Likewise, however, when novelist Dan Brown formulated spell-binding tales about Jesus as a married man who fathered a child, and then published them as fact (in The Da Vinci Code), I dismissed his book as a skillfully-woven web of fact and fiction, which was intended not to enlighten but simply to make money.
Now comes James Cameron – movie director of such blockbusters as Titanic and a celebrity explorer who reportedly made unprecedented discoveries about the wreck of this doomed liner – claiming that he has found evidence to support even the most blasphemous of Brown’s fairytales. And during a sensational news conference yesterday, he announced – with a smug allusion to The Greatest Story Ever Told, the movie about the life of Jesus – that he had made “…the greatest archaeological find of all time”.
Cameron then regaled the assembled press corps – as only a movie director could – by telling them about the “huge” findings his team of forensic scientists (think CSI) made after examining anew several caskets (in which dry bones were kept, not ones in which bodies were buried) that were discovered in a cave just outside Jerusalem 27 years ago. He then proclaimed that these caskets are etched with letters that his team has determined, scientifically, spell the names of “Jesus son of Joseph, Judah son of Jesus, Maria, Mariamne [his wife] (thought to be Mary Magdalene’s real name), Joseph and Matthew”.
But Cameron was clearly mindful that Israeli Antiquities experts are on record claiming that these etchings are not only open to interpretation but can relate to as many ancient Jews as the name “John Smith” can relate to modern-day Christians. Because, to distinguish his claims, he added that the caskets contained tiny traces of DNA samples that were tested and which, he claims, provides evidence that they are the remains of Jesus and his relatives.
Never mind that Cameron has no way of authenticating these findings unless he takes a titanic leap of faith by relying on samples from the fabled Shroud of Turin, which is purported to be the cloth that covered Jesus when he was placed in his tomb, or from one of the many descendants of Christ – like The Expected One, Kathleen McGowan, which Da Vinci Brown spawned after he popularized the myth of a very consummated marriage between the Son of God and Mary Magdalene.
But when Cameron’s findings are finally peer reviewed by internationally-respected scientists, I suspect they will amount to nothing more than a forensic attempt to shake the foundations of Christianity to no avail. After all, he posits what is simply impossible to prove scientifically.
Meanwhile, Cameron has cast himself as a latter-day Galileo Galilei to preempt the barrage of criticisms that he knows will be forthcoming – from devout Christians as readily as from historians, archaeologists and forensic scientists. But, in fact, he has miscast himself as a modern-day Galileo as much as he typecast Arnold Schwarzenegger as a futuristic terminator. Because far from being prosecuted as a heretic and prevented from disseminating his scientific findings (as Galileo was by the Catholic Church), Cameron is being allowed to broadcast them to the four corners of world, and stands to make a fortune proselytizing his specious claims.
Indeed, Dan Brown proved that there are multitudes of doubting Thomases (many of them professed Christians) who are eager to buy into any apocryphal yarn that challenges Christian orthodoxy. And, in this respect, Cameron seems poised to profit from the greatest hoax ever sold. Indeed, as an intellectual curiosity, even I shall tune in to watch the official presentation of his alleged discoveries on the Discovery Channel on 4 March.
Related Articles:
Search for signs of Intelligent Design (God) in Evolution
The Da Vinci Code: a plagiarized fantasy
James Cameron, Jesus tomb
Paris ib says
Well since you are interested in “science” you should be interested to know that Darwinism has more to do with Gnostic Myth than science.
“Yet, it is interesting to note that the popularization of Darwinian evolution preceded Gnosticism’s ascendancy in the West. The significance of this fact becomes evident when one reads the words of Dr. Wolfgang Smith:
“As a scientific theory, Darwinism would have been jettisoned long ago. The point, however, is that the doctrine of evolution has swept the world, not on the strength of its scientific merits, but precisely in its capacity as a Gnostic myth. It affirms, in effect, that living beings created themselves, which is in essence a metaphysical claim… Thus, in the final analysis, evolutionism is in truth a metaphysical doctrine decked out in scientific garb. In other words, it is a scientistic myth. And the myth is Gnostic, because it implicitly denies the transcendent origin of being; for indeed, only after the living creature has been speculatively reduced to an aggregate of particles does Darwinist transformism become conceivable. Darwinism, therefore, continues the ancient Gnostic practice of depreciating ‘God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and earth.’ It perpetuates, if you will, the venerable Gnostic tradition of ‘Jehovah bashing.’ And while this in itself may gladden Gnostic hearts, one should not fail to observe that the doctrine plays a vital role in the economy of Neo-Gnostic thought, for only under the auspices of Darwinist ‘self-creation’ does the Good News of ‘self-salvation’ acquire a semblance of sense.” (242-43)
In light of this intriguing observation, one could view the current rise of Gnosticism as the natural corollary of Darwinism’s unquestionable epistemological primacy in the West. The current Gnostic revival could represent the next stage of Darwinism’s metastasis.
