tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post6717557589313089017..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: PROBLEMS MULTIPLY FOR JESUS TOMB THEORYBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-3072287016133871952009-04-17T02:29:00.000-07:002009-04-17T02:29:00.000-07:00To the discerning observer, criticism of the docum...To the discerning observer, criticism of the documentary `The Lost Tomb of Jesus’ has proven one thing if nothing else about its critics - a profound absence of intellectual honesty and objective thought, underscored by an immutable pathologic aversion to empirically based scientific inquiry in an effort to peddle as documentable historical fact, long held personal beliefs, institutional biases, religious and political agendas. <br /><br />The fact that an `expert’ may have and eloquently articulate an opinion in front of a camera renders, neither them objective, nor their opinions authoritatively accurate. <br /><br />Fraud is revealed in what the perpetrator seeks to obscure from the intended target in order to achieve a net gain at the expense of their victims. Render impermeable the mind of those who seek and are otherwise inclined to accept and be guided by truth and a victim you shall find. <br /><br />Post documentary debate has largely been monopolized by a circus of religious ideologues with a financial and political stake in its outcome. Tactics employed by Israeli authorities regarding the confiscation and destruction of ancient ruins and `reburial’ of non-Jewish remains under the auspices of adhering to `strict Orthodox Jewish Law,’ have proven profoundly embarrassing to the Israeli Government, an institution not known for its sensitivity, either to bad press resultant from inappropriate behavior, or well founded criticism from the international community. <br /><br />A significant subtext to the program - A naive public is lead to believe that the burial customs of those who passed 2,000 years ago were somehow `deficient’ and so inconsistent with `strict Orthodox Jewish Law,’ that they warranted the disturbance of their graves, some of which included non-Jews (early Christians), removal of their remains, retention and stacking in government warehouses of the ossuaries inwhich they had been buried, confiscation of the land within which they were entombed, building apartment high rises over top of them, and the reburial of those remains (absent the ossuaries inwhich their familes and loved ones placed them) in anonymous graves and pits at undisclosed locations, if not destruction and disposal of them, is extraordinarily arrogant, a crime against history, amounting to grave robbing and plunder for profit. What civilized society on the planet permits such activities, let alone engages in it as an official government sanctioned enterprise? This, in large measure, was a primary source of discomfort to Ted Koppel, who is Jewish, about what was revealed in the documentary. <br /><br />For Christian archeologists and theologians, the documentary presents a profound dilemma. The universally recognized law - possession is 9/10ths of the law, applies to Israel also. Criticism of official Israeli government policy regarding the exhumation, reburial, and/or destruction of ancient tombs, confiscation human remains, warehousing, and sale of ossuaries, destruction of ancient tombs and significant Christian archaeology sites, confiscation of land above and directly adjacent to them for sake of profit and the benefit of real estate developers with an itch to make a buck, are awkward issues subject to aggressive official censorship. Criticism of officially sanctioned Israeli Government policy, albeit warranted here, limits access to the country, prohibition from access to archaeologically significant sites, denial and revocation of licenses for engaging in archaeological activities, accelerated government confiscation and plundering of site contents, and construction of private and public commercial enterprises in an effort to impede, if not prevent access to them. <br /><br />In the case of the program at issue, Ted Koppel’s selection of `experts’ and `citics’ of the documentary achieved the network’s overarching objective - increased viewership and ratings through controversy by any means necessary. If, by the top of the concluding hour, the network can leave the audience wanting more, they and its advertisers will return for more and, by any objective measure, they were succeessful.