Book Discussion: "The Jesus Family Tomb"

A well known polymath whose published works range far and wide, including (but not limited to) Archaeology, Paleontology, Astronomy, Space Propulsion systems, and Science Fiction.

Official Website: http://www.charlespellegrino.com

Moderators: Mr. Titanic, Charlie P., ed_the_engineer

Post Reply
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Post by saralestes »

Charlie P. wrote:
Not so coincidental is the clustering of identical names. In the Italian side of the Pellegrino clan, and even in the Russian Italian side, every generation has an "Aunt Rose," and a Maria. Indeed, every individual family group seems to have a Rose and a John (or Jack). On the Irish side, there is always a Pat and a John, and in each generation a Jane and a Hannah. Yet, still, even in the sorts of families where it is most likely for a repeating cluster to occur, it has never happened, when the mathematical requirement is for a cluster of SIX individuals from the core family (husband, wife, children - and if fewer than six in the core, next closest family member), truely indistinguishable clusters never have occurred. And when we move from the Pellegrinos and McAvinues to the rest of the country, the chances become even less probable - an acerage of 1/130 million, based on population dynamics. It's not mathematically impossible; but a cluster identical to my own core family probably occurrs only three times in the United States. James Tabor ran his own family - with similar results.

- - C.R.P.
The most gifted scientist I have personally worked with said, "In science, we spend 90% of our time proving to other people's satisfaction what we already know to be true." There are some of us here who already "know" (intuitively) that these ossuaries are from "Jesus's family." For me it is quite clear, and I don't need further proof to satisfy me of that. I also "know" (by the same means) that the Shroud of Turin is Y'shua's burial shroud. Now it's up to science to prove that "to other people's satisfaction" and have the story move forward from "preposterous" to "probably" to "fact."

It has always been this way. Any new idea is rigorously opposed at its introduction to the degree it requires a change in one's habitual thinking. The degree one is invested in the status quo is directly proportional to the amount of resistance that is put up to having to change one's thinking and position. Science cannot make unfounded leaps of faith, based solely in one's intuition, and the complexities of modern life are compounded by the sheer numbers of people. At some point the entire system will implode under its own weight. In the meantime, though, this is an extraordinary discovery and holds forth an extraordinary opportunity for progress in human thinking. The progress comes with a price: the re-examination of cherished beliefs in the light of further knowledge. As Leslie White (the founder of the "cultural anthropology" school of thought) said in my freshman anthropology class: "The way to defeat your detractors is to outlive them!" :P
JW Nugent
Bookworm
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:06 pm

Re Family names

Post by JW Nugent »

Yes I agree; there were always some differences in the structure and sequencing of the names family to family they were never truly identical just very similar. On the Syrian side of the family the names were more diverse, but there seemed to be a practice of multiple names. My grandfather would use differing sets of names depending on the circumstance. My only guess is that the use of a variation of names were in context to discussions involving differing branches of the family. A lot of information can be lost in one and two generations. Add twenty or forty generations and...
Observation is an important part of science; all that is required are your eyes and mind - an occasional notation allows the sharing of information and a uniform improvement in knowledge.
User avatar
Zomboy
Apprentice Scribe
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:09 am
Location: Canada

more mud sligging

Post by Zomboy »

I was reading the http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com when I came upon this link: http://www.tombofjesus.com/2007/index.html I was quite disturbed by their "scholar", Dr Fida Hassnain, attempting to invalid the Talpiot find with this quote:

10. The Jewish brain has exploited archaeology for political ends to overthrow the Muslim presence from the Temple site in Jerusalem . It is yet to be proved that the etchings made on the lime ossuaries are as old as the ossuaries itself. The film maker is a Jew. The question arises as to why have they waited for 30 years to prove that it is Jesus Christ’s family tomb. There is some political agenda behind this wild claim.

Considering Simcha made every effort to be as apolitical as possible, this comment would be unfair, but the anti-Semetic undertone of the comment invalidates the supposedly scholarly analysis. I would suggest contacting the authors of that website and ask them to remove that comment, or better yet, remove the link from the Jesus Family Tomb website.
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Buckaroo Bonsai
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

It seems reasonable that people would think that in my experience. I mean, even I'm a bit suspicious, especially when reading in the book (See the point Saralestes brought up) when theories considered absurd by Christians were considered such as the stealing away of the body as opposed to a true physical resurrection. If the possibility is there (at this point there are several different possibilities) and you can fit it directly in with Christianity, there is no need to drive the claim further into controversial territory.

The problem here is that the user brings up a valid point. Simcha is a Jew, and that results in suspicion. What should one expect when exploring the religious icon of another faith and then making up theories about them that aren't the only explanation to the evidence? It is like a vegetarian advising me how to cook my steak.

