[goMac]

Jesus: Tales from the Crypt - The Middle East Blog - TIME

(The link may be down right now, it's getting hammered. Article copied below: )

"Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.
No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.
Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.

There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God.
But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.
Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East (check out a personal favorite: Israelity Bites) Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics. Stay tuned. "

There are two suspicious things here. First, how would DNA testing prove it is Jesus? And secondly, obviously Cameron is hoping to gain some celebrity status from the film.

But, Cameron has a reputation to loose if this is obviously bunk. And, if he was really in it for money he would have tried to turn it into a film for theatres, not a documentary for the Discovery Channel.

I won't be able to decide whether this is bunk or not until Cameron actually presents his evidence, but this is still very exciting news.

[OldManMac]

Cameron does indeed have a lot to lose, as he's making some pretty loose assumptions.

[subego]

Can't they just ask the Templars for a sample of DNA from the blood line of the Merovingians?

That'll prove 'em.

P.S. Imagine what a drag it would be if your dad was Jesus ****ing Christ.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by goMac 

There are two suspicious things here. First, how would DNA testing prove it is Jesus?

That's what I'd like to know. In order to prove that it's Jesus, you would need to already have a verifiable sample of Jesus' DNA, or at least the DNA of someone verifiably closely related to him. Neither of these is going to be particularly easy to come by.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by goMac 

SNIP

but this is still very exciting news.

Why do you think this is exciting news?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

That's what I'd like to know. In order to prove that it's Jesus, you would need to already have a verifiable sample of Jesus' DNA, or at least the DNA of someone verifiably closely related to him. Neither of these is going to be particularly easy to come by.

Did anyone here ever read The Preacher?

It riffed off the whole Merovingian bloodline story, but added the gross twist that after 2 millennia of preserving the bloodline, the sole remaining relative of Jesus is hopelessly inbred.

You'll often see him in the background about to do something idiotically suicidal, like drinking a bottle of weed killer.

[Dakar²]

This should be interesting, though unlikely verifiable.

[Chuckit]

I'm really curious what evidence could be found that this is Jesus when pretty much the only actual documentation of his existence (which doesn't describe him a whole lot and certainly doesn't contain a DNA sample) says he was never buried?

[Peder Rice]

As I've said elsewhere, I think the DNA evidence is to conclude the family relationship of those in the tomb, likely that Mary and Joseph fathered Jesus, and that Jesus and Mary Magdalene fathered a son.

From there, statistical analysis is used to narrow this down to Jesus himself. Let's say that one in ten males at the time were named Jesus, one in ten named Joseph, one in ten females Mary. Given the low populations of the time, it mathematically becomes very difficult for an identical family structure as this to have existed elsewhere.

[ironknee]

barny: jesus must be spinning in his grave

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Peder Rice 

As I've said elsewhere, I think the DNA evidence is to conclude the family relationship of those in the tomb, likely that Mary and Joseph fathered Jesus, and that Jesus and Mary Magdalene fathered a son.

From there, statistical analysis is used to narrow this down to Jesus himself. Let's say that one in ten males at the time were named Jesus, one in ten named Joseph, one in ten females Mary. Given the low populations of the time, it mathematically becomes very difficult for an identical family structure as this to have existed elsewhere.

It doesn't seem like the odds of a Mary and a Joseph naming their son Jesus would be that low. And since the Bible doesn't claim Jesus had a son named Judah with Mary Magdalene, I don't see how that can be viewed as proof of anything at all. It would make more sense for James to be buried in there, since he is a known part of Jesus' family and was a devoted disciple, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Why do you think this is exciting news?

I really enjoy biblical history (although I'm not religious myself). I'm definitly not someone who takes the bible literally, I just like looking at the historical, factual aspects of the history of Christianity.

If this were old homeless guy on the street corner claiming he found the body of Jesus, I wouldn't be at all excited. But James Cameron claiming he's found the body of Jesus? It's enough to make me excited enough to hear what he has to say, even if I'm suspicious he's actually found Jesus's body.