<br /><br />In the end it wasn’t merely the reputation of Israel which lay in ruin. Ted Koppel, heretofore assumed to be and accepted for decades as the consummate, objective, fact finding inquisitor, revealed three (3) things - what was clearly a religious and politically motivated bias against the producer of the documentary and what was uncovered in it, an extraordinarily ineptitude in his selection of rebuttal `experts,’ and that there remains something to be said for a timely retirement. <br /><br />After ABC pulled the plug on him, and/or he left the building for the last time of his own free will, he had accrued more than ample empirical evidence regarding sequels. They are compared against, more often diminish, and seldom enhance the original, essentially a second act for a one act play. This Discovery program was one too many sequels for Ted. He became the story within the story. The corrosive effect if his performance invited an overwhelmingly negative public impression of his work, not merely in the future, but through this misstep, the past.<br /><br /><br />/s/ mike (Princeton, NJ)Mike (Princeton, NJ)https://www.blogger.com/profile/07129167066921243126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-72450392573498046172009-03-10T01:42:00.000-07:002009-03-10T01:42:00.000-07:00message for all anti_Christ:after all these stuffs...message for all anti_Christ:<BR/>after all these stuffs against the LORD JESUS, have you ever think how is HE feeling on you???lailaniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15559853918833963476noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-65703987695624019012008-04-13T06:36:00.000-07:002008-04-13T06:36:00.000-07:00For what it's worth, I wrote on this issue when th...For what it's worth, I wrote on this issue when the documentary first came out.<BR/><BR/>http://thelosttombofjesus.blogspot.com/2007/03/lost-tomb-of-jesus-on-march-4-2007-lost.html<BR/><BR/>aDios,<BR/>MarianoKenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16478151742674353783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-5091885697042422782008-02-19T00:53:00.000-08:002008-02-19T00:53:00.000-08:00Hi, Just want to share the great website that i fo...Hi, <BR/><BR/>Just want to share the great website that i found... <BR/>Hope you can find the SECRET LINK of this website ( http://howto.iblogger.org/ )<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>BenjaminUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14019714379481177156noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-31686653779344668262007-04-13T06:54:00.000-07:002007-04-13T06:54:00.000-07:00Greetings everyone,I was educated has a Christian,...Greetings everyone,<BR/><BR/>I was educated has a Christian, however I can't understand why some people just can't take that something like this is possible.. altough I'm not saying I actually believe it, I say that there's in fact a possibility that this could be true. Furthermore.. why can't Jesus be one of "us"? Are people so blind folded to believe so deeply in the writtings? I think we have to be open minded.. After all so many times theories have proven to be wrong.. (earth's round.. not flat, etc, etc) I definitelly agree with Matthew when he asks if we ever played the telephone game.. What makes people so sure the Bible or the writtings are ABSOLUTELY right? I sure don't think so, nonetheless that doesn't make me stop believing in God.<BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/><BR/>E.MarquesRose e Duhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906853880025522399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-84003950922324521222007-04-13T06:49:00.000-07:002007-04-13T06:49:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Rose e Duhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00906853880025522399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-78192858845120181482007-03-22T08:59:00.000-07:002007-03-22T08:59:00.000-07:00"My theory is that Paul invented the Jesus story, ..."My theory is that Paul invented the Jesus story, and his story was added to and further embellished using many myths and beliefs at the time."<BR/><BR/> Too bad there's not a shred of evidence to support your theory.<BR/>************************<BR/>There is no evidence that contradicts my theory.<BR/><BR/> "There was a lot of time for the story to change before the NT was actually written."<BR/><BR/> Yeah, a whole 20 or 30 years. Plenty of time for those in the know to die off.<BR/>*********************<BR/>You should check and see when the NT was actually written. It was a lot longer than that.<BR/><BR/> "And this tomb could be the first evidence that Paul's story was loosely based on a historical figure as no contemporary evidence that Jesus was real actually exists."