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: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonlike

Each afternoon one of the priest-monks brings out the holy relics to be worshipped.


Catholics don't 'worship' relics. VENERATE yes. Not worship. And yes, this is scriptural.

www.catholic.com...

The use of the bones of Elisha brought a dead man to life 2 Kgs. 13:20-21.

The woman cured of a hemorrhage by touching the hem of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 9:20-22) a

The sick who were healed when Peter’s shadow passed over them (Acts 5:14-16).

"And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that
handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick,
and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them" (Acts 19:11-12).

And in the O.T. people who looked upon the relic of the snakes that Moses had made were cured of snake bites.

Etc etc etc etc


Edited to add link



[edit on 2/28/2007 by FlyersFan]




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:08 AM
link   
FF, why don't all those neat, peachy-keen things happen to people around relics these days?

and do you believe that the so called "blood relics" are actually legitimate?



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Catholics don't 'worship' relics. VENERATE yes. Not worship. And yes, this is scriptural.

FryersFan sorry for telling that but i never said that!

Here is why you are missing the point:
orthodox monasteries of mount Athos


Politically it is known in Greece as the Autonomous Monastic State of the Holy Mountain. This World Heritage Site is home to 20 Eastern Orthodox monasteries and forms a semi-autonomous monastic republic within the sovereignty of the Republic of Greece. Spiritually, Mount Athos comes under the direct jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

To make it understandable, Mount Athos (some consider and the Patriarch as well), is something like the Vatican of the Orthodox Church.
A place that no women can step foot there.

Catholics dunno worship relics. We agree in that.
But Orthodoxes do.



posted on Mar, 2 2007 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dragonlike

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Catholics dunno worship relics. We agree in that.
But Orthodoxes do.


I have to disagree with you Dragonlike,

Icons are not idols and the Orthodox do not worship them. Worship is reserved for God alone.

BTW, that came from "WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM? , written by Father Micheal Azkoul of the St. Catherine Mission, St. Louis, MO of the American Orthodox Church, which follows the Eastern Orthodox tradition. For further information contact Fr. John Matusiak at
info@oca.org



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Well, after all of the hype and attempt to create controversy, I think the Lost Tomb of Jesus came off as weak, to put it very nicely. Here was a "science" documentary that ended up relying wholly upon probability and statistical analysis, neither of which provide 100% certainty of anything.

And, guess what? Without 100% certainty, we are not talking about scientific fact.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 3/4/2007 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Hello to all.

Well, I watched the show. Early on they tell of how a devout jewish religious group confiscated the bones that were found in the ossuaries, and then reburied them in the dirt somewhere east of Jerusalem?

None of the pundits hardly even mention the bones. What happened to the bones? Where are the skulls? They said they could have gotten better DNA from those bones, but apparently they seem to have been reburied nearly 30 years ago, destroying the DNA evidence, if there ever was any to begin with.

It just boggles the mind that anyone would desecrate the bones of Jesus and destroy important scientific evidence in such a way. And the media just simply ignore any mention of the bones? I suppose lots of folks would like to know: What happened to the bones? And why? Didn't anyone even bother to catalog a list of what bones were found?

Oh, and did they really rebury the bones as they said, or did someone sell Jesus' skull to a rich collector? But who is rich enough to buy such an item?

I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years Jesus' skull turns up in someone's private collection. After all, we all know what some people will do for money.



[edit on 3/4/2007 by Rudolph_X]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Rudolph

I provided a link earlier in the thread. The bones were reburied in unmarked graves.

I can't say for certain but I believe the quick reburial has to do with the faith of the Jewish people.

And again, I can't speak to the Jewish faith, but since they don't think the Messiah has come yet, these bones would mean absolutely nothing to them.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Myrtales Instinct
Rudolph

I provided a link earlier in the thread. The bones were reburied in unmarked graves.

I can't say for certain but I believe the quick reburial has to do with the faith of the Jewish people.

And again, I can't speak to the Jewish faith, but since they don't think the Messiah has come yet, these bones would mean absolutely nothing to them.


Hello Myrtales.

Thanks for your comments.

Maybe the bones meant absolutely nothing to them, but surely they would have known what they mean to Christians.

Reburying them because of religious beliefs seems acceptable, even if dubious, but if they sold them for money it would be a hideous thing to do.

Thanks again.


[edit on 3/4/2007 by Rudolph_X]



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Here was a "science" documentary that ended up relying wholly upon probability and statistical analysis, neither of which provide 100% certainty of anything.
— Doc Velocity


Actually the film maker himself called it a "docudrama" , one of the membrs on the debate panel called the film "archeological porn",
which is probably a stretch, honestly it reminded me of the type of reporting you find in the grocery store checkout line rags...



