NationStates Jolt Archive

James Cameron has released a new documentary in which he claims to have found the tomb of Jesus, buried alongside Mary Magdalene.

Linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6397373.stm).

I can see we’re all going to agree about this.

interesting and amazing, though the only thing that really struck me reading that article is that today money has truly replaced god

*dies of laughter*

And there will be idiots who will actually believe what he is saying.

Luckily Archeologists are saying that his claims are unfounded.

I already posted this.http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=519227

All I can think is Conservatives will do anything to be in the paper :p

All I can think is Conservatives will do anything to be in the paper :p

What does this have to do with conservatism? There are plenty of left leaning religious people out there. This has more to do with wishful thinking of a attention whore.

interesting and amazing, though the only thing that really struck me reading that article is that today money has truly replaced god

Yeah, but money is real.

So that guy says they did DNA tests... I'm sure the Roman Empire kept DNA samples of all its citizens...

So the new rule in filmmaking is to make up whatever the hell you want and hope nobody calls you on it until you've recouped production costs?

Exactly. You're an economist, you should know better.

So the new rule in filmmaking is to make up whatever the hell you want and hope nobody calls you on it until you've recouped production costs?

Pretty much. Sad isn't it?

So the new rule in filmmaking is to make up whatever the hell you want and hope nobody calls you on it until you've recouped production costs?

Pretty much. Sad isn't it?

You should TG me.
*nods*

Exactly. You're an economist, you should know better.

They don't consult economists...they stick us in college while those damn business kids ruin everything.

cant you just see the discussion at discovery channel headquarters?


programming director (pd): "theres a new film out about finding jesus' tomb, we gotta get it!"

president of discovery (pod): "this is discovery, not christian broadcasting"

pd: "nooooo this has his mother, him, his wife and his SON!"

pod: "oh for god's sake thats stupid, how could they know that?"

pd: "they did DNA tests!"

pod: "they have god's dna? look you idiot, we have a reputation to protect. we cant put any stupid piece of crap on our schedule. im not authorizing anything this brain dead!"

pd: "its by james cameron, that guy who make more than a billion on his titanic movie"

pod: "how soon can we fit it on our schedule?"

I particularly like this bit in the OP article:
Local residents said they were pleased with the attention the tomb has drawn.
"It will mean our house prices will go up because Christians will want to live here," one woman said.
What does this say about our average Xtian?

Cameron's story is many orders of magnitude more likely, in fact categorically more likely, than the one where jesus gets beamed up in the sky.

Cameron's story is many orders of magnitude more likely, in fact categorically more likely, than the one where jesus gets beamed up in the sky.

So you believe Cameron even though he has jack for evidence?

What a moron. I'm ashamed for my fellow conservatives :(

Yeah, but money is real.

QFMFT.

So you believe Cameron even though he has jack for evidence?
You believe the bible even though it has jack for evidence?


All the poster you responded to said is that this version of events is more believable.

You believe the bible even though it has jack for evidence?


All the poster you responded to said is that this version of events is more believable.

And what makes it more believable? Nothing. This is no more believable than believing the events in the Bible.

And what makes it more believable? Nothing. This is no more believable than believing the events in the Bible.
Except the part about someone staying dead and buried versus rising from the grave.

Except the part about someone staying dead and buried versus rising from the grave.

This story is just as unbelievable (even ARCHEOLOGISTS AND JEWS believe this guy is not telling the truth) as the events in the bible according to some. Rising of the dead is just as believable as this story that Archeologists do not even believe based on the culture at the time.

You believe the bible even though it has jack for evidence?


All the poster you responded to said is that this version of events is more believable.

I don't know confirming the identity of a person who we have no DNA samples of through a DNA test seems pretty miraculous to me. Not to mention that the one is a matter of faith, while the other claims to be objective scientific truth and as such should be held to a higher standard.

Except the part about someone staying dead and buried versus rising from the grave.

But they cancel that out by saying the person in question is Jesus without any kind of evidence or real investigation. I mean, overall it's more likely for Jesus' corpse to remain buried rather than to physically rise from the dead, but that's way different from claiming a dead person to be Jesus.

I mean, hell, this is like me digging up a corpse in Michigan and claiming it's Jimmy Hoffa or digging up a corpse in Saudi Arabia and saying it's Mohammed. Why? Well, because.

So they found some guy named Jesus buried near some woman named Mary.
Doesn't mean it's THE Jesus.

But they cancel that out by saying the person in question is Jesus without any kind of evidence or real investigation. I mean, overall it's more likely for Jesus' corpse to remain buried rather than to physically rise from the dead, but that's way different from claiming a dead person to be Jesus.

I mean, hell, this is like me digging up a corpse in Michigan and claiming it's Jimmy Hoffa or digging up a corpse in Saudi Arabia and saying it's Mohammed. Why? Well, because.
Yes, and I'm just saying that the odds of the bones in question belonging to the Jesus (if the biblical Jesus ever existed in the first place) are as high as the resurrection of the biblical Jesus. Both are equally believable accounts.

How common was the name "Jesus" and "Mary" back then and in that area?

This story is just as unbelievable (even ARCHEOLOGISTS AND JEWS believe this guy is not telling the truth) as the events in the bible according to some. Rising of the dead is just as believable as this story that Archeologists do not even believe based on the culture at the time.

wait wait, we have a grave from the right time frame, buried next to people of the right name, in the right area, and the idea that this grave is the grave of jesus is JUST as unbelievable as jesus being the devine son of god who was resurrected and was pulled into heaven?

Just as unbelievable? Really?

wait wait, we have a grave from the right time frame, buried next to people of the right name, in the right area
Yeah, it must be, because nothing like that has ever been faked or mistaken before... :rolleyes:

Not meant as a flame, but just pointing out that even if you think the Christians are totally nutters (quite possible), it doesn't exclude the possibility of James Cameron et al being totally nutters too (also quite possible).

You should TG me.
*nods*

Can I tg you too?

wait wait, we have a grave from the right time frame, buried next to people of the right name, in the right area, and the idea that this grave is the grave of jesus is JUST as unbelievable as jesus being the devine son of god who was resurrected and was pulled into heaven?

Just as unbelievable? Really?

Except there is tons of good proof for the ressurection :)

Except there is tons of good proof for the ressurection :)

Like what?

interesting and amazing, though the only thing that really struck me reading that article is that today money has truly replaced godit's been thus since Jew-ish times... :rolleyes:

it's been thus since Jew-ish times... :rolleyes:

Oh, you did not just fucking say that...

Very. In many variations, Yeshua, Yoshua, Yehoshua, etc, and Mariam, Miriam, etc.

So while it may be a Jesus grave, it may not be the tomb of the one Jesus Christ.

even ARCHEOLOGISTS AND JEWS

...both well known for being pathological liars, or something?