But I don't think there was an underlying agenda though, especially not the one mentioned by that user. I also don't agree that Simcha made every effort possible. I thoroughly enjoyed Charlie's chapters, they added more balance in my opinion.
User avatar
Zomboy
Apprentice Scribe
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 1:09 am
Location: Canada

Post by Zomboy »

The way I interpreted the comment, it seemed like anti-Israeli/pro-Palestinian whinning, NOT scholarship.
"No matter where you go, there you are."
Buckaroo Bonsai
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

I'm not defending or taking sides, but you could be right and you could also be wrong. First, this is a typical opinion, yes, as I mentioned. Opinions don't count so moving on:

Second, it appears as though the user was attacking this claim based on lack of evidence to prove that the ossuaries were inscribed in ancient times, reasoning as to why anyone waited thirty years to prove this was the tomb of Jesus (explain in the book) and suspicion that Simcha is a Jew.

Although he did connect a few dots that in my opinion shouldn't have been connected without proper evidence, I feel that his curiosity is scholarly. Inflammatory in most cases, but I see logic. The only problem is he should read the book. If he has, the user in question may still be suspcious and doesn't buy it regardless of what the book said was the cause or causes.
JW Nugent
Bookworm
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:06 pm

Intuition

Post by JW Nugent »

Please don't read this as a criticism; it's nothing more than my personnel take on intuition. I have both trust in my intuition and constant doubt if the trust is merited. Intuition without the underpinning of knowledge can lead to misinterpretation. Truthfully, whether the tombs are that of the family is less important to me than the process of accuracy the investigation lends to the evolution of knowledge. I prefer a world where misinformation or disinformation has no dark corners to grow and cultivate their influence. This may be unrealistic, but it is an expectation none the less.


As I stated elsewhere the more documentation brought into the process, the more discussion on interpretation, the better model of social habit developed, the more voices requiring unfettered access, the more reliable the result. Your strong feelings are based on access to and interpretation of records an discussions inaccessible to the average individual. The average person may not have the skill or means of discovering the information; you can be sure that there are many people with vested interests that will continue to supress ready availability of any document weakening their grasp on power or authority.

In politics there exists a condition I term the "Smiling Lie." The smiling lie is a syndrome wherebye individuals can in a friendly manner agree to a withholding of relevent truth or a corruption of fact to make a falsehood truth; not only will agreement be reached it will become a new version truth; all those participating will begin to believe the altered option; all individuals not in agreement are wrong; and anyone not on board with the program is an enemy. Regardless of how apparent this deviation may be to an observer; those inside the bubble of ignorance are blind to what is occuring. They decide what the truth will be and thus it is. I've always considered such persons as an evolutionary throwback; somewhat as though Lemmings' learned to read and write, developed tools, and yet still had that blind Lemming drive.

Your intuition needs a strong foundation to withstand the battering of the bubble people and the cultural Lemmings'. Keep on with the effort. Well founded intuition is priceless.
Observation is an important part of science; all that is required are your eyes and mind - an occasional notation allows the sharing of information and a uniform improvement in knowledge.
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Acts of Philip, Mariamne

Post by saralestes »

As recommended in an earlier post, I am now reading James Tabor's book, "The Jesus Dynasty," and finding it quite fascinating. I mention this because I just read about the fact that the apostle Philip was from Bethsaida, NOT Magdala, so the Mariamne referred to as his sister in the Acts of Philip would also have been from Bethsaida, not Magdala. This would mean that linking the Mariamne-Mar name on the Talpiot ossurary to the Mariamne name in the Acts of Philip doesn't make sense as support for the assertion that Miriam of Magdala was deserving of the title of Master. It is my contention that the Nag Hammadi library is sufficient for that point, especially the Gospel of Mary, and that the sister of Philip was not Miriam of Magdala. This is one "dot" that, in my opinion, was improperly connected with the other ones. Bouvon was the one who went down that path and has apparently now disavowed that the Mariamne in the Talpiot tomb is the Mariamne in the Acts of Philip: http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=656

I also read Tabor's account that Herod the Great's Hasmonean wife was also named Mariamne, so apparently Mariamne was not a totally uncommon variant of Miriam amongst the Jews of the historical period surrounding the life of Y'shua bar Yosef.

I would have been much happier if Simcha had not made so many speculative "stretches" in the "Jesus Family Tomb" book in order to support his personal religious beliefs. The one I find the most bothersome and which muddles the picture a great deal, in my opinion, is the speculation about the body having been stolen from the temporary tomb and placed in a family tomb in Jerusalem, which would have had to exist BEFORE the crucifixion. Unless that "famly tomb" belonged to Joseph of Arithmea, there is no foundation in any of the gospels for thinking that Jesus's family had a tomb in Jerusalem before the crucifixion. Tabor makes a strong argument for the family's poverty in his observation that they couldn't afford a lamb for Y'shua's Pidyen Haben (redemption of the firstborn).

Tabor engages in a quite a bit of speculative thinking but does it in such a clear and reasoned way that it's clear that his "might" is still "might be true." I found his account of the possibility of Maria's pregrnancy with Y'shua having arisen from sexual intercourse with a Roman soldier very plausible in light of the path the theology and writings took in the subsequent decades and centuries. Much of what Tabor writes supports many of my personal "inklings" regarding the "spin" that arose in the first four centuries CE regarding Y'shua's divinity, Mary's virginity, and other theological agendas that strayed from the truth.

