Jesus: Tales from the Crypt

So does this mean that it's nothing more than a cruci-fiction?
Say it ain't so.
This discovery sure is gonna rile alot of dog collars and rosary rattlers. Of course, Cameron is the same guy who brought us the "terminator". What exactly is he up to?

This should be fun.

Wouldn't want to touch this one, but did enjoy the Sunni-Shi'ite divide by Ghosh. It would be interesting to go through the history of Christianity, but I'm sure that all the warring and schisms and doctrine differences would fill volumes, especially with tracing the Missionary-Manifest Destiny chronicles.
I find the latest issue involving the allegations of rape in the Baptist Church, with the Baptists stating that they have no central authority and the individual church is responsible worth discussion. Slightly different than the Catholics keeping their central control, including nation status of the Vatican, but denying true responsibility for its clergy-staff.

Lots of background on this discovery and the basic story is found in the Introduction to a book, The Jesus Dynasty by Prof. James Tabor that came out last year. This story has been worked on for several years and I don't think it will be so easily dismissed, there is DNA, Stats, and lots more. Tabor's book lays some of the groundwork. Cameron is the filmmaker but a whole team of scholars worked on this.

Go to www.choosejesusrightnow.com & click on BUMPER STICKERS.

I don't buy this heresy for one minute. After I heard about this, I did some digging and found that Cameron and Jacobovici produced a documentary that claimed the Exodus actually occurred. I, as a believer, already knew that.

So, this raises an important question. If Cameron and Jacobovici believe in the Exodus, how could they NOT believe in the Resurrection? How could they accept part of Scripture, but not all of it? They're speaking out of both sides of their mouths.

I have had an interest in archaeology for a number of years, especially Biblical archaeology. People need to be aware of a number of facts, including that the names of Jesus, Joseph, Mary, etc, were very common at that time. How could they possibly claim that whatever inscriptions are on these coffins belong to the Holy Family?

This appears to be a great deception.....and I don't buy it for one minute.

"So, this raises an important question. If Cameron and Jacobovici believe in the Exodus, how could they NOT believe in the Resurrection?"

Um, because the Exodus is supported by at least some physical, historical and geneological evidence. The story of the Exodus is likely based on some real world event, even if it didn't happen exactly as described.

The Resurection, OTOH, has no such support. All it has is second and third hand accounts writen at least three decades after its supposed occurence by people who didn't witness the event.

"How could they accept part of Scripture, but not all of it? They're speaking out of both sides of their mouths."

It's pretty easy to accept those parts of scripture that may have actualy happened and reject those which are clearly immpossible, contradictory, or highly improbable. That's called intellectual honesty. Give it a shot sometime.

"It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua."

Some of the corpses were in pieces and were buried in more than one tomb?

How can they claim to identify the DNA from Jesus? They could maybe get some DNA from the 2000 year-old skeletons (it's hard, but sometimes possible to obtain just a little DNA, usually damaged, though), but how can they say it is from the Jesus of the New Testament?

I don't think anyone can seriously make that kind of scientific claim, I'm sorry.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The Only Road to Peace
Bill Taylor

With all of my heart, I firmly believe:

1. If you’re a supporter of Israel and have Israel’s best interests at heart, you must also be a supporter of the Palestinians and have their best interests at heart.

2. If you’re a supporter of the Palestinians and have the Palestinians’ best interests at heart, you must also be a supporter of the Israelis and have the best interests of the Israelis at heart.

3. That is, what is best for Israelis includes what is best for the Palestinians, and vice versa. Why?

4. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians say that they will never ever ever ever give in to violence from the other side. And I have no doubt that both sides are telling the truth. The Jews are not going to cut their losses and run. They’re there to stay. And the same is true of the Palestinians. Those Israelis and Palestinians who think that violence will drive the other side out are blinded by ideology and out of touch with reality.

5. Nonetheless, both sides are relying almost exclusively on violence in one form or another in their dealings with each other (military incursions, homemade rockets, targeted assassinations, and suicide bombings among them). This can only be explained in a few possible ways:

a. Each side thinks it can end the other side’s violence by responding with violence of its own,

b. Each side thinks it can get the other side to leave Israel/Palestine in response to its violence, and/or

c. Both sides believe that through violence they can improve their negotiating position and therefore be able to impose a peace agreement that resolves the outstanding issues in a way that favors its side at the expense of the other side.

6. I firmly believe that all three of these possible reasons for using violence are invalid given the realities of the situation, and that if the leaders on each side were to reflect on their own attitudes and commitments, they would see this.

a. Certainly the Israelis are not going to allow the Palestinians to perpetrate violence against them without responding; nor will the Palestinians. So violence will not end the violence, but will only perpetuate it.

b. As I indicated above, the Israelis and the Palestinians have both made it clear that they will never leave the land in response to violence from the other side, and I believe them.

c. Each side has certain bottom lines with regard to peace and each side has said there will be no peace agreement unless those bottom lines are met. Thus, neither side will sign a peace agreement under duress, nor should they. Such a “peace” agreement would leave a bitterness that could only result in later violence (such as happened with the Versailles Peace Treaty that was imposed on Germany at the end of World War I and led to World War II). The only peace agreement that will work is one in which both sides see that their basic needs have been met and that they have been dealt with fairly by the other side.

7. Therefore, the conflict will never be resolved as long as each side persists in trying to resolve the conflict through violence. All that will result is more injuries and deaths.

8. As long as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues, the dream of Zionism – a homeland governed by Jews that can serve as a safe haven for Jews from around the world in case there is another pogrom or holocaust – will remain only partially fulfilled. Israel is a place to which Jews have a right to return, but at this point it is not a safe place due to the conflict. (I should note that there are Israelis [and Palestinians] who fully expect that their grandchildren and great grandchildren will be living with the same situation that they themselves are living with today, so I suppose that’s an alternative to what I’m talking about here.)

9. Therefore, anyone who truly loves the Israelis and/or the Palestinians will feel duty bound to criticize all acts of violence committed by either side since those acts will not contribute to a solution to the conflict but will instead simply result in more injuries and deaths. Nor will they have any patience for either side’s efforts to justify its acts of violence as simply a response to the violence committed by the other side. There is no strategic, tactical, or moral justification for acts of violence since violence will not solve the conflict. Therefore, the only justification can be vengeance, which is not a worthy motive for two great peoples.

10. If violence won’t end the conflict, what will?

a. It has become a mantra in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that there can’t be any negotiations toward a peace agreement until there’s an end to the violence.

b. But this gives a veto over peace negotiations to the minority in each society (around 18-19 percent of the Israelis and Palestinians according to research findings) who do not want a peace agreement because it would mean that the other side would get land that these rejectionists feel should be theirs alone. Any act of violence on their part will be met with a violent response and thus negotiations will never occur. In this way they can use violence to achieve their goal of preventing a peace agreement.

c. Therefore, the mantra must be turned on its head to say that the only way to end the violence is for the Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a peace agreement – one that the 80 percent of the people in both societies who support a two-state solution find so compelling that they’ll work to end the violence in their own societies because they’ll see the violence as an obstacle to the implementation of this peace agreement.

11. Given the political realities in Israel and the PNA, such a peace agreement can only be reached through secret negotiations out of the public eye as occurred in Oslo.