How common was the name "Jesus" and "Mary" back then and in that area?Very. In many variations, Yeshua, Yoshua, Yehoshua, etc, and Mariam, Miriam, etc.

Oh please. Look at the Hasmoneans, and look at the Temple Clergy in their times, and subsequent Roman times.

And the non-Jews are really different?

Oh please. Look at the Hasmoneans, and look at the Temple Clergy in their times, and in subsequent Roman times.

And, who here would honestly give a shit, I ask? Not me, that's for sure. I'm more concerned with people who squabble over such petty bullshit than the bullshit itself, thus my initial statement.

Of course, it would most likely occur to somebody of even above-average intelligence that using somebody's (or a whole civilization's) heritage for grounds of abuse, be it verbal or physical, is hardly the way to go about things...

Oh, you did not just fucking say that...Oh please. Look at the Hasmoneans, and look at the Temple Clergy in their times, and in subsequent Roman times.

What if the coffin is labeled "Jimmy Hoffa", or "Muhammad" respectively?

Well, if that were the case, we'd most likely find the dear departed Jimmy Hoffa and some unknown man named Muhammad.

I mean, hell, this is like me digging up a corpse in Michigan and claiming it's Jimmy Hoffa or digging up a corpse in Saudi Arabia and saying it's Mohammed.What if the coffin is labeled "Jimmy Hoffa", or "Muhammad" respectively?

wait wait, we have a grave from the right time frame, buried next to people of the right name, in the right area, and the idea that this grave is the grave of jesus is JUST as unbelievable as jesus being the devine son of god who was resurrected and was pulled into heaven?

Just as unbelievable? Really?There are always weird folks who are ready to believe anything, no matter how unbelievable the matter is. That's how Judaism and Christianity succeeded in the first place.

(even ARCHEOLOGISTS AND JEWS believe this guy is not telling the truth)
Because we all know that to make something true all we need to say is that archeologists AND Jews believe it.

Also, typing in UPPER CASE automatically makes something more important and more likely to be true.

And, apparently, Jews can't be archeologists or vice versa. They're two distinct, non-intersecting, Venns.

Because we all know that to make something true all we need to say is that archeologists AND Jews believe it.

Also, typing in UPPER CASE automatically makes something more important and more likely to be true.

And, apparently, Jews can't be archeologists or vice versa. They're two distinct, non-intersecting, Venns.Well, Allegheny County 2 seems to think that Jews are just as reliable as archaeologists when it comes to refuting alternative explanations. But then again, Allegheny County 2 also believes in spooking ghosts.

If I see this film, I will be greatly disappointed if they don't show their proofing method and instead just give unexplained assertions.

How common was the name "Jesus" and "Mary" back then and in that area?

Very.

Consider "Yehoshua" (Joshua in Modern English) and Miryam(Mary) are/ere very common names for Jews since they're names of important people in the Old Testament.

Most Hebrew names even today are out of the OT.

Very.

Consider "Yehoshua" (Joshua in Modern English) and Miryam(Mary) are/ere very common names for Jews since they're names of important people in the Old Testament.

Most Hebrew names even today are out of the OT.Here must be echo...

Of course the real fun starts when we cut to the flashback, with Jesus having sex in a carriage and losing a giant diamond...

I would imagine that the DNA tests alluded to were done to prove that the people in the tombs were all related - and thus most likely all from the same family.
As for the assertion that 'Mary', 'Joseph' and 'Jesus' were all common names back then - true, very true. However what's the probability that, assuming the DNA tests prove correct, there was a family around at that time where they all had these names and in the correct relationships? Small enough to make one think about this docu's claims seriously, I'd wager.

it's been thus since Jew-ish times... :rolleyes:

:headbang:

Its been around longer than that bigot.

And, who here would honestly give a shit, I ask? Not me, that's for sure. I'm more concerned with people who squabble over such petty bullshit than the bullshit itself, thus my initial statement.

Of course, it would most likely occur to somebody of even above-average intelligence that using somebody's (or a whole civilization's) heritage for grounds of abuse, be it verbal or physical, is hardly the way to go about things...

UB is a known Anti-Jewish person on these boards. He most definitely has a below-average intell because he does not listen when facts are presented that 100% utterly destroys his world.

There are always weird folks who are ready to believe anything, no matter how unbelievable the matter is. That's how Judaism and Christianity succeeded in the first place.

:rolleyes:

Ladies and gentlemen,

This is what happens when you have way to much hate in your head. You turn into a massive nutcase that has no clue as to what is being said.

So the new rule in filmmaking is to make up whatever the hell you want and hope nobody calls you on it until you've recouped production costs?

Yup. Anything that might have the tiniest possibility of being true will be sold as 100% pure concentrated truth.

Well, Allegheny County 2 seems to think that Jews are just as reliable as archaeologists when it comes to refuting alternative explanations. But then again, Allegheny County 2 also believes in spooking ghosts.

*dies of laughter*

Yes Jews are just as reliable as archeologists. Just because you do not want to believe anything connected with Israel does not mean that it is not. Archeologists are not believing it for they know that to claim such things is very stupid. There is absolutely ZERO PROOF that this is the Tomb of Jesus with his bones.

But because of your hateness, you will not believe that regardless who tells you it.

And DH: Jews can be Archeologists too for it was them that actually found it in the first place if you can actually believe the article.

Yup. Anything that might have the tiniest possibility of being true will be sold as 100% pure concentrated truth.
that's what gets the ratings these days.
Think they'd have much chance if they said, 'we have reasonable possibility that these ossages might contain the remains of someone called Jesus who lived around the same time as the other one and who had a father named Joseph'?
as opposed to, 'we have found the remains of JESUS, his wife Mary Magladene and his kid!'.
Which do you think would make the sell to the networks?

that's what gets the ratings these days.
Think they'd have much chance if they said, 'we have reasonable possibility that these ossages might contain the remains of someone called Jesus who lived around the same time as the other one and who had a father named Joseph'?
as opposed to, 'we have found the remains of JESUS, his wife Mary Magladene and his kid!'.
Which do you think would make the sell to the networks?

The former is interesting from an archeological standpoint. The latter has dollar signs dancing around it.

Lets assume for one second that this may indeed be the actual tomb of THE Jesus, and family.

What does this mean?

It very cleanly means that the actual remains of Jesus did in no way "ressurect".
It means the very foundaton of Christianity may be based on shit, as obviously Jesus himself, did not experience ressurection of any kind.

Small wonder why so many of the Christians here are so quick to point out the various possibilites of this not being THE Jesus' tomb.

It also is direct blasphemy, as it implies Mary Magdeliene was Jesus' wife, and that she bore him children.

However, thats pretty much what the Gnostic "Gospel of Mary" has stated all along.

The "Gospel of Thomas" also never mentions divinity, crucifiction, or ressurection.

Is it so hard to believe that this one guy who was sentenced to death for outspoken rabble-rousing against the status-quo, was in fact, a husband, father and community leader?