<BR/><BR/> Except, that is, for the Epistles of Paul and the four Gospels<BR/>***********************<BR/>Paul just admits to having a dream. The Gospels were written way "after the fact." The Gospels are not historical, and Paul speaks of an allegorical Jesus, and it is hard to authenticate if even Paul existed, but I believe he did.Baconeaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134934827966299989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-87875833128563883232007-03-21T09:04:00.000-07:002007-03-21T09:04:00.000-07:00It is very complicated to discuss something seriou...It is very complicated to discuss something seriously; people oftenly (more oftenly than they like to admit) have their preconceptions and stick to it firmly. This "Jesus tomb" is probably a story made to sell or promote their makers or something like, but it may be also a good opportunity to open a debate on faith and history and things alike. What really do we know about Jesus (or Buda or whoever)? Just what tradition says - ie, what somebody wrote or said. For many people, such testimonies are enough. But they seem to forget that testimonies are not facts which can be tested: you accept them or not.<BR/>The arguments of the movie can be weak, deadly wrong and so on. But the show up of forums where one can debate the movie it is a good thing. What many people must notice it is that usually people do not discuss such subjects and, therefore, they do not confront their beliefs with reality. Sincerely: does someone who wrote here know (really know) how it is the afterlife? Or how it is the face of Jesus? Or if he was or not really married? Can we really trust the gospels as historical unbiased sources? Can we trust in any historical source?<BR/>Anyway, I learnt a lot with all I've seen and read in these days and I must thank the filmmakers (and the bloggers) for this. From this I will build my opinion, hoping that this way maybe I'll be a little more wiser. I hope also that other people may also benefit of so many discussions and that this could make the world a better place to live...Dedalushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17194844497703932370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-84339096015581366622007-03-06T20:40:00.000-08:002007-03-06T20:40:00.000-08:00A little insight All of this seams to be a cover ...A little insight<BR/><BR/> All of this seams to be a cover up of this discovery; I am appalled to the closed mindedness of you people for trying to discredit the significance of such a find.<BR/> Religion closes the eyes of the faithful and blinds them of the truth. If this really is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth then it should be proven through forensics and restored to the state it was found and if possible the bones put back.<BR/> If it is Jesus tomb it should be undisturbed or shared with the world not hidden or kept from it. <BR/>I would like to see it reopened and thoroughly examined, the tomb and all its artifacts complete with DNA testing carbon dating and have it all made public<BR/> The Bible stats that no flesh may enter the kingdom of God so it would stand to reason that Jesus body would be found here on earth instead of discrediting this find we should be trying to prove it s authenticity first before we judge it. <BR/> Furthermore the Bible only gives us a small portion of Jesus life and his teachings <BR/>He as did the rest of us have a life aside from what the bible tells us about him (He was a man just like the rest of us men) who are we to say that he had no family Marry was only a Virgin in birth of Jesus not after the fact that he was borne, he had brothers and sisters if you are all to blind to realize this as truth then you hade better read your bible not just go to church and sleep.Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00753425787353710320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-43469802350806736132007-03-06T08:44:00.000-08:002007-03-06T08:44:00.000-08:00My theory is that Paul invented the Jesus story, a...My theory is that Paul invented the Jesus story, and his story was added to and further embellished using many myths and beliefs at the time. In fact, Jesus' extended family may have been invented after someone saw the names on these tombs. <BR/>There was a lot of time for the story to change before the NT was actually written. And this tomb could be the first evidence that Paul's story was loosely based on a historical figure as no contemporary evidence that Jesus was real actually exists.Baconeaterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11134934827966299989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-747431425172932992007-03-05T17:36:00.000-08:002007-03-05T17:36:00.000-08:00Quoting Sister Rowena Hullfire "...St. Michael the...Quoting Sister Rowena Hullfire "...St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in the battle! St. Athanasius, pray for us. St. Polycarp, pray for us. St. Justin Martyr, pray for us. St. Ignatius of Antioch, pray for us. St. Iraneus of Lyons, pray for us..."<BR/><BR/>While this former Roman Catholic Brother doubts any of those saints will answer your "prayer requests", this humble saint certainly will. [wink]<BR/>Very good post by the way.