MERGED-->Jesus- Tomb found with body + James Cameron is... - Page 8 - 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 02-27-2007, 03:33 PM   #106
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Their site says it's on Sunday night on the Discovery Channel
__________________

__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 03:38 PM   #107
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,951
Local Time: 09:35 AM
Thanks.
__________________

__________________
U2girl is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 03:41 PM   #108
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by speedracer


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 is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 03:43 PM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,572
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

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.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 03:44 PM   #110
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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 is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 03:55 PM   #111
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen


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 is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 04:35 PM   #112
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




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.

__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 05:36 PM   #113
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 08:35 AM
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.
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 05:50 PM   #114
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen


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.


Quote:
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:05 PM   #115
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 03:35 AM
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."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:17 PM   #116
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
coemgen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Black and White Town
Posts: 3,962
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511


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.)



Quote:

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?
__________________
coemgen is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 06:36 PM   #117
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,335
Local Time: 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
Robert Eisenman....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 ....
CSULB: My alma mater, thank you very much.
__________________
martha is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:09 PM   #118
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 03:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by coemgen


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.



Quote:
What verses are you talking about here?
1 Peter 3.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 07:47 PM   #119
War Child
 
Ormus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Frontios
Posts: 758
Local Time: 04:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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.
__________________
Ormus is offline  
Old 02-27-2007, 08:19 PM   #120
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 08:35 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

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.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
 

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 03:35 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