mountainman

How many hundreds of thousands of forged relics have been foisted on the public imagination since the 4th century when Helena found the "One True Cross".


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.



From WIKI ...


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.

stephan huller

At least part of that may be owing to the fact that the latter involves critical reasoning skills you haven't demonstrated possessing yet.

Vorkosigan

If only it actually had any relevance to Christianity.

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

outhouse

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?

TedM

I'm not denying it might have gotten into the wrong hands, but that really doesn't jive with his having owned it for 20 years or so, if he did... And, it doesn't address points 1, 2 or 3.

TedM

I admit to not knowing the character of the people involved. I've pointed out 3 claims that strike me as meaningful IF they are true. Anyone here is free to address the claims. All this other stuff may be relevant too, but I don't want to hear it. Focus, people.

TedM

Why do you keep repeating this when I've told you that is not the claim with regard to Jose, and why?


Wealthy disciple. It's not far-fetched in the slightest..


??

Are you going to address any of the 3 claims, or not? Focus!

TedM

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.

Toto

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.

TedM

I will check it out. Thanks.