Updates on Talpiot tomb (lost tomb of Jesus?)

[mainer]

Some time ago, I posted a thread here on DU, which got some interesting -- and largely skeptical -- responses:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=160069&mesg_id=160069

Since then, a rather startling event has occurred on this subject. The Princeton conference on the Talpiot tomb has just concluded in Jerusalem, with some surprising revelations:

-- The widow of the original excavator, Dr. Gat, gave a speech accepting a posthumous award honoring her husband. And she revealed, to everyone's shock, that her husband (who'd been silent on the matter) had always believed it was the tomb of Jesus -- but that he was terrified of speaking out because he expected anti-semitic attacks.

-- the statistician whose calculations supported the contention it was indeed the tomb of Jesus's family, Dr. Audrey Feuerverger (sp?), has had his paper peer-reviewed and accepted by "Annals of Applied Statistics," to be published February.

-- a source within the Israeli Antiquities authority claims that when the tomb was first opened, there was an agreement to suppress the results for fear of an anti-Jewish backlash from the Vatican.

Time Magazine, the Jerusalem Post, and other publications have more below at links.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201070788587&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=811301
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1704299,00.html?imw=Y
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/945672.html
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1200475897708&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I am an agnostic, with a scientific background. I believe in free inquiry. And I find it appalling the way both Christians and Israelis have completely closed their minds to what this tomb might mean. They are all terrified. You'd think that mere curiosity would have them all anxious to investigate further.

[displacedtexan]

1. Thanks for the update, mainer!

I find this tomb research fascinating.

[shain from kane]

2. Here's an update on another find.

Chinese archaeologists are hailing their biggest discovery
in almost 80 years after unearthing a skull that could
provide a clue to the origins of a fifth of the world's
population. The fossilised skull, named Xuchang Man after
the city where it was found, is thought to date back 80,000
to 100,000 years, to a period that has long been a mystery
to scientists.

It contains a rare fossilised membrane that archaeologists
hope will reveal important details about the nervous system
of the ancients and settle a contentious academic debate
about whether most of China's 1.3 billion people are mainly
indigenous, descended from African migrants or intermixed.

The almost complete skull, which comprises 16 fragments,
was found in the central province of Henan last month.
It has protruding eyebrows and a small forehead.

Government officials said the importance of the find was
second only to that of Peking Man in 1929, when
archaeologists discovered five almost complete skulls and
other bones believed to date back 250,000 to 500,000 years.

[madrchsod]

3. now that`s cool

the jesus tomb debate is nonsense

[mainer]

5. Did you read the articles?

It seems that calling it "nonsense" is the automatic response I hear from everyone who hasn't really been following the details.

[cosmik debris]

7. It is also the response of people

who think that it is nonsense.

[mainer]

8. Does that mean one should halt further inquiries?

It's easy to call any new theory "nonsense." I recall when the first articles about duodenal ulcers being linked to bacteria were first published in the medical literature. I was a young doctor at the time, and I heard many, many reactions of "well, that's nonsense" at the time. But research continued and the theory was later proved correct.

I'm startled that reactions to the Talpiot tomb aren't more along the lines of, "that's interesting. I want to hear more." That would seem to be the normal human response to a startling cluster of names. But there's almost a concerted effort to clap one's hands over one's ears and resist hearing anything more.
To call the possibility "nonsense" right off the bat is a sign of closed mind, or a mind that's so firmly entrenched in the rigid teachings of Christianity that it can't contemplate the possibility of a mortal and very human Jesus.

The Princeton conference has left participants with one firm agreement: that the subject needs further study. The sides remain firmly entrenched on either side, with some saying it's possible and others saying it's impossible. Those who say it's utterly impossible, it seems to me, are basing that flat judgment on faith alone. While those who say it's possible are keeping their minds open to further evidence.

Which is what any scientist should do.

[cosmik debris]

9. You've got too much emotion invested in this.

Good luck with that.

[BurtWorm]

34. A lot of us are skeptical of the "evidence" for the allegedly "historical" Jesus.

So the idea of a tomb that has a supposedly high probability of being the "real" Jesus's tomb, based on the statistical occurrence of the names on the tomb (especially given how much of a stretch the scholars have to make to have them line up with the "biblical" and apocryphal accounts) is just not impressive to us. Speaking for myself, I need to see stronger evidence that the Gospel Jesus is actually based on a historical person rather than a legend. Until then, any talk of physical evidence (which usually means an artifact with Jesus's--or his brother's or mother's--first name or supposed image on it) looks to me just like a red herring.

