It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Film to document discovery of Jesus' burial site

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malichai

Originally posted by Nygdan
Ok, what are the names of hte people producing this documentary?


Do we really have to play name the Jew? Didn't you read the article?

Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron, both controversial Jews.

James Cameron is a christian protestant.


Access to the site and material was controlled by the Israeli Antiquities Authority.

So you see Isreali Antiquities Authority, and the word that sticks out is "Israeli", not the whole antiquities thing?
And, again, the IAA isn't the one claiming that this site, discovered nearly 30 years ago, is the 'grave' of jesus or has anything to do with him.

THe people that actually made the discovery and researched it were largely jews, and never said that it was the grave of jesus. Its only these filmakers now that are claiming thats what it is, and only one of them even has a jewish name, let alone is an actual jew.


Where is there a Christian or Muslim or other hand in this?

One of the directors of the documentary, which is the only source making this claim, is christian.

Not everyone in hollywood is an 'evil joo'.


It goes to the point that anyone trying to dig up Muhameds body is Anti-Islamic.

If a person was specifically looking for mohammed's remains, you could at least make that arguement. But that is nothing like what happened here. A discovery was made, ossuaries with those particular names. From that, the documentary film makers have concluded that it was actually jesus, mary, etc. You can hardly fault the israeli archaeologists who did a damned fine job of making the discovery, researching, and preserving the material.


And even if a person was to look for the tomb of mohammed, why would that be anti-islamic? They'd be looking for the truth. They wouldn't beleive that a body is going to fly up into the blue sky and pass through physical pearly gates and enter heaven, so why shouldn't they look for the truth? Why are you saying being pro-truth is anti-islamic or anti-christian? Its clearly not. There could be hundreds of possible motivations for looking for jesus' tomb, or mohammed's tomb, or making a documentary about an interpretation of a discovery, it clearly doesnt' require that a person be anti-anything.



dirty_underground
Would this change any part of the teachings. Does the Bible say that he acended into Heaven, or is just another assumption by the Christians

The bible pretty clearly says that he was physically resurrected and physically ascended into heaven, his tomb was empty.

There is no way to demonstrate that any remains would belong to jesus.


If the bible states this fact then this could be evidence that the bible has discrepencies right?

This is already known. Faith has nothing to do with examining physical evidence, and indeed it would be a weak faith to be subject to changing interpretations of physical evidence.




posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Mohammad's ascention. Yes, Muslims say he ascended from the Temple Mount to heaven, but that wasn't at his death, only when has taken up to heaven to receive the laws from God. He died much later and has a tomb in Medina, Saudi Arabia.

edit:

see:
en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 2/24/2007 by djohnsto77]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I thought that that didn't sound right DJ, good call.


upload.wikimedia.org...

Thats a fine looking building too. Notice the extensive use of green carpets, apparently that is the familial colour of Mohammed (and thus why the islamic flags so often are green).



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:26 PM
link   
The article only states they have coffins "that held" the remains. Does anyone know if they actually have bone or something? The article says they have DNA experts but it doesn't say what they tested.

I wonder if all they have are coffins with inscriptions?

There is just no way. There is nothing to test against. Even if all the known relics purported to be of John the Baptists - even if all were tested, they would be looking for mitachondrial DNA from...... Mathan's mother. Mathan being both Mary and Elizabeth's grandfather.

It's totally impossible, in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Well dead people don't come back to life I don't need a documentary to tell me that.
I will watch how Christians reaction with some interest judging by the reaction to the Da vinci code the truth may be stranger then fiction. Although in this case I'm not saying that Mary Magdelene had a kid with Jesus . Best to eait and see how this plays out.

[edit on 24-2-2007 by xpert11]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Well, if James Cameron is pushing this documentary, you can bet he paid the money for whatever "science" was necessary. That's not saying that Cameron's stable of "scientists" are right or wrong, just that they provided whatever results he wanted. I don't see Cameron as particularly anti-Christian or anti-Semitic, but I do see him as an over-the-top showman who knows a controversial opportunity when it rears its head.

And, where there's no controversy — as was the case with this long-dormant, 27-year-old discovery of a Jewish crypt — then I'm sure Cameron is more than willing to create controversy and exploit it.

I figure there's a blockbuster movie a-brewin' and James Cameron is in the thick of it, stirring up controversy in advance with his trademark "scientific" documentaries, just as he did with his treatment of Titanic. The guy shelled out millions of dollars for multiple dives on the famous ship, produced documentaries detailing the "research," only to produce a weak-ass piece of fantasy with campy acting and a preposterous love story at its core. Hey, he broke boxoffice records with it, but it probably wouldn't have been such a success without his "scientific" preparations & marketing.

Probably the same thing he's up to with this Tomb of Jesus documentary — laying his "scientific" foundation for a future fantasy film.

