Talk:The Lost Tomb of Jesus

I removed one or two ad hominem quotes ("James Cameron is incompetent") and left everything else -- I condensed some others that said the same thing (especially the issue about the probability and statistical study). Pablosecca 23:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't there been a lot of ad hominem ad hostile attacks of the film makers and the documentary by some well respected authorities. On Larry King, for example, there were some scholars/experts who had not seen the documentary being very hostile to the claims made by it rather than countering the claims with counter-evidence. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 64.180.19.33 (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

The more photographs of the Talpiot Tomb I see in other sources, the more convinced I am that the photograph tagged "An image of the Talpiot Tomb" in this article is not in fact the tomb in question. I think it might be a photograph of a different building. Take a look at this newspaper article. Does anyone else see what I mean? Ecto 23:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have been asking the same thing myself is there a trusty source that confirms it is? -

talk • contribs) 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

I flipped through the book itself and found a reproduction of the photograph in there. From the description of the image, the photograph is of the tomb's antechamber as it was first exposed by the construction crew in 1980. This part of the tomb must have been covered up again, so it looks very different these days. Well, that explains that. Ecto 23:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen the documentary so I don't know, but have they radiocarbon dated the remains to confirm their age? Surely all these claims made could be ruled out if the age of the finds did not correspond to the 1st century or there abouts?86.4.59.203 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Pharisee.[reply]

The type of burial that used this type of ossuary, I believe, was used for a short enough period in history that the margin of error for radiocarbon data might be too great to date the boxes so precisely. Furthermore, from what I've seen, the inscriptions on the box are consistent with 1st-century lettering.

So it's quite plausible they're from the right time period. It's just a bit like if 2000 years from now someone found graves marked only "John", "Paul", "George", and "Richard" grouped together and decided they must be the Beatles. That's the best analogy I can think of. Orpheus42 20:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a physicist I would add that specifically for biblical matters, things like radiocarbon dating should not be used due to the dispute from religious scientist about the accuracy of these methods. I believe that religious scientist claim the old Earth model, dated by radiometric methods, is limited (hence flawed) by the assumptions made in the method. Hence, the young Earth model can still be supported. For this reason, the dating based on the use of the ossuary is much more applicable to this topic. Regards, Grahamwild 16:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they searching for a tomb if Jesus rose to Heaven? There wouldn't be a body to bury....Epetrone 03:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC) TC)[reply]

<Why are they searching for a tomb if Jesus rose to Heaven? There wouldn't be a body to bury....>

When you read the Bible, do you take everything written there literally? I ask this very same question to my Religion professor, and he answered, the Bible should not be taken literally.

Well, do you have another book that states that Jesus was burried on earth with his family and never rose to heaven?205.235.34.131 13:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<Well, do you have another book that states that Jesus was burried on earth with his family and never rose to heaven?>

Look at the end of the Gospel of Matthew, which is 28:16-20: Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

The Toledoth Yeshu, a compilation of early Jewish writings, support the stolen body hypothesis, saying, and I quote, "his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven." But I do not believe that Jesus' disciples stole his body, it's possible that grave robbers might bribed the Roman soldiers, and stole the body from the tomb, and I do not believe that Jesus' disciples "deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven," I believe Jesus appeared to his disciples in spirit or maybe the disciples had a visionary experience of Jesus appearing to them, either way, I believe Jesus appeared to them, I believe Jesus did ascend to heaven, the disciples saw his spirit rise up to Heaven or maybe the disciples had another visionary experience, either way, I believe Jesus ascended to heaven and is now seated at the right hand of God, why, I believe that the appearance and ascending into Heaven of Jesus is the work of God, either it was spiritual or visionary , God doesn't do things without a good reason. What I basically did was combine two hypothesises on Jesus' death and resurrection, mainly, the Vision hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jesus#Vision_hypothesis) and the Stolen body hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jesus#Stolen_body_hypothesis), the only thing about the Stolen body hypothesis that I don't agree with is the claim that Jesus' apostles stole the body, later fabricating Jesus' resurrection, yes, I believe Jesus' body was stolen, but not by his own disciples. Greg 10:09 AM, 08 March 2007

In the Bible, it is said that Jesus resurrected, and then ascended into heaven, now try to look at it in another point of view, what if Jesus did not resurrect? But only appeared to the apostles in spirit, and being the Son of God, Jesus could manifest himself in physical form, which can explain why the apostles could touch his wounds from the Crucifiction. Now we go to the ascended into heaven, what if it was Jesus' spirit that ascendeded into Heaven? Leaving his physical body on Earth, and about Mary Magdalene and the rest of the apostles seeing Jesus' tomb openned, Mary Magdalene seeing the angel inside, Mary Magdalene and the rest of the apostles seeing that Jesus' body has dissapeared, what if that was a vision from God?

I would like to point out that I am Catholic, and I believe that there are always possiblities.User:Greg 08:23 PM, 5 March 2007

I have already posted a comment in the other page (Talk:Talpiot_Tomb): The probability computation does not require the assumption that all these people were related. This is a dubious interpretation made by journalists.Sfoucher 04:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the statistical argument is that it contains the tacit assumption that Jesus' tomb WOULD contain exactly these names, no more and no less. It's 600 to 1 that these precise names appear together on a tomb? Ok - that ALSO the case for any other set of names on ANY tomb. Why do you think that precisely these names and no other other names WOULD appear on Jesus tomb?

It also makes a claim that's irrelevant to the question. If I pick a grave at random, the odds that it will contain the names "Michael" and "Cathy" are very slim. But, obviously, that does NOT mean that if I find one that DOES say "Michael" and "Cathy," it must be one specific Michael and Cathy. The documentary makers are acting as though the first statement is the same as the second. Obviously it isn't.