I honestly mean nothing personal against you, mainer. I'm just trying to explain my own slowness to be impressed with this artifact. I feel like a Darwinist in 1880 who is suffering the enthusiasm of a geologist claiming to have seen a rock formation that shows the fingerprint of God. I have nothing against the geologist or his enthusiasm. It's that what he's enthusiastic over seems to me pretty much beside the whole point.

[Dorian Gray]

44. Interesting...

Your quote: "To call the possibility "nonsense" right off the bat is a sign of closed mind, or a mind that's so firmly entrenched in the rigid teachings of Christianity that it can't contemplate the possibility of a mortal and very human Jesus."


I think that's exactly the problem Cosmik Debris has with the tomb! He's so firmly entrenched in the rigid teachings of Christianity! :rofl: (Sorry, CD... just thought that was funny!)


Seriously, though, I do think it's an interesting article. I don't necessarily beleive it's the tomb, as there has been a lot of reasons posited that it can't be. But, it's fascinating to read and to question and to wonder and to speculate.

[madrchsod]

10. yes i read every issue of these two magazines

http://www.archaeology.org/
Archaeology Magazine

http://www.bib-arch.org/
Biblical Archaeology Society

the "jesus tomb" is at best wishful thinking. what would be the criteria prove that this "tomb" has any relation to jesus.

[mainer]

11. I do too. But I think the ground has shifted.

Early skepticism was understandable. But the Princeton conference has forced some reconsideration.

[Realityhack]

12. you failed to answer the question at the end of the post

what would be the evidence?

[cosmik debris]

13. From what I gathered

the cornerstone of their hypothesis is the probability that certain names appear in a family tree. And if you think that is silly, just look at the number of assumptions that had to accept to get that far. You really have to believe first and find evidence second.

[Realityhack]

17. not sure about this but...

isn't there also a considerable chance that the 'biblical' Jesus never actually existed based on the historical evidence around other events in his life and that therefore probability calculations based on getting his family tree right based on the same egregiously demonstratively unreliable (at best) text are pretty silly to start with?

[cosmik debris]

18. You have accentuated just a few

Of the assumptions necessary to conclude that this tomb has any relationship to anything of current importance.

But you dare not call it nonsense or the OP will accuse you of not understanding. :)

[Realityhack]

19. ;-)

Tombs and forgeries and completely falsifiable histories are all kind of neat and bear further exploration... doesn't mean they relate to each other.

[Shadrach]

20. It is done backwards

A group comes up with a theory, finds some data and spins the data so the dots can be connected in favor of that theory. I don't see any value in doing that. It only feeds their wishful thinking.

[cosmik debris]

21. Worse yet, they pretend that it is "science" n/t

[smoogatz]

30. It started with the discovery of the ossuaries.

The probability study that Christians find so controversial was done to ask a pretty straightforward question about the likelihood of a certain set of names cropping up together in the same tomb in Jerusalem, contemporaneous with the Biblical Jesus. Of course, the notion that the Talpiot tomb might contain the remains of Jesus is completely ridiculous compared to the idea that he rose from the dead, talked to a few people, then went bodily up to heaven.

[Realityhack]

35. seems to me from the information at the links...

That some scientists have serious questions about how that probability calculation was made and the authenticity of the names themselves.
In addition you bring up 'Christians' finding it controversial. I think the questions about the calculation go beyond Christians.

[Realityhack]

36. Revisited...

I took a look around the web and I must conclude the 'probability study' you site is massively flawed from a strictly scientific and statistical viewpoint.

[smoogatz]

37. Are you a statistician?

Just curious.

[Realityhack]

38. no

And I doubt you are either. But like you probably did I have recently taken statistics and I can tell you that the pages below (linked from one of the articles) do raise valid critisism of the statistics involved.

http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/03/correct-interpretation-of-dr-andrey.html
http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/03/statistical-case-for-identity-of-jesus.html

[smoogatz]

39. No one's suggesting the study is perfect.

Or proof that the guy who was buried in the jar at Talpiot was the biblical Jesus. But it is pretty damned interesting—and the people who seem to be most vocal in resisting its implications are invested one way or another in "disproving" it: either they're Christians who can't tolerate any revision of biblical "truth," or they're archaeologists whose life work will pretty much be tossed out the window if Talpiot turns out to be the real deal. Me, I'm keeping an open mind.

