James Cameron's new documentary

Cathy · 26-02-2007 05:31PM #1

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/raising-the-titanic-sinking-christianity/

Thoughts?

kelly1 · 26-02-2007 06:02PM

Cathy wrote:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/raising-the-titanic-sinking-christianity/

Thoughts?

It makes me angry! :mad:

It's not at all surprising where Discovery Channel is concerned. They've produced so much anti-Christian filth. This is just more of the same.

The danger is that this cr*p is undermining the faith of people who faith is shaky and open to persuasion.

What must Jesus think of people who attack His good name even though He came to save them from their sins!? He died on a cross for us and this is how we repay Him!

What are your thoughts Cathy?

God bless,
Noel.

Ciaran500 · 26-02-2007 06:04PM

kelly1 wrote:

It's not at all surprising where Discovery Channel is concerned. They've produced so much anti-Christian filth. This is just more of the same.

The danger is that this cr*p is undermining the faith of people who faith is shaky and open to persuasion.

So when anything like this is found it should be just ignored?

kelly1 · 26-02-2007 06:21PM

Ciaran500 wrote:

So when anything like this is found it should be just ignored?

Basically yes! Ever since the time of Christ, His good name has
been attacked by evil men. This is nothing new. Mr. Cameron can't prove any of his claims because they aren't true.

Either you believe Jesus is who He says He is, or you don't! If you believe Him to be God the Son, then how could you doubt the resurrection?

God bless,
Noel.

Zombrex · 26-02-2007 06:37PM

kelly1 wrote:

It's not at all surprising where Discovery Channel is concerned. They've produced so much anti-Christian filth. This is just more of the same.

Depends on what you mean by "anti-Christian" .. the truth (assuming this is the truth) cannot be anti anything, it simply is what it is.

Not that it really matters. Christians, like all religious people, will simply choose not to believe this as it contradicts their faith. It won't be the first time, it won't be the last time.

Excelsior · 26-02-2007 06:46PM

I think it is as likely that this is the tomb of Jesus as God Save The Queen being sung at Croke Par.... oh wait.

Seriously though, Yeshua in 2nd Temple Judaism was about as common a name as John is in Ireland today. Joseph, Marinme, Yose, these are all the most common names in use. Presuming that the tomb is not a fake (and considering the potential profit involved this must be our first assumption) it is about as surprising as finding a grave headstone 2000 years hence in Ireland that talks about Sean and his wife Brigid who had three kids, Eoghan, Paul and Claire.

I am a Christian in a large part because of historical evidence. If this is the tomb of Christ (a very unlikely situation but...) then Christianity has to pack itself up and die out as instantly as possible.

But for the moment, I had a chat with God this morning over the Scriptures and he didn't tell me anything about this.

Excelsior · 26-02-2007 06:49PM

Wicknight wrote:

Christians, like all religious people, will simply choose not to believe this as it contradicts their faith.

While I agree with your sentiment, as usual, you really need to explain to me sometime how you figure cognitive bias doesn't apply to "non-religious people".

(First we might have to discuss whether people exist without constructing faith-based axiomatic perspectives of the world that approach "religious" regardless of organised dogma... )

Zombrex · 26-02-2007 06:54PM

Excelsior wrote:

While I agree with your sentiment, as usual, you really need to explain to me sometime how you figure cognitive bias doesn't apply to "non-religious people".

Now you mention it that is actually a very good point

I stand corrected. People, religious or not, will believe what they want to believe, irrespective of the evidence.

At least they will believe what they want to believe if that belief is important to a foundation of their outlook on life. In this instance this applies to religious people and their religion (to most religious people their religion is an important foundation on their outlook on life), but equally it can also apply to non-religious people.

Zombrex · 26-02-2007 07:04PM

Excelsior wrote:

I am a Christian in a large part because of historical evidence. If this is the tomb of Christ (a very unlikely situation but...) then Christianity has to pack itself up and die out as instantly as possible.

As i always say about things like this does this not just simply show that the Bible is incorrect about details of Christs life? Which is understandable since it was written years after he died, mostly by people who never meet him.

How says the bones go up to heaven with the body? The Bible. Who says Jesus didn't marry Mary? The Bible. Who says Jesus didn't have a son. The Bible.

Maybe, just maybe, the Bible is incorrect :eek:

After all don't you all talk to Jesus on a regular basis? Who are you talking to if it isn't God?

Fanny Cradock · 26-02-2007 07:17PM

From my brief glance at the article it seems that he is assuming that this is Jesus' grave because of a name(s) and no other concrete reason. I have two problems with this:

1) As has been pointed out, you would imagine that these were common names, which proves absolutely nothing beyond coincidence;

2) Assuming this person did claim to be the real Jesus, then applying the same principals to some other nut like David Koresh, who also claimed the same thing, would produce the same results.

Zombrex · 26-02-2007 07:20PM

Fanny Cradock wrote:

2) Assuming this person did claim to be the real Jesus, then applying the same principals to some other nut like David Koresh, who also claimed the same thing, would produce the same results.

Well back then the name Jesus would have been largely meaningless in relation to the son of God want-a-bes. It would have only become a house hold name as it were years later. So no one would pretend to be Jesus, as Jesus wouldn't have been well known enough for that to happen.

Fanny Cradock · 26-02-2007 07:28PM

Wicknight wrote:

As i always say about things like this does this not just simply show that the Bible is incorrect about details of Christs life? Which is understandable since it was written years after he died, mostly by people who never meet him.

How says the bones go up to heaven with the body? The Bible. Who says Jesus didn't marry Mary? The Bible. Who says Jesus didn't have a son. The Bible.

Maybe, just maybe, the Bible is incorrect :eek:

After all don't you all talk to Jesus on a regular basis? Who are you talking to if it isn't God?

From reading the article I get the impression that the implication of the documentary is that as Jesus' body (or the meagre remains) has been found and, therefore, it debunks the reality of his existence. After all, if he's still there in a tomb in dust form then he never ascended to heaven, and it was all just a lie.

I don't understand your logic. You seem to take exception with the fact that the Bible clearly states certain things about His life, but you seem to ignore that the Bible is fundamental to Christianity. You can't believe in Jesus and take exception to the Bible.

JimiTime · 26-02-2007 07:30PM

I always find that the big hoo haw that religious leaders and their followers make over things like this just gives them weight. Stuff like this comes and goes all the time. Theres always documentaries floating about saying all sorts. 'Whatever', is what I would say. The world will do what the world will do. I am a christian, and in being a christian I have certain moral standards that alot of people wouldn't agree with, abortian, sexual promiscuity etc would be things I'd reject. In many places these things are socially acceptable. Its like the latest Gay marriage and adoption episodes. I hear religious people come out and say that it undermines their marriage etc. This always gets on my nerves because, as a married man myself, all things outside do not undermine my love for my wife. The reason I don't condone the above is because I have accepted Jesus as my teacher, and God as my moral authority. Enough said. If the powers that be do not recognise God, then so be it. Christians still will. let the world get on with itself, and continue in your Christian life, being an example etc. Some people will disagree with you, mock you, and some will be changed because of you. This is the way I see it anyway. So going back to the OP, I'm not unduly concerned about it, I just hope zealous religious folk don't give it too much weight.

Fanny Cradock · 26-02-2007 07:36PM

Wicknight wrote:

Well back then the name Jesus would have been largely meaningless in relation to the son of God want-a-bes. It would have only become a house hold name as it were years later. So no one would pretend to be Jesus, as Jesus wouldn't have been well known enough for that to happen.

Huh? Largely meaningless? Even if you have no belief in Jesus as a Saviour, then you should at least familiarise with the impact he has in his lifetime. You assume that he had no immediate impact - my beliefs aside - the accepted history tells otherwise.

I would feel that the dates suggested between the time of Christ and the death of the guy in the tomb are anything but a ball park figure. I would imagine that there is quite a large degree of uncertainty when attempting to accurately date the remains of bones.

Zombrex · 26-02-2007 07:41PM

Fanny Cradock wrote:

From reading the article I get the impression that the implication of the documentary is that as Jesus' body (or the meagre remains) has been found and, therefore, it debunks the reality of his existence.

Surely finding his bones confirms the reality of his existence, not the other way around. After all, apart from the gospels, there is hardly any historical evidence that Jesus actually existed as a single person. If this story is true then it confirms that he did exist, and that the family relationships he had, as described in the Bible, were pretty much spot on (his mother, his father, his brother) etc.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

After all, if he's still there in a tomb in dust form then he never ascended to heaven, and it was all just a lie.

Says who?

I'm unaware that there are rules about how one can and cannot ascend to heaven, and that one must take ones body with them otherwise it isn't a proper ascention.

Why would his body ascend to heaven anyway, that has never made any sense? What would God need with a body?

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I don't understand your logic.

you seem to ignore that the Bible is fundamental to Christianity.[/quote]
Says who exactly?

Fanny Cradock wrote:

You can't believe in Jesus and take exception to the Bible.

Again, says who?

Zombrex · 26-02-2007 07:48PM

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Huh? Largely meaningless? Even if you have no belief in Jesus as a Saviour, then you should at least familiarise with the impact he has in his lifetime.

Actually in the grand scheme of things Jesus had a tiny impact in his life time, short as it were. At most he preached to a few thousand people, and would have had no greater influence than the hundreds of other Judeo cults that were springing up all the time.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

You assume that he had no immediate impact - my beliefs aside - the accepted history tells otherwise.

Well considering that there is absolutely no record of Jesus what so ever anywhere out side the gospels except a very brief description of him by a Roman historian recorded 100 or so years after his death (when the church has grown), that would kinda imply that his influence was not that big until quite a bit after he died.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I would imagine that there is quite a large degree of uncertainty when attempting to accurately date the remains of bones.

There is. But then no more so than anything else from that time, including the Gospels.

Personally I think it is quite unlikely that Jesus was buried at all, as the common practice for cruxification was to be thrown to wild animals. But then we have no idea really. This find is no more or less historically accurate than the gospels. In reality we know almost nothing about the real life of Jesus (assuming he existed and was one person), and we probably never will (until I invent my time machine that is).

Fanny Cradock · 26-02-2007 08:12PM

From reading the article the implication of the documentary seems to be that finding his bones proves that he was just a person. Do you actually believe that Cameron is going to say that because circa 2000 year old DNA sample was found it proves that he was really the Son of God? Obviously there is a vested interest to the documentary: that is to disprove the claims that Jesus was who he said he was - 'look we found a body' - and supplant the more palatable truth (for certain people) that he did exist, but that he was a liar or mad.

As for the postulation that you can be a Christian and not believe in the Bible, well, I don't even know where to being trying to explain why that is wrong. If you for a moment consider the possibility that there was a Jesus and he did all the things that are written in the Bible, then why is it so unlikely that the Bible was anything other then Divinely inspired, i.e. written by God through man? If you don't believe that the Bible (with all it's difficult teachings) is anything but primary to Christianity then you misunderstand Christianity at it's most elemental level.

hairyheretic · 26-02-2007 08:34PM

One thing I'm curious about is the DNA claims. Who are they matching this DNA to in order to establish anything?

As for the story itself ... I suspect that very few minds will be changed by it one way or the other. Those who want to believe will, those who don't want to believe it won't. The truth of the matter seems somewhat irrelevent.

JC 2K3 · 26-02-2007 08:36PM

kelly1 wrote:

Either you believe Jesus is who He says He is, or you don't! If you believe Him to be God the Son, then how could you doubt the resurrection?

If you don't believe in the ressurection and aren't a Christian are you not allowed to research Jesus by rational means?

Bradidup · 26-02-2007 11:16PM

The word of God says it all, but unfortunitally many in this world even Christians will be foolish enough to adhere to Mr Camerons claims.(Fables) .......and others http://www.jesus-is-savior.com

Mark 13 vs 22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.

2 timothy 4 Vs 2 to 4.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; : And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Michael G · 27-02-2007 01:11AM

No one will take it seriously, except for the hundreds of thousand of learning-difficulties types who think the Da Vinci Code is probably true.

Asiaprod · 27-02-2007 01:49AM

Wicknight wrote:

Why would his body ascend to heaven anyway, that has never made any sense? What would God need with a body?

