James Cameron found the tomb of Jesus? - Page 2

Scrum · 03-04-2007, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Christians have no basis to say a majority of the shit they do.

Hello? Ever hear of the Bible? It's correct all the time but god filled it with exaggerations to test our faith.

Roonie · 03-05-2007, 10:33 AM

I watched the show and thought it was interesting. The debate after the show was not very compelling and put me to sleep. I think it could be possible and yet I still have faith. I think it would be great if Jesus had a family and married etc.

BigRob · 03-05-2007, 06:33 PM

I found the show really good. Too many people wanted to judge it and say it was wrong before even seeing it. To me that's just plain closed mindedness.

After seeing most of the show ( I feel asleep with about 10 mins left

) I found their case very plausible. Hopefully it will rerun so I can see the last bit and the debates.

6SpeedTA95 · 03-05-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by BigRob

I found the show really good. Too many people wanted to judge it and say it was wrong before even seeing it. To me that's just plain closed mindedness.

After seeing most of the show ( I feel asleep with about 10 mins left ) I found their case very plausible. Hopefully it will rerun so I can see the last bit and the debates.

Welcome aboard bro

Since you can't talk politics over at cz28 you can here

Diamond Cross · 03-05-2007, 07:12 PM

I don't doubt that there is a Jesus family tomb, but I highly doubt they'd find His bones. It could be that, if it is His Ossuary, that they'd made it for His remains without knowing that He'd be ressurected and taken into heaven.

Also, another piece of evidence that has been forgotten that could be linked to the tomb is the Shroud of Turin, which is said to be His burial cloth. If analyzed, it should come from that tomb, if the cloth is His.

Donkey® · 03-05-2007, 09:19 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I don't doubt that there is a Jesus family tomb, but I highly doubt they'd find His bones. It could be that, if it is His Ossuary, that they'd made it for His remains without knowing that He'd be ressurected and taken into heaven.

Also, another piece of evidence that has been forgotten that could be linked to the tomb is the Shroud of Turin, which is said to be His burial cloth. If analyzed, it should come from that tomb, if the cloth is His.

Cloth is not legit...been proven not legit.

Diamond Cross · 03-05-2007, 09:28 PM

Not neccessarily, the reason why scientists think that is because of faulty carbon dating techniques. The cloth was contaminated by a fire in the fifteenth or fourteenth century A.D, and the carbon dating only went back to the time of the fire. Nobody knows even how it was made.

Simius · 03-05-2007, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Not neccessarily, the reason why scientists think that is because of faulty carbon dating techniques. The cloth was contaminated by a fire in the fifteenth or fourteenth century A.D, and the carbon dating only went back to the time of the fire. Nobody knows even how it was made.

shroud of Turin

shroud of Turin

"All empirical evidence and logical reasoning concerning the Shroud of Turin will lead any objective, rational person to the firm conclusion that the Shroud is an artifact created by an artist in the fourteenth-century." --Steven D. Schafersman

Face of Jesus?The shroud of Turin is a woven cloth about 14 feet long and 3.5 feet wide with an image of a man on it. Actually, it has two images, one frontal and one rear, with the heads meeting in the middle. It has been noted that if the shroud were really wrapped over a body there should be a space where the two heads meet. And the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate, and the arms are too long. Nevertheless, the image is believed by many to be a negative image of the crucified Christ and the shroud is believed to be his burial shroud. Most skeptics think the image is a painting and a pious hoax. The shroud is kept in the cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.

Apparently, the first historical mention of the shroud as the "shroud of Turin" is in the late 16th century when the shroud was brought to the cathedral in that city, though it allegedly was discovered in Turkey during one of the so-called "Holy" Crusades in the so-called "Middle" Ages. In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources--Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology--and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350. The shroud allegedly was in a fire during the early part of the 16th century and, according to believers in the shroud's authenticity, that is what accounts for the carbon dating of the shroud as being no more than 650 years old. To non-believers, this sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis. According to microchemist Dr. Walter McCrone,

The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.*

etc etc etc, so on and so forth

IMO someone claimed it was his burial cloth. The claim stuck to this day despite it is a fake.

Diamond Cross · 03-05-2007, 10:13 PM

It has never been proven to be a fake. The original artist has never been found nor has the exact technique been discovered. There are likely candidates for both.

However, neither has the Shroud been proven to belong to Jesus either. Either belief is a matter of faith, and to the believers, of which I am not one, no amount of science will shake their faith. And the same can be said for those who don't believe.

Simius · 03-05-2007, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

It has never been proven to be a fake. The original artist has never been found nor has the exact technique been discovered. There are likely candidates for both.