[BurtWorm]

40. Keep an open mind about whether or not Jesus existed in history as well.

That's an even more fundamental problem than whether or not this is his tomb.

[smoogatz]

41. Why not?

But I'm guessing he probably did, and that he caused a bit of a stir during his lifetime. If he did exist (and cause a stir), I'm reasonably sure that he did not actually walk on water or rise from the dead or perform any of the other miracles his followers posthumously claimed. I'd be willing to revise that opinion if confronted with compelling evidence to the contrary, of course, though it's hard to imagine what that evidence would be, short of the second coming.

[BurtWorm]

46. My own doubts about his historicity began with the realization that if you subtract

the miraculous aspects of his "life," not much of substance remains. What sealed the deal for me were the carefully laid out arguments of Earl Doherty (notorious among some academic snobs for not being an accredited theologian :eyes: or having more than undergraduate studies in ancient languages) author of The Jesus Puzzle, and Joseph Wheless, author of Forgeries in Christianity. These are far from being the only authors who have challenged the historicity of Jesus, but these are the two whose arguments made the most impact on my own skepticism.

[Realityhack]

42. Question

What did the results of the statistical analysis indicate in your words?

What are some top issues with the statistical analysis as it pertains to establishing this as the potential burial site of 'the biblical Jesus?

[smoogatz]

43. Oh, good. A quiz.

From memory, without re-reading any of the original articles posted here months ago:

1.That the random probability of that cluster of names showing up on funerary urns in that location and from that historical moment is fairly low, though I can't remember the actual numbers.

2.Mainly that statistical analysis is a poor substitute for actual archaeology, and that probability isn't the same as actuality. Establishing the likelihood that something happened doesn't mean it happened. I'm sure there are methodological flaws in the study as well (there always are), but I can't remember what they are.

Your turn: what's your religious affiliation? Do you consider yourself a Christian?

[Realityhack]

47. lol

I am an outspoken atheist.

The reason I am laughing is that you actually pretty much got the first question right. The problem is you clearly don't even know where to begin with the second question which is far more important.

The problem isn't so much with the raw statistics but rather with how they are applied. The statistical likelihood of that a particular group of names would appear together in one of the thousand or so tombs uncovered... is 100% completely irrelevant to the question unless the names are somehow related.
They aren't.
Thats a massive problem right there before you even get into assumptions of legitimacy of inscriptions or anything else.

[smoogatz]

48. On what do you base the conclusion that the names aren't related?

[Realityhack]

55. Um...

care to list the names in the analysis with the specific places they appear in the bible and the verses showing the same family relationships (brother, son, etc.) as where found in the tomb?

[struggle4progress]

50. You should carefully read the "statistical case" link in the prior post:

... the matches between the Talpiot tomb and the early Christian literary record are factored into the calculations in a positive way, but the non-matches are simply ignored ... If a case is built up on the notion that a remarkable cluster of names in a given places matches with a known cluster of names in another place, it is essential that the non-matches are taken seriously too .. when some .. non-matches .. contradict the literary record ...

There is no reliable historical tradition that Jesus was married to a woman called Mariamne ... We cannot assume unevidenced data in setting up the calculation. If the statistical calculation is to have any validity at all, we must work only with the known quantities.

The Matia ossuary is a non match .. cannot be left out of the calculations ... It needs to be given negative weight ...

There is no reliable historical information that a character called Judas son of Jesus was connected with the Jesus movement. Indeed, this .. contradicts the literary record in a striking way .. There is no record of Jesus having any children, and so the evidence here contradicts the identification of the tomb as Jesus' family tomb ...

http://ntgateway.com/weblog/2007/03/statistical-case-for-identity-of-jesus.html

Independent of how seriously one wants to take the existing literary record, the fact remains: that record is the record one actually has; it is essentially the only "historical data" available for setting up any statistical calculation, and on any scientific view it has certain weaknesses.

