It was only a matter of time…

The makers of a new documentary, to be aired for the first time at a news conference in New York Monday, claim that a tomb found in a Jerusalem cave 36 years ago belongs to none other than Jesus Christ.

And this isn’t just some off the wall no-name documentary being promoted by a random website. The producer is Hollywood elite, James Cameron (of The Terminator and Titanic fame) and Time Magazine is now running the story like this:

Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you ‘The Titanic’ is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he’s sinking is Christianity.

In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn’t resurrected –the cornerstone of Christian faith– and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.

No, it’s not a re-make of “The Da Vinci Codes’. It’s supposed to be true.

James Cameron is described as “only marginally religious.” So excuse me for being a bit skeptical about his take on Christianity. To say nothing of the fact they’re billing this documentary as a film “where Indiana Jones and the Da Vinci Code come to life and change the way we look at the world.” Well, that’s one way to make some money.

I’m curious to see how they’re going to use DNA to prove that it’s Jesus. Do they already have some old Jesus DNA to baseline against? And I suppose this means the original disciples willingly died for a lie?

Besides, if some folks were going to perpetuate a “lie of Christianity” on the idea that the Savior died and rose from the grave, why would they put his body into a coffin next to his family for others to discover? Sort of reeks of obviousness.

This particular story is also not new, as the cave had been discovered in 1980. Seems like Christianity would’ve already been “titanic”-ed by now, with such a find. But it’s alive and well. In addition, even the Time article acknowledges the names inscribed were “common Jewish names”.

And according to an Israeli archeologist:

“At least three other ossuaries have been found inscribed with the name Jesus and countless others with Joseph and Mary,” he said.

Besides, Jesus was the son of a carpenter… hardly the kind of family that could afford a big crypt for the whole family.

“It is just not possible that a family who came from Galilee, as the New Testament tells us of Joseph and Mary, would be buried over several generations in Jerusalem.”

Let’s not forget another similar story from 2003 that turned out to be a complete hoax.

A stone box touted as the oldest archaeological evidence of Jesus is, in fact, a well-crafted fake, Israeli archaeological experts say.

The box, an object known as an ossuary, was said to have contained the bones of Jesus’ brother James.

Carved on one side is an inscription in the ancient language of Aramaic bearing the legend: “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”

Officials with Israel’s Antiques Authority announced Wednesday that while the box may date from the correct era, the inscription is a forgery added at a much later date.

“The inscription appears new, written in modernity by someone attempting to reproduce ancient written characters,” the officials said in the statement.

So much for claiming there’s no war on Christianity. It’s been declared. War rages on.

UPDATE:
Bryan brings up a good point:

Cameron’s project looks like pseudoscience dressed up to swing away at the foundation of Christianity. Let’s see him try anything similar with the religion of peace. And then we might see just how fast he sinks into hiding.

Seems the pseudoscience is that latest liberal trend. And this isn’t simply a case of cartoons making fun of Jesus… this is an attempt to disprove the very foundation of Christianity. So it will be interesting to see if Christians worldwide will go out and riot, bomb and kill in response to this.

UPDATE 2:
Anchoress reminds us this is a standard “Easter season” kind of story.

UPDATE 3:
From the Discovery Channel’s press release:

Dr. Carney Matheson from the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada, conducted a mitochondrial DNA analysis on microscopic bits of matter recovered from the “Jesus son of Joseph” and “Mariamene e Mara” ossuaries. The test genetically concludes that the two were not maternally related. Given that this was a family burial place reserved for spouses and blood relations, it is possible to deduce that they were a couple.

That’s it? That’s the evidence to prove all of Christianity is a lie?

They could’ve also deduced that given the commonality of the names, or the location of the tomb, or the cost of such a family crypt, that it was just another rich Jewish family who died a long time ago. But it looks like they found the evidence they wanted to find.

UPDATE 4:
CBS wastes no time jumping on this story to promote it as the end of Christianity.

Were Jesus Christ’s Bones Found In Tomb?
Documentary To Challenge Tenets Of Christianity, Claims DNA Identifies Remains Of Christ

An Oscar-winning director is about to challenge the most elemental tenets of Christianity in a documentary on The Discovery Channel, claiming the bones of Jesus Christ and his closest relatives were found in a Jerusalem tomb in 1980.

