Jesus’ burial site found - film claims

[artist3189]

True. Conversely, claiming it isn’t His tomb doesn’t make it so, either. Using logic such as questioning why a family as poor as Jesus’s would have been buried there, a burial place that was for middle class people, or why they’d be buried so far from where they lived, proves nothing, since people do all sorts of strange things that defy logic. If this isn’t the Jesus’s burial site I would think it will be easy enough for scientists to disprove the claims through testing of the cave or ossuaries. Maybe they’re going to wait until after the airing of the documentary to get started.

ALL RIGHT LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE, THAT ACTUALLY BELIEVE A HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER, A CANADIAN FILM MAKER AND A REALLY BAD ARCHAEOLOGIST FOUND THE BURIAL PLACE OF JESUS. IS THAT CORRECT? ARE YOU ALL GONE MAD. This is a scam, and really bad science. Start reading credible sources that have nothing to be made from this, read or go to Biblical Archeology Mag, etc, that have been dismantling Cameron and his work over in the Middle East for months and months. He started with the Exodus theory ****, made a movie on that, which was soundly thrashed by all rational science and archeology. His method is totally “connect the dots” and make the picture I want. This Jesus thing is the same story, start doing some research please and stop fantasying about the fall of Christianity. I have to say I find the fact anyone takes this serious as bizarre and sad and just shows how badly some people want to DIS-BELIEVE…do the work people and stop wasting time on this, Cameron is all about the buzz and the money…it’s reality TV and we all know how much REALITY there actually is in reality TV, or do we?

 

[artist3189]

It’s not the names that are uncommon, it’s the statistical probabilities that all those names would be found together in a family burial tomb. According to what the filmmakers were told by their statisticians, the chances of that happening are about 1 in 2,000,000. I don’t remember what the numbers were with regards to the DNA evidence in the OJ Simpson trial but the numbers were at least that high with his DNA matching the blood found at the crime scene, and people were astounded that the jury didn’t find him guilty. Now we have numbers that supposedly prove that this is likely where Jesus was buried and people scoff. ***Again, scientific testing needs to be done ******that will hopefully disprove all these claims./***QUOTE]

LOOK AT THE LINE YOU USE AS A QUOTE AFTER YOUR POSTS, FROM PHILS. YOU DON’T NEED SCIENTIFIC TESTING TO DISPROVE ANYTHING.

 

[bullfrog1979]

I have to say I find the fact anyone takes this serious as bizarre and sad and just shows how badly some people want to DIS-BELIEVE…do the work people and stop wasting time on this, QUOTE]

maybe you should look at your own facts, how do you know its untrue? what proof have you that jesus/god is even through you need to open your eyes its 2007, we live on a little planet one of billions we know nothing of what created us, religion is dying i’m afraid

 

[Faith1960]

your by-passing the answer, what if it is true? dont tell me its not with no proof, i have no proof i’m just asking the question what if its true? is our religion false?

Can you please quote who you’re responding to, Bullfrog? Thanks. If you were responding to me, the answer is that IF the discovery is Jesus’ burial place or even if it isn’t but can’t be positively refuted, a lot of people are going to feel they’ve been taught incorrectly or even lied to. This will put a major dent in people’s Christian beliefs, I’m afraid.

I used TDVC as one example earlier, but take the Shroud of Turin as another example. We aren’t required to believe it’s the genuine burial cloth of Jesus so while many firmly believe it is and claim that the carbon dating which dated the cloth as too young to be genuine was wrong due to it being tested on a piece that had been repaired, the debate rages on. From what I’ve heard, scientists have pretty much ruled out, unanimously, that it’s genuine and believe it’s a fraud, or, at the very least, a mystery that doesn’t include supernatural phenomena. Still, in the case of the Shroud it doesn’t matter one way or another really, because belief in the Shroud isn’t a requirement of our faith. Believing in the bodily ascension of Christ is.
I’m already reading and hearing debate on the possibility that Christ didn’t ascend bodily but that just his soul ascended into Heaven. Maybe more people will come to believe that if scientists can’t refute the documentary’s claims.

