Robittybob1

Yes that sounds easier. Why did I think they were transferring mitochondria? Thanks to both of you for clearing that up.

Well there are plenty of tales about it.

Ask yourself, there would have been a vastly different infrastructure around the Emperors as opposed to a simple carpenter's son.

But it seemed to say that this proportion does not continue as the embryo develops, the male sourced mtDNA fades out, except in rare cases it seems. There must have been a reason the body evolved a method of just having the one type of mitochondria. So in this new technology, where they swap mitochondria, are they having to replace all 100,000 or so of mitochondria in the egg?

What was the technology like for making recordings in those days. OK the people would have talked about it, and that might be all they could do. There were no cameras, or newspapers or TV, and no films. It definitely would be different if it happened today.

If it isn't 2000 years it is getting pretty close. 1985 years is close enough.

So what is your view point?

2000 years have past. Take what they have recorded as it is. If it isn't good enough well tough luck. You wanted it, not me. Give me negative rep points if you like, but there was a poster who asked if there were any records of Jesus' descendants and I gave him one of them. It was that person who asked for the reference not me.

How can that be done? How can grandchildren certify that their grandfather and their great uncle were fathered by the same person? Even today with DNA testing that would reveal a lot of discrepancies. Some years back it was reported that a proportion (I think it was 25% in the study) of children have a different biological father than the person who thinks he is the father (however that is said). But the inheritance (the birthright) comes down through the family regardless of the genetic relationship. So the Emperor Domitian was probably checking that none of the offspring (the nephews) had designs on restoring the Jewish kingship back to the lineage of the House of David.

Well that was interesting. Thanks

What is clearly NT sourced material? You are not making sense to me yet. There is nothing like this in the NT

It said above: So what do you mean they come from the NT? Those authors aren't in the NT. What do you mean "something that doesn't come from the NT"?

That is quite a big IF, if I may say so.

"It is also worth noting that not only isn't there solid prove Jesus was real but there is solid prove any of his relatives were real."??? Do you not use the word "proof"? Is there "solid prove any of his relatives were real"? Jesus' relatives were sons or grandchildren of Jude (one of Jesus' brothers) from memory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jude_%28brother_of_Jesus%29#Descendantscovers the whole episode. It seems so by the amount of rep points you got for saying it.

The space shuttle has a very small window of re-entry. They deliberately brought it in on that angle. Space rocks are generally falling toward the Sun and the Earth intercepts them, I think you will find that generally produces an angled passage. Good diagram of re-entry angles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry#Notable_atmospheric_entry_accidents

It must be getting late where you are for there were a lot of mistakes in what you wrote. Never mind I read it through and put the most negative spin on the corrections. I am rather surprised about what you say about Luke . Being related to Jesus wasn't considered anything particularly important in those days. There are writings where the relatives of Jesus are questioned by the Romans around 100 AD or thereabouts, but they prove they are just simple folk with no political aspirations.

The Pontification Council Roman Catholic Church were the terms I was looking for. "Pontifical council" would have helped. OK so which "Pontifical Council" has declared that Jesus didn't exist? Traditional view is just as powerful in my opinion. An aspect like "known" is easily missed in history. How many of the people you know will be able to be proven they knew you in 100 years time let alone 2000 years later.

It definitely will be a different chemistry compared to a living person.

Mitochrodrial DNA is always from the egg, the mother's side, maternal mitochondrial DNA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA

Can you find a reference to the "pontification Council" ? I got a reference to the "Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers" but that doesn't sound like the one you are speaking of. There have been Vatican Councils and Ecumenical Councils. Any leads? Seems like Luke was well known at the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_Luke%E2%80%93Acts#Traditional_view_-_Luke_the_physician_as_author

How would the authors become known? What do you mean by known?

Of course not.

Those two statements are complimentary and not contradictory. Ten oz's post http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-25#entry859265 read like a summing up and all based on his opinion, so my answer was also based on opinion. You are right it was not writings mentioning Jesus but looking at all events mentioned in Luke and seeing if there was historical evidence for them. In the end I was satisfied.

I spent years researching it and it isn't as bad as that.

I couldn't see any way to say that the authors of the "Vatican Files" have the sanction of the Roman Catholic Church. So how can you be sure their view is that of the RCC? Originally you said: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/85759-was-jesus-a-real-person/page-24#entry859168 Now that, to my of thinking, is a vastly different claim than saying the Old Testament in historically inaccurate. The Gospels are just the first 4 books of the New Testament aren't they?