Jesus’ burial site found - film claims

[Faith1960]

Which again seriously undermines the argument that the people behind this documentary are serious scholars. If they are more interested in the getting good ratings that getting the information out into the open, it undermines their credibility. If a scholar is announcing work only to get money, well, it does give him (or her) something of a reason to be less than 100% honest in one’s findings.​

Bill

Some of the scholars include Frank Moore Cross, professor emeritus in the Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard and Jodi Magness, associate dept. chair of religious studies at the University of Carolina. Not all the scholars featured in the documentary agree with Cameron, including a couple people mentioned earlier. These aren’t reputable experts?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

They may be reputable experts. . .and still be wrong. There are many examples of people who were geniuses in their fields. . .yet made egregious errors despite this.

 

[Faith1960]

The fact of the matter is that this film was made with an agenda in mind, and all of the “facts” that support this outcome will be presented, and the ones that refute it will not be presented. Eventually we might have reputable sources debunking the specifics, but we can be skeptical up front. .

I don’t know about that. I’ve heard that people who don’t agree with Cameron’s findings are also interviewed.

 

[Faith1960]

They may be reputable experts. . .and still be wrong. There are many examples of people who were geniuses in their fields. . .yet made egregious errors despite this.

Very true, but error can go both ways. I just looked up the Discovery site and found this. This is how they explain their findings in relation to Christian beliefs. Which denominations believe Christ rose from the dead but had a spiritual ascension instead of a bodily one?

dsc.discovery.com/convergence/tomb/theology/theology.html

 

[KnightErrantJR]

I don’t know about that. I’ve heard that people who don’t agree with Cameron’s findings are also interviewed.

I think you may be mistaking some of what we are saying. Part of the problem is that, yes, some of the “experts” may not agree with Cameron’s view, and they are there so that he can say he is being objective. But if they don’t get as much time as the “experts” that agree with him, it does leave the impression that he has presented his case really well, even if its tenuous.

Also, I don’t think we were impuning any of the experts he may have used. As was stated earlier in the thread, some of these experts were just there to state, “yes, this looks like an authentic tomb, no matter who was burried here,” or, “yes, this tomb is the type utilized during X time period.” People like this can be completely credible, appear in the film, and not be advocating Cameron’s opinion, just verifiying aspects of it that don’t directly go toward the overall thesis.

In fact, including such experts and having them comment definitively on narrow aspects of the overall presentation helps to make the whole look more credible than it might otherwise.

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

Oh no!

I guess I’ll have to go find another religion. It was fun while it lasted.

 

[Faith1960]

I think you may be mistaking some of what we are saying. Part of the problem is that, yes, some of the “experts” may not agree with Cameron’s view, and they are there so that he can say he is being objective. But if they don’t get as much time as the “experts” that agree with him, it does leave the impression that he has presented his case really well, even if its tenuous.

Also, I don’t think we were impuning any of the experts he may have used. As was stated earlier in the thread, some of these experts were just there to state, “yes, this looks like an authentic tomb, no matter who was burried here,” or, “yes, this tomb is the type utilized during X time period.” People like this can be completely credible, appear in the film, and not be advocating Cameron’s opinion, just verifiying aspects of it that don’t directly go toward the overall thesis.

In fact, including such experts and having them comment definitively on narrow aspects of the overall presentation helps to make the whole look more credible than it might otherwise.

You have a good point. I’ll have to see for myself on Sunday night. I’ve been reading some posts on Discovery’s forums and from what I’ve read so far, Discovery and James Cameron are taking a beating.

 

[magician]

I find the responses here very interesting. No one has suggested that, even if the archeological evidence were considered valid, that Catholics would still regard the doctrine of the Resurection as true. After all, what is the value of faith if you don’t accept the doctrines of faith on face value notwithstanding “evidence”?

So my question to you is: does your faith matter or can it be compromised even with valid and substantiated scientific evidence? Faith is belief not based on proof. So where goes your faith?

 

[colliric]

Atleast this is one subject both Catholics and Protestants can both can agree upon and support each other on!

People like James Cameron are the ones I find the most difficult to pray for… those that not only blaspeme, but will also try and profit from it as well.

What we do know is that our Lord can make something good out of something so evil and wicked… may his righteousness prevail!

That good thing which comes of it will be more Christian archeology. No doubt there will now be yet another look into the Holy Sepulche, Noah’s Ark(Which I believe is still on top of Mr Ararat in that unexplorable region where those weird frozen ship looking CIA photographs were taken), the holy grail, another study of The shroud of Turin, a further study of the “true cross” and "Pilate’s plaque"and countless other biblical artifacts.

Having done some research into the Sepulcre and what it looked like and exactly where it is, I personally doubt any study, ANY COMPETENT AND NON-BIASED STUDY, would refuse it the title “The tomb of Christ” because the evidence is still there as bright as can be, its in the right traditional location, had a garden and was, get this, EMPTY WHEN REFOUND. It remains the only geographically, Gospel and archaeologically correct Tomb of Christ.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I find the responses here very interesting. No one has suggested that, even if the archeological evidence were considered valid, that Catholics would still regard the doctrine of the Resurection as true. After all, what is the value of faith if you don’t accept the doctrines of faith on face value notwithstanding “evidence”?

So my question to you is: does your faith matter or can it be compromised even with valid and substantiated scientific evidence? Faith is belief not based on proof. So where goes your faith?

