Tomb of Jesus and Family

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

03.09.07.1995

Every time someone posts a comment on ILP that should have supportable evidence and that evidence is not provided, they’re taking a chance. Sometimes we take these chances by assuming other people will know what we’re talking about with. With this thread, your chance expired the moment you failed to provide evidence to support your belief in the claims of someone else who already had insufficient evidence to begin with.

Statistics are never definitive… but we’re not getting into that argument (go watch the episode of Penn & Teller: Bullshit regarding statistics).
The Jaco-guy is notorious for not ending things with a definitive claim, but implying whatever resolution he wants the viewer to conclude with. He tends to place a great deal of weight on the “evidence” for his beliefs more than the evidence against them.

The “Jesus” found in that tomb is not the Jesus of the bible… is that clear enough for you?

An honest reporter does not jump to conclusions like this Jaco-guy does. I’m sure if you sent him off searching for Jimmy Hoffa, and he just so happened to find a tombstone somewhere in rural America that simply says “HOFFA”, do you think he would assume the Hoffa buried there is THE Jimmy Hoffa? It’s just like assuming someone with the last name “Smith” is related to John Smith… but which John Smith am I talking about? Get my drift?

That is absolute hogwash… why do you think they chose only to do DNA testing on the Jesus and Mariamne ossuaries? They knew they had a 50/50 chance that comparing any ossuary would yield results to be for or against their favor. How do they even know that this was a family tomb? How do they know that this was not just a tomb full of random people? If they wanted to prove that Jesus was married to Mariamne, they could have at least done DNA testing on Judah to see if he shared a genetic trace with both the presumed “father” and “mother”.

What request? And who’s religious culture are you exactly referring to?

Conspiracy, eh?

Will a moderator please move this thread to Mundane Babble now?

How so?

22

Hey, Sage, you keep saying that the director of this film is known for this-and-that, can you give me some references to other stuff he has done, and how it was recieved?

23

What indisputable evidence do you have to back your definative assertion? Or am I being too picky here?

You are being unreasonable. DNA testing 2000 year-old samples is complex, expensive and time -consuming. They waited months for results. It is only natural they chose Jesus. It is up to the rest of us to foot the entire bill and get more definative answers.

That was the custom of the period. Check with the Israeli Antiquities Authoriry for proof of this.

I am prepared to put some bucks in to find out. Are you?

The request by the film makers that the rest of us take the evidence unearthed so far with some degree of seriousness and try to get more definative answers.

I am refering to our super-power Christian culture which wields so much influence in the world at this moment in time and which tends to ignore its own basic religious moral code by rushing to war instead of peace and needs to get a little more focused and less argumentative over who we are and exactly what moral precepts we represent. The rediculous argument on this thread is a clear example of our social and spiritual confusion. We have a chance here, however slight it may be, to gain a clearer picture of our cultural origins and I see no point in making a mockery of it.

24

03.09.07.1997

My citations of him being “known for this-and-that” spring from what I have seen of his work. He has made the same, if not greater, degree of exaggerated speculation about The Lost Tomb of Jesus as he did in The Exodus Decoded that I saw on The History Chanel. I would love to go in depth about my qualms with The Exodus Decoded, but I’ll offer this snippet of a review…

I have not seen his other work, but any evaluation should not be based on what he has done in the past, but what he has done in the present. If his “skills” have resulted in the production of the kind of garbage he’s recently put out in the last year or so, does it matter what he used to do?

Wikipedia doesn’t offer much revealing information on his other works… I tried looking around on the Internet about his Quest for the Lost Tribes flim and found a number of reviews by people who had been duped into what the Jaco-guy had been selling them. The Quest for the Lost Tribes attempts to show that the 10 tribes of Israel that were broke apart by the Assyrians set the foundations for other cultures, and that their discovery will bring about the end-times. From a reviewer on Amazon who seemed credible:

If I saw this film, I would not be surprised to see the same gestation of poor evidence exaggerated by the Jaco-guy.

I’m curious why you asked Ucc… is it perhaps to get me to note that Wikipedia shows the following?

I’m sure he deserved those awards… but what were they for exactly? Wikipedia does not get specific… (oddly enough his own website doesn’t even mention the individual awards themselves like Wikipedia). However… a little research and we can patch these questions up. We can assume, without evidence, that the Emmy Awards are for his show: The Naked Archaeologist. Unlike Wikipedia, IMDB.com shows he has won not one, but two Genie awards… and only one Gemini, not two. If I did even more research, I’m sure I’d find out exactly what he’s done to get those awards. The point is… his awards reflect his past work that has little or no association with the subjects he’s been pandering with lately.

