gnosis92

There are already threads on the family of Jesus as well as his "son" and "wife" of the Da Vinci flavor.

While I would rather hear from qualified experts rather than showman like Cameron (who kinda reminds me of the King Kong movie)

I offer this gedenaken experiment:
if qualified experts in geology and archaelogy and what not come to a scholar consensus that we do have the bonebox (ossuary) of Jesus, and that this Jesus is the same person as the NT,
what would be the ramifications of Christ-mythicism and Jesus historicity and NT reliability debate?

In related news our good friend Hershal Shanks had some phD's over at bible archaeology review, as well as photographs taken from 1976 which show that the James Ossuary had "brother of Jesus"

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOossuary_photos.asp

Update—Finds or Fakes?

Do Photos Prove James Ossuary Authentic?

February 9, 2007

The attorney for Oded Golan, accused of forging the James Ossuary inscription, will introduce in court photos from the 1970s that purport to show the ossuary and its full inscription. The photos have been dated to 1976 by a former FBI photo expert; Golan is accused of forging the inscription in about 2000

Writer@Large

Pardon my French here, but if these finds proved to be authentic*, wouldn't *both* sides of the debate--Christ-Myth and Christ-Divine--be equally fucked?

--W@L

* Highly skeptical of that, myself.

gnosis92

i think so

Toto

If this idea could be proven, it would revolutionize early Christian history. But I don't see how it can be - you just have some common names in a family burial cave, with no indication that this cave was important to anyone.

Malachi151

Basically...

We would move from position 4 to position 3.

Having said that, I'll bet 100 to 1 that its not what Cameron claims it to be.

gnosis92

2 seems to me what qualified phD academic professional historians, who have published in peer-reviewed papers, seem to hold. Bart Ehrman and William Durant, both highly qualified trained historians, said no trained historian at a respected university has ever put credance in 3 or 4. I personally am skeptical of "alternative histories" that stray far from what peer-reviewed professional historians hold, such as that Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him.

Malachi151

I really don't see how any eduction person on this matter could claim option 2.

Option 3 I can understand, and the different between option 3 and 4 is kinda a fine line, but I can see how it may ultimately be impossible to distinguish between 3 and 4.

The idea that option 3 is "radical", however, I find totally preposterous.

Really option 3 is closer to option 1 than option 2 is.

It is very clear that much of the Jesus Christ story is based on pre-existing themes in Jewish literature, and its clear that "prophesy fulfillment" is a major part of the whole Jesus story.

To claim option 2 really to me just makes no sense whatsoever.

gnosis92

Err Option 2 is really the only one that makes sense to me, and the one that academic historians from Bart Ehrman to Dominic Crossan to William Durant teach at respected Universities, and publish in peer-reviewed journals.

I'm not aware of any option 3/4 being published in peer-reviewed academic journals (with option 1 being ruled out a priori) except, according to wiki, one paper by GA Wells published 30 years ago.

gnosis92

THE TOMB IS EMPTY :Cheeky:

jakejonesiv

If the bones of Jesus Christ, the principle character of the gospels, were found, and this was verified beyond a reasonable doubt, not 100% certainty, but by the preponderance of the evidence, then that would be the end of the Christ Myth theory.

In that case I would immediately become a historicist.

Jake Jones IV