Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:35 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 9:24 pm
Posts: 4525
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Quote:
Bone-Box No Proof of Jesus

"....The believing argument runs that, because it is unusual to include the name of a brother in one's epitaph, this brother must have been a "well-known figure." There are, in fact, "too many Jesuses" of renown, as Harold Leidner shows in his book The Fabrication of the Christ Myth. These Jesuses, as found in the works of the Jewish historian Josephus and in biblical texts, include the following (list quoted from Leidner, 19-20):

1. Jesus son of Naue

2. Jesus son of Saul

3. Jesus, high priest, son of Phineas

4. Jesus son of the high priest Jozadak

5. Jesus son of Joiada

6. Jesus, high priest, son of Simon

7. Jesus, high priest, son of Phabes

8. Jesus, high priest, son of See

9. Jesus the Christ

10. Jesus son of Damnaeus, became high priest

11. Jesus son of Gamaliel, became high priest

12. Jesus son of Sapphas

13. Jesus, chief priest, probably to be identified with 10 or 11

14. Jesus son of Gamalas, high priest

15. Jesus, brigand chief on borderland of Ptolemais

16. Jesus son of Sapphias

17. Jesus brother of Chares

18. Jesus a Galilean, perhaps to be identified with 15

19. Jesus in ambuscade, perhaps to be identified with 16

20. Jesus, priest, son of Thebuthi

21. Jesus, son of Ananias, rude peasant, prophesies the fall of Jerusalem.

Please read the full article:

http://www.truthbeknown.com/ossuary.htm

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:42 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2006 4:09 pm
Posts: 2080
Congrats! You have just found the historical Jesus - several in fact!

Too bad none of them is the New Testament character.

Still looking for that one.

_________________
Why suffer from Egyptoparallelophobia, when you can read Christ in Egypt? Try it - you'll like it:

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 5:37 pm 
Offline
Bast

Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:12 pm
Posts: 147
Also other religious leaders named Jesus, such as Jesus Ben Pandera and other Talmud Jesus' (seeDid Jesus live 100 b.c.) .


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:19 pm 
Offline
Bast

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 120
I am reading a book now called "The Jesus Family Tomb" by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino its a good book if any one runs across it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 3:42 am 
Offline
Hercules

Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:17 pm
Posts: 53
The name Jesus was a very common one as was the name Joseph.
Even if the ossuary had not been proven fake, it would have been very possible
for many men named Joseph to have a son named Joshua, ie Jesus, Jesse, Yeshua.
The fact that it may have been uncommon to include the name of a brother in an epitaph
should have been a clue that it was most likely a fake. If Jews didn't do it,
why would the surviving family of Jesus have done it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 04, 2010 11:20 am 
Offline
Bast

Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 120
When that ossuary was found to be a fake it most likely had every christian with in a million miles of it breathing a sigh of relief. You destroy the crucifixion and the resurrection story you have damaged christianities image far more than you could imagine. With that said lets look at the Jewish burial rites during that time period why don't we. Firstly, there is some confusion as to just how long Jesus hung on that stick. Pilate who in no way had anything on Jesus in order to sentence him to death as he did was pushed by the people to put him death. This type of behavior would never have existed in Roman Law at the time. The Roman court system was just to advanced to kill a man without a trial.

The Jews during the time period of this crucifixion practiced what was known as Secondary Burial. Now Jewish Law stated that the deceased person had to be entombed in 24 hours after death this presents the coherent problem. Claims range from 3 hours to 3 days which one was it? After death the body would be washed in incense and other oils and wrapped in linen placed in tomb or cave and left for up to a year giving the flesh time to rot off the bone. After this time they would take the bones and place them in a stone ossuary for burial. Now if they followed normal burial practice this means that the body would have remained in the tomb for one year.

Even if he lived through the crucifixion several things do not add up in such a weaken and horrible state he would never have been able to move the stone. The women that were at the tomb surely would not have been able to move it. Now lets look at just what he went through being strung from that stick. I say stick because it was not a cross per say as modern day christianity depicts it. The cross member was added by early christians. Rather than type it I will refer you to the below:

The Physical Cause of Jesus' Death

Quote:
Physicians who have examined the Shroud image are unanimous in their belief that the man was dead when he was placed in the Shroud, and that his death was caused by crucifixion and the tortures that preceded it. They also agree that he was dead when the spear pierced his side. They are not as sure about the exact [emphasis in original] cause of Jesus' death, but their opinions are quite similar.

Most experts hold that Jesus died primarily of asphyxiation, the usual cause of death in crucifixion. According to this view, Jesus died more quickly than most victims because scourging and beating had gravely weakened him. He was eventually unable to pull himself up on the cross in order to breathe [the "T" position described above], and he asphyxiated in the "down" position [the bent-knee "Y" position] on the cross. In this case, the muscles around his lungs kept him from exhaling and directly caused his death. Bucklin adds that complications due to congestive heart failure were likely as well.

