Jesus: Married With Children?

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 29
    bwahaha. Cameron has announced that a book is following. The movie is just a commercial for the book. He's just trying to pull another Dan Brown. What a tool.



    It is fun to see someone exploit and rip off the atheists though. The same atheists who mock the idiots that send their rent check to conniving televangelists. You gotta love how things work out.
  • Reply 22 of 29
    nvidia2008nvidia2008 Posts: 9,262member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


    Jesus: Married With Children



    Why do I have images of Peg, Al Bundy, Bud, and Kelly and the two annoying Neighbours somehow all Biblical-ly rejigged?





    "Jesus, why won't you have sex with me anymore...??" 8)

    "Well, Mary Magdalene, I can make tons of wine from water but I somehow can't make you more attractive..."



    Wow, a few hundred years ago I would have been burned at the stake.

    What a great secular liberalist society we live in today...
  • Reply 23 of 29
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tulkas View Post


    It is an archeological site, with archeological items, so why would having acheologists comment on the 'findings' be unreasonable?



    You stumble across a jetliner crashed in the jungle. You want to know what the cause of the crash was. Do you call an aerospace engineer, or a jungle tribal shaman?



    Just because the initial evidence is found in the environment of one type of expert, doesn't mean that they are an expert in that *type* of evidence. An archeologist without training in genetics can provide context to the DNA evidence, but having them provide expert opinion on the DNA evidence itself is just loony.



    Quote:

    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.



    See, that would be an interesting finding, if singularly inconclusive. Still waiting to see what their evidence is, though. If it's lame, then yeah, dismiss the claim of proof, but I guess I'll have to wait on that.
  • Reply 24 of 29
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    You stumble across a jetliner crashed in the jungle. You want to know what the cause of the crash was. Do you call an aerospace engineer, or a jungle tribal shaman?



    That's some kind of analogy. Jungle tribal shaman? If it's an archaeological finding, the archaeologists are the pertinent experts. And of course they shop out to others for help, like if they want a DNA test. And historians and religious scholars and others of course weigh in.



    What this filmmaker did was have a DNA test done to show that the man and woman were not related, and then conclude that they were married. But 1) it actually doesn't mean they were married, just that they were not related, 2) they didn't even do the obvious and test other relationships, like mother-son, etc., and 3) ) of course they cannot do a DNA test to determine whether it's the real Jesus.



    They also got a statistician to determine the likelihood of these names occurring together, and they claimed that "the odds that it is not the Jesus family tomb is 1 in 600" (paraphrase). How absurd. 1) You don't need a statistician for that - you need historians to determine the commonality of the names, and then anybody can use the multiplication rule as they did in this show to determine the rest. 2) That 1 in 600, if based on accurate information, absolutely is not the chance that it isn't the real Jesus tomb. It's the odds you'd get those names together if you randomly selected them. Needless to say, that's quite a difference.



    I watched it, and it reminded me a lot of the old "In Search Of..." show that I used to watch when I was a kid. My 7-year-old daughter thought it was cool. But adults and those serious about science will see it for what it is: Jungle tribal shaman-ry.
  • Reply 25 of 29
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BRussell View Post


    That's some kind of analogy. Jungle tribal shaman?



    As the pertinent expert on the environment the crash was found in, yes.



    Quote:

    If it's an archaeological finding, the archaeologists are the pertinent experts. And of course they shop out to others for help, like if they want a DNA test. And historians and religious scholars and others of course weigh in.



    I think you're still missing the point... the original claim was that an archeologist would be a proper expert to comment on matters of DNA analysis. That's just absurd. The fact that the DNA was from a sarcophagus, and not a modern morgue, is irrelevant. It is outside the specific field of study that the archeologist is presumably trained in, so he or she is not a qualified source of criticism. That's all. The environment in which it was found isn't going to alter the fundamentals of the DNA analysis, so an expert on the environment isn't going to be of much help in discerning the validity of the DNA results. As I said before, they can help provide *context*, but they're not the proper type of expert to be passing judgement on the actual analysis.



    Quote:

    What this filmmaker did was have a DNA test done to show that the man and woman were not related, and then conclude that they were married. But 1) it actually doesn't mean they were married, just that they were not related, 2) they didn't even do the obvious and test other relationships, like mother-son, etc., and 3) ) of course they cannot do a DNA test to determine whether it's the real Jesus.



