This should be fun

[Bill McIntyre]

February 26, 2007, 10:38 am
Raising the Titanic, Sinking Christianity?
By Tom Zeller Jr.

One of several burial boxes that once contained the bones of Jesus’s family, says filmmaker James Cameron. This one was Mary’s. (Photo: A.P.)
With no film in the running this year, director James Cameron might muffle some post-Oscar rhapsodizing as he looses the publicity hounds on his latest project, which strikes at the foundations of Christianity and already has Church authorities upset.

It looks like things got rolling, buzz-wise, with a TIME magazine blog whisper on Friday, which outlined details on 90-minute documentary in which Mr. Cameron, along with journalist Simcha Jacobovici, say they have uncovered the burial cave of Jesus and his family — along with enough DNA evidence to establish, they say, that Jesus wasn’t resurrected and that Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

James Cameron (Photo: Getty Images)
The story was picked up over the weekend, and although the documentary will not air for another six days, (it premieres Sunday, March 4 on the Discovery Channel), and an accompanying book co-authored by Mr. Jacobovici, “The Jesus Family Tomb,” is not quite shipping from Amazon.com yet, the condemnations have already started to fly.

“Every Christian knows that Jesus the son of God and man died and rose again on Easter Sunday,” a New York Archdiocese spokesman, Joseph Zwilling, told The New York Post on Sunday. “No alleged DNA test or Hollywood film is going to change that.”

Meanwhile, Mr. Cameron is scheduled to hold a press conference at 11:00 a.m. in New York, at which he will reportedly unveil the burial boxes that he and his colleague say once contained the bones of Jesus.

In a statement issued this morning, the president of the National Clergy Council, the Reverend Bob Schenk, discredited Mr. Cameron’s bona fides:


“Over the years, Hollywood has attacked and mocked Christianity, providing only negative portrayals of people of faith. It has produced films that undermine moral culture. Hollywood’s production of ‘The Da Vinci Code’ sensationalized a conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church engaged in a cover up of the real story of Jesus operating in the manner of a crime syndicate.

“According to Cameron, his film is no mere speculation, but historical fact. By claiming the remains of Jesus returned to dust along with other members of his family, the Hollywood filmmaker is denying the divinity of the Son of God and his victory over death. Cameron clearly intended to drive a stake into the heart of Christianity, since without the Resurrection, Jesus was only a mortal man.

“Media outlets should exercise restraint in reporting Cameron’s Hollywood fiction masquerading as scientific fact. All of Jesus’ contemporaries recorded Christ rose after being dead for three days and ascended into Heaven. For 2,000 years people of faith along and countless scholars have pored over the Scriptures, confirming their veracity. A Hollywood director is the least qualified to render any determination of Biblical truth.”

Clearly, the press conference — and the next month or so — should be interesting.

The 2,000-year-old tomb was discovered during an excavation for a housing project south of Jerusalem. (Photo: Getty Images)
Early reports indicate that while the evidence the filmmaker and the journalist have brought to the table are by no means definitive, it is compelling.

The ossuaries — or burial boxes that purportedly contain the bones of Jesus and his family — were discovered in a 2,000-year-old cave in 1980, during excavation for a housing project south of Jerusalem. They are now in the stewardship of the Israel Antiquities Authority in Bet Shemesh, outside Jerusalem.

Here’s some of the intriguing stuff, from Canada’s Globe and Mail:

The boxes bear the names: Yeshua [Jesus] bar Yosef [son of Joseph]; Maria [the Latin version of Miriam, which is the English Mary]; Matia [the Hebrew equivalent of Matthew, a name common in the lineage of both Mary and Joseph]; Yose [the Gospel of Mark refers to Yose as a brother of Jesus]; Yehuda bar Yeshua, or Judah, son of Jesus; and in Greek, Mariamne e mara, meaning ‘Mariamne, known as the master.’ According to Harvard professor François Bovon, interviewed in the film, Mariamne was Mary Magdalene’s real name.

The bones contained in the boxes have long since been reburied, according to Jewish custom, in unmarked graves in Israel.

If the evidence adduced is correct, the bone boxes, and microscopic remains of DNA still contained inside, would constitute the first archaeological evidence of the existence of the Christian savior and his family.