 

[2shelbys]

The calculation is not that at all.

The calculation is for that exact combination of names turning up by chance (that is, the chance of two families having the exact same set of names).

The calculation of 1/600 indicates that only 1 in 600 familes of that time had that combination of names. It is not a probability that this is the tomb of Jesus.

If we take the higher value quoted, 1/2,000,000 then we are dealing with a very high probability that this is the tomb of Jesus.

The only problem is that you are ignoring two very significant facts:

1. Cameron has failed to show what he is basing these calculations on. Unless he has an authentic, accurate Roman tax census of the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the surrounding area from the time in question showing not only the total number of people in the area but also the names of those people than his calculations are nothing more than a wild guess and are therefore meaningless. You can not calculate the probability of these names showing up if you do not have any of the relevent information.
2. More than one scholar has stated that the name Yeshua does not appear on any of the ossuaries. They say the name Cameron is interpreting as “Jesus” is actually Hanun and not Yeshua.

 

[2shelbys]

artist3189;1947162:

I have to say I find the fact anyone takes this serious as bizarre and sad and just shows how badly some people want to DIS-BELIEVE…do the work people and stop wasting time on this, QUOTE]

maybe you should look at your own facts, how do you know its untrue? what proof have you that jesus/god is even through you need to open your eyes its 2007, we live on a little planet one of billions we know nothing of what created us, religion is dying i’m afraid

You apparantly know even less about religion than you do about science and history. Both Christianity and Islam are growing at an incredible pace. It is ahteism that is dying.

 

[artist3189]

artist3189;1947162:

I have to say I find the fact anyone takes this serious as bizarre and sad and just shows how badly some people want to DIS-BELIEVE…do the work people and stop wasting time on this, QUOTE]

maybe you should look at your own facts, how do you know its untrue? what proof have you that jesus/god is even through you need to open your eyes its 2007, we live on a little planet one of billions we know nothing of what created us, religion is dying i’m afraid

I can’t give you faith my friend, you’re own lack of it is something you have to come to terms with, but don’t cling to this kind of Hollywood junk to give you the answers. If you need James Cameron to finally put to rest for you whether or not there is a God, then you’ve already made up your mind and this just makes you feel good about it. If you really want to know, do more research into what Camerons all about. I’ve seem shows on Discovery that can present facts, in a certain way, in a certain order, with the right dramatic music that will convince you that there aliens all around us. But, none of it holds up to scrutiny, neither will this.

 

[2shelbys]

you know i think i have joined the wrong forum, you guys have very strong faith, and nothing be it true or not will prove you wrong. its sad the narrow mindness. we don’t know and have no proof of a god or jesus, we need facts like this program to show us how it really was. I would believe hard facts rather than stories

Amazing. You have not seen the show and Cameron has so far shown absolutely no conclusive evidence to back up his claims yet you are convinced that he is conclusively showing us “how it was”. More evidence of how it takes far more blind faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian.

 

[mchale]

It’s not the names that are uncommon, it’s the statistical probabilities that all those names would be found together in a family burial tomb. According to what the filmmakers were told by their statisticians, the chances of that happening are about 1 in 2,000,000. I don’t remember what the numbers were with regards to the DNA evidence in the OJ Simpson trial but the numbers were at least that high with his DNA matching the blood found at the crime scene, and people were astounded that the jury didn’t find him guilty. Now we have numbers that supposedly prove that this is likely where Jesus was buried and people scoff. Again, scientific testing needs to be done that will hopefully disprove all these claims.

As Mark Twain use to say, “There are three kinds of lies; Lies, D!@# Lies and Statistics!”