And as an aside, isn't it strange the Mary Magdalene would be titled "the master" on the grave, but the supposed Jesus has NO honorific, or indication of any importance?

In my opinion, the statistical analysis is only trying to estimate the likelihood of a particular cluster of names. It is important to clearly define the scope and the limitations of such an analysis. Prof. Feuerverger is very clear on what can be concluded from his calculations: The role of statistics here is primarily to attempt to assess the odds of an equally (or more) `compelling' cluster of names arising purely by chance under certain random sampling assumptions and under certain historical assumptions. In this respect I now believe that I should not assert any conclusions connecting this tomb with any hypothetical one of the New Testament family. The interpretation of the computation should be that it is estimating the probability of there having been another family at the time living in Jerusalem whose tomb this might be, under certain specified assumptions.^[1] (Sfoucher 18:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Yes; Mary in some cases might be titled as "the master", please watch first that documentary where they explain it. --

Zzzzzzzzzz 21:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The point isn't that she has a title; it's that she ONLY does. But NOT Jesus or Mary. Doesn't that strike you as a bit strange? Especially considering the claim that it uses "Maria" because that's what Roman Christians were calling Mary of Nazareth? Carlo 22:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point raised in the documentary is that it is the person who puts the remains in the ossuaries writes the name on it, for future reference. The people responsible for the Jesus if he was "Jesus" would have been family members, hence would not use 'master' or another title (I don't care how great my brother is, to me, he is still my brother :-) ). ASSUMMING the Mariamene e Mara was one of the last to be buried, she may have been buried by followers, hence the addition of the title. As with all retrospective science, assumptions are made, Grahamwild 15:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone broke interwikis and references when he/she did CLEANUP. Please FIX IT. --

It would be interesting to add a section to this article discussing the Chevron/circle symbol and the snowflake-looking symbols on the ossuaries. 155.91.28.232 20:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could use some more context. I read somewhere that the Israeli authorities routinely re-bury all bones in unmarked graves regardless of the traditions of the ancient peoples involved (obviously the tradition here would be Ossuaries). That would be an interesting point in the discussion and perhaps a link if there is another article... I can't imagine that isn't controversial. But that is why they did not DNA test the other ossuaries.

Please review:

David Mavorah, a curator of the Israel museum in Jerusalem, points out that the names on the ossuaries were extremely common. "We know that Joseph, Jesus and Mariamne were all among the most common names of the period. To start with all these names being together in a single tomb and leap from there to say this is the tomb of Jesus is a little far-fetched, to put it politely."[8] The stastics calculated may lead one to the conclusion that the odds of such combination of names are low, and those odds could potentially cause a possibility that a great of a leap of faith is not required to accept this family as the family of Jesus of Nazareth. (See statistics section above).

Professor Amos Kloner, former Jerusalem district archaeologist of the Israel Antiquities Authority and the first archaeologist to examine the tomb in 1980[23], told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that the name Jesus had been found 71 times in burial caves at around that time.[8]. He said that the inscription on the ossuary is not clear enough to ascertain, and although the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards it makes for profitable television.

((This quote is biased, find a quote based on the previous sentence. It is an opinion and not fact.) Quote: “The new evidence is not serious, and I do not accept that it is connected to the family of Jesus…. They just want to get money for it."[4])

Dr. Richard Bauckham, professor at the University of St Andrews, has catalogued ossuary names from that region since 1980. His records(needs reference if possible), based on the catalogue, indicate that "Jesus" was the 6th most popular name of Jewish men, and "Mary/Mariamne" was the single most popular name of Jewish women at that time. Given this, it is possible that to find two ossuaries containing the names "Jesus" and "Mary/Mariamne" is not significant at all, and the chances of it being the ossuaries of Jesus and Mary Magdalene are "very small indeed." [24]

Concerning the inscription attributed to Jesus son of Joseph, Steve Caruso, a professional Aramaic translator using a computer to visualize different interpretations(consider a reference for the technique in a general context), claims that although it is possible to read it as "Yeshua" that "overall it is a very strong possibility that this inscription is not."[25]

(This quote needs to go with the paragraph of the source, whoever it is attributed to)Name "Mary" and derivative of it may have been used by 25% of Jewish women at that time.[26]

Conclusions from known authorities

• Lawrence E. Stager, the Dorot professor of archaeology of Israel at Harvard, said the documentary was "exploiting the whole trend that caught on with The Da Vinci Code. One of the problems is there are so many biblically illiterate people around the world that they don’t know what is real judicious assessment and what is what some of us in the field call ‘fantastic archaeology.’"[4]

• William Dever(Who is he? Need a reference) said, "I'm not a Christian. I'm not a believer. I don't have a dog in this fight. I just think it's a shame the way this story is being hyped and manipulated."[22]

• Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, has criticized the decision of the documentary makers to make their claims at a news conference rather than in a peer-reviewed scientific article. By going directly to the media, she said, the filmmakers "have set it up as if it's a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archeology of this period have flatly rejected this."[22]

• Joe Zias, former curator of archeology at the Israeli Antiquities Authority, described in an e-mail to The Washington Post, that the documentary is a "hyped-up film which is intellectually and scientifically dishonest."[22] He also wrote an extended Viewers Guide to Understanding the Talpiot Tomb documentary, published on his web site.[27] --RWilliamKing 18:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I notice is alot of academics making comments on other fields where they hold no authority. For example you have archelogist making comments on statistics. Unless that archeologist is a statistic expert, he has no authority on the subject matter.

Doug (March 25 2007) A lot of archaeologists are trained in statistics, and the statistics themselves are based on whether or not the inscriptions are correct and the frequency of the names. So there are quite a few archaeologists out there qualified to comment on the statistics.