Tests on mitochondrial DNA obtained from the Jesus and Mariamne boxes and conducted at Lakehead University’s Paleo-DNA laboratory in Thunder Bay, show conclusively that the two individuals were not maternally related. According to Carney Matheson, head of the lab, this likely means they were related by marriage.

The Globe and Mail also notes that “nothing in the film or book directly challenges traditional Christian dogma regarding the resurrection,” but the concept of the ascension, which holds that Jesus ascended to heaven in both body and spirit 40 days after the resurrection, could be challenged. If DNA research were to link Jesus and “his brother” Yose with Mary, the newspaper noted, it would undermine he concept of the virgin birth.

Scholarly analysis of the documentary and the book are still forthcoming, of course — and skeptics have already turned up on CNN noting that the names on the boxes were rather common at the time, and are therefore thin evidence of anything.

But wherever the academics ultimately come down, there’s no mistaking where at least some members of the clergy already stand: “This is nothing more than a modern day circus sideshow,” said The Rev. Schenk. “At best it is pure presumption. At worst, it is pure chicanery.”

[teaknsteel]

Bring it Mr. Cameron :bringit:

The Last Temptation of Christ, The Da Vinci Code, The Gospel of Judas, a la the History Channel :rolleyes: all came and went, and so did countless, I mean countless other claims to debunk Christianity throughout history. Hollywood is only the newest, if not the loudest gong in the din of anti-christian skepticism. As soon as someone gets bored or someone wants to make a buck or a name for themselves, they brush the dust off the tired old "new discoveries" and bring it up again, and again, and again. And I suppose it's not gonna stop. All I gotta say is... we're still here.

[jackpine savage]

Its a faith, as long as you believe it then they can't debunk it.

[Christof]

They could find solid proof that it were fact, but organized religion would never, I mean never, accept it... It wouldnt fit in their grand plan....
Proof and faith can never occupy the same space.... It muddles things and makes people think, and we cannot have that in the religious circle, now can we?

[teaknsteel]

There are some of us who do the "three monkey" routine. But we thinking Christians don't believe that Science in any way contradicts God. Here it is in brief - If our God of order and perfect design really did create the universe, and science is the study of the universe, then science will eventually show God in His handiwork. So, I don't fear science or avoid it in any way.

What I and we are concerned about is the not-so-objective motivations of so many scientists. Believe me when I say that it is almost impossible to find a pure scientist, one who is really enslaved to the scientific method, who is complete objective, who has no other motivation to prove or disprove a given theory.

If they could find solid proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these bones are that of Jesus, then its the end of Christianity, simple as that. Our grand plan is the Bible; the Bible says that Jesus bodily resurrected. W/O the Resurrection Christianity is bunk.

So bring on the unadulterated proof. Those of us Christians that believe in science can't wait to see it.

[Bill McIntyre]

So bring on the unadulterated proof. Those of us Christians that believe in science can't wait to see it.

Tim,

I can't help commenting that Christians will want the science to be unassailable. They will point to any little irregularity that keeps the science from being absolutely conclusive, but the other alternative has no basis in science at all. It might turn out to be 99% sure that Cameron's idea is proven, but Christians will rely on myth passed down by word of mouth unless the science is 100%.

Isn't it inconsistent to insist on scientific rigor in proving Christ was resurrected when we have previously been asked to accept the resurrection on faith alone?

Edit- BTW, I don't think the idea of a God is inconsistent with science, and neither does the Catholic Church. As I've said before, it could be a real credit to a God that he devised such as elegant process as evolution. But its fundamentalist Christians who insist on all or nothing. God created every species on earth in 6 days just a few thousand years ago and plopped Adam and Eve down in the Garden of Eden, and to hell with any physical evidence to the contrary.

[teaknsteel]

Tim,

I can't help commenting that Christians will want the science to be unassailable. They will point to any little irregularity that keeps the science from being absolutely conclusive, but the other alternative has no basis in science at all. It might turn out to be 99% sure that Cameron's idea is proven, but Christians will rely on myth passed down by word of mouth unless the science is 100%.

Isn't it inconsistent to insist on scientific rigor in proving Christ was resurrected when we have previously been asked to accept the resurrection on faith alone?

Edit- BTW, I don't think the idea of a God is inconsistent with science, and neither does the Catholic Church. As I've said before, it could be a real credit to a God that he devised such as elegant process as evolution. But its fundamentalist Christians who insist on all or nothing. God created every species on earth in 6 days just a few thousand years ago and plopped Adam and Eve down in the Garden of Eden, and to hell with any physical evidence to the contrary.

