We’ve been able to read nothing except the tragic shootings yesterday at Virginia Tech. There is really no more we can add to it as all the blogs are covering it.

I want to turn your attention to the April 12 Omega Letter, which exposes the myth of the “found” Jesus grave and his “marriage” to Mary Magdeline and their “son”:

Cracks in the Foundation . . .

Now that the film has been broadcast and the damage done, a number of scholars who were interviewed for ‘The Lost Tomb of Jesus’ documentary are beginning to rethink their assessments.

Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem published a paper entitled; “Cracks in the Foundation: How the Lost Tomb of Jesus story is losing its scholarly support.”

The original premise of the film was that Oscar-winning director James Cameron and Emmy-winning Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici had ‘discovered’ the ‘lost tomb of Jesus Christ’ and His family in a Jerusalem suburb.

Never mind that Jerusalem was ninety miles away from the family hometown. Never mind that both the Romans and the Jewish authorities, desperate to disprove Jesus’ credentials, somehow ‘missed’ the evidence they were looking for despite the fact it was a large, expensive family tomb that could not have been kept secret.

Cameron, whose anti-Christian values are no secret, evidently set out to ‘prove’ that Jesus was nothing more than an extraordinary man who lived, died and was buried in the first half of the first century. By whatever means necessary — including cooking the evidence as needed.

The film argues that 10 ancient ossuaries - burial boxes used to store bones - that were discovered in Talpiot in 1980 contained the bones of Jesus and his family. When the ossuaries were discovered, the bones they contained were buried in an unmarked grave in keeping with Jewish tradition.

But Cameron claimed there was enough residual DNA to ‘prove’ his claims. He claimed that comparative analysis determined the DNA of ‘Jesus’ did not match the DNA of ‘Mariamne’ which PROVES, Cameron claimed, that Jesus was married to Mariamne, and furthermore, that Mariamne was really Mary Magdalene.

From there, Cameron extrapolated, a third bone box, inscribed, ‘Judah, son of Jesus’ was therefore the offspring of Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene. Now remember, Cameron deduced all THAT from the fact that there was NO DNA evidence linking ‘Jesus’ to ‘Mariamne’.

If there were ANY DNA that linked ANYBODY to ‘Jesus’, Cameron and Jacobvici kept that information to themselves.

Even the Discovery Channel, which aired the documentary, has begun qualifying or editing some of their claims about the film.

A statement on the Discovery Channel’s website that used to read, “a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters…concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family,” was pulled down.

It was replaced with a statement saying, “a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters… concludes that the probability factor is in the order of 600 to 1 that an equally ’surprising’ cluster of names would arise purely by chance under given assumptions.”

THAT is a far cry from claiming the odds 600 to 1 in favor of the conclusion that they found the ‘lost tomb of Jesus’.

Another way of expressing it would be like this: The odds would be 600 to 1 against there being another family that shared the same first names as ours living in the same town as us.

That is not the same as claiming a 600 to 1 probability that the other family IS us. That would be ridiculous.

Which is why so many of the alleged ’scholars’ are backtracking from the film’s claims. Because they ARE ridiculous.

Shimon Gibson, who was part of the 1980 excavation team (and appeared in the film) was quoted by Pfann, saying, “Personally, I’m skeptical that this is the tomb of Jesus and I made this point very clear to the filmmakers. We need much more evidence before we can say that the Talpiot tomb might be the family tomb of Jesus,” he added.

Prof. Frank Moore Cross, professor emeritus of Hebrew and oriental languages at Harvard University is portrayed in the film as having ‘no real doubt’ that the ossuary reads “Jesus, son of Joseph”.

However, Cross also claimed it proved nothing. “It has been reckoned that 25 percent of feminine names in this period were Maria/Miriam, etc. - that is, variants of ‘Mary.’ So the cited statistics are unpersuasive. You know the saying: lies, damned lies, and statistics,” Cross is quoted as saying.

The DNA expert who appeared in the film, Dr. Carney Matheson, was quoted by the documentary as saying, “these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely be husband and wife.” Dr. Matheson says that he was selectively misquoted.

He later said “the only conclusions we made were that these two sets were not maternally related. To me, it sounds like absolutely nothing.”