I am actually relieved to have discovered that the Mariamne in the Acts of Philip is NOT Miriam of Magdala, because the Acts of Philip is one of those noncanonical pieces that is filled with assertions more fitting in a fable than a factual account. For example, there is an account where a leopard talks to Philip and Mariamne and becomes "converted" to becoming a follower of the "only-begotten son of God":
96 So they all set out for the land of the Ophiani; and when they came to the wilderness of dragons, lo, a great leopard came out of a wood on the hill, and ran and cast himself at their feet and spoke with human voice: I worship you, servants of the divine greatness and apostles of the only-begotten Son of God; command me to speak perfectly. 97 And Philip said: In the name of Jesus Christ, speak. And the leopard took perfect speech and said: Hear me Philip, groomsman of the divine word. Last night I passed through the flocks of goats over against the mount of the she-dragon, the mother of snakes, and seized a kid, and when I went into the wood to eat, after I had wounded it, it took a human voice and wept like a little child, saying to me: O leopard, put off thy fierce heart and the beast like part of thy nature, and put on mildness, for the apostles of the divine greatness are about to pass through this desert, to accomplish perfectly the promise of the glory of the only-begotten Son of God. At these words of the kid I was perplexed, and gradually my heart was changed, and my fierceness turned to mildness, and I did not eat it. And as I listened to its words, I lifted up my eyes and saw you coming, and knew that ye were the servants of the good God. So I left the kid and came to worship you. And now I beseech thee to give me liberty to go with thee everywhere and put off my beastlike nature.
The term "only-begotten son" did not show up until the Gospel of John was written, the last in the canonized gospels and the one Tabor shows was part of a development that systematically diminished the role and importance of John the Baptizer as the priestly part of the "two-Messiahs" team and exalted Y'shua as being divine -- the only begotten son of God.

The community founded by Philip apparently had women teachers who dressed like men, practiced celibacy, vegetarianism, and did not drink wine. If Y'shua had children, which I believe he did, he most certainly did not practice celibacy! It's also clear that he wasn't a vegetarian and he did drink wine, so the practices of that community were yet another distortion that arose after his crucifixion. I think the next book I'm going to read is Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities"!
Last edited by saralestes on Tue May 01, 2007 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
voralfred
Carpal Tunnel Victim
Posts: 5817
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Paris

Re: Acts of Philip, Mariamne

Post by voralfred »

saralestes wrote:I also read Tabor's account that Herod the Great's Hasmonean wife was also named Mariamne, so apparently Mariamne was not a totally uncommon variant of Miriam amongst the Jews of the historical period surrounding the life of Y'shua bar Yosef.
Not just the name of his wife, but also that of several more princesses of the Hasmonean and Herodian families. It was, as I remarked before, a perfectly accepted variant spelling of Miriam/Maria among Hellenised Jews of that time.
Human is as human does....Animals don't weep, Nine

[i]LMB, The Labyrinth [/i]
User avatar
mayavision2012
Apprentice Scribe
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Albuquerque NM
Contact:

Post by mayavision2012 »

I mention this because I just read about the fact that the apostle Philip was from Bethsaida, NOT Magdala, so the Mariamne referred to as his sister in the Acts of Philip would also have been from Bethsaida, not Magdala.
I have also been reading "Jesus Dynasty" and interestingly enough had just gone beyond the page (142) with the information as stated above when I read the post. More specifically, Mr. Tabor stated that "John's gospel says" that Peter, Andrew, and Philip were from Bethsaida, so I understand this to mean that Mr. Tabor is not stating this as proven historical fact. Philip was also thought to have moved early to the town of Capernaum along wtih Andrew. For all we know, any of the figures mentioned in the bible may have lived in various towns, the main one being an identifier. :)
Learn from the turtle, it only makes progress when it sticks out its neck.
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Post by saralestes »

mayavision2012 wrote:
I have also been reading "Jesus Dynasty" and interestingly enough had just gone beyond the page (142) with the information as stated above when I read the post. More specifically, Mr. Tabor stated that "John's gospel says" that Peter, Andrew, and Philip were from Bethsaida, so I understand this to mean that Mr. Tabor is not stating this as proven historical fact. Philip was also thought to have moved early to the town of Capernaum along wtih Andrew. For all we know, any of the figures mentioned in the bible may have lived in various towns, the main one being an identifier. :)
I am not very knowledgeable about this particular custom, but it has always been my understanding that a person was referred to by their "home town" and by their father's first name, not where they happened to be living at any given time. That's why Y'shua is referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth," even though he was born in Bethlehem and traveled throughout Palestine. His mother and father had their home in Nazareth.

Since 9% of Jewish males in 1st Century Palestine appear to have been named Y'shua (Joshua), referring to someone by their father's first name and his place of normal residence was a more specific naming scheme than either one would be standing on its own. Except for some of the cities, from reading Tabor's book, I got the impression that most of these little towns had populations of 200-500 individuals and everyone knew everyone else within them. They were more like large extended families than the small towns I have lived in in rural America, where everyone kept to themselves and their particular affiliations.