Honestly, when it comes to scientifically proving or refuting the Resurrection, I want it 100%, ten times over. But I see where you're coming from. I'm gonna warn you and all others, that in answering your question, we're gonna open up a can of worms that SB hasn't seen since the first East vs. West debate :eek:

So here goes...

The Christian faith isn't just a determined belief in something we havn't tangibly experienced - blindly believing something because we hope for a future possibility. The faith that we have is more like medication that heals us to see the Truth (WARNING: Can Opening Wider; get away while you can). Bill, from other conversations, I know that you don't believe in absolute truth, as most folks I've spoken to, and this is the probably the crux of the matter. You know that we evangelicals do, and this truth is God, His character, and His Word.

So, our faith is not based upon possibility; its based upon our complete assurance of God - the truth. This relates to your question in that, for us, it's not a competition between science and faith in God. The end product of good science is truth (empirical as it may be), and so God, and our faith in God is not threatened by science. In fact, I'm sure that at the end, science will validate our faith.

So, yes, I concede that it would seem inconsistent for a non-christian, but it is perfectly consistent to us. Scientific rigor, yes we want rigor. Science as a philosophy demands it, and God certainly deserves it.

One Caveat - Darwinian evolution theories is not observational repeatable science. Its an extrapolation of observations where one is force to imagine the probability of series of events of a very distant past. It's a presuppositional philosophy. And christians are very wary of science done from this perspective.

[DIVERTOM]

If this documentary is the truth then the truth will set us free. If people want to continue to
believe the New Testament then that is their freedom to do so. Watching the way they are
already going after this program shows how sensitive some religions are. I can see why
the "last temptation of Christ" was offensive but a documentary about stones? Remember
that there is not one piece of evidence that exists from the Bible. Since this burial place
is not mentioned it should bear nothing against what is written. But for historians who want
to study these artifacts and maybe later obtain more evidence and formulate a hypothesis
then they should have the freedom to do so.

[Christof]

Glad to see that some people have sensible open minds... Kudos to you for that... Although for centuries there have been the stories of Jesus taking a wife, the catholic church and many other denominations did and continue to stifle any such conversation. I find it really hard to believe that if Jesus was a man, like any other man, and had no idea who he was until near the crucifixion (as far as being a god in man form), why wouldnt he live, love, and even marry as all men did back then?
When he died, his followers would have had to either let it all go and return to Judaism, or, somehow continue full speed ahead as was the case before his death..
By "resurrecting" him, the momentum was able to continue at an even more frenzied pace, no?
Look at Elvis, after 30 yrs of being dead, he still has quite a following and many still believe he never died. Compare him to many other icons that have died. Most are forgotten, or occasionally thought about. No one has had the continued legacy of Elvis on such a scale. I have to wonder if the hoardes who believe he may still be alive were never in place, would he have gained momentum the way he has? Remember, he was fading out, trying to return when he died.
If Jesus had died with no resurrection story, could he have lasted and grown to what he is now? I think not...
Very interesting stuff, what I saw on tv about Camerons documentary stated that the stones were inscribed with writing that is easily readable and states the names of those in the tomb... I have to wonder why though that it took so long for this to surface? I think they found it in the 80's.. Was it being witheld because they knew the shitstorm it would create? Makes you wonder....

[Bill McIntyre]

So do you think Elvis was the second coming and we didn't get it?

[Christof]

:lol: :thumps: :lol:

Nah, he didnt have a big enough light show.....

[ITSABOUTTIME]

are these the same ossuaries in the other disovery special that were proven not to be connected. I guess there remains were collected and burried together so that the Giant fraud they were trying to pull off could be disproven. :sleep:

[DIVERTOM]

After 2000 years, Jewish people still do not believe in Jesus. Even after
persecutions, pogroms, holocausts and banishments. Remember the word
ghetto first applied to Jews in the Christian countries. It took followers of Jesus who left Israel and went hundreds of miles away and told these stories to find converts. They take it for fact. I think if Jesus had these powers of miracles and could not be killed, he should have presented himself to Pilot after the fact and showed him that he was a God instead of hiding with his followers and then escaping into heaven.

