Sheshbazzar

Of course the ossuary is real. But that is no indication that it ever had any Jebus of Nazareth's bones in it.

As I don't care to take the time to search through your 2500+ previous posts Ted, What is your view on the Shroud of Turin?

Just that I've found that many Christians will jump in and argue for the authenticity of damn near anything that may be linked to any actual Jebus.
.....Even if the arguments are mutually exclusive.

A dead and rotted Jebus whose bones were interred in a bone box?
or a Jebus who zapped in a flash of magical light back to life leaving The Shroud of Turin behind -never to die again.

There are three different horses (h'soocs's' ) in this race.

1. The pale (greenish) horse Hey'sooce -Jebus that died and rotted away like a human being.

2. The white horse Hey'sooce -Jebus that was God and flew off into the sky.

3. The black horse Hey'sooce-Jesus that never was, a mythical religious figure.


Which one of these theories, which one of these mutually exclusive 'horses' Jebus's is it that you are laying your bet on Ted?

TedM

He believes the ossuary contains the bones of James the brother of Jesus
As for the Shroud, I think there is a strong argument against it in the relative lack (I think) of mention of it prior to the 1200s.. EVEN IF it is the figure of a real person who was really crucified -- as experts seem to be saying -- then you still have a problem with explaining the silence in the historical record. OTOH, since crucifixion ended in the 4th century AD, why would there be linen preserved for someone crucified for at least 800 years, if it wasn't for Jesus himself?

IF the figure is NOT of a real person crucified, then you need an explanation. From what I see on wiki the experts just can't figure it out. None of the explanations are sufficient. That may not really be true, of course. The carbon dating to 1200s strongly supports the idea that this was created as a hoax--and a brilliant creation. Perhaps Leonardo Da Vinci really did do this.


I have not found sufficient reasons to believe that Jesus wasn't fully human.

Regarding the ossuary of JAMES, I think the best explanation is that a forgerer forged at least the last part of it--the most important part--and that the most supportive piece of evidence for his case--the 1970s photograph must also have been a forgery.

Too many unlikely occurances otherwise..

Toto

The experts have figured it out, although there are "Shroudies" who refuse to accept that. Threads on the Shroud are in the Pseudoscience subforum.

outhouse

So a known forger, who had a lab set up for forging, and someone who delt in illegal antiquities, just happened to be sitting on this priceless piece [if real] .


Why keep a valuable piece in storage unless your growing fake patina.



No one stated it wasnt forged 100 years ago, or before the 70's. With unknown origins by what amounts to pirates, you will never be able to confirm anything.



Did you read anything here.?


There were no bones in the box, it cannot contain them. It was empty.

Sheshbazzar

Then Horse #1 it is folks. The Horse Hey'sooce -Jebus #1 who died and rotted away like a human being.

_And I give you my best wishes on your finding his bones Ted.

TedM

First, I want to point out that I was saying there are too many unlikely occurrences IMO to support the idea that he hadn't forged it. It's not clear that you understood me.

But the fact remains that the man has a huge collection that by 2002 had accumulated over a 30 year period.

Were they all forged? Of course not. For those reasons we cannot conclude that he forged the ossuary simply because it appears he engaged in forgery. We certainly should be suspicious though.

An aside, I find his notoriety to make it all the more surprising that Joe Zias claims he never had even heard of the man...

Why indeed? It does sound like a damning piece of evidence. Is a bathroom the place to 'grow' fake patina? Seems like it might be, but I wouldn't know. However, do you think he intended on growing patina AFTER it had already made its world debut? Seems very risky. Is there another reason he may have kept it there? OF COURSE: He didn't want it stolen. I had thought that didn't make sense because he had other valuable items not hidden. But, this one very well could have been a TARGET since it was the item everyone was curious about. THAT ALONE IMO reasonably explains why it was sitting in a shed..no doubt a locked shed..


In that case Golan would not have been the forgerer and that part of the equation becomes irrelevant, and his story should be taken as valid. So, when? 100 years ago? And never discovered? Makes no sense. When outhouse?

I disagree that not knowing the provenance makes confirmation impossible. It makes it harder. But it is only ONE of multiple aspects of identification. And the provenance of 'Jerusalem' is reasonably inferred, and narrows it down quite a bit.



I of course know that people believe whatever. However, this man was at the trial and knows way more than you or I. I therefore think it is of potential value to question his reasoning to determine the basis for his conclusion. Is it really the desire to believe? Or something else? The article he wrote on it was insufficient to understanding his position(for me).


'Contained' is the word I meant to use, even though he said 'contains'. You are pointing out the obvious.

outhouse

You can argue and stand in front of a crook all day long.

You cannot get around he is a known forger, with a forging lab, who in the past has tried to swindle millions for fake articles.

End of story

TedM

I"m unaware of any evidence that he has tried to swindle anybody in the past. Please provide the evidence.

TedM

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Golan_Rumor.shtml

The man is free today. I question what was really discovered when they raided his apt.

I'm still waiting...

outhouse

By Oded Golan
March 2004


from the convicted crook himself