It has been made clear in many different writings, including this book about the Talpiot tomb, that "Mary Magdalene" was called that because she came from the town of Magdala. She was referred to that way throughout her life, even when she lived elsewhere. As far as I know, Jews didn't have surnames until after the second diaspora, when they took on the naming customs of the countries they lived in.
injil
Bookworm
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:05 pm

Identity of Jesus and Mary Magdelene

Post by injil »

I have a degree in history, and have done some linguistic research. Here’s the startling truth I have found as to why those strange symbols Jacobivici found really appear on the ossuaries. You see, the Jews spent hundreds of years in Egypt where they adopted Akhenaton’s brand new monotheism, the triangle, a symbol of the pyramids (The star of David is simply two triangle pyramids put upside down on each other), and thus a symbol of divinity, for the pharaohs were gods in human flesh, the pyramids their temples. This secret code, kept hidden from mainstream Judaism, was kept by a secret sect. One of the leaders, this “Yeshuaâ€
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Egyptian influence on the Jews

Post by saralestes »

Injil,

I think you are connecting some dots improperly. According to the Wikipedia article on Akhenaten:
With Akhenaten's death, the Aten cult he had founded gradually fell out of favor. Tutankhaten changed his name to Tutankhamun in Year 2 of his reign (1332 BC) and abandoned the city of Akhetaten, which eventually fell into ruin. His successors Ay and Horemheb disassembled temples Akhenaten had built, including the temple at Thebes, using them as a source of easily available building materials and decorations for their own temples. ...Akhenaten does seem to appear, according to the conventional Egyptian chronology, in history almost two-centuries before the first archaeological and written evidence for Judaism and Israelite culture is found in the Levant....It is widely accepted that there are strong similarities between Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten and the Biblical Psalm 104, though whether this implies a direct influence or a common literary convention remains in dispute.
One of the characteristics of the Jewish people (the Israelites) in earlier times was their isolation from other peoples that they lived amongst and strong social pressure against intermarriage. You can see the Wikipedia article that gives the dates and shows that some of the early Hebrew people were slaves in Egypt 200 years after Akhenaten's time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of ... _of_Israel

My feeling about the symbols of the upward pointing chevron on the tomb entrance and the circle or dot below it signifies ascension, sort of like an arrow pointing upward indicating "that's where he went," with the circle or dot representing the individual. If there was no physical ascension, as Tabor suggests in his book, then I am mistaken about the symbol. But if the Shroud of Turin turns out to be a legitimate artifact of the ascension process, then my feeling about this symbol may be correct.

As for the names being corruptions of Egyptian names, there may be some common base and migration of names to later cultures, but "Mary Magdalene" was named Miriam in her own time and in her own language, as were all of the Marys mentioned in the New Testament. The designation "Magdalene" refers to her being from the town of Magdala, just as Y'shua was referred to as a Nazarene. Y'shua was named Y'shua bar Yosef in Aramaic. I am no linguist or etymologist, but I was raised as a Jew, and I have had many, many direct experiences with Christ in his present spiritual form, so your conclusions simply do not ring true to me -- both because the timing and sequence is wrong and because of what I have been taught directly by him.

If you have actual historical evidence that supports your theories, I think it would be helpful if you provided some material basis for your statements. Otherwise, they strike me as unfounded speculation.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Re: Identity of Jesus and Mary Magdelene

Post by Mr. Titanic »

injil wrote:and thus a symbol of divinity, for the pharaohs were gods in human flesh, the pyramids their temples.
I believe the pyramids were intended to be tombs as opposed to temples. Interesting connection though. For all we know the two triangles could indeed be the origin of that symbol. :)
User avatar
mayavision2012
Apprentice Scribe
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Albuquerque NM
Contact:

Post by mayavision2012 »

For the sake of diversity of ideas in discussion, I post this YouTube video that discusses the view that Jesus did not die in the crucifixion. The synopsis is posed there as follows:
All the biblical accounts when read as historical evidences rather than religious myths reveals that Jesus must have survived crucifixion & made a journey towards Lost Sheep of Israelites to fulfill his own promise made in Bible. But both Christians & Muslims follows just fairy tales in this regard. The tales which are totally against the established laws of Nature.
Can be viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuUeblKJqX4

For me, the jury is still out on the subject. I believe he did in fact die on the cross at this point, but I have heard this idea expressed through other religious historians here and abroad.
Learn from the turtle, it only makes progress when it sticks out its neck.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

I believe he also died in the crucifixion. Don't loose sight of the Holy Grail as well.
ruejacobs
Apprentice Scribe
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:09 pm
Location: from my home office Tampa, Florida
Contact:

ooooo....i need this book!!!!

Post by ruejacobs »

when my fundamentalist Mum got her panties all in a bunch because of the preacher's ranting on this subject, i found myself telling her that the find was just a trick of the light so to speak...just to shut her up. (there's no argueing with someone of her caliber, she wants nothing more than to remain passively ignorant and becomes violent as any fanatic will when faced with facts) i had no earthly clue that there was a book (so out of the loop, i'm sure) and by Pellegrino, no less. crikey. i oughta be paying off my monumental library fee so i can keep up! or at least pull my head out of warcraft for more than five minutes at a time! i'm becoming positively plebian these days.
Thou Shalt Not Commit Adulthood.
ruejacobs
Apprentice Scribe
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 4:09 pm
Location: from my home office Tampa, Florida
Contact:

jesus!