<BR/><BR/>CrossWiseCrossWisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03823448148654208898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-56479740738919208222007-03-04T20:44:00.000-08:002007-03-04T20:44:00.000-08:00JESUS WAS A WOMEN - No this is not a joke=========...JESUS WAS A WOMEN - No this is not a joke<BR/>==========================================<BR/><BR/>Virgin Mary was virgin so she could not have received Y chromosome. If <BR/>there was no Y chromosome, the child born would have to be XX- that is <BR/>female. A male child needs XY chromosome. So DNA conclusion proves that Jesus was a female. I know people here will scorn at me but I have only taken a fact from Bible and applied modern, irrefutable knowledge so have the makers of 'Family tomb of Jesus'.<BR/><BR/>Get my point? The fact, ladies and gentlemen, is that just like Dan Brown novels, Jesus Family tomb etc, Bible is also a hyped up novel and nothing else.<BR/><BR/>God is not a He or She, God is the person who supports an orphan, God is the person who pulls out a drowning man, God is the fireman who pulls people out of bombed debris. God is your parents who toil hard to provide you food, shelter laptops and ipod. GOD is A STATE OF EMOTION CALLED EMPATHY, God is affection. GOD IS LOVE FOR FELLOW HUMANS- NOTHING ELSE. <BR/><BR/>I urge religious institution not to divide people over caste ,creed, believers/non-believers, catholic/ protestants. Go and find a better job AND YOU so called scientists-stop digging out empty boxes. See how you can be useful to the humanity at large. Let humans be humans<BR/><BR/>A-MEN!SELBLOGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14081076508515450084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-16887195920827858062007-03-03T20:26:00.000-08:002007-03-03T20:26:00.000-08:00Can anyone verify that Amos Kloner estimated that ...Can anyone verify that Amos Kloner estimated that the tomb contained 35 bodies. (Antiquot,Jerusalem, Vol. 29, pp. 22)<BR/>this was at: http://dev.smm.org/buzz/blog/jesus_and_family_found_in_tombKendallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02462553852524694427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-772920222087169622007-03-01T11:28:00.000-08:002007-03-01T11:28:00.000-08:00If you've not seen it, NRO has a funny take on thi...If you've not seen it, NRO has a funny take on this matter:<BR/><BR/>http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDIyZjZkZjUzOWNiY2IwYmVjYzczNGE3NTZiMzdlODg=DocMichaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01366304475853699983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-22643296720743555932007-03-01T11:21:00.000-08:002007-03-01T11:21:00.000-08:00Thank you for your excellent writing on this topic...Thank you for your excellent writing on this topic.Marciahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09655129514017134176noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-21226285880341804482007-03-01T10:10:00.000-08:002007-03-01T10:10:00.000-08:00Hi Ben,It will be of interest to your readers that...Hi Ben,<BR/>It will be of interest to your readers that Richard Bauckham has written a fascinating guest post on the 'Jesus family Tomb' on my blog (Chrisendom) <A HREF="http://www.christilling.de/blog/2007/03/guest-post-by-richard-bauckham.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. I look forward to reading the feedback.Chris Tillinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03153087287030167791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-18792180146831673062007-03-01T09:13:00.000-08:002007-03-01T09:13:00.000-08:00Sorry, the quotation should read that Philip found...Sorry, the quotation should read that Philip found Nathanael.M.W.Grondinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17103746412468053923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-55116935653740424422007-03-01T09:06:00.000-08:002007-03-01T09:06:00.000-08:00Jesus is never called ‘son of Joseph’ by anyone wh...<B>Jesus is never called ‘son of Joseph’ by anyone who knew him intimately in the NT--- not by his family members, and not by his disciples.</B><BR/><BR/>Why should he be? His family would have called him by his first name, and his disciples wouldn't even have used that - they would instead have used some honorific title. This is an extremely weak point in your argument, and prima facie contradicted by Jn 1:45, about which you say nothing:<BR/><BR/><B>Nathanael found Philip and told him, "We have found he of whom Moses in the Law and the prophets wrote - Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph!"</B><BR/><BR/>At this point, Philip (who has just been called to be a disciple) and Nathanael (who will be a disciple) know him as son of Joseph. It will do no good to claim that <I>later</I>, when they came to know him more intimately, they knew him to be a mamzer. That would be to beg the question. Or rather, it would reveal your true argument, which is apparently this:<BR/><BR/><B>Jesus was a mamzer. Therefore, his family would not have inscribed 'son of Joseph' on his ossuary, had there been one.