Cameron finds Jesus's tomb

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:25 am

I haven't seen the programme. But just to follow up on a few points of Dr Who's post above.

I think the major reason why this has been treated in the manner it has is complex, but is typical of the historical debate of Jesus within the Church. Don't forget that main stream Christianity started out as just one sect amongst many, according to one source there might have been more than 80 sects. Each had a different and distinctive message of who 'Jesus' was. Each had their own sacred texts and gospels. This has only started to be revealed with the discovery of these texts in places like the Dead Sea and Egypt.

The Gospels themselves hint at the complexity of early Christianity. In the Letters of St Paul, Paul talks of people describing themselves as followers of John the Baptist, Paul and James.

Also bear in mind that Jesus was being constantly reinterpreted in the centuries following his death.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:35 pm

battery wrote:

I had to sit through the bilge that is the film, "Titanic". I can't beleive I sat there and held it in when I could have been taking a two hour piss instead.

Sorry, late coming in, but I just had to remark on this. Battery, I admire you greatly, but any film including Kate Winslet's nipples can hardly be called "bilge". You could refer to it as "fifteen seconds of brilliance surrounded by what seemed like three hours of bilge", though.

I missed the Cameron show on Sunday. However, it's a fascinating topic, and it would be interesting to see it discussed in a purely scientific sense.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:02 pm

Fanny Plunge wrote:

The truth is out there folks..

RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTATION LINKS REMOVED. PLEASE TRY TO AVOID RELIGIOUS DEBATES.

SAMV

Once I stop laughing, I am quite willing to post some archaeological rebuttals of Cameron's claims! I might not stop laughing for quite a while tho! Wink

For the moment, all I will say is that the names Yeshua, Miryam and Jehoseph were very common names in that era, so the names themselves are proof of nothing, except that three people bearing those names were buried there. In fact, there's nothing to prove that the remains found are even the people who are named in the inscriptions.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:58 pm

Pleeeeeease, people, no religious (or anti-religious) arguments. That includes the DaVinci code stuff, and rebuttals thereof. Stating "facts," like that the evil Catholic church chose one doctrine from among many and suppressed all the others like who Jesus really was, counts as religious argument.

Forever n00b Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 432

Perhaps if we treat this as a discussion of a non religious historical figure, then the debate can be kept civil and the thread kept unlocked. I didn't see the documentary, but understand that a very similar one appeared in the UK about 10 or 11 years ago. Nothing came of it then. Has any new evidence been uncovered, or is it still just the name on the tomb?

As was mentioned earlier, the names on the tomb were among the most common names in the area at the time.

I wonder if the name was Joan, would it be attributed to Joan of Ark, or if it was Socrates, would it be attributed to The Socrates, or . . ., well, you get the idea.

Is there any evidence besides the name on the tomb?

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:34 pm

Evidence is irrelevant: people will believe what they want to believe. For instance, there are supposedly educated people, in this day and age, who think that Charles Darwin was the Antichrist and that the World was actually created in six working days (Sunday was a day off as the overtime was time and a half).

So Cameron has no chance. He was right about the Titanic though - it did sink. So don't dismiss the guy out of hand.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:36 pm

I think I read somewhere that the definition of faith was belief without proof.

Whatever our religious beliefs there are many things we have no explaination for, so we can't say for sure if any "finds" are genuine or not.

I guess at the end of the day it's what we choose to believe in ourselves that counts.

Forever n00b Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 432

RedGadge wrote:

Evidence is irrelevant: people will believe what they want to believe.

Humor me, any evidence at all that you know of? Some of us still like to examine the evidence.

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:39 pm

Okay all, I think this has gone on a little bit further than enough.

Cameron finds Jesus's tomb	View next topic View previous topic