Sava offers a related alternative. He holds that the internal hemorrhaging in the chest cavity caused by the fierce scourging was a cause of death. The liquids slowly compressed the lungs, causing asphyxiation by pleural effusion.

Davis presents another somewhat similar view. He holds that the pericardium, the sac surrounding the heart, filled with fluid under the stress of suffering. This liquid compressed the heart, eventually causing heart failure. After Jesus was dead, the Roman lance pierced both the pericardium and the heart, and released the blood and watery fluid.

A consensus is visible among these views. Most scholars hold that asphyxiation played an important part in Jesus' death. He struggled on the cross to keep breathing. Some scholars hold that he asphyxiated directly when the chest muscles fail to sustain breathing. Others suggest asphyxiation as the blood and fluid also compressed his lungs. But all these scholars agree that the Shroud contains conclusive evidence that Jesus indeed died and that it reveals the general features of his death. [End-note number omitted]


Code:
http://www.godonthe.net/evidence/forensic.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 10:48 am 
Offline
Dionysus

Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 280
Quote:
Is the purported burial box of Jesus' brother James fake or authentic? Seven years of trial, testimony from dozens of experts and a 475-page verdict Wednesday failed to come up with an answer. A Jerusalem judge, citing reasonable doubt, acquitted Israeli collector Oded Golan, who was charged with forging the inscription on the box once hailed as the first physical link to Christ. Golan said the ruling put an end to what he portrayed as a 10-year smear campaign against him. Hershel Shanks, editor of the Washington-based Biblical Archaeology, said he was delighted, insisting the burial box, or ossuary, is authentic and a "prized artifact to the world of Christianity." The Israel Antiquities Authority, which believes Golan's most high-profile items are forged, said the case shows the limits of science in proving forgeries, but it also prompted museums and universities around the world to be more suspicious of finds of uncertain origin. In his ruling, Judge Aharon Farkash of the Jerusalem District Court said Wednesday that he heard so many specialists with conflicting claims that he could not determine whether the ossuary was forged. "This topic is likely to continue to be the subject of research in the scientific and archaeological worlds, and time will tell," Farkash wrote. The case of the burial box is likely to be irrelevant to believers. Stephen Pfann, an archaeologist and president of the Christian Holy Land University, said Christians don't need objects to prop up their faith. "In a way, there will always be that necessity of faith to be involved in a person's convictions, whether or not we find artifacts associated with the story," he said. Much of the trial focused on the patina over the inscriptions of the ossuary and a second find, a stone tablet purportedly carrying instructions by King Yoash of the 9th century B.C. on maintenance at the Jewish Temple. The patina is a thin layer of grime that can attest to the age of engravings. At one point, the prosecutor brought a camp stove, chalk, beaker and other ingredients to show how easy it is to make fake patina, said journalist Matthew Kalman, a frequent trial observer. The defense then used the same technique to show that fake patina doesn't stick to stone. "It began to look like a high school chemistry class," said Kalman, editor of The Jerusalem Report magazine. The saga began in 2002 when Golan sent the ossuary with the Aramaic inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" to Toronto's Royal Ontario Museum. Shanks was among its early enthusiasts, publishing the first report on it in 2002. Golan has said he's owned the ossuary since the late 1970s and never paid much attention until a visiting French expert suggested the inscription might refer to the brother of Jesus. After the Toronto exhibit, he started facing questions at home. At first, the antiquities authority investigated whether he had transferred the box abroad with the proper license. It also questioned where the Yoash tablet, inscribed with 15 lines in Hebrew, came from. Eventually, IAA experts concluded both were forgeries, and police began to investigate. Golan was indicted in late 2004, along with four other defendants, charged with forging and trading in dozens of stolen items. His trial began in 2005. Witnesses in the trial — more than 100 hearings transcribed in 12,000 pages — described a dark underside to the Holy Land antiquities trade, including grave robbing and shadowy exchanges of fistfuls of cash on West Bank roads. Shanks said finds should not be automatically dismissed because of uncertain origin. "You have much looted material coming out of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank)," he said. "It has died down now but was once great. These finds can be important. Are you going to rescue them, or are you going to say you aren't going to learn from them because they were looted?" Archaeologist and biblical historian Eric Meyers of Duke University said questions about where Golan obtained the ossuary make it all the more important to regulate the antiquities trade in Israel. "Israel is unique in the Middle East for allowing antiquities dealers to operate under official government licensing," he said. "This is a dirty business ... and the Israeli police and antiquities authority have trouble dealing with all this chicanery." During the trial, the Israel Museum re-examined its collection to remove forged items, and museums and universities have grown more suspicious of undocumented finds, said Shai Bartura, an IAA official. "People just do not want to take chances," he said. "If it's not absolutely legitimate, if it doesn't have an archaeological context, then most serious facilities of display or research simply will not touch it." Golan was convicted Wednesday on four other charges, including trading unlicensed antiquities, possessing stolen artifacts and selling artifacts without a license. The court will consider Golan's sentencing in April. Robert Deutsch, an inscriptions expert, was acquitted Wednesday of all charges. He was accused of forgery, but not in connection with the ossuary and the tablet. In earlier proceedings, one defendant reached a plea bargain, while charges against the remaining two were dropped.

