Oded Golan, Ossuary Owner, Arrested for Archaeological Fraud

[Vorkosigan]

The POlice finally move.... (http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6359197.htm)

[chickenman]

hahaha, delicious

I wonder how long fivesolas et al will continue to maintain that the jesus ossuary is real. Perhaps we'll have to wait for a written confession by the forger

[TheFiveSolas]

Chickenman,

LOL. I quoted from BAR. It was not my opinion. I'm open to the claim that the ossuary is a forgery, however, most of what I've heard (up until now) has been hearsay. I don't put much stock in hearsay. In addition, the claim that the "patina is chalk" hasn't impressed me since according to BAR the inscription goes into the layers of the ossuary that have been naturally worn away over the centuries.

I also find it humorous that you and others seem to think my faith rests upon the authenticity of this box.

To borrow a phrase from Joe Meert...
Cheers

[Vorkosigan]

In addition, the claim that the "patina is chalk" hasn't impressed me since according to BAR the inscription goes into the layers of the ossuary that have been naturally worn away over the centuries

Alas, the BAR claim came from Ed Keall, who didn't do his homework, and has no training in archaeology or geochemistry. The IAA's work on the patina microfossils was definitive and irrefutable. Keall was exposed for the idiot he is in this article...

Christianity Today on Ossuary (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/129/31.0.html)

"Keall said Golan, who was remanded for four days while police continue their investigation, seemed trustworthy: "He really came across as a very innocent, almost gullible person. Aside from all our investigation, scientific analysis¡Kthis guy seemed to be a very genuine item. He didn't come off as a fast car salesman who was trying to deceive you. That's why it is all the more puzzling to have this notification that the police arrested him."

LOL. So many of us spotted Golan from the start. But you know, Keall and the others wanted to believe and that distorted all their judgment...

"In recent days, investigators searched Golan's home and storerooms, including a workroom on his roof where they say he forged antiquities. "A number of other 'antiques' in various stages of production were uncovered," reports the Tel Aviv newspaper Ha'aretz."

Golan has been at this since the early 1990s. Brace yourselves for a major scandal, folks.

Me, I'll be laughing my head off. Not a single mythicist or Jesus agnostic was fooled by this box.

<puffs victory cigar>

Vorkosigan

[Passant]

I don't put much stock in hearsay.

Huh? I thought you were a Bible believing Christian?

[FirstSunday33ad]

Read the July/August issue of BAR, the reasons for the IAA findings suddenly become all to apparent especially as the findings of the ROM contradict them.

So to all you skeptics who crowed about it being fake - looks like you'll also be eating crow too.

:lmbo:

[Lobstrosity]

In recent days, investigators searched Golan's home and storerooms, including a workroom on his roof where they say he forged antiquities. "A number of other 'antiques' in various stages of production were uncovered," reports the Tel Aviv newspaper Ha'aretz.

So I take it this was just a coincidence--you know, that the owner of an ossuary that looks forged happens to also forge antiques?

[Dr.GH]

The Golan fraud factory will severly damage the reputations of BAR, and all others who set aside reason for faith. The whole episode reminds me of Chaucer's "The Pardoner's Tale."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=320971&sw=Oded

[Yog^sothoth]

wow. kids and their stories.

[TheFiveSolas]

So, why was Oded Golan arrested and then released? So far no charges have been filed? It's been something like two months. Where is all the proof of forgery items in his house, etc.?

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbbreakingHSJP.html

[Vorkosigan]

Today @ 04:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=216127#post216127)
TheFiveSolas:

So, why was Oded Golan arrested and then released? So far no charges have been filed? It's been something like two months. Where is all the proof of forgery items in his house, etc.?

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbbreakingHSJP.html


The forgery items, equipment and materials were found by the police. Haven't you been following the story? They are also pursuing other individuals. This is a huge case, 5S, going back many years (I have heard from someone in the police investigation that some suspect artifacts first surfaced as early as 1993). It isn't going to be solved in a jiffy, and the repercussions will be vast. I have no doubt that charges will not be filed for some time as the interrogation continues, and investigators negotiate with Museums to get access to suspect items.

Vorkosigan

[jpholding]

The Sept-Oct issue of BAR has an article on this subject that expands on what Shanks says in the link 5S gives.

[dizzle]

I am very interested in hearing the rest of the saga as it unfolds.

[TheFiveSolas]

Dee Dee,

So am I. There is a biblical proverb that says something like, "every story sounds true until you hear the other side." There are many inconsistencies in the story presented in this thread.

The latest update in Biblical Archaeology Review sheds light on quite a few, including examples of bias, unprofessional behavior, speculating outside of one's area of expertise, and blatant disregard for the rules of scientific inquiry (rules mandated by the Israeli Antiquities Authority itself).