12. In addition, the achievement of such an agreement will only occur if the two sides take a radically different approach to negotiations.

a. Up to this point, the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians have been based on the model of labor-management negotiations – both sides start out with maximal demands and then give away as little as possible, with the assumption that the more powerful side will get more of what it wants and the weaker side will get less. This approach to negotiations is an example of a zero-sum game: any gain by one side is at the expense of the other side. Such an approach to peace negotiations is inappropriate because in labor-management negotiations there will always be future negotiations and the weaker side this year may be the stronger side in the future and thus have a chance to make up for losses suffered in this contract. In contrast, a peace agreement doesn’t get renegotiated every few years to adjust inequities; it’s an agreement for all time. For this reason, such an approach to negotiations will never produce peace because neither side will settle for an agreement that does not meet its basic needs and if it feels that the other side has not dealt with it fairly.

b. Since only a peace agreement, and not violence, will end the conflict, and since peace cannot be secured through a traditional approach to negotiations, therefore a new way of approaching negotiations needs to evolve, one that is based on a new way of looking at national self-interest – whether Israeli or Palestinian,

1) one in which the Israelis realize that it is in their own self-interest to negotiate an agreement with the Palestinians in which the Palestinians see that their basic needs have been met and that they have been dealt with fairly by the Israelis – for this is the only kind of agreement that the Palestinians will commit to, and

2) one in which the Palestinians realize that it is in their own self-interest to negotiate an agreement with the Israelis in which the Israelis see that their basic needs have been met and that they have been dealt fairly with by the Palestinians – for this is the only kind of agreement that the Israelis will commit to.

13. From this point of view, all of the accusations that go back and forth about whether this side or that side really wants peace, negotiates in good faith or not, lives up to its agreements or not, whether the other side has earned the right to be a negotiating partner – all of these are moot points. The fact is that the only way to peace is through negotiations and it’s in the self-interest of each side to be so cooperative and accommodating that the negotiations will work because the two parties want them to – because this is the only way that their interests will be realized. One of the terms used to describe this approach to negotiations is mutual-gains bargaining.

14. This makes it clear why past behavior in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and past behavior during the implementation stage of past agreements, is irrelevant in the case of mutual-gains bargaining. Those past negotiations were conducted under traditional zero-sum bargaining, so neither side felt good about what it had conceded/gained in the negotiations and so there was little incentive to negotiate in good faith or to live up to the agreements that resulted. In contrast, in mutual-gains bargaining, each side sees that it’s in its own self interest to reach an agreement that pleases the other side, and when both sides are pleased they have every reason to implement what they’ve agreed to.

15. Let me give an example of what I mean. One of the issues that’s impossible to resolve under the traditional, zero-sum approach to negotiations is the final status of the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have said that they will never sign a peace agreement unless it gives their side sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. As long as both sides stick to this position, no agreement is possible. As long as each side thinks it can, through violence, force the other side to concede sovereignty to them, no agreement is possible and the violence will continue on forever. But if both sides see that it’s in their own self-interest to meet each other’s needs, then surely a creative solution can be arrived at in which both side’s needs are met.

Which brings me back to what I said in the beginning:

16. If you’re a supporter of Israel and have Israel’s best interests at heart, you must also be a supporter of the Palestinians and have their best interests at heart, and

17. If you’re a supporter of the Palestinians and have the Palestinians’ best interests at heart, you must also be a supporter of the Israelis and have the best interests of the Israelis at heart.

18. That is, what is best for Israelis includes what is best for the Palestinians, and vice versa.

19. Since violence has not and will not bring peace, anyone who truly loves the Israelis and/or the Palestinians will feel duty bound to criticize all acts of violence committed by either side since those acts will not contribute to a solution to the conflict but will instead simply result in more injuries and deaths. Nor will they have any patience for either side’s efforts to justify its acts of violence as simply a response to the violence committed by the other side. There is no strategic, tactical, or moral justification for acts of violence since violence will not solve the conflict. Therefore, the only justification can be vengeance, which is not a worthy motive for two great peoples.

20. Let me conclude by responding to one obvious objection to what I’ve outlined here, namely
a. the accusation by Israelis that the Palestinian leadership does not want peace and therefore would not be willing to negotiate in good faith, and

b. the accusation by Palestinians that the Israeli leadership does not want peace and therefore would not be willing to negotiate in good faith, and

c. therefore my road to peace is nothing more than pie-in-the-sky idealism.

It’s certainly possible that one or both of these accusations may be true. But unless someone can demonstrate

a) that what I’ve outlined is not a viable road to peace, and/or

b) that there is another (more) viable road to peace,

c) then it’s incumbent upon those who love and support the Israelis and/or the Palestinians to do what they can to convince those leaders, or others who might replace them, that what I’ve laid out here, if it is in fact the only road to peace, is not hopeless idealism but rather hard nosed realism.

The account of the Lord’s life, including the Resurrection, does have support. I don’t understand why some people are so reluctant to accept New Testament references about the Lord. It doesn’t matter when the Gospels were written. Say you were to write your life story - your childhood, perhaps, but did so when you were middle-aged? Would the delay mean that the story was not truthful? Of course not!

For those who don’t believe Scripture, there are non-Biblical sources that attest to the Lord’s ministry AND His resurrection. The following is an excerpt from an article in the Archaeological Study Bible, NIV, published by Zondervan in 2005:

“A Josephus text known as the “Testimonium Flavianum” is found in Antiquities, 18.63-64.(Antiquities was completed in A.D. 93, less than 60 years after Jesus’ crucifixion.) Describing the days of Pontius Pilate, it states: ‘At this time Jesus, a wise man (if it is appropriate to call him a man), appeared. For he was a worker of incredible deeds, a teacher of men who happily receive the truth, and he drew to himself many Jews - and many Greeks, too. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate had executed him at the instigation of the leading men among us, those who had first loved him did not give up. For he appeared to them on the third day alive again (the divine prophets had spoken concerning him of these and countless other wonders). And to this day the tribe of ‘Christians’ (named after him) has not vanished.

Controversy surrounds the Testimonium because of its confessional tone, with some scholars arguing that it was an interpolation by a later Christian scribe. However, in Antiquities, 20.200 Josephus described the martyrdom of James, whom he identified simply as ‘the brother of Jesus, called Christ.’ Such a passing reference to Jesus suggests either that he felt Jesus needed no introduction or that Josephus himself had already introduced him to the reader.”

The Roman historian Tacitus spoke about the Lord (see Annals, 15:44). This article lists other examples as well, but because of the lack of space I cannot list them all here. However, the last sentence of this article speaks volumes: “All things considered, the evidence for the historical Jesus in ancient sources, to say nothing of the New Testament and the Christian church, is ample.”

If you think that there isn’t any (or enough) evidence in support of the Lord’s life and resurrection, consider this. I once heard someone say that the ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’ To totally ignore the many Scriptural and non-Scriptural evidence of the Lord, His ministry, death AND resurrection is irresponsible at best. This documentary and the book that comes with it does not prove that the Lord was a fictitious character or that he did live but was married and had children, which contradicts Scripture. They are reminiscent of the DaVinci Code, which everyone knows is a work of fiction.

"The account of the Lord’s life, including the Resurrection, does have support. I don’t understand why some people are so reluctant to accept New Testament references about the Lord."

Because using the Bible as supporting evidence of the truth of the Bible is a classic example of a circular argument.

"It doesn’t matter when the Gospels were written. Say you were to write your life story - your childhood, perhaps, but did so when you were middle-aged? Would the delay mean that the story was not truthful? Of course not!"

A) My personal account of my childhood is worthless as anything but an anecdote without outside evidence. It is based on human memory, which sucks. If I were to recount my childhood after several dacades, it would be that much worse.

B) A personal account written by Jesus thirty years after his ministry would in fact be immeasurably BETTER than what is actualy contained in the NT, which is a translated copy of text (of which no originals have ever been found) written by unknown authors from the assumed POV of Paul, Matthew, etc. If it were presented in a court of law, such "evidence" would be laughed out of the room.

