did anyone else watch the special on the Discovery Channel about how they possibly found the family tomb of Christ in Jerusalem? I found it to be quite interesting.. here is the link for it :
Im obviously quite skeptical, but I thought it was rather fascinating none the less...and I thought Id get a *friendly* debate going as to what your guys opinions on this is.
Once upon a time in broken dreams Reflection's that I can't face So hold your breath and make a wish for me Take me to a better place
~Blessed Be~
Posts: 550 | Location: Salem Ohio | Registered: May 06, 2006
I watched it and loved it. I believe that it is entirely possible and even probable that this could be the actual tomb. I am curious as to how this will play out.
Posts: 825 | Location: I hate Texas | Registered: April 05, 2006
I do believe its quite possible that this is the tomb of their family, I guess the things that make me skeptical are:
1. Why did it take them over 27 years to say "hey these combination of names are quite unique..lets give it some study and see where it goes.
2. What was with the ossuary of James? I realize the petina stuff matched with the other ossuaries but the guy that had a private collection was just charged with fraud a few weeks ago..so is that REALLY the ossuary of James?
3. The Matthew Ossuary kinda threw me off slightly as well because it had other immediate family in there..why was he the only *non-immediate family*?? and where was the rest of the immediate family..unless they were the unmarked ossuaries in there...which, why would they leave those unmarked while making sure to deliberatley and clearly mark the rest of the ossuaries?
4. Why didnt they do other DNA testing from the rest of the ossuraies to compare them to each other to see if they can come up with more concrete familial relations?
like I said Im not saying this IS NOT the tomb..In my opinion we just need to do more studying of it as well. And also, even if the familial relations are correct in the comparison match to the jesus family tree...we have no DNA to compare it to, so that we can never 100% accuratley say this is for sure the tomb of Christ, as I said though I think its very fascinating and I hope they continue in their study and debates and see where they go with it
Once upon a time in broken dreams Reflection's that I can't face So hold your breath and make a wish for me Take me to a better place
~Blessed Be~
Posts: 550 | Location: Salem Ohio | Registered: May 06, 2006
Disclaimer: I am not against the idea that Jesus could have a family of his own and an ossuary, the runt below is about what I know about the the film so far and about one of its creators.
My main problems with the 'documentary' are these:
1. Timing of the film airing. By now it's a well-established tradition to throw something sensational out there before Easter, something that claims to turn the foundation of the Christian faith upside down. Rile up clergymen and die-hard believers, create lots of noise, make lots of money. Never fails. Whatever refutations are published, the majority will not be talking about them because they are not catchy, they are not 'wow'.
2. One of the producers, Simcha Jacobovici, is the same person who earlier produced 'The Exodus Decoded' that is based on a deliberate assumption and consecutively twists and packs archaeological evidence and Biblical references to follow that assumption completely ignoring the fact that the Bible is not a historical textbook and has a significant symbolic component. And the way he titled his creation... as if he had bullet-proof evidence. Jacobovici's notation about the probability of finding name combination like that of the Talpiot tomb to be the same as of Ringo, John, Paul and George being buries in the same place is a classical move of a sensationalist; it's comparing apples to oranges in such a manner that viewers/listeners don't even realize that it's not a valid analogy. He makes many other similar twists of logic, but the one mentioned here was the first I came across, so it became a trademark of Jacobovici's thinking to me.
For those who feel interested enough to dive deeper in this sort of quasi-scientific approach, Jacobovici also co-authored a companion book for the film titled "The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History".
The rest are minor frowns.
Yes, the rare name Mariamene/Mariamne can be traced to Miriam/Maria/Mary, and Mary Magdalene was referred to as Mariamne in early Greek Christian texts. But even if it is the same person, we cannot say that the scriptural Mariamne was the only one who ever lived. And if Mariamene in fact means Mary (Magdalene), Mary was an very common name back then, as well as Jesus or Matthew, and for that some statistical evidence derived from historical records does exist.
Keep in mind that ancient Semitic script found on all but Mariamene's ossuaries is not easy to translate, so if the film tells you that it is 'Jesus', 'Joses', and what not written on those ossuaries, you have to take the filmmakers' word for them to be interpreted correctly; something I would never do because of Jacobovici's past efforts and ongoing fact-garbling attitude. Mariamene's ossuary is transcribed in Greek, and that one allows for more than one translation too.
