Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[Maral]

What is the historical evidence of resurrection? I'm not trying to be a smartie, I really want to know.

The New Testament is a historical document whose accuracy has been proven many times over. So, because of this, we can be pretty sure that anything recorded in the New Testament actually happened.

 

[Details]

The New Testament is a historical document whose accuracy has been proven many times over. So, because of this, we can be pretty sure that anything recorded in the New Testament actually happened.

Just because it has some of the facts right doesn't make everything in it true. Egyptian records accurately talk about the pharohs in office, and other historical fact - does that make them all true, including bits about resurection and gods?

 

[Maral]

Just because it has some of the facts right doesn't make everything in it true. Egyptian records accurately talk about the pharohs in office, and other historical fact - does that make them all true, including bits about resurection and gods?

Many facts recorded in the New Testament have been challenged, but no historical inaccuracies have ever been demonstrated.

 

[Details]

Many facts recorded in the New Testament have been challenged, but no historical inaccuracies have ever been demonstrated.

Nor is the pharoh's record inaccurate. I don't believe the Koran has historical inaccuracies either. Of course, back that far, there's so little that can be verified.

By that standard, all religions are true because their religious book tells the truth about the simple historical facts.

 

[reb]

maral, maral, maral... come on now. where's your critical thinking skills......? didn't anybody ever tell ya, just because you see something in writing doesn't make it an indisputable fact.....?

 

[Maral]

Nor is the pharoh's record inaccurate. I don't believe the Koran has historical inaccuracies either. Of course, back that far, there's so little that can be verified.

By that standard, all religions are true because their religious book tells the truth about the simple historical facts.

No, that standard does not prove that all religions are true because their religious books tell the truth about historical facts. I believe that Chrisitianity is the true religion based on faith. The historical facts in the New Testament prove that Jesus was born, died, and was resurrected.

 

[IrishMist]

No, that standard does not prove that all religions are true because their religious books tell the truth about historical facts. I believe that Chrisitianity is the true religion based on faith. The historical facts in the New Testament prove that Jesus was born, died, and was resurrected.

Well, they've narrowed down to when they think Jesus was probably born and died. But with all due respect, the resurrection is a matter of faith, is it not?

 

[Details]

No, that standard does not prove that all religions are true because their religious books tell the truth about historical facts. I believe that Chrisitianity is the true religion based on faith. The historical facts in the New Testament prove that Jesus was born, died, and was resurrected.

There's a split between, "I believe" and facts. You believe that the New Testament is accurate, but on no stronger historical, scientific, unbiased basis than I might believe in Osiris or Ra, and pharoh's living forever as historical fact, based on the Egyptian records. Historical records only show Jesus was a real person. Resurrection is a claim only made by the New Testament.

Historical facts (Roman records) show that Jesus existed, was born to Mary and Joseph.
Historical facts (records etched into stone during the time of the pharohs) show that Ramses was a pharoh who really existed.

Religious documents say that Jesus existed, was born to Mary and Joseph.
Religious documents say that Ramses was a pharoh.
Both of these statements are true.

Religious documents say that Jesus was resurrected.
Religious documents say that Ramses joined the other gods and became a god when he was mummified.
Both of these statements can only be taken on faith. The fact that the religious documents contain known historical facts does not make them accurate on all accounts.



Actually, not that historical documents are considered accurate on all accounts - atlantis, and a million other little bits of local mythology, rumor, etc. Something has to be repeated and verified to be considered true.

 

[Maral]

Well, they've narrowed down to when they think Jesus was probably born and died. But with all due respect, the resurrection is a matter of faith, is it not?

First of all, we have to remember that historians deal in probabilites, not certainties. The historical evidence is the empty tomb, the resurrection apperarances, and the origin of the Christian Church. These all point to the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[Glow]

I agree with everyone that posted that it is hard to determine reality from "re inventive history" when we look so far back in time. One thing that has always stood the test of time however, is that you can always count on the opposing side to speak out. The opposing side of any argument never participates in collusion. The opposing side in the time of Jesus were the Jewish religious leaders. He "called them out" and they disliked him immensely for it.