Bob, if this is a reference to my proposed re-write of that section, please be aware that I did not write the original material, I only edited the content to seem neutral.--RWilliamKing 16:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RWilliamKing, it wasnt adressed to you. I was making a general statement on how academic sources needs to be more specific in regards to article writing (in general).

-Bob (Mar 9, 2007)

I don't think the sentence mentioning Dr. James Charlesworth belongs in the "Production" section, as it does not describe the production, but rather presents an opinion about the thesis of the film. Also, while Dr. Charlesworth is an eminent authority on the New Testament and related texts, he is not an archeologist. Placing his quote where it is gives undue prominence to his opinion. Chuck Y 18:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Simcha, Cameron and Tabor are also not archaeologists. DougWeller

Before we start arguing on authorities, it was Simcha himself who said information should be freely shared despite the fact that they are not subject experts. That's his answer to critics on why he didn't publish his findings through academic forums first. If this is true, then one should be open to constructive criticism from the very public that he freely shared it with. Should we all just follow what he says or are we allowed to form an opinion? --76.5.193.234 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reading through the analyses that follow, one should bear in mind that the name "Jesus" is in fact illegible on the ossuary. A full realization of this problem will have a drastic impact on any statistical computation. For details on the illegibility of the ossuary, see, e.g., http://jesus-illegible.blogspot.com/. Critical Reader 19:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recently a certain degree of controversy has arised about this section, I deleted the section until a consensus can be reached here, please post your opinions here before editing it back, and remember to keep a

The fact is everything that segment is saying is true. It is not cited, but everything it says is cited somewhere in the article. The only problem with the article is that it seems colliquial Thegreyanomaly 00:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the "only problem with the article is that it seems colliquial [sic]." The section in question grossly oversimplifies an extremely complex issue (sampling, statistical analysis, and probability), which, in my opinion, is largely what the TV program itself did. If you watched the Ted Koppel discussion after the program, some of the commenters scratched the surface on the considerable statistical questions that remain, questions that even the statistician presented in the program later acknwledged. The "1 in 600" statement, whether in the program or in the section in the Wikipedia article, is not credible without better sampling and statistical analysis. Ward3001 01:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't a soapbox for you to tell people what they should THINK about someone's criticism. Some people said the odds were 600 to 1; others differed or said they were asking the wrong question and looking at the wrong odds. That's it. You are trying to place your personal debating points into the body of the article, and your writing READS like one side of a debate. Carlo 01:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people who differ state that the likelihood of it not being them was even higher. Clarifying that the statistics says that it almost must be Jesus is not non-neutral. Its based on general evidence that is factual. Thegreyanomaly 04:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply untrue. Others have estimated - using the statistics from the James ossuary - that were (statisically) 11 Yeshuas walking around Jerusalem who had the same sort of relationship with people bearing those names. ELEVEN. That's 11-1 AGAINST, not 600-1 FOR. And that doesn't take into account that JESUS WASN'T FROM JERUSALEM and would even BE one of the 11, NOR that one of the names is of a son, which there is NO evidence that Jesus ever had. After taking those into account, one scholar has said it's 10,000-1 against THIS tomb being THAT Yeshua.

And, again, this article isn't a soapbox for your debating points. Carlo 17:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please show me these references Thegreyanomaly 00:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreyanomaly, this article by physicist Randy Ingermanson would be a good place for you to start. He has provided a very beginner-friendly explanation of some of the math errors he found in the book (which I haven't read, but I did watch the film, and I saw the same errors in the film).

Part of the reason Wikipedians are having difficulty improving this article seems to be a philosophy some people have, that both sides of every disagreement deserve equal treatment. That may be appropriate in some disciplines, but not in math. Very often, in math, one side is right and the other side is wrong.

Here's a very simple example. Shake two quarters in a box, then open the lid and look. What is the probability that you'll see a head and a tail? Some people, apparently including the person who did the math for the film, will say that you'll see a head and a tail after one out of every four shakes, on average. Some other people say that you'll see a head and a tail after half of the shakes, on average. The former group is wrong, period. The latter group is right. It isn't a matter of opinion.