Post by ruejacobs »

i've got to shrink that profile pic down a bit! lol
Thou Shalt Not Commit Adulthood.
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Editor's Cut DVD

Post by saralestes »

Charles,

My local video store finally had a copy available of the so-called "Editor's cut" DVD, with all the special features and expert interviews, etc. I watched it last night. I am glad that the whole front end of the Discovery Channel edition about the hypothetical taking of the body from the temporary tomb and laying it in the other tomb (which ostensibly pre-existed the temporary tomb) was eliminated. However, the chief frustration I heard you express on your two Coast to Coast appearances was about people saying that the book and movie both said you had found Jesus's bones.

Once again, this version of the movie still depicted bones inside the ossuary inscribed with the name Y'shua bar Yosef, notably an intact skull. The "re-creation" of the original events showed the mourning family opening the burial shroud and seeing the bones of Y'shua's body lying there. We then saw them removing the bones and placing them in the ossuary. The skull is shown being put in the ossuary and then a modern-day researcher is shown looking at the ossuary with the skull noticeably peeking out of the top of it. The clear implication is that this ossuary contained Y'hua's bones, but your scientific tests led you to conclude the opposite.

In the notes documenting the tomb as it was when it was discovered in 1980, did Shimon Gibson (or anyone else) mention whether there were bones in this particular ossuary or whether ANY of the ossuaries did NOT have any bones in it? From the book and the movies, it was made clear that the bones were given to the orthodox Jewish authorities for reburial. However, in this version of the movie, it depicted the bones being studied before being handed over for burial. Were any notes about the bones made? Shimon Gibson appears to still be alive, so if there are no notes, could he be questioned on this point?

I also noticed that the existence of the son of Y'shua was downplayed in this version. It was suggested visually, but the narrative that occurred in the Discover DVD was not there in this edition.

I was glad to see that Miriam of Migdal (May Magdalene) was given such positive coverage. However, I am not convinced that she was the apostle Philip's sister, given the unreliability of some of the accounts in the Acts of Philip (e.g. the talking, "converted" leopard) and the gospel account that he was from Bethsaida, not Migdal.

Much more work to be done!
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Charlie P. »

Yes - I did notice that the final Discovery Channel edit was quite different from the full film I had seen. Everything was re-edited for D.C. in only about two weeks, with an hour of the scheduled programming cut, to accommodate millions of protests received via Email campaign - which, it turned out, was accomplished mostly by "multiplier programs" used by only about 300 people - - the same technology that has guaranteed the death of a once popular "reality show" called "American Idol". After the cut, and its replacement by the Ted Koppel hatchet job (more on the editing of that program later: it was not, as most viewers were led to believe, a live broadcast) - up to a half billion more Emails led D.C. executives to cancel all future broadcasts, even as it was climbing the charts as the most successful program aired by the network in nearly two years. It took D.C. more than a month to confirm what we had discovered in only a half hour: that D.C. had neen "Punked" by an internet hoax.

UPDATE - BIOLOGICAL RESIDUES IN THE JESUS OSSUARY:

The "bones" are still a controversial subject. I had personally sampled everything that remained in the Jesus and Mariamne ossuaries. Bone fragments had in fact been pointed out to me by Simcha and by the scientist who collected the fragments (concentric disks of bio-concretions) for the Thunder Bay laboratory. The Mariamne fragments did indeed have bone cell structure.

There is uncertainty about the Jesus fragments. I've had a couple of people yell at me about the fragments they saw inside the concretions that went to Thunder Bay. When I ask about the cell structure or marrow structure, "Did you difinitively identify this under SEM [scanning electron microscopy]?" they become more uncertain.

I await samples of the actual Thunder Bay Laboratory specimens from the Jesus ossuary.

Here is what I have found in the Jesus and Mariamne ossuaries: Bio-concretions are simply bacterially generated mineralization processes - much like the ancient mineralized muds that formed egg-shaped concretions - which, when broken, have fossils in their centers.

In the Mariamne concretions (sometimes called the "accretion bed" on the bottom of the ossuary) I did find fragments of bone. I also found fibers consistent with two types of shroud material - one involving the same burlap-like fibers found in the Jesus ossuary. Pieces of wood were also found. In the Mariamne ossuary, these biological residues were mineralized and deeply infiltrated by black mold stems, especially the flax (linen) fibers.

Other ossuaries and tombs are beginning to reveal these same traits.

The Jesus ossuary is a remarkable anomaly. Cubic millimeter by cubic millimeter, the Jesus accretion bed is a bigger "Oh, wow!" experience (in terms of "what on Earth is that doing here?") than sitting in a submersible on the decks of the Titanic.

The wood fragments and the fibers are in pristine condition, despite a history of wetness. They have not deteriorated at all; and they should have. We are leaving many samples embedded naturally in the concretiuon samples - for, so pristine are they, that were we not finding them embedded, all these centuries, we would have likely dismissed them as modern contaminants.

