Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
01-16-2013, 09:59 PM | #11 | ||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
|
Quote:
Quote:
OTOH is there even one relic (supporting "Early Christian origins") that has withstood the test of time? I cannot think of one. The score then is a few hundred thousand forgeries to zero genuine artefacts. This is the history of the claims that sought proof. Quote:
Quote:
This judges findings do not necessarily support the claim that the ossuary is genuine. I think we have more chance of discovering the Family Tomb of Bilbo Baggins. |
||||
01-16-2013, 10:02 PM | #12 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
|
Quote:
|
|
01-16-2013, 10:11 PM | #13 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Quote:
Lemaire's involvement with the faked James Ossuary is deeply complex. He's no disinterested party. I suggest you catch up on the background. As for Pellegrino, he's Jacobovici's partner in the book and an interested party in promoting it and the Tomb. And the fact that he would choose to partner with that discredited loon does not reflect well on him. Vorkosigan |
|
01-16-2013, 10:49 PM | #14 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Auburn ca
Posts: 4,269
|
Ted
We are talking about quite a bit of historical leaps, even if its not a forgery. All common names. Nothing linking them to the biblical legend. How did poor oppressed peasants from Nazareth end up there? How reliable would the oral tradition be that led up to the unknown authors being able to know who his family was 30-40 years after his death? |
01-16-2013, 11:42 PM | #15 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
|
||
01-16-2013, 11:45 PM | #16 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
|
||
01-16-2013, 11:49 PM | #17 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are you going to address any of the 3 claims, or not? Focus! |
|||
01-17-2013, 10:06 AM | #18 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
I want to clarify that I'm aware of the high level of suspicion among scholars with regard to the various ossuary claims. I'm aware of the motivation to mislead by those who can profit. I'm aware of some of the arguments against their conclusions.
HOWEVER, IF in fact there are some things that are highly improbable unless there is some connection to Jesus himself, then those can't just be swept under a rug with all the other dirt. They would serve to indicate that the 'dirt' is not what it seems to be. This is why Earl's theory (to him) has great validity. This is why any theory that once was disregarded as nonsense was finally accepted. The strength of the opposing evidence must be considered even if it is only a couple of items. Jose, the patina matching of the ossuaries in Tapiot and the James ossuary, and the strength of the conclusions of 2 different experts on the forgery issue must be addressed and not swept under a rug. Now, maybe they have been, and sufficiently. That's what I'm trying to find out, because if they have not been well countered, the dismissal is invalid, and this would be the greatest archeological find of all time. |
01-17-2013, 10:09 AM | #19 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
Have you checked out the link to Mark Goodacre's blog and the recent book on this question that I posted in the other thread on this topic? Perhaps the two threads should not be merged.
I think that all of your questions have been addressed, including the statistical probabilities of the names. |
01-17-2013, 10:16 AM | #20 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|