TheGrunt Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene. No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true. Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua. Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names. There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God. But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family. Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East (check out a personal favorite: Israelity Bites) Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics. Stay tuned. This could get interesting... Can't wait for the documentary to come out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names. That's stupid. This guy's a leading archeologist and he didn't know how Christ's body was laid to rest in a rich man's tomb? Not likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 for starters, his name was jesus not jesua case closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names. That's a good point - but then again, his followers may or may not have been able to ante up for a luxury crypt - after all, you probably WOULD want to honor the son of God, y'know? Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests What, exactly, would a DNA test prove? It's not as if a lock of Jesus' hair is sitting around - there is roughly ZERO actual physical evidence that Jesus existed (Shroud of Turin excepted, I suppose). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irish Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 First the queer priests feeling up little boys and now Jesus is a fake, he's one of us with remains in a grave?!!?? That's it I'm converting!!! I'm now a Jew, watch out I'm coming for the left-overs with my tupperware!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 That's stupid. This guy's a leading archeologist and he didn't know how Christ's body was laid to rest in a rich man's tomb? Not likely. Not impossible either. Less likely things have happened in the past, what's to say a little DNA evidence won't bring forth another amazing find? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 That's a good point - but then again, his followers may or may not have been able to ante up for a luxury crypt - after all, you probably WOULD want to honor the son of God, y'know? That's stupid. This guy's a leading archeologist and he didn't know how Christ's body was laid to rest in a rich man's tomb? Not likely. See, there ya go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted February 25, 2007 Author Share Posted February 25, 2007 for starters, his name was jesus not jesua case closed Maybe it was jesua in the first place, and not jesus...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 (Shroud of Turin excepted, I suppose). They have renamed it the Swab of Turin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 That's stupid. This guy's a leading archeologist and he didn't know how Christ's body was laid to rest in a rich man's tomb? Not likely. wait a minute--I thought you were a Morman... what can you possibly know about Jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 What, exactly, would a DNA test prove? That was my same thought as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 First the queer priests feeling up little boys and now Jesus is a fake, he's one of us with remains in a grave?!!?? That's it I'm converting!!! I'm now a Jew, watch out I'm coming for the left-overs with my tupperware!! Jesus' godhood (or lack thereof) is less relevant than people following his teachings, IMO. Siddhartha and Mohammed never claimed to be anything more than mortal men and their teachings do not suffer a lack of adherents for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Maybe it was jesua in the first place, and not jesus...? IIRC, in Hebrew, Iesvs is Jesus (aka Joshua, in English). I've also seen it translated as "Ieshva" The words were "Iesvs Nazarenvs Rex Ivdaeorvm." Latin uses "I" instead of the English "J", and "V" instead of "U" (i.e., Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum). The English translation is "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 wait a minute--I thought you were a Morman... what can you possibly know about Jesus? That's mormon to you, gentile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 That's mormon to you, gentile. I know how it is supposed to be spelled in real life, I was just using the huddle version of the spelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Wait, Jimmy is a marmot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 What, exactly, would a DNA test prove? all you need is Sophie Neveu's dna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 That's moran to you, gentile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whomper Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Wait, Jimmy is a marmot? No..He said Jimmy works at the Marriott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 One bad reply and this thread is gone. Just being honest here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skins Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 One bad reply and this thread is gone. Just being honest here. Hi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retrograde assault Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMD Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Hi. thinking... thinking.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HowboutthemCowboys Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Hi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spain Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 That's stupid. This guy's a leading archeologist and he didn't know how Christ's body was laid to rest in a rich man's tomb? Not likely. Is it any less likely than the fantastical and impossible immaculate coneception and a dead person rising from the dead? I am just saying that you must take some unlikely and physically impossible things as FACT in order to be christian. I understand thats where "faith" comes into play. But your "faith" has you believe things that are "not likely" so its pretty hard for you to argue that something ALOT more likely than the impossible tenants of the christian faith, are unlikely. I am not trying to get this thread locked, just want to point out a logical flaw in Jimmys arguement! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts