Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 10-22-2002, 07:41 AM

Vork

Quote:

If it is authentic, it would certainly be interesting. But I sort of doubt it at this point. "Most likely," Layman, is an estimate of probability. It's most likely a fraud dating from the relic-production phase of Christianity in the first millenium.

It's another conspiracy.

Please list a few relics which actually date from the first century and are proven frauds. I've never heard of any.

Radorth

MortalWombat · 10-22-2002, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Duvenoy:


Where might I find some documentation on these two finds?

See the AP story that Peter Kirby posted on the second page of this discussion thread.

I also found this <a href="http://orion.mscc.huji.ac.il/orion/archives/1996a/msg00145.html" target="_blank">link</a> which also references the AP article as well as a Reuter article from the same day.

Radorth · 10-22-2002, 07:51 AM

Quote:

There were many prominent men of that age with the name of Jesus/

Kindly name 3 "prominent" men who had a brother named James.

Radorth

Kosh · 10-22-2002, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:

It's another conspiracy.

I do not think you know the meaning of that word...

Quote:

Please list a few relics which actually date from the first century and are proven frauds. I've never heard of any.

So if no fraudulent relics are known from the 1st century, then this new relic CANNOT be a fraudulent relic from the 1st century?

Really Radorth, at least try not to commit any fallacies when posting your sarcastic drivel.

Radorth · 10-22-2002, 07:58 AM

Quote:

who are you to say otherwise? Considering Eisenmann's pedigree vs. your own, I mean?

That pesky Layman, always investigating things on his own.

So then, considering Durant's pedigree, we should conclude your objections to Gospel historicity consist entirely of minutiae I suppose?

Rad

Radorth · 10-22-2002, 08:09 AM

Quote:

So if no fraudulent relics are known from the 1st century, then this new relic CANNOT be a fraudulent relic from the 1st century?

Not at all. It was you who asserted it was a "from the relic production phase" of the first century. I'm asking whether this "relic production phase" actually occurred, or whether you are just presuming it must have occurred to bolster another conspiracy theory.

If no such phase can be shown, you are just blowing smoke, and we still have no evidence of fraud where the Gospels are concerned.

Rad

Kosh · 10-22-2002, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
 It was you who asserted it was a "from the relic production phase" of the first century.

I asserted no such thing. Were you perhaps thinking of Vork?

Corwin · 10-22-2002, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
Vork

It's another conspiracy.

Please list a few relics which actually date from the first century and are proven frauds. I've never heard of any.

Radorth

Since the reference was the the 'fraud period of the first millenium' and not century.... the Shroud of Turin would be a major one, as would the numerous finger bones of various saints and shards of the True Cross the Church was hawking for several hundred years.

This would be an extremely early forgery if it is one... in fact it would likely be one of the first. Doesn't mean that it can't be a forgery.

The point stands. There are a number of valid questions about this artifact, in the end, it proves very little even if it is authentic... and really we aren't SURE of much of anything about it yet.

I find it interesting to note that one of the articles mentioned that there was no fungus or organic material found in the inscription... that in itself would seem to suggest a much later inscription date.

Layman · 10-22-2002, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan:


But like Toto said, it is early to come to conclusions.

Vorkosigan

Is this a change in position from your early proclamation that "it is most likely a fake" or are you going to somehow reconcile the two comments?

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

Layman · 10-22-2002, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:


That pesky Layman, always investigating things on his own.

So then, considering Durant's pedigree, we should conclude your objections to Gospel historicity consist entirely of minutiae I suppose?

Rad

Eisenman does have a better pedigree. Of course, most of those others scholars with just as good or better pedigrees have dismissed his book on James as unpersuasive fringe scholarship.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.