Ted Koppel is doing a fairly good job on Moderating the disscussion on the tomb.

[IChing]

On the discovery program.

I look up most of the first panel, and this discussion is just beginning of a debate that will bring historical facts back into the light.
Fairly decent, balanced, scholarly panel on both sides advocating their points in a way I haven't seen before with such a philosophical and religiously charged topic.


Where is Richard Dawkins on the second panel, these are theologians.

[NoodleyAppendage]

1. Fair? All I'm seeing is a stacked deck against the issue...

Three Bible beater profs vs. the film maker and a supporting prof at UNC Charlotte doesn't seem like a fair matching.

J

[IChing]

3. The second panel is intellectually lacking and more emotional

in its balance that is for sure..which makes it less academic.

But, still they are not screaming and yelling at each other like I normally see on the tube.
Koppel is asking good questions.

sorry for the edit neighbor came over.

[Zenlitened]

5. I don't know why* the bible-types are being so defensive, though.

*Okay, I understand why they would be opposed to the idea in general.

But this film was awfully, awfully weak in its presentation of its findings. These profs are running scared from it in a way that says, to me, more about their own paranoia than anything else.

IMO, no need for Dawkins to be there. He needs his rest, if he's going to lead us atheist hordes in the destruction of religion!

:D

[Southsideirish]

13. I thought he seemed very biased against the tomb authors and was very rude to

them - he was a total joke.

[Hissyspit]

2. Everyone should immediately be skeptical of any ossuary claims.

Lots and lots of archaeological fraud where those objects are concerned.

[NoodleyAppendage]

4. Everyone should immediately be skeptical of claims of mythical cloud beings.

Lots and lots of religious fraud where those mythical deities are concerned.

J

[Hissyspit]

9. Well, that too...

Although, it is possible that there was a guy named Jesus of Nazareth and that they buried his bones in a box somewhere and that box still exists.

People should be skeptical of anything ego-brained James Cameron bleats about, too.

[spoony]

18. And that has what

to do with the subject at hand? Oh, right, you can't have any discussion of anything tangentially related to God without having arbiters of righteous truth like yourself reminding us that all theists are fairy-tale-believing toddlers :eyes:

[SpiralHawk]

26. Everyone should immediately be skeptical of claims of an exclusively material universe

Lots and lots of scientific fraud where these material dieties are concerned

[mnhtnbb]

6. I was waiting for someone to say, "Gee, if only they hadn't tossed the bones."

Without the bones, it all is just an interesting speculation. I mean, it's possible the bones of Jesus ended up in a black plastic trash bag buried in an unmarked grave. How bizarre is that?

[El Supremo]

7. Boy, you aren't kidding.

Where did they bury the bones?????

Everything else is sheer speculation.

[mnhtnbb]

8. It looked like they buried the bones outside of town somewhere

in an unmarked grave. Worse than ending up in Potter's Field.

[IChing]

10. "Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones"

Still for me the program may make some people think and examine in an analytical way their beliefs, history and dogmas that make up their life.

[Zenlitened]

11. Whah????!!!! Somehow, I missed that part. (Been 'on call' tonight.)

The filmmakers said they disposed of the bones? :wow:

[LibertyLover]

28. No, they didn't - but the IAA did

The Israel Archeology Authority has an agreement with an ultra-orthodox religious Jewish group to give them any human remains excavated in Israel that are Jewish, so that the ultra-orthodox group can rebury the bones in consecrated soil. When the Talpiot tomb was discovered and salvage excavated in 1980, the IAA did a cursory examination of the bones from the ossuaries recovered and then turned the bones over for reburial.

[earthside]

14. What do bones prove?

Since there are no known living relatives of Jesus, if they had the bones it wouldn't prove much. For instance, if they had the bones of the boy Judah, they could extract the DNA and it would show that he was the son of Jesus and Mariame, that still does not provide evidence that Jesus is THE Jesus.

The ossuaries and the archeological situational evidence, on the other hand, is what matters -- it is labelled!!!

Those particular combinations of names, the fact that ossuaries were only used by Jews during the first century AD -- that provides good circumstantial evidence that the real thing has been found. It is the most logical thing to assume as to what happened to the remains of this somewhat prominent, radical rabbi living in Palestine at that time.

Jesus was a teacher of a profound and wise philosophy, he was perceived as a threat to the authorities, they killed him, his family buried him, his family interred the remains of Jesus and his immediate family as they passed on. That seems like the probable truth.

I thought it was a good documentary.

[CJCRANE]

19. I agree.

I think the only thing that could squash this theory is if it was found that the names were inscribed later on. However, from what I've read, the name "Mariamene" is the big find because this has only recently been discovered to be the true name of Mary Magdalen so that scotches the forgery angle.

[bklyncowgirl]

20. Bones could prove a great deal: age, trauma, even cause of death.

I don't thing that the film makers proved their point however it is intriguing and at the very least an attempt should be made to exhume the remains and conduct tests on them.

We know that Jesus was executed by crucifixion. Some years back a skeleton of a crucified man was unearthed in Israel. The spikes were still in the man's wrists and ankles.

Assuming those bones survived, damage if not the nails themselves, might be observable. Also bones indicate age at the time death. Jesus was in his 30s when he died. If the bones turn out to belong to someone much younger or older that pretty much throws the identification into question.

If the remains of someone named Jesus Bar Joseph could be proved to be those of a man in his 30s who had been crucified in the right place at the right time that in the immortal words of George Tennet is pretty much a slam dunk.

