Karma Kramer
Banned
Bogus said:
It didn't say Magdalen though it said... "Mariamene" which is now proved to be the real name of Mary Magdalene.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
James Cameron has found Jesus' coffin...seriously
- Thread starter VinZuku
- Start date
- Status
It didn't say Magdalen though it said... "Mariamene" which is now proved to be the real name of Mary Magdalene.
RiZ III said:
I wasn't disregarding anything -- I was simply asking for some statements from the proverbial horse's mouth (i.e. the filmmakers) that addressed my questions. I certainly hadn't seen anyone in this thread address them before now, so I appreciate the response.
Same to you, Karma Kramer.Regarding the James ossuary. It was surrounded by controversy because it was picked up from an antiquities dealer. The inscription, 'James son of Joseph brother of Jesus' on the tomb was challenged and declared a forgery by the Israel Antiquities Authority, although they never offered any report explaining their decision. Either way, the ossuary itself wasn't in question nor the whole inscription, just the brother of Jesus part.
The Royal Ontario Museum and Geological Survey of Israel found the inscriptions to be authentic however. In 2006 Wolfgang Krumbein, worlds foremost expert on stone accumulated patina, declared the inscription to be authentic. He said that the inscription was cleaned by an antiquities dealer rather than forged. The whole issue is still being resolved in Israeli court.
The interesting part about the James ossuary is that its patina chemical composition matches that of the Mariamne ossuary. So it is possible that the James ossuary is the missing 10th ossuary, which in this case was stolen and sold on the antiquities market.
The Royal Ontario Museum and Geological Survey of Israel found the inscriptions to be authentic however. In 2006 Wolfgang Krumbein, worlds foremost expert on stone accumulated patina, declared the inscription to be authentic. He said that the inscription was cleaned by an antiquities dealer rather than forged. The whole issue is still being resolved in Israeli court.
The interesting part about the James ossuary is that its patina chemical composition matches that of the Mariamne ossuary. So it is possible that the James ossuary is the missing 10th ossuary, which in this case was stolen and sold on the antiquities market.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
this makes new zealand catholics angry.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/3976382a10.html
It does, it really does!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/3976382a10.html
woman in story said:
It does, it really does!
Karma Kramer said:
OMG dont use the word proved so easily.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1593893,00.html
As a christian that actually looks for this kind of stuff, i have never heard of this reference to mary of magdalene. I also am having trouble finding this proof that mary of magdalene was mariamene. Does anyone know who this harvard professor who he is referring to?
Monk said:
The Harvard professor was mentioned in the press conference, and is probably in the film too, I don't remember the name. Mariamne is mentioned in the Acts of Philip. Only problem with this is that Acts of Philip is dated to be a 4th century work. http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/acts/actphil.htm
Even on the official website it says:
Resurrection:
It is a matter of Christian faith that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead three days after his crucifixion circa 30 C.E. This is a central tenet of Christian theology, repeated in all four Gospels. The Lost Tomb of Jesus does not challenge this belief. In the Gospel of Matthew (28:12) it states that a rumor was circulating in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus crucifixion. This story holds that Jesus' body was moved by his disciples from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, where he was temporarily buried. Ostensibly, his remains were taken to a permanent family tomb. Though Matthew calls this rumor a lie circulated by the high priests, it appears in his Gospel as one of the stories surrounding Jesus disappearance from the initial tomb where he was buried. Even if Jesus' body was moved from one tomb to another, however, that does not mean that he could not have been resurrected from the second tomb. Belief in the resurrection is based not on which tomb he was buried in, but on alleged sightings of Jesus that occurred after his burial and documented in the Gospels.
They bolded those parts.
Just goes to show you how weak the faith of many is (and how strongly against faith that many are) that they are so seriously entertaining something that has not been at all proven.
The most they can do is attempt to prove whether or not the bones indicate that the people were related to each other or not. Every piece of so-called evidence presented on the website is nothing more than one theory of many combined with another theory of many then added to yet another. It's no different than the other shows that History Channel and Discovery Channel often show on ancient times. The evidence that they always claim to have invariably boils down to one scholar saying this PLUS someone assuming that IN ADDITION TO the belief that....
Was Jesus's name translated right? Was "Mary, known as Master" the same as Mary Magdalene? "It concievably may have been," says the web site. :lol
It's just another hype fest for what will undoubtedly be a boring several hours of TV.
Cameron is getting great publicity and hype for his show, though. Big surprise.