"The Roman historian Tacitus spoke about the Lord (see Annals, 15:44). This article lists other examples as well, but because of the lack of space I cannot list them all here. However, the last sentence of this article speaks volumes: 'All things considered, the evidence for the historical Jesus in ancient sources, to say nothing of the New Testament and the Christian church, is ample.'"

So Tacitus makes the same unsupported claim about Jesus that you do, that of ample historical evidence. So, where is it? I would really love to see it. I'll wait...

"If you think that there isn’t any (or enough) evidence in support of the Lord’s life and resurrection, consider this. I once heard someone say that the ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’"

Yes, I've heard that tired line many times, and while it is technically true, it is also totaly meaningless. It can be trotted out in "support" of any silly thing you care to name. Bigfoot, Zeus, a resurected Elvis. Your one-liner applies to them in exactly the same way it applies to the Resurection. Am I then to believe every absurdity? If not, what seperates yours from these others?

"To totally ignore the many Scriptural and non-Scriptural evidence of the Lord, His ministry, death AND resurrection is irresponsible at best."

Why? I'm willing to bet that you ignore all the Quaranic and non-Quaranic evidence of the prophet Mohammed. I'm also willing to bet that you ignore the "Book of Mormon" and the "Bahagavat Gita" as evidence supporting Mormon stories and the history of the Hindu pantheon. How does that make you anything but a hypocrite?

You and I already reject most of the religious nonsense floating around the world for lack of evidence, I just go one logical step further and apply the same standard to your myths.

[Because using the Bible as supporting evidence of the truth of the Bible is a classic example of a circular argument.]

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using the Bible as supporting evidence of the truth. Take Biblical prophecies for example. The Bible, including the Old Testament, has prophesied about Jesus many centuries prior to His birth. In addition, there are many prophecies in both the Old and New Testaments concerning what some refer to as “end times” that have already come true. Let me know if you want specific examples and I will list them here.

[A) My personal account of my childhood is worthless as anything but an anecdote without outside evidence. It is based on human memory, which sucks. If I were to recount my childhood after several dacades, it would be that much worse.]

What you said about writing about events decades after they took place doesn’t hold water. By using your theory, modern-day students (whether they are in college or lower levels, grade-wise) would not be able to rely on their history books. History books that were written many years after those events took place.

[B) A personal account written by Jesus thirty years after his ministry would in fact be immeasurably BETTER than what is actualy contained in the NT, which is a translated copy of text (of which no originals have ever been found) written by unknown authors from the assumed POV of Paul, Matthew, etc. If it were presented in a court of law, such "evidence" would be laughed out of the room.]

The current justice system is patterned after what is in the Bible. Remember what is said about facts being established on the testimony of at least two witnesses? How many people over the centuries have attested to the miracles they’ve experienced from God’s hands? How many people have actually known the Lord and then wrote down their experiences with him (Peter, for example, etc.). Too many people have attested to the Lord’s life, ministry, death AND resurrection for anyone to claim these events didn’t occur.

[So Tacitus makes the same unsupported claim about Jesus that you do, that of ample historical evidence. So, where is it? I would really love to see it. I'll wait…]

What is your evidence to the contrary???? I would love to see it too. I’ll wait, but I’m not going to hold my breath….. Btw, I told a cousin about your response to my post, and she told me to relay this message to you:

“You take for granted the creation account as related in the Bible and that you doubt the birth, ministry and resurrection and deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. But yet, you have no qualms or doubts about the fact that a black and white cow eats green grass, drinks clear water, gives yellow butter and white milk. But you doubt the creator of that cow.”

She made a good point. For some reason people just don’t want to accept the truth of Scripture. Like my cousin told me “water follows the path of least resistance.”

[You and I already reject most of the religious nonsense floating around the world for lack of evidence, I just go one logical step further and apply the same standard to your myths.]

You speak of myths, but how do I know that what you claims aren’t mythical? You ask for proof that the resurrection took place. I ask for your proof that it didn’t. I’ll wait for that also……….

"You speak of myths, but how do I know that what you claims aren’t mythical?"

I don't recall making specific claims about anything, merely questioning your own.

"You ask for proof that the resurrection took place. I ask for your proof that it didn’t. I’ll wait for that also………"

My appologies, I didn't realize you were irrational. I would have started a more appropriate conversation with you had I known your reasoning skills were so poor that you believe it should be my responsibility to provide evidence refuting the claims YOU are making.

Let me start over with a topic more in line with your maturity of thought. So who do you think is going to win the NASCAR race next week?

Reductem absurdum!

One interesting thought experiment is the observation that all evidence of the Christian myths diminish in direct correlation with the capability to record facts that are independent of the bias of any observer. For example in the time of Herod, we have Jesus walking on water, sticks changing to serpents, etc.; in current times we are restricted to images of the "Virgin" in cheese sandwiches, stains on subway walls, and shadows on window panes. I have no doubt that people can have meaningful spiritual experiences, it is the sieve of interpretation based on one's spiritual knowledge, that creates the disconnect!

Right... 'cause DNA tests on 2000 year old corpses is totally feasible and 100% accurate.

"Remember what is said about facts being established on the testimony of at least two witnesses? How many people over the centuries have attested to the miracles they’ve experienced from God’s hands? How many people have actually known the Lord and then wrote down their experiences with him (Peter, for example, etc.)."

Upon reflection, I think this was my favorite delusion of the lot. Using this pathetic excuse for a rational thought, everything that can be attested to by at least two people should be considered an established fact.

So as it turns out, Jesus is God, but so is Shiva and Allah. The Loch Ness Monster really does prowl the chilly waters of that Scotish lake. Bigfoot really does run down deer in North America. Hillbillies really are probed rectaly by aliens on a weekly basis. The Chupicabra terrorizes Mexico. And David Koresh really was the Messiah. Glad we could get that straightened out.

Seriously, do think about what you're typing before hitting "submit". It will avoid much embarassment.

Why all of us try to bring the unreliable New or Old Testament to protect and support our opinion. Please visit :

http://www.humanismbyjoe.com
Go to: My Articles
Then: Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject the Bible

Now, it is the 21th century, not the Dark Age anymore!

LOL. Yeah, lets get Jesus to give a DNA sample so we can compare it to this publicity hound's skeletons. ROFLOL.

How much did he pay the "journalist" to run this story? I don't know who's the biggest buffoon; Cameron, the journalist, or the people who take this World Weekly type news seriously.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

What is this from Cameron, an episode of CSI: Jeruselum? Hogwash! He must need the money since this will likely sell tickets at the box office.

There is not a shred of evidence that what james cameron is saying is true, none.

The Chupacabra doesn't terrorize Mexico. It origionated in Puerto Rico.

Those who think this discovery would destroy christianity dont really understand christianity. As GK Chesterson once wrote of the secular skeptics: "I refuse to take direction on God and happiness, from people who have neither."

I believe in Kempesh.

And I agree, yes, this should be fun.

The guy who wrote the immortal cheesy movie line, "I'm king of the world" is going to stamp out Christianity in America.

I love it.

Anything that Hollywood does to snuff out Christianity is fine by me!

Personal Testimony

In 1978, I was in Denver CO (I had just moved there in Nov 1977) when my God revealed His Son Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior to me and in me. I quit drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, gambling and running around with wild women as a New Year resolution. On May 4th, I was in the Denver Library when I heard this voice out loud: “No one can call Jesus the LORD except by the Holy Spirit.” I was startled to say the least and I thought that everyone in the Library heard it. However, I was the only one who heard HIS voice.

