Have any of you heard of this tomb that will allegedly prove once and for all that Jesus died and was not resurrected?
-----------------------
Raising the Titanic, Sinking Christianity?
February 26, 2007, 10:38 am
By Tom Zeller Jr.
(http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/raising-the-titanic-sinking-christianity/)
With no film in the running this year, director James Cameron might muffle some post-Oscar rhapsodizing as he looses the publicity hounds on his latest project, which strikes at the foundations of Christianity and already has Church authorities upset.
It looks like things got rolling, buzz-wise, with a TIME magazine blog whisper on Friday, which outlined details on a 90-minute documentary in which Mr. Cameron, along with journalist Simcha Jacobovici, say they have uncovered the burial cave of Jesus and his family — along with enough DNA evidence to establish, they say, that Jesus wasn’t resurrected and that Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.
-------------------------
Now, in all honesty, my first thought was that dear Mr. Cameron should have waited until, say, Easter to release his findings and his movie / book. I mean, he's going to fall under attack any way, so he might as well have had as much fun with it as possible, right?
But, to be more serious, do you think it will matter what is inside these burial boxes? I mean, conspiracy theorists have been falling under attack for close to forty years leading up to the Da Vinci Code, and in all honesty - none of them have any real proof of anything; only circumstancial and perspective - but there is still that twinge of possibility which is what I believe keeps their sales up and keeps people looking for things like this.
And let's be honest - it wouldn't be the first time the church covered up some facts to make sure they gained a better foothold over every one. So to see this sort of headline didn't surprise me at all. And I don't think it would surprise me to find out it was all true, either.
What I am curious about is what type of aftermath this will have. I mean, if they are able to prove Jesus was a mortal man - what would that change? I guess for a long shot the church might find some "documentation" - maybe another gospel that they've just finished translating and authenticating! - that described how Jesus was resurrected and a body was planted for some reason or another.
But in general, I just think this is going to fall under attack and become the next big debate. Fundies will continue bashing and attacking people's credibility on the matter (despite their own lack in credibility) and so on.
Perhaps a New Age Christianity religion will be formed in which it teaches that Jesus' spirit was resurrected, to somehow satisfy the two tales? Who knows? Would it really be all that bad to find out that Jesus was a man, after all he was allegedly half-man and half-divine, right? Would it be all that horrible to find out that he had a child?
But what do you think about it? Will it change your beliefs (assuming, of course, that you're Christian). If they do have evidence, would you accept it, or pass it off as someone just trying to destroy Christianity?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The finding of the tomb was widely discredited by reliable anthropologists; I have heard that the names on the tomb were fairly common names at the time. Besides which, the tomb reads "Jesus of Jerusalem," not "Jesus of Nazareth."
Also, how can you have DNA evidence proving someone was or was not Jesus? All you can prove with DNA and a bone that old is that someone alive today is or is not descended from that bone's previous owner.
I don't trust The Church, but I don't trust the filmmakers, either. After all, they're out to make a buck, and shock sells.
CNN does a good job explaining why the documentary is bunk:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/26/jesus.sburial.ap/index.html
Having said all that, it wouldn't be so horrible if Jesus had a child, but I don't think it's very likely.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
It wouldn't do much to my faith, and I'm shaky the way it is. I mean, realistically speaking, you can't prove that someone was one specific person that lived 2000 years ago. Any DNA evidence that may have survived since then has long been contaminated with other DNA from tomb raiders and whatnot.
I'm honestly surprised no fundie has brought up the shroud yet, though. Or maybe they have and I'm just missing it.
~C
Visit my blog.
I'd have to claim hoax on this one. There have been hoaxes for many famous things that people have bought into (lock ness monster, UFOs, etc) why not something like this?
By the way, has anyone even considered the fact that a body probably couldn't last that long to begin with? I mean, mummies, sure, but I doubt the same principles were used everywhere else.