Tomb of Jesus & James Cameron
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
The doc will premire tonight on the Discovery Channel, for us Americans who might be interested.
For you Euros, you can you know, get American television and stop watching Sky.
For you Euros, you can you know, get American television and stop watching Sky.
I'm always suspicious when "discoveries" are taken to the media where they then say "let the debate begin." That's completely backwards and, clearly, Cameron and Jacobovici aren't doing science but show business.
With science, you share the data with as many experts as you can in hopes that they will find flaws with your work before you publish. And then you take it to the media -after its been thoroughly vetted and published.
These guys cherry-picked their "experts" and haven't shared the core and essential bits of data. The epigraphy hasn't been vetted; the provenience of the ossuaries themselves are largely absent and deficient; and so on.
Whatever anyone wants to call the "Jesus Tomb debacle," it certainly cannot be called archaeology. This is pseudoarchaeology.
With science, you share the data with as many experts as you can in hopes that they will find flaws with your work before you publish. And then you take it to the media -after its been thoroughly vetted and published.
These guys cherry-picked their "experts" and haven't shared the core and essential bits of data. The epigraphy hasn't been vetted; the provenience of the ossuaries themselves are largely absent and deficient; and so on.
Whatever anyone wants to call the "Jesus Tomb debacle," it certainly cannot be called archaeology. This is pseudoarchaeology.
There was an hour of debate after the show, and one of the archaeologists referred to the show as "archae-porn". Showing the sexy side of science, CSI-style.
I do think it is unfair to expect a sensationalist journalist to act like a scientist, though. These guys are interested in the science, but they are journalists first, and want to sell their opinion. No harm in that. Church leaders do the same thing in Sunday-School each week.
Then why have scientists on the show at all?
If the claims of Cameron can be proven to be right, then it pretty much proved Jesus as:
1. A historical person.
2. As a dead historical person (read: not the Son of God).
3. As married to Mary Magadalene.
1. A historical person.
2. As a dead historical person (read: not the Son of God).
3. As married to Mary Magadalene.
How can they prove that Cameron's claims are right?
I heard that the statistician on the show says that the odds are 600 to 1 for that those are their bones, go figure.
IceAgeCivilizations:
Statistics + genetics.
The genetics point to what would be expected from a family.
The statistics show how overwhelmingly likely it is that it is Jesus and his family rather than other people.
Statistics + genetics.
The genetics point to what would be expected from a family.
The statistics show how overwhelmingly likely it is that it is Jesus and his family rather than other people.
So you would bet 600 to 1 that those are Jesus' bones, okie dokie.
IceAgeCivilizations:
If the info is right: Yes.
I also think the whole thing is far too conservative. The real likelyhood is much higher. The 600 figure is the most conservative one they have: The real ones are in the tens of thousands to one.
If the info is right: Yes.
I also think the whole thing is far too conservative. The real likelyhood is much higher. The 600 figure is the most conservative one they have: The real ones are in the tens of thousands to one.
"If the info is right." Right, if it is, but there is no indication that it is, so why bother?
I didn't see the documentary. I had more pressing matters to deal with, unfortunately. (Will they run it again?) Forgive me if I ask for the obvious. The DNA evidence would prove that these people are related, but does it prove their identities? Does it prove they're Mr. and Mrs. Christ?
I think it was worded this way: The chance that those 4-5 names would occur together in the same family is 1 in 600.
That means something different...
*************
M*W: I couldn't agree with you more. I viewed the program with Jacobovici, and there's no biz like show biz.
The Israel department of antiquities doesn't have a good reputation either. They forged the James ossuary and sold it off as authentic knowing what they did was fraudulent.
Cameron's segway is nothing more than a slight of hand
trick. He's preparing his future audience for his upcoming blockbuster film. It's just a part of the act.
I give James Cameron a little more credit than Mel Gibson however. Gibson put his film out there as gospel truth. Cameron is just making preparations for another movie. I'm all for that. It presents yet another theory about the Jesus myth. Any information that can get to the general public to discredit christianity is a good thing, even though that doesn't make it real or credible evidence. If all the film does is raise awareness that christianity might have lied to the world, then it's worth it. It wasn't that long ago that I believed in the historical Jesus, MM and family. Now I look back and laugh at my foolishness!
Medicine*Woman:
However, let's assume the data is correct.
Shall you be revising your astrological thesis?
For it would seem that if this is not a hoax, it almost conclusively proves Jesus as a historical person in contradiction to some of the official gospels.
However, let's assume the data is correct.
Shall you be revising your astrological thesis?
For it would seem that if this is not a hoax, it almost conclusively proves Jesus as a historical person in contradiction to some of the official gospels.
IceAgeCivilizations:
ALl the available archaeological evidence points to legitimacy.
Oxygen:
You cannot prove the identity of two people from their DNA without prior data, only their relation to eachother. In this case, the DNA supports their thesis.
ALl the available archaeological evidence points to legitimacy.
Oxygen:
You cannot prove the identity of two people from their DNA without prior data, only their relation to eachother. In this case, the DNA supports their thesis.