Jesus resurrected Lazarus. This was acknowledged by his enemies in that they never made ANY attempt to refute it. The Jewish religious leaders never mounted a campaign to discredit him for perpetuating a false hood. They just upped their efforts to eliminate him.

Once anyone resurrects anyone else the door of possibility is now thrown wide open. So for Jesus to be resurrected would not be far fetched to the many eyewitnesses that had already seen a human (Lazarus) resurrected.

 

[Dark Knight]

Well, they've narrowed down to when they think Jesus was probably born and died. But with all due respect, the resurrection is a matter of faith, is it not?

His birth and death are generally accepted as fact, but the resurrection has to be something of a matter of faith, since it isn't something one can prove. But there were witnesess, obviously, whose testimony I trust, otherwise I wouldn't believe their God-inspired writings, either, lol.

Mary's acsension is also a matter of faith for the same reasons.

I still want to know whose DNA Cameron is going to compare it to! The guy is nuts.

 

[Cypros]

First of all, we have to remember that historians deal in probabilites, not certainties. The historical evidence is the empty tomb, the resurrection apperarances, and the origin of the Christian Church. These all point to the resurrection of Jesus.

Which tomb? There are at least three tombs in Jerusalem that are purported to be the tomb of Jesus. Each tomb is owned by a different denomination -- religious competition. One of the tombs -- the Holy Sepulcher -- is co-managed by the Greek Orthodox, Armenian, and Catholic churches who fight over who gets to clean which stairs.

As for the resurrection appearances, if the gospels can't agree on what happened, then how can any of us "know" what happened? Just read the end of the first four books (after the crucifixion) -- they totally CONFLICT with each other.

The New Testament is religious propaganda. Truth and falsehood are intermixed to fool unwitting readers into thinking they are witnessing something miraculous.

I, too, am dying to know what DNA they have come up with to prove their tomb belongs to Jesus and his family. Perhaps they tracked down that brother and sister in "The DaVinci Code"???

 

[Maral]

His birth and death are generally accepted as fact, but the resurrection has to be something of a matter of faith, since it isn't something one can prove. But there were witnesess, obviously, whose testimony I trust, otherwise I wouldn't believe their God-inspired writings, either, lol.

Mary's acsension is also a matter of faith for the same reasons.

I still want to know whose DNA Cameron is going to compare it to! The guy is nuts.

Yes, DK, there were witnesses. The vast majority of historical scholars, and not only Christian scholars, believe that Jesus' body did not remain in His burial tomb. If the Romans could have produced a body, they would have done so at the time. They would not have let the claims of the apostles, who believed in the truth of the resurrection, go unchallenged.

 

[Peter Hamilton]

Well, there was similar excitement recently when the ossuary of James brother of Jesus was found--It appeared authentic but eventually Israeli scholars declared it a clever forgery

 

[Paladin]

So if they found DNA in these tombs, what are they comparing it to to prove it was Jesus?

I think they got it off a tooth brush or a comb.

 

[LovelyPigeon]

mtDNA from the mother/Mary could be compared to the son/Jesus to determine if they were actual mother and son. Other bones in the same burial would reveal DNA that could be compared to see if their relationship was family or, if not family, probably by marriage.

Descendants of Jesus' half-brothers (if you're Catholic you might not believe he had actual half-brothers) might also be a source for comparable DNA to link children to Mary's lineage.

In the film Jacobovici says six of the boxes, inscribed in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, bear the names Yeshua (Jesus) bar Josef (son of Joseph); Maria (a Latin form of Miriam, or Mary, in English); Matia (Hebrew for Matthew, a name common to the families of Mary and Joseph); Yose (a name identified as Jesus’ brother in the Gospel of Mark); Yehuda bar Yeshua (Judah, son of Joseph); and Mariamne e mara (Mariamne, known as the master. Mariamne was Mary Magdalene’s real name, according to a Harvard professor).