To me, it sounds like LESS than nothing.

Finally, Professor Francois Bovon is quoted in the film as saying the enigmatic ossuary inscription “Mariamne” is the same woman known as Mary Magdalene. But when Professor Bovon saw the film, he issued a disclaimer saying he didn’t believe that ‘Mariamne’ ossuary was Mary Magdalene at all. He claims he was quoted out of context.

It appears that the ‘Jesus Tomb’ film was an unmitigated fraud. (more…

Posted in Faith, Jesus | trackback url | Comments Off | |

Mac at Macsmind writes:

No doubt as more details are coming in there are those who will continue to politicize this by calls for control, and that is to be expected. But as I’ve said so many times gun control will not stop anyone who truly wants to commit the carnage this even wrought.

In law enforcement we say that anyone can commit any crime so long as there is motive and opportunity for the person to commit it. Guns or any other method used are not the issue. People do evil things because evil exist in us all. Until society realizes that “there are none righteous”, they will never understand the danger we face everyday from one another.

We cannot go through life in fear each day and while tragedies such as the one at VT awaken something in us that may lie dormant, the rights we are afforded should not be infringed upon.

As Congress continues its’ preening and posturing, General Petraeus forwards the following letter:

Letter From Gen. Petraeus to Families of Deployed Soldiers
Apr 16, 2007
BY Gen. David H. Petraeus

Gen. David H. Petraeus, MNF-I commander Photo by Army
The following is a letter to families of Soldiers serving in Multinational Force-Iraq from Gen. David H. Petraeus, MNF-I commander.

To the families of Soldiers serving in Multinational Force-Iraq:

On April 11, Secretary of Defense Gates announced that the tour of duty for Soldiers serving in Iraq would be extended from 12 to 15 months. This was tough news, I know, for those on the home front - and also tough, of course, for those on the ground here in Iraq. This was particularly difficult news, as a leak of this action meant that the Army was unable to notify you before the extension was reported by the press.

Needless to say, Lt. Gen. Odierno and I would not have requested maintenance of the surge force levels in Iraq - the request which led to the tour extensions - if we did not view the additional forces as being critical to the ability of Multinational Force-Iraq to accomplish its mission. That mission - to help Iraq improve the level of security for its population - is obviously critical to the effort to give Iraq’s leaders an opportunity to resolve the difficult political issues that can enable long-term solutions to Iraq’s problems.

I want to assure you that I understand - and appreciate deeply - the sacrifices that you and your Soldiers have made and will continue to make in the future. My family and I understand the challenge of long deployments. In fact, this tour of duty in Iraq is my fourth year-or-longer deployment since 2001. We know what you and your loved ones have gone through in recent years, and we - and all Americans - are grateful to you. You, too, have been “soldiering” along with your favorite trooper.

Thank you for your sacrifice, and thank you for your tireless support of your Soldier. You truly are America’s unsung heroes. Sincerely,

David H. Petraeus
General, United States Army
Commanding

One sentence speaks volumes and needs no further comment: ” This was particularly difficult news, as a leak of this action meant that the Army was unable to notify you before the extension was reported by the press.”

Thank you General for remembering that a soldier does not serve alone. It would do well for Congress to remember the same.

With yesterday’s killings of so many people at Virginia Tech there is bound to be a debate in this country over gun control again.

A couple of years ago I got it into my head that shooting at a shooting range would be a good sport, so my husband bought a semi-automatic .22 caliber pistol. He also bought one for himself but had several pistols and rifles he had previously owned and that were passed on to him by his father.

Neither of us ever thought of killing game animals, and have no desire to do so now. It was just strictly target shooting at an approved range after we went to an NRA class on handling weapons.

Our weapons are hidden even from me, but they have locks on them that go through the chamber that holds the clip. We did load a couple of clips a few months ago when our neighbor was alone for several weeks while her husband travelled, and she had heard some activity outside her house at night. We told her to use her cell phone and call us if she needed us. It probably would have taken 15 minutes at least to get any weapon ready to shoot, but at least we made her feel safer.

I’m not bragging, but I will tell you when I left the shooting range the bull had no more eye to shoot. It was completely shot out.