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Hi Rudolph,

Yes, I tend to agree. Now I would like to see the purported heads of John the Baptist tested for DNA. The Muslim faith is said to hold one as is the Cathlic faith. Mitochondrial DNA should be found in both Christ's and John's. At least it's something to start with.

If there were no matches it would mean nothing, however if one of the skulls matched mitochondrial DNA - to that of the DNA of the Jesus in the documentary - they my eyebrows would lift.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   
How is DNA of any use in this case ?
Unless the documentary makers have traced the descentes(SP?) of the remains I don't see how DNA can be of any use in this case.
The measuring stick I like to use is would (enter claim) stand up in court of law in terms of proof. The documentary at the very least have to answer the questions that people will ask otherwise the project belongs at the local tip.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by xpert11
How is DNA of any use in this case ?


Hello Xpert11.

Thanks for your comments.

Well, maybe the 'Illuminati' might have already cloned Jesus just to see what he looks like? Maybe they cloned more than one, to restart the bloodline? A cloned Jesus could already be in his late 20's by now? Who knows what those folks are likely to do with the DNA, once they get their hands on it, if they don't have it already? After all, its been reported that the Illuminati have technology far in advance of what is generally known.

Thanks again.


[edit on 3/4/2007 by Rudolph_X]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
To me, it would be incomprehensible for the Israel Antiquities Authority to locate what might be the skeleton of Jesus of Nazareth, and rebury the bones in an unmarked grave without even trying to study the remains — I mean, come on. I don't care if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a friggin' atheist, if you even remotely suspect that you're handling the bones of Jesus Christ, you would know that it was the greatest archaeological discovery of all time. Throw everything else out the window.

So... I don't believe for a second that the bones were reburied anywhere. Maybe placed in a cryo-vault with 13-foot-thick walls over 400 feet beneath the Vatican, but not reburied in an unmarked grave on a hillside somewhere outside Jerusalem. I just don't believe it. It defies belief...or is this more of the fiction that comprised this "docu-drama"??

We all know the kind of influence that the Vatican wields. Can you imagine that the IAA did not contact the Vatican with the news? "Hello, you have reached the Vatican, please leave your name and a brief message after the tone. BEEEP: Uh, yeah, this is the Israel Antiquities Authority, and we think MAY have found the skeletons of Jesus Christ and his family, including the Blessed Virgin Mary. What do you want us to do with them? Because, like, we thought we'd dump 'em in a landfill. Call back if you're interested. Thanks!"

Inconceivable. The reburial is the most ridiculous part of the whole story, and they just skipped right over it, like a side note.

If there was even a chance to rebuild the face of Jesus based on his actual skull, do you think that The Discovery Channel and many others would allow such a monumental opportunity to slip through their fingers? Hell no, they wouldn't pass it up — they'd be pulling out all the stops, offering enormous sums of money to the IAA for the grave location. I mean, this would make the search for the Ark of the Covenant look like a child's game of hide-n-seek.

No, this story is far from being over, I feel sure. I think that James Cameron will follow tonight's "docu-drama" with another, and perhaps another, going deeper into what actually happened to the bones. You may have noticed that tonight's program ended in a cliffhanger — the Israel Antiquities Authority issues an order to STOP EXPLORING THE TOMB!! If that's not a hook for a sequel, I don't know what is.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 3/5/2007 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Ok since probability seems important - and they say there's 1:600 chance that the tomb would not be "Jesus's" family if everyone there is who they say it is...

But what I'm wondering is...

If Jesus was killed as the WORST of criminals, if his family was shamed, his followers persecuted, and Mary runs to the hills....all this before a war that killed 1 million Jews (if Jesus died in the 30s AD most of his family and followers would have started dying around 50-70AD, and that means that it is unlikely that Jesus' family would be buried together entirely at all...).

The reason I say this is, well...the best example...

How many Holocaust survivors are buried with their relatives? Let alone in the same town or even CONTINENT as where they were born?

In times of such great persecution, the idea that such politically central figures as Jesus and his family would have survived intact and be buried together over the generations (as much as 30 years between Jesus's death and Mary's and Joseph's etc) is preposterous, if not impossible.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 07:49 AM
link   


posted by FlyersFan


posted by Dragonlike
Each afternoon one of the priest-monks brings out the holy relics to be worshiped.