If, for example, one wants to use such "data" to argue that the Matia ossuary represents the Matthew of the New Testament, then one has a conflicted literary record, which includes (but is not limited to) the following account and which might suggest one does not much expect his burial in Jerusalem:

Acts and Martyrdom of St. Matthew

And Matthew .. said: Peace to you! And .. went to his rest ... And the king .. ordered an iron coffin to be made, put the body of Matthew into it, and .... threw it into the deep part of the sea. And Saint Matthew finished his course in the country of the man-eaters, in the city of Myrna ...

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0822.htm

For more regarding Mariamne, see my post infra

[smoogatz]

52. Goodacre claims the source for the "married Jesus" narrative is the "Da Vinci

Code," but I was certainly aware of its currency (the whole Illuminati/Masonry conspiracy connection) long before Dan Brown got rich from writing about it. Which kind of makes me think Goodacre's being a bit dishonest intellectually. People have been speculating about Jesus and Mary Magdalene for hundreds of years, at least—and somehow this is news to a guy like Goodacre? The fact that such a marriage is extra-textual may or may not be meaningful, seems to me, given the multiple "inspired" revisions of the biblical texts over the years. There's also the "missing years" phenomenon to take into account: what was Jesus doing during that eighteen-year gap? Wandering around being holy (if so, why no record?), or living the normal life of a Jewish man of his time? On that note, from a historical/anthropological viewpoint, wouldn't it have been very unusual for an adult Jewish male to be unmarried at that time? I agree that the study is inconclusive, but I'm not sure it's as terribly, deeply flawed as the biblical text that Goodacre wants it to adhere to.

[struggle4progress]

53. That is entirely non-responsive to the objections raised. If one wants to argue that a particular

archaeological site is related to specific persons named in the ancient literature, one must make some serious attempt to match the excavation against the literary record. We must agree, of course, that certain difficulties attend the literary record concerning early Christianity: there is (and ought to be) some question regarding the reliability of various texts. However anyone -- who wants to argue that a certain tomb is associated with persons mentioned in a certain cluster of texts from a particular literary tradition -- must approach the texts seriously, no matter how deeply flawed they be. A proposed proof of the proposition This tomb is associated with these literary texts simply cannot begin by arguing (as you suggest) Let us disregard the texts and consider instead some pure speculation.

It seems that the sensational thesis about the Talpiot tomb requires not only a misreading of excavated materials but also a distortion of the ancient literary record (such as it is) to make the case. And, unfortunately, the advocates of the thesis begin to seem prone to such misrepresentation:

The Talpiot Tomb Controversy Revisited
Monday, January 21, 2008

... we wish to protest the misrepresentation of the conference proceedings in the media, and make it clear that the majority of scholars in attendance – including all of the archaeologists and epigraphers who presented papers relating to the tomb - either reject the identification of the Talpiot tomb as belonging to Jesus’ family or find this claim highly speculative.

Signed,
Professor Mordechai Aviam, University of Rochester
Professor Ann Graham Brock, Iliff School of Theology, University of Denver
Professor F.W. Dobbs-Allsopp, Princeton Theological Seminary
Professor C.D. Elledge, Gustavus Adolphus College
Professor Shimon Gibson, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Professor Rachel Hachlili, University of Haifa
Professor Amos Kloner, Bar-Ilan University
Professor Jodi Magness, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Professor Lee McDonald, Arcadia Seminary
Professor Eric M. Meyers, Duke University
Professor Stephen Pfann, University of the Holy Land
Professor Jonathan Price, Tel Aviv University
Professor Christopher Rollston, Emmanuel School of Religion
Professor Alan F. Segal, Barnard College, Columbia University
Professor Choon-Leong Seow, Princeton Theological Seminary
Mr. Joe Zias, Science and Antiquity Group, Jerusalem
Dr. Boaz Zissu, Bar-Ilan University

http://dukereligion.blogspot.com/

[Realityhack]

56. are you intentionaly TRYING to miss the point?

Speaking of intellectual honesty. Do you seriously not understand the terrible flaw of using non-matching names as part of the statistical analysis or have you just gotten deeply entrenched in your argument that this is quite possibly real and can't back away even though your argument is rubbish?

I must agree with one of the previous posters. You have WAY too much emotionally invested in one particular side of this issue.