It is interesting to note that the British Royal Society, the Masonic institution responsible for the promulgation of Darwinism, rigorously imposed a division between science and theology upon the halls of scientific inquiry. Webster Tarpley characterizes this division as “literally Gnostic.” Indeed, the restriction of scientific research to the corporeal machinations of nature is redolent of Gnostic thinking. It is a distortion of Platonic metaphysics, the conceptual framework of which emphasizes a separation of the corporeal (the Becoming) and the incorporeal (the Being). This framework bears close resemblance to the traditional Christian Weltanschauung, which divides existence into the spiritual and the physical. However, Gnosticism rejected the Christian Eschaton of heaven and hell. This is where the distortion begins.
According to Gnosticism, the physical universe is hell. Corporeal existence is a prison that fetters man through the demonic agents of space and time. However, through revelatory experience (gnosis), the sensate being of man could be transformed and this hell could become heaven. Guided by this Gnostic axiom, the Freemasonic Royal Society redirected scientific attention exclusively towards the material world. By focusing scientific efforts upon the temporal spatial realm, the members of the Royal Society probably hoped to see the eventual transformation of the irredeemable physical realm into the “immanentized Eschaton” of an earthly heaven.”
Link
And I’m sure you are aware of the link between Darwinism and the myth of the “Master Race”. If not read all about it in the above link.
And here is another:
Link
If you want to comment on Darwin then you should at least be familiar with the ideas that were circulating at the time and which led to the creation of his questionable theory.
You may ‘believe’ in the Theory of Evolution but if its a faith based merely on that which you have been ‘told’ and now repeat then that is a pretty shakey foundation.
Paris ib says
And here is another link which examines the origins of Darwinism:
Link
If you want to do “science” then let’s do science. But at least have an idea of what you are talking about.
ALH ipinions says
Paris ib
I shall take your comments and links under advisement by noting, respectfully, that there are also agnostics who dismiss – as a lunar myth (ie. Van Allen Belt precludes it) – the fact that man walked on the moon.
Now perhaps you’ll be courteous enough to offer a comment that might be more pertinent to your fellow readers: eg., about whether or not you believe Cameron has found the remains of Jesus’s family, including his wife and son.
Paris ib says
I have no idea and no opinion. Sorry.
But I would be cautious about seconding theories which endorse such obnoxious ideas as “Survival of the Fittest” and lead directly into the idea of the “Master Race”.
Will try and find out about this guy if you like. Can’t see how it changes the universal principal: do unto others as you would have them do to you, though. So is it even relevant? Interesting?
Paris ib says
When proponents of Darwin’s theory are responding to critics, they sometimes claim that “evolution” means simply change over time. But this is clearly an evasion. No rational person denies the reality of change, and we did not need Charles Darwin to convince us of it. If “evolution” meant only this, it would be utterly uncontroversial. Nobody believes that biological evolution is simply change over time. Only slightly less evasive is the statement that descent with modification occurs. Of course it does, because all organisms within a single species are related through descent with modification. We see this in our own families, and plant and animal breeders see it in their work. But this still misses the point. No one doubts that descent with modification occurs in the course of ordinary biological reproduction. The question is whether descent with modification accounts for the origin of new species–in fact, of every species. Like change over time, descent with modification within a species is utterly uncontroversial. But Darwinian evolution claims much more. In particular, it claims that descent with modification explains the origin and diversification of all living things. The only way anyone can determine whether this claim is true is by comparing it with observations or experiments. Like all other scientific theories, Darwinian evolution must be continually compared with the evidence. If it does not fit the evidence, it must be reevaluated or abandoned–otherwise it is not science, but myth.
Link
The above from the book: “Icons of Evolution”. Darwin’s theory is nothing more than mumbo jumbo.
Nick says
Evolution is a Religion. Since Darwin came with his nonsense Theories that no one till date can proof.
Simple unawnsered questions:
1. Who Made the Earth?
2. Why was the Earth made?
3. Why are you placed on earth?
4. Who made you?
Some say big bang with hydrogen as element… where do the periodic table then come from?
What would be the reason for evolution? According to all the evolution religion theories there is up til date no awnsers to the 4 questions..
In the beginnig God Created the Heaven and the earth. REMEMBER THESE WORDS!
My Substitude for my sins is JESUS. If you break one of the 10 comandments you are a SINNER and will burn in hell for a loooonng time. So you need a substitude….
Stop to study nonsense and start to study the Bible in great depth and you wil find it the best science book ever.
But remember if you cannot forgive you’re enemy how can you ask forgiveness of Jesus.
Matthew 6:14-15 For if you forgive men for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will forgive you. 15 But if you do not forgive men, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.