Why is it considered wrong to view this man as human and teacher, rather than a diety?

"You'd get a lovely view of the forest, if it werent for all the trees."

Lets assume for one second that this may indeed be the actual tomb of THE Jesus, and family.

What does this mean?

It very cleanly means that the actual remains of Jesus did in no way "ressurect".
It means the very foundaton of Christianity may be based on shit, as obviously Jesus himself, did not experience ressurection of any kind.

Small wonder why so many of the Christians here are so quick to point out the various possibilites of this not being THE Jesus' tomb.

It also is direct blasphemy, as it implies Mary Magdeliene was Jesus' wife, and that she bore him children.

However, thats pretty much what the Gnostic "Gospel of Mary" has stated all along.

The "Gospel of Thomas" also never mentions divinity, crucifiction, or ressurection.

Is it so hard to believe that this one guy who was sentenced to death for outspoken rabble-rousing against the status-quo, was in fact, a husband, father and community leader?

Why is it considered wrong to view this man as human and teacher, rather than a diety?

"You'd get a lovely view of the forest, if it werent for all the trees."

I'm not a practicising Christian and I doubt very highly that this is the tomb of THE Jesus.

I'm not a practicising Christian and I doubt very highly that this is the tomb of THE Jesus.

Who cares if it really is or not?

The mere implication that it could be....is enough reason for any christian to not WANT it to be.

hateness

*dies of laughter*

I'm not a practicising Christian and I doubt very highly that this is the tomb of THE Jesus.
Of course it ain't. THE Jesus ain't dead yet.
You know why?
Because
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b385/ellyonlefae2/the_big_lebowski_jesus.jpg

And what makes it more believable? Nothing. This is no more believable than believing the events in the Bible.

great, so you admit they are both crap. You're coming around quite nicely.

Haha i would like to see pictures of it :P

And what makes it more believable? Nothing. This is no more believable than believing the events in the Bible.

Believing that a guy ended his days by dying and getting buried in a tomb is on pretty much every level more reasonable than believing that he was beamed up into heaven.

I'm not a practicising Christian and I doubt very highly that this is the tomb of THE Jesus.

Alot of people of skeptical and not just Christians.

great, so you admit they are both crap. You're coming around quite nicely.

Oh brother. Sorry but I think you misread what I said. You mistook a comparison (comparing 2 things) for admitting they are both crap. Sorry but I believe in the ressurection of the Lord Savior Jesus Christ and I do not believe that His resurrection is crap.

I'm not a practicising Christian and I doubt very highly that this is the tomb of THE Jesus.
I'm not a practicing christian either, but I think that if there was a "the Jesus" he would be buried in a box somewhere in the middle east, not sitting in heaven at the right hand of god.

Oh brother. Sorry but I think you misread what I said. You mistook a comparison (comparing 2 things) for admitting they are both crap. Sorry but I believe in the ressurection of the Lord Savior Jesus Christ and I do not believe that His resurrection is crap.
Then why did you state that the resurrection was just as believable as this box of bones containing the bones of the biblical figure known as Jesus?

Is there any evidence with which this is substantiated?

Firstly, how the fuck does the director have the DNA of Christ? If he did, surely he'd attempt to make himself divine.

Secondly, why ascribe any relevance to the ossuaries having been inscribed? In the absence of any carbon dating, their date is sufficiently doubtful so as to preclude the neame's being relevant. They are more probably discarded adornments from a local Christian church.

Then why did you state that the resurrection was just as believable as this box of bones containing the bones of the biblical figure known as Jesus?

Think about it Dakini.

Think about it Dakini.
Because you didn't think about the implications of what you said until after someone else pointed it out and then you decided you could act indignant as though they were misreading what you said instead of reading it accurately?

Is there any evidence with which this is substantiated?

Firstly, how the fuck does the director have the DNA of Christ? If he did, surely he'd attempt to make himself divine.

Secondly, why ascribe any relevance to the ossuaries having been inscribed? In the absence of any carbon dating, their date is sufficiently doubtful so as to preclude the neame's being relevant. They are more probably discarded adornments from a local Christian church.
They could carbon date the bones inside the boxes.

They could carbon date the bones inside the boxes.

And they'll narrow it down to the 1st century or even B.C. If it is B.C. then that debunks James Cameron.

And they'll narrow it down to the 1st century or even B.C. If it is B.C. then that debunks James Cameron.
It is, however, possible that there's an inscription on the boxes that states the date and the patina on top of the inscription is consistent with a patina from the first century CE so they won't bother to date the bones inside the boxes.

And of course, if carbon dating debunks Cameron then that will provide an interesting issue for young earth creationists, which would be really fun.

Lets assume for one second that this may indeed be the actual tomb of THE Jesus, and family.

What does this mean?

It very cleanly means that the actual remains of Jesus did in no way "ressurect".
It means the very foundaton of Christianity may be based on shit, as obviously Jesus himself, did not experience ressurection of any kind.

Small wonder why so many of the Christians here are so quick to point out the various possibilites of this not being THE Jesus' tomb..
*snip*
.


Christians are no quicker to discount the authenticity of the tomb than some are to accept it. The very fact that you've even thought it through to this point proves it. Am I saying you believe it? No. What I'm saying is that you've already given it more time and consideration than its worth at this point.

In any other context a find like this would be exciting to archaeologists and historians, uninteresting to everybody else. No conclusions as to the identity of the bodies could possibly be drawn at this early stage, especially by amateurs. But because someone said "Jesus" many non-Christians are at the edge of their seat hoping it will be so, and are already accusing Christians of being intellectually dishonest for not jumping up onto the bandwagon with them. The irony is that in a case like that, it's the Christians who are actually taking the objective approach at this stage.

Happily, the vast majority of the posts on this subject hit the nail on the head. This is obviously a publicity stunt aimed at making a few bucks for the filmmaker. James Cameron is a director, not an archaeologist. The rammifications of that have already been stated so I won't repeat it here. As far as I'm concerned, since true professional archaeologists remain unimpressed by the find, then that's pretty much the end of it unless something changes drastically.

That being the case, where's the value in going down the hypothetical road just to debate a point that hasn't been made and to imply that Christians are somehow being dishonest by being quick to point out the flaws here. Isn't that what objective archaeologists ought to be doing anyway?

They could carbon date the bones inside the boxes.

The veracity of which is ascertained how? The relationship between the ossuary and its contents do little to allow us to ascribe a date to the ossuary itself.

How can one categorically state that the date of the bones relates in any way to the age of the ossuary? Older bones could simply have placed in the ossuary after its carving, or the ossuary could have been filled at any time after its creation.

Who cares if it really is or not?

Archeologists. Christians too probably.

Christians are no quicker to discount the authenticity of the tomb than some are to accept it. The very fact that you've even thought it through to this point proves it. Am I saying you believe it? No. What I'm saying is that you've already given it more time and consideration than its worth at this point.

