Film, Media & TV16 mins ago
Is This The Real Guy?
32 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by RATTER15. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi Ratter
My memory is playing tricks: the article says the box first came to light in 2002 but I'm convinced I learned about it on a skeptics' forum back in the era of modems (remember them? lol)
The discussion revolved around whether the inscription scratches had patina and/or dirt in them, indicative of the marks not being freshly made, with a side order of checking for traces of ahistorical alloy components, indicative of modern tool steels. I forget the name but they fire X-rays at the surface and what bounces off has spectal lines indicating what reflected the beam.
It was was all speculation in the discussion and the DM article here says the owner of the tomb was found innocent (of forgery) …after 7 years!
So, the nub of the current debate revolves around this:
//Joseph, Mary and Jesus were all common names at the time and a statistician from the University of Toronto said that they each made up eight per cent of the population.//
Which I agree with, followed by this:
//However, a very small percentage would have had the same family name combination as described in the Bible. //
…which I am not prepared to accept without some pretty convincing statistical analysis. :D
Problem is, we can't get pre-1st century data for that and after Xtianity got going, all bets are off as families start naming their little 'uns after major characters from the book, which skews the very 'odds' this guy is claiming are so slim.
Patina: okay, fine but how do you date such a layer to an age band 50 years wide?
My memory is playing tricks: the article says the box first came to light in 2002 but I'm convinced I learned about it on a skeptics' forum back in the era of modems (remember them? lol)
The discussion revolved around whether the inscription scratches had patina and/or dirt in them, indicative of the marks not being freshly made, with a side order of checking for traces of ahistorical alloy components, indicative of modern tool steels. I forget the name but they fire X-rays at the surface and what bounces off has spectal lines indicating what reflected the beam.
It was was all speculation in the discussion and the DM article here says the owner of the tomb was found innocent (of forgery) …after 7 years!
So, the nub of the current debate revolves around this:
//Joseph, Mary and Jesus were all common names at the time and a statistician from the University of Toronto said that they each made up eight per cent of the population.//
Which I agree with, followed by this:
//However, a very small percentage would have had the same family name combination as described in the Bible. //
…which I am not prepared to accept without some pretty convincing statistical analysis. :D
Problem is, we can't get pre-1st century data for that and after Xtianity got going, all bets are off as families start naming their little 'uns after major characters from the book, which skews the very 'odds' this guy is claiming are so slim.
Patina: okay, fine but how do you date such a layer to an age band 50 years wide?
The so called remains of Jesus's purported brother James were revealed as a hoax long ago. Just like the Shroud of Turin and every other purported artifact or records of Christ that anyone has ever had scientifically examined.
The evidence strongly suggest that Jesus was nothing more than a character in a work of fiction.
Unfortunately some people never give up the delusion.
The evidence strongly suggest that Jesus was nothing more than a character in a work of fiction.
Unfortunately some people never give up the delusion.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Name combinations are taken to be significant by the guy who is making these claims (who is, intruigingly, Jewish, it says) but perhaps he has never tried his hand at genealogy? Some families habitually name the firstborn son after the grandfather; others alternate just two names down umpteen generations.
That said, if Iesu/Jesus was a reasonably common a name, in that era, it is curious that no significant biblical character from earlier sections of the bible has that name. What if one, being a bit-part, was expunged so as to avoid timewasting quibbles over ambiguities, every time Jesus was referred to in debates of later eras? (I'm referring to Nicean editing, I think).
@naomi re: discovery date. Thanks. That means I'm not going 'diolali'. ;)
That said, if Iesu/Jesus was a reasonably common a name, in that era, it is curious that no significant biblical character from earlier sections of the bible has that name. What if one, being a bit-part, was expunged so as to avoid timewasting quibbles over ambiguities, every time Jesus was referred to in debates of later eras? (I'm referring to Nicean editing, I think).
@naomi re: discovery date. Thanks. That means I'm not going 'diolali'. ;)
naomi24 //Beso, I’m not aware of any conclusive studies. Do you have any links?
Personally, I think the man Jesus probably existed.//
There is zero contemporaneous evidence for the existence of Jesus. Accounts of His life in the Bible even among the canonical books are not consistent.
Stories of His origins are clearly taken from older myths.
The "miracles" He is supposed to have performed are obviously nonsense. Why would any of the story be true including His existence?
What evidence do you have?
Personally, I think the man Jesus probably existed.//
There is zero contemporaneous evidence for the existence of Jesus. Accounts of His life in the Bible even among the canonical books are not consistent.
Stories of His origins are clearly taken from older myths.
The "miracles" He is supposed to have performed are obviously nonsense. Why would any of the story be true including His existence?
What evidence do you have?
It is tempting to blame it all on the unreliable handings-down of multiple strands of oral historians. Just as with evolution, geographic separation means that one version of the gospel acquires changes in one section of the story but the version in the neighbouring country gets changed in a different section. Just as when extracting a historical narrative from multiple sources, you can tell facts from embellishments because facts are consistent across all versions. (Give or take the tendency of some people to edit out things which did happen because they were deemed unimportant or boring).
Tempting, but I think the oral history idea unfairly implies an illiterate society because the Jewish culture of that time had the Torah, which (I think) all congregants have to read aloud from, at one stage or other of their lives.