As for my interest in socialogy... well... just the thought of the ramifications in society that this would have if this was Jesus's body... it's pretty good brain food.

Still, even if Cameron presents solid evidence, there will still be a lot of people who will discount it simply because it goes against their "faith". So even if it is really the body of Jesus I have my doubts as to how much it would effect Christianity.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

It doesn't seem like the odds of a Mary and a Joseph naming their son Jesus would be that low. And since the Bible doesn't claim Jesus had a son named Judah with Mary Magdalene, I don't see how that can be viewed as proof of anything at all.

Depends. The Bible is not a reputable account of Jesus's life in the slightest. It's heavily edited. Books were thrown out, accounts were changed. When you go back and look at the original accounts written by Jesus, they're entirely different. And I hate to sound like The Da Vinci Code, but there actually is a book of Mary Magalene that the Church never incorperated into the bible for obvious reasons. I'm not fimiliar with the accounts these books give. They've never actually been published, as the original manuscripts are in horrible shape, pages missing, etc. But I'm assuming tidbits from these original books of the New Testament could be used as evidence.

The Bible we have today is highly edited and is not the best source of proving anything about Jesus. You'd want to use the original scriptures.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Jesus had a diary?

Seriously.

greg

[subego]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Jesus had a diary?

Seriously.

greg

May 15th, 28th year of me.

Finished the cabinets for the Scipios. That Mrs. Scipio, such a mashugana.

[voodoo]

The only thing I'm going to add to this thread is that DNA testing after 2000 years is not possible, mostly due to the complete and utter destruction of any DNA after such time. It is a fragile biochemical strand that breaks down on its own, let alone with the help of 2000 years.

Preserving DNA is very difficult, even with modern technology.

V

[goMac]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The only thing I'm going to add to this thread is that DNA testing after 2000 years is not possible, mostly due to the complete and utter destruction of any DNA after such time. It is a fragile biochemical strand that breaks down on its own, let alone with the help of 2000 years.

Preserving DNA is very difficult, even with modern technology.

V

Interesting. Comparisons of surviving portions of the DNA would still be possible, right?

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Interesting. Comparisons of surviving portions of the DNA would still be possible, right?

I doubt it could be compared with any reliability even if some shreds would have been found -- and that is highly unlikely to begin with.

It would be more likely to find data on a 2000 year old floppy disk. Made out of biodegradable materials.

V

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Still, even if Cameron presents solid evidence, there will still be a lot of people who will discount it simply because it goes against their "faith". So even if it is really the body of Jesus I have my doubts as to how much it would effect Christianity.

It's really cute how you put faith in quotations. Not inflammatory at all.

...

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

It's really cute how you put faith in quotations. Not inflammatory at all.

In that context it was quite appropriate. Why so testy?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Depends. The Bible is not a reputable account of Jesus's life in the slightest. It's heavily edited. Books were thrown out, accounts were changed. When you go back and look at the original accounts written by Jesus, they're entirely different.

Uh…what accounts are these?

Originally Posted by goMac 

And I hate to sound like The Da Vinci Code, but there actually is a book of Mary Magalene that the Church never incorperated into the bible for obvious reasons.

There are lots of books that the Church never incorporated into the Bible for obvious reasons — those reasons being that the books are flagrantly made up. And I say that as somebody who doesn't put much stock in the canon either. Things like Jesus killing a kid for knocking down his sandcastle are just way too fan-fiction for me.

Originally Posted by goMac 

he Bible we have today is highly edited and is not the best source of proving anything about Jesus. You'd want to use the original scriptures.

The Epistles of Paul and the Gospel of Mark are believed to be some of the oldest Christian literature we have (within 30 years of Jesus' death). What original scriptures are you suggesting we use?