In any other context a find like this would be exciting to archaeologists and historians, uninteresting to everybody else. No conclusions as to the identity of the bodies could possibly be drawn at this early stage, especially by amateurs. But because someone said "Jesus" many non-Christians are at the edge of their seat hoping it will be so, and are already accusing Christians of being intellectually dishonest for not jumping up onto the bandwagon with them. The irony is that in a case like that, it's the Christians who are actually taking the objective approach at this stage.
I don't think that the christians are taking the objective approach in this instance. Even if this was somehow proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the bones of the same Jesus described in the bible, most christians wouldn't buy it.

And I'm not saying that these are the bones of the biblical Jesus, I don't even believe that the biblical Jesus is likely to have existed, but if he did, it's much more likely that these are his remains than the account of his resurrection is true.

It is, however, possible that there's an inscription on the boxes that states the date and the patina on top of the inscription is consistent with a patina from the first century CE so they won't bother to date the bones inside the boxes.

And James Cameron hasn't stated if there was or was not a date there. And I am not going to follow the PC version. I'll call it BC and AD if I want to.

And of course, if carbon dating debunks Cameron then that will provide an interesting issue for young earth creationists, which would be really fun.

Why should it provide an interesting issue? It'll debunk Cameron just like he is now because he has no evidence to prove that it was indeed the True Jesus Christ that he has found.

The veracity of which is ascertained how? The relationship between the ossuary and its contents do little to allow us to ascribe a date to the ossuary itself.

How can one categorically state that the date of the bones relates in any way to the age of the ossuary? Older bones could simply have placed in the ossuary after its carving, or the ossuary could have been filled at any time after its creation.
Look, I'm not saying that these are definitely the bones of the biblical Jesus, I really don't care that much. I'm just saying that one could carbon date the bones to see if they're old enough to belong to people who lived in roughly the same time frame. Furthermore, one can determine roughly the age of the inscription on the box based on its patina to see if it roughly fits. However, it is possible that the two ages would be different since some ossuaries were used to move older bones from grave sites so the site could be used for fresh bodies.

And James Cameron hasn't stated if there was or was not a date there.
...and?

And I am not going to follow the PC version. I'll call it BC and AD if I want to.
It's not about political correctness, it's about using the academic terms, which, if you want to participate in a debate about the academic nature of the find then you should use the correct terms.

Why should it provide an interesting issue? It'll debunk Cameron just like he is now because he has no evidence to prove that it was indeed the True Jesus Christ that he has found.
It would be an interesting issue for young earth creationists because they tend to like saying that carbon dating doesn't work. If carbon dating proves that it's not their saviour in a box then and they go along with that, then that's a huge issue because they're saying that carbon dating works in some instances but not others. Of course, their whole system of beliefs in that area is largely self-contradictory and unbelievable so I'm sure they'd find a way to work it in.

Look, I'm not saying that these are definitely the bones of the biblical Jesus, I really don't care that much. I'm just saying that one could carbon date the bones to see if they're old enough to belong to people who lived in roughly the same time frame. Furthermore, one can determine roughly the age of the inscription on the box based on its patina to see if it roughly fits. However, it is possible that the two ages would be different since some ossuaries were used to move older bones from grave sites so the site could be used for fresh bodies.

The contention of our neo-Schliemann director is essentially a house constructed on straw foundations. No single support is remotely watertight.

The patina upon the inscription may serve to date the inscription upon the box, however, does this alone date what may well be an older ossuary appropriated by Christian adherents?

Moreover, the age of the bones is irrelevant. Irrespective of whether they are consistent with what one might consider the age of Jesus, they offer no evidence that they are the bones of Jesus himself.

...and?


It's not about political correctness, it's about using the academic terms, which, if you want to participate in a debate about the academic nature of the find then you should use the correct terms.

Actually, BC and AD along with BCE and CE can be used by academics. I will use BC and AD because it is what I am most comfortable with.

It would be an interesting issue for young earth creationists because they tend to like saying that carbon dating doesn't work. If carbon dating proves that it's not their saviour in a box then and they go along with that, then that's a huge issue because they're saying that carbon dating works in some instances but not others. Of course, their whole system of beliefs in that area is largely self-contradictory and unbelievable so I'm sure they'd find a way to work it in.

It wouldn't matter if they carbon date or not in reality since Cameron claims DNA proves his theory which is stupid in and of itself.

The contention of our neo-Schliemann director is essentially a house constructed on straw foundations. No single support is remotely watertight.
Yes, but the same could be said of the crucifixion and resurrection story.

The patina upon the inscription may serve to date the inscription upon the box, however, does this alone date what may well be an older ossuary appropriated by Christian adherents?
Let's say the box's patina indicates it was carved in the early first century CE, this makes it unlikely that it was something done later by early christians looking to pretend that this was Jesus' remains (actually, why early christians would make a box and pretend that it contains the remains of their resurrected godman is beyond me).

Moreover, the age of the bones is irrelevant. Irrespective of whether they are consistent with what one might consider the age of Jesus, they offer no evidence that they are the bones of Jesus himself.
Yep.

But like I said, I don't care if this is the biblical Jesus' remains or not. nothing in my religion depends on it.

Actually, BC and AD along with BCE and CE can be used by academics. I will use BC and AD because it is what I am most comfortable with.
Not reputable ones... but whatever, use whatever you want.

It wouldn't matter if they carbon date or not in reality since Cameron claims DNA proves his theory which is stupid in and of itself.
No, it doesn't prove a damn thing. However, it doesnt' change the fact that it is more believable that the blblical Jesus (if such a man existed) is buried somewhere in Israel instead of being resurrected.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a meeting I'm going to be late for.

I don't think that the christians are taking the objective approach in this instance. Even if this was somehow proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be the bones of the same Jesus described in the bible, most christians wouldn't buy it.

And I'm not saying that these are the bones of the biblical Jesus, I don't even believe that the biblical Jesus is likely to have existed, but if he did, it's much more likely that these are his remains than the account of his resurrection is true.

I won't pretend that devout Christians are even capable of being objective on this if it goes that far. My remarks are specifically meant to reference the event as it is at this point.

I had to run last night after posting this thread (I know, I know, bad form), so belated apologies to Smunkee for stealing her thunder.

And I’m glad to see my prediction of complete agreement on this subject was fulfilled :)

I would imagine that the DNA tests alluded to were done to prove that the people in the tombs were all related - and thus most likely all from the same family.
As for the assertion that 'Mary', 'Joseph' and 'Jesus' were all common names back then - true, very true. However what's the probability that, assuming the DNA tests prove correct, there was a family around at that time where they all had these names and in the correct relationships? Small enough to make one think about this docu's claims seriously, I'd wager.