Never mind that Jesua, Judah, Mary and Josef were all extremely common Jewish names 2000 years ago in the Middle East. In fact, one in every three women back then was named Mary... This would be something like finding a crypt containing the remains of "Mike" and "Bob" and "Susan" and "Linda," and then trying to manufacture the science to prove that it was the tomb of Mike Wallace, Bob Schieffer, Susan Estrich and Linda Ellerbee, all lame-ass television personalities buried together for some reason. I mean, you can make this the tomb of anybody you want, based on the names alone.

And James Cameron has obtained DNA evidence for Jesus Christ? Give me a friggin' break. He must need another blockbuster really bad — do you think perhaps the Titanic money has already run out?


— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/24/2007 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:17 AM
link   
The article says this: "But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family."


Does anyone have an idea on how DNA evidence would prove anything? I am sort of lost on that one unless they just mean that all the people in the cave were related and that was proven with DNA.

With so much fraud coming out of that area lately they better be really sure what they are doing before they proclaim to have discovered Jesus's remains. I personally think that if this is all true Cameron is going to sink on this one - the pun was intended.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Well, they *might* test alongside what they know is from the line of King David. They do have this pretty much established...but then again...as far as King Solomon having 300 wives and 700 concubines (or vice versa)...and most of the offspring was female, supposedly...
we are all related to King David by now!

At the bottom of the page:


A likely candidate for the 'empty tomb.'


As far as what we've been led to imagine...i highly suspect just about all so called *spots* of interest. it is usually located thusly to line someone's pockets.

Besides that
WHO cares about a body when the spirit transcends? We just get a new body!


Jesus, too. Why not?

ALSO
the 'evil joooos' would expect bones to be left in order to be resurrected in the world-to-come. Not having an ossuary for Jesus seems a little off-base as far as the beliefs and customs of the day.



Originally posted by Marg6043
Pardon my ignorance but what finding the truth about what could be the biggest hoax lasting for 3 centuries is an attack to Christianity and religion?


NO KIDDING. :shk:



i got no WATS this late in the month or i'd give you one, sister love!



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
James Cameron is going to hold a press conference about this documentary on Monday.

I can't see Cameron getting involved in this subject unless he thought there was something to it, he's not a stupid man.

Personally I hope they can prove it somehow, because I'd enjoy watching the hysterical fallout of Christians as they try to revamp the religion or just watch it fall apart. At least that would be one down, and one step closer to peace on Earth.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:24 AM
link   


Personally I hope they can prove it somehow, because I'd enjoy watching the hysterical fallout of Christians as they try to revamp the religion or just watch it fall apart. At least that would be one down, and one step closer to peace on Earth.



Some liberal Christians do not accept a literal bodily resurrection,[8] seeing the story as richly symbolic and spiritually nourishing myth. Also, a once large group of Christians known as the Gnostics argued against its singular importance, as they had differing views as to how the passages should be interpreted, many believing Jesus was never a human and so could not have died (see: Docetism).


en.wikipedia.org...

Even Christians have differing views on the resurrection.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Well, if James Cameron is pushing this documentary, you can bet he paid the money for whatever "science" was necessary. That's not saying that Cameron's stable of "scientists" are right or wrong, just that they provided whatever results he wanted. I don't see Cameron as particularly anti-Christian or anti-Semitic, but I do see him as an over-the-top showman who knows a controversial opportunity when it rears its head.

And, where there's no controversy — as was the case with this long-dormant, 27-year-old discovery of a Jewish crypt — then I'm sure Cameron is more than willing to create controversy and exploit it.

I figure there's a blockbuster movie a-brewin' and James Cameron is in the thick of it, stirring up controversy in advance with his trademark "scientific" documentaries, just as he did with his treatment of Titanic. The guy shelled out millions of dollars for multiple dives on the famous ship, produced documentaries detailing the "research," only to produce a weak-ass piece of fantasy with campy acting and a preposterous love story at its core. Hey, he broke boxoffice records with it, but it probably wouldn't have been such a success without his "scientific" preparations & marketing.

Probably the same thing he's up to with this Tomb of Jesus documentary — laying his "scientific" foundation for a future fantasy film.

Never mind that Jesua, Judah, Mary and Josef were all extremely common Jewish names 2000 years ago in the Middle East. In fact, one in every three women back then was named Mary... This would be something like finding a crypt containing the remains of "Mike" and "Bob" and "Susan" and "Linda," and then trying to manufacture the science to prove that it was the tomb of Mike Wallace, Bob Schieffer, Susan Estrich and Linda Ellerbee, all lame-ass television personalities buried together for some reason. I mean, you can make this the tomb of anybody you want, based on the names alone.

And James Cameron has obtained DNA evidence for Jesus Christ? Give me a friggin' break. He must need another blockbuster really bad — do you think perhaps the Titanic money has already run out?


