[Physicist]

Cameron is a pathetic man.

Pathetic, why? Do you think he forged the ossuaries? Or do you think they're for real, but that he's wrong to bring them to the public?

[.cnI redruM]

No, but I think the archaeologist who dug them up already described them as completely mundane. He also explained that there were at least 70 other tombs in Jerusalem that bore the name Jesus. It was a fairly common first name in the era.

Cameron already had all of this knowledge available to him before he made his documentary. He went ahead with it anyway.

[Sans-Culotte]

Pathetic, why? Do you think he forged the ossuaries? Or do you think they're for real, but that he's wrong to bring them to the public?

Probably all of the above. There is as likely a chance that someone forged the names centuries ago as not. Even if they are real, they prove nothing. He almost certainly is engaging in Christian-bashing as the blogger suggests. I find it interesting that people who buy into this believe certain parts of the Bible if it supports part of their story (such as the existence of Mary Magdalene, the fact that Jesus's mother was named Mary and that Jesus was reputedly the son of Joseph the carpenter, etc). "The rest of the story" is conveniently jetiisoned. It seems to me that if this story was approached from a point of view that denies the gospel accounts of Christ's life, that one should assume nothing about Jesus, including who his family members were or who might have been His paramour. If you do this, then you are left with a tomb with some bones of a guy named Jesus and some other people.

However, if non-believers find comfort in this discovery, it is of no concern to me.

[Western Phil]

"Pathetic, why? Do you think he forged the ossuaries? Or do you think they're for real, but that he's wrong to bring them to the public?"

His conclusions do not necessarily follow from the observations. There are many alternate explanations which can readily match the facts. From what I have seen, this yahoo apparently ignores them.