Posted on 03/04/2007 8:37:23 PM PST by Reaganesque
The Lost Tomb of Jesus on the Discovery Channel was followed up by a panel discussion moderated by Ted Koppel. Koppel and two professors who are not affiliated with the documentary totally eviscerated the director of the film and one of his consultants. Koppel seemed particularly offended by the film maker's claims of being a journalist. If you get the chance to see this review of the documentary, watch it. It is very funny.
I prioritized this documentary right down there next to shows about UFOs and Creationism.
It was on the same level as those UFO specials you see on the Sci-Fi channel.
Yes it did. Grist for the Freemasonry/Knights Templar/Da Vinci code mill.
Koppel asked if it would be intriguing to her if science could find in the ossuaries the DNA to compare and find a man, a woman, and their child Jesus ... apparently, Mister Koppel is totally ignorant of genetics or he is trying to sell the lie; to what would the DNA be compared for control, to determine that the genetics was actually reading Mary and Joseph and Jesus?... Friends, the fraud perpetuates itself (and Koppel isn't smart enough or isn't willing to expose said fraud as it spills out on his watch because he wants to be a part of the controversy).
Science reads DNA but cannot determine that the bones were not fraudulently deposited by someone trying to duplicate the mother/father/child notion, placing fraudulent bones of a family into ossuaries and then chiseling false names on the boxes is impossible for today's science to debunk having no DNA from Jesus to make comparison with! The 'James, brother of Jesus' ossuary is already found to be fraudulent (the chiseling on the stone box is original for name and contemporary for whom it is the brother of!) and a lawsuit is underway.
Koppel's 'compelling' Discovery Channel program is pure horse manure, babbling foolery meant to trick the uneducated and suck in nonbelievers to believe a lie ... reminds me of something about millstones.
Hey you left out the brothers.....I was forced to watch that cr@p tonight. I asked my husband who was so interested in it if he remembered his Sunday school lessons. I said we were taught Christ rose form the dead right? He agreed and I asked him did you think he left his body behind? He said it never crossed his mind. I asked well why would he want or need his body if he was ascending to heaven? I was very happy it bored him to sleep. If it was even remotely true and I highly doubt any of this is true I still would believe in my faith and what I was taught.
Yeah, I don't think a body left behind would really 'debunk' the resurection story.
I mean, are we supposed to believe that Jesus is the only one in heaven in his original flesh and blood body?
I guess I always figured it was a spritual ascension.
After reading a bit on both sides about this tomb I don't believe it has any biblical significance - and I wasn't exactly one of those who declared it a hoax without further thought due to my faith.
I could care less if it was or wasn't the tomb of Jesus. It really wouldn't prove a thing to me, other than it being the burial site (or not in this case). I don't care if he was married with 10 children or was literally the son of God. I'd like to see some physical proof of his existence, but it wouldn't affect my spirituality a bit.
The tomb was empty, and stayed empty.
As a child I didn't ask questions either. If I were a child now I might. I remember the tomb as being empty but I never gave it a thought he would need his earthly body either. I don't think he would. I also think some things ought to be left alone and this is one of them. I think this show was silly and I think the movie will be one I won't be going to see. My husband can go see it alone if he is still that interested.
I doubt you're interested, but the point was part of major fights in Christian theology early on. There's more to it than it seems to a layman on first thought.
It has to do with who Jesus was, Christology, the Trinity and so on. It's an important part of an important doctrine.
I wasn't taught well either, I think it's something one has to come to in adulthood these days anyway.
I'm not disagreeing with your personal decision on lack of interest, but who Jesus is is important to Christianity and this film attacks that. Allowing that it doesn't matter also chips at the foundation of Christianity.
thanks for your reply.
My reply to that is that yeah you may fool the people, but you will not fool God. God will know in your heart if you truly believe.
I totally agree. Thanks ~P~
The Ascension of Jesus, in His resurrected physical body, is also supported by the reality that the Romans and the Jewish leaders sought desperately to locate the body but could not in His day ... they didn't look for a man with a family, they sought the crucified body of the Galilean, because when Romans crucified a man he stayed dead, so the credibility of Rome was at stake in this resurrection story and finding the dead body was very important to them, to counter this insult to Roman capabilities and silence any murmurings of collusion between the Jesus followers and Rome against Jewish traditions.
Had the Romans found the dead body, the disciples in the following years would not have been persecuted, they would have been ridiculed into silence! The grudge against Christianity was severe, from both Jews and Rome. Had there been a man living even in seclusion for years following his crucifixion, the Jews would have found him out and exposed him, and the Romans would have wiped every memory of the fraud from public record because of the effrontery it meant to Roman authority. Rome and the Jewish leadership wanted that body, not a man wandering about -because they knew He died on the Cross- but the rotting corpse of the crucified man they wanted for evidence.
Finally, what assurance would a faithful Christian have regarding future resurrection of their body as promised to eternal life if the rotting corpse of the Galilean were in evidence? And what would the disciples have been dying for if the Romans and Jews had a corpse to point to when the Gospel was preached? Did Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead, bodily? Did a disciple raise a child from the dead? A rotting corpse is natural; resurrection of a dead body to life is supernatural, and spiritual salvation is a supernatural occurrence, so Christ proved His capability to save the spirit and restore the body, with His own body.
I hesitate to post this for fear of getting flamed, but I got a vibe very hostile to Christianity in this and it wasn't the first I've gotten from Simcha Jacobovici, who it has to be said is a professional Jew who distains Christians. I have watched several of his other shows and they all demonstrate a bias, not just against Christians, but against his fellow religionists with whom he disagrees, that is to say, Jews who hold to traditional teachings and interpretations of the Torah. So I enjoyed last night's Koppel discussion because Simcha looked alike a deer in the headlights most of the time. I got the impression no one had ever challenged him before and he was stunned. This is all a bunch of hooey, of course. The part about the DNA was ludicrous (what, no sample from the Holy Ghost?), and the statistical analysis worse. Koppel must be desperate for content to do this kind of crap for an hour.
The MSM puts something out like this every year to coincide with Easter. It's SOP.
Gore boy will be disappointed they didn't find a "manbearpig" in there.
jw
Can I expect an expose on Muhammed next Ramadan?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.