Author Topic: James Cameron Has Found Jesus... Literally (Read 2876 times)

Kei · « **on:** February 25, 2007, 06:50:13 PM »

Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.

This is more general news than entertainment so I chucked it in here.

Tuffty · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2007, 07:36:34 PM »

Oh great. Cue angry evangelicals and media coverage before, during and after the films release. :evil:

StreakInTheSky · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2007, 10:28:14 PM »

I've heard about a lot of those theories about jesus and stuff, but never knew about the coffins found. Sounds interesting enough I might watch this.

reyfer · « **Reply #3 on:** February 27, 2007, 02:47:27 AM »

He got the wrong place, he should be looking at a small building called the Rauza-Bal (Tomb of the Prophet) in Srinagar, Kashmir. He got the part about Mary Magdalene and Jesus having a son right.

Foxy Brown · « **Reply #4 on:** February 27, 2007, 03:03:03 AM »

Quote from: reyfer;318055

He got the wrong place, he should be looking at a small building called the Rauza-Bal (Tomb of the Prophet) in Srinagar, Kashmir.

You're way off.

xtree · « **Reply #5 on:** February 27, 2007, 03:46:12 AM »

i heard about this also, can't really say i'm convinced by the documentary so far. I think it cud probably be a easy way to get attention especially when it involves religion

i'm still gonna watch it tho haha

shadowstar · « **Reply #6 on:** February 27, 2007, 04:16:16 AM »

I'll most likely watch it too, just because stuff like this always intrigues me.

I'm going to be so sick of my parent's friends warning me not to watch it though because it's "bad for me" and "destroys the faith". They said that about the 'DaVinci Code' too which I think is utter BS.

Believe what you want to believe. You're an idiot if you make a MOVIE totally destroy your faith, and people can't tell me what I can't watch, I'll watch whatever movie I want.

Damaramu · « **Reply #7 on:** February 27, 2007, 04:21:14 AM »

Gott damn, Jim! Just get Battle Angel out!

reyfer · « **Reply #8 on:** February 27, 2007, 05:53:47 AM »

Quote from: Foxy Brown;318063

You're way off.

Sorry, I have been to Kashmir, and have visited both the Rauza-Bal and the Hemis monastery where russian writer and traveller Nikolai Notovich found the Issa Scroll that narrates the journeys of Jesus to northern India during the years the Bible doesn't account for (between age 13 and 32) and later his return and death there.
http://www.tombofjesus.com/About/index.htm

ziggurat · « **Reply #9 on:** February 27, 2007, 06:09:58 AM »

^ reyfer, I think Foxy just joking

There are too much speculation about this.

I wanna watch this too. Sound awesome to me.

ctz · « **Reply #10 on:** March 01, 2007, 05:02:54 AM »

I wanna be a little skeptical here, haven't they found these pots with "Jesus" written on them many times before as well?

RetsuMarippe · « **Reply #11 on:** March 01, 2007, 05:51:21 AM »

that one is another sensitive issue for various religions...should be treated with caution cause it may spark confusion...tsk tsk tsk...

Kei · « **Reply #12 on:** March 01, 2007, 06:27:23 AM »

Quote from: ctz;319725

I wanna be a little skeptical here, haven't they found these pots with "Jesus" written on them many times before as well?

Not "Jesus", but "Yehoshua" (Joshua), which is what his name was (I don't know why people think his name actually was Jesus Christ). And yes, you're right; there have been many findings of tombs with caskets that had biblical names inscribed on them.

chera · « **Reply #13 on:** March 01, 2007, 11:23:50 AM »

I was arguing over the math of this with my dad about this last night. Neither of us are Christian, by the way - we're more like die hard cynics.

The methodology used to calculate the probability that this Jesus son of Joseph was the Jesus son of Joseph and that this Maria was the Mary were a bit suspect.

Here's what they did: they calculated the probability that any random person of that time would be named "Yeshu Ben Yossef", and that any random person would be named "Mary". Same thing for Judah, Joseph, and Matthew. Then they multiplied those probabilities in order to find the conditional probability that all of those would be found together. They applied some further fuzz factors to calculate that the probability that this wasn't the actual Jesus and Mary was 1/600, or that there was a 599/600 chance that this actual was the holy family of Christianity.

What they didn't do was figure out that the chances that a couple would give a certain name to their children wasn't independent of their own names. Damn it, that didn't come out so clearly. Think about it this way: a parent will often not choose his child's name randomly (although the archeo/mathematicians assumed they did). A parent often chooses his child's name based on the names of their parents. My dad's name is P.... and he named me P.... My little sister's name is S...p... The names just sound better that way. Likewise, a person by the name of Joseph wouldn't choose his child's name randomly, he would be more likely to choose something that had a relationship to his own. Basically, this increases the probability that a particular set of names would be found together, and reduces the probability that this particular family found in the tomb was the holy family.

That's not even accounting for the mitochondrial DNA results, but then again, from what I've read, the mDNA doesn't provide a solid proof of anything - except that the contents of the "Jesus" tomb weren't related to the contents of the "Mary" tomb, but that the contents of the "Judah" tomb were related to the contents of both. So fine, you had some random couple named Jesus and Mary who had a son named Judah. But as the probability should show, that wasn't really that uncommon.

ochoa21 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 01, 2007, 12:55:09 PM »

Since im not a fan of "JC", i always find it interesting when things like his come up, it gets people taking and stuff, mostly about religion. i will definitely watch it just because, even tho i could care less it makes interesting viewing, just like when i watched Left Behind, then the DaVinci Code, what a day xD

ctz · « **Reply #15 on:** March 01, 2007, 01:41:22 PM »

Quote from: Kei;319772

Not "Jesus", but "Yehoshua" (Joshua), which is what his name was (I don't know why people think his name actually was Jesus Christ).

Well I know that his name wasn't called "Jesus" back then. But because most of the people know him as Jesus I think it's just easier to use that name

And if that mathematical thing is their proof, that's just crap

Do they really think they're gonna convince anyone with that? Even the Da Vinci code and other books with "Bloodline of the Christ" -concept seems to be more convincing with their "could have it gone this way? -yes.... it could have... -> IT HAPPENED THIS WAY" -logic.

thesku11s · « **Reply #16 on:** March 11, 2007, 04:07:56 AM »

Quote from: Kei;316999

- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.

This is more general news than entertainment so I chucked it in here.

The Burial cave in jerusalem has been known for a very long time,

also many muslims belive jesus escaped crucifiction and took refuge in Kashmir, where there is a shrine containing his body.