[Big Mac]

The DNA claim is suspect, as is the claim that it took 20 years to read names. Such a thing should have taken 20 seconds. And with all the forgery of relics that has occurred in Israel (such as James' Ossuary and the tablet of Solomon's temple), this should be regarded with a ton of skepticism.

I think goMac is thinking of apocryphal texts. He knows computing, not religion.

[stupendousman]

I love biblical archeology. LOVE IT.

While stuff like this current "finding" and the Davinci code are sometimes hard to take seriously due to the lengths they have to go to justify unlikely theories, I always find them entertaining. My favorite movie of all time is another biblical archeology fiction, Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Regarding the Bible, I was never was convinced that a book written at least 30 years or more after events occur would be entirely accurate. Look at modern times. What if Jesus came back today and Kitty Kelly was in charge of writing one of the new testaments of Christ in another 30 years? Is that something that you'd want to rely on? Well, unless you believe the Bible was divinely inspired, which I guess is possible.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The DNA claim is suspect, as is the claim that it took 20 years to read names. Such a thing should have taken 20 seconds. And with all the forgery of relics that has occurred in Israel (such as James' Ossuary and the tablet of Solomon's temple), this should be regarded with a ton of skepticism.

Yeah..the 20 years thing is a big red flag. It took them 20 years to figure out a way to sell this thing. It shouldn't have taken an expert more than a couple of minutes to have translated unless it was in some kind of secret code, then that itself would be hard to swallow because if it took 20 years to deciper, than that's a LOT of time to get the translation WRONG.

This is an interesting find, but I'd guess not much more than that. It's a big step up from "Al Capone's vault" though, so I doubt Cameron has much to lose.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Jesus had a diary?

Seriously.

Technically, I suppose it's not impossible. We know that he was educated enough to get into theological debates with the established rabbis of the time and be taken seriously, even before he began his ministry, so he was probably able to read. This doesn't necessarily mean he would have been able to write, though: the Jews of the time still employed scribes, so clearly writing was not a universal skill.

That said, none of this proves that he kept a diary, only that it might have been possible for him to do so. If he did, however, then I find it very odd that such a thing wouldn't have been preserved. Even among the apocrypha, there isn't anything that actually claims to be Jesus' own diary. Even if the diary itself was destroyed, surely something would have mentioned that he kept one.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

Technically, I suppose it's not impossible. We know that he was educated enough to get into theological debates with the established rabbis of the time and be taken seriously, even before he began his ministry. . .

Not really. It is claimed in the gospel acccounts that he debated rabbis. There is no independent confirmation of such events outside of the gospels.

[mitchell_pgh]

How does finding his body prove there wasn't a resurrection?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

How does finding his body prove there wasn't a resurrection?

Most Christian sects preach a bodily resurrection.

[Peder Rice]

Maybe Mary Magdalene was just seeing things. I mean, to watch your husband/lover die like that would be pretty traumatic and probably induce delusions, and that's how I'd prove there wasn't a resurrection. But hey, just being logical here.

[osiris]

I bet Mary Magdalene was a hot babe.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Hahahaha...I don't know man, it says that Jesus was a pretty homely-looking guy.

But, conclusion: cheesy publicity/money grab, not much of substance. Move on.

greg

[sknapp351]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

The only thing I'm going to add to this thread is that DNA testing after 2000 years is not possible, mostly due to the complete and utter destruction of any DNA after such time. It is a fragile biochemical strand that breaks down on its own, let alone with the help of 2000 years.

Preserving DNA is very difficult, even with modern technology.

V

Not True. I just picked up the book, " The Seven Daughters of Eve" in which Brian Sykes who is a Professor of Genetics at Oxford University based most of his findings on DNA samples much older. DNA can be preserved, but he says the conditions that the sample exist in play a huge role.
SAm

[Moderator]

We ought to all assume he was mortal and married...and put the burden of proof on those who claim otherwise.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

How does finding his body prove there wasn't a resurrection?

