Jesus Family Tomb - Forum - Recalculating the Stats

Home » Forum » General Discussions » Recalculating the Stats

Hello, guest

Name: KRS • Title: Recalculating the Stats • Date posted: 03/07/07 0:42

Q: OK, I went through the site to recalculate the statistics with the three names that can actually be established (leaving out Mariamne due to the problems with the identification). They identified Yesus bar Yoseph as 1 in 190, and Maria as 1 in 4, but I can't find info on the propbabilities of Yose - the only notation that I've found is how often the name is found on ossuaries, I know of few other places where the name is found outside of the New Testament and there are two people definetely cited in the New Testament and it might possibly have been Barnabus name (Acts 4:36, the text is at issue, and the major witness favor Yoseph, but based on transcriptional probability that seems less likely to me).

Does anyone know what number they used on the probability for someone named Yoseh? Also the formula they used? I'm not sure of the validity of their numbers, but I need a starting point, and matching to their work is probably the best place to start.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/08/07 23:35

A: I've worked through the stats without the presence of Miriamne, and come up with 1 in 3.8. I'm next to develop this on the basis of population and families from first century Jerusalem. I've gone through once with some pretty hypothetical numbers, but my best starting point for this type of data is out of state at the moment, and I amd not very close to a theological library. Does anyone have some numbers? Any mathmaticians willing to rework this?

Name: KRS • Date: 03/09/07 0:39

A: I made one more change, as I looked at the formula, I realized that I probably needed to change the number I used in step three to three rather than 4; that gave me a conclusion of 1 in 5.067.

Again, I'm not a mathmatician, so I'd like a double check on this from someone else. This is still operating on tombs, rather than on number of families, and some info there would be useful for further calculations.

Name: golfdane • Date: 03/09/07 10:33

A: If I had 20% chance of winning the lottery, I would buy at least 5 tickets.

These odds are good enough for me to spend a few bucks on the lottery....

What stats did you use on Yose, and how big a population?

I found some namestats on wikipedia (search for Talpiot Tomb).
What are the stats if you include Yakov into your calculations (just for kicks)?

Name: jsm • Date: 03/09/07 11:27

A: First off I would consider reexamining the stats that were provided in the show. When your dealing with stats or mathematics in general you don't take anything as fact, you always recheck your foundation. I would like to know how they could possibly know how many people were around that area and second how they could possibly know how many people had what names. I personally didn't watch the show so I'm not sure what route they took to get around that problem. They probably do what the media does with their "polls" 75% of America believe in this... but I was never asked, you were never asked, only a very very small portion of a small suburb of New York was. They choose areas that would give them good stats and leave out the areas that would give them bad stats.

Name: Patty • Date: 03/09/07 11:32

A: Hi, some of these questions are being answered at www.JesusDynasty.com

Patty

Name: Patty • Date: 03/09/07 11:32

A: Sorry, that is www.JesusDynasty.com/blog

Name: sadinoel • Date: 03/09/07 11:33

A: Hey golfdane don't you need to also factor the cost of the tickets? If you had to pay 1 Millioin per ticket and there is only 2 Millioin paid to the winner, I think you would reconsider.

My point, is that it's silly for people to just "believe" this stuff without further examination. And every source of examination I have seen indicates its more than likely a bogus claim designed to make money off the gullable masses... kind of like some claim religion to be.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/09/07 15:31

A: JSM, I agree with you that this needs to be checked, and I have four questions about their data pool; many of which may not have an answer from their data. I don't have access to that info from here (considering the low quality of most internet resources on NT studies). Its down and dirty, but I'm looking for data to use if I'm asked on Sunday.

Golfdane, I'm using their numbers entirely, drawn from a PDF they themselves compiled. One big problem is we have no way of knowing how many joseph's were also known as Joseh, and most Joseh's would more likely have the more formal version of their name put into print. Remember as well, this doesn't mean that there is a 2 in 3 chance this is Jesus tomb; they sort of misapplied their own statistics. So I'm using the same statistical probability they are. As for Jacov, adding this in wouldn't make a great change to the numbers, but again, you have to operate only on what you can substatiate. Before adding Jacov in, we have to prove that this was present in the tomb, that nullifies the purpose of the argument.

Name: jsm • Date: 03/09/07 21:31

A: The place that I would start first would be to make sure beyond a doubt that the names that the show was implying were on the cases were the actual names. Because somebody that went by mike their whole life, might be buried with the name Michael on his stone. Because you can do the stats all day long, but if your doing the stats with the wrong name even if its one letter off, your whole data set is wrong. Or if something was an "m", after years of wear might turn into an "n". I wish I knew ancient languages so I could investigate more, because some of the images I seen of the cases with them drawing what it says over the letters on the case, some of them look like their drawing lines where I personally don't see any lines to make up letters. So that is where I would start my research if I were you.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/09/07 21:55

A: Thanks, JSM,

I did do that, already (fortunately I read Greek and to a lesser degree Hebrew, with some knowledge of Aramaic). We all have our places in the body, so there is no reason to worry about not reading an ancient language. I can deal with the philosophical presuppositions and the logical, moral consequences in a lot of areas in the evolution debate, but when it comes to specific evidences, I'm out of my league very quickly, and I known it. (Hence the double check on the quick, dirty redo - I'm not very conversant with advanced probability theory).

FYI, a lot of times with ancient language sources, there can be a little guess work (I know of at least one scholar who has questioned the Jesus Ossuary, for example, and that ossuary is particularly difficult among these - ironically, if any of these ossuaries is mis-named its this one!) A lot of people who could read, couldn't write very legibly (particularly with a chisel, I imagine).

Name: jsm • Date: 03/09/07 22:12

A: KRS,

"A lot of people who could read, couldn't write very legibly (particularly with a chisel, I imagine)."

Thats what I was thinking. I seen a clip from the show and I think they were leading to the conclusion that Jesus's disciples were the ones that hid his body and later buried him. So obviously somebody with the talent to write (chisel) into stone was not involved considering if they supposedly "hid" him, they didn't want people to know who it really was. So that would mean one of the very select few would be doing the chiseling. If you consider that, I'd imagine the work would be very sloppy. I know mine would be. Also if it were to be Jesus who was buried I'd imagine something more would be wrote then "Jesus son of Joseph" since it was the son of God. But on the other hand if they were really trying to "hide" him and secretly bury him. Wouldn't the logical conclusion be that you wouldn't write anything at all? Just something I was thinking.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/09/07 23:03

A: There are a lot of problems like this, I agree; it does seem improbable. One other thing that was mentioned on this board (and I was slightly irritated with myself for not thinking of it of myself) was the fact that if the remains of a crucified individual had been found it would have made headlines - we know that because it has happened since. Even more telling, if a bone box with someone named Jesus, son of Joseph was found with a victim of crucifixcion, it would have brought about a great deal more attention.

I think that this is something they would have been able to identify - and even non-Christian sources (Tacitus) notes the crucifxcion.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/10/07 13:44

A: Double checking a few things that are going into my packet, I'm now pretty sure that the lower number (1 in 3.8) is more accurate (I was not sure why specifically they divided by four - was it for questions about the data from the sources or was it because there were four ossuaries listed in the tomb; it looks like the former is more precise).

Additionally I've refigured the numbers for population - sort of. I haven't got the sources here to go through and find a reference to work with that I would consider well developed. From memory, taking what I know of the wide range in estimates of 1st century Jerusalem's population, I'm working with a number for my "working revised" statistics of 40,000 families. The number is probably between 50,000 to 75,000, but I want to err on the side of caution. That being the case, I came up with a number of 1 in .38; but I'm not sure how to interpret this. Do I use this as a percentage value, or do I use this as a reference in some other way, or does this simply prove that it is mathmatically impossible to deal with the info presented.

