Ossuary Source Indicted (myth, Israel, Christ, theology, Articles)

[Jayhawker Soule]

See Police indict four Israelis for running huge antiquities fraud ring.

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by Deut. 32.8

See Police indict four Israelis for running huge antiquities fraud ring.

It's rather sad to target religious zeal. But the Ossuary provided a good run in the discussion groups.

Tektonics still has it real in it's repartee.

It is always possible that some bolt from the sky will prove any artifact to be a fraud, but so far, from the looks of things, Christ-mythers will be looking for careers in plumbing before too long on this one

. http://www.tektonics.org/books/jesbrorvw.html

Bob

[Faust]

I find it rather ironic that those who proclaim a truth to be self evident and indisputable, will go to such lengths to manufacture proofs.
I understand the shroud of Turin is still a news maker.

[Scuba Pete]

So are they now called artificialfacts?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Faust

I find it rather ironic that those who proclaim a truth to be self evident and indisputable, will go to such lengths to manufacture proofs.

In all fairness, while "those who proclaim a truth to be self evident " may have been victims of their own confirmation bias, the manufacturers are more likely characterized by greed than theology.

[Scuba Pete]

At the risk of sounding stupid... oh wait, I do that all the time!

What is an "Ossuary"???

[Bright-ness' Shadow]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

At the risk of sounding stupid... oh wait, I do that all the time!

What is an "Ossuary"???

A box for bones - human bones - after decay has stripped the body of flesh.

Bob

[EightyOne]

I remember reading about that ossuary in Biblical Archeology Review, and I had believed it was authentic. There was one issue in particular that was pretty controversial. An analysis of that box had shown that on the inscription - “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” - the first portion of the text did not have the layer of patina which was present on the second part. Someone had said that was because the first part had been cleaned, and that accounted for the lack of patina. Of course, it seems pretty strange to think that someone would just clean one part of an inscription instead of the entire thing. Interesting to see that it was just a fraud after all.

[EightyOne]

Ignore that last link. This is the correct one:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patina

[Jayhawker Soule]

Further commentary is available here.