Cameron documentary claims to have found Jesus' Tomb. Oh, and dead body too...

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I should like to add some things to Davila's blog on the subject. What you say regarding the statistical evidence for the commonplace nature of the names is true, however, what I find so compelling in his discussion is that there is no way to determine the relationships that existed between the names, beyond saying that the people in the tomb were probably related. Also, the very shoddy hypothesyzing by Jacobovici and Cameron around the inscription Mariamneou e Mara only serves to nullify their own credibility.

On a related note: if this indeed were the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, then it is in the wrong place. Jesus paternal home was in Galilee, and this is where one wouold expect to find the place of his burial and for that of his family. We can know rather definitively that Jesus was from Nazareth, because this is a part of the biblical story that does nothing to enhance the claims of his followers—being from Nazareth in the first-century C.E. was akin to being from Edmonton, or even Fort McMurry!

Furthermore, Jesus was from among the wrong social class to have even had a tomb like the one discovered. Peasants could not afford ossuaries and mosoleums; those that are discovered in and around Jerusalem are those which have belonged to members from the priestly and ruling classes in Jewish society (The tomb and ossuary of Ciaphas, the last High Priest in Jerusalem is a similar find to what has been described in Jacobovici's film).

Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough at this point: the discovery of the tomb happened over 27-years ago, and in that time not a single reputable archaeologist of biblical scholar has come on board and backed the Jacobovici/Cameron hypothesis. The fact that this is a discovery being vigorously promoted by two film-makers smacks of gross, sensationalistic oppertunism. The whole thing suffers from a sever lack of credibility.

I'm not going to argue about shoddy hypothesyzing as I haven't seen the show but like most things like this it's probably a lot of conjecture.

I don't see a big problem in having Jesus' tomb in Jerusalem. This is where he died and Joseph's family was from Bethlehem and the birthplace of Jesus, a suburb of Jerusalem. Also there is the rumour that Jesus and maybe John the Babtist were fathered by the Temple priest for whatever that's worth.

As for being from the wrong social class, I don't think that would be a problem. His many followers, some of them wealthy, would not have scrimped on his burial.

[Calgaryborn]

Divorce under Old Testament law was easy: Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Basically you just wrote her a certificate of divorce and sent her away.

In the New Testament Jesus narrowed permissible divorce to situations
of adultery.

Actually there is an on going debate amonst Christians regarding this queston. Partly because not much is said and partly because of folks
will grab one verse and not look at the others on the subject.

Although I'm sure some unhappy marriages stay together because
of pressure from their religious group. I still think marriages among
committed religious people have a greater chance of success because
they will have a similar set of expectations and values.

Textcritic thanks for the information.

[photon]

One would think that the closer any couple's expectations and goals are the more chance for success, but that study posted earlier seems to indicate otherwise, with religious people having a higher rate of divorce than agnostic or atheists..

Though that could simply be related to the fact that on average agnostics and atheists have a higher level of education and a higher income.

[Azure]

I would assume that one of the central points of marriage is a common goal, and common expectations.

[photon]

One would think, but how many times have you know people that get married, have kids, and then get stuck on whether to raise them Jewish or Anglican? Or one partner complains about something about the other, but if you ask if their partner did those things before they got married they protest that they thought they would change after they got married.

Sometimes I wonder why some people DO get married.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by photon

One would think that the closer any couple's expectations and goals are the more chance for success, but that study posted earlier seems to indicate otherwise, with religious people having a higher rate of divorce than agnostic or atheists..

Though that could simply be related to the fact that on average agnostics and atheists have a higher level of education and a higher income.

I'm one who isn't surprised that "religious" marriages have a higher failure rate. Not to generalize, but there is a doctrine that I've heard that "couples who pray together stay together"--which strikes me as one of those magical, simple fixes for marital issues that never works in real life.

If you go into a marriage thinking "this will be easy because we share this religion thing," then you've forgotten the cardinal rule of human relationships. People change--you must work to accept and nurture the changes your partner undergoes, and understand that the terms of your relationship will evolve over time.

This is why there is no simple answer to what makes marriages work. Marriages don't work unless you're willing to work for them.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't necessarily see the connection between having morals and sticking with your marriage. My morals comprise values like 'don't hurt other people', 'help those who need help', 'don't lie, cheat, steal, or kill'. There's not much in there that says, 'even if you hate your marriage and don't love your wife any more... stick it out for 35 more years and then death can work it out'. If one or both of you legitimately want out because you're no longer in love with your partner (for whatever reason), I don't see that as morally shabby.

Sometimes people fall out of love and want to separate... pretty easy for the rest of us to pass judgement and call them 'immoral' for it until we're there ourselves. For those of you who have never been married/divorced, I'm sure sticking it out can seem like an impossible option for many, many divorcees.