Lets say you take any multi person tomb with a similar number of people, unless the names were very uncommon, the odds of that grouping of people being together would be similarly remote. It really doesn’t prove anything. Essentially this is like arguing that if you find a tomb with the names Marsha, Bobby, Greg and Cindy in it, that you have found the tomb of the Brady Bunch. Essentially, they found a goup of people in a tomb whose names were similar to people described in the New Testament of the Bible. The odds of that particular grouping of people being there is fairly remote, but the odds of any such goup containing a number of people with similar names to New Testament Names seems to me like it could be very high. For example lets look at it this way, quite a few names in the New Testament show up attached to multiple people (Simon, Joseph, John, James and Mary). Other names in the New Testament are the names of major figures from the Old Testament (Jesus (from Joshua) and Saul for example). Now I think it is reasonable to assume that many of the figures in the New Testament bore names that were very common in their time. That being the case, the more important question is what are the odds of finding a group of 5 or 6 people with names that happen to match up to some of the collection of names in the Bible?

–
Bill

 

[Nullasalus]

I used TDVC as one example earlier, but take the Shroud of Turin as another example. We aren’t required to believe it’s the genuine burial cloth of Jesus so while many firmly believe it is and claim that the carbon dating which dated the cloth as too young to be genuine was wrong due to it being tested on a piece that had been repaired, the debate rages on. From what I’ve heard, scientists have pretty much ruled out, unanimously, that it’s genuine and believe it’s a fraud, or, at the very least, a mystery that doesn’t include supernatural phenomena.

This is slightly off-topic, but the situation with the Shroud of Turin is still up in the air. www.shroudstory.com for more details, but essentially, Raymond Rogers published his work (and yes, in a peer-reviewed journal) indicating that the shroud is likely older than recently assumed, and the previous dating of it was likely inaccurate. Does it mean the shroud was supernatural in origin? Not necessarily. But the state of scientific opinion on the shroud is anything but conclusive. (And Ray Rogers, when skeptics questioned his work, delivered a withering response.)

So far, the biggest piece of evidence in the favor of Cameron’s documentary is a statistical claim. And even that piece is built on a whole lot of supposition and questionable starting points.

 

[Faith1960]

ALL RIGHT LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT, THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE, THAT ACTUALLY BELIEVE A HOLLYWOOD PRODUCER, A CANADIAN FILM MAKER AND A REALLY BAD ARCHAEOLOGIST FOUND THE BURIAL PLACE OF JESUS. IS THAT CORRECT? ARE YOU ALL GONE MAD.

No. That isn’t correct.

 

[Nullasalus]

I used TDVC as one example earlier, but take the Shroud of Turin as another example. We aren’t required to believe it’s the genuine burial cloth of Jesus so while many firmly believe it is and claim that the carbon dating which dated the cloth as too young to be genuine was wrong due to it being tested on a piece that had been repaired, the debate rages on. From what I’ve heard, scientists have pretty much ruled out, unanimously, that it’s genuine and believe it’s a fraud, or, at the very least, a mystery that doesn’t include supernatural phenomena.

This is slightly off-topic, but the situation with the Shroud of Turin is still up in the air. www.shroudstory.com for more details, but essentially, Raymond Rogers published his work (and yes, in a peer-reviewed journal) indicating that the shroud is likely older than recently assumed, and the previous dating of it was likely inaccurate. Does it mean the shroud was supernatural in origin? Not necessarily. But the state of scientific opinion on the shroud is anything but conclusive. (And Ray Rogers, when skeptics questioned his work, delivered a withering response.)

So far, the biggest piece of evidence in the favor of Cameron’s documentary is a statistical claim. And even that piece is built on a whole lot of supposition and questionable starting points.

 

[Matthewd777]

Unfortunately, some need visible proof of the invisible, but for those who do, read this…

therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/lanciano.html

 

[artist3189]

This is slightly off-topic, but the situation with the Shroud of Turin is still up in the air. www.shroudstory.com for more details, but essentially, Raymond Rogers published his work (and yes, in a peer-reviewed journal) indicating that the shroud is likely older than recently assumed, and the previous dating of it was likely inaccurate. Does it mean the shroud was supernatural in origin? Not necessarily. But the state of scientific opinion on the shroud is anything but conclusive. (And Ray Rogers, when skeptics questioned his work, delivered a withering response.)

