James Cameron's Dumb Documentary
Movie director James Cameron is apparently going to announce that they've found Jesus' tomb, with his bones in it - thereby supposedly debunking the belief of millions - if not billions - of people during the last 2 millennia.
First of all - I wonder why people who don't believe in Jesus get such gluttonous joy out of trying to squelch the beliefs of those who do believe in Jesus? What's it to James Cameron if people believe in Jesus or not... and why does he spend any of his OWN free time obsessing about, and producing a film on something he doesn't believe in anyway? Solely to crush the beliefs of those who might be weak in their Christian faith, and who might stop believing in Jesus, because of the "documentary" of one film director from Hollywood? Does he get as much joy telling little kids there is no Santa Claus also?
Secondly - I'm sure, just like The DaVinci Code became the truth inerrant, and the new guide book of the 2000's - undoubtedly, James Cameron's Documentary Denying the Deity of Christ will get ultimate approval, acceptance and unyielding "I knew it" acknowledgements from the world at large. Nobody will question it, because let's face it: Much of the world would be content & happy if all of Christianity was debunked, and destroyed. *Much of Radical Islam, for starters, not to mention secular humanists, atheists, and the lot ...*
I haven't seen this film, so I have only read up on the DiscoveryChannel Website story on the matter. Anything I say here is purely my rebuttal to the weak smattering of factoids that the Discovery Channel article mentions.
One thing that reiterates what a weak case they have against Christianity, or the Deity of Christ is that this supposed collection of bones in a family tomb from Israel proves very little. They have "DNA samples" they claim! Woopdee Doo! DNA of what? The only cold hard fact I found via the DC website is that ONLY TWO DNA samples were obtained: the supposed Jesus, and the supposed Mary Magdalene. Now listen to this - I watch CSI every week, and one thing I've learned about DNA is about as much as what James Cameron seems to understand. You can only prove one thing with these two samples: they were able to conclude that this "Jesus" and this "Mary Magdalene" (whom they actually call Mariamne The Masster- *more on that in a bit* ) were NOT related.
This startling conclusion (Gasp, two people in a tomb were not related! Stop the presses, alert the media!) therefore causes them to assume that they were probably married. Because everyone knows that if two people were buried together, they must be married.
They didn't bother to get the DNA samples (or perhaps they weren't allowed to?) of the other four or five people in the tomb. If they had actually secured samples of all the people there, they could have done "paternity" testing or "maternity" testing to actually prove if any of the other skeletons were related to this supposed Jesus. But no. The only DNA evidence they got is only capable of proving that this supposed Jesus was not - in fact - related to the woman noted to be Mariamne The Master.
Now about the Mariamne the Master tidbit: Everywhere in Scriptures, she is referred to as Mary of Magdala, or Mary Magdalene, and this by the people who wrote the Gospels, and actually knew her in person. The reason being that there were three critical figures called Mary (or Maria) in the life of Jesus: Mary his mother, Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and Mary the Magdalene. So if we're to assume that this tomb holds her remains, you'd think that her remaining relatives, and other disciples would have inscribed her tomb with her actual geographic location of origin, the same way they did with all her other references in the Scriptures. To just losely assume that Mariamne the Master is indeed Mary of Magdala is a big conclusion to jump to.
Next, the DNA samples are compared to some names inscribed on the box...The DC website quotes this: "In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary." Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."
Again, weak arguments that these are indeed THE Jesus, Mary, Mary of Magdala that we read about in the Bible. These names were quite prevalent in that time period. As the Jews waited for their Messiah, Yeshua was a common name given to the boys born, because it means Salvation, or God is Salvation. Most moms and dads could be assumed to have hoped their little boy would grow up to be the Messiah, and therefore it was a common name to give. Likewise (as we've already mentioned) Jesus knew at least three women named Mary in his lifetime in his own personal circle, which means there were probably as many Mary's running around Israel as there are Jessicas and Tiffanys running around these days.
If this Mary was the wife of Jesus, her inscription likely would have read "Mary the wife of Jesus" since the other inscription refers to Judah as the "Son of Jesus." So whoever this particular Jesus was, and who clearly was buried with his son Judah, it can probably be assumed that the Mariamne the Master bones were not his wife, because no mention is made of it. The Jewish culture is very particular about women's submission & "belonging" to the husband. I don't think they would have omitted that kind of detail in burying a woman - if she had indeed been married to the Jesus next to her in the tomb. And again - none of this proves that this was even THAT Jesus of Nazareth, whom we worship as the Messiah today.
The DC website also says: "Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper."