Catholics don't 'worship' relics. VENERATE yes. Not worship. And yes, this is scriptural. [Edited by Don W]



Who was it that explained, “It all depends on what “IS” is?” In the overall context of religion, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between “Veneration” and “Worship.” I agree with Dragonlike, because it is for sure the “worshipers” are hoping - praying - for some magic to come from the relic. With the relic, you get magic, without the relic you don’t get magic. Magic in this case a/k/a a miracle. That is, something contrary to nature. Relics are grotesque. But for religion we would not preserve the remains of people long dead to invoke for the appearance of a miracle!

Moses produced a replica, not a relic, of a snake. It is a fictional re-telling of an “origins legend.” In those days, Egypt was so far ahead of the rest of the world that everyone wanted to claim a connection to Egypt. Hence the pyramids, the Exodus and etc.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 08:14 AM
link   


posted by FreiMaurer


But what I'm wondering is...If Jesus was killed as the WORST of criminals . . The reason I say this is, well...the best example...How many Holocaust survivors are buried with their relatives? [Edited by Don W]




When something is too good to be true, it usually is. Which is a hard way to say, it isn’t. True. The Discovery Channel feature did not explain why this story has been around since 1980 but has not caught on. From Day 1 of the popularization of the Dead Sea Scrolls there was a high level of interest around the world.

There are those of us who think Jesus was a real man. A revolutionary. That was a strong Jewish tradition. The First Jewish revolt was around 130 BC. Not against the Romans, but against the prior dominant power holding sway in Judea. Then of course, we have the famous Jewish Revolt of 66 AD. It ended in 73 at Masada. Or, 70 AD when Harod's Temple was destroyed. There was yet one more major disturbance but it did not rise to the level of a revolt in the eyes of all historians, so we sometimes see 3 Jewish revolts discussed but most of the time, we see only 2.

There is another school of thought that says Jesus was never a real person. That the whole story “evolved” in the period of the Roman occupation which was harsh. This story is based on the never ending Jewish hope for the Deliverer. The Messiah. I find it impressive that the Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem believed Simon bar Kochva - the leader of the 66 AD revolt, was the Messiah. This points towards the lack of such a claim made or title bestowed on Jesus who would have died some 30 years - maybe 2 generations - earlier. So you can safely conclude that the Jewish people of 66 AD did not believe Jesus was the Messiah.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
I just watched this docudrama last night, and while I didn't have huge hopes for it's realism, I was still pretty disappointed. Like most people on this thread I feel I have way more questions then reasonable explainations from this broadcast.

One thing that bothered me was the huge stretch of imagination it would take to believe all of the effort they were putting into the reasons behind the inscriptions, and then fail to translate the last inscription they found on the interior wall of the tomb. I mean come on people, to go to such lengths to try to validate the inscriptions on everything else, then just walk away, "OH LOOK ANOTHER INSCRIPTION, I WONDER WHAT THAT MEANS, OH WELL, GUESS WE SHOULD GO SINCE THAT MEAN LOOKING LADY CAME AND TOLD US TO STOP." Give me a freakin break.

Then to only take two samples of DNA, why couldn't they scrap off some more from the others? And who actually gets posession of the DNA they found? Does it just get buried somewhere like the remains did?

Their story just didn't sit well with me, I don't think they really investigated enough to really get their hands dirty, you know what I mean? I would expect them to be banging on the IAA's door, questioning their motives in this whole thing. I think if there was any real truth to this, then it was concealed twenty years ago, and this docudrama team was more interested in ratings then really finding any scientific evidence.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
I watched the program and I must say that it was incredibly compelling. It did demonstrate that it is statistacally probable that the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth has been located.

This brought two important realizations to me.

First, the Christian Bible is not entirely accurate - I always assumed this, but now there are statistics that lend some support to my belief.

Second, Jesus really did exist and the Christian Bible is not entirely inaccurate. I always thought that there were some bits of truth in it here and there - some small nuggets of wisdom - but now I must admit that there may be more accuracy in the Christian Bible than I ever gave it credit for having.

While I have no plans of converting to Christianity, I think I do need to give the Christian Bible more credit than I do. Although I will never know which parts are bunk and which parts are true, I now believe more than ever, that Jesus was actually a real person and that his family members were real people as well. That puts a facinating spin on it that I lacked before.



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   


posted by Strangefire

I just watched this docudrama last night . . I was still pretty disappointed. One thing that bothered me was the huge stretch of imagination it would take to believe all of the effort they were putting into the reasons behind the inscriptions, and then fail to translate the last inscription they found on the interior wall of the tomb . . then just walk away, "Oh look! Another inscription. I wonder what that means. Oh well, guess we should go since that mean looking lady came and told us to stop.” Then to take only two samples of DNA, why couldn't they scrap off some from the others? And who actually gets possession of the DNA they found? Does it just get buried somewhere like the remains did? [Edited by Don W]



I missed that part about the DNA. Bathroom, etc. I am under the impression it is very difficult - say unlikely - to be able to find DNA from remains so old. So desiccated. Yes, DNA is OK from the 5,000 years old Ice Man, but he was ‘preserved.’ We could track his last 24-48 hours of travel by looking at the contents of his digestive tract. I’m waiting for more on the DNA.