Because Jesus is the Way and the Truth, faith can never be in opposition to right reason. The Truth cannot contradict itself; therefore, it seems to me that if a scientific truth contradicts dogma the scientific truth has yet to be fully explained or discovered. Science overturns theories and ideas all the time, e.g. Einstein changing the Newtonian view of gravity or evolution versus punctuated equilibrium, or countless others. Man’s knowledge is always incomplete, but objective truth cannot contradict itself.

It is also possible that a scientific truth could seem to contradict a dogma, but it could be an errant or heretical interpretation of the dogms, i.e the error can be on either end of the equatiion: science or faith, but the error is not in objective dogma or objective reality or the stars but in ourselves.

Hope this helps.

 

[mchale]

Some of the scholars include Frank Moore Cross, professor emeritus in the Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard and Jodi Magness, associate dept. chair of religious studies at the University of Carolina. Not all the scholars featured in the documentary agree with Cameron, including a couple people mentioned earlier. These aren’t reputable experts?

They might be reputable, but if they are presenting the results of research for the first time on a documentary they are being paid for, then I would have to question their judgement. A documentary does not have the safe guards on it that a peer reviewed journal.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

I find the responses here very interesting. No one has suggested that, even if the archeological evidence were considered valid, that Catholics would still regard the doctrine of the Resurection as true. After all, what is the value of faith if you don’t accept the doctrines of faith on face value notwithstanding “evidence”?

So my question to you is: does your faith matter or can it be compromised even with valid and substantiated scientific evidence? Faith is belief not based on proof. So where goes your faith?

Faith, I think, needs to at least not contradict the bulk of the evidence. If, somehow, the archeological evidence was to show that Jesus was in fact burried in that tomb (particularly in an Ossuary which by definition would not be used until long after Jesus died) it would call the central truth of Christ’s ressurection into serious question. Fortunately, I don’t think it is likely because ultimately from what I have seen, there are serious unsupported leaps from the evidence to the conclusions they are presenting.

–
Bill

 

[colliric]

Does anyone else believe Jesus real burial site was found nearly 1700 years ago?

Why don’t we start raising up that one for discussion again? It’s credibility has very wrongly been challenged here, time for the Pope to announce another study of it in my opinion and to re-announce it as infallible, even though it was done so nearly 1700 years ago…

 

[Faith1960]

Does anyone else believe Jesus real burial site was found nearly 1700 years ago?

Why don’t we start raising up that one for discussion again? It’s credibility has very wrongly been challenged here, time for the Pope to announce another study of it in my opinion and to re-announce it as infallible, even though it was done so nearly 1700 years ago…

I missed that discussion. What was it about? Should we start a new thread so it doesn’t become confusing?

 

[colliric]

I missed that discussion. What was it about? Should we start a new thread so it doesn’t become confusing?

I think you already know what I’m talking about, but just to make it clear… The Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The 3 date temporary resting place of Jesus Christ right on the old Golgotha site in Jerusalem.

I was talking about raising the topic in general in catholic circles everywhere, we need to be reminded of why the Catholic church(which then inc Orthodox) gave it the designation “the tomb of Christ”. What with all these “tombs of Jesus” showing up and challenging it(without any grounds whatsoever)…

For 1500 years unquestioned, then a second possible christian Gospel supporting site was suggested, and now this off the chart extraordinary and silly new Atheist claim.

 

[Milliardo]

I’ll say this loud and clear: the way it is presented, with all the pageantry of a snake oil salesman, should already make one suspect. I don’t think there’s any more convincing needed that is it fake. True archeological findings are rather staid, quiet affairs. No bombast, no pageantry. It is very academic. Once it goes into a circus, then you would have to think twice, as clearly there’s a hard sell thrown into it, as if such people are trying to convince its viewers it is true. And with such a circus going on…as well, like I pointed out, first century Christians don’t have the cross as a symbol of faith; that came much later. That should’ve given it all away, but those who don’t know their history would fall for such a thing.

 

[katy64]

Show me “proof” before you make accusations. Where in the world would they be able to get DNA from God? Not possible. This DNA stuff is just ridiculous. All it purports at this time is that two of the remains have no DNA link. Big deal. It could be anyone. You can’t prove it’s Jesus. Find a link with his Mother and Himself. Won’t happen. They were both assumed bodily into heaven. Nice try though! For those of us who have faith, no explanation is needed. For those without faith, none is possible!

 

[MrS]

Show me “proof” before you make accusations. Where in the world would they be able to get DNA from God? Not possible. This DNA stuff is just ridiculous. All it purports at this time is that two of the remains have no DNA link. Big deal. It could be anyone. You can’t prove it’s Jesus. Find a link with his Mother and Himself. Won’t happen. They were both assumed bodily into heaven. Nice try though! For those of us who have faith, no explanation is needed. For those without faith, none is possible!

That is a pretty weird thought…

But I am sure that some sect somewhere will claim to already have it… delivered by an angel… burried in a field somewhere… authenticated by their apostles…

smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_5.gif

%between%

 

[magician]

What you say about faith and contradiction is true. But consider the Eucharist. Catholics believe it is, in fact, the body and blood of Christ - not a substitute, not a representation, but the real thing. But there is no scientific proof. A scientist can’t analyse the DNA. To believe this requires absolute faith - faith without proof - even though, as someone said, there can be no contradiction to the truth.
So back to my question: how does faith fit into the mix of scientific evidence? Disregarding Cameron who is probably a showman at heart, there could arise artifacts that pose strong suggestions which contradict Church teaching.
Where would you stand in the end?

 

[Larry1700]

Years ago I stopped trusting The Discovery Channel when it became apparent that many of their shows were “tie-ins” with upcoming movies. I don’t know what the specifics are (who owns who, etc.) but I’ve seen it happen many times.