Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 09-22-2003, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rick Sumner

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.

Don't be silly! Golan's mother would have just cleaned it again.

If she can remove 2000 years of patina with a few wipes of a cloth, a little contamination from a toilet would be child's play .

Clutch · 09-22-2003, 05:33 PM

But what would she remove it with? If you clean an inscription with "a sharp instrument", presumably you would gently sponge off the whole ossuary with a side-wheel grinder.

Sauron · 09-22-2003, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Don't be silly! Golan's mother would have just cleaned it again.

If she can remove 2000 years of patina with a few wipes of a cloth, a little contamination from a toilet would be child's play .

Indeed. There is nothing quite as formidable-- striking fear into the heart of dirt and grime -- as the sight of a Jewish mother with a bottle of cleanser and a wet sponge.

Vorkosigan · 09-22-2003, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clutch
But what would she remove it with? If you clean an inscription with "a sharp instrument", presumably you would gently sponge off the whole ossuary with a side-wheel grinder.

<Coke flies everywhere> Godammit Clutch, now I have to buy the university a keyboard!

Doctor X · 09-23-2003, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Indeed. There is nothing quite as formidable-- striking fear into the heart of dirt and grime -- as the sight of a Jewish mother with a bottle of cleanser and a wet sponge.

BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Runner Up: she is approaching your face with a spit-dampened kleenex. . . .

---J.D.

Toto · 09-23-2003, 03:41 PM

Anyhow, it looks like Lemaire is in on the denial.

Lemaire to speak

Quote:

Lemaire said he stands by his original determination that the Aramaic words on the ossuary are authentic, despite a report by Israel's Antiquities Authority that the inscription was a hoax.

"Nobody doubts that the chest itself, the ossuary, is authentic," Lemaire said. "The problem is the inscription. Is that the work of a faker or not? I deal every day with inscriptions in Hebrew and Aramaic. The inscription is genuine."

. . .

"I know the linguistics of this period," Lemaire said. "I looked at it very carefully. The shape of the letters, they have to fit exactly the period."

Lemaire said the Israeli Antiquities Authority argued that the inscription was faked based on a discrepancy in the patina, a thin coating acquired with age.

"You have a problem with the patina of the beginning of the inscription (James, son of Joseph)," Lemaire said. "There are two interpretations: either it was a fake, or it was the result of a cleaning."

Toto · 09-23-2003, 03:54 PM

ANd here's an article about Witherington's article:

Ben Witherington the poster boy for met deadlines

and here's where he destroys his credibility: Top Ten New Testament Archaeological Finds of the Past 150 Years

Quote:

If crucifixion had been the final event in Jesus' earthly life, then it is hard to believe that 30 years later someone would be bragging on an ossuary about being related to him. The last part of the inscription reads, almost emphatically, "his brother [is] Jesus!" or "He's the brother of Jesus!" What had happened that redeemed the honor of the crucified Jesus? It was his resurrection. So, I like to say, James is in the box, and Jesus is on the box, because of the resurrection. And perhaps, if we are able to test the bone fragments of the box soon, and compare the DNA evidence to the evidence produced in the '80s about the gene string and DNA derived from the blood samples on the Shroud, we may just have a double confirmation of the artifacts I have discussed at the beginning and end of this essay. Stay tuned.

Doctor X · 09-23-2003, 04:06 PM

Why does this:

Quote:

. . . if we are able to test the bone fragments of the box soon, and compare the DNA evidence to the evidence produced in the '80s about the gene string and DNA derived from the blood samples on the Shroud, . . .

read like an alien autopsy?

--J.D.

Weltall · 09-23-2003, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Why does this:

read like an alien autopsy?

--J.D.

Someone's been watching waaay too much Star Trek TNG, that's why.

Doctor X · 09-23-2003, 05:54 PM

What?!! I deny all knowledge of Councillor Cleevage!

Anyways, considering the Shroud has been debunked more often than Clinton's use of the verb "is" [Stop that.--Ed.] I would be most interested to see where the paint became actual blood--or is this all speculation like the existence of bone 'n the box?

Perhaps they accidentally fell into the toilet?

--J.D.

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

09-22-2003, 05:33 PM	#12
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	But what would she remove it with? If you clean an inscription with "a sharp instrument", presumably you would gently sponge off the whole ossuary with a side-wheel grinder.

09-23-2003, 05:54 PM	#20
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	What?!! I deny all knowledge of Councillor Cleevage! Anyways, considering the Shroud has been debunked more often than Clinton's use of the verb "is" [Stop that.--Ed.] I would be most interested to see where the paint became actual blood--or is this all speculation like the existence of bone 'n the box? Perhaps they accidentally fell into the toilet? --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.