The next step is to work with the problems with the formula they used, itself. I'll post three things that I think are necessary to add into the equation. I'm adding that in the next post.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/10/07 14:27

A: The above post notes what I think can be done using their data and their formulation of the probability. Its a quick, dirty re-examination - which isn't as accurate as it should be, but is more accurate than the probability that they have listed. Next time I'm in SC, I'll try to start getting a more firm number that can be used for population stats, and checking some of their works on name frequency.

As to revising the statistical model, however, I'm not quite sure how it should be done. The following link is some of their source material that they are making available for analysis if anyone else can look over the formula and see if they have additional data : http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tom-b/explore/media/tomb_evidence.pdf

Now-,- I think the formula needs to be rewritten to take into account the following:

1. The assumptions above only work if we are assuming that the tomb contains the bones of two generations. However, this is a multi-generational tomb, and it is likely that the some of the ossuaries with inscribed names that are necessary for their case are three or four generations apart (i.e. Mary in this tomb could be the grandmother or Great Grandmonther of Jeshua bar joseph instead of his mother). I'm looking for the report from the 1996 report on the tomb by Amos Kloner, but it make take a while to find a copy, that might provide a way of estimating how many generations are actually found in the tomb (assuming it includes the number of remains present).
2. We need to find a way of dealing with the missing names present. Of Jesus brothers, 1 is named in the tomb, there are some who think a second name might possibly be in the tomb. Of Jesus brothers two clearly aren't mentioned. Acts 1:14 puts the brothers of Jesus and Mary in Jerusalem, but we don't know how many remained there and for how long, tradition aserts that Judah became James successor to James in Jerusalem, but it also asserts his desendants lived in Galilee. Of the others, we have no real data to go on. I would think that we need to include some formulation for the missing names of some of his family that might have, but might not have remained in Jerusalem.
3. Additionally, we need to take into account the number of bites at the apple each name has on the ten ossuaries. If I mix up a deck of cards, and randomly deal you 10 cards, you are far more likely to have all four aces from the deck than if I only dealt you four cards.
4. We also need to take into account the higher probability that someone whose father's name was Joseph is far more likely to be buried in a tomb with someone whose name is a diminuative for Joseph than someone whose father had a completely different name.
5. We need to take into account that the name Jesus son of Joseph is not completely legible; the last two radicals are fairly clear, but the first two are somewhat less easily read.

Is there anything I've left out that needs to be added into a more accurate probability formula? Does anyone have any idea how these factors should be factored in?

I'll post an open letter by the Dr Andrey Feuerverger, who did the probability work for the documentary, it provides something of the methodology employed, if its helpful.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/10/07 14:29

A: Dear Statistical Colleagues, Version of 11 pm, March 4, 2007.

This site is addressed to statistical colleagues who have been
requesting information about a calculation being widely reported
in the media concerning a certain tombsite found in Jerusalem
some time ago. It is proving difficult for me to respond individually
to requests for information about these calculations and hope that
the information provided here will prove helpful. Although this site
is open for all to read, it is addressed specifically to the
statistical community and may be updated occasionally.

The versions of computations appearing in the media are only
simplifications. Furthermore, the results of any such
computations depend heavily on the assumptions that go into it.
Some of these assumptions will be summarized below.

The frequency distribution for names prevalent during the
period of time during which ossuary burials took place was
inferred by studying two key sources, specifically Rahmani's
(1994) Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the
State of Israel, and Tal Ilan's (2002) Lexicon of Jewish Names
in Late Antiquity.

The probability of obtaining the particular configuration of
names observed under random sampling from the onomasticon
(i.e. from the names distribution) is small but that fact is not
statistically relevant. What is more relevant is the total
probability of obtaining not only that particular cluster but
also any other cluster of names that is equally or more
`compelling' than the one observed. In carrying out such
computations I have conditioned on information which I regard
as being ancillary, specifically, that there are two inscribed
ossuaries for women, each of which bears the name of only
one (female) person, and that there are four inscribed ossuaries
of men, two of which bear the name of only one (male) person,
and two of which are of the form `Son of Father' with these
two being in a generational sequence.

A `null hypothesis' can be thought of here as asserting that
this cluster of names arose purely by chance under random sampling
from the onomasticon. The alternative hypothesis is the opposite
of this, in some sense. It is not in the purview of statistics
to conclude whether or not this tombsite is that of the New
Testament family. Any such conclusion much more rightfully
belongs to the purview of biblical historical scholars who are
in a much better position to assess the assumptions entering
into the computations. The role of statistics here is primarily
to attempt to assess the odds of an equally (or more) `compelling'
cluster of names arising purely by chance under certain random
sampling assumptions and under certain historical assumptions.
In this respect I now believe that I should not assert any
conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one
of the NT family. The interpretation of the computation should
be that it is estimating the probability of there having been
another family at the time living in Jerusalem whose tomb this
might be, under certain specified assumptions.

An analogue of a `tail area' for `testing' these hypotheses might be
obtained via the following proposed paradigm. This paradigm may
also be thought of as leading to a probability of obtaining an
equally or more compelling cluster of names under random sampling.
The paradigm involves firstly enumerating (in principle) all
possible outcomes under the random sampling. The sum of the
probabilities of these is one. Next, each outcome which does not
invalidate the alternative hypothesis is assigned a numerical
measure of its degree of closeness and/or relevance to the
`alternative hypothesis'. For instance, in the found cluster,
the name Matya does not appear to invalidate the alternative,
but it otherwise contibutes no evidentiary value, while Yose/Yosa,
which is a relevant name then has two positions in which it
might have occurred. Likewise, Mariamenou e Mara has two positions
in which it might have occured and was (see the assumptions)
treated as being a highly relevant name. The probability of a
configuration (with combinatorial factors included) is then used
as a measure of its closeness. In this paradigm, rarity and
relevancy of names is of essence. The mentioned `tail area'
is obtained by adding together the probabilities of all outcomes
that are as or more relevant (or close) to the alternative
than is the particular cluster that was observed. (Outcomes which
invalidate the alternative -- e.g. had the name `Andrey' appeared --
are assigned a distance of infinity from the alternative.)

The results of any such computations are highly dependent on the
assumptions that enter into it. Here are some of the more important
ones:

-- We assume that the physical facts of the case are as stated.
(Note that the inscriptions on these ossuaries and the fact that
they were provenanced properly do not appear to be under dispute.)

-- We assume that the available onomasticon data is adequately
relevant to the study at hand and that, on a time-cross-sectional
basis, the assignment of names is, for practical purposes,
adequately modelled by assuming independence.

-- We assume that `Marianemou e Mara' is a singularly highly
appropriate appellation for Mary Magdalene. Note that this
assumption is contentious and furthermore that this assumption
drives the outcome of the computations substantially.

-- We assume that Yose/Yosa is a highly appropriate appellation
for the brother of Jesus who is referred to as Joses in
Mark 6:3 of the NT.

-- We assume that the Latinized version Marya is an appropriate
appellation for Mary of the NT.

-- It is assumed that Yose/Yosa is not the same person as the
father Yosef who is referred to on the ossuary of Yeshua.

-- We assume that the presence of Matya does not invalidate the
find but we assign no evidentiary value to it (other than
factoring in its combinatorial role). We also assume that
the Yehuda son of Yeshua ossuary does not invalidate the find
but we ignore it in the computations. This last assumption is
contentious.