[ITSABOUTTIME]

Ok now we Know what you think.

[dmay]

So do you think Elvis was the second coming and we didn't get it?

Elvis is still alive!!!

Him and JFK live in a retirement home in East Texas. They spend their leisure time battling Egyptian mummies. I thought everyone knew that. :rolleyes:

[DIVERTOM]

The reason why this documentary will sell and be watched by many is because people
have been selling artifacts to Europeans for centuries. Look at the Shroud of Turin,
the titula, the Baptist's plate, pieces of the true cross, the Holy Grail. All big scams
that took place in Europe. I visited and saw many while I lived there. The problem with
us is that we were not smart enough to create our own religion like the Hindus, Jews,
Chinese. We took a failed religion from another place and made it our own. I will say
that the smartest thing a country can do is somehow redirect the funds that flow into
a religion into their own country like the Vatican did. That was a good one taking a Middle
Eastern religion and diverting the funds from all over the Empire to one main office. It
enriched a clergy like you could not imagine. The break away was tough and you see
now many different churches there are now. Look how some TV evangelicals enrich theirselves now.
That money used to flow to Rome. I visited a lot of Holy places in Europe, Notre Dame, Vatican,
Monte Casino, Saint Pauls to name a few. I enjoyed my visits but this is the old countries, we
are the carriers of the flame of the industrial revolution and the modern society. We gave this
planet most of the great advances in Science and technology. I am proud of that and I would
not change lives with a European peasant. I fear the fact that we are losing our lead in these
fields. There is no longer an interest in science here and its moving to Asia. What are we
going to do if we lose everything? Take a look around your house most everything comes
from Asia. We are not competing with religion over there. We are competing with highly
educated and hard working people. They don't care how Holy we are.

[mnguy]

Elvis is still alive!!!

Him and JFK live in a retirement home in East Texas. They spend their leisure time battling Egyptian mummies. I thought everyone knew that. :rolleyes:

Damn, and I thought I was the only one who knew about Bubba Ho-Tep. :(

[Marcus]

So, yes, I concede that it would seem inconsistent for a non-christian, but it is perfectly consistent to us. Scientific rigor, yes we want rigor. Science as a philosophy demands it, and God certainly deserves it.



I deserve scientific rigor in proving that God exists. What makes him better than me? At least it can be proved that I exist.
Without scientific proof...the bible is nothing more than a story book to me. At least I can say that I would give the whole concept consideration if their was at least some scientific proof.

I just got done reading "The Davinci code". This book is the most plausible historical account of the Christian religion I've read yet.

[chasintail]

Oh my,I have lowered myself to posting the po thic forum.

I think I'm catholic.I can drink all I want.I can do whatever I want.All I have have to do is tell some dude in a booth thats still sweaty from butt raping an alter boy that I'm sorry and pay 5 bucks.

[teaknsteel]

I deserve scientific rigor in proving that God exists. What makes him better than me? At least it can be proved that I exist.
Without scientific proof...the bible is nothing more than a story book to me. At least I can say that I would give the whole concept consideration if their was at least some scientific proof.

I just got done reading "The Davinci code". This book is the most plausible historical account of the Christian religion I've read yet.

Wow, Marcus, I had to really think before I replied. Before I try to floor your questions, let me ask you a few questions. What would you consider adequate scientific proof? What would someone have to be like to be better than you? And, what significance is there that your existence can be proved?

[Marcus]

What would you consider adequate scientific proof?

I'll take any into consideration. Do you have some?

What would someone have to be like to be better than you?

Being real would be a start. You said that God deserves scientific rigor in proving he's not real. If you don't believe he's real then this doesn't make any sense. If he were real, then are we talking about the spiteful God of the old testament that drowns all the innoncent children on earth? I have to say that I'm nicer than that big meany. If we're talking about Jesus, and if assuming the bible is correct, then Jesus has got a few up on me...regardless if he was the re-incarnation of God or not.
I mean..after all, he could turn water into wine. That's one attribute I'd love to have. :D


And, what significance is there that your existence can be proved?

Uhmm...it's one of the neccessary items for reality?

[chasintail]

I know I be lovin this here,L I M P bizcuit is right here,kept on trollin,trollin,trollin,come on! :moon:

[aaron proffitt]

I know I be lovin this here,L I M P bizcuit is right here,kept on trollin,trollin,trollin,come on! :moon:
:lol:

Now that's some funny shit....