</B>M.W.Grondinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17103746412468053923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-43465985764461251672007-03-01T09:01:00.000-08:002007-03-01T09:01:00.000-08:00nyredeemed asked:Can anyone tell me, why *ANYTHING...nyredeemed asked:<BR/><I>Can anyone tell me, why *ANYTHING* in the Acts of Philip, a supposedly 4th century document with copies no earlier than the 14th century, would be somehow considered more authoritative than the synoptic Gospels that stated Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven?</I> <BR/><BR/>That question has been bouncing around in my mind as well.<BR/><BR/>Of course Jay's brilliance with statistics have about boggled my brain anyway...SuzEQCitizenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10551808965427634539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-61898432030352437982007-03-01T08:26:00.000-08:002007-03-01T08:26:00.000-08:00Can anyone tell me, why *ANYTHING* in the Acts of ...Can anyone tell me, why *ANYTHING* in the Acts of Philip, a supposedly 4th century document with copies no earlier than the 14th century, would be somehow considered more authoritative than the synoptic Gospels that stated Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven? <BR/><BR/>If you're talking about Christian source material, did *ANY* of the early church fathers (ECFs) ever quote from the Acts of Philip? I mean, the ECFs quoted the NT so often that you can re-compose all of it except for 11 verses. The early church knew what was authoritative, and 2000 years later, we're somehow confused? <BR/><BR/>So the NT can be correct about the existence of Jesus, it it can't be correct about the other details, so then other non-canonical books are consulted? I find the lack of consistency particularly disturbing.Cullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07089100140887946850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-88862464554001806702007-03-01T06:44:00.000-08:002007-03-01T06:44:00.000-08:00Iason,Thank you kindly for your enlightening reply...Iason,<BR/><BR/>Thank you kindly for your enlightening reply.<BR/><BR/>Since Cameron and Co. have already made the leap from Mariamene in the Acts of Philip to Mary Magdalene, "companion" of Jesus in the Gospel of Philip, it would seem that Mara translated as Martha <I>does</I> help their case after all. Their argument would go something like this:<BR/><BR/>"Mariamene appears in the Acts of Philip as the sister of Martha. Since it appears that our Mariamne here is buried with another woman named Martha (as Mara is short for Martha), it is highly unlikely that it isn't the Mary and Martha from the Acts of Philip. [Then they go through a bunch of dubious statistics.] <I>And</I>, as Professor Whatshisorhername has clearly shown, Mariamene in the Acts of Philip is, in fact, Mary Magdalene. And since we know from the Gospel of Philip that Mary Magdalene was Jesus' spouse, that explains what she is doing in that tomb and why she has no matrilineal blood relationship to Jesus. [Repeat dubious statistics.]"<BR/><BR/>I don't see how that argument begs the question any more or depends on any other dubious sources than the one they actually made.Queryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04344653482233306616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-89769442031331801852007-02-28T22:31:00.000-08:002007-02-28T22:31:00.000-08:00In case my above second comment (the response to "...In case my above second comment (the response to "query") was a bit inarticulate, a summary:<BR/><BR/>In the Acts of Philip, there is Mariamene, who is apparently (though not explicitly called) a sister of one named Martha (and of Philip). This Mariamene is NOT referred to as a 'companion' of Jesus in that text, OR in the Gospel of Philip (she is not mentioned in that text, so far as I can tell), or in any other text that I'm aware of. There is also good reason to think that she is not Mary Magdalene.<BR/><BR/>In the Gospel of Philip, Mary Magdalene is called a 'companion' of Jesus. But no Martha is mentioned in that text, and Mary Magdalene is not called "Mariamene" there. There is in fact no indication that Mariamene (from the ACTS of Philip, related to Martha) is Mary Magdalene (from the GOSPEL of Philip). And, again, there is good reason to think not.Iasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272197325940161632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-73547381905798689202007-02-28T22:24:00.000-08:002007-02-28T22:24:00.000-08:00Two comments, one a question and one a response/co...Two comments, one a question and one a response/correction (to a person named "query").