The "bone fragments" - at least those pointed out to me in my samples, have turned out to be calcium-rich concretion layers, formed around bio-concretions; and they certainly do look like bone flakes even under low power light microscopy. Under SEM, they are crystal beds - possibly having formed originally around bone - but not likely, considering the pristine condition of unoxidized, non-microbially assailed micro-wood chips and fibers.

ITEM: The DNA appears to be associated with the centers of the concretions themselves - and the fibers are associated with carbon and iron peaks under the electron microprobe, indicating that the DNA is associated with human residue close to the fibers - that is, with globin proteins (blood) in close contact with shroud material.

ITEM: Note that even if someone did, at some point in antiquity, remove the bones, this should not effect DNA analysis from the bio-concretions themselves. Note also that when I receive a micro-sample from Carney Matheson of the Thunder Bay Laboratory, I expect that it will probably be a cross section of human bone from the Jesus ossuary. I do not believe Dr. Matheson to be mistaken about bone fragments in his sample. Probable conclusion: Either very little bone material was left behind by the terra rossa intruders (now datable to a time frame consistent with the first Crusade), or only a few fragments of (say) popped out wrist bone were present in the first place, and Matthew was correct about a rumor that someone had stolen away with the body, leaving only the burial cloth.

I cannot reveal quite yet everything we are learning from the Jesus accretion bed. We have found one biological trace that is definitely ancient, and which definitely should not be there: Something that begins to look wonderful, in fact. More on that, another day.

We have also found more fibers. This is what is leading now to some serious interest from Jesuit scholars. We've got pristine trace evidence of a second shroud (or robe, or whatever other cloth might have been involved) in the Jesus ossuary. Some of the fibers appear to be flax ("linen"); but there was a great deal of contamination, evidently, by cotton, on the surface of the linen. I have also been working on patina and microbial samples sent by Tabor and Gibson, from their Tomb of the Shroud. In that tomb, a complete shroud was found, its fibers thoroughly penetrated by black mold. The Shroud Tomb fibers were wool, not linen.

The Jesus fibers seem to be permeated with organic substances produced by microbes - which, in addition to possibly forestalling decay, promise to complicate future carbon dating methods. (We would like to determine whether or not the fibers are mere transfer evidence from any "terra rossa people" who might have handled the ossuary about the time of the Crusades). Presently, patina-related methods are promising to become a reliable dating method, of secondary precision only to carbon-14.

It has recently been brought to my attention that the fibers from the newly discovered second cloth type in Jesus ossuary are consistent with the Shroud of Turin: Flax-based linen, contaminated with cotton fibers. I'm skeptical, of course. PCR methods now render it possible to examine DNA from only a millimeter long, single fiber fragment, from one of the blood stains on the Shroud of Turin. It has also been brought to my attention that the Shroud's provenance can only be traced reliably to the Templars, after the First Crusade - another interesting congruence with the terra rosa intruders of the Talpiot Tomb.

ITEM: It has also been brought to my attention that the Shroud of Turin was soaked with water while being rescued from a fire, in centuries past. There was some staining, but the expected microbial assault appears never to have occurred. Though the exact treatment of the Turin shroud after it was wet has not been recorded, the expected deterioration that should have been seen after centuries of exposure to oxygen and moisture and even water, has not occurred. This seems to be yet another odd congruence with the fibers from the Jesus ossuary. Among the tests I would like to see performed on the Turin fibers (and this would be non-destructive), would be an electron microprobe analysis to see if they have been exposed to a terra rossa-based patina formation environment.

The utterly pristine nature of the fibers from the Jesus ossuary tells us that what should have been expected, when Shimon Gibson and Yosef Gath entered the tomb in 1980, was - if nothing else - completely preserved sheets of robe and-or cloth (shroud) inside the Jesus ossuary. None was found - - What? Who? - - first base: the terra rossa people.

Note that in the initial stories about the tomb, there were indications that the people I now associate with the intrusion of the terra rossa (the "rose earth") that subsequently filled the central chamber a meter deep, might have removed bones from at least one of the ossuaries. Reports about empty ossuaries circulated even after 20 years had passed - but could be traced back to being memorialized in, among other places, the 1996 London Times article about the find: "The Tomb that Dare Not Speak its Name."

In any case, sheets of cloth, at least, seem to have disappeared from the Jesus ossuary (and the biological signatures indicate that bones as well, must have been spirited away) - probably around the time of the terra rossa intrusion.

So, there appear to be congruences between our tomb and the appearance of the Shroud of Turin. I hope that, eventually, DNA tests will be permitted. We have not received a difinitive "Nyet!" If however, the DNA from the Shroud of Turin should match the DNA from the Jesus ossuary - all bets are off and I'm just goung to have to go find myself another planet.

I always tended to believe that the image on the Shroud of Turin had been burned in (in accordance with the scientific findings: it appears to have been burned into the outer surface, either by heat or amino acid staining, followed by centuries of slow amino acid image oxidation) - possibly by a hollow bronze statue filled with hot coals and wrapped in the linen shroud. I believed this to be a Renaissance period artifact. However, if the DNA should match, this will mean it was a first century AD Jerusalem artifact - from the Talpiot Tomb.