The next day, May 5th, God spoke out loud to me (for the last time out loud) and said, “You have now been made clean by the word I have spoken to you.” At that moment, God gave me the gift of the Holy Spirit with forgiveness of my sins and the free gift of salvation from the wages of sin - death (hell/jail), the last judgment and the lake of fire! I received the gift of eternal life!

I have been “saved” for over 28 years. It is wonderful to know that I will have a home in heaven when I leave this body at physical death. May I urge you to turn to God in repentance and believe that Jesus Christ is LORD. Confess this to God and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead and you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.” “For whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

This is a personal conviction, without reservation, that Jesus is your master or sovereign. It includes repenting from sin, trusting in Jesus for salvation, and submitting to Him as Lord. It is a volitional element of faith. Christ’s resurrection was the supreme validation of His ministry. Belief in the resurrection is necessary for salvation because it proved that Christ is who He claimed to be and that the Father had accepted His sacrifice in the place of sinners. Without the resurrection, there is no salvation.

Confession means to say the same thing, or to be in agreement with God. The person who confesses Jesus as Lord agrees with the Father’s declaration that Jesus is Savior and Lord. Calls on the name does not refer to some desperate cry to just any so-called deity but to the one true God as He has revealed Himself - a revelation which now includes recognition of Jesus as Lord and of the One who raised up Jesus from the dead.

Salvation comes to those who hear and believe the facts of the gospel. Gospel means: “good news.”

I think the rammaifications are substancial. There is no way to prove the claim. There is no evidence that can be conclusive. However if this is viewed as an attempt by the jewish community to attack christianity, that would be bad for israel. If the religous right were to become offended and reduce their backing of israel, the result would be very bad for israel. I would hate to see that happen, but it would be prophetic and fit the times. The only country supporting israel presently is the US, and the strongest voice of support in the US is from the religious right.

Funny how Cameron refuses to violate the real Titanic as a kind of graveyard, but has no problem desecrating coffins and such in this case.

This will all serve the Mahdi of Shia Islam very well when he presents his "Jesus" at his side. Of course, it will all be lies much like this ersatz documentary and the original silly book dressed up like Ross Perot campaigning for President. ("Have yu looked at mah chart?")

When produced by Hollywood's best, the Christian-haters will have a field day, witness this thread as small proof already. A cartload of dung is still a cartload of dung even if it is being peddled by PhD's and Oscar-winners.

Typical. Can you imagine the uproar over similar treatment of Islam? But Christianity is far game. Just because he doesn't believe he has to trash all of us who do. And exactly how do you PROVE it to be Jesus? Using DNA he says. But how can you be certain the DNA is that of THE Jesus. So there was a Jesus with a Joseph and Mary. Hmmm, last time I checked, they were pretty common names. I just can't believe people let him and his ilk get away with it, but are afraid to tell the truth about Mohammed capturing Mecca in 638 AD. Besides how horrific the campaign was, does "Capture" imply it wasn't his to begin with? Keep pushing us and soon or later we're going to push back!

I know Jesus is alive. He's out back cleaning my pool.

If you stop believing what your professor told you had to be true
and if you start thinking for yourself you may come to some
conclusions you hadn't expected. You may find the Bible makes
more sense than you thought or were told to think. Allow yourself
to be ruined, ruined with regard to what you always thought could
be true. Can you believe what you don't understand? You and I
believe everyday what we don't understand unless it comes to
the issue of salvation. - - - Dr. Woodrow Kroll

There is simply no historic foundation for the position that the
Framers intended to build the 'wall of separation' that was
constitutionalized in Everson. The 'wall of separation be-
tween church and state' is a metaphor based on bad history,
a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging.
It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.
- - - Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, William Rehnquist

In 1796 the US Supreme Court issued this ruling, "By our form
of government, the Christian religion is the established religion,
and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on
equal footing." Some 57 years later, after Congress was
petitioned to separate Christian principles from government,
in 1853 the House Judiciary Committee issued their formal
report, including these words: "In this age there is no substitute
for Christianity. This was the religion of the founders of the republic,
and they expected it to be the religion of their dependents. The
great vital, conservative elements in our system is the belief of
our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel
of Jesus Christ." - - - Dr. Gerald Beavan


"It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own
their dependence upon the overruling power of God
and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the
Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those
nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord."
-- President Abraham Lincoln

Trust in yourself and you are doomed to disappointment;
trust in money and you may have it taken from you;
but trust in God, and you are never to be confounded in
time or eternity. - D.L. Moody

Faith and love are apt to be spasmodic in the best of minds.
Men and women live on the brink of mysteries and harmonies
into which they never enter and with their hand on the doorlatch
they die outside. GK Chesterton

*******

I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really
foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]:
"I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I
don't accept His claim to be God."

That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was
merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would
not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic --
on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg --
or else he would be the Devil of Hell.

You must make your choice. Either this Man was, and is,
the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse ....
You can shut Him up for fool, you can spit at Him and kill
Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him
Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing
nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has
not left that option open to us. He did not intend to.

-- From Case for Christianity, by C.S. Lewis

"Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider
well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ
which is eternal life (John 17:3)."

- - - The Laws and Statutes of Harvard College in 1643

"All scholars shall live religious, godly, and blameless lives according
to the rules of God's Word, diligently reading the Holy Scriptures, the
fountain of light and truth; and constantly attend upon all the duties
of religion, both in public and secret."

- - - Two central requirements in Yale College 1745 charter

************

"I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man.
All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to
us through this book." -- President Abraham Lincoln

"For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill.
The eyes of all people are upon us. So that if we shall deal
falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and
so cause Him to withdraw his present help from us, we
shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world."
--John Winthrop, Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, 1630

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and
the Bible." - President George Washington

"The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a
power that conquers all that oppose it." - Napoleon

"That Book accounts for the supremacy of England."
- Queen Victoria

"If there is anything in my thought or style to commend ,
the credit is due my parents for instilling in me an early
love of the Scriptures. If we abide by the principals taught
in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper;
but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority,
no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and
bury all our glory in profound obscurity." - Daniel Webster (Founding Father)

"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed."
- Patrick Henry (original member of the Continental Congress)

"The Bible is the anchor of our liberties." - President U.S. Grant

"It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible-reading people.
The principals of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom."
- Horace Greeley (Editor)

"That Book is the rock on which our Republic rests." - President Andrew Jackson

"In all my perplexities and distresses, the Bible has never failed to give me
light and strength." - Gen. Robert E. Lee

"Bible reading is an education in itself." - Lord Tennyson (Poet)

"So great is my veneration for the Bible that the earlier my children begin
to read it the more confident will be my hope that they will prove useful
citizens of their country and respectable members of society. I have for
many years made it a practice to read through the Bible once every year."
- President John Quincy Adams

"The existence of the Bible, as a Book for the people, is the greatest
benefit which the human race has ever experienced. Every attempt to
belittle it is a crime against humanity." - Immanuel Kant (Philosopher)

"The New Testament is the very best Book that ever or ever will be
known in the world." - Charles Dickens (Author)

"All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of
confirming more and more strongly the truths contained in the
Sacred Scriptures." - Sir William Herschel (Astronomer)

"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in
any profane history." - Sir Isaac Newton (Scientist)

"Let mental culture go on advancing, let the natural sciences
progress in even greater extent and depth, and the human
mind widen itself as much as it desires; beyond the elevation
and moral culture of Christianity, as it shines forth in the Gospels,
it will not go." - Goethe (Author)

"I have known ninety-five of the world's great men in my time,
and of these eight-seven were followers of the Bible. The Bible
is stamped with a Specialty of Origin, and an immeasurable
distance separates it from all competitors."
- W.E. Gladstone (Prime Minister)

