Clever Clogs
Posts: 670 
February 25th, 2007, 09:24 AM
JERUSALEM: The makers of a new documentary, to be aired for the first time at a news conference in New York on Monday, claim that a tomb found in a Jerusalem cave 36 years ago belongs to Jesus Christ.
The claim presented in the documentary is based on years of research by archaeologists, statisticians, experts in ancient scripts and in DNA, the Israeli Yediot Ahronot daily yesterday quoted the makers as saying.
The documentary, titled The Burial Cave of Jesus, is a joint production by Israeli-born Canadian documentary maker Simcha Jacobovici and three-time-Oscar-winning Canadian film director James Cameron.
The 2000-year-old cave had already been discovered in 1980 in Jerusalem's Talpiyot neighbourhood.
In it were 10 coffins, six of which bore inscriptions, which - translated into English – included the names "Jesus son of Joseph," twice "Maria," and "Judah son of Jesus."
The second Maria is hypothesised to be Maria Magdalene, while the tomb bearing the name Judah could indicate Jesus had a son.
If true, the find could be one of the most significant in the history of archaeology and shake the Christian world.
But the senior Israeli archaeologist who thoroughly researched the tombs after their discovery, and at the time deciphered the inscriptions, cast serious doubt on it.
"It's a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever," Prof Amos Kloner, who had published the findings of his research in the Israeli periodical Atigot in 1996, said yesterday.
"The names that are found on the tombs are names that are similar to the names of the family of Jesus," he conceded.
"But those were the most common names found among Jews in the first centuries BCE and CE," he added.
Kloner dismissed the combination of names found in the cave as a "coincidence."
The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), which is keeping the caskets in its archive in the town of Beit Shemesh near Jerusalem, declined to comment on the documentary, saying it had not researched the caskets and that its duty was only to safeguard them.
The IAA, nevertheless, sent two of the caskets to the news conference in New York. – DPA
JERUSALEM: The makers of a new documentary, to be aired for the first time at a news conference in New York on Monday, claim that a tomb found in a Jerusalem cave 36 years ago belongs to Jesus Christ.
The claim presented in the documentary is based on years of research by archaeologists, statisticians, experts in ancient scripts and in DNA, the Israeli Yediot Ahronot daily yesterday quoted the makers as saying.
The documentary, titled The Burial Cave of Jesus, is a joint production by Israeli-born Canadian documentary maker Simcha Jacobovici and three-time-Oscar-winning Canadian film director James Cameron.
The 2000-year-old cave had already been discovered in 1980 in Jerusalem's Talpiyot neighbourhood.
In it were 10 coffins, six of which bore inscriptions, which - translated into English – included the names "Jesus son of Joseph," twice "Maria," and "Judah son of Jesus."
The second Maria is hypothesised to be Maria Magdalene, while the tomb bearing the name Judah could indicate Jesus had a son.
If true, the find could be one of the most significant in the history of archaeology and shake the Christian world.
But the senior Israeli archaeologist who thoroughly researched the tombs after their discovery, and at the time deciphered the inscriptions, cast serious doubt on it.
"It's a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever," Prof Amos Kloner, who had published the findings of his research in the Israeli periodical Atigot in 1996, said yesterday.
"The names that are found on the tombs are names that are similar to the names of the family of Jesus," he conceded.
"But those were the most common names found among Jews in the first centuries BCE and CE," he added.
Kloner dismissed the combination of names found in the cave as a "coincidence."
The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA), which is keeping the caskets in its archive in the town of Beit Shemesh near Jerusalem, declined to comment on the documentary, saying it had not researched the caskets and that its duty was only to safeguard them.
The IAA, nevertheless, sent two of the caskets to the news conference in New York. – DPA
Bright Spark
Posts: 327
Location: Ont
Location: Ont
February 25th, 2007, 10:24 AM
marygaspe:
Interesting.
But there have already been frauds in this field, the latest being the James Ossuary trick.
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2003/jul...7-21-31.0.html
Not wanting to bump your thread, if it were possible to find someone who can claim verified ancestry to Jesus's family(House of David) back to AD 0, then they could take plasma/persperation samples from the Shroud of Turin, and do a mitochondrial DNA test and match the result to that tribe's maternal line. This would give us a more probable indication of it's authenticity. It may not be that difficult to find someone of the Tribe of David, as in religious circles history is a detailed and exacting science especially among the Jews who are very stingent in following custom,tradition and heritage.
http://theshadowlands.net/shroud.htm
If body remnants could be taken from the tomb this could also be done on that sample. But I imagine the samples would be so dessicated to be of no use.