Given that Carbon 14 dating (if they used this method) tends to give a date plus or minus fifty years I'd say the chances of there being a Joseph and a Mary who had a son called Jesus at some point over the course of a century are pretty good. Now, if they could show that the bones in the Jesus ossuary bore the marks of crucifixion then I'd be impressed, but so all we've got to go on is bluff and conjecture.

Given that Carbon 14 dating (if they used this method) tends to give a date plus or minus fifty years I'd say the chances of there being a Joseph and a Mary who had a son called Jesus at some point over the course of a century are pretty good. Now, if they could show that the bones in the Jesus ossuary bore the marks of crucifixion then I'd be impressed, but so all we've got to go on is bluff and conjecture.
This assumes that the *real* Jesus was crucified. Maybe he lived a fairly average life.

So, let me guess this straight, it's easier for us to believe that this Jesus guy was God in human form, died and was magically resurrected, and then magically went up into Heaven, than he was a normal guy who lived and died like the rest of this. Isn't it a tad ironic that people would say Cameron's find is totally unfounded while we would accept on the other hand an even more garbage story?

So, let me guess this straight, it's easier for us to believe that this Jesus guy was God in human form, died and was magically resurrected, and then magically went up into Heaven, than he was a normal guy who lived and died like the rest of this. Isn't it a tad ironic that people would say Cameron's find is totally unfounded while we would accept on the other hand an even more garbage story?

Infidel!

I don't accept either. The names inscribed on the sepulchre were, as has been pointed out, very common at the time. And how would you know it was Jesus of Nazareth, the one written about in the New testament, anyway? Not like we could do a DNA test. :rolleyes:

So you believe Cameron even though he has jack for evidence?

It doesn't look like you read what you quoted, so I'll copy and paste it for you below.

"Cameron's story is many orders of magnitude more likely, in fact categorically more likely, than the one where jesus gets beamed up in the sky."

As it stands he's found some objects which could conceivably be jesus and his family's tomb.

This evidence, flimsy and un-compelling as it is, still makes his story many orders of magnitude more likey , in fact categorically more likely, than the one where jesus gets beamed up in the sky.

i want to know what DNA they compared it to in order to support the idea that it was jesus in there. who exactly has a sample of jesus' DNA? and what's statistical evidence for identification of a body? pure bollocks.

And in the midst of the hubbub, nobody noticed Dan Brown choking on laughter.

Fair Game had a novel idea on this subject though. If we can clone sheep, then we can clone this DNA and see if it really is Jesus! And then they can open up Jesus Park!

i want to know what DNA they compared it to in order to support the idea that it was jesus in there. who exactly has a sample of jesus' DNA? and what's statistical evidence for identification of a body? pure bollocks.

Well, if Jesus was truly an immaculate conception, then the only source of his original DNA was Mary. It should be possible to compare Jesus' DNA to Mary's and show that she was the only genetic donor. *nod*

If the only genetic donor was a woman, it should be fascinating to get the knowledge of where that y chromosome then came from....

jesus' dad was god. he had a Z chromosome cuz he's that awesome *nods*

Well, if Jesus was truly an immaculate conception, then the only source of his original DNA was Mary. It should be possible to compare Jesus' DNA to Mary's and show that she was the only genetic donor. *nod*If the only genetic donor was a woman, it should be fascinating to get the knowledge of where that y chromosome then came from....

Well, there are two possibilities: Either it came from Mary, or Jesus didn't have a Y chromosome. *nod*

No no, they'll use one of those really powerful microscopes to look at the DNA, and see a thousand angels dancing to YMCA.

If the only genetic donor was a woman, it should be fascinating to get the knowledge of where that y chromosome then came from....

Well, there are two possibilities: Either it came from Mary, or Jesus didn't have a Y chromosome. *nod*

Midichlorians, eh?

Midichlorians, eh?

I shan't even google that in an attempt to sound smart.

And in the midst of the hubbub, nobody noticed Dan Brown choking on laughter.

Fair Game had a novel idea on this subject though. If we can clone sheep, then we can clone this DNA and see if it really is Jesus! And then they can open up Jesus Park!
Sounds like one episode of Why Bother? by Peter Cook and Chris Morris:

CM: “In your address to the Royal Society tomorrow, you intend to reveal the fossilized remains of the infant Christ. How do you feel that will go down?”

PC: “Well, erm, it is a remarkably discovery. A group of us were up in the ‘Promised Land’ as I believe it’s called, and we were just rooting around for some sticks to start a fire with. And by some accident, this tiny litle form was preserved perfectly. I picked it up, put it in my knapsack and brought it home, had it scientifically examined at my institute... it’s Christ at the age of about nine months. Just beginning to walk.”

I shan't even google that in an attempt to sound smart.
It's even worse than you might think...

(I fear Nazz' handwaving wore off since last night - I remember the horror. The horror!!!)

Well, there are two possibilities: Either it came from Mary, or Jesus didn't have a Y chromosome. *nod*

So either Mary was a dude or Jesus was a chick?
:eek: :eek: :eek: :p
(don't hurt me) :p

So either Mary was a dude or Jesus was a chick?
:eek: :eek: :eek: :p
(don't hurt me) :p

Maybe Mary was a hermaphrodite. :eek:

Well, if Jesus was truly an immaculate conception, then the only source of his original DNA was Mary. It should be possible to compare Jesus' DNA to Mary's and show that she was the only genetic donor. *nod*
Or, isolate the genetic input of Mary to be left with the genes of God. Then we take those genes and genetically breed a race of holy super-soldiers. We use the army of demigod supersoldiers to destroy god, and inadvertantly place ourselves under the rule of an army of demigods. However, each soldier will claim a planet as his own, and take it's name.

Voila, we place ourselves under a real life Roman Pantheon!

According to the New York Times article on this, all the DNA was used for was to find that the Jesus and the Mary they say was Mary Magnelen(sp) weren't related. It goes on to say that when asked why they didn't test and compare the DNA of any of the other coffins they said that they weren't scientists and that they had what they needed for their program. Aparently this is one of the things archeologists are criticizing them for. As for suggestions that they test the bodies themselves, problem is that they were buried again shortly after the tomb was found twenty something years ago. Further their case is based not on the DNA tests, but their claim that the chances of all those names appearing in one tomb are allegedly 600-1. It also seems that the archeologist that first found it thinks the whole thing is a ploblicity stunt.

edit:sorry for not placing a link, but I was reading the hard copy and don't have a subscription to the online version.

It would be an interesting issue for young earth creationists because they tend to like saying that carbon dating doesn't work. If carbon dating proves that it's not their saviour in a box then and they go along with that, then that's a huge issue because they're saying that carbon dating works in some instances but not others. Of course, their whole system of beliefs in that area is largely self-contradictory and unbelievable so I'm sure they'd find a way to work it in.
I wouldn't hold out much hope at seeing them squirm or capitulate on anything. That lot are so far into Cog Diss that they can use whatever they want to prop up their beliefs, happily discarding and ignoring everything that proves them wrong and not once feel any guilt or embarassment over their flip-floppery.

