their specific identities? It's impossible to determine, because we have no identifiable, living direct descendants of Jesus or any of his relatives. So it pretty much becomes a moot point, even if the bones in the tomb are found to have been related.

I guess my point is that even if they're able to get some interesting results with DNA tests, it ultimately proves nothing at all.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 01:08 AM   #83
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Ben Witherington, one of the critics interviewed in the TIME article, expounds at length on his criticisms here.

His tone is rather indignant and sarcastic, which is unfortunate and does not boost his credibility, but he does have some thoughtful arguments. Especially worth reading is the comment by "Jay", who has a few bones to pick with the statistical methodology used to claim that the tomb is in fact Jesus's.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 02:38 AM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Ormus
When they say that Jesus had a common name back then, they would be correct--because "Jesus" was never His name. It's a Latinized translation of the Greek word, "Iesous," which is, itself, a transliteration of the Hebrew "Yehoshua" or Aramaic "Yeshua"--which correctly translates into English as "Joshua." Since that's the name of the Israelite leader who followed Moses, it stands to reason that it would have been a very common name (and the symbolism of "Joshua" returning, him having been the person who led the Israelites into the Promised Land, is certainly not lost).

So, basically, the first question I have to ask is what the inscription says for "Jesus"? If it says either "Jesus" or "Iesous," it's an automatic fraud.

Excellent question, prompting me to check it out and according to several links on a Google search, apparently it says 'Yeshua bar Yosef".
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 02:42 AM   #85
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer
Ben Witherington, one of the critics interviewed in the TIME article, expounds at length on his criticisms here.

His tone is rather indignant and sarcastic, which is unfortunate and does not boost his credibility, but he does have some thoughtful arguments. Especially worth reading is the comment by "Jay", who has a few bones to pick with the statistical methodology used to claim that the tomb is in fact Jesus's.
I would say his arguments are quite compelling, although I'm going to reserve more judgement to hear and see the actual program.

My initial thought is, at least it's something thought provoking and opens up a dialogue about the historical Jesus.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 03:43 AM   #86
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Quote:
There are shows like this on around Easter time every year
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
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 05:37 AM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Too early for one side to claim victory, too early for the other side to start spinning--when it has yet to be seen if this discovery means anything. It may be like the 900 previous discoveries of Noah's Ark. Or the somewhat interesting but ultimately not very compelling Judas Gospel (by which I mean that the reading of the Gospel was excruciatingly boring. Being somewhat fascinated by Judas, I was disappointed). And I don't consider a certain wariness of this "evidence" as spin. Not practicing any religion, I don't have any dog in this hunt, but I want my evidence sound and compelling and comprehensive. (Which is not to say I'm immune to some things being stirred up just on principle..
It's good for the soul.)

I don't sense much of a fear to question on this forum. And I would guess that the split is something like 65-35 between those who practice some sort of religion and agnostics/atheists. I think it is fair to question the drama of the timing and the credentials of the people presenting the argument--question, not offhandedly dismiss. I don't yet see this as evidence overturning many of the precepts of Christianity, but I find it interesting.

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?

On a whole, if proven to be true--which would take a considerably long and exhaustive effort, I would think--, I don't think the effects will be particularly great on mainstream Christianity, which has been able to absorb all sorts of evidence contrary to strict fundamentalist interpretations and still survive.
On the other hand, it may shake the strict fundamentalist interpretations, those that have fought screaming and kicking any evidence that might be contrary to that interpretation. But I expect they won't be accepting the evidence anyway.

(I actually find that group to be small, if influential. And I do not include all conservative (small c, Irvine ) Christians or all people who consider themselves to be fundamentalists in that group--I only include those people who fear questions that challenge their convictions, people who would rather bury those questions than answer to them or the people who would spin it into some interpretation that saves face.)

I suspect there will be a few uncomfortable moments.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:50 AM   #88
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan
Excellent question, prompting me to check it out and according to several links on a Google search, apparently it says 'Yeshua bar Yosef".
Good to know that a small, but crucial detail is historically accurate.

Anyway, to add to the name trivia, "James," being the name of two apostles, isn't an authentic Biblical name either. It's an Anglicized form of the French translation, "Gemmes," taken from the Latin name "Iacomus," a dialect variant of "Iacobus," from the New Testament Greek "Iakōbos," from Hebrew name, "Yaʻaqov"--which, when translated correctly into English, is "Jacob."
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 09:15 AM   #89
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
On a whole, if proven to be true--which would take a considerably long and exhaustive effort, I would think--, I don't think the effects will be particularly great on mainstream Christianity, which has been able to absorb all sorts of evidence contrary to strict fundamentalist interpretations and still survive.
The long term success of Christianity versus other religions of antiquity, such as Germanic paganism, has ultimately been based on its ambiguity and non-material nature. For instance, if you worship a tree and believe that Thor will strike you down if you cut down that tree, it's pretty easy to "disprove" a religion by actually cutting that tree down and pointing out to them that, since Thor didn't strike them down, that he doesn't exist.

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.

Then, of course, there's the 500-lb. gorilla in creationism. Evolution (and science, in general) really knocked a hole in the whole "seven 24 hour days, 6,000 year old Earth" theology, much in the way that science once disrupted religion by saying that the Earth was round, not flat, and revolved around the Sun, rather than the Earth being the center of the universe, with the Sun rotating around us. Eventually, though, future generations realized that not being the center of the universe didn't make us any less special and really amounted to nothing in terms of whether God existed or not. I think that future generations will have a similar attitude to evolution someday, making this whole "God vs. science" culture war come across as silly as it really is.

But, back to the original thought I had, where religions best survive the less concrete they are, Hinduism still takes the cake when it comes to long-term viability. By making the "creator" of the universe, Brahman, a formless, attribute-less entity that's above worship and simultaneously makes up everything in the universe while also transcending into "non-existence," they certainly have all of their bases covered.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 10:05 AM   #90
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,333
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by DrTeeth
They have DNA samples of Jesus?
CSI: Gethsemane
__________________

__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com