"Whatever merit there is in anything that I have written is simply
due to the fact that when I was a chile my mother daily read me
a part of the Bible and daily made me learn a part of it by heart."
- John Ruskin (art critic and social commentator)

"The Bible has been the Magna Charta of the poor and oppressed.
The human race is not in a position to dispense with it." - Thomas
Huxley (Author & Scientist)

"The whole hope of human progress is suspended on the ever
growing influence of the Bible." - W.H. Seward (Secretary of State)

"America was born a Christian nation. America was born
to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness,
which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scriptures.
Part of the destiny of Americans lies in their daily perusal
of this great book of revelations. That if they would see
America free and pure they will make their own spirits
free and pure by this baptism of the Holy Spirit."
--President Woodrow Wilson

For Christians, the life and death of Jesus are the ultimate
expressions of love, and the supreme demonstrations of
God's mercy, faithfulness, and redemption. Since Christ's
miraculous Resurrection on Easter, more than 2,000 years
ago, Christians have expressed joy and gratitude for this
wondrous sacrifice and for God's promise of freedom for
the oppressed, healing for the brokenhearted, and salvation.
--President George W. Bush

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this
great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians;
not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this
very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum,
prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
--Patrick Henry (original member of the Continental Congress)

******

Four important things to KNOW:

1) For ALL (Americans, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus,
Buddhist, Asians, Presbyterians, Europeans, Baptist,
Brazilians, Mormons, Methodist, French, etc.) have sinned
& fall short of the glory of God.

2) For the wages of above (see #1) are DEATH (Hell, eternal
separation from God, & damnation) but the Gift (free & at
no charge to you) of God (Creator, Jehovah, & Trinity) is
Eternal Life (Heaven) through (in union with) Jesus Christ
(God, Lord, 2nd Person of The Trinity, Messiah, Prince of
Peace & Savior of the World).

3) For God so greatly loved & dearly prized the world
(Americans, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus, Buddhist,
Asians, Presbyterians, Europeans, Baptist, Brazilians,
Mormons, Methodist, French, etc.) that He even gave up
His only begotten (unique) Son, that whosoever (anyone,
anywhere, anytime - while still living) believes (trust in,
relies on, clings to, depends completely on) Him shall
have eternal (everlasting) life (heaven).

4) Jesus said: "I am THE WAY, THE TRUTH, & THE LIFE.
No one (male/female - American, Muslim, Jew, Catholic,
Hindu, Buddhist, Asian, Presbyterian, European, Baptist,
Brazilian, Mormons, Methodist, French, etc. ) comes (arrives)
to the Father (with GOD in Heaven) EXCEPT BY (through)
ME (no other name).

This wonderful loving GOD gives you the choice - - -
(Rev. 3:20)

{Please note that church membership, baptism, doing good
things, etc. are not requirements for becoming a Christian -
however they are great afterwards!!!}

Jesus said, "Wide is the gate and broad is the road that
leads to destruction (Hell, damnation, eternal punishment),
and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow
the road that leads to life (Heaven, eternal happiness,
forever with God), and only a few find it. --Matthew 7:13-14

************

Depressed, Troubled, Worried???
Big Problems???
Want to talk with a LIVE trained counselor???
Want to get REAL help???
(FREE - English/Spanish)

1-800-633-3446

How to become a Christian & to know Jesus Christ - The Messiah - God's Son - personally!!!

http://www.needhim.org/

Who is he comparing the "DNA" sample to? Twenty years to read a tomb stone?

You non-believers should be very careful here.

All morality descends from God. All other is from man and therefore carries no more authority than man himself.

Your ultimate goal -- to destroy any belief in a higher power or intelligence -- will also result in the destruction of all morality. Because without God, one can justify anything. And I do mean anything!

Question: Just how on earth is DNA testing supposed to confirm whether or not Jesus' body is one of those in the coffins?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I SINCERELY doubt that Cameron has somehow got his hands on a DNA sample from Jesus that he can compare with that of the body. And even if he does, how does he know it came from Jesus?! Does the Bible give us a detailed description of Jesus' genetic code?

This entire thing would be laughable if it wasn't blasphemous.

You non-believers should be very careful here.

All morality descends from God. All other is from man and therefore carries no more authority than man himself.

Your ultimate goal -- to destroy any belief in a higher power or intelligence -- will also result in the destruction of all morality. Because without God, one can justify anything. And I do mean anything!

Hey, what is new about that story? That was one of the original lies concocted to discredit Jesus and to discourage the growth of believers during the first century. There were a few gullible people that bought it back then, as there are a few today. However, the ones that promote lies about Jesus aways fade away, all but forgotten. While the church marches on to victory. All that Cameron is about is making money. He wants to cash in on the "Da Vinci Code" wave. 2Ti 3:2 For people will love only themselves and their money. They will be boastful and proud, scoffing at God, disobedient to their parents, and ungrateful. They will consider nothing sacred.

So they get DNA from these 2000 year old corpses. Whose DNA do they compare it with to establish identity? Descendants? Where?

Most secularists still debate the existence of Jesus as a real person and claim there is no acceptable proof he ever lived on this earth. They've got be lying out of one side of their mouth or the other to make this claim.

Then you have to ask yourself - why is it OK to attack the Christian faith these days while you can't even so much as draw a picture of Mohammed?

Because Muslims tolerate an oppressive government as long as their leaders pay lip service to their faith.

Why is it so important for secularists to destroy the Christian faith in particular?

Because removing the Christian ideas from our Constitution will make government the ultimate authority. You will no longer have any of those pesky, yet constitutionally protected "God-given rights" that the government can't take away from you when they become inconvenient or non-profitable. We can then become workers in a hive who are harvested "for the common good."

What is James Cameron?

A useful idiot for the Marxist idealogy.

Don't you think that the leaders of the time hunted desperately for Christ's tomb? The leaders knew that Christianity would end if they could prove that Jesus was dead. It's not like there were tons of tombs and caves they had to search, either. Everyone that lived in that area knew where Jesus was placed after the crucifixion and no one was able to find His body after the resurrection.

James Cameron played fast and loose with the historic integrity of the story regarding the Titanic. How can we expect anything else from him on this subject?

Why is everyone attacking Christianity these days? How in God's name are you going to use DNA evidence to prove that Jesus never ressurected? There are eyewitness accounts of what he did, both inside and outside of the Bible. Jewish scholars and philosophers of the day spoke of him as well. There is plenty of evidence that he existed and believed himself to be the Son of God.

If Jesus didn't ressurect then how were 11 men able to spread the word to an entire world? These 11 Apostles were in hiding after the death of Jesuse, afraid of dying. And then, all of a sudden, they came out of hiding and preached the word of God with no fear whatsoever?

How did this happen? What motivated these eleven scared men to become fearless of death and walk out back into the light to preach the word of their Master? How did Christianity thrive while the Jewish elders and Roman Empire were trying to desperately stamp it out during those early days?

Oh brother, here we go again. Another effort to debunk Chrisitianity and 'prove' that the recorded life of Jesus was a fraud. I suppose this will not end until Christ comes back, but this nonsense is getting a little old.

This is the same thinking that was used to explain away every biblical miracle; A stiff wind parted the Red Sea, and not God; or when Jesus fed the 5000, the people all had fish sandwiches up their sleeves; or when Jesus walked on water, there was actually a sandbar his was standing on, etc., etc. It's old, tired, and it's agenda is is the same as Dan Brown's and the Jesus' Seminar's and every other anti-Christian movement out there; to disprove traditional Christianity.

Look, if God came down to earth today is a feasible and verifiable form and told Pat Robertson, the Crouches, Pope Benedict, et al that Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead and ascend into heaven... do ya think for one minute that these holy people would bow to the word of God? I don't think so...