More Information: http://www.artdaily.org/index.asp?int_s ... _new=54175[/url]
Copyright © artdaily.org


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:34 am 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:42 pm
Posts: 15
On March 14, 2012
BREAKING NEWS--Golan and Deutsch Cleared of All Forgery Charges

Forgery allegations dismissed by James Ossuary trial verdict


This morning, Jerusalem Judge Aharon Farkash found defendants Oded Golan and Robert Deutsch not guilty of all charges of forgery. The judge stated that there is no evidence that any of the major artifacts were forged, and that the prosecution failed to prove their accusations beyond a reasonable doubt. The alleged forgeries include the inscription from the famous James Ossuary that reads "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." The judge also found there was no clear evidence that several other ancient artifacts, including the "Three Shekels" ostracon, the "Widow's Plea" ostracon and the Jehoash tablet, had been forged.

What made the Ossuary of James so controversy was the inscription on it that reads :
James, son of joseph , brother of Jesus. It was engraved in Aramaic and dated to the same time when James, brother of Jesus , was martyred . This archeological discovery attracted manny archeological skeptics that examined the ossuary using wrong technics which determined it to be a fake. Which cause the person who owned the ossuary to  be charged and imprison for forgery. 

Further examination revealed that the cleaning and chemical treatment made the forgery data invalid.

Which makes the ossuary of James authentic . 

The possibility of another 

1.James,
2. son of joseph , 
3.brother of Jesus
4. dated to the same time when James, brother of Jesus , was martyred

Is slim to none, making the ossuary 99.9% biblical . 

Another myth debunked


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:28 pm 
Offline
Dionysus

Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 280
Well this is more to do with the fact that this academic went through a 7 year smear campaign against him over political bullshit regarding the Israeli Antiquities Authorities. I find the politics being interwoven into this shit to be very much abhorrent and hindering to archaeological expeditions as a result.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:22 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
Let me just stop LoC right there and remind everyone that just yesterday he bid us farewell:

Lawofcausality wrote:


Yet he couldn't even stay away for more than 24 hours, LOL. But I notice that he sure enough has stayed away from the "Why the Bible is correct" thread, which so thoroughly documents his repeated fails.

And now we can chalk up this latest post as yet another one.

Claiming to be the brother of a god was a common claim back in those days. Josephus, for instance, one writer often appealed to as recording the claim that James was the brother of Jesus, Josephus also wrote that Caligula claimed to be the brother of Zeus. And Caligula was a contemporary of the New Testament authors and this alleged James.

Even if we find an ossuary, or mausoleum, or coffin, or whatever, that contains Caligula's body, and even if it includes his aforementioned claim to be the brother of Zeus, such an artifact would not serve as any evidence for the existence of a historical Zeus.

Caligula's claim is no more or less valid than James'.

Moreover, LoC's post shows that he misses the obvious fact that Oded Golan and Robert Deutsch being innocent does not equate to the ossuary being authentic.

It simply means that THEY were not the ones who forged it.

It also means that if a forgery, the fraudulence is part of the original itself and not something that was added later. In other words, there's no good evidence that the inscription is a later interpolation added to the box, it was most likely part of the box from its very beginning.
That doesn't mean it's "authentic", it would simply mean that, if it does turn out to be fraudulent, then the real fraud would be the person who made the box in the first place, and not Golan or Deutsch.

So the court ruling does not equate to this being the gospel James.

And even if James, it does not equate to him being the brother of Jesus, anymore than a tomb of Caligula would equate to him being the brother of Zeus, as just pointed out above.

Remember, as Robert pointed out earlier here, Origen alluded to James' brotherhood to Jesus as having been meant in a spiritual sense, just as Christians today call each other 'brother' and 'sister', and hell, even 'Father' sometimes.

Also remember, the title of this thread is "Bone-Box No Proof of Jesus", not "No Proof of James", and in that respect, the title is very much correct, even if that is the same James referenced by the New Testament.

Now, one last thing:

LawofCausality wrote:
The possibility of another

1.James,
2. son of joseph ,
3.brother of Jesus
4. dated to the same time when James, brother of Jesus , was martyred

Is slim to none, making the ossuary 99.9% biblical .


Now just how, pray tell, did LoC come to that percentile? Anyone want to take a stab at breaking down the math for us?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 8:37 pm 
Offline
Dionysus

Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:56 pm
Posts: 280
GodAlmighty wrote:
Even if we find an ossuary, or mausoleum, or coffin, or whatever, that contains Caligula's body, and even if it includes his aforementioned claim to be the brother of Zeus, such an artifact would not serve as any evidence for the existence of a historical Zeus.

Caligula's claim is no more or less valid than James'.


You're forgetting that Caligula was batshit crazy...



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 10:16 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
Voice of Reason wrote:
You're forgetting that Caligula was batshit crazy...


Oh nooo I am not. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 12 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group