— Doc Velocity

[edit on 2/24/2007 by Doc Velocity]


I agree with everything you say.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38


Originally posted by Marg6043
Pardon my ignorance but what finding the truth about what could be the biggest hoax lasting for 3 centuries is an attack to Christianity and religion?


NO KIDDING. :shk:



i got no WATS this late in the month or i'd give you one, sister love!


No problem



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
I figure there's a blockbuster movie a-brewin' and James Cameron is in the thick of it, stirring up controversy in advance with his trademark "scientific" documentaries, just as he did with his treatment of Titanic. The guy shelled out millions of dollars for multiple dives on the famous ship, produced documentaries detailing the "research," only to produce a weak-ass piece of fantasy with campy acting and a preposterous love story at its core. Hey, he broke boxoffice records with it, but it probably wouldn't have been such a success without his "scientific" preparations & marketing.

Probably the same thing he's up to with this Tomb of Jesus documentary — laying his "scientific" foundation for a future fantasy film.

Never mind that Jesua, Judah, Mary and Josef were all extremely common Jewish names 2000 years ago in the Middle East. In fact, one in every three women back then was named Mary... This would be something like finding a crypt containing the remains of "Mike" and "Bob" and "Susan" and "Linda," and then trying to manufacture the science to prove that it was the tomb of Mike Wallace, Bob Schieffer, Susan Estrich and Linda Ellerbee, all lame-ass television personalities buried together for some reason. I mean, you can make this the tomb of anybody you want, based on the names alone.

And James Cameron has obtained DNA evidence for Jesus Christ? Give me a friggin' break. He must need another blockbuster really bad — do you think perhaps the Titanic money has already run out?



You may have had a bit of a point had you had any understanding of the film business or Cameron's contributions to both the science community and movies, but you haven't and you don't.

First things first. He wanted to explore the Titanic and do deep sea diving, as well as practically rebuild the Titanic and reconstruct its sinking. You don't get over a $250 MILLION budget from 20th Century Fox (that's right, 20th Century Fox provided the budget for Titanic, not Cameron with 'all of his millions' as you seem to want to imply) just so you can recreate an event in history for your own interests without it being sellable. So he gave the studio a reason to believe it could make money by writing in the fictitious "tragic love story", and that got the ball rolling. Without that he would never have got the money to make the movie. Also let's not overlook the fact that Cameron FORFEITED his $8 million director's salary and his percentage of the gross when the studio became concerned about the huge budget. Does that sound like a man concerned by money to you?

This is a compromise made by most filmmakers to get the money necessary to create the stories they want to tell, yet you make out like he's some evil genius. Hmmm...

The factual parts of that movie are breath taking, whilst the love story is told in a typical sentimentally tacky way that the girls in their millions are sure to love. It worked, the movie made over a billion and Cameron got not only to do new research on the Titanic but recreate the event, as well as spend the last 10 or so years doing numerous deep sea explorations within the scientific community who would not have had the funding otherwise.

The love story was to make the huge budget of the movie viable for the studios, but no one can take away the awesome recreation of the Titanic and how its sinking was presented. How brilliantly that part of the film came across and how corny the love story did only shows the contempt he had for the love story aspect and where his real interests lied within making the movie. That is not a coincidence.

Now onto his motives. Cameron is a man of science. The guy has created the latest in effects technology as well as other advances in the film industry since the early 80's. This is also confirmed just by looking at his filmography, which includes The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss etc.

All very seriously handled science fiction films, dealing with advances in technology and future science that he has an interest in. Of course all have a blockbuster element involved to make these movies financially viable to the studios, but that is a compromise that all filmmakers have to make. As a result of it Cameron has been at the cutting edge of science with such movies as the technology has had to be invented to make these movies work!

After the success of Titanic he has been able to pull a lot of weight in the industry and has been able to get funding for his scientific documentaries such as Ghosts of the Abyss and Aliens of the Deep (which dealt with a possible space exploration to Europa and how any life found there could be similar to life found at the bottom of our oceans, which is why he's been doing it for so long!). He's also planned for a long time to be the first man to make a feature film in space, and will no doubt base it around a love story; it's a fair compromise for the opportunity.


Add to that that for his soon to be new movies Avatar and Battle Angel his production team and he have created ground-breaking new camera and special effects technology to be able to pull it off!

Now this is a very long winded post but the point of it all is...

After seeing where his primary interests lay (Science/Science Fiction), and after seeing the ground-breaking work he has made in his field, what would suddenly make the man turn to the subject of religion?! He would not be involved with this unless he believes there is discoveries to be made and that there is a way to back them up.

For you to disrespect the man by claiming his primary motives are money and pretty much labelling him a hack is a disgrace! The guy is one of the best filmmakers of our times as an innovator, if not a story-teller (depending on your point of view). He is motivated by discoveries, not money.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by etshrtslr


en.wikipedia.org...