No doubt what would happen in this instance is that they'd announce that Carbon Dating is 100% accurate to 2000 years and complete folly beyond that.
They'll truly believe this too - and moreso, convince themselves that they've always believed this which will counter any argument one might like to think one could hurl against them.


Another method they might well use to ignore the claims comes from Carbon Dating's accuracy parameters. CD can only give us a figure accurate to within 50 years or so. Xtians will latch onto the outer numbers only in an effort to ignore this. So if it showed, say, the Jesus interred within died somewhere between 1CE and 50CE, they'll trumpet loudly that it couldn't possibly be the Jesus, as he was only an boy in 1CE, and dead by 50CE. They'll just ignore all the numbers inbetween and pretend they don't exist.



There's also the idea that it's all a have, like the Turin Shroud. During the Middle Ages, there were all sorts of fraudulent claims doing the rounds (pieces of the cross, shrouds, bones of matyrs etc) in an effort to part religious idiots with their monies. So it's not too inconcievable that someone back then found these ossuaries that do indeed date back to the time of Christ, and then carved Christ's families' names into them.
Of course detailed inspection of the boxes should be able to show any work done on them at a later date.

So they found some guy named Jesus buried near some woman named Mary.
Doesn't mean it's THE Jesus.

"You don't fuck with the Jesus."

I have only one question...:

-What were Mexicans doing in Jerusalem during this time?!?!?

:D

(couldnt help!)

I am not necessarily a christian, but if I was, and these bones were proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to belong to The Jesus, would I care? No. Jesus having a wife and son would not shatter or impact my beliefs at all. And another thing, about the bones meaning that Jesus did not come back from the dead...if God is all powerful, then I can easily assume that he brought Jesus back to life and simply gave him a new body that looked the exact same.

I have only one question...:

-What were Mexicans doing in Jerusalem during this time?!?!?

:D

(couldnt help!)

They were brought there by Jesus himself, thanks to his pop's time machine.


Jesus Christ: The Hero of Time

When Jesus came of age, his pop gave him a trusty time machine with which he could go transcend the ages and make things right. But he never forgets life's pleasures, such as stopping at Starbucks for a Latte or catching the latest action flick. He is Jesus Christ, The Hero of Time.

Can I tg you too?

Do as thou wilt shalt be the whole of the law.
:D

Or, isolate the genetic input of Mary to be left with the genes of God. Then we take those genes and genetically breed a race of holy super-soldiers. We use the army of demigod supersoldiers to destroy god, and inadvertantly place ourselves under the rule of an army of demigods. However, each soldier will claim a planet as his own, and take it's name.

Voila, we place ourselves under a real life Roman Pantheon!

Hey, nice moxy there. *bows*

Maybe Mary was a hermaphrodite. :eek:

Bring on the nephilim ...

So while it may be a Jesus grave, it may not be the tomb of the one Jesus Christ.Or of the one Horus, nor of the one Mithras.
:rolleyes:

This whole thing fails.
Jesus acsended, like Daniel Jackson from Stargate.-_-

This assumes that the *real* Jesus was crucified. Maybe he lived a fairly average life.

And assuming he was crucified using nails.

SOME crucifiees (sp?) were tied to the crosses, instead.

James Cameron has released a new documentary in which he claims to have found the tomb of Jesus...

I can see we’re all going to agree about this.

Yeee-ahhh! Another NS religion war!

Life would be easier without tombs. Incinerate the corpses, WTH!

Oh brother. Sorry but I think you misread what I said. You mistook a comparison (comparing 2 things) for admitting they are both crap. Sorry but I believe in the ressurection of the Lord Savior Jesus Christ and I do not believe that His resurrection is crap.

and you have proof of this how? I'm catcholic and believe the same, but really where is the proof? You're good at asking others to give you proof, Nazz, Cameron, but you truly have no proof of your own. There is no proof that the biblical Jesus actually lived and no proof of any of his miracles. The only thing any of us can have is faith. And when and if that faith is proven to be untrue I'll change my opinion. I'm a pragmatist above anything else. Arguing over religion is like arguing over who has the best imaginary friend. Why can't we accept that if there is a God that his plan for creation and salvation are far greater than our human comprehension is capable of understanding? Ever think that the real reason people don't want human cloning to succeed is that if it does it proves there can be life without God's hand in creation? Now I don't think that is logically true but it is possible. People fear admitting they are wrong. Not that you would know anything about that though.

Because you didn't think about the implications of what you said until after someone else pointed it out and then you decided you could act indignant as though they were misreading what you said instead of reading it accurately?

it's typical and I'm used to that. It's generally how he reponds on whatever puppet he's using that day.

and you have proof of this how? I'm catcholic and believe the same, but really where is the proof? You're good at asking others to give you proof, Nazz, Cameron, but you truly have no proof of your own. There is no proof that the biblical Jesus actually lived and no proof of any of his miracles. The only thing any of us can have is faith. And when and if that faith is proven to be untrue I'll change my opinion. I'm a pragmatist above anything else. Arguing over religion is like arguing over who has the best imaginary friend. Why can't we accept that if there is a God that his plan for creation and salvation are far greater than our human comprehension is capable of understanding? Ever think that the real reason people don't want human cloning to succeed is that if it does it proves there can be life without God's hand in creation? Now I don't think that is logically true but it is possible. People fear admitting they are wrong. Not that you would know anything about that though.
Thats the thing though belief in th resurection is a theological belief based in faith, this however is a proposed archeological theory that is claming to be impartial fact and therefore needs to be able to provide concrete evidence for its positions. As it is what they have is a statitician claiming that it is unlikely that this combenation of names would apear without it being Jesus. Personally the worse criticism I can think of is that they didn't bother to test the residual DNA in all the tombs, but just did two and then went with the story thats just irresponsible and bad methodology.

Thats the thing though belief in th resurection is a theological belief based in faith, this however is a proposed archeological theory that is claming to be impartial fact and therefore needs to be able to provide concrete evidence for its positions. As it is what they have is a statitician claiming that it is unlikely that this combenation of names would apear without it being Jesus. Personally the worse criticism I can think of is that they didn't bother to test the residual DNA in all the tombs, but just did two and then went with the story thats just irresponsible and bad methodology.

Agree, but the reality of it all is that faith is the only thing you can have. Any one of you ever met God? Any recollection of where you spirit was before you were born? None of us know and it's stupid to deny that just maybe your version of reality is wrong. I just can't stand when people star the "nuh uh, can't be" crap. It sure as hell can be true, but not based on the evidence I have seen so far. Non one on either side can claim they are correct with great certainty. However tell that to hardcore religous fanatics and they'll want to stone you.