    1) Agreed. 2) Yup, that's lame. 3) Of course not.



    Quote:

    They also got a statistician to determine the likelihood of these names occurring together, and they claimed that "the odds that it is not the Jesus family tomb is 1 in 600" (paraphrase). How absurd. 1) You don't need a statistician for that - you need historians to determine the commonality of the names, and then anybody can use the multiplication rule as they did in this show to determine the rest. 2) That 1 in 600, if based on accurate information, absolutely is not the chance that it isn't the real Jesus tomb. It's the odds you'd get those names together if you randomly selected them. Needless to say, that's quite a difference.



    Indeed it is. It's sounding like the evidence is pretty damned weak, IMO.



    Quote:

    I watched it, and it reminded me a lot of the old "In Search Of..." show that I used to watch when I was a kid. My 7-year-old daughter thought it was cool. But adults and those serious about science will see it for what it is: Jungle tribal shaman-ry.



    Hey, don't knock those jungle shamans, they've got leet mad skillz in the jungle environment... they're just poor experts for a jetliner crash.
  • Reply 26 of 29
    Those idiots read the inscription wrong anyway. Its not Mary Magdelene. Its Mary and Martha. Hell, who cares about credibilty anymore when money is to be had. The book is 6th on the NYTBSL. Jesus doubters are making for easy prey these days.
  • Reply 27 of 29
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    I'm not sure they're Jesus doubters as much as new-agey Christians who thought the Da Vinci Code was really deep.
  • Reply 28 of 29
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Was Jesus married with children? There is nothing strange about that idea at all. It was customary for young Jewish men back in those days to get married and start a family early in life; life expectancy in those days very short compared to now and the need to procreate and survive as a people was the paramount issue. It is far more a stretch to assume that he remained single, unmarried, fathered no children, or was celibate. Just because the biblical references to Jesus' marital status are ambiguous or vague does not mean that we can safely draw the conclusion that he was single. The Bible has been heavily censored/modified, abridged and mistranslated through the years and there are large chunks of his life we know nothing about whatsoever.



    What is the fuss about? The real Jesus (as a spiritual master) would not "lose status" or credibility, and the historical Jesus would become a little more real and human, should evidence of a wife and kids surface. However, is easy to see how the Church heirarchy over the centuries could see Jesus' descendants as being "problematic" re. their own agendas, and would tend to keep that information away from the flock.
  • Reply 29 of 29
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Was Jesus married with children? There is nothing strange about that idea at all. It was customary for young Jewish men back in those days to get married and start a family early in life; life expectancy in those days very short compared to now and the need to procreate and survive as a people was the paramount issue. It is far more a stretch to assume that he remained single, unmarried, fathered no children, or was celibate. Just because the biblical references to Jesus' marital status are ambiguous or vague does not mean that we can safely draw the conclusion that he was single. The Bible has been heavily censored/modified, abridged and mistranslated through the years and there are large chunks of his life we know nothing about whatsoever.



    What is the fuss about? The real Jesus (as a spiritual master) would not "lose status" or credibility, and the historical Jesus would become a little more real and human, should evidence of a wife and kids surface. However, is easy to see how the Church heirarchy over the centuries could see Jesus' descendants as being "problematic" re. their own agendas, and would tend to keep that information away from the flock.



    Where do I start?



    It would be exceeding strange for someone claiming to be the Jewish Messiah to have a wife and kids, and have nobody bother to notice it.



    Biblical accounts say that the Jewish authorities were angry because he went around claiming God as his father and that he claimed "equality" with God. Surely some half wit would have recognized the implicit theological problem of him having a human wife and child.



    Of course, your conspiracy theories about the composition of the Bible have been repeated before, and don't make any more sense now. The Bible has more manuscript evidence than Shakespeare. People often overlook the fact that Christians have always been annoyingly quoting scripture for millenia now. When the early church decided to formalize which writings were to be considered authoritative, they had access huge numbers of writings that showed what the earliest disciples of Christianity thought and said regarding the authority of scripture.



    Once again, zero real evidence to back up wild claims that are easily refuted. Just, it seems, like this ossuary.
Sign In or Register to comment.