Same for me. I have never understood that bit. He came into this world without a body, yet he leaves with one. Surley it is the essence (soul) of the person that would ascended. The only answer I have heard is the quote "He made man in his own image," i.e. he went back in his natural state. Even if they did actually find his body, would it really change anything. I would have thought that finding Jesus' bones would actually be helpful, though I am sure a large number of the hierarchy would not be to happy about the discovery.

GuanYin · 27-02-2007 02:37AM

It amuses me that those who are so skeptical about claims made without providing solid evidence for peer-reviewal in other disciplines, seem to readily accept these claims of Cameron's.

Honestly, I'm very skeptical, given the vested interest (ermm making money), the profession of the project head (ermm making fictional stories) and the fact that just about every notable academic has dismissed the claims....

Willymuncher · 27-02-2007 03:19AM

hairyheretic wrote:

One thing I'm curious about is the DNA claims. Who are they matching this DNA to in order to establish anything?

I've been wondering that myself.

Asiaprod · 27-02-2007 06:02AM

hairyheretic wrote:

One thing I'm curious about is the DNA claims. Who are they matching this DNA to in order to establish anything?

Willymuncher wrote:

I've been wondering that myself.

According to the official report (www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1611402/posts) they sampled the DNA from the different ossuaries and were able to establish a network of siblings and maternal links between the individuals buried in the tomb. One interestiing facet that is in the report is the discovery of a skeleton laid out still wrapped in a burial shroud. Carbon 14 dating placed the shroud at the first-half of 1AD. Tests also revealed that the remains were of a man, probably of aristocratic birth (i.e. well fed and nutured) that had suffered from leprosy and most probably had died from Tuberculosis.

<Bear in mind that this is the 4th time that the Tomb of Jesus has been discovered>

Dave! · 27-02-2007 08:19AM

psi wrote:

the fact that just about every notable academic has dismissed the claims....

Have you any links to academics' responses?

I doubt these claims are true but even if they are it won't make a difference, not while people like kelly1 are around.

If it's proven it should be ignored! duhh

KTRIC · 27-02-2007 09:41AM

I still fail to see how the supposed discovery of the body of Jesus of Nazareth would be a problem for Christians.

He was born of flesh and blood and died for our sins. Then he ascended to heaven, at no point did it say that he brought his earthly body with him.

kelly1 · 27-02-2007 10:34AM

JC 2K3 wrote:

If you don't believe in the ressurection and aren't a Christian are you not allowed to research Jesus by rational means?

Yes, of course anyone can do this, Christian or not. To give any credence to Mr. Cameron's claims however shows a lack of faith. For me personally, I don't need
to look any further into his claims because I have faith in Jesus. He will never be able to prove any of his speculation. The devil and his minions will always do whatever they can to undermine people's faith in Jesus and this will go on until the end of the world.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1 · 27-02-2007 10:42AM

DaveMcG wrote:

Have you any links to academics' responses?

I doubt these claims are true but even if they are it won't make a difference, not while people like kelly1 are around.

If it's proven it should be ignored! duhh

He has no proof of his claims, has he!? These type of claims keep cropping up all the time and all it does is to sow the seed of doubt in people's minds. There's a spiritual battle going on for our souls!

God bless,
Noel.

Ciaran500 · 27-02-2007 10:51AM

kelly1 wrote:

These type of claims keep cropping up all the time and all it does is to sow the seed of doubt in people's minds. There's a spiritual battle going on for our souls!

Maybe people are just searching for some truth and don't believe the blanket answer that god/the devil is testing us.

Dades · 27-02-2007 10:58AM

KTRIC wrote:

He was born of flesh and blood and died for our sins. Then he ascended to heaven, at no point did it say that he brought his earthly body with him.

So instead his earthly body stayed on earth, got married and had a family? Riight.

TBH, short of using Wicknight's Time Machine™, this is all just interesting speculation which will probably never be verified one way or the other. The evidence is too shaky to start spouting scripture or shouting 'I told you so'.

Next headline-grabbing claim, please.

James Cameron's new documentary

Comments