True... there's "unreconcilable differences" like what you stated, and then there's the "my wife's ass isn't as nice as it used to be, and even though I'm an ugly slob, I'm rich and I'm going to grab a newer model" mentality. People do fall out of love... but how many of these people do you think legitimately fell out of love, or just got into a fight and were too selfish and lazy to try and tough it out and ultimately determine that they just weren't in love anymore and were better off apart. How many times do you think our grandparents fell out of love, only to tough it out, and rekindle that romance? I'm sure it happens to tons of married couples. The difference is, their morality said, not to give up unless there's nothing left to give up, where more and more, we as a society are adopting a Homer Simpson view of life, "if something is hard, its not worth doing" and "its okay if I do nothing, someone else will do it for me," "d'oh!"

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm one who isn't surprised that "religious" marriages have a higher failure rate. Not to generalize, but there is a doctrine that I've heard that "couples who pray together stay together"--which strikes me as one of those magical, simple fixes for marital issues that never works in real life.

If you go into a marriage thinking "this will be easy because we share this religion thing," then you've forgotten the cardinal rule of human relationships. People change--you must work to accept and nurture the changes your partner undergoes, and understand that the terms of your relationship will evolve over time.

This is why there is no simple answer to what makes marriages work. Marriages don't work unless you're willing to work for them.

I just wonder if the stats made any reference to a mixed religious marriage, and how they fared against pure religious marriage.

Ie: I could see a marriage between a devout Catholic and a liberal Anglican not lasting simply due to the fact that their dissenting views could cause a lot of friction in matters of family planning and child raising.

Also, another reason I could see religiously devout marriages failing is the simple fact that religious people tend to marry younger. Hell, if the Bible says you can't fornicate, and you follow that, wouldn't you want to snag someone to procreate with as fast as possible? ... and with that, haste makes waste. Most people aren't ready for marriage until their mid-late 20s.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I just wonder if the stats made any reference to a mixed religious marriage, and how they fared against pure religious marriage.

Ie: I could see a marriage between a devout Catholic and a liberal Anglican not lasting simply due to the fact that their dissenting views could cause a lot of friction in matters of family planning and child raising.

Also, another reason I could see religiously devout marriages failing is the simple fact that religious people tend to marry younger. Hell, if the Bible says you can't fornicate, and you follow that, wouldn't you want to snag someone to procreate with as fast as possible? ... and with that, haste makes waste. Most people aren't ready for marriage until their mid-late 20s.

I don't know, so I can't speak to what the stats did and didn't measure. I do recall being told that the divorce rate is higher in red states than it is in blue states--some people like to trot this out to show that liberal, secular marriages are more successful. But as has been pointed out, it means nothing of the sort--but is likelier to mean that marriages among affluent, educated people are more successful, an unsurprising finding, since they would tend to have less money-stress in their lives, and to get married later.

Friction is a guarantee in any marriage--whether it's between the two of you, or because something unforeseeable happens. You need to be able to work it out as individuals, committed to the relationship even if your needs and values change. In that sense, a marriage between people of differing values could be very successful, as long as they're prepared for the committment of being together no matter what.

I say this as a secular liberal who is happily married--interpret that bias however you like. My wife and I were married at 23, and we've been through more together than I could ever get into on this board. Our marriage is COMPLETELY different than what I imagined it would be, but because we've both been able to adapt, it's also amazing. I wouldn't change it for the world.

But if, at certain stages, either of us had thought that turning to an external power (like religion) to guide us were the answer, I doubt it would have worked out. We had to depend on our own adaptablity, and our own values.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Also, another reason I could see religiously devout marriages failing is the simple fact that religious people tend to marry younger. Hell, if the Bible says you can't fornicate, and you follow that, wouldn't you want to snag someone to procreate with as fast as possible?

It's anecdotal evidence and not valid in any real sense, but at one point in my life I was fairly well familiar with a group of devout (or formerly devout) religious young people from a small southern Alberta town. Many of them wanted to or did get married at a very young age.

Before I knew them, a popular weekend pastime for the gals while they were in high school was to drive into the big city (Lethbridge) to try on wedding gowns. The fellas, near as I can tell, rubbed out their frustrations by practicing their jump-shot. Whatever else was rubbed out while not on the basketball court was never discussed.

Their parents were all vocal and allegedly devoted members to their particular church but believe me, underneath all the piety and preaching these people were living lives that would have scandalized Aaron Spelling.

The girl who introduced me to this crowd majored in anthropology and dismissed her faith before reading week of her second semester. She also dismissed me and is now a divorce lawyer.

[Daradon]

The question I ask all believers who start quoting the bible is simple this.

Why don't you follow the whole bible?