I've seen atheist memes which, nevertheless, attribute it all to the musings of illiterate goat-herds or shepherds and I can just imagine the reactions of the literate Jewish folk being doorstepped by peddlars of Christianity. If you have a hard time selling your faith, I can see how tempting it would be to 'soup up' the tale, to impress the audience.
If a camel is a horse, designed by a committee, then the bible is a bit of a camel too. It's as if they chose to include all the gospel versions in an attempt to please everyone (to stifle the kind of sectarianism we see in the present day), whereas they should have pared it down to one version so as to present a consistent message to posterity.
Anyway, it is a matter of curiosity how or why a supposed threat - a rebel leader, at the least or "king of the Jews", at the most - could go through trial and execution without leading to any written account, or report back to Rome, which one of the later historians could cite in their work, decades or centuries later.
Regarding the ossuary, the possibility of him being a normal bloke with a normal family life rather undermines any sense of divinity in him. I think the bible's editors would have chopped any record of that out at the earliest opportunity (the doubters would only have leapt on it).
Tempting, but I think the oral history idea unfairly implies an illiterate society because the Jewish culture of that time had the Torah, which (I think) all congregants have to read aloud from, at one stage or other of their lives.
I've seen atheist memes which, nevertheless, attribute it all to the musings of illiterate goat-herds or shepherds and I can just imagine the reactions of the literate Jewish folk being doorstepped by peddlars of Christianity. If you have a hard time selling your faith, I can see how tempting it would be to 'soup up' the tale, to impress the audience.
If a camel is a horse, designed by a committee, then the bible is a bit of a camel too. It's as if they chose to include all the gospel versions in an attempt to please everyone (to stifle the kind of sectarianism we see in the present day), whereas they should have pared it down to one version so as to present a consistent message to posterity.
Anyway, it is a matter of curiosity how or why a supposed threat - a rebel leader, at the least or "king of the Jews", at the most - could go through trial and execution without leading to any written account, or report back to Rome, which one of the later historians could cite in their work, decades or centuries later.
Regarding the ossuary, the possibility of him being a normal bloke with a normal family life rather undermines any sense of divinity in him. I think the bible's editors would have chopped any record of that out at the earliest opportunity (the doubters would only have leapt on it).
All the stuff about Mary being a virgin , imaculate conception etc was never part of early Christianity. It was added centuries later to suit the ideals of the church leaders of the time. Some very early writings do say Jesus had brothers and Joseph was a 'family man' this was on a TV progam a few days back.
no or yes
we know the James ossuary is a forgery
probably an unlabelled ossuary which was then fraudulently inscribed
because as Hypognosis says - the indentations were found to have stuff in them designed to make them look old - oops a sure sign of a forgery.
The troughs had remains, slivers of titanium from the chisel
and since titanium was not purified nor used in chisels ....until 1950
we know the James ossuary is a forgery
probably an unlabelled ossuary which was then fraudulently inscribed
because as Hypognosis says - the indentations were found to have stuff in them designed to make them look old - oops a sure sign of a forgery.
The troughs had remains, slivers of titanium from the chisel
and since titanium was not purified nor used in chisels ....until 1950
@Peter Pedant
I would be interested to know your source for the titanium traces evidence. In my earlier post, I only referred to the debate surrounding the toolmarks, not the details.
Other than that, it's just as well there is no hereafter, otherwise what must become of those who bolster the faith by deception and fraud? Would there be a SPIH for them, I wonder? (and what of those taken in by the falsehood - are they disqualified from being saved due to conversion based on a false premise?)
While looking up the 1919 epidemic on Wikipedia, I came across the disconcerting fact that two of the three witnesses to the Lourdes apparition died of this influenza, while still in their childhood. It would be an extremely harsh god that did that because some kids made up a story, if that was the case. It would be a careless god who lets two vital witnesses die within a couple of years of the incident, giving no opportunity to pass on the tale (for another 60-odd years). The third child was steadfast in her version of the incident for the rest of her life but, if you had made such a story up, there would be no opportunity to go back on it, once the village was coining it from all the tourists. Awkward situation to get oneself into, no?
I would be interested to know your source for the titanium traces evidence. In my earlier post, I only referred to the debate surrounding the toolmarks, not the details.
Other than that, it's just as well there is no hereafter, otherwise what must become of those who bolster the faith by deception and fraud? Would there be a SPIH for them, I wonder? (and what of those taken in by the falsehood - are they disqualified from being saved due to conversion based on a false premise?)
While looking up the 1919 epidemic on Wikipedia, I came across the disconcerting fact that two of the three witnesses to the Lourdes apparition died of this influenza, while still in their childhood. It would be an extremely harsh god that did that because some kids made up a story, if that was the case. It would be a careless god who lets two vital witnesses die within a couple of years of the incident, giving no opportunity to pass on the tale (for another 60-odd years). The third child was steadfast in her version of the incident for the rest of her life but, if you had made such a story up, there would be no opportunity to go back on it, once the village was coining it from all the tourists. Awkward situation to get oneself into, no?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Editor's Blog18 mins ago
Is What I Experienced Called...
Body & Soul39 mins ago
ChatterBank45 mins ago