James Cameron’s documentary claims the bones of Jesus, his mother Mary, father Joseph, and Mary Magdalene — who some say was his wife — were found in the tomb.
[…]
Church officials have, predictably, dismissed the documentary’s claims as nonsensical and baseless.

Such objective reporting. Make the discovery look absolute and the criticism unfounded.

I wonder if Mary Mapes and Dan Rather will claim to have a fax copy of Jesus and Mary’s marriage license.

UDPATE 5:
The scholars respond.

In 1996, when the BBC aired a short documentary on the same subject, archaeologists challenged the claims. Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television.
[…]
“How possible is it?” [Stephen] Pfann (biblical scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem) said. “On a scale of one through 10 _ 10 being completely possible _ it’s probably a one, maybe a one and a half.”

Pfann is even unsure that the name “Jesus” on the caskets was read correctly. He thinks it’s more likely the name “Hanun.”

“They just want to get money for it,” Kloner said.
[…]
Archaeologists also balk at the filmmaker’s claim that the James Ossuary _ the center of a famous antiquities fraud in Israel _ might have originated from the same cave. In 2005, Israel charged five suspects with forgery in connection with the infamous bone box.

And still no mass riots…

UPDATE 6:
Here is a picture of the ossuary in question, with a description of the inscription (from Discovery.com):

Note the presence of the “cross-mark of unknown origin” next to the name. Something to consider about that:

During the first two centuries of Christianity, the cross was rare in Christian iconography as it depicts a purposely painful and gruesome method of public execution. The Ichthys, or fish symbol, was used by early Christians to covertly identify each other. The Chi-Rho monogram, which was adopted by the Constantine I in the fourth century as his banner called the labarum, was an Early Christian symbol of wider use.

UPDATE 7:
I heard a report about this story on the Houston-based Christian radio station, KSBJ, this morning. They mentioned it during the news segment and billed it as a significant new find for Christianity. Obviously, I was surprised by this promotion - without any qualifications - so I contacted them about it to find out whether they had seen the MSM articles billing this as the “end of Christianity”. The DJ that had mentioned the story replied, “That is not how the story presented itself. I will look at your information.”

After a few more emails exchanged, she finally admitted:

“It’s like the JESUS documentary done a number of years ago. I think we need to see it because it’s something we’ll have to answer, but you’re right I should have made that disclaimer thanks!”

I just wonder how many others will make the same mistake when approaching this story.

UPDATE 8:
Captain Ed wonders:

Let’s take a few things in the context of the times. Jesus was a well-known agitator whose crucifixion creates a cult following, in the eyes of the Romans and the leading Jews of the time. The basis of that cult formed around the notion that Jesus rose from the dead. If the Romans knew where his body was buried, why then did they not produce it as proof of his immutable death? In order to be placed in an ossuary, he would have to lie in the tomb for a year, decomposing to skeletal remains. During that time, the Romans could easily have produced the body — or the cult followers could have stolen it and buried it elsewhere to prevent it.

The familial ties also seem rather odd. In the first generation of Jesus, no one mentions his marriage or family. Yet his familiy and followers — ossuaries of Matthew and James are supposedly among the discoveries — supposedly felt it of no moment to bury him with his wife and son, despite their refusal to acknowledge a marriage. By the time his son would have died, the Gospels would already have been written and prophesied in the region and further to Greece and Rome.

And all of this evidence would have been left in the open, in a tomb in the middle of the largest city in the region, where anyone could have discovered it.

He sums it up well by saying:

“This relies on faith at least as much as the Christian religion does, and contradicts common sense.”

But hey, who are we to question their faith in the Almighty Prophet Profit?

UPDATE 9:
Looks like their “solid proof” is based on a statistical probablity theory (see p. 13).

But then again, who’s surprised?

Federal agents arrested Charles Rust-Tierney, the former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU, Friday in Arlington for allegedly possessing child pornography.

According to a criminal complaint obtained by ABC News, Rust-Tierney allegedly used his e-mail address and credit card to subscribe to and access a child pornography website.

The complaint states that federal investigations into child pornography websites revealed that “Charles Rust-Tierney has subscribed to multiple child pornography website over a period of years.”

As recently as last October, the complaint alleges, “Rust-Tierney purchased access to a group of hardcore commercial child pornography websites.”