-- We assume that this tombsite observation represents the `best'
of many `trials'. It is estimated that there are approximately
4000 inscribed male ossuaries and somewhat fewer than half as
many inscribed female ossuaries in existence. The number of
`trials' is then taken as being approximately 1000.
The computations do not take into account families who could
not afford ossuary burials or who did not have sufficient
literacy to have their ossuaries inscribed, and does not take
into account families living outside of the Jerusalem area.

There are certain additional facts regarding this archeological find
which are of interest, but the precise ways in which they may or may
not enter into statistical computations are debatable. Examples of
these include:

-- The high proportion (6 out of 10) of ossuaries bearing inscriptions,
evidencing a more than typically literate family. As well, the
use of Hebrew/Aramaic script on 5 ossuaries with Greek on only
one of them -- and Greek inscription being thought more appropriate
to someone from Magdal who also preached in Greek speaking areas.

-- The unusual and highly untypical gable over circle carving
on the facade of the tomb which is contentiously being argued
as being symbolic of early Christianity.

-- The apparent absence of `negatives' in the finding, i.e. of
archeological details (other than the ones mentioned here) that
would in and of themselves invalidate `the hypothesis' or
that would appear to lessen its likelihood.

-- Claims about mitochondrial DNA evidence.

-- Contentious claims, backed by claimed spectral patina evidence,
that the contentious James ossuary (with its disputed secondary
inscription) had originated in the same tombsite.

Again, I genuinely apologize to colleagues for being unable to reply
to messages individually and hope that the information here
addresses the most essential queries from the statistical community.
A detailed paper is being prepared and hopefully will undergo timely
peer review; if successful in the refereeing process it will be
made available.

With best
Andrey Feuerverger

P.S. The website of Scientific American carries the results of an
interview with me which seems to be sufficiently accurate to be considered fair.

Name: Red • Date: 03/10/07 15:03

A: B.s. More denying of the evidence....

He states, and i qoute "The probability of obtaining the particular configuration of names observed under random sampleing is small but the fact is not statistically relevant. what is more relevent is the total probability of not only obtaining that particular cluster, but also ANOTHER cluster of names that is equally or more compelling than the one observed".

Another words those 4 names (jesus, yose, mary, and mary master) mean nothing.

He seeks probability of a cluster of OTHER names, and that cluster must be at LEAST EQUAL TO or more "compelling" (whatever the hell that means) than the original cluster.

This is TOTAL B.S. and this dude knows it.

Name: Red • Date: 03/10/07 15:16

A: Btw, he's comparing apples to oranges and attempting to make a common COMPARISION based on statitistics.

Any idiot knows he wont find apples on orange trees or vice/versa. That's what he is seeking, by demanding another set of names that occur as much or more (compelling?) than the 4 we have.

The 4 names we have, have got nothing to do with any other 4 names.

If he chose 4 diffrent common names of the time, threw the math at it and determined that they occur at more or less diffrent rates of the 4 we have , it means nothing.

Then, down into the article he admits that it is not his place to determine the thing, and throws it at the church to make a determination if this family is biblical.

He made it pretty clear in the film..... I wonder what changed his mind.... Because he'e talking Jibberish now. This thing reads like a three stooges report....

Name: KRS • Date: 03/11/07 0:31

A: The letter was supplied as an aid in producing a more accurate probability equation, if you'll check the earlier posts. Since I am not a scientist or a mathmatician, I'm providing factors that, from what I can tell, did not go into the original, but I don't know how or if they can be factored into the matter.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/11/07 0:32

A: The letter does point to the assumptions underlying the calculations, and has one advantage that the documentary doesn't have: it hasn't been edited before being given to the public.

Name: OldTimer • Date: 03/11/07 8:16

A: As a minor side observation, the version I saw on Mr. Feververger's homepage is dated March 7, 2007 (no time indication). The date you cited contains the date March 4, 2007 with a time indication of 11pm.

Name: KRS • Date: 03/11/07 22:01

A: Thanks, oldtimer, he must have updated the version. I'll grab a copy.

Name: pak • Date: 07/19/07 9:13

A: OK. Here is my "naive statistc".

Lets assume there was 160,000 population in that specific period when assuaries were used.
Lets assume average family has 9 members (2 parents, 7 children; 3.5girls and 3.5 boys). 160,000/9=17,778FAMILIES (not tombs!).

If 25% of women were Mary and 14% men were Joseph, (0.14x0.25x17,778)= in 622 families parents were Maria&Joseph.

Now we know names of children: Jesus(appearance9%), James(2%), Joseph(14%).
How many of 7 children (in average family) would be called Jesus?
7x0.09=0.63. So in 63% of families is 1 Jesus.
James in 14% of familes (7x0.02=0.14) and Joseph in 98% (7x0.14=0.98).
All three names together are in 8.6% families (0.63x0.14x0.98=0.086).

8.6% of 622 families= about 53.

53 families would have parents Joseph&Mary and children Jesus, James, Joseph. It should be much less becouse I actually calculated this as if there were 7 boys instead in average family. If you calculate with 3.5 you get 6 families.

This doesn include names Mariamne and Judah.
I know this is very simplified calculation but what do you think?

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/19/07 16:55

A: What do you think are the chances for a cluster of names from the New Testament being found in the same tomb?In this case 100%

Name: betty47 • Date: 07/21/07 9:45

A: It doesn't really matter what the statistics are that this is the Jesus Family Tomb. Whether they are 1 in 60, or 1 in 600, or 1 in 6,000, they are still higher than the probability that Jesus rose from the grave in bodily form. I haven't seen anyone prove that he did other than quoting from the N.T., and that's what born again Christians are afraid of. They are scared to death that someone will find his body and prove Christianity is really based on paganism, half-truths and lies. People should focus on who Jesus was and what he said. Stop telling people they have to be Christian or they will burn in hell, and focus on what Christ said. That's what's important because the probability that he rose from the grave in bodily form is near zero percent or 1 in 6 billion people which is pretty hard to believe.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/21/07 11:17

A: Betty47,

Do you think that his appearences after death could indicate that he became a ghost?---a HOLY ghost-----maybe something above all other ghosts---and they exist--I've seen ghosts etc.....The physical remains of the historical Jesus and his family were found in the Talpiot tomb.but the Gospel Jesus appears in spirit----do you think he might have overcome death or is he locked in on an eternal plane held in limbo?My ghost studies show that when someone dies violently they come back to haunt until.....and your guess is as good as mine as to what to do for them.i've seen the spirit of Jesus's mother Mary three times in my life(someone on these posts said it was blessing) and the Monk's ghost still visits.And many people have seen the Spirit Mary at Lourdes,Fatima, my home etc...There are many active spirits and I wonder how haunted the Middle East is.Could this be the meaning for the phrase "And the (Cosmic)Sea shall give up it's dead(Secrets)?

What would the statistics prove in regards to spectral visitations and the number of people capable of "seeing" these holy ghosts?or do they appear to anyone?--psychic or not.....