I think you'll understand why, after you read Ingermanson's article. -- Evil-mer0dach 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just search google and google news for articles stating a one in eleven chance, found nothing. Also there could be a 1/11 chance of any random man from Israel/Jerusalem/etc. being 1/11 but that does not account for the fact that a Jesus son of Joseph, and two Marys with one being genetically dissimilar. If this was your article http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20070305/cm_rcp/examining_the_jesus_tomb_evide, I don't think it is plausible to accept certain things it says. If he was such a great teacher and saint it is highly probably that either his family or his followers could have afforded to put get him a middle-class tomb. The reason for the name inscription being in shitty quality was because the names were there so that family members could reorganize the ossuaries and know who is who; it was not intended for showcasing; whatever quality the names were in could be minimized to mere chance of how lazy the person inscribing was. Also, many of the other found ossuaries did not even have names listed. Also the articles says there were only three ossuaries, there were about 10 found http://www.globegazette.com/articles/2007/03/07/opinion/doc45ee4323e58f4683230991.txt. Thegreyanomaly 02:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Math can have a NonNPOV especially when one can be deceitful (I'm not saying he has, but it could be possible; i don't have the time at the moment to check out all his calculations, I'll do it on the weekend). First of this guy is not a statistician. He's a physicist. What relation does he have to historical statistics. What authority does he have to say that Mariamne can be ignored. What authority does he have to say that the possible son of Jesus would have had a prominent role in Jerusalem; if he was the son of Jesus and a Roman officer a or an anti-Christian Jewish found out, he'd be dead. Some of the claims this guy makes lack authority. Second, have you looked him up. I googled him and he has been declared to be scifi writer that are in support of Christian morals/themes. In the case of something like this the only sources that can truly be neutral need to be non-Christian and secular. It's quite obvious, that all religious Christians, want at least some part of this to be false; an author/physicist known for writing Christian science fiction could safely be considered a religious Christian. Thegreyanomaly 05:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm joining in the discussion. First, math alone may have one answer to a single question, but that is not true for mathematical solutions as answers to historical questions (obviously!) Why? Because history is debatable, just as we are debating on it now. To even found mathematical calculations on historical events is ridiculous, since one has to verify that the records and the measurement of them (historical events) are absolutely accurate. It's different when you're scientifically experimenting and mathematically solving a problem right here and now, when computers can help you identify variables, etcetera, than when you are computing for a historical event that happened thousands of years ago. That alone should prevent one from taking a supposed "study" seriously. But I'm not here to advance a belief. I'm here to suggest what should belong in the article. I think we should mention studies, statiscal and otherwise, in the article so long as they look serious enough and have some sort of scientific and logical method, and the ones who made it are credible and preferably have some relevance to the field. The deleted section should be restored and edited so as to sound formal. This physicist's calculations should be mentioned somewhere in the article, too, although we should not not make the reference to it lengthy because I'm sure we could expect other refutations to come, which deserve more mention in the article. Lastly, we should not delve too much into refuting every study here in the talk page. Why? Because in the first place, we're not even conducting a counter study to refute claims. What right do we have to say a study was done the wrong way? Do we know exactly how it's supposed to be done? We're researchers here, not professional archaeologists or scientists for NASA. And anyway, the objective here is to report on this phenomena, not to prove that one side is right and the other wrong. Moonwalkerwiz 06:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moonwalkerwiz, you have a good point. If the end goal is to calculate the "probability" that Yeshua of Talpiot is the same person as Jesus of Nazareth, then it's impossible to get a single correct answer which no reasonable person would dispute-- because even if your mathematical calculation is indisputable, there will surely be some reasonable people who will dispute your initial assumptions.

But even though it's impossible to be definitely right, it is possible to be definitely wrong! If you make real mathematical mistakes in your calculation, leading you to get a result that would be incorrect even if all your initial assumptions were indisputably correct, then your calculation is just plain wrong-- and all reasonable people will agree that you are wrong, as soon as they understand the math.

Imagine three analysts trying to calculate the percentage of votes that various candidates would have had in Florida 2000, if every legitimate voter had succeeded in getting his or her vote counted as intended. Analyst A says Bush would have won, and his math is correct, but many people doubt his assumptions. Analyst B says Gore would have won, and his math is correct, but many people doubt his assumptions. Analyst C says Pat Buchanan would have won, but on closer examination it turns out that he was dividing by the number of counties when he should have been dividing by the number of voters. Imagine that analyst C produces a film called "The Lost Presidency of Pat Buchanan: the Real 43rd President." What would you suggest that Wikipedia should tell its readers about the "Lost Presidency" film?

Also you wrote: "The deleted section should be restored and edited so as to sound formal." The deleted section was just an informal paraphrase of the statistical argument that appeared in the film, right? Instead of trying to write a more formal-sounding paraphrase, I think it would be better to transcribe the statistical argument directly from the film, or copy it directly from the film's web site, and treat it as a direct quotation. That way we don't have to worry about whether our paraphrase represents the film fairly and accurately. -- Evil-mer0dach 09:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Evil-mer0dach. I think it's difficult or impossible to simplify the statistical arguments presented in the film without losing sight of either the underlying assumptions on which the statistics are based, or the appropriateness of the statistical techniques themselves, or both. The deleted section does not need to be restored. Ward3001 15:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the statistical argument is already pretty well covered. What would be included that isn't in the section "Statistical report"? Carlo 21:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreyanomaly, I don't want you to have blind trust in Ingermanson or his calculation. I just want you to read his article and understand the math, and then apply the mathematical knowledge you learned from it to the statistical calculation in the film. I'm sure you'll disagree with Ingermanson's own probability estimate, because you disagree with his initial assumptions; but you'll also understand that the film's calculation is wrong even if its initial assumptions are accurate, because the filmmakers' math is just plain wrong. It doesn't matter if Ingermanson is biased; you don't have to be unbiased to notice (and explain) blatant math errors. -- Evil-mer0dach 09:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again a physicist is NOT a statistical expert.

Any respectful statiscal expert can tell you how statiscal data by non-experts can be misrespresented and cherry picked.

(I already posted a section on how Academic references can be misleading.)

Bob (Mar 9, 2007) —The preceding

Unless someone can give a valid statistical report(by a valid statistician of NPOV) justifying the physicist's claim, I will put the section back into the article after formalizing and referencing it Thegreyanomaly 22:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Update: I will take your Ingermanson claims to an admin if necessary. The neutrality of this page is at stake. Thegreyanomaly 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thegreyanomaly, you wrote: "I will take your Ingermanson claims to an admin if necessary." To whom are you writing? You and I are the only two people who have mentioned Ingermanson's name. Are you writing to me?