Even Christians have differing views on the resurrection.


It's begun already!



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:07 PM
link   


posted by marg6043

I believe if I am not mistaken that this comes after the coffin found and supposedly [to have] been of Jesus’ brother proved to be a hoax . . The problem with the new findings are . . that they are part of a new media propaganda [push] to attract tourist and believers to visit the site that [conveniently] happens to be in Israel.

The Christian community is very angry about the claims because it takes away the belief of a resurrection and puts Jesus as just a simple human being. I still think is interesting. . . but no believable, because if it is actually true . . . then there goes Jesus’ divinity! [Edited by Don W]



As of today, Sunday, there have been 319 replies to the story. I think Marg6043 has nailed this one down! A scheme to enhance the tourist trade this summer. But this whole thing - the coffins - like the Da Vinci Code movie, is interesting. Not authoritative, but intellectually challenging. A welcome change from the Iraq War and Congress.

Once upon a time I bought the first 10 years (a quarterly) of the Biblical Archeological Review - BAR - edited by Herschel Shanks, and I think I have a good understanding of the problems facing “diggers” in Israel and vicinity today. Herschel Shanks is rightly praised for doggedly pursuing the Israeli government to reclaim the Dead Sea Scrolls and to assure the total and immediate accessability by any legitimate scholar. He fought that struggle for more than 2 decades and he is primarily responsible for that significant achievement.

The publishers of the BAR - it's still published as a monthly - always walked a clean line between religious advocacy and good science. Transparent. The BAR has never - to my best knowledge - became partisan in its efforts to help us understand the ancient Holy Land.

One of the most interesting stories was that of Helena, mother of Emperor Constantine and sometimes called "Empress." Sometime around 325 AD (CE in PC usage) she went to Jerusalem and its environs and sought out all the religiously significant sites mentioned in the Bible. Golgotha. Gethsemane. The City Gates. Stations of the Cross. The Tomb used by Jesus. The place of Jesus’ birth. And maybe other sites I have forgotten all too long ago.

I brought this up because there is strong evidence that the native inhabitants of old Judea had not placed much if any weight on those sites until Helena arrived in the 4th century with gold and Imperial demands. In other words, it was not an option to say “I don’t know where it is” when she has just said, "Take me to . . " When she demanded to be taken to the tomb, you took her. Ipso facto, that place became the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. And so on.

It is also of some interest that the West Wall - what we call it today - which is said to be the last remnant of Solomon’s Temple, was reconstructed by Constantine and has been reconstructed again in the 11th or 12th century. Which is to say, it is not all that certain that today's West Wall really is what it is claimed to be. Many secular historians now question the reality of Saul, David and Solomon, the first 3 kings of the Israelites. Whether legendary - based on remote facts - or mythological - a pure invention of fiction - is the debate. These historians seriously question whether the ever was a Solomon's Temple.

Here is an incongruence. There is one odd fact known about the era of the Babylonian captivity; the Ark of the Covenant "disappeared" from old Israel and its resting place in the Holy of Holies in the Temple. It was never seen again nor written about or even mentioned in Holy Scripture. Why is that? The most sacred artifact in Judaism goes missing and no one ever asks about it again?

I don’t believe the story of the coffins is true.

[edit on 2/25/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   
the biggest reason i'm interested in this story is just to see the fundamentalist response to it

especially if it is true
actually, it being true is slightly bittersweet for me, as i would be proven wrong on the historicity of "jesus"

well, c'est la vie



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
I know that there will be people eager to believe this story. Many believed the fiction book, the davinci code, was true also.

As of now there isn't a shred of proof that this story is believable, except for some PR for a documentary. Some people are ready to believe anything but the Christian truth about Jesus.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   


It's begun already!


I think its been this way since the beginning of christianity.

Even the first council nicaea had debates over who exactly was Jesus.


The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius (the Arians) and the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria (now known as homoousians). Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation. A third group (now known as homoiousians) tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.



Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten".


en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 25-2-2007 by etshrtslr]



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mahree
Some people are ready to believe anything but the Christian truth about Jesus.


and from that statement it seems like you would be unable to accept anything that would shake your worldview and your "truth"



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

Originally posted by Mahree
Some people are ready to believe anything but the Christian truth about Jesus.


and from that statement it seems like you would be unable to accept anything that would shake your worldview and your "truth"


I wouldn't say that I am unable to accept "anything". Yes, I do believe what is now the Christian truth about Jesus. I would have to see a lot more proof to change my mind.

I didn't label the DaVinci book fiction, it is labeled on the book cover as fiction. So, no I don't accept that book as truth.

As far as this new documentary is concerned how can they prove or disprove the statements that these people are Jesus and family?




top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join