News-Record.com

"The Lost Tomb of Jesus," * Cameron

Things must be petty slow for Cameron in Hollywood these days. He would have been better off saying the " Lost Tomb of Jesus" was finally found in the Boiler room of the Titantic at 12,000 feet below sea level hidden under the DeVinic Code video.

In reality! For Brother Cameron, he has been into the cult of the secret societies for the past 8 years as a leading member and authority promoting their myths.

Frankly! I wish he would find another spiritual Dark side hobby instead of being a late comer in the blood line game and stop piggying back off Brown's sucesses.

I'm withholding judgement on this particular passel of boxes until more evidence is sifted through. Stands to reason one could find the bones or other DNA remnants of both Marys and any others from that period. Even if the particular bones aren't found, the idea of comparing the DNA leftovers to determine gender and family relationship (or lack of) is not out of the question. Similar work is used to track the human migrations, I believe.

The passage containing a potential reference to a male lying against Jesus, by the way, might well be the person sometimes identified as John, in 13:23-25, ""Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved...He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?" (King James)

Is this John supposed to be the one who wrote the Gospel itself? But referring to himself in the third person, unnamed?

This same figure has been a bone of contention (sorry for the pun) in the whole Dan Brownie silliness, where people look at Leonardo's painting and want to see John as Mary Magdalene hereself. I, too, do not see a "lad" mentioned, but who knows what other translators use for "he" above. I don't know the original Greek (even less so the probable Aramaic spoken at the table, ostensibly).

Why did God allow it all to be so ambiguous? Why can't we all just automatically read it fluently in the original tongue (sort of backwards glossolalia? That way, we'd know what it all was supposed to say and mean, right?

Yes, the passage you cite undoubtedly is the one that the producers twist to come up with their supposition that this is a reference to Jesus having a son. Absurd.

DNA testing can determine that the remains belonged to a family group, but not which family group. There is no certain sample they can be matched with.

I think God wants us to get the larger issues and not try to read messages in the text that just aren't there.

Couldn't the larger issues have been more clearly communicated, then?

Because the passage leaves it as "one of his disciples", in the King James, at least, it does allow for reading it as a family member...but I grant one would have expected more directness were that the case. Yet, Jesus is reported to have told his first apostles to leave their own families to follow him; hence, it would seem hypocritical for him to then have had one of his own. Of course, many scholars would contend there's a lot of "red letter" sayings that probably were added later.

I think most scholars view mentions of an unnamed disciple in John's Gospel as references to John himself. I've never, ever heard the theory that it might have been Jesus' son. That was pulled out of thin air.

On the whole, Bible texts range from nearly 2,000 years old to much older, and they're written in styles that can confuse and frustrate us at times. There are parts that are meaningful in the context of their times but inapplicable to our lives today. But, in my view, the great truths they convey stand up eternally.

I agree the scholarly concensus leans to it being John. That doesn't negate the weirdness of why John would write about himself in the third person. But then again, it might be the John of the Apocalypse, another person entirely, right?

Nonetheless, why so much ambiguity? Why not just NAME the disciple in question? Simon Peter is said to have told this embraced disciple to ask Jesus who was going to betray him. Why doesn't Simon Peter ask him himself?

So many holes in the holy.

The John of the Revelation is different, most scholars say, and I agree.

Anyway, when I have a doughnut I don't focus on the hole.

In Zen, one does consider the vital importance of emptiness: it is what makes a tea bowl, for instance. A doughnut without a hole is still dough, but no nut. Perhaps just a fry-cake.

I've always wished there were a stronger tradition of laughter and celebration of absurdity in the actual scriptures and history of theology of Christianity. "Fools for Christ" and all.

It's not a book of gags, but the Bible contains plenty of humor. In the Gospels, the disciples mostly act like knuckleheads. Jesus washes their feet to make a point about humble service and Peter blurts out, "Hey, Lord, wash my hands and head, too!" They just don't understand anything -- like us. To your point: If the Gospel writers could laugh at themselves, why can't we do the same?