Name: betty47 • Date: 07/22/07 1:02

A: Panluna: That's an excellent question. I don't know. But I'm not convinced Jesus appeared to anyone. Have you read the lastest update from James Tabor on the jesusdynasty.com blog? He argues that many of the sightings of Jesus were made up to prove that he rose from the dead and to convince skeptics that he was the Son of God. I'm more inclined to believe Dr. Tabor then many of the people on this site who refuse to have an open mind. Eye witness accounts are known to be often false so I'm not sure people saw anything after Jesus died that proved he rose from the dead in spirit or in body. I do believe; however, that there is something supernatural out there. I don't have all the answers unlike all the born again Christians who think they know everything.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/22/07 11:41

A: Hi Betty47,

Have you read the section on this website titled Holy Books?It's on the left-hand side of these posts.Jesus appeared to his disciples for 11 years in a transfigured form to guide and instruct.Also Saint Padre Pio was touched and blessed by Jesus after he appeared to him in the early years of the 20th century.Most people never use the 90% of their mind's capability so they shut off the part that sees beyond the tangible world around them.One has to activate the third eye and connect with the higher-self which works at a faster vibration than our slower,denser bodies do.Meditation is the key.I listed some books in The spiritual/religious book club topic that JMD started.This is also what Gnosis is about--a connection with the inner kingdom Jesus believed in.It's subjective.

Just because someone has never seen a ghost,spirit or angel doesn't mean that they don't exist on their plane level and cross-over to visit on ours.The spirit world just hasn't been proven scientificly,yet- at least not on scientific terms of measurement and testing--only by recorded experiences,myths,religion and claims of the viewer-recipiant that can prove the existance of the super-natural world.

Just to let you know:I'm not a born -again Christian.I'm a seeker of knowledge,truth and wisdom.Anything is possible in this world and the next.And there is no philosophy or religion higher than the Truth.

Name: betty47 • Date: 07/22/07 19:08

A: Yes. Panluna. I think you're very open minded. One of the few on this site who is. I'm open to the possibilities of ghosts. Also to UFO's. I just don't know. There's more to find out. I think we still have a lot to learn regarding physics, space and time and dimensions.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/23/07 9:29

A: Betty47,

The signs are all around us and always have been.

Name: r3 • Date: 07/24/07 1:17

A: http://members.aol.com/SHi-nrichs9/jesustomb.pdf

P-S- take the dashes out of the url

Granted I still need actual rather than estimated values for Ad, Rtp and Nifc, but I am working on getting those.

13. CONCLUSIONS
Bayes equation, the basic formula commonly used to evaluate conditional probabilities, is the correct equation for evaluating the probabilities associated with the level of matching found between the Talpiot Tomb and the Gospel Jesus Family. Section 4.5.1 proves that Bayes equation is the correct formula for evaluating the probability for this type of problem. Thus, any formulation that is not consistent with Bayes equation would be invalid. Section 4.5.1.7 shows that the Feuerverger formulation is incorrect for the many reasons listed in Section 8.1. Other methods are also shown incorrect in Section 4.5.1.3.

Section 5 lists the equations that are used in Bayes equation to determine the extont and nonextont probability for the level of matching found between the Talpiot Tomb and the Gospel Jesus Family. The extont is fundamentally based on the number of other Jesus son of Josephs that could have been placed in the Talpiot Tomb. The nonextont is fundamentally based on the number of found inscribed male names on ossuaries that aside from their specific name would be consider as candidate ossuaries for the Gospel Jesus just as the Talpiot Tomb ossuaries are by TLTJ. Based on the calculations in Section 7 conservative odds of at least 59:1 against the Talpiot Tomb containing the Gospel Jesus are odds are determined. The nonextont probability cannot be used to directly measure argument strength; however, it’s value of at least 0.669 is very high and is order of magnitudes higher than a minimum standard used in science use to make a significant argument. The probabilities imply that the match found is at a level well expected to occur just by random. Thus, valid probabilistic analysis of TLTJ clearly does not imply the Gospel Jesus was buried in the Talpiot Tomb.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/24/07 9:24

A: R3,

The Bayes equation is a too complicated for me to understand.I'm not a mathematician.But I agree with your conclusion that the Gospel Jesus wasn't buried in the Talpiot tomb--He stills lives in the words of the Gospels and in the Faith of the Christians.

The physical remains of the historical Jesus and family members were discovered in the Talpiot tomb in 1980 then reburied according to Jewish custom in a cemetary in Isreal designated for citizens of antiquity.

Thank you for presenting another angle to ponder.I'll ask my son who graduated from DeVry to explain your equation.All I know is that if tangible facts are presented then even the incredible can be proven.

Name: r3 • Date: 07/24/07 14:55

A: What I mean by the Gospel Jesus in the historical Jesus which the Gospel discuss. You do not present any calculation to support the position that the Historical Gospel Jesus was buried in the Talpiot Tomb, but you declare it so. I presented proof that Feuerverger formulation is incorrect and proved Bayes equation is correct. Then I show the Bayes method does not imply Historical Gospel Jesus was buried in the Talpiot Tomb.

I am a scientist so it is no use to declare something true to me that I have proven false. It is useless to declare something true that you have no substantiation for. If you know my method is wrong than show where in the formulation it is wrong, otherwise it is evident that your claim that the Historical Gospel Jesus was buried in the Talpiot Tomb is unsubstantiated.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/24/07 18:11

A: R3,

OY!!!!!

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/24/07 18:45

A: R3,

I get it!!You are from the opposition camp.How about going point by point so that I can understand it better.Maybe i'll give you formula then...go slow I'm blonde.ha ha

Name: r3 • Date: 07/24/07 20:15

A: by saying the Historical Gospel Jesus I do not mean to imply the Gospels are or are not historical. I just need a term to differenatiate from all those other Historical Jesus.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/25/07 8:50

A: R3,

The Historical Jesus is the man who was born ,lived was crucified ,died and was "ressurected" according to eye-witnesses in the first century.In 1980 he and his family were rediscovered and reburied.He became the Gospel Jesus and a figure of much conjecture and debate for over 2000 years when the Bible was expanded with the addition of the New Testament account 300 years after his death.it's up to the individual to decide what the ressurection means.In Christian theology that is the main point of discussion in addition to the Messionic Prophecies and the 2nd Coming due at the Endtimes.

Granted that the name Yeshua--Jewish form of his name--was very popular and so were the different variations of Mary and Joseph..There could be many tombs yet to be discovered with these commonly used names,but not all of the tombs contain the same name-cluster that matches the group of names in the New Testament of the Bible.The clincher was the epigram on Mary Magdalene's ossuary--which was a limestone bone-box-- and the fore-runner of the coffin--used in the funerary practises for about a century.Prior to the ossuary culture,cremation on a funeral pyre and placing ashes in funerary urns was the burial practice.Or cannibalism in some primitive cultures.

Using the text from various sources like the book s of Phillip, and Mary,the Gospels,Dead Sea scrolls etc..explained what their lives were like in those days.if there had been a reliable historian like Josephus or someone else we might have gotten a different version of these events.

The discovery of the tomb does not minimise the importance of Jesus' life--it just proves that he lived and died in the 1st century.Had a family etc.. what you learn from the Bible is up to you.It's always been a very good source of inspiration and history.

Name: r3 • Date: 07/25/07 9:18

A: You claim the Gospels are just stories but do not substantiate it. I proved that science does not support TLTJ, but you claim TLTJ is true by just saying it so. Show me when my scientific formulation is wrong, otherwise it is evident that you are claiming something true that has been shown to you by science to be false.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/25/07 13:48

A: R3,

Science never proved the TLTJ false.As a matter of fact the evidence in the investigation and test results substantiate and prove the theory that the Talpiot tomb is the real one.I don't HAVE to prove any of this because the team of experts have already done the work.I'm just an interested person who likes to be kept informed.It affected me profoundly and I re-examined my faith.Fortunately i'm educated enough to analyze new ideas and mature enough to accept facts especially from evolving new ideas that surface and enlighten me.

