... as Jesus discovery. My scepticism over the find is narrowing:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanId=sa003&articleId=14A3C2E6-E7F2-99DF-37A9AEC98FB0702A
2007-03-04 13:10:48 · 17 answers · asked by Brendan G 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I haven't seen the raw data, but it certainly looks to be a reasonable calculation. Give the population of the area at the time, it seems about right.
2007-03-04 13:25:52 · answer #1 · answered by novangelis 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I read that Jesus Christ was 1 in 8000 who were called "Jesus, son of Joseph" during that time period. I also heard that 1 in 5 women were named Mary.
Plus, the tomb found was near a brother named as Matthew, and Jesus' brothers were mentioned.
also, people should use common sense. If the stories going around were "Jesus rose from the dead", then if Christ's tomb was robbed, then they wouldn't put the body in a marked grave...
Jesus left no bones...
2007-03-04 13:17:45 · answer #2 · answered by Hey, Ray 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
So the odds are 600-1 that the tomb belong to Jesus Christ and you take that bet.
are you one of those who bet against the 10 to the 123rd power odds against life happening by the accidential formation of amino acids?
2007-03-04 13:27:54 · answer #3 · answered by Deus Luminarium 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Scholars all over the place are labeling James Cameron's claim ridiculous. He should have actually asked someone to verify before releasing a full-blown documentary, and he's now taking the heat for it. (see link below for list of news articles on Google news about it)
2007-03-04 13:15:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it does no longer replace my concept equipment in any respect. i'm a Morovingian. that means that if Jesus and Mary Magdalene married, and had babies, then I and my babies are descendents. If no longer, effective. Jesus the Christ had a code of ethics and a phylosophy it truly is unparrelled in historic previous. i do no longer understand only what may take position to Christianity, speficically Roman Catholicism. it may don't have any result on me.
2016-12-05 06:12:03 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no issues with all of the tombs and bodies being exactly who James Cameron says they are. Only Jesus was supposed to be raised from the dead; all the others were ordinary mortals so they are entitled to have bodies in caskets. Jesus was the son of god or god in human form and that makes him human with a body and also entitled to a casket. "Raised from the dead" wasn't supposed to mean that his physical body was recycled - its a belief, a myth. god doesnt need a physical body to bring his son back - and if he did, he could always make a new one.
2007-03-04 14:11:51 · answer #6 · answered by jinoturistica 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
tomb was found 30 yrs ago, nothing important there
no bones, DNA scraping showed no relationship to those in tomb
9 other tombs in area have same names
those are the most common names for that region
its just a marketing campaign for a movie
2007-03-04 13:13:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
There are problems with the way they caulate the satistics in the documentary.Ben Witherington has a good piece abbout the book/film on his blog,if you care to take a look.It is not Jesus' tomb.
http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/
http://www.extremetheology.com/
2007-03-04 13:14:06 · answer #8 · answered by Serena 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Statistics don't lie but liars use statistics. The chances of that tomb being what Cameron claims it is are less than slim. I
2007-03-04 13:20:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sounds about right. Also remember that all the names are extremely common, and the one thought to be Magdalene are a stretched assumption.
Thumbs up for Nunoyvgvna Awi, well said.
2007-03-04 13:14:04 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