Allahpundit says:

“He could be writing a book on child abuse, say, and wanted to see just how bad it can get.

But if he’s writing a book, he’s researching it awfully thoroughly.”

This story would explain why the ACLU is so eager to argue that child porn should be legalized. It probably also explains why Rust-Tierney once argued against restricting Internet access in public libraries in Virginia (hat tip: StopTheACLU):

“Recognizing that individuals will continue to behave responsibly and appropriately while in the library, the default should be maximum, unrestricted access to the valuable resources of the Internet.”

Child porn = valuable resources? Be sure to use that line in Cell block C when you get there… they’ll love it.

Others:
BLACK VELVET BRUCE LI | Right Voices | Stop The ACLU | The Irate Nation | Stuck On Stupid

Showing their support for an organization that proudly boasts a quarter of a million abortions per year, Sprint is now offering “Planned Parenthood Wireless“, billed as “The Right Choice that Supports Choice”.

Planned Parenthood Wireless is powered by Working Assets, the progressive phone company that delivers quality phone service using the all-digital nationwide Sprint® network*. Since 1985, Working Assets has raised more than $50 million for progressive nonprofits, including $1.6 million for Planned Parenthood alone. You get great cell phone service, exceptional customer service, and the satisfaction of knowing that you are contributing to a worthy cause.

Unfortunately, you’ll find terminating your service is harder than terminating your pregnancy.

Now that’s a smackdown.

Proving it’s a very slow news day, al-Reuters is covering (and Yahoo has an entire photo gallery dedicated to) the hard-hitting story of a Bush-hating liberal crawling on his hands and knees around Manhattan… (hat tip: Allahpundit)

New Yorkers got to kick President George W. Bush’s butt on Thursday, sort of.

Performance artist Mark McGowan kicked off his bid to crawl for 72 hours across Manhattan dressed as the president, offering the opportunity to kick his backside.

The controversial artist from London began his odyssey from New York’s Lincoln Centre wearing a rubber George Bush mask, a business suit, knee pads, work gloves and a sign stuck to his cushioned posterior reading simply: “Kick My Ass”.

But al-Reuters is missing the real message here. McGowan is demonstrating the definition of liberal foreign policy: “PLEASE KICK OUR ASS!“.

And look how al-Reuters carries the water for the anti-Bush McGowan:

McGowan said he does not have any particular political stance on the Republican president, who has seen his approval ratings plunge in the face of an unpopular war in Iraq

The falsity of this statement should be obvious to even the mildly retarded considering the “performance” McGowan is presenting… but a simple reading of McGowan’s own website contradicts the article on this point.

McGowan says that he is “offering the people of America, New York and visitors a service…a kind of theraputic engagement. Hopefully people will be able to come and kick me (the President, George Bush) as hard as they like, and gain some comfort in the fact that they can say I kicked George in the ass. On a more serious note this is a protest against George Bush and his policies and i am expecting injuries, i just hope not to severe.

Another day, another liberal-water-carrying story from al-Reuters…

Well this should come as no surprise.

The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog said on Thursday Iran had failed to meet a February 21 deadline to suspend uranium enrichment, exposing Tehran to possible new sanctions over fears it hopes to produce an atomic bomb.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report Iran had installed two cascades, or networks, of 164 centrifuges in its underground Natanz enrichment plant with another two cascades close to completion.

This represented efforts to expand research-level enrichment of nuclear fuel into “industrial scale” production.

Now it’s time to unleash the full force of… another strongly worded letter!

And this time, we mean it… maybe.

So I took a field trip into liberal utopia and wanted to document the experience for you to show you what it’s like. Caution, you may want to grab some anti-bacterial wipes for this one.

By now you’ve probably heard of Amanda Marcotte. She’s the disgraced liberal blogger whose tenure as John Edwards’ official campaign blogger was shorter than Britney Spears’ first marriage.

Thanks to Mark at B4B, I came across Amanda’s latest rantings about how wonderful abortion is and how those who perform abortions ought to be regarded as heroes. Yes… heroes!