<BR/><BR/>First the question. It's now being noted that the inscription of "Mariamenou Mara" likely refers either to one woman by two names ("Mary" and "Martha") or refers to two people who occupied the same ossuary (Mary and Martha). Now the Cameron project is suggesting that this is Mary Magdalene, on the basis of the Acts of Philip. This is one important locus for the claim that Mariamene is Mary Magdalene. Dr. Witherington gives good reasons for thinking that Mariamene here is not Mary Magdalene, however. That's worth noting. But what's also worth noting is what follows in the Acts of Philip after Mariamne is mentioned (emphasis added): "And MARIAMNE his sister (it was she that made ready the bread and salt at the breaking of bread, but MARTHA was she that ministered to the multitudes and laboured much) seeing it, went to Jesus . . . " Isn't this of interest? (This comes very close to the question "query" asked, but is not quite the same question). Could it be that this tomb is interesting for another reason entirely, namely that it is possibly the tomb of the Mariamene and Martha (and perhaps their relatives) mentioned in the Acts of Philip? <BR/><BR/>Now my second related comment, which is intended as a response/correction to "query" (who, as I mentioned, came close to asking this very question). He/she goes on to ask: "If Mara is short for Martha, doesn't that actually support their thesis? Wasn't it Mary sister of Martha who, in that Gnostic text, is said to be Jesus' 'companion,' which some take to mean spouse, and is believed by some scholars to be the same person as Mary Magdalene? It seems surprising that they didn't argue that your version is true, and Mary and Martha are sisters buried together, and say that such bolsters their case given all the other name similarities. Responses?" The response is as follows. There are mistakes here. It is NOT "Mary sister of Martha who, in that Gnostic text, is said to be Jesus' 'companion.'" "Query" is here confusing two different Gnostic texts, the ACTS of Philip and the GOSPEL of Philip. In the ACTS of Philip, Mary (Mariamene) is the sister of Martha, but (as noted above and by Dr. Witherington in his post) THIS Mary (Mariamene) is not Mary Magdalene. Also, in THAT Gnostic text, THIS Mary, the sister of Martha, is NOT referred to as the companion of Jesus. It is in the OTHER Gnostic text, the GOSPEL of Philip, that Mary (and here it is Mary Magdalene, a different Mary, i.e., NOT Mariamene) is referred to as the companion of Jesus. So there is no reference to Mariamene, the sister of Martha, as the companion of Jesus, and there is no inference from Mariamene to Mary Magdalene, who is called the companion of Jesus in an entirely different text from the Acts of Philip which mentions Mariamene and Martha. This can't support the theory in the way that "query" suggests. <BR/><BR/>A third comment (so I lied about two). There is absolutely no indication in the Acts of Philip that Mariamene and Martha are in any way related to THE Jesus of Nazareth. It seems strange that Philip would not mention such a fact in the context, if indeed it were a fact... So, since he didn't, it's reasonable to assume that they were not related. Thus, if it IS the case that Mariamene and Martha here are linked to the Mariamene and Martha in the Acts of Philip (which might be a long shot anyway), then this is actually some prima facie reason to think that the Jesus in the tomb with them, if he is supposed to be married to Mariamene as is being claimed, is a different Jesus (which is quite plausible given the commonality of the name) from Jesus of Nazareth. So ultimately this works against the Cameron et al. theory.Iasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05272197325940161632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-48095031567493987192007-02-28T22:19:00.000-08:002007-02-28T22:19:00.000-08:00I'm no fan of this Jesus tomb stuff, but every tim...I'm no fan of this Jesus tomb stuff, but every time I read the claim that the disciples didn't refer to him as 'son of Joseph', I keep thinking of Jn 1:45, where Philip does just that (and after he'd been "called", BTW). Since that's an obvious counter-example to your general claim, shouldn't you at least mention it within your argument, if only to dispose of it?M.W.Grondinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17103746412468053923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-18595427288656138082007-02-28T22:13:00.000-08:002007-02-28T22:13:00.000-08:00Jay,Thank you once again for all the work you've p...Jay,<BR/>Thank you once again for all the work you've put into addressing the "bad math" that went into this documentary. I again have a problem with one thing that you mention at the end of your post. Out of all the people who have something to fear from this house of cards collapsing, why "Jim Cameron especially"? He's the only non-academic involved! He can go back to Hollywood and blame it all on those darn Christian conservatives. Other people involved with this debacle can only hope that that excuse flies...Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17790677827794170014noreply@blogger.com