The story didn't sit well with me . . I don't think they really investigated enough to get their hands dirty . . I would expect them to be banging on the IAA's door. I think if there was any real truth to this, it was concealed twenty years ago . . this docudrama team was more interested in ratings then finding any scientific evidence.



I agree 100%.



posted by wellwhatnow

I must say that it was incredibly compelling. It did demonstrate that it is statistically probable that the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth has been located. This brought two important realizations to me. First, the Christian Bible is not entirely accurate - I always assumed this, but now there are statistics that lend some support to my belief. Second, Jesus really did exist and the Christian Bible is not entirely inaccurate. I always thought that there were some bits of truth in it here and there - some small nuggets of wisdom - but now I must admit that there may be more accuracy in the Christian Bible than I ever gave it credit for having. [Edited by Don W]



Assume, Mr W/W/N, that Jesus spoke Aramaic. He read Hebrew, but he spoke Aramaic. The first writing down of what happened in the 3 years from 30 to 33 AD - CE - most probably took place in the late 50s or even post the 66-70 Revolt. We believe the reason for this delay in writing it down was the original followers of Jesus believed He would come again, soon, and the World would end. OTOH, another scenario has Him not dead and those were looking for a Messiah to lead them in defeating the Romans. Regardless, we do not have any of the first documents. We are stuck with copies of copies of copies.

We feel confident the original writings were in Greek, the lingua franca of the Mediterranean Sea basin. Later, the Greek was translated into Latin, then finally into English. Every language has its peculiar idioms, its own nuances, which vary from generation to generation within the language.

Lexicology - the study of use and meaning of words - is new, well, new since the 19th century. My point is this: How can we know today, in English, what Jesus really said nearly 2,000 years ago, in Aramaic? And more consequential, what did he mean? We have a “story” like, akin to Aesop or Grimm. Over the millennia we have constructed a religious system around what amounts to a myth. Sort of what the Greeks did. And the Romans. Following on what the Egyptians did. And the Babylonians. And the Persians. And etc. Nothing we have today could be introduced into a court of law as evidence. It would all be excluded on the grounds it is hear-say. Religion is a multi-trillion dollar enterprise and those who are at the top are not about to let that go!



Although I will never know which parts are bunk and which parts are true, I now believe more than ever, that Jesus was actually a real person and that his family members were real people as well. That puts a fascinating spin on it that I lacked before.



Before the Age of the Enlightenment, people were necessarily gullible. 99% of the populace had to work from daylight to dark, 6 days a week. They were grateful to have a day off, even if it meant being harangued all day by the religious. Almost none of the poor could read or write. People were at the mercy of those who could. There were no schools for them. People did not know where the wind came. Or why there were storms, lightning, and other natural calamities. Much of the unknowns were attributed to God rewarding or punishing them for doing good or doing evil. Especially the Great Plagues of the 14th century. The Black Death.

Perhaps the Enlightenment was born at the Treaty of Westphalia, 1648. The end of the last War of Religion in Europe. I would be more inclined to rely on the Jewish histories than on any of the Christian histories. Jews have a tradition of scholarship, Christians were buffoons until lately. Many of them still are.

I take the position that it was Emperor Constantine who is the Founder of Christianity. Around 325-350 AD. CE. It is notable that the Bishop of Rome was just one among many in the 4th century. In fact, the Bishop of Rome did not contribute anything to the First Council of Nicea. I’m not even sure he was invited. You may find the Dead Sea Scrolls of interest, too, if you find the First Century of the Common Era intriguing. As much for what is not there, as for what is there.

Cheers.

[edit on 3/5/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Mar, 5 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by strangefires
Then to only take two samples of DNA, why couldn't they scrap off some more from the others? And who actually gets posession of the DNA they found? Does it just get buried somewhere like the remains did?

Their story just didn't sit well with me, I don't think they really investigated enough to really get their hands dirty, you know what I mean? I would expect them to be banging on the IAA's door, questioning their motives in this whole thing. I think if there was any real truth to this, then it was concealed twenty years ago, and this docudrama team was more interested in ratings then really finding any scientific evidence.


I think there is much more to this story than any of us know. Remember that the media will show us what they want us to see and they will hide what they don't want us to see. It's all part of the "control" game. They want us all to be confused and bicker about it, which is why we need to just be patient and watch how it all plays out.




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join