[Marcus]

I know I be lovin this here,L I M P bizcuit is right here,kept on trollin,trollin,trollin,come on! :moon:

Nick,

STFU, eat another chocolate starfish, and wash it down with some hot dog flavored water. ;)

[Christof]

Here is the PERFECT example of the problem with Christianity as a whole...
Sean Hannity was ranting about the Cameron documentary and said this..
"I cant believe the nerve of these people. They make these claims and have absolutely no physical proof whatsoever to back up their claim. How dare they?"

I first laughed out loud, then muttered "kiss my ass you dumb arrogant asshole"... Here he is defending a belief of his own without one physical shred of friggin proof "whatsoever" and yet condemns someone else (that hasnt even aired yet by the way) for something that he does every day in his life.... Simply classic...

Sean Hannity is as big an idiot as I have ever listened too..

[teaknsteel]

Marcus,

Sorry for late response. And thanks for answering my questions.

With all due respect to you, from your answers it seems like you see God in small pieces, and even those pieces, you see through tainted glasses. So much so, if you saw scientific evidence of God, you wouldn't know that it is. Also, the lack of your existence does not negate reality in any way. Its the "tree falling in the woods" argument. OTOH, even many non-JudeoChristian scientist would agree that the lack of God or at least a intelligent designer would negate reality.

We Christians have scientific observational evidence of God - its all over His creation. Let me give an analogy. No on has ever seen an atom. The only way that we know that atoms exist is by observing the inherent signatures of the atom. In a similar way, although no one has actually seen God (in spirit form at least), we know He exists by observing His inherent signatures in His work. Like I said, we see it; it's clear to us. You are not able to or you refuse to. Please refer back to #7 for my explanation of Faith.

Again, I say these things with respect to you, no offense intended.

[Marcus]

With all due respect to you, from your answers it seems like you see God in small pieces, and even those pieces, you see through tainted glasses.
With all due repect to you, from you answers it seems like you are the one that is looking at reality between the cracks of your fingers that you are holding over your eyes. Is the possiblity that there is no higher power such a scary concept? Is the love you receive from your family/friends when you do good things not enough?


So much so, if you saw scientific evidence of God, you wouldn't know that it is.
And if you saw evidence of no God, you would squeeze your fingers tighter to close the cracks.
As I mentioned before, I am open to any scientific evidence of God. Got any?


Also, the lack of your existence does not negate reality in any way.
It definitely negates my reality and mine is the only one that counts to me. :D

even many non-JudeoChristian scientist would agree that the lack of God or at least a intelligent designer would negate reality.
Oh, I'm definitely willing to fathom the existence of a higher being that may never reveal himself...just not in the form of the egomaniacal God described in the bible.


We know He exists by observing His inherent signatures in His work.
Can you give some examples that can't be explained away by at least plausible/viable scientific theories?


Again, I say these things with respect to you, no offense intended.

Back at ya. Love you, my spearboard brother. ;)

[teaknsteel]

Marcus,

I'm pretty sure we've come to an impasse. I can give you solid proof, explain to you the attributes of God, and how simple and complexed it is, but, honestly, its like we're speaking different languages. Maybe we can figure out a better way to communicate... and thanks for the love.

[Marcus]

Marcus,

I'm pretty sure we've come to an impasse. I can give you solid proof, explain to you the attributes of God, and how simple and complexed it is, but, honestly, its like we're speaking different languages. Maybe we can figure out a better way to communicate... and thanks for the love.

I'm still interested in this solid proof you speak of because I've never seen it in my life time. Somehow though I think that your 'solid' somehow relates back to your faith. ...and that's cool...I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise so long as you don't try to convince me. Anywho...I don't dislike you in the least bit because you're a believer and I should hope you hold me in the same accord.

~Peace, love, and all that good stuff to ya.

[teaknsteel]

I'm still interested in this solid proof you speak of because I've never seen it in my life time. Somehow though I think that your 'solid' somehow relates back to your faith. ...and that's cool...I'm not going to try and convince you otherwise so long as you don't try to convince me. Anywho...I don't dislike you in the least bit because you're a believer and I should hope you hold me in the same accord.

~Peace, love, and all that good stuff to ya.

Nothing but love for ya :beer:

PM sent.