Mitochondrial DNA samples were taken from the boxes ascribed to Jesus and Mariamne and tests were run at the Thunder Bay laboratory which prove the two people associated with the boxes were not maternally related and most likely married, concludes narrator Ron White. - http://www.tbsource.com/Localnews/index.asp?cid=92871

It will be interesting to learn whether the DNA of all the sons of Mary from this tomb show that the sons all had the same father.

Jesus, being the product of the Holy Spirit and Mary, could be expected by those who believe in his divinity to have had unique DNA. Of course, if the bones of Jesus (born to Mary and Joseph of the New Testament) could be actually identified, then divinity as described in the New Testament gospels and letters would be out of the question.

 

[Cypros]

mtDNA from the mother/Mary could be compared to the son/Jesus to determine if they were actual mother and son. Other bones in the same burial would reveal DNA that could be compared to see if their relationship was family or, if not family, probably by marriage.

Descendants of Jesus' half-brothers (if you're Catholic you might not believe he had actual half-brothers) might also be a source for comparable DNA to link children to Mary's lineage.

In the film Jacobovici says six of the boxes, inscribed in Hebrew, Latin and Greek, bear the names Yeshua (Jesus) bar Josef (son of Joseph); Maria (a Latin form of Miriam, or Mary, in English); Matia (Hebrew for Matthew, a name common to the families of Mary and Joseph); Yose (a name identified as Jesus’ brother in the Gospel of Mark); Yehuda bar Yeshua (Judah, son of Joseph); and Mariamne e mara (Mariamne, known as the master. Mariamne was Mary Magdalene’s real name, according to a Harvard professor).

Mitochondrial DNA samples were taken from the boxes ascribed to Jesus and Mariamne and tests were run at the Thunder Bay laboratory which prove the two people associated with the boxes were not maternally related and most likely married, concludes narrator Ron White. - http://www.tbsource.com/Localnews/index.asp?cid=92871

It will be interesting to learn whether the DNA of all the sons of Mary from this tomb show that the sons all had the same father.

Jesus, being the product of the Holy Spirit and Mary, could be expected by those who believe in his divinity to have had unique DNA. Of course, if the bones of Jesus (born to Mary and Joseph of the New Testament) could be actually identified, then divinity as described in the New Testament gospels and letters would be out of the question.

mtDNA analysis will inform us if the individuals buried in the tomb are related, but it does not tell us if they are the Mary, Jesus, etc. of the New Testament. These were all very common names at the time.

I hope that the documentary will provide information about the discovery of these ossuaries. Who excavated them? What was done with the finds at that time? Who has been in charge of the finds the last 25 years?


Oh! CNN is covering this story right now!

 

[Cypros]

Here is the CNN article on the documentary

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/26/jesus.sburial.ap/index.html

I also want to add that Jacobovic is an amateur wannabe archaeologist whose TV show focuses on Old Testament biblical archaeology and trying to prove the Hebrew version of events. He is not interested in Jesus being the Messiah and, as LP said, the discovery of his ossuary with bones in it works against the Christian belief in a resurrection.

 

[Maral]

Scholars criticize new Jesus documentary

JERUSALEM (AP) Archaeologists and clergymen in the Holy Land derided claims in a new documentary produced by James Cameron that contradict major Christian tenets, but the Oscar-winning director said the evidence was based on sound statistics.

In 1996, when the British Broadcasting Corp. aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.

"They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.

Link

 

[LovelyPigeon]

In 1996 the BBC produced a documentary along the same lines Did Jesus Die? ... exploration of the latest theories about what really happened to Jesus 2000 years ago uncovers some surprising possibilities."
At the heart of the mystery is the suspicion that Jesus might not actually have died on the cross. The film concludes that it was perfectly possible to survive crucifixion in the 1st Century - there are records of people who did. But if Jesus survived, what happened to him afterwards?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/did-jesus-die-interview.shtml