[mainer]

14. The probability (as earlier stated) is what is intriguing

Obviously there can never be PROOF that this is any particular person's tomb. Not a single archaeologist has said THIS IS Jesus's tomb. What they are pointing out is that the mathematical probabilities are startling.

I think that is what has shifted here. It has gone from "absolutely impossible" to "worth investigation."

Purely on a mathematical basis, the theory must be considered. And the fact Feuerverger's paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted means that statisticians, anyway, believe his calculations re not all wet.

[Realityhack]

16. No

Sorry but that is not what his paper being peer reviewed and published means. There are plenty of peer reviewed papers that are hogwash. Plenty of completely mutually exclusive theories and lines of research are peer reviewed and published. Certainly it means he made no basic mathematical errors but it says little about his input variables and conclusion.

Given what I read on the links provided I hardly see that shift.

[Goblinmonger]

27. Don't we first have to prove

that there actually WAS a Jesus before we go looking for that person's tomb?

I don't believe there is any evidence that the dude actually existed. Even I can do the statistics on whether the tomb is that of a non-existant person. In my head. In less than a second.

[mainer]

4. very cool!

I've always assumed that all humanity came out of Africa. Will be interesting to hear results.

[edhopper]

6. Humanity did come out of Africa.

The early proto-humans found in Africa date back 1-3 million years. How and when mankind left Africa and propagated to the rest of the Old World is still not clear.(Man didn't arrive in the New World until about 25,000 years ago). There is a general idea of the timeline, but new info always helps. Each new discovery adds a new tile to the mosaic.

[BurtWorm]

15. The nature of religion is to close minds to alternate truths.

That said, whether or not this actually is the tomb of Jesus will never be resolved. It will always be a matter of faith to assert positively that this is the tomb of Jesus. I think the truth lies in the probability that this is not his tomb, because there most likely never was a single living Jesus outside the Bible's legend.

[mainer]

22. Dr. Gat's impulse to hide his opnion seems reasonable now

The original archaeologist who opened the tomb kept his views secret except from his wife, because he feared backlash from the Chistian community. Only now that he is dead has his wife revealed his true feelings.

It's obvious Dr. Gat was correct that there would be a backlash. I certainly see it in the ridicule here. It's simply puzzling (for me as a science person, anyway) to encounter your immediate reactions of "Oh, that's stupid. Case closed. Don't wanna hear anymore, no way, no how."

That doesn't sound like the reaction of inquiring or scientific minds. As the Princeton conference organizer put it, you'd think that the first reaction of anyone hearing the reports would be, "Wow. How'd that happen?"

I guess no one wants to hear any more of this so I'll cease posting any updates.

[Realityhack]

23. Rigggghhhhttttt...

Because we are clearly a 'Christian' backlash...
given that I am an atheist and IIRC at least one other person arguing that this is hogwash is as well.

Furthermore, when did I say it shouldn't be investigated? I definitely believe the tombs should be investigated, I just think that given the evidence that exists with respect to biblical accounts that investigating it within a 'biblical context' is a bit of a stretch. This seems to be a view shared by most of the actual scientists at the conference referenced in your OP.

But if you want to throw the persecution card and run off I honestly don't mind.

[mainer]

24. I am truly and deeply bothered by the hostility here

Honestly, I posted because I thought it was an interesting topic. And I am really hurt by the reactions. I didn't mean that "you" are the Christian backlash; I meant that Dr. Gat feared backlash, and I see it here too (not necessarily Christian.)

You know, every so often I venture onto DU because I'd hoped to find friendly people with whom I could have a conversation. I work at home in the arts and sciences, and don't get out much. I want to meet nice people. I want to meet people who don't sneer at me or say "rigggght -- good bye and good riddance." I want to talk with people who won't treat me the way I get treated in so many other places.

I am hurt, and I admit it. And now you're probably laughing that I'm an oversensitive twit I deserve ridicule for having the gall to post something that most of the world doesn't agree with.

Since when did Democrats get so mean?

I expect there'll be posts right after this saying "don't let the door hit ya"... etc. Because that's been the tenor of the posts here ever since I raised this topic. I admit, I am sensitive.

I don't think I'd much like being around most of you in real life.

[cosmik debris]

25. It's not hostility, it's amusement

When you visit the R/T forum you should expect to have your ideas criticized. If you don't like criticism, you are in the wrong place.