As far as my using the word stories interchangably with the word gospel just simply has to do with how I was taught the Bible stories as a child.The Gospels enhance the truth about Jesus and his life especially the Apocryphal texts and other related writtings.

Why do you doubt it so much?Math only solves math problems.It doesn't solve everything in life's equations.Inteligence and education can bring enlightenment to this formula.And accepting the Absolute as an undisputable fact....for example : a rose is a rose by any name.

Name: r3 • Date: 07/26/07 1:21

A: In section 4.5.1 I present the method for checking if probability formulas correctly calculate a proability value by comparing the value to the probability calculated directly. So there is no excuse for just blindly believing experts when there is method to check their formulas. In Section 4.5.1.7 I show mathematically that the experts Panluna basis his claim on have incorrectly calculated the probability value for problems of the TLTJ type. Their formula calculates a probability value of 0.0156 and the correct value is 0.07143 for a certain hypothetical problem. So to believe thie analysis is valid is equivalent to believing 0.0156 is equal to 0.07143. Panluna would normally not believe such a contradiction; thus, for him to rationally defend his position he must show that my Section 4.5.1.7 analysis is incorrect. I also show that bayes equation correctly calculates the probability value for problems of the TLTJ type. Any unbiased probability professor would tell you bayes equation solves conditional probabilties. Calculating the probabilities for the Jesus Son of Jospeh Ossuarry found in the condition of being found with the others is a conditional probability problem. Then in Section 7.2, I conservatively show that the correctly calculated probability for TLTJ implies odds are at least 1:59 against the Talpiot Tomb containing the Gospel Jesus. Nobody claiming TLTJ to be true has done so by Bayes equation. So there is no basis to claim science supports TLTJ as being true. Given this information is now known a person with consistent credibility would not intentionally make a false claim. They would either prove bayes analysis wrong or not intentionally make a false claim.

Name: r3 • Date: 07/26/07 1:37

A: I added the last paragraph

11. MARIAMENOU AS MARY MAGDELENE
The 4th century document Acts of Philip mentions Mariamenou. Jacabovici claim this is a reference to Mary Magdalene. The Mariamenou referred to in the Acts of Philip is an evangelist in Greek who is the sister of Philip and is never called Mary Magdalene. Some connect Mariamene in the Acts of Philip to Mary Magdalene, because the Acts of Philip associates Mariamenou with special powers and in those day certain groups thought Mary Magdalene had special powers. The Apocalyptic Fiction, Act of Phillips, is dated at the earliest to the fourth century and all four canonical gospels are dated to the first century and use the name Mary Magdalene.

The name Mary Magdalene is just the common Mary with historians believe with a reference to Magdala the city near Galilee. There is nothing about the name Mary Magdalene or Mariamne that would give the early Christian church motivation to change the name as Jacabovici supposed with his Master Mariamenou conspiracy theory. Historian have found the approach of using the most ancient information which is corroborated by other sources as the more reliable method for determine the truth about historical events. So in this case the reliable method clearly determines the name was originally Mary Magdalene not Mariamenou. Even the expert in the Film Francois Bovon, the Harvard professor of the history of religion who is the main source in the film for interpreting the ossuary as Mariamenou, has sent a letter to the Society of Biblical Literature where he says the he disagrees with associating Mary Magdalene to this ossuary [11].

Professor Phan who was interviewed in the film is a textual scholar and paleographer at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem. His analysis of this ossuary [7] determined that the inscription reads Mariame (Mary) and Mara (Martha) not Mariamenou, Mariamene or Mariamne. Phan points out that Ref. 1 originally misinterpreted a ”K” as a “N”. There must be an “N” in this name to connect it to the Mariamenou in the Acts of Philip. Phan’s key point is that there really is no “N”, it is a “K” misinterpreted by being thought of as a “N” written in reverse which never has been observed on ossuaries. Interpreted correctly as a K produces KAI which is “and” and makes sense because it is connecting two names and as Ref. 7 shows, is commonly used to connect names on ossuaries. So the Phan explanation is the highly probable one of the common “and” connecting the two most common female names found on ossuaries Mary and Martha. In the lists of all the names found on ossuaries in Ref. 8 I estimate of the female names Mary is found on about 49% of the ossuaries and Martha is found on 27% of the ossuaries, by far the most common names while Mariamenou is not found on any. The connections to the Acts of Philip explanation has the never found on any other ossuary name “Maramenou” (quite low probability) produced by an unexpected never found elsewhere reversed “K” to produce a “N” (quite low probability). Scientific reasoning selects the reliable highly probable explanation over the (quite low probability)^2 = very low probability explanation. Thus, I do not see how a rationale person can believe in a connection of this ossuary to the Mariamenou of the Acts of Philip. So the 1/160 factor for the Mariamenou should obviously be removed from the probability calculation.

To associate ossuary 701 with Mariamenou you need to find an “N” and “U” on the ossuary. To associate it with Mariamne or Mariamene you need you need to find an “N” on the ossuary. If you look at the inscription in Ref. 7 you will see that to find an “N” you are required to think of a forward slash “/” is really intended to be a back slash “\”. The argument below is strong that this “/” is part of a “K” of Kai. So if good reason cannot be presented to claim this "/" is part of a "N", then one should conclude the implications in the previous paragraph rather than association ossuary 701 with Mariamne or Mariamene. If you look at the inscription in Ref. 7 you will see that to find an “U” you are required to think of a "| |" as a “U”. The argument in Ref. 7 and below is strong that the first part of this “| |” is a “i” that is part of “Kai”. So if good reason cannot be presented to claim this “| |” is "U", then one should conclude the implications in the previous paragraph rather than association ossuary 701 with Mariamenou.

In Ref. 9 Dr. James Tabor addresses Ref. 7. He points out that the inscription what Ref. 7 interprets as “Kai” is found on ossuary Rahmani #108 at the end where it could not be “Kai” which is “and”. But “Kai” in Greek or Aramaic is “and” so why does it matter that it is found on ossuary Rahmani #108 at the end? Ref. 9 provides no explanation for how a "/" can be part of a "N" and a "| |" can be called a "U" to imply Mariamenou? Ref. 9 points out that the DNA study of this ossuary found only one person, but this is just an argument from silence of a 2000 year old small sample of the remains.

The sequence of reasoning the team promoting TLTJ is to select the much lower probability interpetation of Ossuarry #701 (Mariamenou) rather than the much more probable one of Mary and Martha. Then they use the low probability Mariamenou to formulate an argument that such a low probability would not happen by random so it must be the Gospel Jesus tomb. This shows that their argument is achieved only through a contradiction. In the first step of the reasoning the low probability interpetation is chosen by avoiding the high probability interpetation so in the next step they can claim they have discovered a low probability relation with the Gospel Jesus. If the first step in the reasoning is invalid, then it does not matter what the second step in the reasoning implies. Thus, there is no validity in ussing Mariamenou to make a low probability association with the Gospel Jesus.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/26/07 13:11

A: R3,

So you figured demoting Mary Magdalene's status as a teacher excludes her from your equation.Remember she was found in the same tomb and DNA tests proved she wasn't related by blood.Also another interpretation of the name Magdalene was tower or pillar.(a William Henry interpretation).To me the most reliable accounts would be the ones written by eyewitnesses like Mary Magdalene during the 1st century.And there are six to ten pages of her gospel missing in addition to The BOOK OF LOVE that Jesus authored.

