see the thread on this particular issue. it's losing credibility, quickly, if it ever had any to begin with.
Are you referring to the Mary Magdalene issue and whether the inscription refers to her? If so, I'm not saying that it has been proven that any of the claims of the documentary have been proven. I'm saying that there is enough compelling evidence to warrant further study. You said you didn't understand why they had only done DNA testing on two ossuaries. That's a different issue than what the inscriptions really say or who they refer to.
Exactly !!!!! Let's do some real studies, people are quick to criticize without doing the work, let's see the conclusions AFTER the work is done. DD
They addressed this by saying they had more DNA material in the Jesus and Magdeline Ossuaries....and that they expect more testing to be done now, and hope their show spurs that testing on.... DD
People are also quick to accept shoddy work based on half-truths, and then use that to argue more research should be done. Perhaps if the initial "researchers" had done their work properly, the "extra" research wouldn't be necessary.
Actually the initial researchers are saying...."We need to do more work" check out the live press conference BEFORE the airing. Link to press conference DD
then why present it so incompletely? why hold a news conference to suggest that you've found THIS and it leads to THIS conclusion? and then why is the tone of the documentary so bent towards that conclusion, which is so vastly unsupported at this time that the Discovery Channel decided they didn't want to air the show anymore at all, even as Easter approaches?
Well, I think you know the answer to that question before you even ask it. Money. And, I would not be shocked to hear that the show was being pulled (have not seen any confirmation of that yet) but would bet that any pulling is based upon religious pressures of some kind, either on sponsers or direct viewership. Can't have people thinking for themsleves, can we? DD
seriously?? the discovery channel and history channel shows all sorts of shows about this stuff. stuff on the gnostic gospels with people specluating about why they were left out. critical historical commentary on Christianity. that's nothing new. i'm guessing they pulled it when the people involved with the project started saying, "hey...that's not what i said...i was taken out of context...you manipulated my words." i'm not sure how you can so easily dismiss the sheer volume of critics who aren't just arguing with the conclusion but are suggesting that they reached it and promoted it somewhat deceptively.
Come on ! You don't think religious groups were more fervent about the possibility of actual BONES of Jesus? Or the son of Jesus? These are way more controversial than what the other shows are about. DD
DD -- money is god in america. if there is interest...and it's legit...they will run the show. there's been a ton of shows on these channels about "is the davinci code real", etc. they ran the show to begin with. are you sure you're not Oliver Stone? The Discovery Channel is now in cahoots with the church to supress you getting at the truth about who Jesus is? here's my cute smilie:
Why would it if that name on that ossuary really isn't Mary Magdalene? At that point, it's just a collection of extremely common names to that place and time.
Then why didn't they do the research instead of creating an entirely speculative piece and presenting it as a factual documentary? If "money" is the answer, as you claim, they that just says that have no interest in "needing to do more work". They are considering with money, not facts or truth. That right there should make you suspicious of the work, if all the mounds of evidence and criticism from even the people in the film itself don't.
it's very hard to take seriously in light of all that. in light of the criticism...and in light of the people involved with the project feeling manipulated. i think it would take a great deal of faith at this point to believe in their conclusions.
Sucks that there are two threads, but this is more appropriate here: During the forgery trial for the "James Ossuary", and FBI agent confirmed that a picture of the box in the collectors house came from the 1970's...so it was not unearthed in 1980.
Link to that, please? It would be interesting, but the science showed that it more than likely came from the same tomb. The FBI guy could be mistaken. And Max.....how can you say that the site does not warrant more investigation? Whether it says Mary Magdaline or not is crucial, but some scholars are convinced it does say that, AND the number of people in the ossuary was catalogued and I believe there was only one set of bones in that ossuary. Hopefully more sceintists will get involved and work it out. DD
Dear lord you are getting beyond ridiculous. First of all, google the james thing and you should find plenty. Second, the science did not show anything. A crappy tv show tried to make it seem like a match but it wasn't. Even I, with my limited electron microscopy experience could tell they were oversimplifying and leaving out a lot. The ossuaries did not have identical patinas. They were similar. Which means they came from the same region. Obviously, a large number came from that region. Third, you accept the crime lab results from the tv show (even though they never handle historical materials and look for different things on a day-to-day basis) but you don't trust FBI methods of dating photographs? I'll give you help - they use labs, too and dating a photo from the 70's is easier than proving a 2000 year old patina came from one particular tomb.
No, it is you two that are the believers......... I am merely interested in the truth. Which, admittadly could be anything........but I am interested in finding out. DD
