TedM

Hi juma. My understanding is that the name on the ossuary corresponds to that of Joses, and that of all the ossuaries found with a form of the name of Joseph, 7 correspond to Joses. That is, of the 45 names found that tie to 'Joseph' , 7 can be tied to the name 'Joses'. The one found in Talpiot is one of the 7. This means the statistic to use is 7 and not 45.




I highly doubt the issue would be in contention if it were that simple to dismiss it on the basis of names. The experts wouldn't have bothered, so I doubt that your reasoning is valid here.

Why does the reference have to be in a peer reviewed journal? If he said it, he said it. I don't know that he really did. I just posted the link to an article that said he did.

TedM

I simply can't spend any more time trying to figure out how the permutations/combinations should be applied to unequally likely name choices..I would love to pursue this to get some numbers I can trust, but I just don't have the time, as I've already put myself behind on important matters. Ill ask a friend of mine who is into stats, and report back if he is able to help...edit: nope, he can't help. Maybe someone would like to step forward here. The issue just doesn't seem like it should be that hard to quantify, but I wouldn't be able to do with without probably putting several days of concerted effort into reviewing info in stat books. I can't afford the time just now..

aa5874

You knew well in advance that you would not able at all to show that the Talpiot Tomb was the Jesus Family tomb because you actually provided a link that demonstrated it.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talpiot_Tomb

It is most remarkable that you now admit you don't know how to figure out the application of permutations/combinations when you knew that well in advance of starting the thread.

TedM

Leave me alone. The stats are debatable, and I think one of the problems is people keep trying to figure out proper assumptions regarding Jesus. I'm sidestepping that, as I've explained to you several times now. Just drop it aa.

aa5874

What??? You don't want me to DEBATE your STATS??? You just claimed the STATS are DEBATABLE.

You have already admitted you don't know what you are doing and you knew it in advance of starting the thread. You knew that you had Math issues. You can't figure out the permutations/combinations.

You already know that in the stories of Jesus that his Family lived in Nazareth of Galilee, that Jesus in the very same NT did NOT live in Jerusalem and that Jesus RECOVERED from the Crucifixion and WENT BACK to GALILEE.

APOLOGETIC sources place Jesus of the NT in GALILEE AFTER the crcifixion.

Matthew 28 Once you argue that the NT story of Jesus is accurate then Jesus did NOT really die in Jerusalem because it was claimed he was SEEN and WORSHIPED in GALILEE by his own disciples and that Jesus Commissioned the disciples to Preach his RECOVERY to all the world.

Again, TedM the Commission to PREACH the Recovery of Jesus was done AFTER Jesus SURVIVED the Crucifixion.

No amount of statistics can DENY that it was claimed Jesus survived the Crucifixion in the Canon.

No amount of Maths can deny that it was claimed in "Life of Josephus" that a Crucified Victim survived in the 1st century

Matthew 28 When did Jesus of Nazareth die in the NT AFTER he Commissioned the Disciples in GALILEE to preach his Recovery from the crucifixion??

Where did Jesus of Nazareth die in the NT AFTER he Commissioned the Disciples in GALILEE to preach his Recovery from the crucifixion??

1. In the NT, the family of Jesus LIVED in Nazareth of GALILEE.

2. In the NT, the visitors found an Empty Tomb in Jerusalem.

3. In the NT, Jesus was in GALILEE AFTER the crucifixion.

You can't do the MATHS!!!

TedM

aa, your post was full of comments about Jesus. You still don't understand how I'm trying to use the stats. I'm kindly asking you to stop now. You've made the points you wanted to make. Please move on.

aa5874

This is a public discussion. Why don't you stop trying to use what you admit you cannot figure out??

You do not understand what you are doing. In order to make a statistical analysis you must also take into account that:

1. in the NT the Family of Jesus LIVED in Nazareth of Galilee.

2. in the NT that the human Father of Jesus is NOT known.

3. in the NT Jesus was NOT even buried by a member of his Family.

4. in the NT, the supposed dead body of Jesus was NOT ever recovered by the Family of Jesus.

5. in the NT Jesus was in Galilee after the Crucifixion.

6. in the NT Jesus Vanished after he met the disciples in Galilee.

Once we use the available data in the NT then the probability that the Talpiot Tomb is the Family Tomb of Jesus is NEXT to ZERO or a smaller number.

Toto

This is part of the problem with this statistical analysis - you use different forms of the name when it suits you (Maria - Mariamne) and then try to make Joses a unique form.

To Juma - James is a modern Anglicized form of the Hebrew Jakob. Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name also transliterated as Joshua. This is not a real issue.

You posted a link to a blog post by a "Professor Taboo." It ends with this: " This blog/article was inspired by the 2007 documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus by Simcha Jacobovici and produced by James Cameron and other sources." This is not a credible source.

TedM

I agree, one needs to be very careful.

I'm not sure what your specific objection to using 7 is. Even Randy Ingermanson didn't dispute the numerical reasoning for using 7. What he thought was that it was more likely that the rarer form would be used to distinguish from a father named, Joseph, and that using 7 didn't take that into account. He provided no evidence for this assertion, however.


And, the .1% may have indeed been wrong. I didn't go back to the original article because it requires a subscription. I found another cite that says Lemaire concluded with 90% certainty. Sometimes even the world's best experts can be duped though. An article I found here http://www.daylightatheism.org/2007/...s-ossuary.html provides strong basis for concluding it is a forgery. Of course, I don't know that it is a credible source.