The only claim I made about Ingermanson is that he has written a particularly beginner-friendly (and also, I might add, particularly non-combative) explanation of some of the many beginner math errors that have been found in the film's statistical calculation, and that his article would be a good starting point for you if you want to learn enough math to understand the errors. -- Evil-mer0dach 13:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole section is unreferenced and reads like

I am not the author, just an interested onlooker. But it looked referenced to me. It had a quotation (referenced) and the person quoted appears to have been the original, so that part of the section would have been secondary research. Most of the bullet points looked obvious and are well represented in wikipedia and elsewhere. Sandwich Eater 16:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding ^{[citation needed]}s where needed. Grover cleveland 16:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't it been stated by Wales himself that NOT adding unreferenced information is better than adding information that has a 'Reference Needed'? I could be wrong. --RWilliamKing 16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section violates

unpublished synthesis of published material. We need a reliable source that specifically states "The Lost Tomb Of Jesus" violates e.g. The Catholic belief in the Assumption of Mary. It is not sufficient to say that "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" states that Mary's bones were found and that that would violate the belief in the Assumption without haveing a reliable source that specifically makes that argument. There may be such sources but they have to be cited in the article. Grover cleveland 16:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not original research per

WP:OR#What_is_not_original_research.3F: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." The tag has no justification. The only thing this section does is comparing. adriatikus | 16:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (I did the section)[reply

]

I'm sorry but this is not correct. Please reread

WP:OR#What_is_not_original_research.3F

. The arguments being made in this section are like this example:

Premise: The Lost Tomb of Jesus claims that Mary's bones were found

Premise: Christians believe that mary was assumed into heaven

Conclusion: The Lost Tomb of Jesus violates Christian beliefs

Please compare with the example of original research given in

WP:SYN

:

Premise: Jones copied references

Premise: The Chicago Manual does not define copying references as plagiarism

Conclusion: According to the definition in the Chicago Manual, Jones did not commit plagiarism

I hope that the point is clear. Another problem with this section should also be obvious: the section does not make clear which Christians believe in, e.g. the Assumption of Mary (answer: not all of them). We need specific citations for every claim. Grover cleveland 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quote: 'Saying that the documentary contradicts Christian views definitely "changes the significance of the data"' -- IMHO they raised theological questions both in the film and on the website. I could agree with you if I couldn't find any theological consideration in the film. But they are there. Jacobovici said "we aren't questioning Christianity, we aren't theologians", but they do make suppositions about (e.g.) the ascent (as a spiritual only one). And about the differences between denominations, this isn't a theological article. I think it's sufficient to write about the majority's view and link to relevant pages. (I could demonstrate the 2 levels of the discourse in this film -a "scientific" one, and a symbolic one-, but this indeed would be OR.) adriatikus | 17:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which "majority" are you talking about, though? Is there a "majority" to believe in, for example, the assumption of Mary? I'm not sure. It would all need to be referenced. Grover cleveland 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you feel the need, you may edit who believes what. (I was talking about Catholic and Orthodox churches, which IMHO are significant took together - see List of Christian denominations by number of members; dunno about the rest, but you can add more info if you think it's missing) adriatikus | 23:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If one says Jesus raised bodily to heaven and another suggest he didn't (etc.) do you need an external source to say they contradict? Hm. adriatikus | 16:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do. See

WP:SYN. To see why, consider that there may be a lot of dispute about whether two views actually contradict. For example, the two genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew and Luke appear to contradict each other, but some scholars have put a lot of effort into trying to argue that they don't. Grover cleveland 16:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

We aren't talking about subtle text interpretations here. We are talking about which interpretation one adheres to (or pushes forward, or suggests, or implies). It is as simple as "He did raise bodily to heaven" vs. "He didn't raise bodily to heaven". For almost 2000 years the Christians have believed into the empty tomb. This is not subtle, this is about an empty tomb. You support this, or you don't. The Church does, the film doesn't. The question is "Do they contradict?". Hehe. Obviously yes. adriatikus | 21:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The empty tomb does not preclude the claims the filmmakers are making. It's quite possible for the tomb to originally have been found empty after the resurrection, but that Jesus died later and his bones were stored. I'm not claiming this happened, I'm just claiming that it's a possibility and the complete lack of specific references in this section is insufficient.

Sign yourself, please adriatikus | 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Premise A = Church: empty tomb because Jesus raised bodily to heaven

Premise B = Filmmakers: we've found the body

Conclusion C = A and B contradict.

The error you are making is judging by the film's paradigm. To analyze something you have to make a step behind to see the whole picture. And keep things simpler. Those kind of assertions are only speculations.

It's weird they are playing with symbols all around, "analyzing" Church's history, checking the Nicene Creed (as stated in the film), making assumptions about the ascension of Jesus, but they say at the press conference they aren't debating theologically. This contradiction makes people talk and means more money. adriatikus | 22:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to the Chicago Manual example is faulty. There you have premises A and B, and the conclusion C, which is A interpreted through B. In my case you have A and B, concluding C which is (A = non contradicts B). adriatikus | 21:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Let me quote from the film (in the first 10 minutes): "We need to analyze the articles of faith" (which is the Nicene Creed). Does this look like a scientific discourse or as a theological one? The film does get into a theological dispute (although denied in the press conference). This adds another "significance" (by your request) to the data. They did this film not only as a scientific layout of facts, but also interpreting them with regard to Christianity. adriatikus | 20:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is the Assumption of Mary in the Nicene Creed? NO. Is Jesus having no brothers or sisters? NO. Jesus not being married? NO. Grover cleveland 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are POV. I'm asking for another opinions. (for you: the point is they've wanted a theological dispute, as it meant money to them; the quote was to show you they've got into it). adriatikus | 21:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't. But once they've talked about checking the Creed, they've set a point of reference, which is the Church. This happened in the beginning of the film. Hence, the film may be seen also as confronting "facts" (as they've presented them) to the Christian faith. adriatikus | 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still wanting more opinions. Thank you. adriatikus | 22:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of my arguments against tagging as

• Original research issue:

• example at
  WP:SYN#Unpublished_synthesis_of_published_material
  :

premise A: Jones copied references

premise B: The Chicago Manual does not define copying references as plagiarism

conclusion C: According to the definition in the Chicago Manual, Jones did not commit plagiarism

In the Chicago Manual example, C is judging A through B. C is a synthesis of A and B because C is a value judgment of A by the perspective of B.

