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.