PDA

View Full Version : Archaeologists, scholars dispute Jesus documentary


MegaFuz
February 26th, 2007, 10:53 AM
A new documentary by the Oscar-winning director, James Cameron, argues that 10 ancient ossuaries (small caskets used to store bones) discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1980 may have contained the bones of Jesus and his family.

One of the caskets even bears the title, "Judah, son of Jesus," hinting that Jesus may have had a son. The tomb bears the name "Mary" as well, but scholars argue that these were some of the most common Jewish names at the time. The very fact that Jesus had an ossuary would contradict the Christian belief that he was resurrected and ascended to heaven.

In 1996, when the BBC aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television. "They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.

Stephen Pfann, a biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem who was interviewed in the documentary, said the film's hypothesis holds little weight. "I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," Pfann said. "But skeptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear. How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 -- 10 being completely possible -- it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half."

James Cameron claims to have DNA evidence that will match that of Jesus, however. Specifics on Cameron's proof are not known yet, but a press conference to be held shortly should clear more up. "The Lost Tomb of Christ" will be aired on the Discovery Channel on March 4th.

--

Thought this was rather interesting. I'm not a very religious person, but I tend to find this a little far fetched. I'm eager to see what is said in the press conference though. I find it amusing how there is a constant battle to prove or dis-prove Christ's life. When The Da Vinci Code was written, there had to be countless other books written to counter-attack the claims of Dan Brown's novel. It all seems so silly to me. The way I see it, you should believe what you want to believe. I'm not very religious at all, but I have no problems with people who are.

Drifblim
February 26th, 2007, 12:43 PM
This probably would mean that whatever was seen of Christ after the crucifixion was a spectre, going by biblical references.

Of course, Cameron doesn't have much to support him, just his conviction from a few documentaries and that's it.

EmeraldSky
February 26th, 2007, 12:43 PM
::BS alarm goes off::

Usually the Discovery Channel is pretty reliable, but every so often something like this appears.

MegaFuz
February 26th, 2007, 02:09 PM
This probably would mean that whatever was seen of Christ after the crucifixion was a spectre, going by biblical references.

Not necessarily. I think the Bible is taken far too literally. It has been revised and translated so many times over the years that I think many of the supernatural events in the Bible are slightly warped.

Drifblim
February 26th, 2007, 03:46 PM
Not necessarily. I think the Bible is taken far too literally. It has been revised and translated so many times over the years that I think many of the supernatural events in the Bible are slightly warped.That's what I believe as well, yet I'm saying for those that still accept the story....

Lil' Schu
February 26th, 2007, 08:10 PM
Not necessarily. I think the Bible is taken far too literally. It has been revised and translated so many times over the years that I think many of the supernatural events in the Bible are slightly warped.
Well, isn't that the way all stories that are passed down are? Some detail gets added that wasn't there originally.

But if you mean the translating, then why wouldn't it be the same? I mean, you're just translating languages. Sure, there's going to be some switching around of the words, but you'd have the same meaning.

About the original post: Big hoax. There's been other "Biblical" finds [The Ark of the Covenant...yup, until they found galvanized nails in it], and they've all been proven false. [I'm not saying that all finds to do with the Bible are false, but hoax-y ones like this one, have been.]

Frostweaver
February 26th, 2007, 08:39 PM
The fact that there's 80 different "complete pieces" to the same cross leaves me highly skeptical about this whole thing...

Just a reminder that I'm a darn hardcore Christian though, so biased? possibly o.o; I believe in the bible whole heartedly and is probably one of those who read it "overly literal" as put by some others, which i don't mind, but when it comes to holy items and other physical remains of biblical items/events/people... I don't really believe in any of them. It's just too easy to have some block of wood that is just around that time period, and claims that it must have been part of the cross... Put some water in a cup, and that's the holy grail? Err... Too easy to grab attention or the money for it, methinks...

