Cameron is pandering to the public and his "discovery" will be proven to be just bad science:
- The statistical analysis is flawed and the person conducting the analysis has backed off their conclusions in an open letter to statisticians, stating "I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the NT family." See http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt
- The name "Jesus" was a popular name at that time, appearing in 98 other tombs and on 21 other ossuaries
- There is no historical evidence that Jesus was ever married or had a child
- The earliest followers of Jesus never called him, "Jesus, son of Joseph"
- It's unlikely Joseph, who had died earlier in Galilee, would have been buried in Jerusalem
- The Talipot tomb and ossuaries probably would have belonged to a rich family, which is not a historical match for Jesus
- Fourth-century church historian Eusebius makes quite clear the body of James, brother of Jesus, was buried alone near the temple mount.
- The two Mary ossuaries do not mention anyone from Migdal, but just Mary, a common name
- By all ancient accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty, making it unlikely that any body was moved, allowed to decay for a year, then be put into an ossuary.
- If Jesus had remained in the tomb, first-century opponents of Christianity would most certainly have found His body and put it on public display.
- Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the conclusions cannot be supported by the evidence but it's a way to make money on television. He would have nothing to do with supporting the movie's assertions. "It's nonsense," he said.
- James, the half-brother of Jesus and author of the book of James, the early leader of the church in Jerusalem, was martyred for his faith. Why does James make no mention in his letter that Jesus was not bodily resurrected? When he was about to die why didn't he just recant his beliefs and say, 'Okay, okay! My brother didn't rise from the dead. Here's where we took him. Here's where his bones are. Here's our family tomb. We made the whole thing up?' People will generally not die for a lie when they know it's a lie. Why would James die perpetuating a lie when it would have been so easy to disprove? In fact why would any of the apostles go to their deaths for something they knew to be false?
As I have expected, there has been **no scientific or historical find** that has ever been shown to disprove the authenticity of the bible's history or theology.
Kind of disappointing to see that all it takes is a press conference and a slick TV show for some folks to form life-altering opinions versus taking the time to rationally examine all the issues and dig a little deeper. It is the Macdonald's generation: fast, superficial, and never satisfying.
2007-03-15 13:06:03
·
answer #1
·
answered by Ask Mr. Religion 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, its not true, if it were true it would be in the bible. The purpose for Jesus coming to earth was to fulfill prophecy, not to have sex or have children. He came for only one reason and it was to save you and me from our sins. Christ was not a human as you and i are, He was God in flesh, so that we may relate to him. Yet He was sinless..“And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.”
—1 John 5:11-12 NKJV
You must be careful, remember The Bible makes it abundantly clear that false teachers will deceive many people into believing false doctrines. The only way to know for sure that you are right with God is to know what He has to say and trust Him rather than men. There are scriptures that speak about this, one is Matthew 7:15,16, another is
2 Timothy 4:3,4
2007-03-15 13:18:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by K 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Remember we are living in the Western world (most of us) and the events that surrounded him were recorded in the east. There are books about Jesus that never came to these shores until the 70's. Imagine how much u've missed.
He actually had 5 children 3 boys & 2 girls bu this is not found in the bible because it would contradict the present doctrine that is held by the scriptures- compiled by the Nicean council. However the books that were leftout can be found & the stories do conincide with each other.
2007-03-15 13:05:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Nuwaubian Moor 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
It depends on whom you believe and what kind of a person you think Jesus was. He was never married, as far as we know. On the other hand, he may have not publicized his marriage. There was no particular reason for him to be celibate. Chances are that he had a bunch of kids, both sons and daughters. One theory is that the Holy Grail is not an object but the last (or first) child of Jesus.
2007-03-15 13:01:03
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anpadh 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
authentic. How can a guy claiming to be the Son of God not replace the international then and right this moment? If he isnt authentic, then why do human beings communicate approximately him? Why is the biggest faith interior the international based around him? something surpassed off over 2000 years in the past to alter the way existence is. he's the authentic Savior of anybody.
2016-12-18 14:46:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by zabel 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jesus Rodruiguez from Puerta Valllaerta Mexico had a son.
2007-03-15 12:59:51
·
answer #6
·
answered by wigginsray 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
I've never heard of him referred to as "the virgin Jesus", have you? he certainly loved people, had followers, people who thought he was the bees knees. And- there wasn't any modern birth control in those days.
Granted- it's too long ago for us to know for sure,
and we do know that the new testament is well edited- so:
Why **wouldn't ** he have had a child?
Seems rather reasonable that he did- and it became irrelavent as to his teachings.
2007-03-15 13:07:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by Morey000 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
well, we can never have any idea about that. its a thing that people fight over, maybe even kill for those who truly believe. i am a Christian and i should believe that he didnt ahve a son, he is divine. but this days, we can never really know, is it even true that he existed? what if the bible is just the greatest novel ever written? we can never find out. and until we die, and meet Him, if ever we do, that may be the only time to know. but right now, people, scientist, authors can say anything they want about Jesus and his "blood line"
we dont really have to mind them, you know.
2007-03-15 13:02:24
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
He represent the Father, Son and holy Spirit. Therefore we are his sons.
2007-03-15 13:00:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by Book of Answers 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
--IS IT TRUE that you had 20 daughters 25 sons and raised 500 elephants & 5 gorillas in your mobile home?
2007-03-15 15:09:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by THA 5
·
0⤊
0⤋