If the remains were those of an older man who had suffered crucifixion at some time in the past but somehow survived, the identification is more problematic but you might have an historical basis for the story of the resurrection.

According to the documentary, the bones were buried in order to comply with the religious views of orthodox Jews. It doesn't sound like they were just dumped. It would be interesting to know if any records were kept as to where remains were buried and whether or not those which had names on the ossuaries were marked with the name--I'm not talking about grave markers but simply an indication on whatever box they were re-interred in would have the person's name on it and an indication of where and when they were discovered.

[Garbo 2004]

21. They did DNA tests on residue apparently only from the "Jesus" and "Mary" ossuaries. & from that

conclude that the two occupants were married since they were not related. They assert familial relationships with the other occupants of the tomb but apparently didn't test residue from the other ossuaries, which seems odd. Did I miss any explanation for why they didn't run DNA tests on residue from the other ossuaries? One would think such tests, if DNA could be extracted, would either confirm or not confirm the familial relationships they asserted.

[Leopolds Ghost]

23. Does anyone of these guys understand that Jeshua used to be a common Hebrew name?

This is like some moron claiming to have found Jimmy Hoffa's body because they found a grave marked "Jimmy".

[spoony]

24. And when asked why they didn't do more tests

That could've shown better the relationships of the people in the tomb, Jacobovici told the NYT: "We're not scientists. At the end of the day we can't wait till every ossuary is tested for DNA. We took the story that far. At some point you have to say, 'I've done my job as a journalist.’”
Nice work ethic huh? Real dedicated to accuracy and discovery of truth. lol.

[CANDO]

12. There was a strong message that faith is more reliable than science

during the second part when the theologians were involved. I thought the attacks on the man's docu-dramatizations were over the top. They were attacking his artistic inputs as a way of undermining his overall presentation. I believe he presented very compelling evidence that this was indeed Jesus of Nazareth's family tomb. People will certainly let their dogma get in the way of critical analysis.

[earthside]

15. It was an odd response.

It was kind of interesting. The religious panel seemed to be saying that the filmmaker just didn't understand the nuances of the Christian view of the ressurrection and ascension of Jesus -- therefore his discoveries and his presentation were suspect.

This is the problem for historically based religions like Christianity. When the physical evidence doesn't back up what it asserts ... it is at a complete loss as to how to respond.

The assumption by the Christian panelists was that Jesus' ressurrection was a given, a fact. In other words, I really don't think they comprehend the significance of the content of this program, or if they did, they just could not bring themselves to confront the probable truth that Jeus was just a man.

I guess I don't fault the Christians at this point ... orthodox Christianity is all about Jesus physically conquering death and sin through his ressurrection. This is a big blow to that belief.

[IChing]

16. Agreed on most of your points

It was still a cable documentary and from the discovery channel (questionable), but also produced by the Canadian PS and James Cameron which was different than most of their questionable documentaries produced by the discovery program. I try to see who produces and support programs in order to see which slant they produce. Some come with the combine efforts of networks from Japan, France, UK etc. some come from Purely american sources but we are looking at a ratings game first and foremost on these programs that are looking for corporate masters who might think that their advertising will reach the viewer. Overall, better than most that I've seen on that channel which will make people maybe google for facts.

[blues90]

17. I didn't watch it

Kopple is an ass , he was one of the first to stand there in Iraq bragging about the US bombing the hell out of Iraq saying the US was a precision syncronized killing machine . And bones in a box ?

Nothing personal to the posters .

[Leopolds Ghost]

22. Is anyone here familiar with the James Brother of Jesus Ossuary Hoax?

The guy who built the fake ossuary has falsified TONS of antiquities.

Jesus was not called Jesus Bar Joseph in sources, he was called
Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus of Galilee.

Jesus (Jeshua/Joshua) is an extremely common 1st century Jewish name,
as is Joseph, Judas and Judah.

In fact, Jesus ("Jeshua") is just a misspelling
(alternate pronunciation) of "Joshua" in Aramaic.

Jesus' real name was "Jeshua" or "Joshua" of Nazareth.

In short, this claim is the worst sort of BS.

The fact that the bones were thrown out somewhere in the chain of custody suggests a hoax even more strongly, or else microscopic remains would still be in it.

[spoony]

25. The hoaxes are related

Jacobovici, of this hoax, still supports the James hoax and says that the James ossuary was taken from the Jesus tomb, presumably to explain why this member of the family isn't there. Lol. It's a real mess.

[mnhtnbb]

27. The documentary asserted, through a re-enactment, that the bones

found in all the ossuaries were put back in the ground (to satisfy orthodox Jewish tradition) but the re-enactment showed them being placed in black plastic trash bags and buried in the country outside of town. There was no indication that any records were kept of which bones came from which ossuaries, nor where each set of bones was buried.

That's why I referred to them as being 'dumped'.

According to the documentary, there were bone fragments found in only two of the ossuaries, which is why they were tested (the Jesus, son of Joseph and Mariamne ossuaries). The filmmaker commented that the other ossuaries looked like they had been vacuumed clean.

I joked to my husband this a.m. that, gee, this might be reason for Mel Gibson to make another movie. It might be possible that not only did the Jews crucify Jesus, but they may have also trashed his bones!

I find it rather bizarre that the Israelis have this mammoth organization
for cataloging and storing ossuaries, but they appear quite blase about
burying the bones. Seems almost sacreligious.