However, neither has the Shroud been proven to belong to Jesus either. Either belief is a matter of faith, and to the believers, of which I am not one, no amount of science will shake their faith. And the same can be said for those who don't believe.

You are probably correct that it has never been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a fake. But I wouldn't go as far as to say it takes faith to not believe it is a true artifact. I mean, it sort of reminds me of various splinters of the cross that pop up now and again. Sure I can't prove they are fake... but just because someone claims it is a true artifact doesn't mean too much.

Actually, it reminds me of the holy spear. There are 4 spears out there that have been claimed to be the spear that pierced Jesus's side. I did some quick searching and found info about 3 of them suggesting that they are forgeries. The 4th one I couldn't find much info about... so I'll assume its authenticity hasn't been proven either way. Without some kind of evidence that it is the true spear, I'd guess its origin is as shady as the other 3. Likewise, without some kind of evidence that the shroud is authentic, I'll assume it is a fake just like the first 3 spears are.

You know what would blow my mind though? If the DNA from the shroud matched the DNA from the tomb.

BigRob · 03-06-2007, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Simius

You know what would blow my mind though? If the DNA from the shroud matched the DNA from the tomb.

Mine too!
As I was watching, I couldn't help but thing about if DNA could be used to see if there really is a link between Jesus and that French guy from the Priory of Scion.

BTW thanks 6SpeedTA95.

IminWonderland · 03-07-2007, 11:46 AM

If they tested whatever they found for DNA....

And they think they had Jesus' DNA....

What would that look like without a biological father?

It would seem to me, that the Y chromosome would look kinda blank then?

BigRob · 03-07-2007, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by IminWonderland

If they tested whatever they found for DNA....

And they think they had Jesus' DNA....

What would that look like without a biological father?

It would seem to me, that the Y chromosome would look kinda blank then?

I can see your point....

but if we were supposedly created in God's image he should have DNA too.

Dylith · 03-07-2007, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by BigRob

I can see your point....

but if we were supposedly created in God's image he should have DNA too.

Unless of course the verse saying that man was created in God's image refers to man's spiritual nature which was later corrupted by sin instead of man's physical body.

BigRob · 03-07-2007, 06:09 PM

That's the problem with religeon. Most "Holy books" are so convoluted they can be interpreted to mean about anything.

That's what I liked about the show.:actual hard scientific data.

IminWonderland · 03-08-2007, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by BigRob

I can see your point....

but if we were supposedly created in God's image he should have DNA too.

Paradise Lost strikes again.

It cracks me that really, the whole thing is rooted in the Adam and Eve event, and if that doesn't hold up, I'm not sure how much more of it can...

Dumpy Dooby · 03-08-2007, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by BigRob

That's the problem with religeon. Most "Holy books" are so convoluted they can be interpreted to mean about anything.

That's what I liked about the show.:actual hard scientific data.

Not necessarily. Like I said in the beginning of this thread, Jacabovici is rather good at presenting a compelling case despite lacking evidence. He's incredibly good at arguing and drawing conclusions even when he doesn't have substantial evidence. What did he manage to scientifically prove to us? Think about that for just a second. He scientifically proved that Mariamne and Jesua were not related. That's about it. The rest was statistical analysis and speculation.

Now what I would have liked to see would have been DNA analysis between Jesua and Maria (supposedly the mother), which would have proven that they were mother and son. Then some DNA analysis to prove that James and Jesua were brothers. Then Judah and Mariamne to prove that they were mother and son.

It was dishonest to claim that Matthew was Jesus's brother, and then disregard Matthew in the statistical analysis. The reason it's dishonest is because they say it's possible that Matthew was not actually part of the family. Oh really? So if Matthew isn't necessarily part of the family, why is he in the FAMILY tomb?

BigRob · 03-08-2007, 05:23 PM

You have a point Dumpy Dooby, I would've like to have seen those DNA test too. Now I'm wondering if they either weren't done, or they were done and the results not reported since they didn't support the hypothesis.

Roonie · 03-09-2007, 10:06 AM

The reason they gave for not doing more DNA tests was.... there was no visible bone fragments in the carsophigus (sp?). Their were only bone fragments in the ones they did test. The rest they said "looked like they had been vacummed clean". When the tomb was first opened in 1980 it is the custom to bury bones which is what they did. They hinted at the fact they needed more sophisticated ways of DNA testing since no bone fragments available to test. I don't know if they know where the bones were buried in 1980? I am sure if someone really wanted to pusue it they could find ways to. This was all brought up in the after show debate. There is obviously more tests that need to be done.

Diamond Cross · 03-09-2007, 06:25 PM

They're called ossuaries.

But the word is spelled sarcophagus.