Going back to statistics and how probable... yada yada. If we cannot translate the inscribed names in some unified manner, what kind of probability of name grouping are we talking about?
And how did scientists who made DNA tests arrive at the conclusion that tested materials possibly belonged to Jesus of Nazareth and Maria Magdalena? What did they have to verify those tests against? Or should the conclusion be attributed to filmmakers exclusively and scientists deserve sympathy for being miscited again? The fact that the two deceased persons were not related by blood is something natural if it's a spousal burial and proves nothing. Further DNA testings could confirm that several ossuaries belonged to members to the same family, but what would that mean? That Mariamene could be married to any of other males in the tomb?
All that sounds much like the noise about the ossuary of James, brother of Jesus, that happened a few years back. The same willingness to jump to a sensational conclusion without enough evidence. Jacobovici dutifully exploits it too as if the connection between that ossuary and those of Talpiot could not mean that both belonged to the same ordinary Middle-Eastern family.
Runt over.
Speaking of the ossuary of James, the idea that he could have such a thing goes against what is known about him or Jewish laws of his time. James was explicitly against accumulating any wealth, and the poor having a rock ossuary is a thing unheard of. For many middle-class people, even a charnel-house was too expensive. James was executed for violating Jewish law which led to the burial in a trench grave. No ossuaries were provided for violators. The only documented detail about his grave is in the Eusebius, and it mentions stele - the word that was never used to mean an ossuary (at least there is no evidence of such use) but instead it's the exact thing that marks a trench grave. So even if the found ossuary is not a forgery (modern or ancient - does not matter), it proves nothing.
The same general approach can be applied to Jesus himself - we have no evidence that the family of his became wealthy, and it is improbable for a spiritual person to focus on material affairs to the extent that would allow to have a splendid tomb for his whole family.
Jesus got a spot in a tomb of Joseph, not his father but a member of the Jerusalem elite - Joseph of Arimathea (see Mark 15:43-46), and that, too, points to the fact that he could not afford one for himself. It's doubtful that Joseph of Arimathea could also offer a tomb for his family members.
So what do we have so far? Some coincidences, indeed. Some unlikely probabilities too. But tell me what is so fascinating about all that?
~~~~~~~ CoffeeOwl
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. ~ Author unknown ~
Posts: 4828 | Location: Outskirts of Silicon Valley, California | Registered: April 05, 2006
Originally posted by CoffeeOwl: Disclaimer: I am not against the idea that Jesus could have a family of his own and an ossuary, the runt below is about what I know about the the film so far and about one of its creators.
My main problems with the 'documentary' are these:
1. Timing of the film airing. By now it's a well-established tradition to throw something sensational out there before Easter, something that claims to turn the foundation of the Christian faith upside down. Rile up clergymen and die-hard believers, create lots of noise, make lots of money. Never fails. Whatever refutations are published, the majority will not be talking about them because they are not catchy, they are not 'wow'.
2. One of the producers, Simcha Jacobovici, is the same person who earlier produced 'The Exodus Decoded' that is based on a deliberate assumption and consecutively twists and packs archaeological evidence and Biblical references to follow that assumption completely ignoring the fact that the Bible is not a historical textbook and has a significant symbolic component. And the way he titled his creation... as if he had bullet-proof evidence. Jacobovici's notation about the probability of finding name combination like that of the Talpiot tomb to be the same as of Ringo, John, Paul and George being buries in the same place is a classical move of a sensationalist; it's comparing apples to oranges in such a manner that viewers/listeners don't even realize that it's not a valid analogy. He makes many other similar twists of logic, but the one mentioned here was the first I came across, so it became a trademark of Jacobovici's thinking to me.
For those who feel interested enough to dive deeper in this sort of quasi-scientific approach, Jacobovici also co-authored a companion book for the film titled "The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History".
The rest are minor frowns.
Yes, the rare name Mariamene/Mariamne can be traced to Miriam/Maria/Mary, and Mary Magdalene was referred to as Mariamne in early Greek Christian texts. But even if it is the same person, we cannot say that the scriptural Mariamne was the only one who ever lived. And if Mariamene in fact means Mary (Magdalene), Mary was an very common name back then, as well as Jesus or Matthew, and for that some statistical evidence derived from historical records does exist.