The latest findings on the shroud through 3 independant tests of Carbon Dating is that it dates to the middle ages. But now they say the evidence could have been tainted, which brings us back to square one.
AndyF
marygaspe:
Interesting.
But there have already been frauds in this field, the latest being the James Ossuary trick.
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2003/jul...7-21-31.0.html
Not wanting to bump your thread, if it were possible to find someone who can claim verified ancestry to Jesus's family(House of David) back to AD 0, then they could take plasma/persperation samples from the Shroud of Turin, and do a mitochondrial DNA test and match the result to that tribe's maternal line. This would give us a more probable indication of it's authenticity. It may not be that difficult to find someone of the Tribe of David, as in religious circles history is a detailed and exacting science especially among the Jews who are very stingent in following custom,tradition and heritage.
http://theshadowlands.net/shroud.htm
If body remnants could be taken from the tomb this could also be done on that sample. But I imagine the samples would be so dessicated to be of no use.
The latest findings on the shroud through 3 independant tests of Carbon Dating is that it dates to the middle ages. But now they say the evidence could have been tainted, which brings us back to square one.
AndyF
Clever Clogs
Posts: 670
February 25th, 2007, 10:41 AM
I found it interesting too, but I'm sure it's a fraud. So many people are so intent on doing all they can to discredit Christianiaty and Jesus, yet claim it is all a myth. One wonders, if such a myth, why so many efforts and attention on the topic?
Quoting AndyF
marygaspe:
Interesting.
But there have already been frauds in this field, the latest being the James Ossuary trick.
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2003/jul...7-21-31.0.html
Not wanting to bump your thread, if it were possible to find someone who can claim verified ancestry to Jesus's family(House of David) back to AD 0, then they could take plasma/persperation samples from the Shroud of Turin, and do a mitochondrial DNA test and match the result to that tribe's maternal line. This would give us a more probable indication of it's authenticity. It may not be that difficult to find someone of the Tribe of David, as in religious circles history is a detailed and exacting science especially among the Jews who are very stingent in following custom,tradition and heritage.
http://theshadowlands.net/shroud.htm
If body remnants could be taken from the tomb this could also be done on that sample. But I imagine the samples would be so dessicated to be of no use.
The latest findings on the shroud through 3 independant tests of Carbon Dating is that it dates to the middle ages. But now they say the evidence could have been tainted, which brings us back to square one.
AndyF
Interesting.
But there have already been frauds in this field, the latest being the James Ossuary trick.
http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2003/jul...7-21-31.0.html
Not wanting to bump your thread, if it were possible to find someone who can claim verified ancestry to Jesus's family(House of David) back to AD 0, then they could take plasma/persperation samples from the Shroud of Turin, and do a mitochondrial DNA test and match the result to that tribe's maternal line. This would give us a more probable indication of it's authenticity. It may not be that difficult to find someone of the Tribe of David, as in religious circles history is a detailed and exacting science especially among the Jews who are very stingent in following custom,tradition and heritage.
http://theshadowlands.net/shroud.htm
If body remnants could be taken from the tomb this could also be done on that sample. But I imagine the samples would be so dessicated to be of no use.
The latest findings on the shroud through 3 independant tests of Carbon Dating is that it dates to the middle ages. But now they say the evidence could have been tainted, which brings us back to square one.
AndyF
I found it interesting too, but I'm sure it's a fraud. So many people are so intent on doing all they can to discredit Christianiaty and Jesus, yet claim it is all a myth. One wonders, if such a myth, why so many efforts and attention on the topic?
House Member
Posts: 3,658 
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
Videos: 2
Location: 50° 30' N, 104° 38' W
February 25th, 2007, 12:04 PM
Might be a little soon to call it a fraud, all they've got is some suggestive circumstanstial evidence involving fairly common Jewish names from 2000 years ago. Besides, even it does turn out to be provably the tomb of the man we know as Jesus Christ--and I can't imagine what evidence could ever prove that--I don't see that it presents any threat to Christianity. The tomb *is* empty, isn't it?
Might be a little soon to call it a fraud, all they've got is some suggestive circumstanstial evidence involving fairly common Jewish names from 2000 years ago. Besides, even it does turn out to be provably the tomb of the man we know as Jesus Christ--and I can't imagine what evidence could ever prove that--I don't see that it presents any threat to Christianity. The tomb *is* empty, isn't it?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,651
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
February 25th, 2007, 12:16 PM
Jesus was definaly not a myth. As far as i'm concerned the chances of so many people writing so much about him and so many people preserving those tales if he didnt exist are minimal. I'm sure there was a fellow called Jesus and he did some pretty special stuff, and was a very nice guy. I'd be very interested to know where he was buried and with whom
Quoting marygaspe
I found it interesting too, but I'm sure it's a fraud. So many people are so intent on doing all they can to discredit Christianiaty and Jesus, yet claim it is all a myth. One wonders, if such a myth, why so many efforts and attention on the topic?