[Christof]

I thought the show was pretty interesting. I didnt find (as of course all biblical scholars did) that it stated it's premise as fact..
I thought it was ironic how the "stick up their ass" pompous archeologists (on the aftershow piece) spewed how wrong it was for him to theorize from small pieces of non-provable information that it was even a possiblity... Hmmmm.... Isnt that what they do best?? At least the ones when it comes to the theory of evolution.. One fragment of a jawbone and next thing you know we have a monkeyman and not only a complete skeleton, but also how many siblings they had, how they lived, died, and on and on...
The Miriamna piece of evidence was the strongest I thought and I at the very least think it garners a lot more investigation....

[DIVERTOM]

I missed it, I hope they show it again someday.

[dvsurfer310]

Tim,

I can't help commenting that Christians will want the science to be unassailable. They will point to any little irregularity that keeps the science from being absolutely conclusive, but the other alternative has no basis in science at all. It might turn out to be 99% sure that Cameron's idea is proven, but Christians will rely on myth passed down by word of mouth unless the science is 100%.


Bill:

It would just be nice if there was some science we could assail. This crap you seem to think is science in nothing more than Christian hatred thinly disguised as science. Looks like you can't tell the difference. No surprises there though!

[/QUOTE]Isn't it inconsistent to insist on scientific rigor in proving Christ was resurrected when we have previously been asked to accept the resurrection on faith alone?[/QUOTE]

Bill:

No one has asked you to do anything. If you don't want to believe- don't. The comical part of this is that non-believers like you seem to feel compelled to bring up this crap and call it science. Afraid of something????



[/QUOTE]God created every species on earth in 6 days just a few thousand years ago and plopped Adam and Eve down in the Garden of Eden, and to hell with any physical evidence to the contrary.[/QUOTE]


Bill:

Every species except you. There is a sewer somewhere missing one of its residents.

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill:

Every species except you. There is a sewer somewhere missing one of its residents.

Gosh, thanks for your exhibition of Christianity.

I guess you belong to the nasty branch so well represented by Falwell and Robertson?

There are people on the board who represent their faith well, but unfortunately you are not among them.

[Marcus]

:stupid:

[dvsurfer310]

Gosh, thanks for your exhibition of Christianity.

I guess you belong to the nasty branch so well represented by Falwell and Robertson?

There are people on the board who represent their faith well, but unfortunately you are not among them.


Bill:


No thanks necessary. The truth is hard to take sometimes. If telling the truth qualifies me for membership in the nasty branch, pile it on.

If you think that we will quietly and meekly stand by while the lunatic left and the Godless fake "science" groups methodically tear this country apart, you are nuts.

Here is a hint. This is a spear fishing forum. If you must display your views, having nothing to do with fishing, go to atheist.com

[Dave Ness]

Here is a hint. This is a spear fishing forum. If you must display your views, having nothing to do with fishing, go to atheist.com

:lol: I get a kick out of how many people use this as a retort to a subject in the OFF TOPIC section of the board.

[Bill McIntyre]

:lol: I get a kick out of how many people use this as a retort to a subject in the OFF TOPIC section of the board.

Yeah, the poor guy is so angry with the world that he can't make these distinctions.

Its too bad, because it was a rather civil discussion presenting a lot of different points of view until he came along spewing his message of hatred. People like Tim and Mikerotch seem to be perfectly capable of handling civil discussion, but this guy seems to be from the Al Queda branch of Christianity.

Of course I didn't notice him bitching about Gradyman's weekly devotion thread.

[mnguy]

Here is a hint. This is a spear fishing forum. If you must display your views, having nothing to do with fishing, go to atheist.com

Here's a hit idea. Take your own *****ing advice.

[Bill McIntyre]

If you think that we will quietly and meekly stand by while the lunatic left and the Godless fake "science" groups methodically tear this country apart, you are nuts.


I just had a scary thought. When Pat Robertson advocated the assassination of President Hugo Chavez, I hope you weren't the Christian hit man he had in mind? This action talk is a bit over the top.

[mnguy]

I just had a scary thought. When Pat Robertson advocated the assassination of President Hugo Chavez, I hope you weren't the Christian hit man he had in mind? This action talk is a bit over the top.

Well Bill, just be glad that he is what he is. If Jesus said the meek shall inherit the Earth and that holds true, he a'int going too far.

