--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 2/24/07 11:18:37 A.M. Central Standard Time, > > jstein@ writes: > > > > Now is this real science? The film makers have established > > > the FACT, once and for all, that this is indeed the burial > > > site of Jesus? No, this is a real leap of faith. > > > > Even more interestingly, they claim to have > > confirmed it from DNA evidence. > > > > Exactly. The only way to do that is to have DNA recovered > > from a known, and undisputed relic to match up with DNA from > > the burial site. > > On the other hand, if you were to take DNA samples > from a large number of purported Jesus/Mary/etc. > relics and found the samples matched those from > the tombs, you'd begin to have an Occam's razor > situation. >>
What ! JESUS IS A MYTH PEOPLE. HE NEVER EXISTED, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE JESUS OF THE BIBLE WHATSOEVER -- ANYWHERE. HE IS AN AMALGAMATION OF MULTIPLE STORIES FROM AROUND THE MIDDLE EAST, EGYPT, AND VEDIC STORIES. OffWOrld <<It would be more complicated to explain > how the same DNA would be found in both the relics > and the tombs if the DNA were not from the actual > biblical personages. > > Not much chance of that, but... > > > I had noticed in the article that the writer was careful > > to use terms like *if * and so but then slips in that > > paragraph claiming it is an established fact. Nice try, > > but not subtle enough. > > The PR people probably snuck that in. >