And neither will anyone else who bases their entire existence and livelihood on the promulgation of Christianity.

It's not worth all the argument here. Nothing is going to sway anyone from their beliefs. Heck, there are people today who swear that they have native american blood and when given a DNA test and it finds that they have none whatsoever, they still don't want to believe it. Hasn't anyone else here watched the Maury Show? Lie detectors and DNA aren't true when the participants don't want them to be true.

And they'll post paragraph after paragraph after paragraph here of their 'proofs.' zzzzzzzzzzz

And note to author: I think you mean "startling claim" NOT "starting claim."

Looking at this whole discussion in terms of "left" and "right", with the traditional political/spiritual leanings of each assumed, it is interesting that the vast majority of comments made by those on the left include name calling, the questioning of a person's sanity for believing in Jesus, and other such degrading, insulting remarks. Most of those on the right even acknowledge the right of others to believe what they will with no accompanying judgement one way or the other.

To those on the left, are the beliefs of the those on the right so threatening and offensive to you, and are the positions you champion so weak, that you have to resort to personal attacks rather than relying on simple, yet persuasive, argument and discussion?

Why can't everyone enjoy the right to free speech and free thought, no matter what it is or where it came from?

Only James Cameron would have an ego large enough to take on the Son of God. Hey! I can look around and find graves for Jesus, Mary, Joseph and others in Mexico. Doesn't mean it's the Holy Family. Please. Cue rolling eyes now.

The only real thing that can harm Christianity is for people who claim to be Christian but live like the devil.

The only real thing that can harm Christianity are people who claim to be Christian but live like the devil.

MISTER SULU, LAY IN A COURSE FOR PLANET HILARIOUS, AHEAD WARP FACTOR ELEVEN

It is true that if Jesus was not resurrected from the dead, then the faith of millions throughout nearly 20 centuries has been entirely in vain. However, if Jesus was resurrected from the dead, then he is the Savior of the world and coming Lord. Whether one knows that Jesus was raised from the dead has never rested entirely upon the ability of human beings to discover and appropriate truth via reason alone. The truth of the Bible is not self-evident. It demands faith, which is nothing more than grace empowered reason, to know and appropriate the things of God. The clearest demonstration that Jesus was indeed raised from the dead, as the gospel witnesses and the apostles attest, is to experience forgiveness in the heart and the power to begin living a truly moral life as a result of having believed.

Funny how there's always an atheistic know-it-all on a board like this who gets his kicks by degrading someone else's beliefs. Oh well. His day of judgement will come.

The historical reliability of the Bible should be subjected to the same criteria as any historical document: 1) a bibliographical test, 2) an internal evidence test, and 3) an external evidence test.

There are more than 5,300 known early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, add 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, and 9,300 other manuscripts and you get over 24,000. No other document in antiquity even BEGINS to approach such numbers.

The earliest know copy of the New Testament is from 125 AD and scholars agree that it was written in 40 AD. The manuscipt is less than 100 years older that the events it records. No one questions the veracity of Ceasar's Gallic Wars manuscript, even though the earliest known copy is 1,000 years younger than the events. In fact, almost all surviving ancient manuscripts are more than 1,000 years later than the events they record.

Whether soneone wants to face it or not, the manuscript evidence is overwhelming. Only when someone's eyes are opened will they face truth, until then, they will willingly wallow in darkness, believing the lies they tell themselves.

The internal evidence test, well, our distinguished atheist says that you cannot interpret Scripture with Sripture, so I guess we also cannot understand Homer's writing style and find other writings that mimic it. And we cannot understand anything we cannot touch, feel, see, hear or taste while we're at it. Internal evidence abounds, such as the Dead Sea scrolls and the book of Isaiah and the prophesies that Jesus fulfilled. But Noooo, we canot consider that. It was TAINTED.

Is a crime victim's testimony tainted by their biased observance of a criminal beating them up?

External evidence test? How about the writings of Josephus, or Eusebius who preserved the writings of Papias from 130 AD, and Iraneus, Bishop of Lyons in 180 AD who was a student of Polycarp, one of John the Apostle's followers? Facts are easy to find. . . if you look.

The Bible was written over a 1,500 years time span, over 40 generations, by more than 40 authors (kings, peasants, fishermen, statesmen, a doctor, poets, etc), written in different places, on three different continents, in three different languages. Yet it has one central theme: the redemption of God's people.

It is unique in its continuity, its circulation, its translation, its survival, its teaching, and its influence on surrounding cultures and literature, not to mention its unique effect on millions of people worldwide who have been genuinely changed. Skeptics don't or won't, actually, they CAN'T understand that.

If you are an intelligent person, you will read the one book that has drawn more attention than any other throughout history, IF you are actually searching for truth.

After that, read A Ready Defense by Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

Funny how there's always an atheistic know-it-all on a board like this who gets his kicks by degrading someone else's beliefs. Oh well. His day of judgement will come.

The historical reliability of the Bible should be subjected to the same criteria as any historical document: 1) a bibliographical test, 2) an internal evidence test, and 3) an external evidence test.

There are more than 5,300 known early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, add 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts, and 9,300 other manuscripts and you get over 24,000. No other document in antiquity even BEGINS to approach such numbers.

The earliest know copy of the New Testament is from 125 AD and scholars agree that it was written in 40 AD. The manuscipt is less than 100 years older that the events it records. No one questions the veracity of Ceasar's Gallic Wars manuscript, even though the earliest known copy is 1,000 years younger than the events. In fact, almost all surviving ancient manuscripts are more than 1,000 years later than the events they record.

Whether soneone wants to face it or not, the manuscript evidence is overwhelming. Only when someone's eyes are opened will they face truth, until then, they will willingly wallow in darkness, believing the lies they tell themselves.

The internal evidence test, well, our distinguished atheist says that you cannot interpret Scripture with Sripture, so I guess we also cannot understand Homer's writing style and find other writings that mimic it. And we cannot understand anything we cannot touch, feel, see, hear or taste while we're at it. Internal evidence abounds, such as the Dead Sea scrolls and the book of Isaiah and the prophesies that Jesus fulfilled. But Noooo, we canot consider that. It was TAINTED.

Is a crime victim's testimony tainted by their biased observance of a criminal beating them up?

External evidence test? How about the writings of Josephus, or Eusebius who preserved the writings of Papias from 130 AD, and Iraneus, Bishop of Lyons in 180 AD who was a student of Polycarp, one of John the Apostle's followers? Facts are easy to find. . . if you look.

The Bible was written over a 1,500 years time span, over 40 generations, by more than 40 authors (kings, peasants, fishermen, statesmen, a doctor, poets, etc), written in different places, on three different continents, in three different languages. Yet it has one central theme: the redemption of God's people.

It is unique in its continuity, its circulation, its translation, its survival, its teaching, and its influence on surrounding cultures and literature, not to mention its unique effect on millions of people worldwide who have been genuinely changed. Skeptics don't or won't, actually, they CAN'T understand that.

If you are an intelligent person, you will read the one book that has drawn more attention than any other throughout history, IF you are actually searching for truth.

After that, read A Ready Defense by Josh McDowell and Bill Wilson, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

I wish God would reveal himself in such a way that we could experience him with one of the five physical senses that we have. I have been a Christian for a long time, but the more I apply logical reasoning to my faith, the more questions I have and the more skeptical I become. I just want to know the truth...nothing more...nothing less.

I watch everyone arguing on here, and I always find myself somewhere in between. I want to believe with my heart, but my mind needs more. If faith is the way to God, why is logical reasoning the correct way for everything else? Let's just get to the truth.

