Comments on: Mariamne as key name in the investigation of The Lost Tomb of Jesus http://magdalenemystique.com/2007/02/28/mariamne-as-key-name-in-the-investigation-of-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/ The Path Inward Wed, 07 Jan 2009 10:55:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Herman Guajardo http://magdalenemystique.com/2007/02/28/mariamne-as-key-name-in-the-investigation-of-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-832 Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:18:31 +0000 http://magdalenemystique.com/2007/02/28/mariamne-as-key-name-in-the-investigation-of-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-832 I am only searching for the truth here. I am open to any hypothesis (there are no theories yet) as the evidence comes in. In my view Maria Magdalene was an aristocrat by birth, Her father surely named her in the greek fashion Mariamme as all well born children were named instead of the popular class Miriam. Her relatives at her death could have placed the original birth and infancy name on the ossuary. (She needed another name also because there was a Maria already there). In Sophia and Philip and so many there is the Mariamme version. Herod was married to 10 wives, and two were Mariamme, also his granddaughters were mariamme. It was chic in those times to have a gree name for Mary. I am only searching for the truth here. I am open to any hypothesis (there are no theories yet) as the evidence comes in. In my view Maria Magdalene was an aristocrat by birth, Her father surely named her in the greek fashion Mariamme as all well born children were named instead of the popular class Miriam. Her relatives at her death could have placed the original birth and infancy name on the ossuary. (She needed another name also because there was a Maria already there). In Sophia and Philip and so many there is the Mariamme version. Herod was married to 10 wives, and two were Mariamme, also his granddaughters were mariamme. It was chic in those times to have a gree name for Mary.

]]> by: William http://magdalenemystique.com/2007/02/28/mariamne-as-key-name-in-the-investigation-of-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-242 Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:19:53 +0000 http://magdalenemystique.com/2007/02/28/mariamne-as-key-name-in-the-investigation-of-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-242 There is a critical distinction which separates us neatly into 2 camps. We each must ask ourselves "What evidence would cause me to change my mind?" If the answer is that "there is no 'evidence' which would cause me to change", then this is not an issue which is amenable to science or discovery. So if someone is 'convinced' that Mariamene is Magdalane and no evidence would shake their stand, it really is not an interesting issue any more. Similarly, if someone says that there is no evidence that could ever convince them that Jesus had biological offspring, there isn't any point in trying to have a discussion. Rational discourse is only possible if there is a possibility that I can change my mind in the face of better or more complete evidence. There is a critical distinction which separates us neatly into 2 camps. We each must ask ourselves “What evidence would cause me to change my mind?” If the answer is that “there is no ‘evidence’ which would cause me to change”, then this is not an issue which is amenable to science or discovery.
So if someone is ‘convinced’ that Mariamene is Magdalane and no evidence would shake their stand, it really is not an interesting issue any more. Similarly, if someone says that there is no evidence that could ever convince them that Jesus had biological offspring, there isn’t any point in trying to have a discussion. Rational discourse is only possible if there is a possibility that I can change my mind in the face of better or more complete evidence.

]]> by: Bridgitt http://magdalenemystique.com/2007/02/28/mariamne-as-key-name-in-the-investigation-of-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-33 Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:38:21 +0000 http://magdalenemystique.com/2007/02/28/mariamne-as-key-name-in-the-investigation-of-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-33 Hmmmm, I've read the Rosebrough rebuttal, and although I, too, cannot talk about DNA and statistical evidence, I cannot agree. For one thing, too much emphasis is placed on the "evidence" of the canonical scriptures, when there are so many other gospels that are just as valid. Another problem I have with the canonical scriptures as we have them is mistranslation. I do not pretend to be a biblical scholar, just a spiritual seeker who is drawn to Mary Magdalene and her role in the early christian movement. The Apostle Paul claimed to be a witness to Jesus's resurrection, yes, but why did the vision he saw of the risen Christ need to be the physical body as we understand it? My faith isn't the least bit changed by evidence that MAY prove that Jesus died and his bones have been found. My understanding of the "body" has grown to include manifestations beyond the physical. I've certainly come to know that we don't know very much! There are new ways of understanding and thinking about the physical that are being discovered every day (I spend a lot of time around physicists!). I agree with Betty that all the evidence hasn't been studied and discussed by scholars and that conclusions cannot be drawn until this happens, if at all. I also know that no matter how much scientific evidence is presented to support one theory, there are going to be others presenting scientific evidence to disprove that same theory. Academic debate would be pretty boring otherwise. I, too, will see the film and read the book and research. However, there are times that I go on "faith" and draw my own conclusions based on what feels right and true to me down deep in my soul. What feels true to me is that Mary Magdalene was more than just one of Jesus followers, that, no matter the lack of evidence at this point in time, She was more intimately tied to Him than we had previously been taught. And if they had a child...so much the better. That child is representative of all of us all as we are the Children of True Humanity. Bridgitt Hmmmm, I’ve read the Rosebrough rebuttal, and although I, too, cannot talk about DNA and statistical evidence, I cannot agree. For one thing, too much emphasis is placed on the “evidence” of the canonical scriptures, when there are so many other gospels that are just as valid. Another problem I have with the canonical scriptures as we have them is mistranslation.

