and don’t get fear to get caught by Romans to be Crucified for mentionning his name…

you can delete my posts in 2007 as easy as 123.

but you cannot delete the truth

And the Truth shall come to all of us

when the advent of parousia will demestify not only

mysticism that dwells in human circles and often shed only blood. But also demestify their truest alliegence

in conjunction with their soul’s imprint and their DNA

Peace

R

]]>regarding the DNA testing, is there any methods of determining the age of the family members at death? it would help if for example that the remains of mary show that she is a woman older than jesus..

]]>It’s coming up toward Easter-time. This “Jesus Tomb” garbage is this year’s sensationalist hype-baby. Maybe we should work on one for next year? Something simple, with good graphic potential, a scandalous aspect, and completely independent of both scruples and good scholarship?

]]>I don’t know much about statistics but i have a question regarding the testing of DNA from the tombs. Has testing been done to determine that all these family members are related apart from proving that the remains in the crypts of mary magdalene and jesus are not genetically related? are there even any remains left from these tombs? ]]>

And as to the previous posters comment on the statistics, you’ve got the right idea.

]]>Also, the name frequencies point is quite valid. Ben Witherington explains this in a post on his blog this morning (here). ]]>

For 1000 tombs and a frequency for “Jesus son of Joseph” at 1/190, approximately 5 tombs meet the primary requirement that Jesus be mentioned. The secondary requirement is that given 4 names taken at random from the population, what is the probability that 3 of those names would be among the 8 known or suspected names in Jesus’ immediate family.

If the family names are in the 5% frequency range and my math is right, the probability is about 20%. With 5 tombs and a 20% chance of some similar naming cluster appearing at random, it seems like a closer look at the statistics is warranted.

If my SWAG percentages are even close to correct, the entire statistical argument appears to fall apart.

Can someone with the actual name frequencies and some statistical prowess comment on this?

]]>