Jesus: Married With Children?

Posted:
in AppleOutsider edited January 2014
Dem bones in a bonebox?



James Cameron says Jesus' bones and those of his wife and kid were found in Jerusalem back in 1980, and now they have the scientific evidence to prove it.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17343263/
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    You know, when even atheist scholars are mocking the evidence in this documentary, you should know what this is. A money grab. Jimmy Cameron is trying use the Dan Brown model for making money.



    "How possible is it?" Pfann said. "On a scale of one through 10 - 10 being completely possible - it's probably a one, maybe a one and a half." .... So you're telling me there's a chance.



    This is going to be good fodder for the people who think Dan Brown is intelligent writing. If you want a version of DaVinci Code for smart people read Umberto Eco's Foucalt's Pendulum.



    The only thing worse than people being duped by dishonest clergy is people being duped by all these Jesus scandal mongers.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Well, to be fair... what I've seen so far are archeologists commenting on purported evidence outside their realm of expertise: DNA, statistics, etc. Of course they're not going to be willing to accept that at face value, if it means that *they* were wrong. It's an outside threat to their credibility, so circle the wagons and mock it.



    I'm not saying Cameron is right, or that his evidence is solid, only that I would accept an analysis by another expert in the same field, before that of an expert in another field who would stand to lose credibility if the evidence is correct. Just sayin'.
  • Reply 3 of 29
    Uh. Are you serious? Think analytically here.



    How in the hell are they going to prove anything with DNA? Do you think they have some DNA from Mary and Joseph or something? What are they going to test it against? That's why its being mocked. It has no basis in fact. In any field.



    Its Jim Cameron looking for a money grab. Jesus scandal has become a booming business. This is just one more guy looking to cash in. People need to learn to think critically. Both when it comes to pro-religion rhetoric and all this Jesus scandal nonsense.



    Jesus DNA.... That is freaking hilarious. Yeah, they've had a hair they've been saving for 2000 years just in case they find his body. Bwahahaha! Jimmy should have just got his tech guys to create some toast that had an image of Mary burned into it. This is on the exact same level of intellect. People will believe anything.
  • Reply 4 of 29
    Who's to say a hair sample isn't available? Look at Britney Spears, for example...
  • Reply 5 of 29
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dancm2000 View Post


    Uh. Are you serious? Think analytically here.



    How in the hell are they going to prove anything with DNA? Do you think they have some DNA from Mary and Joseph or something? What are they going to test it against? That's why its being mocked. It has no basis in fact. In any field.



    Its Jim Cameron looking for a money grab. Jesus scandal has become a booming business. This is just one more guy looking to cash in. People need to learn to think critically. Both when it comes to pro-religion rhetoric and all this Jesus scandal nonsense.



    Jesus DNA.... That is freaking hilarious. Yeah, they've had a hair they've been saving for 2000 years just in case they find his body. Bwahahaha! Jimmy should have just got his tech guys to create some toast that had an image of Mary burned into it. This is on the exact same level of intellect. People will believe anything.



    Apparently not... we can extract DNA snippets from a fossilized dinosaur bone, and use that to place the animal into an evolutionary tree, after all. (And yes, fossilized - some rare specimens retain soft tissue samples internally.) Why do you find it hard to believe that we can analyze 2000 year old samples?



    I can easily see taking DNA samples from bone marrow residue in the ossuaries, and comparing them to known lineages within the Middle East, that have been tracked and recorded. Comparing them to descendants of David, for example, or to descendants of the region around Galilee. Either would help establish the familial tree of the bodies.



    You talk about thinking critically, but apparently you're not, since you're willing to dismiss this based solely on what you think you know. I take it, then, that you've examined the methodology and samples used in the analysis, and have, based on your background in genetics, pointed out the flaws? If not, please don't pass judgement on things you don't have the background for.



    Yeah, it's probably BS, but I, for one, prefer to actually see the evidence before dismissing it out of hand. That's thinking critically.



    Knee-jerk dismissal (or acceptance) of reports before seeing the evidence and weighing it objectively? Not so much.



    Objective analysis and critical thinking never have to resort to mockery or derision, they stand on their own.
  • Reply 6 of 29
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    Comparing them to descendants of David, for example, or to descendants of the region around Galilee. Either would help establish the familial tree of the bodies.



    Was Jesus a descendant of David? Was Jesus from Galilee? The Bible claims the former but has different things to say about the latter (i.e., Bethlehem vs. Nazareth). On the other hand, most scholars believe the latter but not the former: The idea that Jesus was from Bethlehem, the city of David, and was a descendant of David, were claimed by the authors of the Gospels in order to buff up Jesus' resume.



    I really don't see how DNA analyses could show anything either. My understanding is that the DNA testing was done only to show that the Jesus and Mary remains were not related, which suggests they were married rather than siblings.



    I don't know, I think this stuff can be pretty easily dismissed. And it's not new - people have been analyzing it for years. It's just that now, the movie is coming out.
  • Reply 7 of 29
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    You sure about that? Because I understood that the entire intent of this was that this was new data. Previously, any investigation stopped at "Naw, too unlikely", and that was it. If there's nothing new here, then yeah, ignore it and move on.



    Anyone have a pointer to something that has a few more facts than "Movie coming out, archeologists and theologians say it's bogus."?