The technology for the statue-burn would have existed in the first century; but (and this is a huge but), this would have required the great efforts of a whole group of people. It could not have been accomplished by, say, a lone apostle who went fanatic, and created the artifact to convince the other apostles to carry on with the new church. This would have involved all of them - and here, my statue-burn explaination (to Doubting Thomas the Shroud away), should the DNA match, simply falls apart, landing on the fascinatingly scary side of Occham's razor.

I can credibly imagine one disciple stealing away with the body of Jesus (consistent with Matthew's mention of a "rumor" about a body thief) - perhaps even a Roman soldier converted to the new faith. If one person and one person only removed the body, the disciples could have carried on, and evolved their church with more vigor, if they believed Jesus had defeated both the Roman cross and death. Certain recent discoveries near the Bay of Naples convince me that they did in fact believe.

But a statue-burn, of which all the disciples were aware participants? (And why bury the image on the shroud unseen, in a tomb?) What happened afterward would make no sense. They would have known, every statue-burn participant, that what they preached was based on a hoax. All of it: a hoax. It's not even in the probability curves - that the apostles would have been willing to die hated and often alone, for what they knew to be a hoax.

- - Charlie P.
User avatar
mayavision2012
Apprentice Scribe
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 7:58 pm
Location: Albuquerque NM
Contact:

Post by mayavision2012 »

Charles Pellegrino wrote:
It has recently been brought to my attention that the fibers from the newly discovered second cloth type in Jesus ossuary are consistent with the Shroud of Turin: Flax-based linen, contaminated with cotton fibers. I'm skeptical, of course. PCR methods now render it possible to examine DNA from only a millimeter long, single fiber fragment, from one of the blood stains on the Shroud of Turin. It has also been brought to my attention that the Shroud's provenance can only be traced reliably to the Templars, after the First Crusade - another interesting congruence with the terra rosa intruders of the Talpiot Tomb.
This is awesome! A link in the making between Shroud-Crusaders-Talpiot Tomb? This investigation is SO moving in the right direction. Thank you for this update. The Light is going to punch its way through the centuries not long from now and on this side of the 2nd millenium, there will be many eyes to see and ears to hear!
Learn from the turtle, it only makes progress when it sticks out its neck.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
Posts: 1368
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera
Contact:

Post by Mr. Titanic »

I have here a very significant exchange between me and Charles regarding censorship. I intended to post this last night, but saved it for tonight. It's a very interesting read.
Mr. Titanic wrote:I hate to admit it, but if there is one thing worse than Titaniacs it is this. It's rather tragic thinking there is something worse, since I've always been under the impression that people who trash the works of authors and the ideas of 14 year old kids who wander on their forums and drive them off were the worst of it. I guess not.
In the thread I am going to include snipits of this email, I don't think you'll mind though since I find it will go well with the thread. Look it over when I post it and let me know. Thanks.

-Mr. Titanic

PS: Bacteria is life. And the Staircase can float. Evidence of that was in James Cameron's filming of Titanic in which he floods the staircase. That is my favorite scene, with the dome crashing! Brilliant. So... as far as I'm concerned those Titaniacs are just as stupid as they were when I first ran into them three years ago.
Pellegrino wrote:No - I have to give the Titaniacs credit for at least reading my books before they went into rants about the Californian actually being the Samson (which was docked in Brazil at the time), and other such trivia buff misinformation. The endearing thing was that they professed to hate me but kept reading me. Things must be getting really bad, by comparison, for me to be referring to anything about Butler, Haas, and Co. as "endearing." But unlike Falwell, those people never did anything that destroyed careers, or got writers, artists, and scientists up to the point that they lost everything [and faced every horror up to bizarre criminal charges - as in the case of an artist accused of forging his own works]. According to Eric Stover (of the American Association fro the Advancement of Science Clearinghouse on Science and Human Rights), that's exactly what happened to two of my colleagues - in part, at the instigation of Jerry Falwell's "scientific creationist" quarter of the ad hoc tribunal goon squad, in Queensland Australia and to a slightly lesser degree New Zealand, between 1982 and 1984.

Make no mistake about this: The anti-evolutionists of yesrter-year, turned now into equally fanatical anti-archaeology buffs, are willing to goose step just as vigorously over everybody's rights, here in America, today. All that is required for the death of free speech, is for on lookers to nod approvingly, and to give the bad guys the authority to continue such behavior. For the record, I happen to be a Republican; and I have just seen every conservative Republican talk show host I know of, nod approvingly at a major internet campaign against a network and a publisher, and against book distributors, organized primarily by only three hundred people who openly and "proudly" admitted to never having even read the book they sought to have banned. And still they nod approvingly, at the tactic of the 300 who, using multiplier programs, were able to generate up to 600 million Email protests at Discovery Channel alone. (NOTE: The use of such programs in an internet attack against an American corporation is a prisonable offense under the Patriot Act; but of course President Bush has also given his nod of approval, so the law will look the away.) Mark this: As few as 300 people have just determined what Americans can see, and to a lesser degree, read; for the publisher's entire promotional plan was linked to repeated airings of a James Cameron film - pulled from all further showings while it was still climbing the Neilson ratings (as the most popular Discovery Channel broadcast in nearly two years), and while the book was still climbing the New York Times best seller list.

