Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus Tomb Found
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 191 of 242 (388496)
03-06-2007 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Nimrod
03-06-2007 8:10 AM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
quote:
The DNA "matching" issue is the James Ossuary matching the Jesus Ossuary.It was a perfect match.From what I saw.I look forward to the scrutiny and the rest of the details.
I've never heard of any DNA evidence from the James ossuary.
{ADDED} I think I've got it. You're thinking of the patina evidence. But the patina has nothing to do with DNA - it's a crust which forms on the stoen as it's stored. As I said earlier I;m VERY doubtful of the idea that it's precise enough to narrow it doen to a single tomb, and the evidence is that the James ossuary is NOT the allegedly "missing" ossuary from the tomb (it's the wrong size and it has an inscription - while the suppsoedly missing ossuary was kept separately because it didn't have an inscription and that is why it isn't with the others. So, no DNA match, just evidence that the two ossuaries were kept in very similar conditions.
quote:
before James is factored in)
Then they are divided by the number of Jerusalem tombs (named tombs).
That is where the 600:1 conclusion is reached.
Not according to the Open Letter which states that the probability is based on getting at least as good a match by randomly selecting names, based on the inscriptions foundd on ossuaries (i.e. that lsit of names is used as the "pool" that names are randomly drawn from).
So there's no 600,000:1 probability.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Nimrod, posted 03-06-2007 8:10 AM Nimrod has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:18 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 197 of 242 (388548)
03-06-2007 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by anastasia
03-06-2007 10:18 AM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
If it's a question of choosing to beleive Simcha, with a record of misrepresenting the evidence and Joe Zias, I'll got with Joe Zias.
There's also the question of decoration - the James ossuary has faint decoration visible - and inscriptions - part of the James ossuary's inscription is thought to be genuine. And if the inscription was a complete forgery then it contributes nothign to Simcha's case. It msut at least have the name James on it to be of any help. But so far as we know the "missing" ossuary had no decoration or inscription at all.
And we still have Oded Golan claiming to have had the James ossuary before the Talipot tomb was opened. Now maybe it'll turn out that he's lying but it'as another thing that needs to be resolved before we can place any confidence in the idea that the James ossuary came from the Talipot tomb (as well as wanting to now how it found its way to Golan).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 10:18 AM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 1:28 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 202 of 242 (388565)
03-06-2007 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by anastasia
03-06-2007 1:28 PM


Re: Ill need to wait till I can research this further
Zias says that he was on the spot when the Talipot tomb ossuaries came in. The diemnsiosn of the James ossuary should be easy to find. Maybe Brian can find a report on the Talipot tomb - he'd have the best chance.
But given that the only evidence that it is the same one seems to be the patina - which is far from good evidence - at present there seems no good reason to count it as evidence for Simcha's claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by anastasia, posted 03-06-2007 1:28 PM anastasia has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 204 of 242 (388571)
03-06-2007 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 1:38 PM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
quote:
Lastly, the buzz concerning the James ossuary was a compelling piece of evidence for many Christians because it corroborated the account of Jesus. But it was quickly deemed as a forgery by naysayers and it fell into obscurity. But now they are changing their tune. Now they say that the James ossuary was not "entirely" a fraud. They say that only the last part of the inscription is a forgery, but the rest is authentic based on patina evidence that places James' ossuary within the tomb found in Jerusalem. I guess as long as they believe that Jesus is dead, that James' ossuary no longer poses a threat
Please stop inventing "facts". There has been NO change in the position on the James ossuary. The idea that part of the inscription was genuine and part faked goes back right to the time of the fuss about the ossuary. Consider this report from 2002.
The ossuary itself was ALWAYS accepted as genuine - only the inscription was ever in question. The patina match changes ABSOLUTELY NOTHING
Few if any of the skeptics of the ossuary were concerned about the ossuary "proving" the existence of Jesus.
The skeptics in general do NOT accept Simcha's ideas about the Talipot tomb either.
So it is ompletely false to say that Smicha's claims make ANY DIFFERENCE whatsoever.
Do you actually understand that this sort of fabrication amounts to lying ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 1:38 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 8:50 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 221 of 242 (388665)
03-07-2007 2:11 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Hyroglyphx
03-06-2007 8:50 PM


Re: I cant find any good discussion on this.
quote:
Like I said, it immediately met hostility. First they believed that whole text was a forgery. Now they believe it is authentic, save the last word.
Where "now" is June 20 2003. So that doesn't support your assertion that there has been a change NOW, due to the patina match.
quote:
I'm not talking about the physical box. I obviously was talking about the inscription, which is why I said they claimed it was a "forgery."
According to you your invneted change of mind was...
...based on patina evidence that places James' ossuary within the tomb found in Jerusalem
But the patina can ONLY tell us that the box is genuine, not the inscription (there is "patina" on the inscription but it's faked). And as I have pointed out it does not localise it to a specific tomb and the allegedly "missing" box that did come from that tomb had NO inscription.
quote:
Nor could it ever "prove" the existence of Jesus. At best it simply gave more credence to his existence. That's all would have ever been.
And its something that most skeptics simply didn't care about. So most sketics were NOT motiviated by any such consideration to deny that the James ossuary was genuine despite your insinuations.
quote:
There is no fabrication.
Did you think that if you didn't mention your false assertions, you could get away with pretending that you never said them ?
You claimed that Simcha's claim of matching the patinas of the James ossuary and the Talipot tomb ossuary was causing skeptics to change their minds over the inscription on the James ossuary. And that is a complete fabrication. As you probably know - it hasn't slipped my mind that the one article you produce to support this "change of mind" is well over 3 years old - hardly "now".
You made it up, so you could pretend that skeptics feel "thereatened" by the evidence. Just like you made up the assertion that I deny the existence of a historical Jesus.
At least be honest enough to admit it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-06-2007 8:50 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024