You don't, you really don't. (and even this most pious person, which you all are not, would find it difficult if not impossible)

You pick out your arguments for times and places, and can number of all these texts that were created years ago (by men) but fail constantly.

Yet you still argue it.

Take it as value while you admit fault OR

Just admit your a huge hypocrite.

Either way, obviously neither is rule or law. Just value.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The question I ask all believers who start quoting the bible is simple this.

Why don't you follow the whole bible?

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you?

Christianity is based around the New Testament. Therefore a Christian would try to abide by what the New Testament preaches, which if you would actually read it, is more about spiritual well-being and growth, then all those dumb petty laws mentioned in the Old Testament.

And how do you not know that Firefly, who professes to be a Christian, does not follow the Bible to the best of her abilities? Who are you to judge people?

Call my cynical, but you come across as really arrogant.

[Flames_Gimp]

in other news I found the easter bunny....

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Christianity is based around the New Testament. Therefore a Christian would try to abide by what the New Testament preaches, which if you would actually read it, is more about spiritual well-being and growth, then all those dumb petty laws mentioned in the Old Testament.

I thought both books were inspired by or even written by God. No?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I thought both books were inspired by or even written by God. No?

There is a huge problem here for Christian social conservatives--because Christianity IS supposed to be predicated not only on the NT, but on the Gospel specifically. Which as Azure said, is mostly about forgiveness, love, etc.--not the fire-and-brimstone wrathful God of the OT. But the problem is that all of these social-conservative rules come either from the OT or from Paul's letters--or some other source which would be apocryphal if it didn't happen to be bound into the same book as the Gospel. Jesus himself wasn't super-worried about gay marriage, adultery, all these things. Don't forget that a central story of his is the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" business, in which he stands up to righteous men in order to protect a prostitute.

The Gospel isn't a great source-text for social conservatives--and for that reason they often turn to OT texts, and then try to resolve the contradiction later.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I thought both books were inspired by or even written by God. No?

Absolutely. And don't jump on me for being an idiot for believing that.

The Old Testament was geared towards a time when there was such a thing as Jew, and Gentile. One was privileged before God, the other wasn't. *The Mormons still believe that, if I recall correctly, which is one of my biggest problems with their faith.*

I think there is a passage in the New Testament that talks about there being neither Jew nor Gentile anymore. Instead, things such as forgiveness, mercy, long suffering, love, etc, etc are stressed in the New Testament.

I call it a book that explains your personal relationship with God....whereas the Old Testament talked about a people's(the Jews) relationship with God, and the laws they abide by.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

The Gospel isn't a great source-text for social conservatives--and for that reason they often turn to OT texts, and then try to resolve the contradiction later.

Which of course is almost impossible.

But they still try, sadly enough.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Absolutely. And don't jump on me for being an idiot for believing that.

The Old Testament was geared towards a time when there was such a thing as Jew, and Gentile. One was privileged before God, the other wasn't. *The Mormons still believe that, if I recall correctly, which is one of my biggest problems with their faith.*

I think there is a passage in the New Testament that talks about there being neither Jew nor Gentile anymore. Instead, things such as forgiveness, mercy, long suffering, love, etc, etc are stressed in the New Testament.

I call it a book that explains your personal relationship with God....whereas the Old Testament talked about a people's(the Jews) relationship with God, and the laws they abide by.

I'm not familiar enough with the material to get into this Jew and Gentile business, but your explanation sounds like quite a cop-out. An excuse even. Like "sure God wrote this crazy old book that we can't follow, but things change. It's still God's words, but they don't apply anymore".

What is the consensus opinion on when the Old Testament was written?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not familiar enough with the material to get into this Jew and Gentile business, but your explanation sounds like quite a cop-out. An excuse even. Like "sure God wrote this crazy old book that we can't follow, but things change. It's still God's words, but they don't apply anymore".

What is the consensus opinion on when the Old Testament was written?

Cop-out in what way?

I'm sure Textcritic could respond on when the Old Testament was written.

There are verses in the New Testament that speak about a new covenant made with God, one that involved 'you' and God. Plus, there are numerous verses in the New Testament that talk about disregarding the petty laws in the Old Testament.

Here..

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/OldVsNewCovenant.html

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Cop-out in what way?

I'm sure Textcritic could respond on when the Old Testament was written.

There are verses in the New Testament that speak about a new covenant made with God, one that involved 'you' and God. Plus, there are numerous verses in the New Testament that talk about disregarding the petty laws in the Old Testament.

Here..

http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/OldVsNewCovenant.html

I think I'm having a deja vu experience.

My main point is that the whole thing looks like He got it wrong the first time and changed things in the second one. That seems "imperfect" to say the least.

As for the oldtimers who the first book was geared at, did they have to live by those crazy rules? Like actual human beings had to suffer through that kind of thing?