But seriously, did you really think that you could just overlook all the shaky assumptions necessary to make this story worthwhile?

[Realityhack]

26. Well...

aside from my comments on you playing the persecuted card (which I stand by) I don't think I attacked you at all. So what is my 'hostility' directed at?
Am I 'hostile' to the idea of this being the tomb of Jesus or just justifiably skeptical based on the abject lack of evidence? Would I react differently if presented with serious evidence? Do you even know?

[jody]

28. "Since when did Democrats get so mean?" True Democrats aren't but some DUers are. n/t

[cosmik debris]

29. True Democrats put Scotsmen on their porridge. n/t

[opiate69]

31. ...

:spray:

[Dorian Gray]

45. Mainer....

I do find reading this topic interesting, and I'm glad that you posted it. It's a nice change from some of the same old rehashed BS that happens here in RT.

Having said that, RT is not a place where you will feel comfortable posting your thoughts if you don't want them to be challenged. Almost every post, ewith the exception of SOME news stories, are vehemently challenged. There is often antagonism, and I believe all the regular posters here have been guilty of it sometimes. So please don't huff off in anger. There are plenty of people reading your post. Maybe they aren't commenting. I think it's interesting speculation, myself.

:)

[struggle4progress]

33. Gat seems to have published exactly one (1) peer-reviewed article. See post #32

[struggle4progress]

32. Here's a website from a professional on archaelogy in the Mideast, with some interesting comments on

Talpiot: http://www.joezias.com/

[struggle4progress]

49. The name "Mariamne" is apparently known through the "Acts of Philip"

However, she is identified there as Philip's brother and not as Mary Magdalene:

The Acts of Philip ...

About the time when the Emperor Trajan received the government of the Romans, after Simon the son of Clopas, who was bishop of Jerusalem, had suffered martyrdom in the eighth year of his reign, being the second bishop of the church there after James who bore the name of brother of the Lord, Philip the apostle .. preached .. the Gospel ... And Philip's sister Mariamme, sitting in the entry of the house of Stachys, addressed herself to those coming ...

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0818.htm

And whether this exceptionally tenuous connection even matters is open to question:

A CORRECTED READING OF OSSUARIES CJO 701 and CJO 108*
By Stephen J. Pfann, Ph.D.

SUMMARY POINTS OF DISCUSSION:
.. The original transcription .. was incorrect. The inscription does not read “Mariamene the Master”nor does the name Mariamene or Mariamne appear on the ossuary at all. The inscription reflects the writing of two distinct scribes who wrote in different forms of the Greek script. The correct reading of the inscription is “Mariame and Mara,” based on parallels from contemporary inscriptions and documents. The ossuary thus contained the bones of at least two different women, interred at two separate times, one named Mariame and the other Mara

http://www.uhl.ac/JudeanTombsAndOssuaries.html

[and-justice-for-all]

51. If it is jeebus's box...

it would totally destroy the babble story. Jeebus was suppost to ascend to heavan in body, thats why when they went back to the cave, his body was not there. If this is jeebus's box, it would confirm that the babbles are in fact, complete and total fiction. Which I consider them to be anyway, so much of the tales come from Sumarian mythology, you might as well call it Sumerian text.

[davidthegnome]

54. As a fellow agnostic...

I certainly agree with you that it's interesting. I am not the most well educated democrat - where it involves things such as statistics, archaelogy, probability. But from a personal point of view, I believe in the possibility that Jesus the man lived - and it would be interesting to see really significant evidence of such. What that evidence might be... well, that's for greater minds than mine to decide.

Topics like this one tend to be very controversial, and even with the best of intentions people are going to be offended. I think I understand what you mean about being sneered at and such - but I do not think it was meant to be personal. Kudos though, on having the nerve to do something rarely done, to admit how you honestly feel in what is a potentially hostile environment. I admire your honesty and your curiousity, and I share the curiousity part.

I'm one of those people that rarely ever believes or dis-believes anything that isn't blatantly obvious. I'm just... somewhere in the middle. Generally clueless, but that's ok, I have smart friends. Thanks for the post, by the way, until reading it I was unaware that this was even on-going. I don't get out much, and I rarely pay attention to any media anymore.

[neverlander]

57. Updates on Talpiot tomb (lost tomb of Jesus?)

not all of us have
as a Christian, I would like to know.