|
Name: ron •
Title: Archaeological Institute of America Disputes Claims •
Date posted: 03/02/07 17:17
|
Q: "To conclude, the identification of the Talpiyot tomb as the tomb of Jesus and his family contradicts the canonical Gospel accounts of the death and burial of Jesus and the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus. This claim is also inconsistent with all of the available information - historical and archaeological--about how Jews in the time of Jesus buried their dead, and specifically the evidence we have about poor, non-Judean families like that of Jesus. It is a sensationalistic claim without any scientific basis or support."
http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408
|
|
|
|
Name: Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/02/07 17:58 |
A: The idea that the family of Jesus could not have built such a tomb becaue they were poor is false. If Jesus had only been a carpenter and never traveled, then maybe that argument would hold. But he was the leader of a revolutionary movement.
The book of Acts talks about how Judas had been in charge of the money and says was guilty of keeping some for himself. So obviously there was money available to Jesus and his followers.
The upper room, where the last supper occured, would not have been available to a poor person. I'm not suggesting that Jesus paid for the use of the room, just that it is an example of his access to things of value.
The wealthy man's tomb that Jesus was said to have been laid in is also an examle of the resources that were available to Jesus and his followers.
The cloak that had to be given away by casting lots because it was too nice to tear, was an example of someone who had access to wealth.
There are plenty of reasons to think that the family of Jesus could have afforded such a tomb.
As for the location, Jerusalem was said to be the headquarters of the Apostles. In Paul's writings he talks about going to Jerusalem to consult with Peter. If Jesus had a wife and child, it is plausible that they would remain in or around Jerusalem after his death. That is where the Apostles were, no one disputes that.
|
|
Name: voiceofsanity •
Date: 03/02/07 18:41 |
|
A: Come on Ron!! Give us a break! If your claim is "because the Bible says so, it must be so" is so full of hockey that it makes me sick that intelligent people are unable to weigh evidence and think!
|
|
Name: Schwar3Kat •
Date: 03/02/07 20:27 |
A: I am an athiest, but I despise poor science.
Ron is correct, not because the Bible says so, but because the historical evidence says so. We are reasonably confident that Mary was buried in Gethsemane as there is a large body of historical evidence for this.
We are also confident that Joseph was buried in Gallilee when Jesus was a young boy (we are not so sure when).
We also know that the almost illegible scrawl translated Jesus on one of the plain undecorated ossuarys that contained more than one set of bones is wishful thinking and looks a bit like Hanan. Why would Jesus be in the plain ossuary.
Add to this the extremely amateur attempt at statistics, the irrelevant DNA testing and the carefully worded hype and we have a hoax.
This Talpiot hoax is not even original. The BBC did exactly the same thing in 1996 with exactly the same data and a slightly more scientific presentation. The scientific and archeological community at the time laughed at these claims and nothing has changed.
Accurate statistical analysis which takes into account the known historical facts will arrive at something like 1000000 to 1 or worse that this is Jesus ossuary.
|
|
Name: Mark-Tao •
Date: 03/03/07 11:43 |
A: Schwar3Kat • Date: 03/02/07 20:27
Junk Science?
"We are reasonably confident that Mary was buried in Gethsemane as there is a large body of historical evidence for this."
Catholics believe Mary took her body to Heaven with her. You say she's burried in Gethsemane. I think you and the Catholics have about the same amount of evidence for your claims.
"We are also confident that Joseph was buried in Gallilee when Jesus was a young boy (we are not so sure when)."
No one knows what happened to Joseph. There is not one bit of evidence that can give you "confidence" about what happened to Joseph.
As for the story not being new, the documentary talks about how the ossuaries were first discovered years ago and considered, at the time, to have no connection to the Jesus of the bible. It's not an issue that the documentary tries to dodge.
I don't know about Atheism; it's not my thing. But as for junk science, be careful what you despise.
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 03/03/07 16:33 |
A: "Archaeology is a scientific discipline." she writes......
And she then goes on to disprove things using the gospels as they were facts.
She also assumes that Jesus was poor... Not very scientific.
|
|
Name: exact55 •
Date: 03/03/07 23:40 |
A: Unfortunately almost all of the historical evidence surrounding Jesus is religious. This includes the burial place of Mary.
The evidence that she was buried in a tomb in Gethsemane comes from a very large number of religious historical sources both Catholic and gnostic. The Catholics however believe that she was raised from the tomb at the assumtion.
As regards Joseph - he was resident in Galilee all of his life until Jesus was about twelve. It is highly unlikely though not impossible that his remains would have found themselves in Jerusalem a decade or more later.
I have to say that I am disapointed that there is no new evidence since 1996 because I was very excited when I first heard the news. I was particularly keen to hear the DNA evidence - what a let down.
By the way I am not religious and believe that all religions are deluded.
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 03/04/07 4:44 |
A: @Exact55:
You wrote: "As regards Joseph - he was resident in Galilee all of his life until Jesus was about twelve. It is highly unlikely though not impossible that his remains would have found themselves in Jerusalem a decade or more later. "
So what? The Jose ossuary isn't necessarily one containing Jesus' father. It might be his brother Joses, although one would wonder why his ossuary doesn't say "Jose, son of Joseph".
My point is, you shouldn't dismiss evidence just because it doesn't fit the gospels. The gospels are not an undisputed historical source. There are plenty of independent historical sources, but not that many that mentions Jesus (and those that do, are highly contested as for them to be unedited and authentic in their entirety). Curiously enough, major events like Herod's murder of the innocents, isn't mentioned in non christian sources (as far as I know).
|
|
Name: exact55 •
Date: 03/04/07 6:10 |
A: @Golfdane
You are absolutely correct about Joseph, I was a bit blinkered not to recognise that it could be the brother. And I agree with your other comments as well.
The reason I don't like these claims is because they are packaged in a way that is very similar to the way religions present their cases, embelishing the facts to make them look more probable and hiding the parts that hurt their cause. It reminds me of the creation 'science' movement. The difference of course is the motivation.
|
|
Name: golfdane •
Date: 03/04/07 7:15 |
A: @Exact55
Well, claims are just that. They are opinions based on speculation. Sure, Cameron et al doesn't shake on their hands when they launch their thesis, when in fact they should, considering the importance the issue has to many. I sure hope the scientific foundation is valid and as conclusive as it can be.
The actual evidence released, is lacking in groundbreaking detail. And no matter how logical a conclusion might be, is that not a guarantee, that it is right (Occam's razor isn't always right).
I doubt the style of the documentary will be much different in than some of the christian documentaries I've seen. Nothing like narrated screenplay to whip up some emotional support....
|