Arguments take place all the time about the meaning of the Second Amendment. It does state something to the effect that since a militia is required we should have the right to bear arms.

Would gun control have stopped the madman who went on a rampage here or in Columbine or anywhere else?

I doubt it. Those who carry weapons legally seldom use them for anything but shooting game or self-protection.

Those who want to go out and kill a large number of people couldn’t care less if they are breaking the law by carrying a weapon because they intend to use the weapon to break even more laws.

If the students or teachers on the campus of VTI had had permits to carry weapons and did so, how many people could have been saved from this man who was obviously angry at something and satisfied to kill, even to the point of killing himself?

This guy had 2 9 mm pistols and was armed to the teeth with ammunition. I have shot my husband’s 9 mm pistol a couple of times and I can tell you they are loud and have one heck of a kick to them.

Gun control would only keep weapons out of the hands of those with honest intentions and the ones who want to commit crimes would always find a way to get a weapon.

All we can do now is pray for the survivors and the families of those who lost loved ones, along with the families of the survivors whether they were shot or not.

I’ve noticed since I’ve gotten older my ears seem to be bigger than they used to be. At least they still are close to my head instead of sticking out, but I wondered if the ears grew larger as we grow older.

So I went to Google and this is what I found:

But cartilage does not keep growing at the same rate throughout life, and while cartilage keeps dying and being replaced, in the vertebrates it does stop increasing in size in adulthood – which is what is usually meant by ‘keeps growing’. This information can be found in most introductory physiology text books.

If that’s true then how come the cartilage removed from my knee hasn’t grown back? Hmmm? And have you ever seen a baby or small child or even a teenager whose ears are as large as an old man’s or an old woman’s? Me either.

Source.

I guess it’s true my ears are hanging low. 8-}

Just a silly post because I’m in one of those moods.

Hat tip: Hootsbuddy’s Place. <):)

The leaders of Congress are set in their decision to attach some sort of timeline to the supplemental military spending bill.

“The president has a choice to make in the coming days: Cling to the discredited policies that have led our troops further into an intractable civil war, or work with a bipartisan majority of Congress to make us more secure,” said Majority Leader Reid.

“We’re committed to pressing these goals to the administration until they do change course,” he said.

Both the House and Senate have passed bills to both fund the war and start bringing troops home. They are expected this to week to begin negotiating a final version to send to Bush. He has pledged to veto it if it is not stripped of the provisions he opposes.

The Senate bill would require a U.S. troop exit in Iraq to begin within 120 days, with a completion goal of March 31, 2008. The House bill would order all combat troops out by Sept. 1, 2008. Most Republicans stand with Bush on grounds that a timetable is a dangerous war policy.

Let’s talk about the last bipartisan majority in Congress’ vote on the supplemental bill that will be vetoed by the President.

The House vote was 218-212 with 14 Democrats voting against the bill and 2 Republicans providing the winning margin. 218 is the minimum number for a bill to pass in the House.

The Senate vote was 50-48 or 51-47 depending on which source one uses.

In either case neither vote looks overwhelming and certainly doesn’t look bipartisan. They may have picked off a few votes from each side but bipartisan is when you have a large number from both parties voting the same way.

This did not happen and as a result our military are being used as a political football.

“The president is not going to get a bill that has nothing on it,” Reid said. “It would be wrong for this legislative branch of government to capitulate to this wrong-headed policy that the vice president and the president have been leading.”

Sen. Carl Levin, a Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told reporters in Michigan Monday that if Bush vetoes their original bill, Democrats would go with a “second-best approach” to dealing with security issues in Iraq. He said the second bill would tie U.S. economic and military support to the Iraqi government’s ability to meet performance benchmarks.

Illinois Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said that Bush and Republican congressional leaders have abandoned efforts to hold the Iraqi people and government accountable.

I have no problem with asking the Iraqis to stick to a schedule of benchmarks, but not to make that the condition of withdrawing funds.

If the Congress wants to withdraw funds they have that power. That’s what they should do without going through all the hoops of making us think we must have agricultural subsidies and Katrina help included. Let the defunding or funding bill stand on its own and let the American people decide who’s right and who’s wrong.