I wouldn't hold out much hope at seeing them squirm or capitulate on anything. That lot are so far into Cog Diss that they can use whatever they want to prop up their beliefs, happily discarding and ignoring everything that proves them wrong and not once feel any guilt or embarassment over their flip-floppery.
I know, but one can hope, right?

No doubt what would happen in this instance is that they'd announce that Carbon Dating is 100% accurate to 2000 years and complete folly beyond that.
They'd have to take down their comments about how tailpipes can be carbon dated to be billions of years old despite being manufactured in the 20th century then.
Yes, either it didn't occur to them that all the carbon on a tailpipe is from fossil fuels which are billions of years old or they're too dishonest to think of the fact that metal doesn't generally have carbon in it.

According to the New York Times article on this, all the DNA was used for was to find that the Jesus and the Mary they say was Mary Magnelen(sp) weren't related. It goes on to say that when asked why they didn't test and compare the DNA of any of the other coffins they said that they weren't scientists and that they had what they needed for their program. Aparently this is one of the things archeologists are criticizing them for. As for suggestions that they test the bodies themselves, problem is that they were buried again shortly after the tomb was found twenty something years ago. Further their case is based not on the DNA tests, but their claim that the chances of all those names appearing in one tomb are allegedly 600-1. It also seems that the archeologist that first found it thinks the whole thing is a ploblicity stunt.

edit:sorry for not placing a link, but I was reading the hard copy and don't have a subscription to the online version.

And thus Cameron gets debunked and his documentary is crap.

And assuming he was crucified using nails.

SOME crucifiees (sp?) were tied to the crosses, instead.

The Bible is clear that he was nailed to the crossed as he showed his wounded hands to his followers as well as his feet. So I'm thinking that they did use nails.

The Bible is clear that he was nailed to the crossed as he showed his wounded hands to his followers as well as his feet. So I'm thinking that they did use nails.

I would've used a staple gun. :)

and you have proof of this how? I'm catcholic and believe the same, but really where is the proof?

They do not call it faith for nothing Liuzzo. If you are indeed a catholic then maybe you should go an ask your minister that question. I'm not a theologian.

You're good at asking others to give you proof, Nazz, Cameron, but you truly have no proof of your own.

In this case, I can point to the Bible as my proof but the point is, I don't have any. It is what I believe but when someone says they have found the tomb of The Jesus (Cameron) then provides no evidence whatsoever that he did, or that his evidence is crap, then I start asking questions about him.

There is no proof that the biblical Jesus actually lived and no proof of any of his miracles.

Well the Muslims believed that he existed as they consider him a prophet. Even the Jews think he existed and they considered him a prophet. I believe someone stated in a thread awhile ago that there was a record of Jesus being crucified by I could be wrong on that.

The only thing any of us can have is faith.

Indeed.

And when and if that faith is proven to be untrue I'll change my opinion.

Which means your opinion won't be changing anytime soon.

I'm a pragmatist above anything else.

I'm happhy for you.

Arguing over religion is like arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.

Arguing over anything on the net is an exercise in futility.

Why can't we accept that if there is a God that his plan for creation and salvation are far greater than our human comprehension is capable of understanding?

I can agree to that.

Ever think that the real reason people don't want human cloning to succeed is that if it does it proves there can be life without God's hand in creation? Now I don't think that is logically true but it is possible. People fear admitting they are wrong. Not that you would know anything about that though.

Oh I've admitted when I'm wrong before. I do so in proper settings where it matters most.

Thats the thing though belief in th resurection is a theological belief based in faith, this however is a proposed archeological theory that is claming to be impartial fact and therefore needs to be able to provide concrete evidence for its positions. As it is what they have is a statitician claiming that it is unlikely that this combenation of names would apear without it being Jesus. Personally the worse criticism I can think of is that they didn't bother to test the residual DNA in all the tombs, but just did two and then went with the story thats just irresponsible and bad methodology.

BINGO!!!!

I would've used a staple gun. :)

I once put a staple through my hand by accident and it really, really hurt.

Not even Jesus deserved that :(

I once put a staple through my hand by accident and it really, really hurt.

Not even Jesus deserved that :(

Oh, I don't think I'd attach people to wood in the first place. I'm just saying that if I had to, I'd want to do it quickly and get on with more interesting things.

When it comes to ancient torturous punishments, I'm more of an impaling kind of guy. :)

Oh, I don't think I'd attach people to wood in the first place. I'm just saying that if I had to, I'd want to do it quickly and get on with more interesting things.

When it comes to ancient torturous punishments, I'm more of an impaling kind of guy. :)

I think superglue would have been the best option. Think about it, easy to apply, quick setting and with his back stuck to a big lump of wood it would have been much easier to id him when we found his tomb and it would have avoided a long thread in NSG taking up space better used for discussions about mud and tacos. :D

I think superglue would have been the best option. Think about it, easy to apply, quick setting and with his back stuck to a big lump of wood it would have been much easier to id him when we found his tomb and it would have avoided a long thread in NSG taking up space better used for discussions about mud and tacos. :D

An excellent point. *nod*

The Bible is clear that he was nailed to the crossed as he showed his wounded hands to his followers as well as his feet. So I'm thinking that they did use nails.
This assumes that the bible is an accurate source of information.

If this were the case, which version of Christ's last words are we to believe?

This assumes that the bible is an accurate source of information.

If this were the case, which version of Christ's last words are we to believe?

Don't be daft, the bible tells us that bats are in fact a type of bird and the world was created in 6 days.

How can you possibly doubt any part of it is 100% accurate?

They do not call it faith for nothing Liuzzo. If you are indeed a catholic then maybe you should go an ask your minister that question. I'm not a theologian.
Clearly you're not. Catholics have priests, not ministers.

In this case, I can point to the Bible as my proof but the point is, I don't have any. It is what I believe but when someone says they have found the tomb of The Jesus (Cameron) then provides no evidence whatsoever that he did, or that his evidence is crap, then I start asking questions about him.
You can't use the bible to prove the occurance of events in the bible, that would be circular.

Well the Muslims believed that he existed as they consider him a prophet. Even the Jews think he existed and they considered him a prophet. I believe someone stated in a thread awhile ago that there was a record of Jesus being crucified by I could be wrong on that.
The fact that other people believe he existed without evidence of his existence doesn't mean anything. I also think that jewish people are generally indifferent to Jesus.
And actually, in that other thread a while ago I stated that there wasn't a record of his crucifixion. Please keep these things straight and don't change what people said to fit your beliefs.

Don't be daft, the bible tells us that bats are in fact a type of bird and the world was created in 6 days.

How can you possibly doubt any part of it is 100% accurate?
Yes, it also says that pi=3, the entire world was flooded at some time, Herod ordered a census, Herod ordered the murder of every male infant, jewish mobs had some sway in executing roman prisoners et c. I was just pointing out that his statement assumed the veracity of the bible.

Yes, it also says that pi=3, the entire world was flooded at some time, Herod ordered a census, Herod ordered the murder of every male infant, jewish mobs had some sway in executing roman prisoners et c. I was just pointing out that his statement assumed the veracity of the bible.