(the only one that I personally view as plausible is the Noah's Ark in Turkey perhaps, since that is surprisingly the only one that only got one version to the story, instead of 80 possibilities all at once.)

Lil' Schu
February 26th, 2007, 08:42 PM
The fact that there's 80 different "complete pieces" to the same cross leaves me highly skeptical about this whole thing...

Just a reminder that I'm a darn hardcore Christian though, so biased? possibly o.o; I believe in the bible whole heartedly and is probably one of those who read it "overly literal" as put by some others, which i don't mind, but when it comes to holy items... I don't really believe in any of them. It's just too easy to have some block of wood that is just around that time period, and claims that it must have been part of the cross... Put some water in a cup, and that's the holy grail? Err... Too easy to grab attention or the money for it, methinks...
That cross has been through quite a battering, then. :P

I personally think they won't find any "rare" item like the Ark, the Cross, Jesus' robes, the Ark of the Covenant, whatnot. But like Biblical cities, they've been excavated. There are people out there who want to find stuff to help show people that the Bible's true. Cities are a bit different the then the ark, though.

Frostweaver
February 27th, 2007, 10:14 PM
Cities don't really prove enough, apparently, cause I can follow Dan Brown's footstep anytime and apparently make very believable truths as long as I string up names of existing famous cities and people all together. That isn't too hard to do, even for our levels of writing. I mean, throw in any original story, now just change the settings and character names and you got it o_O;

If someone truly believes in something strongly, then no evidence, be it real or fictional, can affect the powerful faith within~ It may raise an eyebrow, but that's about it.

Really, it's just far too easy to be famous or create even more fame if anyone dares to abuse any religious beliefs. Like the cited Ark of the Covenant example... well it certainly made 4 guys super famous, especially the dead one who was supposedly struck down by God for daring to open a press conference about the whereabouts of the Ark. A "lucky" timing natural death just have to get him on the first pages of the newspapers nonstop for quite awhile ><; Maybe that's the real story? Who knows... If it's not real, then no point to talk about it. If it's really real, then let's not talk about it anyway cause I don't want to suddenly die =x

Samurai X
February 27th, 2007, 10:56 PM
So wait...they find some old caskets with names that happen to be Jesus, Mary and Joseph and it's automatically them? Even though they were common names back then? Normally, I am open to a lot of things because many things are possible but this is just too far fetched. I don't see what the DNA tests are going to prove either. I'm pretty sure Jesus never gave anybody a DNA sample back then and the only thing the test would prove is if the people who were buried in the tomb were related somehow and that already seems pretty obvious considering they were all buried in the same tomb and two are even linked as father and son. So basically the fact that this could be any family with very common names makes this pure speculation and will just make skeptics more skeptical while providing no concrete proof that this was truly Jesus' tomb. You know, the real Jesus, not some average person with the name Jesus who was buried with his family. I still want to watch this though.

MegaFuz
February 27th, 2007, 11:24 PM
I know a lot of Bible skeptics out there actually do believe in Jesus and the fact that he walked the Earth and accomplished great things. Many of them simply don't believe that he was the Son of God and that the feats he displayed were not as outlandish and the Bible depicts them. That said, I can see where one with these beliefs would have interest in this documentary because it backs everything they believe. It proves that Jesus was not re-incarnated and was buried properly. Another big belief of Bible skeptics is that Jesus and Mary had a relationship (sexually), so the possibility of them having a son is appealing to them.

Regardless of my personal beliefs, I can easily see how non-Christians or any type of Bible critic would jump on this story. Even if Cameron can come up with some type of DNA proof, there's no real way that this hypothesis can be proven 100%, as Samurai X pointed out. This will no doubt fizzle out and be another in a long line of religious theories.

Rinji
March 1st, 2007, 09:30 PM
Like a lot of people, I believe it could have been any family. Jesus, Mary, Joseph, etc. weren't really uncommon names back then.

Auron
March 5th, 2007, 09:32 AM
That guy is after money, I'm sure. I saw this yesterday in the news report on TV.