• this section's structure:

premise A: film's assertions ans suppositions

premise B: Church's teachings

conclusion C: A and B contradict

In this section I say A and B contradict. I do not say A (or B) is wrong (or has another quality, or value) in respect to B (or A). It is a comparison of A and B, not an interpretation of A or B (or of their implications), not making assumptions on A or B. Hence, it is only a "[..] straightforward [..] logical deduction based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." (

WP:OR#What_is_not_original_research.3F

). It is not an interpretation of the facts or theories in the film in respect to Church's position, it is a straightforward comparison based on "fully attributed data" (Church's position is to be found in the wiki articles, since WP may reference itself).

The part which is a synthesis of both film assertions and Church's position (and fits the Chicago Manual example) is the blasphemy thing (judging A in respect to B), but it has references and the phrase indicates a possibility [1] since it's not an official position, but an opinion of a third.

• majority (which Christians hold the views) issue:

The film contradicts at least the Catholic and Orthodox points of view which, according to the List of Christian denominations by number of members, form a majority together. More info about who holds what can easily be found in the linked wiki articles. adriatikus | 14:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the linked Wikipedia articles in this section make their own researched case for each "contradiction", meaning that the linked articles already have their sources that clearly show these as articles of faith contradicted by the documentary, either of the overall Christian or specifically Catholic and Orthodox faith (as it is now specified). Of course, it would be possible I guess to add a quote to "prove" that they are indeed articles of faith (or at least part of the Tradition), but that would decrease in my opinion the overall clarity of the section. For the Assumption of Mary, for example, one could write beside it as a source : Pius XII, APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION (sorry for the upper case) : "by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory." I second the removing of the "original research" tag. --Benz74 15:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could some one please fix the accidental blanking from a few edits ago? Everything south of the "Conflicts with Christian views" section needs to be restored. My browser is horrible for doing that. Thank you! Ecto 19:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He, someone blanked a huge chunk of the article!!!! How does someone go about to restore what has been lost? --Benz74 20:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Last known full article : 19:30 8 March 2007[reply]

Done adriatikus | 20:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found out how to do it myself.. done it as well... --Benz74 20:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you've lost the edits between the 2 versions. adriatikus | 20:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that blanking everyone. My browser can't handle articles that are too long, and I had no idea that this one was so long. There was no way for me to fix it on my own. Thank you! Ecto 21:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was protected due the editing dispute, that has been resolved. See my User talk page. Carlo 12:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, someone must REQUEST that protection be removed. It is not done automatically. If the protection was because of disagreements about the Mavorah statement, my understanding is that the issue has been resolved. Ward3001 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say it is the Jesus of the bible. Doesn't that add to rather than take away from Christianity, confirming more details of the New Testament than it denies? So there really was this guy called Jesus, who had a wife and child and apparently said and did some amazing things. Good news, I'd say, whether he physically rose from the dead or ascended into heaven or not. Can't we take comfort from the fact that he existed - that he knew what it was like to have a family, to love and be human? And isn't his message of redemption and rebirth something we can all relate to every day? We should admire Jesus the man and son of God, as we are all children of God, and not be distracted by specious theological arguements. I believe. —The preceding

I agree with you 100%. I believe in possibilities, isn't it possible that Jesus had a family, a wife and child? Would having a family, destroy Jesus' message to a path to a better life? As we venture more into the 21st century, new discoveries will be unearthed, are we to reject these new discoveries, all because they contradict Catholic doctrine, or they contradict what the Bible says, I'd say no, I accept all new discoveries, even if they contradict Catholic doctrine or the Bible. I do not believe that faith and belief should be fixed, I believe that faith and belief should have room for possibilities. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 203.167.9.106 (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

Talk pages are supposed to be related to articles. In order to promote/ask/debate/argue/discuss personal beliefs/opinions/questions there are forums and blogs. See #2 and #4 at How to use article talk pages. adriatikus | 00:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone got any clues about the three extraordinary skulls that was found in the tomb?

- "This too was decidedly not typical. In ancient Jerusalem, the dead were placed inside tombs; in tombs, the dead were placed inside ossuaries. If anything was left behind, it was a lamp or a bottle of perfume—not skulls. What were human bones doing under the symbol? Whose bones were they?"

--Roberth Edberg 07:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dead were usually put in trenches. Ossuaries were reused and there were a number of bones, bone and skull fragments, on the floor. The tomb had been re-entered in anquity and we can't assumed that the skulls were placed deliberately where they were found. Since they were in 3 different parts of the cave how could they have been under one symbol?

I don't understand how the skulls are symbolic of anything. Seems to me that this is an archeological issue of some sort rather than a symbology issue. Sandwich Eater

I removed that quote and it's been put back with a reference to the 'official site' where it comes from. However, I still don't know who wrote it and I am not at all convinced that 'reliable' can be used to apply to that site. Besides the fact that the map shows the 3 skulls in different places in the room, not under the facade. There is an issue of varifiability here. I'm looking into it.

Grammar please! One skull *was* found on a floor, three skulls *were* found on a floor. Were is the plural form. Thanks! Sandwich Eater 13:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find out who wrote the quote, but I'm presuming it was someone like Pelligrino or Cameron or Simcha, ie someone who hasn't a clue what they are talking about. Definitely not 'a reliable source', so it appears to me that it should be removed. What I am told by real archaeologists who have worked in Jerusalem is that it is nonsense. There isn't 'typical', I've just been told of one tomb with a beautiful sarcophagus lid and no sarcophagus -- this was an unrobbed tomb. Not all the bones were put in ossuaries, and tombs have been found with bones in all sorts of arrangements, scattered everywhere. One of the archaeologists who made these comments was the first into the Talpiot tomb.