    And as I said above, unless someone can point to what sort of analysis they did, what their evidence was, and how that leads to their conclusions, this is all just pissing in the wind.
  • Reply 8 of 29
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I think these Titanic people did do some new analyses, but the scholars had previously looked into it extensively, so I think it's fair to not have much hope that these filmmakers have anything useful to add except marketing.
  • Reply 9 of 29
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quite possibly, but until scholars from the *same field* debunk it, I'll reserve judgement. Having an archeologist comment on genetic screening is like having a dog climb a tree. It's out of its league but it doesn't really mean anything. So far, everything I've seen about this has stated that the evidence is genetic and statistical in nature, but the comments have been from theologians and archeologists. That's just bizarre.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    I think these Titanic people did do some new analyses, but the scholars had previously looked into it extensively, so I think it's fair to not have much hope that these filmmakers have anything useful to add except marketing.



    James Cameron didn't seem particularly adamant about their research being the final word on the subject when he appeared on the Today Show this morning. Guess he didn't want to appear too eager.
  • Reply 11 of 29
    Ten percent or even fifteen means there is a chance. After 2000 years of just believing one supplied story, maybe just maybe, well, I'll let ya'll work it out.



    The Church, Inc., must be pretty unhappy with this and will try real hard to hush it up.



    Why is it not possible for Jesus to have been just an ordinary fellow who became a very popular teacher in a dark age? He could still be worthy of reverence, but ...



    Sadly, Corporate Christianity would to lose too much.
  • Reply 12 of 29
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Sadly, Corporate Christianity would to lose too much.



    Not to mention the monolithic power and influence of the Catholic church.... and what would be "sad" about it, btw?
  • Reply 13 of 29
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    I find the whole thing quite sad.



    Firstly this movie exists to make money and the premise of it is quite utter rubbish.



    Secondly, as with many things, who you might think will be upset by it - ie the Catholic church is mentioned several times - their supposed outrage if it materializes if just phoney. They're loving it - but they have to be shown to show a particular 'official' face.



    There is no King David to start off with - he is mythology - so by default there can be no DNA to check these 'Jesus' remains with - This is the problem - All of this gives credibility to the 'lie' regardless of whether is backs it up or refutes it. The real lie here is that you believe David was a real person. This is the foundation to build a new lie on. The church will love this because although they're not going to accept that these remains of 'Jesus' and his family, the fact that you give credibility to a previous 'lie' by comparing them is OK as far as they are concerned, because they have slipped something past you, and from that they can use the propaganda to make their case.



    You really need to go back to the start - right to the start - to determine what is folk-lore and mythology before you start asking questions about Jesus' linage related to David.



    David isn't a real person, so how can these remains be related to him. Its impossible, yet the lie slips past, because you 'assume' to much about the honesty and credibilty of the original lie.



    Get knowledge - and laugh at the fools.
  • Reply 14 of 29
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    What is your reasoning that King David never existed, MarcUK?
  • Reply 15 of 29
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Better yet, what are the assumptions that that reasoning is based on?
  • Reply 16 of 29
    The truth is that Jesus, believe in him or not, has become hot commodity lately. Mel Gibson cashed in. Disney is cashing in on the Chronicles of Narnia. Dan Brown cashed in on the most ridiculous piece of shit ever written. Now James Cameron is trying to cash in. That is all there is to this.



    He's a tool, and he is making money off the new suckers: Jesus doubters. They are so anxious to have some drivel they can post on a message board, they will accept anything. Even 2000 year old DNA. Not to mention Dan Brown's nonsense. These people make those suckered by televangelists look like a pack of Nobel winners.



    The best part of the recent scam trend is that they are cashing in on the people who claim to be too smart to believe in religion.
  • Reply 17 of 29
    marcukmarcuk Posts: 4,442member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    What is your reasoning that King David never existed, MarcUK?





    King Arthur told me last time we had lunch
  • Reply 18 of 29
    tulkastulkas Posts: 3,754member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    Quite possibly, but until scholars from the *same field* debunk it, I'll reserve judgement. Having an archeologist comment on genetic screening is like having a dog climb a tree. It's out of its league but it doesn't really mean anything. So far, everything I've seen about this has stated that the evidence is genetic and statistical in nature, but the comments have been from theologians and archeologists. That's just bizarre.



    It is an archeological site, with archeological items, so why would having acheologists comment on the 'findings' be unreasonable? Cameron and the archeologist were on CNN last night. The only 'findings' they mentioned from the DNA, was that the DNA from the 'Jesus' ossuary was not genetically related to the 'Mary' DNA. This then meant that they were married. They didn't mention whether the DNA from the ossuary that they think contained their son was then related to both of them.
  • Reply 19 of 29
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dancm2000 View Post


    Now James Cameron is trying to cash in. That is all there is to this.



    Thinking that Cameron needs to cash in on anything is silly. Especially by putting his reputation on the line to be on par with Oliver Stone with something this odd.



    No, if anything Cameron is indulging his personal belief in a "historical Jesus" with the implications of the careful phrasing. The documentary like likely to be far less controversial than the hype...in other words a lot more even handed with few if any proclamations of "truth". Unless Cameron has some hankering to be seen as whacked out as Stone.



    How much can Discovery pay anyway in comparison to just doing another blockbuster?



    Vinea
  • Reply 20 of 29
Sign In or Register to comment.