[shane]

"I mean..after all, he could turn water into wine. That's one attribute I'd love to have."

I can turn beer into piss....does that count?

[thecrab87]

Bill, the article that you posted seems to hold the film in higher regard than elsewhere. Did you happen to catch the U.S. News and World Report article? It ends with this:

"Early Chrisitanity scholar R. Joseph Hoffmann, chair of the skeptically minded Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, gives the film credit for 'alerting the viewing public to the fact that ther are no secure conclusions' when it comes to the foundational history of a religious tradition. But he charges that the film 'is all about bad assumptions,' beginning with the assumption that the boxes contain Jesus of Nazareth and his family. 'Amazing,' Hoffmann writes, 'how evidence falls into place when you begin with the conclusion - and a hammer.'"

Also:

"For the filmakers, though, the most compelling evidence is the mere fact that so many names associated with Jesus's family were found in one tomb. One of the film's experts, Andrey Feuerverger, a professor of statistics at the University of Toronto, calculated the odds that it could have been another family at about 1 in 600. But even Feuerverger admits that such estimates are based on assumptions that historians and others must provide, not on hard, irrefutable data."

Quite frankly, I don't trust James Cameron (and by extension Hollywood) any more than I do the extreme religious right as far as pushing their own agenda goes.

Caveat emptor!

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill, the article that you posted seems to hold the film in higher regard than elsewhere. Did you happen to catch the U.S. News and World Report article? It ends with this:




Willie,

I didn't see that article, but I've read many similar. I don't really know what to believe and I sure agree that Cameron has his own ax to grind. All I know for sure is what I said in the title of the thread.

[Christof]

Cameron has no more ax to grind than do the Theological scholars, but he at least has a bit of possible physical evidence.. Not much of that witht he KJV of the bible.. I have no problem with faith, but when it is used as some sort of shield against any possible physical science, I have to wonder what they have to fear and why they cant admit they have no proof other than faith.. They speak as though they have physical proof, which is not the case.

[JLittle44]

It might turn out to be 99% sure that Cameron's idea is proven
Bill, I know it is incredibly nit-picky, but you may have given him a little too much credit with this statement.


But on another topic unrelated to the above statement:
At worst, it is pure chicanery.
Chicanery is a great word. I had to look it up, but now that it's filed away in the old verbal arsenal, potential applications for daily use around here abound...

chi·can·er·y
Pronunciation[shi-key-nuh-ree, chi-]
–noun, plural -er·ies.

1. trickery or deception by quibbling or sophistry: He resorted to the worst flattery and chicanery to win the job.

2. a quibble or subterfuge used to trick, deceive, or evade.

[Bill McIntyre]

Bill, I know it is incredibly nit-picky, but you may have given him a little too much credit with this statement.



I wrote that so long ago that I had to go back to read the context.

It might turn out to be 99% sure that Cameron's idea is proven, but Christians will rely on myth passed down by word of mouth unless the science is 100%.

Isn't it inconsistent to insist on scientific rigor in proving Christ was resurrected when we have previously been asked to accept the resurrection on faith alone?

So I wasn't giving Cameron credit for 99%, but simply making the point that it ain't quite fair to insist on unassailable science to rebut something accepted on the basis of no science.

[JLittle44]

I wasn't giving Cameron credit for 99%, but simply making the point that it ain't quite fair to insist on unassailable science to rebut something accepted on the basis of no science.

Oh no Bill, I was being way more nit-picky than that. I meant that it may have been giving him too much credit to even say that it was Cameron's idea at all. I mean, they found the tomb in the '80's. Doing a documentary may have been his idea, but I doubt the underlying concept was his originally. The implications of the find should have been immediately evident.

You're point was pretty clear I thought, and a good logical arguement as well. This one thing just caught my eye for some reason.

[Bill McIntyre]

Yeah, you're right. All he did was make a documentary about claims made by others.

[Christof]

From what I understand, the tomb was found in the 80's, but so much construction was going on then that they simply stored all the bone containers and didnt pay much attention. Many people named Jesus, Joseph, Mary, etc.. back then... Then cateloging caught up and someone said "Whats this?"... Archeologists took note and the research began....
I still think it garners further examination and DNA testing..

[firefyterx]

Boy Bill you sure like to stir Stuff up!