Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Beetle · 09-22-2003, 10:44 AM

There's an article in defense of the authenticity of the James Ossuary on Christianity Today online by a Ben Witherington.

Bones of Contention (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/010/2.42.html)

I'm not competent to comment on his points (any takers?), but my favorite bits are these:

Quote:

No internationally known scholars on this commission were from anywhere outside Israel. Nor were there any Christian scholars on this commission, even though some outstanding ones live in Jerusalem. Christian participation would have assured us that theological agendas were not at play.

And

Quote:

The ossuary still cries out to us, as Jesus once said the stones of Jerusalem would do�and what it says is James, and what it says is Joseph, and best of all what it says is Jesus.

Yep, Christian participation would have certainly ruled out theological agendas...

Artemus · 09-22-2003, 11:10 AM

Let me be the first to say that Witherington is pathetic.

Doctor X · 09-22-2003, 11:14 AM

I see your "pathetic" and raise you an "utterly."

--J.D.

Toto · 09-22-2003, 11:52 AM

That's not "a" Ben Witherington, that's "the" Ben Witherington, recipient of a six figure advance on a book about the Ossuary co-written by the equally pathetic Herschel Shanks.

But what have we here? A few scientists from the University of Kentucky say "a larger sampling is needed before one can draw sweeping conclusions."

And

Quote:

Dr. John Eiler of the California Institute of Technology makes the important point that by its own report, the IAA admits that the film found in the ossuary letters is not identical to the patina on the Yehoash inscription�the other artifact the IAA was accusing collector Oded Golan of faking. This means that these two artifacts should not be treated as a part of a coordinated effort at forgery. Rather, each must be evaluated individually. Eiler insists that we need a double-blind test done by scientists who have no stake in the authenticity of the ossuary.

. . .

No internationally known scholars on this commission were from anywhere outside Israel. Nor were there any Christian scholars on this commission, even though some outstanding ones live in Jerusalem. Christian participation would have assured us that theological agendas were not at play.. . .

Irony meter is broke.

This is from someone who wanted to compare the DNA from the Shroud of Turin with DNA from bone fragments in the Ossuary. . .

Doctor X · 09-22-2003, 12:14 PM

--J.D.

Clutch · 09-22-2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Artemus
Let me be the first to say that Witherington is pathetic.

No, no, only people who have criticized BW all along can say that. And only if they went to high school with him, and maybe took some of the same classes too.

Weltall · 09-22-2003, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X

--J.D.

Love that one, Dr. X. Mind if I borrow it sometime? Oh, and I'll see your 'utterly' and raise you a 'completely' and throw in 50 that there will still be people supporting this dead horse twenty years from now.

Doctor X · 09-22-2003, 12:28 PM

Wetall:

To give credit where credit is due, it comes from Shanks of JREF Forums. He gave me permission to steal it and for others as well.

How about adding a "putrescently" to the current pot?

--J.D.

Steven Carr · 09-22-2003, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beetle
There's an article in defense of the authenticity of the James Ossuary on Christianity Today online by a Ben Witherington.

Bones of Contention (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/010/2.42.html)

I love Witherington's 'Christian participation would have assured us that theological agendas were not at play.', and 'The ossuary is just possibly the Word made visible.'

Did Witherington investigate the effect on the patina of the owner keeping the ossuary on top of a toilet?

Does Witherington call for toilet scientists to be on the commission to investigate the ossuary?

Rick Sumner · 09-22-2003, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr
I love Witherington's 'Christian participation would have assured us that theological agendas were not at play.', and 'The ossuary is just possibly the Word made visible.'

Did Witherington investigate the effect on the patina of the owner keeping the ossuary on top of a toilet?

Does Witherington call for toilet scientists to be on the commission to investigate the ossuary?

What's truly important is that the toilet was unused.

Thank goodness. Otherwise one might think it wasn't an appropriate place to house an artifact involved in million dollar insurance claims. A used toilet might have contaminated it.

Regards,
Rick

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-22-2003, 11:10 AM	#2
Artemus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USA Posts: 2,467	Let me be the first to say that Witherington is pathetic.

09-22-2003, 11:14 AM	#3
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	I see your "pathetic" and raise you an "utterly." --J.D.

09-22-2003, 12:14 PM	#5
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	--J.D.

09-22-2003, 12:28 PM	#8
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Wetall: To give credit where credit is due, it comes from Shanks of JREF Forums. He gave me permission to steal it and for others as well. How about adding a "putrescently" to the current pot? --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.