Alive is the opposite of dead. If we think a person is dead and find them walking around, we must be mistaken. If we believe a person is alive and find them dead, that means we were similarly mistaken.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

Cameron does indeed have a lot to lose, as he's making some pretty loose assumptions.

I think this comment went over the heads of most people, but I get it. Great comment.

[Saetre]

If Jesus and his followers were trying to create their own religion or otherwise scam people, wouldn't they have hid the body and not buried it in the family crypt?

[Peder Rice]

Saetre, this was perhaps not the first burial place, and may have been created some years later.

[Sky Captain]

There can't be a body.
I was under the impression he ascended to heaven.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Maybe he came back to visit Earth a few years later and died by choking on a piece of broccoli...?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

There can't be a body.
I was under the impression he ascended to heaven.

You shouldn't believe evertything you read.

[Saetre]

Does anyone in here think there is even a slight chance of this being true? I'd love to believe it; it would be hilarious. But it just seems that the chance that this isn't BS is almost zero. How many people have died and been buried in the area? There must be milions of graves, what are the chances that someone actually finds Jesus grave and there is a name on it? Pweh.

[Sky Captain]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

You shouldn't believe evertything you read.

Like the Qu'ran either?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain 

Like the Qu'ran either?

Sure. Or the statements made by the people claiming to have found Jesus's bod.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Does anyone in here think there is even a slight chance of this being true? I'd love to believe it; it would be hilarious. But it just seems that the chance that this isn't BS is almost zero. How many people have died and been buried in the area? There must be milions of graves, what are the chances that someone actually finds Jesus grave and there is a name on it? Pweh.

Forget how many people were buried in the area. Think about grave robbers. Jesus's tomb would be a prime target.

I almost think this would be a good explanation as to why the Deciples said his body was missing from the tomb. Get a fake tomb, bury Jesus in a real tomb elsewhere, but tell the public he's in the fake tomb. When the public finds no body in the fake tomb, tell the public Jesus rose from the dead and that's why he's not in the tomb. Takes care of the grave robber problem, but Jesus's real body would get lost over time.

I'm not as much attached to this specific tomb that was found being Jesus's tomb, but it's an interesting "what if" to ponder.

[Peder Rice]

goMac++

That's precisely what I've been thinking.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Most Christian sects preach a bodily resurrection.

Jesus dies... is brought back to life... dies again... is put to rest in a tomb. The disciples say he "ascended into heaven" so people don't look for his grave.

I think it would be amazing if it was him. I wonder where they will keep the remains?

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I think it would be amazing if it was him. I wonder where they will keep the remains?

That would be the other big question about Jesus's body. Can you imagine the sort of fighting that would occur?

[nonhuman]

A new article on it: New film claims Jesus buried in Talpiot | Jerusalem Post

Apparently the archaeologist in charge of the dig is saying that Cameron's full of it.

But Bar-Ilan University Prof. Amos Kloner, the Jerusalem District archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the tomb in 1980 and has published detailed findings on its contents, on Saturday night dismissed the claims. "It makes a great story for a TV film," he told The Jerusalem Post. "But it's impossible. It's nonsense."

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by goMac 

Forget how many people were buried in the area. Think about grave robbers. Jesus's tomb would be a prime target.

I almost think this would be a good explanation as to why the Deciples said his body was missing from the tomb. Get a fake tomb, bury Jesus in a real tomb elsewhere, but tell the public he's in the fake tomb. When the public finds no body in the fake tomb, tell the public Jesus rose from the dead and that's why he's not in the tomb. Takes care of the grave robber problem, but Jesus's real body would get lost over time.

I'm not as much attached to this specific tomb that was found being Jesus's tomb, but it's an interesting "what if" to ponder.

or the opposite is true...people who made fun of jesus and his guys stole the body to mock them...the followers said, er..ah...oh...he rose to heaven...yeah that's the ticket!

[Sky Captain]

Isn't is great you can debate Jesus and Christianity without the fear of people dieing over it?

[Atomic Rooster]

Jesus is magic.