Jesus family tomb debate, Simcha owns Prof. Jonathon Reed

[Alt0nsy]

The porn comment wasn't ownage. It was unprofessional mudslinging, pure and simple. Simcha isn't even a archeologist. He's a documentary film maker purely out to make a buck. What's sad is that people actually buy his crap.

[Gunnarr123abc]

He knows exactly what porn means...

[icarusdescending881]

Sorry, but Simcha doesn't own anyone. The tomb of Jesus was a lot easier to find right after he was buried, yes? Why didn't the Roman's find it, as they easily could have, and disprove Jesus' resurrection right away? They didn't because He rose from the dead. Simcha is indeed a purveyor of archaeo porn. He's a hustler, out for any theory or controversy to make money. Simple as that.

[beitchabadbelem]

it is very hard for xtians to admit that they have been lied to by their parents... who in turn , have been lied to by their parents and so forth... chain of lies...

[1000wrongdecisions]

Archeoporn or not is not really the point - getting excited or stimulated by a discovery has nothing to do with its authencity. You mean I can't I get excited with discovery of water on Mars because it will make the discovery fake? I'm not saying the tomb is authentic but this is not a valid argument. The tomb should be investigated further.

[jnoll1001]

I would have thought those 4yrs in third grade would have helped JOHNNY REED, guess not. He's still a closed minded Penis w/ears.

[ProjectGenesis7]

The first professor says he's not a believer, that he, "has no dog in this fight." Well, if he's not a believer, then he DOES have a dog in this fight...the position of a non-beliver!

[Botie2]

If you dont care one way or the other why wouldn't that make you a non believer by default?

[Botie2]

If he was a believer, would that make him unbiased?

[3theThird]

But... how can Koppel speak with Jerry Falwell's dead hand rammed up his butt? That's an amazing way to frame a question there Mr. Journalist? Did you study under Professor Ann Coulter?

[byorp]

stupid jokes

[Ilanyah]

It was the discovery that proved the Nicene Creed (and the Christians that adhere to it) wrong, not Simcha or the documentary makers. Thank you, Nakhia.

[d4nnyb0y02]

You don't have to watch Porn to know what it is, and if Simcha actually doesn't know what porn is... he is extremely *unlearned*. Additionally, porn can simply refer to sensasional, or prostitute. I wonder if he said, "archeoprostitution", if Simcha would have said he didn't know what prostitution is too.

How did he get owned? Simcha is the one who got owned when he got told by two professionals that he is and amature, and that what he is propegating is highly unlikely.

[antony7777777]

looks like Reed owns Simcha. lol Hilarious, thanks for posting this video. If you didn't realize it, Reed was making an INTELLIGENT INSULT to Simcha about his "Naked Archealogist" documentary series. Bet you didn't know about that. Google it up.

[UnFrSaKn]

Koppel owns everyone.

[bufvandy]

Simcha sounds like an decieving idiot. Where does the owning in the title come from? If anyone gets owned its Simcha

[ChulaKirby]

The film producer started out to prove Christianity wrong then he tries and finds evidence to support his faith. He creates links of evidence and when they do not match up he makes a leap of faith and says they are true. He didn't let the evidence lead him. It is bad history done by a man or group with a purpose.

[nakhia420]

You have to visit the site if you didn't watch the two hour documentry or the one hour debate. Some very compelling evidence was produced and some leaps of faith were made. The goal of the director was to bring forth the evidence that has been compiled and have people much smarter debate it.

[Cable8LittleTown]

The goal of the director was to make money and a name... As for the debate it was just a public sham. A scholarly circle jerk of bozos stroking their own egos unwilling to relent. The documentary itself was the Discovery Channel's attempt at ratings. To derive your information from cable television is to admit your security with ignorance, no matter which side of this issue you fall on.

[meowmixtures]

the captions was funny

[iamboog]

you're stretching. It certainly didn't refute the accusation that the documentary was poor, sensationalist archeology.

[iamboog]

yeah, I saw one scholar discuss his problems with the documentary, and then Simcha says he doesn't watch porn, which doesn't address those problems. How is that ownage?

[nakhia420]

After Prof. Reed calls his movie archeoporn, simcha says since I don't watch porn I don't know what that means. Maybe you missed the not so subtley but he was inferring that Reed watched porn. In my eyes, yes a little immature, but ownage nonetheless

[iamboog]

uhh, where's the ownage, please?

[nakhia420]

Did you even watch the video?

[jorgekluney]

@nakhia420 Come on, nakhia.

Don't be so childish as to be impressed with rhetorical games. That's all Simcha had. You and I both know that he knows what 'porn' refers to. He was trying to score points and he didn't. Because, for him, to score points would be to further bolster his position.

I was really hoping you'd have something good here. But, you don't.