Jesus: Tales from the Crypt

"Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.

Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.

There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God.

But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.

Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East (check out a personal favorite: Israelity Bites) Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics. Stay tuned.
--Tim McGirk/Jerusalem"

http://www.time-blog.com/middle_east/

---------------------

No offense to James Cameron, while this is a great job and all, but I still think T2 was his career highlight.

I love this kind of stuff. I've always been a history buff and the history of Jesus et al is that part which is most fascinating to me. In fact, I am almost through with a short story that is of the same genre as the Da Vinci Code. I can't wait to view Cameron's program.

The reporter was a bit uncalled for, no? I'm not a huge fan of the book, and I skipped out on the film, but it was a good read, and I think that the media (and a few die-hard Christians alike) seems to completely miss the point, and assume that the book is a slam on Christianity.

I mean, what I got from it is, it doesn't matter what you believe, so long as you find faith in something, and just stick to it, no matter what someone else says. And that's a relatively good philosophy to live by, I think.

Well put LLC, faith is believing in something in spite of what common sense may tell you.

I was raised and I remain a Catholic, but I think too much was made of the whole thing. After all, the premise of The DaVinci Code has been around forever.

I choose to believe in what I believe in and I feel that others are entitled to their beliefs as well.

Except for the scientologists, they're just nuts.

Wow, I'm surprised that nobody has posted a very pissy posting about this.

Good work folks.

Anyway, James Cameron is a decent enough documentary-maker, so I assume it should at least be competent, right?

I'm not.


And those documentaries are.......???
They don't need to be in alphabetical order, btw... you can list them all by popularity, or, by year.

P.S. You were looking for the word "documentarian"...

P.P.S. Titanic wasn't a documentary. Neither was Terminator, T2, Aliens, or The Abyss.

I feel the exact same way about Dogma. Even Chris Rock's character in the movie says "it's not about which religion is right. It's about just having faith." And I really do live by those words because as a Catholic myself like pizzaboy, I don't think any one religion is right. I'm happy with just having faith and a personal relationship with Jesus.

Hey jGeoff, try using wikipedia or IMDB next time. For this one time, for free, let me enlighten you:

"Cameron's recent projects have included undersea documentaries on the Bismarck (Expedition: Bismarck, 2002) and the Titanic (Ghosts of the Abyss (2003, in IMAX 3D), Tony Robinson's Titanic Adventure (2005)[9]). "

Mostly those "documentaries" are IMAX features, but they're nice to watch.

Yeah, Cameron's been out of feature films for a few years now in favour of underwater documentaries, much like Jacques Cousteau (the documentary maker on whom Steve Zissou, from The Life Aquatic, was comedically based).

Yes, but Dogma wasn't protested, as far as I know. In my red-neck imbread mountain town (sad that that line actually applies to my hometown...) we had soccer moms lined up with picket signs outside the local shopping mall-cinema. Which is ridiculous, I don't really see what the fuss is. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to go see the movie, completely change their beliefs based on a two hour feature and say, "Wow, so, Jesus was a mac-daddy?" And if someone is stupid enough to change around their beliefs based on that one film, it's because they're either a toddler or because their though-pattern resembles that of Travis Bickle.



True that. Nice people though. I remember that January of last year was absolutely freezing, and I was walking around the edge of Midtown Manhattan, and all I wanted was to go sit someplace heated (and my sisters apartment was all the way downtown in Greenwich Village...) so I decided to walk into a Scientologist church and sit down. They brought me into some theatre room, and I had to watch a biography on L. Ron Hubbard, but hell, they gave me cookies, so it was worth it.

There's just no sense in getting upset about things that we have no conrol over.

Protesting Dan Brown helped him to sell 40 million books. Why give Cameron the same satisfaction ?

He's a tremendously talented filmmaker, but I think he's really going outside of his area of expertise with this project.

If people don't like it they don't have to watch it.

If anyone is simple minded enough to change their faith because of a movie, it wasn't a very strong faith to begin with.

I agree man. A film shouldn't change people's beliefs but reinforce them (at least Dogma). Some could argue that The Passion of the Christ could but I won't get into that. What really pisses me off is when people want to censor these movies just because of what they HEAR and never bother to see the movie. How unintelligent and moronic can you get?

Good point Irish. When THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST came out, I remember telling some of my Jewish friends to relax, it's just a movie.

So, what would give me the right to complain about THE DAVINCI CODE, etc...?