Name: betty47 • Date: 07/26/07 23:29

A: R3 - If you use your marvelous formula, you will prove that the odds of Jesus ever rising from the dead are 0%. Therefore, this whole argument of your's is meaningless. Jesus lived. He died. He was buried somewhere and the odds are higher that he was buried in the Jesus Family tomb than the odds are that he rose in bodily form. You guys can argue your formulas till you are tied in knots. Prove he ever rose in the first place with statistics. You can't. You haven't. You won't because you want to believe his body is in heaven. Faith is faith and Christians are so scared someone will dig up Jesus you're going in circles trying to prove that Christianity is true. It's not. It's faith. Get a grip.

Name: r3 • Date: 07/27/07 9:41

A: The probability for super natural intervention cannot be directly calulcated for or against. Betty’s claim about ressurection odds have no objective basis. It is the natural results of an super natural intervention that can be evaluated by probability for or against super natural intervention. This is explained in the following url

http://members.aol.com/-SHinrichs9/spntid.pdf

Based- on this objective reasoning I do present supernatural evidence for the Jesus in the folllwoing url

http://members.aol.com/SH-inrichs9/critic7.pdf

Argument-s- for the ressurection of Jesus are summarized in the following url.

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/b-illcraig/menus/historical.html

PS- remove dashes from url

To substantiate the claim just faith, Betty must dismiss these arguments

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/27/07 11:07

A: R3,

Let's examine the word ressurection.
Words can change in meaning.According to the Ossuary funeral culture there were two burials.The first one was when the body was anointed then wrapped set in a crypt and allowed to decompose for a year..The second was when the decomposed body was placed in the limestone ossuary.Ressurection could have meant the 2nd burial.

Mary Magdalene who could have possessed psychic ability may have seen Jesus' spiritual body several times after his death.There is no way any one could have physically survived the scourging and crucifixtion.I've seen ghost and spirit's all my life and they do appear in a recognizable form and they communicate by signs or telepathically.And a person doesn't have to be psychic to sense them.Everyone has an innate 6th sense-developed or not--within them.

Blind Faith which is taught can be changed to a clearer view if one seeks the path to knowledge and truth and examines all possibilities.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/27/07 11:13

A: Betty47,

Way to go!!!Thanks. I wasn't sure what they were trying to prove. I felt like I was going in circles.As far as I'm concerned the physical proof was found in the Talpiot tomb.The spiritual proof is founded in Faith.

Name: betty47 • Date: 07/27/07 12:32

A: Thanks, Panluna. Glad to see there's a few objective people on this site like yourself.

R3 - This site is so amusing. Please don't take offense. I'm Christian too. But I find it so amusing that the born agains love to argue about all the statistics that Christ is not in the tomb in Jerusalem, but then you say we can't give statistical arguments regarding the supernatural. Do you know how silly we must sound to people of other religions? Listen to all the stuff we Christians try to get others to believe, and then you'll realize Christianity really can't be believed unless you're a believer by choice. Jesus was Jewish, but Christians can't follow Judaism. Jesus rejected pagan holidays, but he was born on the holiday of 12/25, a pagan holy day. Christ was born of a virgin mother who was a virgin all her life, but she had several children. Christ rose to heaven, but his body is clearly in a tomb with the rest of his family. Evolution never happened despite all the evidence that it did, but we have to believe and teach Creation. Yada, yada, yada. It's faith. The rest of the world is laughing.

Name: r3 • Date: 07/28/07 0:28

A: Probability values for many things in science cannot be calculated directly, but inferred by proof by elimination they key logical principal used in Science. Just because the conclusion is obtained by inference rather than directly does not mean the reasoning is less valid. I am a scientist who tries to make all my beliefs religious or not consistent with what is determined true by science and not believe anything proven false by science when science determines a strong and solid case for something. For example, I discovered science has determined a strong and solid case that species share common ancestors so I changed my position to Theistic Evolution. See http://members.aol.com/SHi-nrichs9/descent.pdf.

PS- remove the dashes

This website is designed Simchi to promote TLTJ by presenting probability calculations that I have proven invalid. I have proven that bayes equation is valid and have used it to evaluate TLTJ. So to complain about my discussion is equivalent to saying that only unscientific evaluation of TLTJ should be discussed and not scientific evaluations. Since this website it setup to discuss TLTJ, it is appropriate for me to present objective and correct analysis of TLTJ and that is all I plan on discussion in this group. As far as I am aware I have developed the best scientific analysis of TLTJ and those promoting TLTJ have not yet even presenting anything using bayes equation. So scientist would appreciate my contribution, but apparently nobody has yet in this discussion group.

The following post I lists are to explain what I think is the scientific approach in case people are interested.

Name: r3 • Date: 07/28/07 0:29

A: I see no rational reason to believe Betty’s artificially constructed characterization.

Name: r3 • Date: 07/28/07 0:29

A: A key logical concept in Science attempts to use to determine the truth about reality is called Proof by Elimination (PE). If there is a theory that describes a certain reality and all possible hypothesis for explaining that certain reality are false except for one hypothesis, then PE implies that this one non-false hypothesis is true. For example, if there were 10 different possible hypothesis for explaining a certain event and it was shown that 9 out of the 10 were implausible, implying they were false, then there would be a logical case that the one remaining plausible hypothesis was true.
The two assumptions PE is based upon is that there is a correct theory for explaining the reality being investigated and that reality follows the law of no contradiction. Without these two assumptions reason could not determine the truth about any reality, supernatural or natural. If there is a correct theory that describes a certain reality and all possible hypothesis for explaining that certain reality are false except for one hypothesis, then PE implies that this one non-false hypothesis is true. If the remaining hypothesis was also false then there would be no correct theory which would contradict the premise that there is a correct theory. Thus, if the premise that there is a correct theory is true, then the one non-false hypothesis must be true otherwise the premise would be contradicted. Thus, PE is derived from the requirement for no contradiction which is a fundamental logical principal. Since PE is derived from a logical concept PE is also a logical concept. Science attempts to use PE and other logical concepts to determine the truth about reality; thus, the scientific procedure has the potential to logically determine something true about reality.
Making a scientific case for some claim involves showing all possible hypothesis are false except for one. Thus, the scientific procedure involves determining what are all the possible hypothesis and collecting relevant data from observations to check if the data implies any of the possible hypothesis false. Observation of reality plays a key role in the scientific process because observation is the one source of information humans themselves have about reality. Thus, a scientist job involves collecting as much relevant observations through experiments or research to see if any of the information implies any of the possible hypothesis false. If it can be definitely shown that all possible hypothesis are false except for one, then a case has been made that the one hypothesis that is not false is true. Hypothesis are shown false by either deterministic criterion or indeterministic criterion.

Name: r3 • Date: 07/28/07 0:34

A: Scientist through using mathematics, logic, probability and statistics have develop a whole bunch of criterion for showing hypothesis implausible. All certainly cannot be presented in this article; however, a few general and more specific ones are listed in this section because they are basic and commonly useful. These criterion are based upon both deterministic and indeterministic principles. The eighth criterion uses PE in conjunction with the first seven criterion to make the case a certain hypothesis is the correct one.

1. The hypothesis must explain something about the relevant reality (that is, taken together with other true statements, imply further statements describing present, observable data).

2. The hypothesis must not be illogical (that is, none of the assertions it makes contradicts any logical or deterministic principle)

3. The hypothesis must be self-consistent (that is, none of the assertions it makes contradicts any other assertion it makes)

4. The hypothesis should be more plausible (that is, make the observable data more probable) than all the rival hypothesis

5. The hypothesis should explain more about the relevant reality (that is, imply a greater variety of observable data) than all the rival hypothesis.