I think that abortion is not only a good thing, but I’d like to posit that it seems to me that in the vast majority of abortions, the choice made was the most moral choice for that woman.
[…]
If I got pregnant, I wouldn’t even have to suffer much mental strain to realize that abortion would be the best choice for myself, my family, and my relationship. Abortion, not just the right to abortion but the actual procedure, is a moral good that helps women and families and should be honored as such. Women who get abortions should be recognized as people who can accurately weigh their choices and make the most moral one.
[…]
Meanwhile, other anti-choicers are running around claiming that being an abortionist is like this super great career that people only indulge in for the money. This is horseshit and pro-choicers need to push back and remind everyone that abortionists are heroes, who put up with all sorts of abuse because they want to help women.

If I didn’t know the source of these comments, I would’ve brushed them off as satire, assuming nobody in their right mind would actually think this way. I scrolled through some of the comments and saw a few others who agreed, even cheered, Amanda’s views.

So I thought I’d take a moment to post a comment on the article. Here’s the exchange…

My comment:

“Women who get abortions should be recognized as people who can accurately weigh their choices and make the most moral one.”

No, the moral choice would be that if you’re not prepared to raise a child, you should not engage in sex. Weighing the choices AFTER you’ve become pregnant is neither moral nor responsible, it’s selfish and immature. Otherwise, why not just extend your high praise to women like Andrea Yates for having the moral fortitude to kill her five children and get on with the rest of her life? Afterall, she, too waited until after conceiving to decide to kill her kids… she just waited a few years after conception instead of a few months…

A response by “bluefish A”

dear TexasRainmaker-

please brush up on your reading comprehension skills. if you had come to the discussion prepared, you would have seen that we’ve already been through the having sex doesn’t mean consent to pregnancy discussion about 200 comments ago. see, sometimes contraception fails and unwanted pregnancies do result from that sad fact. also, following your logic wouldn’t andrea yates’ kids have been better off if they had never been born at all- if say she and her husband had used reliable contraception or if she had miscarried or if she had aborted?

To which I responded:

“having sex doesn’t mean consent to pregnancy”

Assumption of risk. I may not consent to drowning when I go swimming in the ocean, but I understand the risk is there. The time to weigh the risk is before I undertake the task, not when a rip current is pulling me under.

“following your logic wouldn’t andrea yates’ kids have been better off if they had never been born at all- if say she and her husband had used reliable contraception or if she had miscarried or if she had aborted?”

Been better off if they’d been aborted? Um, no. They’d still be dead.

“bluefish A” responds:

well in that case, i guess no one should ever swim. or have sex. or go outside. or get pregnant. or eat sushi. or make eye-contact with a stranger.

and then he/she adds:

there’s a difference between a toddler than a blastocyst. kind of like the difference between infanticide and abortion. that, too, was covered 200 or so comments ago.

no more. i won’t feed the troll.

I’m kind of disappointed that he/she was only able to muster two response and a snark before calling me a troll and surrendering. Oh well.

Then “history_mom” weighs in:

It’s sad when people cannot understand the difference between what one woman did in the throes of postpartum psychosis and what many women have done when they have determined that continuing a pregnancy would not be the right thing. Andrea Yates was not a rational agent, able to weigh her options, and therefore her “decision” to kill her children has less than nothing to do with whether other women are capable of determining whether abortion is the best moral choice for them.

But see, I think you already know that but figured you could throw out something you thought would yield an emotional horror response. I guess you missed the memo that squickiness is not an argument for being opposed to abortion.

To which I replied:

“Andrea Yates was not a rational agent, able to weigh her options, and therefore her “decision” to kill her children has less than nothing to do with whether other women are capable of determining whether abortion is the best moral choice for them.”

The comparison is not to focus on the mental state of the mother, it’s to show the inconsistency of promoting the killing of a child in one situation and being outraged about it in another. If a baby can survive, through medical technology or nature, as early as 23 weeks, then how can you say an abortion performed at 24 weeks post-conception is anything different than killing the same child at 3 years post-conception?

And finally “Dianne” tried to toss in a little snark, presumably to be comic relief:

I may not consent to drowning when I go swimming in the ocean, but I understand the risk is there.

Therefore we shouldn’t try to save you from drowning if you start to go under because you knew the risks and decided to swim anyway?

I humored her with a response:

“Therefore we shouldn’t try to save you from drowning if you start to go under because you knew the risks and decided to swim anyway?”