To add extra insult, he got bashed on his own show…

Gee… there’s just so much information out there to discredit this guy… Shall I continue with my research Ucc; or are you satisfied with what I’ve produced here??

25

03.09.07.1998

What indisputable evidence, you ask? You mean the evidence besides the assertions that Christians base their beliefs upon; that Christ was resurrected and ascended to heaven to sit upon the right hand of his father to judge the quick and the dead? How about the evidence that the Jesus of the bible didn’t exist in the first place? That his existence is based on a collection of stories, myths, and ideas that were prevelant of the times then and before then?

There are threads for this kind of thing… and I refuse to turn this thread into another long and drawn out debate about the Jesus of the bible. Try this thread for kicks.

…and no, you’re not being too picky. You’re merely acting like the Jaco-guy… he’s so dead-set on his beliefs that he thinks they’re true even though science slaps him in his face that he’s wrong.

Oh yeah, James Cameron didn’t want to spend any extra money to make sure his little money-making project actually became a real scientific exploration and leave scientists breathless! Really… if they did spend all the money they needed, what then?
Do you honestly think that radiocarbon dating and DNA evidence would ultimately prove that this Jesus is the same Jesus of the bible? I don’t think any credible scientist or archaeologist would back it up. The consensus would be: “this is a family and its tomb has been around since this time period… the names coincide with their popular usage of their time and in no way suggests any connection with characters of the similar names in the bible; it is pure coincidence.”

Try your luck with Dan Brown… I’m sure he’d love to make a follow-up book to The DaVinci Code. We all know he’s got the money.

A degree of seriousness is appropriated to evidence that is compelling. Such evidence is lacking in this film.

So… you think that some tomb in Jerusalem can change the world for the better, eh?

26

Thoughtful Christians have come to the conclusion that the super-natural claims of Jesus’s diinity are not only irrelevant to the meaning of our lives here on Earth, but that they are unnessasarily divisive and thereby seriously detract from sharing the essentail goodness and social logic of the Christ message to all other cultures.

During a period when the power of Rome was at its height and tribal people everythere vied for hegemony via military incursions, the concept that might was right, was central to human thought Then a young carpenter from Nazareth put forward the revolutionary idea that military force could never rule the world and that only non-violent retaliiation - religiously supported by unconditional love for our neighbors, was the only lasting truth, and ended up crucified for his presumption.

What is so remarkable about the discovery of the Jesus tomb is that we now have an opportunty to show that an ordinary man ( not an omni-potent God) can make a huge and lasting difference in the way societies view and practice their essential social and spiritual values.

With over a hundred wars still going on today, it is obvious that the undying Christian message of love - not war - remains unrealized. It is the duty of all Christians to remind all the world that one man and a tiny band of followers did indeed reach out across the globe and, via ther sacrifices, have made a difference throughout the the millennia to all of those millions who love and worship and have died to promote the concept of peace on earth.

What troubles me right now, is that the long-term signficance of this new revelation, which could well prove that Jesus was an ordinary man, will get lost in the shuffle and that a moment that might well contribute to a greater sense of global understanding and world unity, so sorely needed right now, might be lost.

It can be seen in the documentary that the Israeli Antiquities Authority has treated this find as of no consequence, and in fact, by ordering the tomb to be closed up again, are activily obstructing further investigation. One can understand that Jesus has no meaning to orthodox Jews. He is in fact dismissed by them as a phony prophet who tried to usurp the title of promised Messiah. But if Israel is quite happy to get an annual stippend of six billion dollars from us, one wouild think that they would be a lot more cautious about how they treat our cultural beliefs.

I would dearly like to see more interest in this new finding from fellow Christains and a strong objection made against the Israeli government for discouraging further investigation.

27

Sagesound,

Thanks for the info, I asked for it so that you would provide it. I hadn’t heard of the guy before. By all means, continue!

28

MagnetMan

And some other thoughtful Christians came to the opposite conclusions. Now what?

29

Those that do are a remaining minority of indoctrinated fundamentalists, which by definition requires no origination of rational thought. By fighting wars with fundamentalists in other religions, they are missing the the essential meaning and purpose of Christianity. This sad relaity is one of the reasons I initiated this thread. It is time we transcended the primitive nature of Iron Age dogma and moved on to a more mature view of our role as world leaders.