6. The hypothesis should be more consistent with reality (that is, be implied by a greater variety of accepted truths about reality, and it’s negation implied by fewer accepted truths about reality) than all the rival hypothesis

7. The hypothesis should be less ad-hoc (that is, include fewer new suppositions about reality not already implied by existing knowledge) than all the rival hypothesis

8. The hypothesis must fulfill 1-3 and so exceed its rival hypotheses in fulfilling conditions 4-7 that there is little chance (as calculated by bayes equation for all rival hypothesis), after any further investigation that any rival hypothesis would exceeding it in meeting these conditions.

Name: r3 • Date: 07/28/07 0:37

A: Excerpt from http://members.aol.com/SH-inrichs9/spntid.pdf

Th-e- scientific process typically investigates the natural world by comparing observations from the observable world to predictions made by theories of the real world. Suppose the supernatural did cause an event that produced effects that were observed. Is it possible to rationally identify such effects as caused by the supernatural? This article proposes a rational approach by which to identify events that were caused by the supernatural. It also investigates some claims to the supernatural.

Clearly, almost all observed events appear to be caused by natural processes which follow governing principles that remain the same over time. These events have been studied extensively and scientists have developed well-tested theories that explain much of what we observe. Since natural causes are the most common, justification for claiming an event was caused by the supernatural requires showing that the event cannot be successfully explained by natural causes. Thus, one must first investigate if it is possible for natural processes to explain the event in question. If one can show that all-possible natural explanations are not plausible, then one has made the case that the supernatural has intervened.

As explained in Ref. 1, scientist typically go through a process of eliminating false hypothesis. According to proof by elimination "PE", if there is an all-natural theory that explains a certain real event and all other possible natural hypothesis for explaining that certain event are false except for one specific natural hypothesis, then this one remaining non-false natural hypothesis is the correct theory. The approach for identifying supernatural intervention proposed in my article makes use of this logical principle, by just extending it to the case where there is no plausible natural hypothesis. If there is a correct hypothesis and all possible natural hypothesis for explaining a certain real event are false, then there is a logical argument that the cause involves non-natural phenomenon; thus, the supernatural was involved with causing the event to occur.

For example, if someone dropped a dense rocked and it fell according to the rules of gravity, then there would be no rational justification for being convinced the event involved supernatural intervention. However, if on the second time given every relevant natural condition essentially the same, the rock went up and down just on it’s own in midair, then one would have good reason to think that the supernatural had intervened.

The approach in this article is similar to Ref. 8 in that it uses PE. Ref. 8 focuses on the method for identifying design while this article focuses on the method for identifying supernatural intervention. Ref. 8 presents in a formal way the logic for the method while this article does not.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/28/07 11:39

A: R3,
Is religion rational?I appreciate your efforts and points.If you are including and calculating the other tombs mentioned I believe that some of them were used to illustrate the gospels.The only legitimate tomb would be the one that fits the 1st century funerary culture.Even the one Constatine's mother the Empress Helena designated as his tomb,then visited by pilgrams for centuries following the legitamacy of the Christian religion in the 3?? A.D. was established several centuries after Jesus's death.There was a real myth that evolved for centuries.When in truth it was a rebellion against the Roman rulers.As was a custom of the Romans Jesus become Diefied in the 4th century.Because they couldn't find physical proof of his death and ressurection they made him a God and later on he became holy.And since his birth was so "unusual "Mary became virginal all her church life.What rational did the medievel minds use to create the miraculous?All this based on an interpretation of the Messianic prophecies found in the Old Testament then incorporated and brought to life in the New Testament.And many bible stories were excluded from the more commonly used version of the Good Book.Even Mary Magdalene's eyewitness account of her life with the "Holy" Jesus as his wife and Apostle who witnessed the "ressurection" was edited by the church council because it didn't fit church doctrines.Then she was vilified.During the dark ages after the Fall of the Roman Empire the majority of people could not read or write so it was up to the powerful leaders(Popes and Kings) to tell their version of the tale and convert people to the new religion. And they used illustrations, carvings and paintings to tell the version of the story they believed.Generally any gossip or rumours that circulates by word of mouth usually does not end up the same way as it started.Since the Hebrews knew the truth all along and various groups like the Gnostics who followed a different revelation based on knowledge were then persucuted by the ones who believed the fantastic and irrational version of the legend.They had the mentality of children and wanted to believe in the miraculous.Education makes a big difference.If the Empress Helena or anyone during the search for the real tomb had found it in the early years of Christianity the religion would be much different then it is now.Based on this historic find(the Talpiot tomb) the current followers may have to make some changes and accept the facts.The Talpiot tomb is a 1st century tomb fitting the ossuary culture.of Jesus' people.All other Christians tombs came afterwards and were used to illustrate the ressurection story.No equation can disprove the validity of the truth factor.

If A is A then it's A .....A meaning the Absolute.You can't change the Truth no matter what.it always surfaces.

Faith without scrutiny makes people believe and follow anything.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/28/07 11:52

A: Betty47,

Is it a joke?Education opens minds and doors.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/28/07 17:24

A: R3,

There are many varying view points in regards to the Transfiguration,Ascension and many aspects of the Christian view evolving over the centuries that will explain why they aren't exactly unfied.WIKIPEDIA.com has endless material and references.It could take more than a lifetime to understand all of it--especially what the inner-spiritual light means.Explaining the Diety's relationship to mankind is the basis of all religions.It's what you believe that counts.May you find your Truth.

Name: betty47 • Date: 07/30/07 0:57

A: "Comment: Is this a joke? "

I'm sorry, Panluna. I don't understand your question. Other than I find R3 comments ridiculous. He goes in circles with formulas and statistics on how this can't be the Jesus Family Tomb when all the evidence points in that direction and then says we can't use statistics for the things he wants to believe. His thoughts seems laughable.

Name: Panluna • Date: 07/30/07 8:41

A: Betty47,
I just wasn't sure what the joke was about.

Name: Anchorite • Date: 08/02/07 16:47

A: Hi Panluna, Betty47,

You know, sometimes what a person says is simply not intelligible. Perhaps you might avail yourselves of this clause.

Sincerely,

Anchorite

Name: Panluna • Date: 08/02/07 19:05

A: Anchorite,
DUH?!!!!!!

Name: sam • Date: 08/04/07 20:16

A: Panluna,

“As was a custom of the Romans Jesus become Deified in the 4th century Because they couldn't find physical proof of his death and resurrection they made him a God and later on he became holy.”

-----The Crucifying and the resurrection, are they true?
In J-20:14 When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, AND DID NOT KNOW IT WAS JESUS!. (that is disfiguration)
20:16 Jesus said to her, “Mary!” she turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “RABBONI !” (Which means, TEACHER.) . (for Mary and the other disciples He is a teacher and not son of God or God)
20:17 Jesus said to her “stop clinging to Me, FOR I HAVE NOT YET ASCENDED TO THE FATHER. (When He appear to Mary, He was alive in body and soul, and that means He did not die.)
20:19 The doors were shut where the disciples were, for the fear of the jews, JESUS CAME AND STOOD IN THEIR MIDST... (A miracle to appear and disappear, and that what happen when they try to arrest him).
20:20 HE SHOWED THEM BOTH HIS HANDS AND HIS SIDE. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. (Jesus show them that He was no put on the cross, or hurt, and his disciples were rejoiced to see Him alive and well)

“Even Mary Magdalene's eyewitness account of her life with the "Holy" Jesus as his wife and Apostle who witnessed the "resurrection" was edited by the church council because it didn't fit church doctrines .Then she was vilified.”