Two months ago, we saw the Discovery Channel (at the urging of Falwell's and Donahue's people, and under the weight of history's first internet attack against a film), pull a program about archaeology from the networks in only a span of twelve hours - faster, by a factor of 28, than we saw Imus pulled from the airwaves for making racist comments. (The message: archaeology and Jesus will get you into hot water faster than racism.) I notice that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh agreed with Falwell, and with Catholic Defense Leaguer Bill Donahue, that all of us involved in the Talpiot Tomb project should be ashamed, and deserved to be muzzled. (Note that neither Falwell nor Donnahue had actually read the book before condemning it.)

Hannity and Limbaugh sound hauntingly like Dr Axford of New Zealand - who [though initially acting as if it horrified him and he needed to search for truth,] - ultimately cheered the ad hoc tribunal on, and who was eventually steam-rollered under by the very same tribunal he helped to create. Hannity and Limbaugh did not miss the point that James Cameron was also part of this project, and that America's extremists were able to muzzle even a big name such as his. What they fail to notice is that James Cameron was, in effect, the Alamagordo bomb test against free speech. Hannity. Limbaugh. As you gave a nod to the muzzling of Cameron, Jakobovici, and Pellegrino - take it from someone who has seen this awful thing before: sooner or later, the apostles of greed and sectarian arrogance and the enemies of free speech, will come after you.

And somehow, the words "I told you so," just won't say it.

I, for one, will not be happy, that day. Not one damned bit.

- C.R.P.
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Post by saralestes »

Charles,

I find it amusing to watch how tightly you cling to the idea of the bronze statue theory rather than accept physical ascension as a possibility. I also find it amusing that if your tests lead where I think they must, you would rather find another planet to live in order to preserve your spiritual stance! :P

These investigations into these ossuaries are very fertile ground. They are linking up all sorts of other fields, as well, such as the necessity of re-examining the veracity and credibility of all of the gospel accounts, both those that were canonized and those that were not. This raises the significance of your work to a quantum leap for humanity. I applaud what you are doing. Despite your personal resistance, I trust the scientist within you to win the day at the end.

I began my professional work as a scientist in the early '60s. My life led me into other fields, but I never lost my interest in science. In 1981, spirituality thrust itself into my life in the form of my first "Christ encounter," and my search led me into the area of metascience. Eventually, I came to understand that my direct mystical experiences (gnosis) of the nature of reality were totally confirmed by quantum physics and the holographic theories of David Bohm and Carl Pribam, among others. Scientists at the Santa Fe Institute are probing the role of the "C" word (consciousness) in their models of reality, but they keep a low profile because of the ridicule they fear from their colleagues in other locales. Nonetheless, all of it leads inexorably toward a view of reality that all scientists must arrive at eventually.

In my opinion, the Shroud of Turin is an artifact that demonstrates what happens when a physical body transmutes and becomes immortal. Regardless of what debates occur over textual criticism, the evidence you are working with from this particular ossuary and its possible linkage to the Shroud of Turin stands at the gateway to a vaster view of reality than you could have ever imagined. Whether you will get there in the course of this lifetime or not remains to be seen, but get there you will. It is, in my opinion, the inevitable conclusion that all genuine searches must lead to.

I wish you well in your search. I am not sure how much longer I will be around to witness your progress, but I am very interested to see what comes of your work if I am here to see it.
mccormack44
Grande Dame
Posts: 3951
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 2:45 pm
Location: Columbia, Missouri

Post by mccormack44 »

saralestes wrote:
I find it amusing to watch how tightly you cling to the idea of the bronze statue theory rather than accept physical ascension as a possibility. I also find it amusing that if your tests lead where I think they must, you would rather find another planet to live in order to preserve your spiritual stance!
I have no official standing in this forum; I am simply a member of both IBDoF and of IBList who likes to read and who likes to discuss things with other interested people. I am not particularly a fan of Dr. Pelligrino, but I have been following this topic out of general interest. Since I have not yet gotten a copy of this book, I have never posted here (I cannot post intelligently about second-hand information).

My post today isn't about Pellegrino and the work on the Talpiot Tomb, but on the part of your post which I have quoted above. Speaking only for myself, I found the quote offensive. If your belief system and/or your spiritual experiences differ from those Dr. Pelligrino has taken for himself, that is your right. But I feel attacked when you express your difference of opinion in this form; I feel that it is extremely discourteous.

I welcome differences of opinion, but I wish that they be courteously expressed.

Sue
saralestes
Bookworm
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:31 pm
Location: Northwest Montana

Post by saralestes »

I meant no discourtesy. I was being playful, which is why I used the smiley face on my post -- to convey that I was teasing, not accusing. I am sorry if you took a different view of my comments. No offense was intended. As someone who has had to stretch my own beliefs many times and who has had a great deal of first-hand experience with the thinking of research scientists and the system that funds them, I find some of the rigidity of the system amusing. Is levity inappropriate or disallowed?
Post Reply

Return to “Charles Pellegrino”