If Cameron says it, my faith in the resurrection just went up another notch.
Wonder where Elvis is?

This is hardly new stuff.

The Old and New Testaments are replete with warnings to beware of mockers.

Hint: Mockers are not well thought of by the God of the Bible.

Memo to Cameron: Seriously recommend you consider repenting before it is too late. Oscars will be a poor shield against Divine Judgment and hell-fire.

Hollywood will do anything it can to tear down Christianity and the people who believe.

The liberal elite strikes again!

You can't argue with people that will NEVER believe...but just a few secular and Christian based anecdotes to defend Christ (whom need no defending).

1. The earliest known copy of the New Testament archaelogists have discoverd is dated around 130 AD...shortly after we had approximately 25,000 copies in existence that archaelogists have found.

2. Caesar's Wars written between 100-44 BC - the earliest copy we can date is 900AD and we only have 10 copies.

3. Tacitus' Annals written in 100AD - with an earliest known copy found in 1,100 AD and we have 20 copies

4. Plato's Tetrologies written between 427 - 347 BC - earliest known copy 900AD and we have 7 copies.

5. Aristotle - any one work written between 384-322BC. Earliest known copy 1,000AD and we only have 5.

Now here is some VERIFIABLE evidence regarding the New Testment (just a sampling).

1. 1 Corinthians was written by PAul about 55AD
2. Only 25 years after Christ's death.
3. Succinctly shows the Gospel of the early church
4. "Hundreds" of eyewitnesses are noted, most of which would still be alive at this time and presumably would have easily refuted a contrived Resurrection story.

Just to put in perspective...none of us (at least I assume) question to much the history (oral or written) of World War II, Vietnam, or even the year 1982...these events occurred roughly 60, 30 and 25 years respectively.

However, some so-called enlightenend people would never question Plato or Aristotle (very few copies and known 1200 - 1400 years following their origination), yet they question eyewitnesses recorded less than 30 years after Christ's Resurrection and of which we have over 25,000 original copies.

As the noted Jewish historian Nelson GLueck has noted, "It may be stated categorically that no archaelogical discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

I am sure Mr. Cameron's alleged discovery will not change Mr. Glueck's opinion.

I work in many fields and hold many titles...I have biblical knowledge as I am a minister and a student. I have scientific and medical knowledge as I work in a hospital and I am a mortician and one thing I question. In order to confirm DNA, you have to have DNA to compare or match it to. In order to connect George W. Bush to Prescott Bush, we need DNA evidence to both. In order to connect Martin Luther King, III to Martin Luther King, SR, we need DNA from both. In paternity suits where the father is deceased or, as we see commonly in the mortuary profession, estate diputes, The deceased who has a confirmed identity is exhumed fromthe grave and DNA is collected from the remains. How can we get DNA from the Lord and savior who died and rose 2,000 years ago. That is like saying, I can get DNA evedence to prove Moses' descendents. I would need a body. Also, in the time of Christ, they anointed the bodies with oil but did not embalm as the egyptians. There would not be remains after that period of time. Trust me. Also,when you use DNA to trace a persons lineage, you can find the nation of people a person belongs to but, it is hard to trace actual individuals without records but for so far. Plus, we can only trace the maternal lineage of the person. There was actually a special on that touched on this issue by Oprah. She traced her lineage back to Africa to a region by the maternal DNA. There are more holes in this story than can be imagined. This is heresy and the persons doing it will answer to the judge on that day we all anticipate.

"I refuse to take direction on God and happiness, from people who have neither."

As a Jewish person who has God and happiness, there are many reasons why I deny that an Essene Rabbi who went off the derech was the Moshiach.

WOW! James Cameron IS truly amazing! Maybe he in fact is our Messiah! Well the only thing amazing about him is that he is an amazingly HUGE IDIOT!! You mean to tell me after all these years of archeologists doing research and looking for proof of things from the Bible it only takes a genius like frickin James Cameron to lay it all out for us with dna results and what not?? What is this world coming to? You know I'm so sick of all these hollywood idiots attacking the Christian faith (which our fine country was founded on no less!!) I sure as hell don't see movies being made attacking the muslim faith and all the stuff they believe. This saddens me, but at the same time brings a little smirk to my face....because all of you non-believers are going to be SOOOOOO......sorry when the end comes! Because it will be all who believe in Jesus Christ that will no doubt be having the last laugh. So go ahead and make your blasphemous movies and garbage and make some money off of it but let me say this....you can't spend any of that money in HELL!

You can't argue with people that will NEVER believe...but just a few secular and Christian based anecdotes to defend Christ (whom need no defending).

1. The earliest known copy of the New Testament archaelogists have discoverd is dated around 130 AD...shortly after we had approximately 25,000 copies in existence that archaelogists have found.

2. Caesar's Wars written between 100-44 BC - the earliest copy we can date is 900AD and we only have 10 copies.

3. Tacitus' Annals written in 100AD - with an earliest known copy found in 1,100 AD and we have 20 copies

4. Plato's Tetrologies written between 427 - 347 BC - earliest known copy 900AD and we have 7 copies.

5. Aristotle - any one work written between 384-322BC. Earliest known copy 1,000AD and we only have 5.

Now here is some VERIFIABLE evidence regarding the New Testment (just a sampling).

1. 1 Corinthians was written by PAul about 55AD
2. Only 25 years after Christ's death.
3. Succinctly shows the Gospel of the early church
4. "Hundreds" of eyewitnesses are noted, most of which would still be alive at this time and presumably would have easily refuted a contrived Resurrection story.

Just to put in perspective...none of us (at least I assume) question to much the history (oral or written) of World War II, Vietnam, or even the year 1982...these events occurred roughly 60, 30 and 25 years respectively.

However, some so-called enlightenend people would never question Plato or Aristotle (very few copies and known 1200 - 1400 years following their origination), yet they question eyewitnesses recorded less than 30 years after Christ's Resurrection and of which we have over 25,000 original copies.

As the noted Jewish historian Nelson GLueck has noted, "It may be stated categorically that no archaelogical discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."

I am sure Mr. Cameron's alleged discovery will not change Mr. Glueck's opinion.

WOW! James Cameron IS truly amazing! Maybe he in fact is our Messiah! Well the only thing amazing about him is that he is an amazingly HUGE IDIOT!! You mean to tell me after all these years of archeologists doing research and looking for proof of things from the Bible it only takes a genius like frickin James Cameron to lay it all out for us with dna results and what not?? What is this world coming to? You know I'm so sick of all these hollywood idiots attacking the Christian faith (which our fine country was founded on no less!!) I sure as hell don't see movies being made attacking the muslim faith and all the stuff they believe. This saddens me, but at the same time brings a little smirk to my face....because all of you non-believers are going to be SOOOOOO......sorry when the end comes! Because it will be all who believe in Jesus Christ that will no doubt be having the last laugh. So go ahead and make your blasphemous movies and garbage and make some money off of it but let me say this....you can't spend any of that money in HELL!

I've already advised the Discovery Channel that if they air this I will cancel my subscription....they should be lucky that I don't strap explosives around my waste.

Oh, puh-leeze! James Cameron is going to "disprove" Christianity?...

R-I-I-I-G-G-G-H-T.

Ummm...the names on the ossuaries were *common*. It would be the equivalent of a religion being started today by Dylan son of Tyler...and then future archaeologists finding a tombstone 1,000 years from now saying, "Dylan son of Tyler" and coming to the conclusion, "Wow! We found *the* grave of *the* Dylan son of Tyler!". Uh, Dylan and Tyler were two of the most common names for boys, top 20, for years now.