So far, the biggest piece of evidence in the favor of Cameron’s documentary is a statistical claim. And even that piece is built on a whole lot of supposition and questionable starting points.

The lastest TEAM of scientist people looking at real HARD scientific analysis of the SHROUD did not disprove it, it was the opposite. They really worked it over, all kinds of tests, and what they found totally amazed them. They really had a hard time explaining a lot of things, like the plant pollen, seeds and flowers, the resins, they tried every way to replicate the image, with no solution. And the fact that The Sudarium, the face cloth in Spain matches the blood type and markings to the Shroud was really a weird finding also.

 

[2shelbys]

Can you please quote who you’re responding to, Bullfrog? Thanks. If you were responding to me, the answer is that IF the discovery is Jesus’ burial place or even if it isn’t but can’t be positively refuted, a lot of people are going to feel they’ve been taught incorrectly or even lied to. This will put a major dent in people’s Christian beliefs, I’m afraid.

I used TDVC as one example earlier, but take the Shroud of Turin as another example. We aren’t required to believe it’s the genuine burial cloth of Jesus so while many firmly believe it is and claim that the carbon dating which dated the cloth as too young to be genuine was wrong due to it being tested on a piece that had been repaired, the debate rages on. From what I’ve heard, scientists have pretty much ruled out, unanimously, that it’s genuine and believe it’s a fraud, or, at the very least, a mystery that doesn’t include supernatural phenomena. Still, in the case of the Shroud it doesn’t matter one way or another really, because belief in the Shroud isn’t a requirement of our faith. Believing in the bodily ascension of Christ is.
I’m already reading and hearing debate on the possibility that Christ didn’t ascend bodily but that just his soul ascended into Heaven. Maybe more people will come to believe that if scientists can’t refute the documentary’s claims.

Actually, the almost 100% consensus of the scientists and researchers that have actually worked on the shroud is that it is not a fake or forgery because they have been unable to find any evidence at all of it being manmade. They can not however say that it is certainly the burial cloth of Christ because that simply can not be proven but the scientific evidence is quite overwhelming that either it is, or it is the burial cloth of an identical man who was tortured and killed in an identical way and in the same location. The cloth bears real bood that is a match for the blood on the Sudarium in type and shape of staining. The mans bears the scars of torture that match the instruments the Romans would have used and the patterns of the wounds Christ received. The cloth bears plant and soil traces that link it to Jerusalem, including plant residue from the head area of a thistle that would have made an excellent crown of thorns. In addition to what you said about the Carbon dating being done on a piece of the repaired area: the inventor of the dating method that was used, Dr, Harry Grove, came out almost immediately and said that the process is very unreliable in dating textiles because there is no satisfactory method of cleaning bacterial residue from the surface of the cloth. Even before the discovery that the wrong section was tested the Carbon testing was rendered invalid by the most qualifed authority on the subject. You are correct though in your main point that belief in it is not required.

 

[BobCatholic]

As Mark Twain use to say, “There are three kinds of lies; Lies, D!@# Lies and Statistics!”

I’ve updated that with my own version of that quote.

There’s four kinds of lies: Lies, Darn lies, statistics, and anti-catholicism"

 

[T1Catholic]

Actually, the almost 100% consensus of the scientists and researchers that have actually worked on the shroud is that it is not a fake or forgery because they have been unable to find any evidence at all of it being manmade. They can not however say that it is certainly the burial cloth of Christ because that simply can not be proven but the scientific evidence is quite overwhelming that either it is, or it is the burial cloth of an identical man who was tortured and killed in an identical way and in the same location. The cloth bears real bood that is a match for the blood on the Sudarium in type and shape of staining. The mans bears the scars of torture that match the instruments the Romans would have used and the patterns of the wounds Christ received. The cloth bears plant and soil traces that link it to Jerusalem, including plant residue from the head area of a thistle that would have made an excellent crown of thorns. In addition to what you said about the Carbon dating being done on a piece of the repaired area: the inventor of the dating method that was used, Dr, Harry Grove, came out almost immediately and said that the process is very unreliable in dating textiles because there is no satisfactory method of cleaning bacterial residue from the surface of the cloth. Even before the discovery that the wrong section was tested the Carbon testing was rendered invalid by the most qualifed authority on the subject. You are correct though in your main point that belief in it is not required.