I agree. Although, The Passion just seemed to frustrate me for the opposite reasons. I have nothing against someone expressing their beliefs, but it's when I feel someone is trying to push their beliefs onto other people that I feel it gets out of hand. And that's kind of how I feel The Passion was, in many ways, whether that was the original intent or not. It just translated into a social mess. Remember all the "You'll be a better Christian if you go see this!" nonsense that came about in the Catholic community around the time of the films release? This was during the period where my family still went to church, and I was unwillingly dragged along (but I sure enjoyed eating out for breakfast afterwards) And even then, I thought it was a bit bizarre that the Priest would spend a quarter of the sermon going on about Mel Gibson.

I don't know, the effects of that film really envoked alot of confusion and disbelief in me.

Funny you should mention that. My priest had a sermon about why we as Catholic's shouldn't watch The Da Vinci Code. I did and I bought the DVD. I'm sorry but it's a movie. Just because I purchased it and enjoy it, doesn't mean I believe it.

If anyone is interested, here is the Talpiot tomb.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb

Yeah, my good friend (who happens to play the drums in my band, actually) is very religious and comes from a very religious family, who was told the same thing. He was initially against it, but ended up "sneaking" the book behind his parents backs to read for leisure. I don't know why, but this is: a.) for some reason, comical to me, and, b.) at the same time, sort of warped. I mean, books don't burn bridges, right?

I don't see why anyone who is comfortable with their faith should feel uncomfortable with alternative opinions.

I agree LLC. I think people today are too closed-minded and easily offended. The future looks "bright" doesn't it

A book or movie about biblical times will do no more to change my faith than an episode of STAR TREK will get me to believe in klingons.

It's entertainment, that's all.

I seen this on the Today Show today. This guy said he found Jesus's son. This is just my opinion mind you but that is a crock of shit. If you guys want to believe this then have at it. If Jesus had a kid or was married it would have been in the Bible. But don't try and convince me cuz it won't happen.

I am by no means trying to challenge anyone's beliefs. Faith is faith. It's intangible. Every person chooses to believe what they want, and I truly believe that faith is personal.

Please realize that the New Testament is only a SELECTION of what the apostles wrote. It is an established fact that Peter and the others chose what they wanted in the New Testament as a way to build and control the Catholic Church. Recently, many writings of Judas were found which put him in a far different light, and one that was very sensible to me. If he was preordained to betray Christ, as it was for Peter, then it makes sense that Jesus did not hold it against him.

Either way, the theories presented regarding Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdalene do make sense on a certain level. Jesus always said that, more than anything, He was a man. As a man, He would have made the same choices that any other man would, to fall in love, to take a wife. The apostles were also men, and they had families. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the theories that were presented in The DaVinci Code, I'm just saying that it's possible.

I pretty much agree SB.

However, it can't actually be said that Peter and the Apostles had any say in what books made it into the New Testament, because the there wasn't a recognized New Testament canon until sometime in the third century, over 200 years after the deaths of the apostles.

At that point, however, you're 100% correct. Church politics largely shaped the bible as we know it today.

I know, I'm a Roman Catholic and I believe that the Bible is 95% metaphorical. People need to take it as it really is, a Romanticized and incomplete work. There are writings that historically contradict each other and some that aren't even included. No one will know for sure what happened by lookign at records, but if people can genetically match Judah to being a son of Christ, then why is it so hard to believe? Better yet, what's so bad about it? Is God offended for having a grandson?

Faith is one thing, but letting the Bible cloud one's sense is a bad thing.

You are quite correct, pizzaboy. My error. There were numerous books, and they were picked through to establish which ones would shape the Church as the then-leaders decided what would support their vision.

For example, do you know WHY Catholic priests aren't allowed to marry today? If you think about it, it defies logic. Jesus and his apostles were raised as Jews, and rabbis have always been allowed to marry. The reason is that, at the time, the wealth and power was divided among the nobles and the clergy. The Church didn't want the clergy to have recognizable heirs that would inherit their wealth. They wanted it to stay within the Church. Therefore, they demanded celibacy, which was openly flouted. It meant that there could be offspring, but they weren't recognized, and therefore would be ineligible to inherit.

You must have gone to St Frances Of Rome

But my Catholic school education ended in 8th grade. That must be why I made the mistake.

I don't agree with this one ioda, and think that it's a bunch of bullshit. This is just another attempt to undermine the teachings of Christianity.


At least we are not seeing the Christian people running around and rioting all over the world or threatening other religions and their leaders because of this.



Don Cardi

Give me a break, how does it undermine Christianity? It proves Jesus existed.

This was un Youtube. Oh yeah, he really sounds anti-Christian.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=or7UrK5qhVk

Like I said, DC, faith is very individual. This may or may not have any validity, but it's interesting to ponder.

Well, I don't need proof that Jesus existed.

That's what faith is, believing in something, in spite of what logic may tell you.

However, as I said in earlier posts, people are entitled to believe whatever they want.

I don't force my Catholic beliefs on anyone, and I expect my friends from other religious groups to give me the same respect.