Jesus was definaly not a myth. As far as i'm concerned the chances of so many people writing so much about him and so many people preserving those tales if he didnt exist are minimal. I'm sure there was a fellow called Jesus and he did some pretty special stuff, and was a very nice guy. I'd be very interested to know where he was buried and with whom
The Padre
Posts: 4,558
Location: Ontario
Location: Ontario
February 25th, 2007, 12:39 PM
None at all. I suggest our fellow CC folk not over-react and actually read the article. Even the experts do not consider it to be proof the tomb is that of Jesus Christ. Read the article again Mary
Quoting Dexter Sinister
Might be a little soon to call it a fraud, all they've got is some suggestive circumstanstial evidence involving fairly common Jewish names from 2000 years ago. Besides, even it does turn out to be provably the tomb of the man we know as Jesus Christ--and I can't imagine what evidence could ever prove that--I don't see that it presents any threat to Christianity. The tomb *is* empty, isn't it?
None at all. I suggest our fellow CC folk not over-react and actually read the article. Even the experts do not consider it to be proof the tomb is that of Jesus Christ. Read the article again Mary
disturber of the peace
Posts: 1,546
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada...after growing up in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada...after growing up in Thunder Bay, Ontario.
February 25th, 2007, 01:00 PM
Quoting marygaspe
I think religion...all religion is a fascinating topic. I think there a great many people that want to figure out whether or not it's true. Some people just have faith that yes, indeed, their religious beliefs are true...others want physical proof. And, the desire to find out is there...and funding will come from a variety of sources...and that funding keeps it all going. It is highly possible this is a fraud...who knows. Time will tell. I have no clue. Still, it's all very interesting. I think religion is a great mystery of our species...it has existed throughout time in many forms. It raises many questions.
I found it interesting too, but I'm sure it's a fraud. So many people are so intent on doing all they can to discredit Christianiaty and Jesus, yet claim it is all a myth. One wonders, if such a myth, why so many efforts and attention on the topic?
NHL Hockey Insider
Posts: 3,644
Location: Vancouver Island
Location: Vancouver Island
February 25th, 2007, 04:30 PM
[quote=snfu73;794053]I think religion...all religion is a fascinating topic. I think there a great many people that want to figure out whether or not it's true. Some people just have faith
That is one thing in this world which is strong, "faith", as the faith that religious people have in their
belief in their god is extremely strong, it is a strong emotion, faith can carry people a long way, in
many aspects of their lives, but it can also prevent people from opening their eyes and brains to
possibilities that "what" they have faith in, is full of holes.
that yes, indeed, their religious beliefs are true...others want physical proof.
Sure someone like myself would definitelly want physical proof, BUT, how could physical "so called"
proof, prove itself to be "real", as in this world the ability of some to "deceive" is so realistic, that
I for one, would probably never believe that the "physical" appearance of a "god" is actually a "god",
but just someones "amazing" reasonable facsimile.
And, the desire to find out is there...and funding will come from a variety of sources...and that funding keeps it all going. It is highly possible this is a fraud...who knows. Time will tell. I have no clue. Still, it's all very interesting. I think religion is a great mystery of our species...
I think religion is good for "debate", but I don't think there is any mystery about it at all.
it has existed throughout time in many forms. It raises many questions.
The only question I raise is, that, with the high level of intelligence we have now, compared to
that of 2000 yrs. ago, it seems that people should be realizing that, what they believed in back
then, is outragious to believe in "now".
[quote=snfu73;794053]I think religion...all religion is a fascinating topic. I think there a great many people that want to figure out whether or not it's true. Some people just have faith
That is one thing in this world which is strong, "faith", as the faith that religious people have in their
belief in their god is extremely strong, it is a strong emotion, faith can carry people a long way, in
many aspects of their lives, but it can also prevent people from opening their eyes and brains to
possibilities that "what" they have faith in, is full of holes.
that yes, indeed, their religious beliefs are true...others want physical proof.
Sure someone like myself would definitelly want physical proof, BUT, how could physical "so called"
proof, prove itself to be "real", as in this world the ability of some to "deceive" is so realistic, that
I for one, would probably never believe that the "physical" appearance of a "god" is actually a "god",
but just someones "amazing" reasonable facsimile.