Here’s an interesting thought. If they know there is blood o the Shroud of Turin, can they not extract the DNA and compare it to the DNA they found in the osuary?

 

[T1Catholic]

It’s not the names that are uncommon, it’s the statistical probabilities that all those names would be found together in a family burial tomb. According to what the filmmakers were told by their statisticians, the chances of that happening are about 1 in 2,000,000. I don’t remember what the numbers were with regards to the DNA evidence in the OJ Simpson trial but the numbers were at least that high with his DNA matching the blood found at the crime scene, and people were astounded that the jury didn’t find him guilty. Now we have numbers that supposedly prove that this is likely where Jesus was buried and people scoff. Again, scientific testing needs to be done that will hopefully disprove all these claims.

I have to say you and I seem to be on the same page. The statistics portion is coming from the University of Toronto, a highly respected school world wide. So while you can’t agrue the facts (tombs were found etc) what you can argue is the theories that are extrapolated from the facts. I’m surprised that so many non-professionals (I mean people who are not archeologists, statisticians, scientistics) on this forum are so quick to debunk the science. How do you know if the experts are credible or not? And it doesn’t matter what biblical scholars say, this is not in their realm. And it doesn’t matter what CA apologists say either, they are not qualified to speak on scientific credibility as much as a scientist is on doctrine. And who cares if the BBC aired a documentary on this in the 90s and it was disproved - the science has come a long way since then. I wholeheartedly believe what our Bible and Holy Mother Church tells us about Jesus and I expect that this Tomb of Jesus story will all be disproved. But I want it disproved by the best “qualified” people in the biz not by my fellow lay Christians who just don’t like the story. As I said before, we are more than happy to use science when it can help prove Christianity.

 

[Faith1960]

The only problem is that you are ignoring two very significant facts:

1. Cameron has failed to show what he is basing these calculations on.

The documentary hasn’t aired yet. Let’s see what the man has to say before we state that he has no basis, whatsoever for the calculations. Note: I said “the calculations” not “his calculations,” since what he’s presenting isn’t something he made up; he’s getting his information from supposed experts.

1. More than one scholar has stated that the name Yeshua does not appear on any of the ossuaries. They say the name Cameron is interpreting as “Jesus” is actually Hanun and not Yeshua.

Do you have the names of these scholars or links to their (name removed by moderator)ut on this subject? I only ran across one, biblical scholar Stephen Pfann. He said that he’s unsure the name Yeshua is being interpreted correctly. He “thinks” the name is most likely “Hanun.” Nothing definitive there.
He was also quoted as saying that the possibility this really is the tomb of Jesus Christ is about 1 to 1 1/2 on a scale of 1 through 10. He doesn’t sound 100% convinced himself.

 

[artist3189]

Here’s an interesting thought. If they know there is blood o the Shroud of Turin, can they not extract the DNA and compare it to the DNA they found in the osuary?

Yes, but so what. This is the whole problem with showmanship versus real science. DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT JESUS’ BLOOD TYPE, OR DNA STRAND WAS? NO…SO HOW CAN WE SAY ANY DNA WE FIND ‘IS’ THAT OF JESUS WHEN WE DON’T KNOW WHAT IT WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Even if it did match the Shroud, what would that prove, other than it matches the Shroud, period. We DO NOT have sample of DNA from Jesus, and James Cameron knows this, so, he can’t be proved WRONG by DNA testing, and that looks really good on a TV program. But DNA testing doesn’t PROVE it’s Jesus either one way or another if you can’t IDENTIFY the original subject. 2000 year old DNA of someone, maybe with the same name, that’s proof positive of one thing, it’s all about the money… It’s good thing this isn’t a court case or it would be thrown out before it hit the bench.