I got it, I was just making a bit of a flippant comment.

Seriously, neither side of the religion debate seems to have much of a sense of humour these days....

Clearly you're not. Catholics have priests, not ministers.

Actually, that is not 100% true.

You can't use the bible to prove the occurance of events in the bible, that would be circular.

Indeed, you are right. I said I could point it out. I did not say I was going to.

The fact that other people believe he existed without evidence of his existence doesn't mean anything. I also think that jewish people are generally indifferent to Jesus.

They are. My roommate last semester was Jewish and though they believe he was a prophet, they do not believe him to be the Son of God.

And actually, in that other thread a while ago I stated that there wasn't a record of his crucifixion. Please keep these things straight and don't change what people said to fit your beliefs.

Sorry but I was not referring to you :rolleyes:

They do not call it faith for nothing Liuzzo. If you are indeed a catholic then maybe you should go an ask your minister that question. I'm not a theologian.



In this case, I can point to the Bible as my proof but the point is, I don't have any. It is what I believe but when someone says they have found the tomb of The Jesus (Cameron) then provides no evidence whatsoever that he did, or that his evidence is crap, then I start asking questions about him.

The bible is proof of nothing. It's a book, a book of selected writing that the Nicean Council decided what parts would live on and what would go by the wayside.


Well the Muslims believed that he existed as they consider him a prophet. Even the Jews think he existed and they considered him a prophet. I believe someone stated in a thread awhile ago that there was a record of Jesus being crucified by I could be wrong on that.

You are wrong on that. There is no record and "belief" is not proof. I can believe in Santa but it doesn't make it so.



Indeed.



Which means your opinion won't be changing anytime soon.



I'm happhy for you.



Arguing over anything on the net is an exercise in futility.



I can agree to that.



Oh I've admitted when I'm wrong before. I do so in proper settings where it matters most.

Haven't seen that in a year on any of your names.

Again, we are at the most basic faced with two accounts, one with shaky, perhaps circumstantial evidence, and one without any evidence at all, that flies in the face of all evidence ever collected on any subject.

It is remotely likely that the ossuaries mentioned in the documentary really are from the same Yashua family that spawned the christian religion.

It is not even remotely likely, in fact signally absurd and ridiculous, that jesus got beamed up into space with magic, &c &c.

Actually, that is not 100% true.


its close enough to 100% true to have me ask you what you mean by it not being 100% true.



They are. My roommate last semester was Jewish and though they believe he was a prophet, they do not believe him to be the Son of God.


oh i dont think so. there may be a few jews in the world who out of trying to get along say that jesus might be a prophet but judaism has nothing to do with jesus at all. he isnt part of their religion.

Haven't seen that in a year on any of your names.

Read the last line. It means I have admitted when I'm wrong in proper forums such as SCHOOL!!!!!!!

Again, we are at the most basic faced with two accounts, one with shaky, perhaps circumstantial evidence, and one without any evidence at all, that flies in the face of all evidence ever collected on any subject.

It is remotely likely that the ossuaries mentioned in the documentary really are from the same Yashua family that spawned the christian religion.

It is not even remotely likely, in fact signally absurd and ridiculous, that jesus got beamed up into space with magic, &c &c.
The diference being as I've mentioned several times in this thread that one is a theological mater of faith and therefore not concearned with evidence as it is meant to be taken on ..wait for it...Faith! The other is an archeological theory and therefore is concearned with evidence because archeology is based on ...wait for it... evidence! Seriously is it that hard to figure out that a secular historical theory needs to be held to more exacting standards than a theological matter which is meant to be taken on faith? The fact that the faith based one isn't acceptable on a secular level dosen't make this theory correct it just means that it is one of the numerous historical things we don't know about.

The Bible is clear that he was nailed to the crossed as he showed his wounded hands to his followers as well as his feet. So I'm thinking that they did use nails.

Well superglue would have lacked that dramatic effect that the public execution requires really...

I have a book that says a small humanoid with large hairy feet saved us all from the dark lord by the way...I don't remember any nailing, as such...

Maybe Mary was a hermaphrodite. :eek:

Or an ant. Unfertilised ant eggs develop into males while only fertilised ant eggs develop into females. Clearly the Catholic church has been involved in a millenia long conspiracy to conceal the truth about Jesus' insectoid nature. :p

The Bible is clear that he was nailed to the crossed as he showed his wounded hands to his followers as well as his feet. So I'm thinking that they did use nails.

You can't crucify someone if you put the nails through the hands. They just fall off.

And assuming he was crucified using nails.

SOME crucifiees (sp?) were tied to the crosses, instead.

Most were. Nailing someone to a cross happened very rarely, if at all. See, someone who is tied to a cross takes three days to die, while someone who is nailed to one dies in a matter of hours.

LOL, I could very easily find the tomb of Jesus. Hell, I'll even give you Peter, Paul, John, and I'll even toss in Mary (virgin and magla-fake)!!

Mary Magdalene was fictional, and completely made-up for a storybook. The author does not even claim his evidence was real, it was made up. Only idiots go "Good idea! Duuhhhhh, follow the book! God is in the book!!!"

So he can't find Mary Magdalene. Ha, and the DNA tests have already been smashed to pieces. So, it's a cave with his body, or just his name? B/C his body isn't supposed to be there, and if it really is his name on there, it says "Jesus of Nazareth." Not "Jesus, Son of God."

Oh yeah, Romans typically didn't bother labeling gravesites, they burned corpses under their pagan beliefs. Of course thats an honorable burial. Jesus was thrown into "random cave for decomposition number 23." Not even criminal was buried in his very own cave with a big rock and a Roman Soldier guarding it. Wait, no criminals "personally" received this treatment. They all went into a mass grave. So, how exactly did he find this cave?

LOL, I could very easily find the tomb of Jesus. Hell, I'll even give you Peter, Paul, John, and I'll even toss in Mary (virgin and magla-fake)!!

Mary Magdalene was fictional, and completely made-up for a storybook. The author does not even claim his evidence was real, it was made up. Only idiots go "Good idea! Duuhhhhh, follow the book! God is in the book!!!"

So he can't find Mary Magdalene. Ha, and the DNA tests have already been smashed to pieces. So, it's a cave with his body, or just his name? B/C his body isn't supposed to be there, and if it really is his name on there, it says "Jesus of Nazareth." Not "Jesus, Son of God."

Oh yeah, Romans typically didn't bother labeling gravesites, they burned corpses under their pagan beliefs. Of course thats an honorable burial. Jesus was thrown into "random cave for decomposition number 23." Not even criminal was buried in his very own cave with a big rock and a Roman Soldier guarding it. Wait, no criminals "personally" received this treatment. They all went into a mass grave. So, how exactly did he find this cave?

Uh, what are you talking about?