Keep in mind that ancient Semitic script found on all but Mariamene's ossuaries is not easy to translate, so if the film tells you that it is 'Jesus', 'Joses', and what not written on those ossuaries, you have to take the filmmakers' word for them to be interpreted correctly; something I would never do because of Jacobovici's past efforts and ongoing fact-garbling attitude. Mariamene's ossuary is transcribed in Greek, and that one allows for more than one translation too.
Going back to statistics and how probable... yada yada. If we cannot translate the inscribed names in some unified manner, what kind of probability of name grouping are we talking about?
And how did scientists who made DNA tests arrive at the conclusion that tested materials possibly belonged to Jesus of Nazareth and Maria Magdalena? What did they have to verify those tests against? Or should the conclusion be attributed to filmmakers exclusively and scientists deserve sympathy for being miscited again? The fact that the two deceased persons were not related by blood is something natural if it's a spousal burial and proves nothing. Further DNA testings could confirm that several ossuaries belonged to members to the same family, but what would that mean? That Mariamene could be married to any of other males in the tomb?
All that sounds much like the noise about the ossuary of James, brother of Jesus, that happened a few years back. The same willingness to jump to a sensational conclusion without enough evidence. Jacobovici dutifully exploits it too as if the connection between that ossuary and those of Talpiot could not mean that both belonged to the same ordinary Middle-Eastern family.
Runt over.
Speaking of the ossuary of James, the idea that he could have such a thing goes against what is known about him or Jewish laws of his time. James was explicitly against accumulating any wealth, and the poor having a rock ossuary is a thing unheard of. For many middle-class people, even a charnel-house was too expensive. James was executed for violating Jewish law which led to the burial in a trench grave. No ossuaries were provided for violators. The only documented detail about his grave is in the Eusebius, and it mentions stele - the word that was never used to mean an ossuary (at least there is no evidence of such use) but instead it's the exact thing that marks a trench grave. So even if the found ossuary is not a forgery (modern or ancient - does not matter), it proves nothing.
The same general approach can be applied to Jesus himself - we have no evidence that the family of his became wealthy, and it is improbable for a spiritual person to focus on material affairs to the extent that would allow to have a splendid tomb for his whole family.
Jesus got a spot in a tomb of Joseph, not his father but a member of the Jerusalem elite - Joseph of Arimathea (see Mark 15:43-46), and that, too, points to the fact that he could not afford one for himself. It's doubtful that Joseph of Arimathea could also offer a tomb for his family members.
So what do we have so far? Some coincidences, indeed. Some unlikely probabilities too. But tell me what is so fascinating about all that?
Coffee owl in the name of skeptics everywhere, I salute you
----------------------------------- Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World]
I sure was hoping that Coffee or Shadow would come in here and give the more opposite side of the story! Thank you guys. I am sooooo rushed for time these days that I haven't been able to research any of it and really wanted to see the more skeptical points so I could compare it.
I think my main reasoning to beleive it's a possible Jesus Tomb is the combination of those particular names in a specific family grouping. The statistician made sense to me and it seems so unlikely that they were all together like that and be just an average Jewish family of that time period.
My biggest question was whether they actually DNA tested ALL the bodies there. My first impression was that they did, and they were all related thru the first Mary, with the exception of Mary Magdalene.
the question is still unanswered for me, I suppose.
And yes Coffee, I know that this is this seasons "Easter Shaker".......... always gotta have something to stir people.
Posts: 825 | Location: I hate Texas | Registered: April 05, 2006
So what do we have so far? Some coincidences, indeed. Some unlikely probabilities too. But tell me what is so fascinating about all that?
Call me weird, I have always (well for about 40 years) found the study of biblical 'history' so intriguing. As a youngster, I was asked to leave church because I was skeptical and asked too many uncomfortable questions.
I'm not a big believer in coincidences-- always kinda thought there is a reason behind everything. But that's what makes me the person I am.
*and I must say that I have learned a lot from Shadow over the years*
Never too old to learn~~~
Mama
Posts: 825 | Location: I hate Texas | Registered: April 05, 2006
Originally posted by ShadowDragon: Coffee owl in the name of skeptics everywhere, I salute you Big Grin
Thanks, Shadow. I hoped you'd add something to that... No?
quote:
Originally posted by SID: Although I DO find these things interesting, the timing always seems the same.