So if they wanted to prove that, why didn't they just also extract some of the DNA from HIS bones, and see if they can link them to this Mariamne & Jesus figure? Or any of the other DNA from any of those other bones. The CSI get DNA from everything to cross-reference (no pun intended) all possible outcomes. But here they only got two measly samples, and the only thing they can deduce is that Jesus and Mariamne were not related.
And speaking of DNA - what the heck are they comparing it to? It's not like someone horded some of Jesus of Nazareth's fingernails or hair, or a vial of his blood ( a la Angelina during her days when she was married to Billy Bob Thornton!) They have some DNA of someone in a tomb whose name happened to be one of the most common men's names in the first century A.D. But that doesn't prove that this is actually Jesus Christ, son of Mary & Joseph.
Weak, weak, weak.
But... I can only sit back and expect the brainless and mindless following of people who will glean whatever hateful "let's bash the Christians" mentality they can out of this attempt to shake up our faith. I can only prepare myself for the onslaught of snide snickering and taunts by people who will only believe what James Cameron, the almighty director of The Titanic, and the Terminator films will have to say about two sets of bones, and the DNA tests they ran.
Geez, they dismissed half the DNA evidence from the OJ Simpson trials because of poor DNA sampling, or contaminated evidence. I'm likelier to believe that OJ was indeed framed and/or innocent of Nicole Simpson's murder than that these bones in some 2,000 year old tomb in Israel actually belonged to the Jesus that the Bible speaks of.
The thing is this: Christianity hinges entirely on whether Jesus claims to be the Messiah were true. He made some outrageous statements that only a lunatic or a liar would make (thank you C.S. Lewis for that nice pointer...) So if he indeed didn't rise from the dead, the way he prophesied, then the poor disciples who all also were executed and martyred for their beliefs were a bunch of idiots. If they were actually just hiding his bones somewhere and eventually buried them with the rest of his family, then the martyred disciples also died for nothing. They could have just confessed to the whole thing as a hoax. But ... they didn't. Which allows me to comfortably and firmly continue believing that they did believe him to be the Messiah, and that their eye witness accounts of his resurrection were true. If they weren't... maybe we're all a bunch of idiots.
Either way, it's bound to be miserable for Christians here for a while. Prepare yourself for debates, left & right. Arm yourself with accurate science, good counter-arguments, and a calm head. Contradictory, and inciteful atheists are not likely to listen calmly to you, but that doesn't mean we have to stoop so low as to flail our fists at them. Slow & steady wins the race.
First of all - I wonder why people who don't believe in Jesus get such gluttonous joy out of trying to squelch the beliefs of those who do believe in Jesus? What's it to James Cameron if people believe in Jesus or not... and why does he spend any of his OWN free time obsessing about, and producing a film on something he doesn't believe in anyway? Solely to crush the beliefs of those who might be weak in their Christian faith, and who might stop believing in Jesus, because of the "documentary" of one film director from Hollywood? Does he get as much joy telling little kids there is no Santa Claus also?
Secondly - I'm sure, just like The DaVinci Code became the truth inerrant, and the new guide book of the 2000's - undoubtedly, James Cameron's Documentary Denying the Deity of Christ will get ultimate approval, acceptance and unyielding "I knew it" acknowledgements from the world at large. Nobody will question it, because let's face it: Much of the world would be content & happy if all of Christianity was debunked, and destroyed. *Much of Radical Islam, for starters, not to mention secular humanists, atheists, and the lot ...*
I haven't seen this film, so I have only read up on the DiscoveryChannel Website story on the matter. Anything I say here is purely my rebuttal to the weak smattering of factoids that the Discovery Channel article mentions.
One thing that reiterates what a weak case they have against Christianity, or the Deity of Christ is that this supposed collection of bones in a family tomb from Israel proves very little. They have "DNA samples" they claim! Woopdee Doo! DNA of what? The only cold hard fact I found via the DC website is that ONLY TWO DNA samples were obtained: the supposed Jesus, and the supposed Mary Magdalene. Now listen to this - I watch CSI every week, and one thing I've learned about DNA is about as much as what James Cameron seems to understand. You can only prove one thing with these two samples: they were able to conclude that this "Jesus" and this "Mary Magdalene" (whom they actually call Mariamne The Masster- *more on that in a bit* ) were NOT related.
This startling conclusion (Gasp, two people in a tomb were not related! Stop the presses, alert the media!) therefore causes them to assume that they were probably married. Because everyone knows that if two people were buried together, they must be married.