30

Don’t you think extending the ‘fundamentalist’ moniker to any Christian who thinks Jesus did supernatural things and was a supernatural Being goes a bit far? And don’t you think calling the Christians who believe such a ‘minority’ is a bit…totally incorrect? What reason do we have to believe that the Christians who actual claim the miracles stories are true are some straggling minority? For example, it’s the official teachings of both the Catholic and Orthodox churches, and their combined membership is clearly over 1 billion people. How many Unitarians are there?
Maybe you meant just in the educated classes? I don’t have numbers, but it’s clear that theistic philosophy is on the rise both in frequency and influence- the age of atheist domination in philosophy is wobbling, even if an end isn’t quite in sight. Someday you might be right (and then someday after that, wrong again), but current trends what they are, I think you’ve picked a poor time to declare the dawning of a new age.

Yes, we don’t like the old stuff, so let’s make up some new stuff. Feel free, people do it all the time. In the meantime, those disillusioned with B.S. will continue to flock to the traditional churches. For my part, I’d be sick to my stomach following a religion that based it’s ‘doctrines’ on what was socially relevant or avoided anything ‘unnecessarily divisive’ (unnecessary for what, one wonders). That sort of thing might be good for some, but all this study of philosophy has left me with a preoccupation with truth that trumps convenience.

31

I respect your argument here. I am on record for saying that I believe in supernatural phenomena. My argument is that we should not anchor our religious tenets on the belief that Jesus is the Supreme Being. Hinduism is packed full of reincarnated Avatars. All other religions believe that they are also God’s favorite. Its a hangover from Bronze Age shamanism, when every clan believed that their ancestral totem was divinely originated. Claiming that our Faith is the highest and most favored by God is simpy primitive.

I stand corrected here. I was refering to Protestants and should have said so. If church attendancy is any criteria most Protestants are either agnostic, atheistic, or simply indifferent.

I agree that theism is on the rise, especially among educated classes. - but mainly in the arena of ontology. For instance, since the i960’s some 200 million Westerners have taken initiation into Far Eastern spiritual practices. This has not made them unChristian - simply expanded their theological thought.

Mankid has engaged in four major religious shifts during our evolution.
Stone Age - Animism
Bronze Age - Shamanism
Iron Age - Catholic Orthodoxy
Steel Age - Protestant Determinism

All four states are still in practice

200 million Westerners would agree with me that we have initiated the 5th Great Shift into Ontology

32

Here in lies the problem, people from the beginning have project all kinds of asinine ignorant humanistic and idealistic personalities upon God instead of looking at all the evidence in front of us. Jesus was an ordinary man in almost every way, his Spirit of life was of God just like every living thing, he lived in a flesh body like all humans have, however his Soul was Gods soul incarnate into a human, so his personality and awareness was the same as God because it was God. None of this makes a God omnipotent or a master puppeteer constantly intervening and meddling with human faults like so many silly religious humans project, no such thing can exist and this consistent misunderstanding of God is what confuses so many and turns them away. Who wants a jealous hateful baby burning God like the Jews and other man made religions have?

33

As much as it caters to my own prejudices, I might just have to take issue with the idea of eastern spiritual practices and beliefs truly constituting the next phase – after all, they have been around for a long, long time.

It isn’t too terribly hard to draw parallels between Eastern religous infrastructre and Western. Karma has often taken on a predestinarian edge, especially in area where Zen was dominant (like Japan).

34

Kingdaddy

I have read many of your posts with interest and I appreciate your independent thinking. I agree with what you say about projection above. However, metaphysical christology is unsupportable. Furthermore, it undermines understanding of Jesus as a human being. Lastly, what is it that provokes you to repeatedly denigrate the Judiastic conception of God in offensive terms?

35

No such thing as a purely metaphysical Christology, another man made word that does not exist. All things that are True, are proven in reality every day, nothing is hidden. Christ proved himself through his actions and he never told anyone to write it down, nor did he write anything down to be passed along.

As far as the Jews are concerned, I just use them as an example for the ultimate ugliness in religions and how far wrong it can go. They are king of worshipping all things of the flesh, they are the most soulless and disrespectful of God of any religion, as their religion has become a worship of the pen and inkwell and traditions. They hold other Jews in esteem only by their ability to remember and recite scripture and perform rituals, they are dead inside and have no place for God left in their abomination of a religion. They don’t even believe in a Spiritual God or afterlife or consequences beyond the grave, so technically theirs is not even a religion, they only worship other Jews and the things of man.

Nothing could be further from any fashion of a God or Love then the Jewish religion of self, only Satan would revere and condone such a practice, no benevolent loving God would have anything to do with the Jewish religion.