It does seem like a strange assertion, and doesn't seem to have anything to do with the symbols section. It seems to assert that since skulls were found on the floor, and since most tombs did not leave stray bones about that it must be unusual or that the tomb was previously entered, or that someone couldn't afford an ossuary, or that it was early christian somehow. I don't know. But it seems to have something to do with the overall debate and nothing to do with the symbology/symbolism of the tomb. I will move the three skulls bit to a more appropriate section.Sandwich Eater 15:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And just to make it clear, stray bones seem to be pretty normal in tombs such as this one, which had fragments of bone all over the floor.

Since the tomb was vandalized twice, once in antiquity and secondly with kids kicking things around, we really do not know what the skulls mean and/or whether their exact placement can be considered 'significant'. --Jbanning22 05:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is such garbage! Of course it was Jesus! We know that for sure! Jesus couldn't have risen from the dead; this article has to say that, or it will be the most biased piece of junk on the planet! Skeptic03 02:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC) ok[reply]

You're really bad at being a skeptic. 154.20.253.36 20:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Skeptic03 comes across as a goose, but I think that (s)he has a point, albeit given in a pretty grunt-like, pig-ignorant way. Wikipedia does not allow extremist sources to be quoted, except in rare and special circumstances. I know this may upset some people, but I would humbly suggest that anybody who holds that Joshua bar Joseph rose from the dead in a literal and physical sense, is an extremist of a pretty virulent type. Morandir 13:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing "anybody who holds that Joshua bar Joseph rose from the dead in a literal and physical sense, is an extremist of a pretty virulent type" is just as "grunt-like and pig-ignorant" as anything Skeptic03 wrote. Just stick to following Wikipedia's policies instead of calling 2 billion Christians "extremists." I understand that you want to push your own (rather minority, rather marginal) POV on here, but your suggestion that we remove all references that come from Christian sources is an extreme misapplication of Wikipedia's policies, not to mention a contradiction of its most important policy, NPOV. 209.87.18.2 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really relevant to have an assertion (neaR THE END) that it can't tbe the tomb of Jesus because it contradicts new testament accounts, along with the old favorite that Peter and John wouldn't die for a lie? 211.29.162.234 08:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Ben witherton's III (who he?) opinions on the truthfulness of certain certain apostles worthy of being quoted? Put them under theological considerations if you must. His last two quoted points merely say "the tomb contradicts my view of the truthfulness of scripture, therefore it must be false". We know that religious people don't want it to be the tomb but that is not evidence eitehr way. and by the way, he says all the roman authroities agree the tomb was empty - what on earth is he talking about? doesn't sound like very good expert opinion. E4mmacro 05:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More on the Witherington III rubbish. The link to Galatians 1:9 reveals "As we have said before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema." This is supposed to prove the reliabilty of the apostle John, but it seems irrelevant. E4mmacro 05:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the possible bias in this article: While I do not hold that Christians who believe in the corporeal resurrection of Jesus are extremists, and while it does seem that you did your research fairly extensively, I don't believe your research was thorough. I came away from the article feeling as though I'd just left a debate between you and a comatose Simcha Jacobovici (comatose because he was unable to argue back). At first I thought I might just be being paranoid, perhaps Jacobovici was really just that off and I was too quick to be intrigued by unlikely possibilities. But upon looking at your sources I noted that the vast majority of your sources and your external links were "critical views". In a piece that is supposed to be simply facts and unbiased, I recommend doing research that looks at ALL evidence, rather than just looking at evidence that collaborates your own personal views. In writing this article with such clear bias you are not any better than you accuse Jacobovici of being. 76.78.102.135 20:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This anonymous poster seems tho think there was a single author for the article, and if he is unhappy had the opportunity to do something about it. However, given the subject, it is not surprising that there are a lot of critical views.

I agree. This article needs to be rewritten. The article should describe the movie/book only with a section on the controversy instead of attempting to argue the merits of the film in every section. In other words the article should record what was said in the film (which is the purpose of an encyclopedia) not dispute the claims the film makes. That is for another entry, maybe "controversies of Christianity" or a section at the end of this one.Makhaira (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't agreeing with me. It is easier to follow something as complicated as this if each section is NPOV, separating out criticisms would make it harder to follow. And you are wrong about the purpose of an encyclopedia -- as WP:ENC says, "An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge." Generally speaking, the sort of separation you suggest is frowned upon, and there is even a template which says "It has been suggested that some of the information in this article's Criticism or Controversy section(s) be merged into other sections to achieve a more neutral presentation."--

talk) 07:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, starting the article with "I think it is very unserious work. I do scholarly work…," Kloner said. "[This film] is all nonsense." is a definite bias. It can't be all nonsense, because the Acts of Phillip really do call Mary Magdelene Mariamne, among other things.Ceasless (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One question, which seems to have been ignored by all commentators, looms over film, book and debate. We are told in various places that, after discoveries of tombs in Israel, the bones found within were normally given to Orthodox Jewish authorities for reburial. Presumably, this was done in the case of the Talpiot tomb. Presumably, too, transcripts or receipts of this handover exist in some authority's archives. Indeed, there may even be eyewitnesses who remember the occasion. The question that no one seems to have asked is whether or not the bones of Yeshuah bore evidence of crucifixion.

I am not trying to claim that such information would prove any historical, religious or statistical assertions. It would merely be of interest as an element in the debate.--PeadarMaguidhir 21:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, you haven't looked into this very deeply or you would know first that the bones were indeed reburied, and that secondly there is no way of linking any particular bones to any particular artefact.