Yes, makes you wonder why. Christmas time would be just as good for a sensation.
quote:
Originally posted by MamaLaiste: I think my main reasoning to believe it's a possible Jesus Tomb is the combination of those particular names in a specific family grouping. The statistician made sense to me and it seems so unlikely that they were all together like that and be just an average Jewish family of that time period.
But Mama, the thing is that there is no particular names. You can translate them the Biblical way, you can translate them some less common way (the late Second Temple period was time of significant Greco-Roman influence on Jewish culture), depending on what you want to prove. That's why statistics offered by Dr. Feuerverger convince me of nothing. They look good and sound on their own if you agree with the long list of assumptions, it's just that they don't exactly apply to the matter. For those who is interested, the text document by Dr. Feuerverger is here
quote:
Originally posted by MamaLaiste: My biggest question was whether they actually DNA tested ALL the bodies there. My first impression was that they did, and they were all related thru the first Mary, with the exception of Mary Magdalene.
And if they actually tested everybody, and everyone but Mariamene would turn out to be related, what do you think that would prove?
quote:
Originally posted by MamaLaiste: Call me weird, I have always (well for about 40 years) found the study of biblical 'history' so intriguing. As a youngster, I was asked to leave church because I was skeptical and asked too many uncomfortable questions.
Interesting... Me and my friend were sent out of the church for a conversation that the clergyman overhead and did not like We were like in 7th grade and had very little understanding of what should and should not be discussed in a church.
I don't question the fascination with the Biblical history, although I do have an aversion to interpreting in literally... But yes, the subject is incredibly fascinating, even more so if you look at it in comparison with Judaic and earlier Middle-Eastern beliefs and customs. I was asking about this particular finding that did not fascinate anyone in scientific or clergy circles (and rightfully so, IMHO) until Mr. Jacobovici sank his teeth into it smelling the next sensation.
I would love to see Mommy in this thread. *sigh* She seems to disappear completely.
~~~~~~~ CoffeeOwl
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. ~ Author unknown ~
Posts: 4828 | Location: Outskirts of Silicon Valley, California | Registered: April 05, 2006
I'm not sure if anyone else did, but I also watched the discussion AFTER the show with Ted Koppel... No, they have not DNA tested all of them yet. They strictly ran a comparison between the "Jesus" ossuary and the "Miramne" ossuary just to see if there was a blood link or not. Also, I don't believe anyone said that these belonged to Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalen... Yes, they are pointing to that possibility, but the filmmakers have all said that they just wanted to bring this information forward so it could be further investigated and so everyone could draw their own conclusions. Jacobovici said that he hopes the rest of the ossuaries can be DNA tested. The main reason for the testing of those two ossuaries was because there were solid peices of bone that could be tested whereas the others appeared to have been vacuumed clean (This is all in the filmmakers' words).
Now, let me add that I am not here to defend ANYONE'S ideas on this. I'm just adding what I've learned about it from the interview thingy.
Concerning the James ossuary, the supposed forgery in question is the possible addition of "Brother of Jesus". They seem to think that was added at a later date and was forged. However, the rest of the ossuary seems to be authentic.
I understand everyone's skepticism of the names but there's been nothing so far to prove that it ISN'T what the filmmakers think it is and, in my opinion, quite a bit of possibility that it could be.
As for the timing (not the Easter timing, but the 27 years it took for it to come to light)... Remember that these were found during a construction dig.. while a finding like that would stop all work until further investigation in the US, this was not in the US. The laws there are much different. Did anyone see that frikkin warehouse? It was HUGE! And full of all kinds of stuff! Just like legal evidence in the US, it got filed away and forgotten until someone with an interest (no matter the motivation of that interest) came along to bring it to light. It happens and doesn't surprise me.
And one more thing to add... It's not uncommon for family members to go find a body and move it to a family cemetary/burial site. They tried to do that with Jesus's body and I know there were many other instances of this happening at that time.
Could this just be some random family from Jesus's time that just happened to have all the same names? Sure.
Could this be the actual tomb of Jesus of Nazareth? I think the possibility is still there and it deserves further investigation.