They didn't bother to get the DNA samples (or perhaps they weren't allowed to?) of the other four or five people in the tomb. If they had actually secured samples of all the people there, they could have done "paternity" testing or "maternity" testing to actually prove if any of the other skeletons were related to this supposed Jesus. But no. The only DNA evidence they got is only capable of proving that this supposed Jesus was not - in fact - related to the woman noted to be Mariamne The Master.
Now about the Mariamne the Master tidbit: Everywhere in Scriptures, she is referred to as Mary of Magdala, or Mary Magdalene, and this by the people who wrote the Gospels, and actually knew her in person. The reason being that there were three critical figures called Mary (or Maria) in the life of Jesus: Mary his mother, Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and Mary the Magdalene. So if we're to assume that this tomb holds her remains, you'd think that her remaining relatives, and other disciples would have inscribed her tomb with her actual geographic location of origin, the same way they did with all her other references in the Scriptures. To just losely assume that Mariamne the Master is indeed Mary of Magdala is a big conclusion to jump to.
Next, the DNA samples are compared to some names inscribed on the box...The DC website quotes this: "In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary." Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."
Again, weak arguments that these are indeed THE Jesus, Mary, Mary of Magdala that we read about in the Bible. These names were quite prevalent in that time period. As the Jews waited for their Messiah, Yeshua was a common name given to the boys born, because it means Salvation, or God is Salvation. Most moms and dads could be assumed to have hoped their little boy would grow up to be the Messiah, and therefore it was a common name to give. Likewise (as we've already mentioned) Jesus knew at least three women named Mary in his lifetime in his own personal circle, which means there were probably as many Mary's running around Israel as there are Jessicas and Tiffanys running around these days.
If this Mary was the wife of Jesus, her inscription likely would have read "Mary the wife of Jesus" since the other inscription refers to Judah as the "Son of Jesus." So whoever this particular Jesus was, and who clearly was buried with his son Judah, it can probably be assumed that the Mariamne the Master bones were not his wife, because no mention is made of it. The Jewish culture is very particular about women's submission & "belonging" to the husband. I don't think they would have omitted that kind of detail in burying a woman - if she had indeed been married to the Jesus next to her in the tomb. And again - none of this proves that this was even THAT Jesus of Nazareth, whom we worship as the Messiah today.
The DC website also says: "Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper."
So if they wanted to prove that, why didn't they just also extract some of the DNA from HIS bones, and see if they can link them to this Mariamne & Jesus figure? Or any of the other DNA from any of those other bones. The CSI get DNA from everything to cross-reference (no pun intended) all possible outcomes. But here they only got two measly samples, and the only thing they can deduce is that Jesus and Mariamne were not related.
And speaking of DNA - what the heck are they comparing it to? It's not like someone horded some of Jesus of Nazareth's fingernails or hair, or a vial of his blood ( a la Angelina during her days when she was married to Billy Bob Thornton!) They have some DNA of someone in a tomb whose name happened to be one of the most common men's names in the first century A.D. But that doesn't prove that this is actually Jesus Christ, son of Mary & Joseph.
Weak, weak, weak.
But... I can only sit back and expect the brainless and mindless following of people who will glean whatever hateful "let's bash the Christians" mentality they can out of this attempt to shake up our faith. I can only prepare myself for the onslaught of snide snickering and taunts by people who will only believe what James Cameron, the almighty director of The Titanic, and the Terminator films will have to say about two sets of bones, and the DNA tests they ran.
Geez, they dismissed half the DNA evidence from the OJ Simpson trials because of poor DNA sampling, or contaminated evidence. I'm likelier to believe that OJ was indeed framed and/or innocent of Nicole Simpson's murder than that these bones in some 2,000 year old tomb in Israel actually belonged to the Jesus that the Bible speaks of.
The thing is this: Christianity hinges entirely on whether Jesus claims to be the Messiah were true. He made some outrageous statements that only a lunatic or a liar would make (thank you C.S. Lewis for that nice pointer...) So if he indeed didn't rise from the dead, the way he prophesied, then the poor disciples who all also were executed and martyred for their beliefs were a bunch of idiots. If they were actually just hiding his bones somewhere and eventually buried them with the rest of his family, then the martyred disciples also died for nothing. They could have just confessed to the whole thing as a hoax. But ... they didn't. Which allows me to comfortably and firmly continue believing that they did believe him to be the Messiah, and that their eye witness accounts of his resurrection were true. If they weren't... maybe we're all a bunch of idiots.
Either way, it's bound to be miserable for Christians here for a while. Prepare yourself for debates, left & right. Arm yourself with accurate science, good counter-arguments, and a calm head. Contradictory, and inciteful atheists are not likely to listen calmly to you, but that doesn't mean we have to stoop so low as to flail our fists at them. Slow & steady wins the race.