It's absurd...it's a gutbuster...a real belly laugh. So, what, Cameron got DNA from Jesus to compare these bones to? Where, from the Shroud of Turin? How anyone could approach this without laughing at the utter absurdity of such ridiculous claims is beyond me. To say Cameron and his buddies are "reaching" would be a considerable understatement.

The only evidence anyone has about Christianity, apart from a few references by secular historians like Josephus and Tacitus, are the gospels themselves and the other books of the New Testament. Anyone trying to prove anything about Jesus or the resurrection, beyond what is written there, is pulling it out of their hind quarters. Until some kind of *real* and *provable* archaeological evidence comes to light, that's all anyone has had, or will have, to work with. The gospels make claims - and you either believe them or not.

Claiming that the use of the Bible to prove the resurrection is "circular logic" is as ridiculous as saying that using any other historical document (because the gospels do claim to be historical documents - biographies, if you will, of the life and deeds of Jesus Christ) to prove anything about the existence and actions of any other historical figure, based on what documents are available. There is less evidence for other historical figures (the copies of the ancient documents we have are far fewer in number, and far more recent - typically from the Middle Ages) than there is for Jesus. Yet very few historians doubt the existence or deeds of these figures. We have thousands of copies of the documents of the New Testament and they are *far* older than almost any other documents about any other figure from ancient history. But because the gospels claim miracles and a resurrection, we must throw the baby out with the bathwater?

Again, I say, R-I-I-I-G-G-G-H-T.

I work in many fields and hold many titles...I have biblical knowledge as I am a minister and a student. I have scientific and medical knowledge as I work in a hospital and I am a mortician and one thing I question. In order to confirm DNA, you have to have DNA to compare or match it to. In order to connect George W. Bush to Prescott Bush, we need DNA evidence to both. In order to connect Martin Luther King, III to Martin Luther King, SR, we need DNA from both. In paternity suits where the father is deceased or, as we see commonly in the mortuary profession, estate diputes, The deceased who has a confirmed identity is exhumed fromthe grave and DNA is collected from the remains. How can we get DNA from the Lord and savior who died and rose 2,000 years ago. That is like saying, I can get DNA evedence to prove Moses' descendents. I would need a body. Also, in the time of Christ, they anointed the bodies with oil but did not embalm as the egyptians. There would not be remains after that period of time. Trust me. Also,when you use DNA to trace a persons lineage, you can find the nation of people a person belongs to but, it is hard to trace actual individuals without records but for so far. Plus, we can only trace the maternal lineage of the person. There was actually a special on that touched on this issue by Oprah. She traced her lineage back to Africa to a region by the maternal DNA. There are more holes in this story than can be imagined. This is heresy and the persons doing it will answer to the judge on that day we all anticipate.

What do you expect from a 33rd Degree Mason like Cameron?

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/33rd.htm

1. Jews in the First Century did not use caskets. The deceased was placed in the burial cave on a slab of stone to deteriate, then the bones were placed in a chamber with others who died earlier.

2. Whose DNA did they compare what they found in the tomb with to "prove" it was Jesus' DNA? And, is DNA viable for two thousand years anyway?

3. Reasonable Christians with a solid foundation in their faith will not be shaken by this, another attempt to discredit two thousand years of history and belief in the authenticity and authority of the Judao-Christian Scriptures.

This is hardly new stuff.

The Old and New Testaments are replete with warnings to beware of mockers.

Hint: Mockers are not well thought of by the God of the Bible.

Memo to Cameron: Seriously recommend you consider repenting before it is too late. Oscars will be a poor shield against Divine Judgment and hell-fire.

I think the best thing Christians can do with this whole thing is to blow it off all together. You can not scientifically prove or disprove Jesus, the resurrection, or most of the biblical accounts in general. They call it faith for a reason. Everybody has faith in something. Everyone believes something. While that doesn't make the outcome of those beliefs equal or beneficial, for Christians to back themselves into corners and act like trapped animals would do very little to live the example of the life and love of Christ. So I have a news flash for all the Christians posting dramatic defenses here: God, if he is God, does not need you to defend him. Living in a way that shows genuine compassion, love, forgiveness and understanding says far more about who you are than random facts and puffy language. No one here who does not believe in Jesus is going to begin believing in Jesus because you argue better. Forget it. Move on. This isn't the fist or last attempt to knock the deity of Christ. Figure out where you can bring a bit of heaven to earth instead of trying to bring a bit of hell to those who don't agree with you.

And James Cameron just fulfilled the "prophecy" of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:25: "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdon, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength." Instead of condemming Mr. Cameron, and defending God (somewhat laughable, as if God needs our defending!), we should instead pray for Mr. Cameron that he takes the time to read Scripture, and realize that Jesus is the Old Testament fulfilled. Peace be unto all.

No... the real announcement is that it real, and...

That James Cameron is a direct relative of the Son of God.

Can this mad hubris really lead anywhere else?

It's called making money and staying in the spotlight. Remember, this is a man who held up his Oscar and announced, "I'm king of the world!"

Really?

Help me here, people. I'm completely confused...so say they do have DNA...what are they comparing that to? How can you have a 2000 year old specimen and tell where it came from?

Matt. 5: 10-12, 44
10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
• • •
44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

So what if James Cameron wants to make a documentary - I just wouldn't want to be in his shoes on judgement day.

The above comments make me smile. The age old sceptic vs christian debate is still full of zealous believers on both sides of the debate.

Isn't that why everything comes down to faith. You either believe Jesus or you don't! You'll never disprove him to the believers and you'll never prove him to the unbelievers. But one thing is certain - you either have faith or you dont. It's your choice!

Camerons documentary will stir people up and get lots of people arguing. But then it will be gone and forgotten.

The same thing has happened for 2000 years. Guess who won the previous debates? Cause he's still here and people still believe in him and we still set our western moral standard by his teaching and we still determine our calendar by his birth. Believer or unbeliever you can't knock the influence one man has had on the world.

Not bad for a lunatic or a liar....
or maybe who He said he was...

Boy. . . they never stop trying, do they? It's humorous, really.

Anyone who has done the study with an open mind can see the evidence for the Resurrection. While not airtight, it is sufficient for any court of law in this nation. (With the exception of the 9th Circuit...:-)

The idiocy that says the Gospels were written 200-300 years after the fact is laughable by any modern standards of biliographical analysis.

I do wish a few of the Christians on here would shut up... :-) Some do more harm than good.

I would love to talk face to face with the guy who commented that "the more he applies logic to his beliefs, the more skeptical he becomes..." Him, there is still hope for. Dude, e-mail me at darrellstetler2@juno.com, and let's talk logic.

Kempesh needs to go study and find facts rather than just spewing the line that his professors handed him. Go do the hard, honest work of finding the truth, Kempesh. Try reading something on the other side, like Lewis, McDowell, Strobel, Chesterton, Little, and others.

I dare you. Some of us have read the stuff on your side of the fence. (Honestly, we get it all the time from Dan Brown, the media, and the papers...) Now, do you have the guts to put aside prejudice and read the other side?

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Ironically, Jesus predicted the comments on this list....

Blessings to all,
Darrell

What is it about Christianity that so terrifies people who claim not to believe in it? Why the need to constantly attack and tear down something that they believe is a fairy tale? All that time and effort...hmmmm.

There is a truth at the core of Christianity that gnaws at the heart - and I believe that is why it drives secular types nearly mad. Notice they expend no such effort, attention or time attacking other religions like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. Why is that?

Christianity contains truth - and it convicts these lonely, lost, souls that are so filled with self-hate, nihilism, bitterness, and major daddy issues...

Typical leftwing athiest Hollywood BULLSHIT