This is of course my conclusions based on much conversation with Jewish people in real life and on many religious forums, so it could only be a smaller part of the religion, however since all that I have spoken to thus far fall into this category (if they earnestly practice their religion) I must confess that it seems to me that it is in fact the majority. I don’t hate Jews, but after much thought and observance I can clearly see and understand the problems with their religion and their plight among men and why they have been ridiculed and hated so.

36

Since God is omnicient each one of us is a living expression of Divine Consciousness. As such, no matter what we have to say, or do or think about God, how-ever naive or mis-guided it may sound to others, it is always one of God’s infinite expressions of the Divine Self.

And so it is, with all of us - even with the most lowly grain of sand.

Of course it does. He is Us meddling in our own lives.

The wrathful aspect of a jealous God is all too true and God help you if you ever forget it.

37

And an incorrect one at that, God does not pleasure in being misrepresented, do you?

Says you! God cannot be Jealous, its impossible unless he is divided as Jealousy is a product of selfishness, which is the opposite of Love. Its silly beliefs like this that make me despise bibles, little about them are correct in explaining Gods true personality as told be reality the we can all see and prove.

38

Kingdaddy—

You said…

I was referring to this statement:

Obviously you can believe whatever you like but that kind of thinking is totally unsupportable.

You said:

I am saddened to read about your online experience with Jewish people. Of course if you refer to JHWH as “a jealous hateful baby burning God” you will undoubtedly provoke uncharitable responses from them. Jesus was a Jew and you have a favorable view of him. Right? By making generalizations based on limited experience with Jews, you are making the same mistake people often do toward Christians.

39

There is nothing but support of logic and rational thought to lead anyone to this idea; every bit of it is supported. Please explain what specifically is wrong with this idea instead of just saying it isn’t so. If your gonna refute something then state your case with counter examples.

I explained its not just my on-line experiences but all experiences, I’m not that sheltered. In addition I made it clear I was talking about the Jewish Religion, not Jewish people in general. I can only speak of what I experience and I assure you that I’m not far off on the Jewish religion worshipping the pen, inkwell, rituals and hierarchy of their own people. If you have no personal experiences or observation of Jewish religious foundations I can see why you would be saddened instead of disgusted.

40

MagnetMan:

I think you might be right about Protestantism. That's one of the reasons why I'm drifting away from it myself, and towards older sects.  And it's not that I've had a lot of experience with a secularized Church myself, either. The members of the Church I go to seem to be believers in the old fashioned sense. But the mere fact that they could drift that way, and that there's nothing inherent in the Protestant set-up to prevent it is enough for me to see a fault in the whole enterprise. 
I do see what you mean about Jesus's unique divinity being more of a holdover from a past age, and not something that fits common ideas. I also see how it can (and has!) caused division. Of course, my response would be that modern sentiment hasn't been around that long, and taking the long view (as a religious person, and even a philosopher ought to, I think), there's no reason to make concessions just yet to ideas that have only been popular since the 70's. The secular Unitarians would look like quite the fools if this whole pluralism thing passes away in a few decades, wouldn't they? If by 'primitive', you mean that my ideas are actually the ones held by the people I'm trying to follow (that is, from 2000 years ago or so), I take it as a compliment!
You said you believe in supernatural experiences.  How do you define those? Do you think of them as just something that science hasn't explained [i]quite yet[/i], or do you believe in some creed or mythos that puts those sorts of things in context? 

I wonder if theism really ever goes away or reduces dramatically in educated culture, or if it just shifts from group to group. It seems to me that just as it was becoming unpopular in philosophy, it was becoming more popular in mathematics and physics, and now it might be going the other way.

How many Hindus are there? They might have a different perspective on these Great Shifts, their relevance and their worth. I’m not saying they haven’t happened, but I am saying the part of the world you are considering is getting smaller with each one, and I think that’s telling. With the first Shift, you’re talking about humanity the world over. With Shamanism, you’re not quite talking about everybody, but still close to it. The Third Great Shift reduces your attention drastically to the Northwestern quarter of the planet only. The Fouth Great Shift, and you’re pretty much talking only about the U.S. and GBR. By the time you get to the fifth one, you’re talking about only the most liberal portions of those two countries, and a handful of places in western europe as well. The rest of the world has been left behind. The time periods get narrower, too. Each age was shorter in duration than the one before it. As the time-span and geographical coverage of each of these ages gets lesser and lesser, don’t they risk becoming irrelevant? What if the next big thing after Ontology is only recognized by half a dozen professors at Berkeley, and only lasts 3 years?