And, the desire to find out is there...and funding will come from a variety of sources...and that funding keeps it all going. It is highly possible this is a fraud...who knows. Time will tell. I have no clue. Still, it's all very interesting. I think religion is a great mystery of our species...
I think religion is good for "debate", but I don't think there is any mystery about it at all.
it has existed throughout time in many forms. It raises many questions.
The only question I raise is, that, with the high level of intelligence we have now, compared to
that of 2000 yrs. ago, it seems that people should be realizing that, what they believed in back
then, is outragious to believe in "now".
Les
Posts: 6,139
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
Location: 50 acres in Kootenays BC
February 25th, 2007, 04:54 PM
Seems to me that a few folks are leaping to conclusions.
First off, I thought Jesus' real name was Yeshua;
secondly, about the shroud of Turin - researchers are certain that the shroud
but, there is little or no evidence that the image on it is of any Semite in particular;
thirdly, one would have thought that if Yeshua had a kid, it would have been mentioned somewhere;
and lastly, there's still an extremely conspicuous absence of direct and irrefutable evidence leading to this guy's existence.
Seems to me that a few folks are leaping to conclusions.
First off, I thought Jesus' real name was Yeshua;
secondly, about the shroud of Turin - researchers are certain that the shroud
Quote:
- http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm is a genuine artifact of a first century Roman crucifixion of an adult Jewish male. The radiocarbon dating placing the manufacture of the linen in the 14th century was flawed by extrinsic C14 accumulated over centuries of fungal growth, candle smoke and the intense heat of the fire of 1532. There is NO paint on the linen of the shroud and is not the artifice of a forger.
but, there is little or no evidence that the image on it is of any Semite in particular;
thirdly, one would have thought that if Yeshua had a kid, it would have been mentioned somewhere;
and lastly, there's still an extremely conspicuous absence of direct and irrefutable evidence leading to this guy's existence.
Genius
Posts: 864
Location: windsor,ontario
Location: windsor,ontario
February 26th, 2007, 05:05 AM
thats silly. obviously jesus lived or else why would so many people have seen him or wrote about him?
Quoting L Gilbert
Seems to me that a few folks are leaping to conclusions.
First off, I thought Jesus' real name was Yeshua;
secondly, about the shroud of Turin - researchers are certain that the shroud - http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm[/color]
but, there is little or no evidence that the image on it is of any Semite in particular;
thirdly, one would have thought that if Yeshua had a kid, it would have been mentioned somewhere;
and lastly, there's still an extremely conspicuous absence of direct and irrefutable evidence leading to this guy's existence.
First off, I thought Jesus' real name was Yeshua;
secondly, about the shroud of Turin - researchers are certain that the shroud - http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm[/color]
but, there is little or no evidence that the image on it is of any Semite in particular;
thirdly, one would have thought that if Yeshua had a kid, it would have been mentioned somewhere;
and lastly, there's still an extremely conspicuous absence of direct and irrefutable evidence leading to this guy's existence.
thats silly. obviously jesus lived or else why would so many people have seen him or wrote about him?
The Padre
Posts: 4,558
Location: Ontario
Location: Ontario
February 26th, 2007, 05:07 AM
Actually, that is incorrect. His actual name was Joshua bar-Jonah, which translates to Yeshua in Hebrew and Jesus in the Greek.
Quoting L Gilbert
Seems to me that a few folks are leaping to conclusions.
First off, I thought Jesus' real name was Yeshua;.
First off, I thought Jesus' real name was Yeshua;.
Actually, that is incorrect. His actual name was Joshua bar-Jonah, which translates to Yeshua in Hebrew and Jesus in the Greek.
The Padre
Posts: 4,558
Location: Ontario
Location: Ontario
February 26th, 2007, 05:12 AM
Quoting L Gilbert
There's a great deal of evidence that Jesus was an actual person, most of which I'm sure you'd not accept
Seems to me that a few folks are leaping to conclusions.
First off, I thought Jesus' real name was Yeshua;
secondly, about the shroud of Turin - researchers are certain that the shroud - http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm[/color]
but, there is little or no evidence that the image on it is of any Semite in particular;
thirdly, one would have thought that if Yeshua had a kid, it would have been mentioned somewhere;
and lastly, there's still an extremely conspicuous absence of direct and irrefutable evidence leading to this guy's existence.