I'm sure I will have more to add later once I can think again.
"Lucifer always has reasons for doing what He does. He rarely explains. His intentions are only malevolent toward malicious people..."-JOB: A Comedy of Justice "So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth."-Baha u llah Active member since December, 2001
Posts: 979 | Location: Streamin' Tunes from the home of the 101st! | Registered: April 05, 2006
Sorry but I can't buy it. I have studied Jesus for too long. The location is wrong... all the evidence is shady and the timing is just far too questionable.
But I am overjoyed to see renewed interest in the life of a man whose teachings could help so many.
Oh look, Shea came back! Hi Shea How's everything?
No, no one said that DNA belonged to definite someone, not me, not scientists, not Jacobovici or Cameron. BTW, I confused one for another with that Ringo, John, Paul and George stuff. It was Cameron who made that comparison while Jacobovici produced the following gem: "There are really only two possibilities," says director Jacobovici. "Either this cluster of names represents the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family. Or some other family, with this very same constellation of names, existed at precisely the same time in history in Jerusalem." Same difference, and I already explained why you can't hop around like that.
With the same ease he jumped to the conclusion that Mariamene a Mara should mean Mary Magdalene because prof. Bovon confirmed to him that it is how she was referred to in _one_ particular text. Tell me, what it is if not an arrant sensationalism? And in Jacobovici's own words from here: "The tomb is a fact, the names are facts, the DNA relationship is a fact, the statistical studies are facts..." What facts?? With exception of the DNA test results, they are assumptions and questionable deductions at best.
So the rest of ossuaries were vacuum clean, eh? But there were fragments of bones on the floor... they could be worth testing too if you consider that it was not very likely for some unrelated bones to be thrown into a tomb. Oh was it? Then we can add more factors that add to uncertainty.
The Talpiot Tomb was not forgotten between 1980 and now, there was another film about it in 1996 broadcasted in UK that sparked some new interest in archaeologists. Their conclusions however were pretty much the same as what you hear now.
BTW, the statement that the burial _isn't_ of the Jesus' family does not require any proof as far as the opposite isn't proven. It's a positive thesis that needs support in the form of cogent arguments, evidence, or demonstration. Otherwise you might be challenged to prove that there were no extra-terrestrial contacts in the Jerusalem during the Second Temple period.
~~~~~~~ CoffeeOwl
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. ~ Author unknown ~
Posts: 4828 | Location: Outskirts of Silicon Valley, California | Registered: April 05, 2006
Originally posted by ShadowDragon: Coffee owl in the name of skeptics everywhere, I salute you Big Grin
Thanks, Shadow. I hoped you'd add something to that... No?
Nope not really, I haven't seen the show and I've only been hearing about this on this board. Can't say I find biblical history that intriguing, probably because I didn't grow up with it.
Every now and then someone comes along saying they've found the ark of Noah or Jesus' remains or his burial shroud etc etc. Whether jesus really existed or not is of little consequence to me personally, a pile of bones doesn't prove he was the son of god and went around making miracles happen.
quote:
Originally posted by Mamalaiste: *and I must say that I have learned a lot from Shadow over the years*
You flatter me dear lady
----------------------------------- Our species needs, and deserves, a citizenry with minds wide awake and a basic understanding of how the world works. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World]
Originally posted by ShadowDragon: Nope not really, I haven't seen the show and I've only been hearing about this on this board. Can't say I find biblical history that intriguing, probably because I didn't grow up with it.
I think it something else I did not grow up with it either, actually I was barred from anything that would go beyond aesthetic or historic aspects of Christianity. And the film will not be broadcasted till this weekend, so no one saw it. But the corresponding book is out, the Web site is up and running, and that's more than enough.
quote:
Every now and then someone comes along saying they've found the ark of Noah or Jesus' remains or his burial shroud etc etc. Whether jesus really existed or not is of little consequence to me personally, a pile of bones doesn't prove he was the son of god and went around making miracles happen.
Mm. Fair enough.
~~~~~~~ CoffeeOwl
I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. ~ Author unknown ~
Posts: 4828 | Location: Outskirts of Silicon Valley, California | Registered: April 05, 2006
We were like in 7th grade and had very little understanding of what should and should not be discussed in a church.
How's everything?