Resurrection:
It is a matter of Christian faith that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead three days after his crucifixion circa 30 C.E. This is a central tenet of Christian theology, repeated in all four Gospels. The Lost Tomb of Jesus does not challenge this belief. In the Gospel of Matthew (28:12) it states that a rumor was circulating in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus crucifixion. This story holds that Jesus' body was moved by his disciples from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, where he was temporarily buried. Ostensibly, his remains were taken to a permanent family tomb. Though Matthew calls this rumor a lie circulated by the high priests, it appears in his Gospel as one of the stories surrounding Jesus disappearance from the initial tomb where he was buried. Even if Jesus' body was moved from one tomb to another, however, that does not mean that he could not have been resurrected from the second tomb. Belief in the resurrection is based not on which tomb he was buried in, but on alleged sightings of Jesus that occurred after his burial and documented in the Gospels.
They bolded those parts.
Just goes to show you how weak the faith of many is (and how strongly against faith that many are) that they are so seriously entertaining something that has not been at all proven.
The most they can do is attempt to prove whether or not the bones indicate that the people were related to each other or not. Every piece of so-called evidence presented on the website is nothing more than one theory of many combined with another theory of many then added to yet another. It's no different than the other shows that History Channel and Discovery Channel often show on ancient times. The evidence that they always claim to have invariably boils down to one scholar saying this PLUS someone assuming that IN ADDITION TO the belief that....
Was Jesus's name translated right? Was "Mary, known as Master" the same as Mary Magdalene? "It concievably may have been," says the web site. :lol
It's just another hype fest for what will undoubtedly be a boring several hours of TV.
Cameron is getting great publicity and hype for his show, though. Big surprise.
DaCocoBrova
Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
Not one Indiana Jones reference...
Wow.
Wow.
gkrykewy said:
The earliest translations we have of the gospels may be that old, but assuming they are written by the people we attribute them to, the originals were certainly NOT that old. On the other hand, the scholar using that name for her wasn't even born until 185 and could claim absolutely NO first-hand knowledge of her.
And in reality, I believe most scholars feel that even the most recent of the gospels (John) should be dated to around 100 AD, not "several hundred years" AD. The earliest dates to within a few decades of the presumed death of Christ.
RiZ III said:
Was it a name used for her and eventually recorded? You are only assuming this. The actual fact is that, as far as we know and have evidence, no one alive during the same time she was recorded her name as such.
Seth C said:
You just contradicted yourself. In every case, all we have is the current oldest surviving variation. The gospels were revised and amended endlessly before then, which is why researchers get excited when they find an older version of a passage that brings them closer to "Gospel 0', a hypothetical original single source. I think there's an actual name for it aside from that, but can't remember. Why would a scholar in 185 decide to invent a cute nickname out of the blue that none of his contemporaries had ever have heard of?
gkrykewy said:
You say I contradict myself yet present no reason for your claim. How is it that I contradict myself?
You're referring to what they call "Gospel Q."
He wasn't writing in 185, he was born then. His writings would have been after 200 AD. We have fragments of both "Gospel Q" and John that date almost 100 years older than that, whether they are the originals or copies themselves.
Again, the only evidence we have that Mary was called this was by someone who had no connection to her. Someone who lived 2, perhaps 3 full generations later. If, as they claim, this was her proper name, why is it that the only example we have is from someone who never knew her, or in all likelihood, never knew anyone that knew her?
Why would ONE scholar choose to call her by a name no one else seems to? Why would this scholar be farther removed from her yet know her more intimately?
The point being, which evidence is BETTER evidence? Not which evidence better helps prove the point the director wants to make.
Truly, I have no dog in this fight. Christ buried or not makes no difference to me on a personal level. However, it seems that evidence closer to the source is being tossed aside while evidence further from it is being taken as fact in an effort by some to help prove the point they want proven. That, to me, just isn't sound.
Fusebox said:
He presented it as a possibility, yes. Others earlier in the thread we already submitting that it had been "proven." Of course it is a possibility. There is always room for mistranslation and misunderstanding. The problem is that this chance increases with time, distance from the original source.
However, the evidence closer to the source should presumably be better. There is also more of it that seemingly correlates, as compared to one account otherwise.
Let me put it this way. Who would be more trustworthy a source, were I to take their account of your name: someone living near you, at about the same time as you, or someone living elsewhere, some 5 generations and 150 years later?
Ned Flanders
Banned
It speaks lowly of mankind, that after thousands of years of civilization, scientific discovery, and social progress, that even now we find ourselves exhausting enormous amounts of time and resources debating and researching whether or not a man came back from the dead and was the son of god.
The environment is increasingly exploited, many nations are awash with senseless bloodshed and oppression, and millions upon millions live in poverty and without education. Yet we still have the time and wherewithal to sit and and stew upon the legitimacy of god-men and the resurrected.