First off, I thought Jesus' real name was Yeshua;
secondly, about the shroud of Turin - researchers are certain that the shroud - http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm[/color]
but, there is little or no evidence that the image on it is of any Semite in particular;
thirdly, one would have thought that if Yeshua had a kid, it would have been mentioned somewhere;
and lastly, there's still an extremely conspicuous absence of direct and irrefutable evidence leading to this guy's existence.
Member
Posts: 191
Location: Saskatchewan eh!
Location: Saskatchewan eh!
February 26th, 2007, 05:28 AM
No proof will ever be found to prove or not whether any of this is real. Even proof that Jesus was real is not 100%. People have to believe on faith this and many other things/events from the past.
I for one think it is a load of BS, but that is my belief.
No proof will ever be found to prove or not whether any of this is real. Even proof that Jesus was real is not 100%. People have to believe on faith this and many other things/events from the past.
I for one think it is a load of BS, but that is my belief.
Genius
Posts: 864
Location: windsor,ontario
Location: windsor,ontario
February 26th, 2007, 05:36 AM
Quoting Dalreg
yeah, well all those writers in the bible from all kinds of different places and the roman writers and the jewish writers all got together and made him up-right? yeah, right!
No proof will ever be found to prove or not whether any of this is real. Even proof that Jesus was real is not 100%. People have to believe on faith this and many other things/events from the past.
I for one think it is a load of BS, but that is my belief.
I for one think it is a load of BS, but that is my belief.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 670
February 26th, 2007, 11:09 AM
Quoting mapleleafgirl
Good point. All these sources have not just mutually agreed to make up the person of Jesus.
yeah, well all those writers in the bible from all kinds of different places and the roman writers and the jewish writers all got together and made him up-right? yeah, right!
House Member
Posts: 3,382
February 26th, 2007, 11:19 AM
I fail to see how Jesus being married to Mary Magdelene is anything if not the epitome of Christiniaty, in line with everything else he did in life.
1.) He had to be married, Jesus was still hebrew, im sure you can go through the reasons why on your own due to the hebrew customs and what Jesus did.
2.) If Jesus, the product of a virgin birth, married and took as his wife someone cast aside by society as a harlot and condemned to death. Would that not be the ultimate example of redemption and Christly love?
Personally it seems more real and more inspiring that he was married.
edit: On the "made up thing" if there is one thing you can count on as accurate its Roman Records. There WAS a Jesus Christ. If he was a divine being, a madman or a dangerous revolutionary is another matter. But there was a Jesus.
I fail to see how Jesus being married to Mary Magdelene is anything if not the epitome of Christiniaty, in line with everything else he did in life.
1.) He had to be married, Jesus was still hebrew, im sure you can go through the reasons why on your own due to the hebrew customs and what Jesus did.
2.) If Jesus, the product of a virgin birth, married and took as his wife someone cast aside by society as a harlot and condemned to death. Would that not be the ultimate example of redemption and Christly love?
Personally it seems more real and more inspiring that he was married.
edit: On the "made up thing" if there is one thing you can count on as accurate its Roman Records. There WAS a Jesus Christ. If he was a divine being, a madman or a dangerous revolutionary is another matter. But there was a Jesus.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 670
February 26th, 2007, 11:22 AM
His getting married would make the Gospels inaccurate. I think it is likely He didn't marry, or this too would have formed part of the Gospels.
Quoting Zzarchov
I fail to see how Jesus being married to Mary Magdelene is anything if not the epitome of Christiniaty, in line with everything else he did in life.
1.) He had to be married, Jesus was still hebrew, im sure you can go through the reasons why on your own due to the hebrew customs and what Jesus did.
2.) If Jesus, the product of a virgin birth, married and took as his wife someone cast aside by society as a harlot and condemned to death. Would that not be the ultimate example of redemption and Christly love?
Personally it seems more real and more inspiring that he was married.
edit: On the "made up thing" if there is one thing you can count on as accurate its Roman Records. There WAS a Jesus Christ. If he was a divine being, a madman or a dangerous revolutionary is another matter. But there was a Jesus.
1.) He had to be married, Jesus was still hebrew, im sure you can go through the reasons why on your own due to the hebrew customs and what Jesus did.
2.) If Jesus, the product of a virgin birth, married and took as his wife someone cast aside by society as a harlot and condemned to death. Would that not be the ultimate example of redemption and Christly love?
Personally it seems more real and more inspiring that he was married.
edit: On the "made up thing" if there is one thing you can count on as accurate its Roman Records. There WAS a Jesus Christ. If he was a divine being, a madman or a dangerous revolutionary is another matter. But there was a Jesus.
His getting married would make the Gospels inaccurate. I think it is likely He didn't marry, or this too would have formed part of the Gospels.