I do not pretend to be a biblical scholar, just a spiritual seeker who is drawn to Mary Magdalene and her role in the early christian movement. The Apostle Paul claimed to be a witness to Jesus’s resurrection, yes, but why did the vision he saw of the risen Christ need to be the physical body as we understand it? My faith isn’t the least bit changed by evidence that MAY prove that Jesus died and his bones have been found. My understanding of the “body” has grown to include manifestations beyond the physical. I’ve certainly come to know that we don’t know very much! There are new ways of understanding and thinking about the physical that are being discovered every day (I spend a lot of time around physicists!).

I agree with Betty that all the evidence hasn’t been studied and discussed by scholars and that conclusions cannot be drawn until this happens, if at all. I also know that no matter how much scientific evidence is presented to support one theory, there are going to be others presenting scientific evidence to disprove that same theory. Academic debate would be pretty boring otherwise.

I, too, will see the film and read the book and research. However, there are times that I go on “faith” and draw my own conclusions based on what feels right and true to me down deep in my soul. What feels true to me is that Mary Magdalene was more than just one of Jesus followers, that, no matter the lack of evidence at this point in time, She was more intimately tied to Him than we had previously been taught. And if they had a child…so much the better. That child is representative of all of us all as we are the Children of True Humanity.

Bridgitt

]]> by: Betty http://magdalenemystique.com/2007/02/28/mariamne-as-key-name-in-the-investigation-of-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-32 Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:19:54 +0000 http://magdalenemystique.com/2007/02/28/mariamne-as-key-name-in-the-investigation-of-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-32 Dear Chris, Thank you for sending to us your rebuttal to the claims and evidence of this film. While I can't talk about the DNA evidence or the statistics in the comprehensive way that you do, I do agree with you that the so-called "evidence" for the claim is inconclusive. We need to have all the evidence in before we interpret and conclude. And this hasn't happenned yet. Scholars haven't had the chance to talk through the evidence. The James' ossuary is certainly problematic as well as the fact that there are people in the tomb that aren't in the Jesus' stories. And there is the problem that we don't know the actual forms of the names on the ossuaries and that some are unmarked. All this effects the statistics to be sure. Where I think you and I differ is that I think we should remain historically neutral at this point. Some Christians seem to be starting from the point that all this is impossible and it goes against their faith. I don't think my faith will be changed if this turns out to be Jesus' tomb. ( I need to write more about this.) It certainly wouldn't change my faith if we discover that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married and they had a child. In some ways, this thought is welcome. I wait to see the film, read the book and research, and then begin the conversation about the faith. Many blessings, Betty Dear Chris,

Thank you for sending to us your rebuttal to the claims and evidence of this film. While I can’t talk about the DNA evidence or the statistics in the comprehensive way that you do, I do agree with you that the so-called “evidence” for the claim is inconclusive.

We need to have all the evidence in before we interpret and conclude. And this hasn’t happenned yet. Scholars haven’t had the chance to talk through the evidence.

The James’ ossuary is certainly problematic as well as the fact that there are people in the tomb that aren’t in the Jesus’ stories. And there is the problem that we don’t know the actual forms of the names on the ossuaries and that some are unmarked. All this effects the statistics to be sure.

Where I think you and I differ is that I think we should remain historically neutral at this point.
Some Christians seem to be starting from the point that all this is impossible and it goes against their faith.

I don’t think my faith will be changed if this turns out to be Jesus’ tomb. ( I need to write more about this.) It certainly wouldn’t change my faith if we discover that Mary Magdalene and Jesus were married and they had a child. In some ways, this thought is welcome.

I wait to see the film, read the book and research, and then begin the conversation about the faith.

Many blessings,
Betty

]]> by: Chris Rosebrough http://magdalenemystique.com/2007/02/28/mariamne-as-key-name-in-the-investigation-of-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-31 Thu, 01 Mar 2007 04:45:54 +0000 http://magdalenemystique.com/2007/02/28/mariamne-as-key-name-in-the-investigation-of-the-lost-tomb-of-jesus/#comment-31 I’ve written a comprehensive rebuttal to claims and evidence of this film. Please read it and decide for yourself. You will find it at <a href="http://www.extremetheology.com" rel="nofollow">extremetheology.com</a> I’ve written a comprehensive rebuttal to claims and evidence of this film. Please read it and decide for yourself.

You will find it at extremetheology.com

]]>