Thank you for the insight. I never doubted that the bones were reburied; on the contrary, I wrote it above. But, I would like to respectfully ask if any of the bones showed signs of crucifixion at the time of the handing over of the bones to the Jewish Orthodox authorities.--PeadarMaguidhir 07:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm a young girl very interested in this subject and I would really like to participate in the debate, but due to the article's so wide range of vocbulary, I can merely understand what the book/film is about.Could someone please explain a little bit? I'd appreciate it a lot.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.13.231.243 (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sources bother me. First, you can't use any Wiki article as a source, that's pretty explicit. The source just added for the Judas, etc. statement not only doesn't mention Judas, I don't see how it qualifies as a 'reliable source' in Wikipedia terms. Look at this page for instance [2]. This is a site with a good reputation for fact checking? Wikipedia says "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." and "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Without better sources I think it needs to be removed. (to make my position clear on the article, I think Jesus was buried somewhere but not at Talpiot).

Can't use YouTube for this either, I'm afraid. Same reasons as above.

talk) 15:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

nor blogs Ochib (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the stuff out, and it was immediately put back in.

talk) 15:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I removed the following (apparently inserted by Pellegrino) from the article as it is not a forum for presenting one's views, added here in case they are of interest. Gr8white (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pellegrino comments: The statement that all archaeologists, epigraphers, scientists involved Princeton's Jerusalem Symposium regard the Talpiot Tomb case as discredited and closed, is not accurate and is, at best, somewhat biased and unbalanced. While most of those named in the letter of protest are scientists of high standing who are providing good counter-arguments, the statement that all scientists/archaeologists involved in the January 2008 symposium have denounced the observations of Ruth Gat and the legitimacy of the Talpiot Tomb hypothesis happens to be patently false. To begin with, no polls of opinions were ever taken, either during or after the symposium. There were in fact 65 scientists attending the symposium and submitting papers for the Proceedings. I was one of them; and along with at least five other archaeologists personally known to me from the proceedings, our interpretations of the evidence run counter to the 13 - who but fractionally represent the attendees - - Charles Pellegrino, June 6, 2008

I'm not sure why this debunking is not allowed. In fact this reads as a primary source--he is stating that he was there, and that the 13 dissenters did not represent even a majority of the attendees. If this were a reference to an article by Pellegrino it would be allowed, but not if he posts it himself? Ceasless (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. We don't allow first person accounts, how would you verify them?

talk) 18:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the para 2 "Ossuary Inscriptions" twice refers to claims in the film that four leading epigraphers agreed - without naming them; the film/article might be slightly (but not very) convincing if they were named! Hugo999 (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Making a new hoax with an old one...

The Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 28, verses 11 to 15 :
While the women were on their way, some of the guards went into the city and reported to the chief priests everything that had happened. When the chief priests had met with the elders and devised a plan, they gave the soldiers a large sum of money, telling them, "You are to say, 'His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep.' If this report gets to the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So the soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day.

As written since a long time, the chief priests and the elders had good reasons to make a fake tomb of Jesus two thousand years ago...

All scientific discussions about "evidences" seem very futile now...

Bruno Déry 19:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How does this relate to this article? This page is for discussing how to improve the article, not to state your opinions about the subject. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In scientific methodology, we must always look at all possibilities that could offer another explanation, and then eliminate those possibilities with scientific experimentations.

The possibility of an old hoax has never been look at in this article, and we have a testimony that demonstrates that it’s a reasonnable possibility we cannot scientifically set aside.

My contribution to this article is an historic testimony directly related to the scienfic evidences of the article.

Bruno Déry 02:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't write articles using scientific method, we write articles using reliable sources, see

talk) 05:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The Bible is a primary source, reliable as a source for what it says but not for history. But that's irrelevant, please read

talk) 16:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

In its current form, this is the most hopeless article on a documentary film that I have seen. What should it consist of? A description of the film, when it was made, where, by whom. A description of the content. A section on how it was received. I am going to start editing the article so that it does its job. In the process I might cut quite a lot out. Please help if you can. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The content of this documentary film

A documentary is not an "author" film, a film where critics are based mainly on the artistic presentation, on the artistic point of view, not on the content like documentary film. A documentary film is mainly made for the content, and the critics of those films should be mainly based on the content, the heart of the film.

This documentary film does not only present facts, it also presents a point of view, an interpretation of those facts. The heart of this film is a presentation of a point of view more than a presentation of facts. Critics of a film should be based on the content of the film, and in this documentary, critics should be also based on the point of view presented in this documentary. Not doing so is eliminating the heart of this film.

So, your critics, about critics of the others, are not superior or more objective. You simply present your own point of view on what film critics should be... What a chance, we are on a "talk page”!  ;-)

--Bruno Déry 12:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunodery (talk • contribs)

I'm not convinced by this argument. It's still an article about a film. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following from WP:Verifiability before adding unsourced content:

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true."

I would add, and not whether editors think it is important. Also note that self-published material is not considered a reliable source. Gr8white (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far I understand the excavation-reports, none of the bones was examined carefully before they were reburried. So, how is it possible to come to such theories as: "Jesus having a child", "Presumably Mary not being virgin"? When there was no DNA-test of all bones, it is neither possible to postulate father-sun-relations nor to postulate, that the bones in den Mary-cache were not from a virgin.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.2.190.162 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption made in regards to the bodies found is quite extraordinary. Especially, the times of Jesus when tombs were reused by individuals of that day. To assume, that Jesus was the individual discovered on this particular site is quire impossible to decipher given the time frame and the fact that determination would literally be called "Cheaper a person" according to the usual term in the English format. I am amazed at what people will come up with these days to make a few dollars!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.244.242 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070303084823/http://www.nbc11.com:80/entertainment/11116378/detail.html to http://www.nbc11.com/entertainment/11116378/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—