Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which eyewitnesses would that be? The OT's delusional claims or the NT's stories 60 years after the purported death of Jesus?
I think calling either of these sets of books "definitive proof" to be a very loose application of the term. And given the proclamations in them....should have a much higher standard of proof.
Sorry...I'm a fat old guy. No hopping really being done here. But again, my point remains. You guys are either trying to pretend he never existed, or you're trying to claim he's dead in a cave somewhere.
Sorry...I'm a fat old guy. No hopping really being done here. But again, my point remains. You guys are either trying to pretend he never existed, or you're trying to claim he's dead in a cave somewhere.
Your point is pointless evasion of the point. What we are trying to do is look at all the evidence and see what conclusions we can draw from it. The conclusion here is that there is no really good reason to suppose that the Talpiot tomb is anything to do with Jesus. If it was, it would be bad news for you, not us.
Also the James casket looked like a forgery produced in a workshop where others were produced. That makes no difference to the reliable existence of James who is mentioned by Paul, and few would deny he existed. Same with the 'Caiaphas' bone box. he was a real person even if a genuine old ossurary was engraved with the name of J. Caiaphas, his remains, so as to increase the sale price.
Are you getting this old chum? The arguments we are making actually don't hurt your beliefs at all. If we wanted to simply disprove Jesus we'd say 'The Talpiot cave must be the Jesus family' But we don't - we look at the implications if it was, but probably it isn't.
I know this is unfamiliar territory for you, but try to get a handle on the idea - looking at the evidence objectively to arrive at the best conclusions whether they fit those we already have or require us to rethink. It is different from looking around for any kind of argument, good, bad, true or false, just so it fits with what you want to believe, and ignoring any evidence that doesn't.
And I am still waiting for your explanation re the nativity.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-11-2015 at 02:01 PM..
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,163,488 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Your point is pointless evasion of the point. What we are trying to do is look at all the evidence and see what conclusions we can draw from it. The conclusion here is that there is no really good reason to suppose that the Talpiot tomb is anything to do with Jesus. If it was, it would be bad news for you, not us.
Also the James casket looked like a forgery produced in a workshop where others were produced. ......................
No overwhelming reason with the Talpiot Tomb, but it's statistically very unlikely that so many of the gospel names would be associated in one place, especially considering that some of them were unusual variants of Jewish names from that time.
The James ossuary, as noted in the article, was judged to be not a forgery after a very lengthy trial in an Israeli court, involving some of the most notable experts in the world on many different aspects of it ........ though of course the judge's opinion was not infallible or inerrant, since so many of the experts disagreed. Concerning the names on it, "A 2014 study supported the authenticity of the engravings. It found that patina on the ossuary surface matched that in the engravings, and that microfossils in the inscription seemed naturally deposited." James Ossuary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No overwhelming reason with the Talpiot Tomb, but it's statistically very unlikely that so many of the gospel names would be associated in one place, especially considering that some of them were unusual variants of Jewish names from that time.
The James ossuary, as noted in the article, was judged to be not a forgery after a very lengthy trial in an Israeli court, involving some of the most notable experts in the world on many different aspects of it ........ though of course the judge's opinion was not infallible or inerrant, since so many of the experts disagreed. Concerning the names on it, "A 2014 study supported the authenticity of the engravings. It found that patina on the ossuary surface matched that in the engravings, and that microfossils in the inscription seemed naturally deposited." James Ossuary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Forst of all, let me say that I don't doubt that James really existed and his bones were no doubts deposited in a ossuary. So whether this is the one or not is irrelevant to the Gospel debate. That said, the verdict, though hailed as proof of the object's genuine-ness is anything but that. It is declared that forgery had not been proven. Well, that is not surprising when a claim that silicon glue was found in the object is not mentioned, and what about the report that the supposed finder had a regular little antiquities production workshop?
Rather like the shroud medieval date, there is more argument to come out of this.
I'll have a look at the claim that the names in the Talpiot tomb were unusual renditions. I do recall that it was argued that the names are in fact not too uncommon. It is also the case that they don't match the gospel Jesus' family. Of course, the Gospels might be in error. The list of disciples could be. I have long suspected that the link between the disciples and Jesus' family might be closer than appears - and including the Bethany family, too.
Perhaps we could look at the Talpiot names a bit more.
Location of the chambers and the ossuaries found in them
we have 2 Marys (in Greek and hebrew -script latin) , a Joseph, a Jesus son of Joseph. Which is ok, but then we get a Matthew and a Jude, son of Jesus. So given that these names are not at all uncommon and the oddness relates to the Greek -lattin sound of the mary's, there seems more likelihood of a Jewish family nothing to do with Jesus. Especially as the Tomb in is a Jerusalem suburb and not in Galilee.
The 'Nefesh' (Nephesh) relates to the Jonah ossuary claimed to show the fish spitting out Jonah (see 2nd pic)
and turn it sideways and it does with the blob of head appearing and the stick -man inside the mouth. This is claimed as a representation of resurrection. That is very early in this period (the tomb is dated anytime from the 5th c BC to c AD 70 during the Jewish war) I know of no use of the image in Jewish funerary art.
As against the, there is a square object next to it and what that would mean is doubtful. I suppose I could suggests a representation of an empty tomb, but, why that should be significant as the reason it was empty was because Jesus' body had been moved here to the Talpiot rather escapes me.
I do not know why 'Nephesh' was mentioned. It means 'soul' and also refers to a funerary monument set up near a tomb. This image is claimed as merely a representation of a funerary urn (see 1st pic)
and that makes sense, but you then have to explain away the stick figure in the mouth.
I also found myself puzzled by Mr Tabor, whose visage staring out from his sites with evangelical intensity struck me as a bit odd in proving that while Jesus' soul might be marching on, his body lies a'mouldering in Talpiot. It now seems that his expertise in religious studies has equipped him with the mindset that allows him to see the value of Talpiot in proving the reality of Jesus and the accuracy of the Gospels, while enabling him to totally overlook the refutation of the bodily resurrection that is implicit.
The statistical case for this having to be Jesus' family does not seem to stand up. The stats seem based on some doubtful factors, that Miriam is an unusual name, that the combination of names is unlikely, that these names do not appear on other ossuaries. In fact they do, quite often and Miriam is one of the more common with Joseph and Simon at about 8 -10% appearance on ossuaries in relation to other mentions.
The point was made that a later family living by the dead sea and nothing to do with Jesus had members called Jesus, Simon, Jacob, Mariamne and Judas. It was of course ignored that Matthew and a son of Jesus (Judas) messed up the statistical probability of being Jesus' family.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-12-2015 at 11:24 AM..
Which eyewitnesses would that be? The OT's delusional claims or the NT's stories 60 years after the purported death of Jesus?
this has not been proven. not that it matters as much as you think it does, however
it is entirely possible that gospels were being written in the late 30s, 40's and 50s.
Christianity is established historically decades before the modern scholarly consensus
(which could change and does not know the date of the earliest gospel).
this has not been proven. not that it matters as much as you think it does, however
it is entirely possible that gospels were being written in the late 30s, 40's and 50s.
Christianity is established historically decades before the modern scholarly consensus
(which could change and does not know the date of the earliest gospel).
That really does little to better the case of eyewitness account credibility. And your asserted contradiction of scholarly consensus does not make it so because you assert it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