If, by virtue of my taking the risk, I’ve involuntarily dragged another human being into the situation, I’m obligated to aid them - not kill them simply because their presence is now inconvenient to me.

I think the premise of Amanda’s original post and all the comments applauding her goes to show the difference that forms the foundation of the abortion debate… The Left views the situation as that of a single person making a choice, while the Right views the situation as involving at least two people - mother and child. But the Left won’t have the intellectual honesty to admit that, because it would lead to the essential question: “When does life begin?” Without firm evidence of the “magic moment”, it’s hard to rationally argue that an abortion performed at an arbitrary point during a pregnancy is not the killing of another human being.

Honestly, I still think that if modern science were able to definitively prove tomorrow that life does begin at conception, the pro-abortion movement would remain strong relying on the selfish beliefs that a mother should be able to kill at will to accomodate convenience.

Update:
More responses:

Diane:

Therefore we shouldn’t try to save you from drowning if you start to go under because you knew the risks and decided to swim anyway?

Not only that, he shouldn’t try to help himself, nor ask someone to help him.

I’m not worrying about TR; he’s clearly not rational about the subject; he thinks fetuses start at 24 weeks of development. (Or, he thinks talking about a 24 week old fetus allows him to generalize to all states of pregnancy. Doesn’t matter, both positions are stone stupid, unsupported by fact.)

You know I couldn’t help but respond:

“Not only that, he shouldn’t try to help himself, nor ask someone to help him.”

We’re not talking about saving the mother’s life here, we’re talking about abortion-on-demand for convenience (remember, amanda’s point that the “choice” is a moral good?)

“I’m not worrying about TR; he’s clearly not rational about the subject; he thinks fetuses start at 24 weeks of development. (Or, he thinks talking about a 24 week old fetus allows him to generalize to all states of pregnancy. Doesn’t matter, both positions are stone stupid, unsupported by fact.)

Yeah, I’m fully off my rocker.

While one group of liberals is out fighting to make sure that charitable organizations don’t receive federal funding to help those in need…

Next week, the group started by Gaylor and her mother in the 1970s to take on the religious right will fight its most high-profile battle when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments on its lawsuit against President Bush’s faith-based initiative.

The court will decide whether taxpayers can sue over federal funding that the foundation believes promotes religion. It could be a major ruling for groups that fight to keep church and state separate.

Another group is out working to secure those federal funds to kill unborn children (hat tip: Black Shards)…

In 2003, Planned Parenthood provided 244,628 surgical abortions, the largest of any abortion provider in the U.S.

Planned Parenthood receives almost a third of its money in government grants and contracts ($265.2 million in FY 2004).

Will Katie Couric or Chris Matthews lead with this anytime soon?

Despite the ongoing costs of US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, the outlook for the federal budget has grown substantially brighter.

Tax revenues are rising much faster than spending, according to Treasury Department numbers released last week. The recent trend is strong enough that, were it to continue, the budget could move into surplus in barely a year, one economist calculates.

Already, the federal deficit is shrinking toward about half the size that it has averaged since 1970, when analyzed as a percentage of gross domestic product.

The shift reflects a strong economy, with higher incomes and corporate profits generating a bigger flow of tax revenue. In turn, the Treasury’s progress could help the economy by buoying investor confidence in the nation’s fiscal position.

And just remember this the next time you hear a Democrat promise to take America in a “new direction”…

Priceless.

So here’s a brain-teaser: How is it possible that State Sen. Gary Siplin is holding a re-election fundraiser Wednesday night, asking for $500 donations?

After all, to have a fundraiser, you must be a candidate. To be a candidate, you must be a registered voter. And, unless you’ve made special arrangements, you can’t be a registered voter if you’re a convicted felon — which Siplin is.

Well, the short answer, according to state and local election officials, is that Siplin hasn’t yet been removed from the voter rolls, because the Orlando Democrat is appealing his grand-theft conviction, related to charges that he used state employees to work on his campaign.

So it’s a technicality — but apparently one that’s good enough for the Florida Democratic Party, which paid for the fliers promoting the fundraiser, according to the disclaimer.

Hmm. Theoretically, it’s possible that Siplin will win his appeal, and the party will simply look loyal.

If not, though, it may look as if Democrats have not only stopped fighting the “culture of corruption” they so often decried, but now they’re actually working to re-elect it.