----- The truth is, not only what Mary Magdalene wrote as a witness was edited, but all the gospels been written in the way to serve the church doctrines. And that went for many years even today. Here the proof:
Catholic online (the Bible) wrote this verse in the gospel of
John- 9:35 “..THE SON OF GOD”
American standard Bible [translated from the original language-Aramaic/Hebrew]
John- 9:35 “.. THE SON OF MAN”
...................
THE SON OF MAN , came 88 times in the four gospels;
Matthew- 31 Mark- 16 Luke- 29 John- 12 :Mostly are the words of Jesus

THE SON OF GOD, came 27 times in the four gospels:
Matthew- 9 Mark- 3 Luke- 6 John- 9
By the temperer [the devil] - 4 By the demons - 1 By the Jews- 1 By the high priest- 1 by the centurion- 2 By Simon Peter- 2 By unclean spirit- 1 By John- 1 by angel- 1 By Jesus- 3 By others- 10

So, when we see alteration [MAN to GOD] happen in the 20th century, we can say that during the past 2000 years many have been changed, and the churches been known to forge documents and switch words as Panluna said, “to serve the church doctrines”.

Betty47,

"I'm Christian too....Do you know how silly* we must sound to people of other religions? Listen to all the stuff we Christians try to get others to believe....Jesus was Jewish, but Christians can't follow Judaism."

--- You spoke the right things and you brought the truth to what is happening, thank you. But it is your responsibility to find the truth and bring it out because you are not saved if you are following the wrong teaching of the churches.

Dear betty 47,
The commandments came to the prophet Moses direct from GOD, and not from Jesus, and Jesus followed those commandments and preach them. The first commandment is:
YOU SHALL HAVE NO OTHER gods BEFORE ME.
And Jesus said : “HEAR O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD.”
It is very clear here that the One and only GOD, the God of Moses and the Jews and the God of Jesus.
I cannot understand how the Christians believe that Jesus is God or part of God!!!. Do they understand His words and His teaching? Did they read about Him when He spend all night in the mountain in prayer to GOD?.
* When you said ,”how silly* we must sound to people of other religions? “
Of Course , what is going on in the churches, the pope and the bishop etc., are dressing and living like kings, the people go the dark room to confess!!!, the holy water etc., the acts that the priest do, and the musical orchestra, the song, the jumping and dancing and shouting [in some churches] which look more like a theater, and the nude painting, which good for public bath (as one bishop in the Vatican describe it), and the statues, some covered with gold, and kissing them and kneel in front of them, all that seems for the people of the other religion a SILLY thing if they know the truth about the life of Jesus and the people around Him. All WHAT THEY SEE AS SILLY, that is only about the Christians way in praying, and their churches.

As for the Muslims Jesus and His mother the Virgin Mary, are very well respected like all the other prophets, every time when their name mentioned, the Muslims follow it by saying “A’ALEH AL-SALAM”, and that is “PEACE UPON HIM/HER”.
In the Quran there is a chapter called “SURAT MARIAM” , AND IT IS THE CHAPTER 19 , AND CONTAINS 98 VERSES, WITH 961 WORDS. And there are 33 verses about Jesus.

Before Muslim read the Quran, they have to make sure that they are clean {the words are God’s word}. There are hundred of million who read from the Quran 5 times a day in their prayers, plus some people read the Quran even before or after the prayers, So, can you guess how many times people read the chapter of Mariam and the name of Jesus and how many times they say “PEACE UPON THEM”. When Muslims pray, they pray in silence, and in the mosque only the Imam read from the Quran and everyone else stand or sit in a respected way and listen, no one allowed to speak or make noise while the praying is going {they are in the house of God}.

“ and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers,” Mark 11:15 Can you see the business that goes on in some churches today!!!.

betty47, you might not feel to read the Quran because you been told , but what about if you just read the chapter of MARIAM [on Islam site], and see the truth. Here some:

!9:21 He [the angel] said, “Thus it will be; your Lord says, “it is easy for Me, and We will make Him [Jesus] a sign to the people and a mercy from Us. And it is a matter already decreed.”

!9:29 So She [Mariam] pointed to Him [Jesus]. The said, “how can we spesk to one who is in the cradle a child [the baby Jesus]?
19:30 Jesus said, “ indeed I Am the servant of Allah [God] . HE has given me the scripture and made Me a prophet.
19:31 And HE has made Me blessed wherever I am and has enjoined upon Me prayer and Zakat [giving to the poor] as long as I remain alive.
19:33 And peace is on Me the day I was born and the day I will die and THE DAY I AM RAISED ALIVE.”

God bless you all.

Name: Anchorite • Date: 08/22/07 17:00

A: Obfuscation

Name: Panluna • Date: 08/23/07 11:44

A: Anchorite,
Mystified?and we are still digging for the truth and arguing over this bone of contention just as they have for centuries.Did he or didn't he?Is he or isn't he?is he the risen god or just a glorified human?

Name: sam • Date: 08/23/07 14:30

A: Hi Panluna,

"is he the risen god or just a glorified human?"

God never come to earth and walk with people, and God never die, to be risen again. The stories which been created by some people after Jesus death about Him were taken from the Greeks and the Roman and the othere old religions, where there were many gods and sons and daughters.

Jesus Is the son of Man, and He knows Himself as been sent by God , to bring God's word again to the people who been lost [the israeliles], and He is the promissed prophet., anything else about Him as the God's son or He is a God, is created lies.
It is clear here by Jesus words that He is just a messenger:

L- 22:42 ..... YET NOT MY WILL, BUT YOURS BE DONE. [The will of God]
M - 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, FOR THEY SHALL SEE GOD.” [The people saw Jesus, but never saw God, and only the good will see God]
M - 7:21 “Not everyone who says to ME, ‘LORD’,’LORD’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does THE WILL OF ‘ MY FATHER’ WHO IS IN HEAVEN.” [The kingdom of God in not the kingdom of Jesus]
M - 5:45 “So that you may be SONS OF YOUR FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN; for HE cause HIS sun to rise... and send rain..” The might be called the sons of God , but not the sons of Jesus, Jesus is not the God]
J- 8:42 ....I have not even come on My own initiative, BUT HE SENT ME. [God created Jesus, and sent Him]
J- 11:41 ...”Father, I THANK YOU that YOU HAVE HEARD ME. [when Jesus thanks God, he proves that He is not God or His son]
J-11:42 ....I said it, so they may believe THAT YOU SENT ME. [you should believe in God as the only God, that is Jesus message]
J- 17:3 “That they may know YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, AND JESUS CHRIST WHOM YOU HAVE SENT.” [you should understand that God is the one and only God]
J- 17:14 “ I have given them YOUR WORD...” [did you hear and understand what Jesus said?]
MA- 10:18 “Why do you call ME good? NO ONE IS GOOD EXCEPT GOD ALONE. [how can someone said Jesus is God while Jesus said NO ONE IS GOOD EXCEPT GOD ALONE!!!?]

----JESUS CHRIST "WHOM YOU HAVE SENT.” Jesus is a messenger [prophet], sent by God.

----GOD ALONE, no other God [Jesus is not God]., but God ALONE.

---- “So that you may be SONS OF YOUR FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN". Those who believe in God [not in jesus as Go