judging by your initial post, which said you were very convinced, and every post since then in light of a mountain of criticism from those who were and weren't involved in the actual project, it seems you have already made up your mind. i would love to be able to show absolute proof that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. that would answer a TON of skeptics, in my view. i am more than doubtful that THIS tomb does that.
That was hilarious, Max. Oh do tell. About what am I a true believer? As for the second sentence, no you are not. You are intentionally playing your silly character that just wants to make two line posts and try to rile people up. I have no problem with that I just can't always tell which DaDa is posting. I apologize for the delay. Preach on, preacher of truth!
I am not trying to rile anyone up about this, I thought the show was really cool, lots of leaps of faith in logic, sure. But lots of interesting scientific evidence in support too. All it takes though is one piece of evidence to fall down for this to fall apart. I am not in here to rile people up anymore Rimmy, it pissed too many people off. The two things I thought were hokey were the man and wife bit....but I could at least understand that with it being a family tomb. But the one I didn't get was the lack of explanation for the chevron and circle...they showed it and had it on a 2nd ossuary and said that proved it was Christian...huh? How? As for my believer part, you have to admit that if science someone concluded this was Jesus and that it was his son Judah in the box, it would upset the apple cart a good bit, and many people would not like that. DD
You evaded my question. In what way am I a true believer? If you are not just trying to be contrarian and really think the show used good science (or at least illustrated that they used good science) then I don't know what to say.
Sorry, I think I got you confused with Rhester who is a minister, if you are not a Christian follower, then I am sorry for assuming you were. I think the show used good science, but then took a massive leap based upon science. There is no way in the world to be 100% sure that is the Jesus from the New testament, no way. But the statistics portion was accurate, the Patina portion was accurate, the DNA portion was accurate (Though they tested the wrong 2 people, which really didn't prove anything) and the names inscribed on the tombs was accurate ( or at least debatably accurate). So, yes, I think they made a decent case for people to do more study, and it made for interesting TV. And, I think that a lot of people are scared that it just might be Jesus and are going to rush out and "Scream at the top of their lungs that it can't be him" And, I think they have a good case for being right, the statistical probability for finding THE Jesus tomb is probably higher than the statistics of having the same named people of Jesus family in the tomb. All I am saying is .....let's get some impartial scientists in there to have a look, open up the minds and get to work......what harm is there in that? If it is proven that it is NOT the tomb of Jesus (highly likely) then this will all go down as a massive publicity stunt. But if there is some doubt, or the true scientific evidence supports that it could in fact be Jesus, then a lot of theological thinking will have to be adjusted. All I want is for some impartial scientists to follow up.....is there anything wrong with that? DD
I know the part you're trying to play but this sentence doesn't seem to make any sense. Either it's science or it's not. Taking a massive leap seems to be the anti-science. When an impartial scientist comes out against this, you'll merely say that they've caved to the pressure from the groups who "don't want people to think for themselves."
The science was solid, but the conclusions were not. Huh? I am saying discovery is caving in to peer pressure, not the scientists. But there are scientists that would look stupid for ignoring this discovery for 26 years if it proves noteworthy......their conclusions surely must be taken with a grain of salt as their professional reputations are at stake. DD
Oh, I can understand...rhester and my posts have been so similar over the years. It is like we are twins. I am sure 95% of the board gets us confused. There is no point. If only those darned experts actually did their jobs instead of just sitting in their offices. Ha ha. Stupid archaeologists, historians, and language experts.
that's what's baffling to me. this is a filmmaker and a wanna-be-archaeologist journalist and they're given equal credibility with people from those disciplines who are coming out in droves saying, "uh...this is crap." people want to believe the sensational. it's why stuff like this sells. but this one, in particular, has so little substance it's laughable. and then dramatized it to make it really laughable. ever seen the Naked Archaeologist on History Channel? This same journalist hosts that show. He looks at archaeologists and historians who tell him something contrary to the Bible and comes up with a 1000 different reasons why they're wrong and the OT account is absolutely literal. Even as a Christian, it's embarassing....though this guy is Jewish. Da Da-- have you seen that show? if you have, i can't believe you'd ascribe this guy any credibility...particularly given your feelings on religion.
People are stupid and don't understand the depth of various fields. When something simplistic and movie-like comes along, it makes more sense to believe that as opposed to wading through academic papers and archaological reports.
Rimmy and Max. Doesn't science always come out on the critical side at first. Their initial reaction to anthing is to dispute it whole heartedly. But in a lot of cases, it spurs research on, and in some of those cases science is proven wrong and has to be adjusted. Science can not prove it was Jesus tomb, actually NOTHING can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. However, my point is, it deserves more study, and the people who discovered the tomb and failed to recognize the signifigance of the names did a shoddy job. I just hope it gets a real look..... DD
Da Da -- everything turns on the Mary Magdelene inscription. you've read what's been said about that. you've read what it's based on (14th century copies of 4th -5th century manuscript). and you've read that scholars don't ascribe those names to Mary Magdaelene. I recongize you see a religious conspiracy to hide evidence. But there is nothing rational about this, anymore. It's beyond silly.
Let's see what the final say is on the inscription, I will concede that if all the scholars decide it is NOT Mariamne...then the case is seriously weakened. However, if there is still debate among the scholars, then it could be her and him. And isn't most of the bible based upon writings in the 4th century? Or at least the writings that were passed down from the time of Jesus or shortly thereafter, just like the Acts of Philip, I fail to see how one can be taken as factual and the other left out....and dismissed because of timing of when it was written. DD
no. historians, secular and otherwise, ascribe the earliest of Paul's letters to around 50 AD. mark and matthew SEEM to cite from a common source that would pre-date both of them....and scholars date Mark to somewhere between 60-70 AD. other than politics, there are real reasons why certain books were chosen. most were based on how common usage was of these books by churches that were separated by long distances. of course, that does not mean that we can find value in reading those left out today. EDIT -- you fail to see how they could have been left out because of timing? seriously? do you think you could write a more reliable account of what happened in 1600 than someone who lived then?
Absolutley not, but someone writing 50 years later is also prone to not being accurate...agreed? Heck try whispering a phrase around a camp fire to the person next to you, and have about 20 people, see what comes out at the end. DD
The "gossip game" analogy is terribly weak. Could you write a reasonably accurate biography of John F. Kennedy, given access to many people who knew him personally?
Of course, but you are comparing a time when njearly everyone can write, to back then when hardly anyone was literate. Not to mention, the average lifespan of people back then was what? About 35 years? Edit: Sorry average lifespan back then was only a little more than 20 years So not many people 50-80 years later would have first hand knowledge if any. And people are prone to embellish. DD
Who knows how much stories have changed over 2000 years. Stories from the American Revolution have changed and its been less than 250 years. Paul Revere was captured but have someone write a poem about it a hundred years later and he saved our newly forming nation.
I know isn't that funny, he was drunk at a Tavern and was captured, but people think he is the one that rode to tell the troops, when in reality it was someone else. DD
I don't know how relevant average lifespans were, because, if you believe the writers of the Gospels are who they've traditionally been attributed to, two (Matthew and John) knew Jesus personally and knew virtually everyone who knew Jesus personally. (FWIW, John was in his eighties when he wrote his Gospel.) One (Mark) probably knew Jesus personally, but definitely knew all of the apostles. He wouldn't have had any trouble getting any information he needed. The fourth (Luke) is the only one that you could question his sources (he was a convert of Paul's), but his gospel agrees with Matthew's and Mark's.