The environment is increasingly exploited, many nations are awash with senseless bloodshed and oppression, and millions upon millions live in poverty and without education. Yet we still have the time and wherewithal to sit and and stew upon the legitimacy of god-men and the resurrected.
Ned Flanders said:
Religion will continue to hold a place in human life until science can offer a means to escape death. For now that is something offered by religion, be it realistic or not, and seemingly it is something that humans feel they need.
(In the meantime could someone please post something, anything in the NCAA Hoops thread so I can get out of this one?)
Learn2read
Member
Xdrive05 said:
It was done to show whether or not He and mary magdalene were blood-relatives, and it showed they were not (or at least they weren't related by any common female lineage). Considering this was a family tomb that means something, still circumstantial at best of course. Not LMAO worthy I'm afraid though.
soul creator
Member
Ned Flanders said:
:lol
I didn't want to say anything but...yeah.
And as I'm sure others have mentioned, I doubt it would affect Christianity in any massive way. It'll just magically turn into one of those things that "you're not supposed to take literally, it's metaphor!" just like every other scientifically testable claim made in the bible.
MetalAlien
Banned
DaCocoBrova said:
Not one person who entered the tomb melted.. I say it can't be him!
Seth C said:
Your points are fair, but my point is that it doesn't make sense for a scholar in early christendom to have simply made up an alternate name - it's likely that it did exist before that in some form, given that his work was more than 100 years pre-constantine. It's not as if this was a monk in the middle ages. I'm curious as to whether the documentary includes any discussion of the name's variations that would shed some light on this - I expect that it will.
Karma Kramer
Banned
I really don't understand how anyone can refute this evidence so far. Unless further research provides evidence that contradicts the claims made so far... then I think at the moment it is likely that they did indeed discover the tomb of Jesus ect...
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
Karma Kramer said:
It's a dicey claim anyway you slice it.
How old were the people when they died? Joseph died sometime before Jesus was baptized, Mary, Jesus Mother, would have died sometime after Jesus' death...do the age of the bones match that gap?
Do the names match all of Jesus family? How about Jesus half-brothers (James and Joseph and Judas and Simon)...and his unnamed half-sisters.
According to the secular historian Josephus, "The high priest, Ananus (Ananias), convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned.Jewish Antiquities, XX, 200 (ix, 1).
Are his bones present? Do they show signs of a stoning?
Could Joseph, being a Carpenter, even afford the quality of the burial cave in question?
Just off the top of my head there are enough questions, ones that are pretty much unanswerable past mass speculation, that this will never be proven, and will just be one of those points that both sides use to their own ends.
-ImaginaryInsider said:
People really need to start reading the fricken press releases or atleast the previous posts before they start going off on this thing.
As stated many times, the bones are no longer present. As is customary in Israel, when ossuaries are found, the bones are handed over to the Jewish religous authorities who then bury them. So, the bones in these ossuaries were buried a long time ago.
As far as the affordability of the tomb goes, you have to remember that Jesus's family was the head of the Jerusalem church after the JMan departed. They weren't extravagantly rich, but they weren't poor either. There was a significant following of people. So yes, the tombsite was certainly affordable.
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
RiZ III said:
I don't think the points I brought up can even remotely be called "going off". I just typed a few questions (off the top of my head) that makes me doubt the claim that "there is a one in 10 million chance this is a family other than the Holy Family."
From my experience, there are usually extenuating circumstances that these kind of claims ignore, or just don't consider, so I was just throwing some (random) points out there.
Honestly, from what I read, I was under that impression "The 10 ossuaries were taken initially to the Rockefeller Archaeological Museum outside the Old City of Jerusalem....then one of the ossuaries went missing. The human remains inside were destroyed before any DNA testing could be carried out." But that "They claim to have found human material on which they performed DNA".
(Maybe I read the wrong linked article...there are at least two or three different links in this thread, one of which wasn't working by the time by the time I clicked on it...if I missed a point, I apologize.)
I assumed given the DNA quote that they had harder evidence than inscriptions given the gravity of the claim.
Ninja Scooter
Member
:lol people still believe in Jesus?
Karma Kramer
Banned
Boogie said:
They didn't have enough funding to pursue more DNA tests. But they will...
I really don't see why you posted that link.
Karma Kramer said:
oh, I'm sorry. I won't interrupt the uncritical circle jerk again, then, if that's what you want.
And that's bullshit, actually. Not enough funding? With James Cameron bankrolling this effort? Suuure.
Actually, the real reason is that they just didn't give a damn:
- Status