James Cameron vs. Christianity

are you sure you read the quotes? one of them was a DNA guy. they manipulated what he said to suggest the conclusion was that if they didn't share the same DNA, they were married if they were in the same tomb. he's saying, "wait a second...i didn't say that at all!! there are a ton of other conclusions possible."

these guys had a conclusion in mind (from the davinci code) and then fudged the rest to create a story. it sells for sure. but it surprises me you're buying it.

 

No doubt, the marriage bit was very questionable, but it is plausible in that it was a FAMILY tomb and that was tradition.

And, I am NOT buying it, I am saying it is interesting and merits further study.

Don't you agree?

DD

 

THESE AREN'T SCIENTISTS!!! they're a journalist and a filmmaker. they throw together a bunch of scientists, take them out of context and then say, "voila!! here's the logical conclusion!!" they hide behind the fact they're not scientists half of the time but present conclusions as if they are.

 

so we go from that...to the young boy standing under the cross looking up at "dad" on the cross.

it's a joke, da da. there's no credibility.

 

The guy who did the film is an investigative journalist, and he is LEAPING to monumental, ground shaking, conclusions.

Does that make him wrong? No !

Does it make him right? No !

Why not get scientists involved let em examine the data, come to a reasonable conclusion and go from there?

That is EXACTLY what they said they hoped happened in the press coference.

 

You clearly are not paying attention. I guess you are reading too fast or are assuming you know what everyone is saying.

The BBC show in 1996 was pretty much the same as the Cameron show. As a result, teams of archaeologists after went in to investigate the site and the ossuaries. Their conclusions was that the argument had zero merit.

Just because you don't know about everything that has gone on or have not read a complete debunk does not mean that it has not happened.

 

the guys who know better than me..the guys who discovered it originally and those who studied it 20 years ago, suggest otherwise. find another expert to look at the mary magdalene script...if it doesn't say that, you have absolutely nothing to justify studying more of if you're doing it within the realm of trying to prove up this as being Jesus' family.

 

You could be right, you could be wrong. Why not have some historians and actual scientists examine all the data and find out for themselves?

DD

 

then it's irresponsible to present it in the light they did. to bring together a press conference and present it as they did in this documentary. stop pretending like they didn't present this as a conclusion reached.

 

So you have one guy saying it DOES say Mary Magdeline, and another saying it doesn't say that.

So, why not get a bunch of caligraphors get together and reach a conclusion?

DD

 

No clearly they did present it in an irresponsible light, because as I have said before they wanted to make money, and controversy sells.

That does not invalidate their claims, and if you actually watch the press conference they are much more mellow than what was said in the documentary.

All I am saying is......why not investigate it?

Debunk it, or prove it........

DD

 

who? me? i don't care who does what with it. but what i've seen before is overly-dramatized b.s. presented as fact. and according to at least some of those who participated, it relies upon "facts" twisted deceptively by the filmmaker to create its support.

my understanding is, as rimbaud said, this has already been studied and debunked. i'm sure there will be another one we can all test again next Easter.

 

It has not been studied at all, but rather just looked over in a cursory manner.

I am sure more study will happen, and I do agree they reached some astounding conclusions, and those conclusions are meant to help generate money for their production.

It would be neat if true though...

DD

 

A tomb was unearthed in Jerusalem.

It appears to date to the time when historical Jesus would have lived.

Ossuaries were found with inscriptions.

Some of the inscriptions appear to be names found in the Jesus family tree.

Those are agreed upon facts, I believe. That is fairly compelling right there. Worthy of further study.

I would think the next step would be a thorough investigation of the inscriptions and an attempt to get a consensus on what is actually written on the ossuaries. Everything else would flow from that.

Right now it seems that some experts say the "Jesus" ossuary says Jesus, Son of Joseph on it and some dispute this. I would say it is worth trying to come to some conclusion on this.

Next, there is disagreement about the "Mary Madgalene" inscription. At least one expert say Mariamne could refer to Magdalene and another disputes this. It seems this is worth further investigation.

In my mind this would be the beginning of this investigation. So far I don't think the critcs have made a case strong enough to preclude further investigation. People keep referring to this BBC documentary. Can anyone post any links to the information from it?

 

Really? What makes you say this, given that an hour ago, you didn't even know anything about the FBI photo analysis?

 

that's not what's happening. what's happening is that these guys mislead as to what was found and the conclusions that could be drawn from it given its study. that's it. and now people who were involved with the program are coming out and saying, "you manipulated what i said to support your assumptions."

no one is saying it shouldn't be investigated as other 2000 year old tombs are investigated. that's not what's at issue here.

 

I still don't other than a couple of posts on a BBS.

As for Max's post...it IS the tomb of Jesus...no dispute there, is it THE Jesus? Who knows? Let's find out.



DD

 

So how exactly do you know that real research hasn't been done?