Details can be read here...
http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2906f2.html

With regards to Oded Golan, last months article indicated that the Israeli judicial system is unlike our own in that they do not need definitive proof to charge someone (and hold them) for a crime. This is the reason why I found it odd that they would arrest him and then release him if they truly did find forgery items along with actual "artifacts" in process of being forged. It's now been something like four months and still nothing filed.

[Socrates]

Bones of Contention
Why I still think the James bone box is likely to be authentic.
By Ben Witherington | posted 09/22/2003
Christianity Today,October 2003
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2003/010/2.42.html

The press conference of the Israeli Antiquities Authority was announced with much fanfare, and headlines went out around the world—JAMES OSSUARY DECLARED HOAX, INSCRIPTION SAID TO BE CERTAINLY A MODERN FORGERY. Of course, it was not possible in June to critique this finding since the scientific reports that were said to be the basis of it were not released. Two months later, as I am writing this, only a summary of the findings has been released (though it is called a "final report"). One must wonder why the IAA is holding back the data, when the commission finished its work nearly three months ago.

As it is, the summary of findings of the various committees reveals major problems. If the scientific reports that are the basis of these summaries are not more substantial than the summaries, then certainly the headlines were not merely premature, but probably inaccurate as well.

Curiosities

Let us start with a few facts. First, only a few weeks after the IAA's much ballyhooed press conference, careful scholars from Toronto published more of their findings. They concluded that the inscription on the James ossuary is certainly not a modern forgery. Toronto Museum curator Ed Keall could hardly have been clearer in his article that appeared in the July/August Biblical Archaeology Review. Thus, at a minimum, we have a divided scholarly house in regard to this ossuary, and the attempt by the IAA to close the case on the James ossuary files has failed.

Second, Simcha Jacobovici, the producer of the Discovery Channel's special on the James ossuary, also held a news conference near the end of June. In it he pointed out various of the problems underlying the IAA's report and the way IAA proceeded with its examination. For example, the head of the Israeli Geological Survey initially silenced his two associates who first authenticated the patina on the ossuary, in effect overruling them. He then stated publicly that if French epigrapher André Lemaire still thinks the inscription is authentic it probably is. Then he retracted this statement. In fact, Lemaire does still believe the inscription is authentic. His detailed refutation of the IAA's findings and his devastating critique of the process will be published this fall in BAR. Something is rotten in Jerusalem, and this whole investigation begins to look more and more political.

Third, at a July panel discussion in Jerusalem after the showing of the Discovery Channel special The Brother of Jesus, Ada Yardeni, a leading Israeli authority on Hebrew and Aramaic script, continued to maintain that the inscription was authentic and that nothing the IAA's report had revealed disproved this conclusion.

Fourth, two independent examinations of the IAA's report indicate that it is far from conclusive. A team of scholars at the University of Kentucky has compared the IAA's summaries with the reports from Toronto. This team consists of Dr. Sue Rimmer (an organic petrographer), and Drs. Ana Carmo and Harry Rowe (both isotope geochemists). Their preliminary findings note the "many inconsistencies in the information we have looked at both in terms of data/observations and interpretations" and state that "the issue of whether the inscription cuts the ossuary's primary patina is unresolved" (despite the claims of some in the IAA that its report resolves the matter). The team also asks, "Is it true that only three additional ossuaries were sampled for comparison with the oxygen isotope data? On what basis were these selected?" Obviously a larger sampling is needed before one can draw sweeping conclusions.

In addition, Dr. John Eiler of the California Institute of Technology makes the important point that by its own report, the IAA admits that the film found in the ossuary letters is not identical to the patina on the Yehoash inscription—the other artifact the IAA was accusing collector Oded Golan of faking. This means that these two artifacts should not be treated as a part of a coordinated effort at forgery. Rather, each must be evaluated individually. Eiler insists that we need a double-blind test done by scientists who have no stake in the authenticity of the ossuary.

Fifth, only a few people have noticed that there were no New Testament scholars or New Testament archaeologists on the IAA committee that studied the James ossuary. This is a glaring omission. One would have hoped for at least one specialist who could relate the ossuary and its relevance to the New Testament.

Curiouser and curiouser this becomes: No internationally known scholars on this commission were from anywhere outside Israel. Nor were there any Christian scholars on this commission, even though some outstanding ones live in Jerusalem. Christian participation would have assured us that theological agendas were not at play. The conclusions of the study would have been far more convincing had there been a balanced and internationally represented team of experts on the IAA commission. A scientific inquiry wants to guard against predispositions and biases. There are serious problems with a self-chosen body like the IAA commission, especially when several of the members on the commission spoke publicly against the authenticity of the ossuary inscription before they conducted scientific tests on it.

The IAA, long before the James ossuary came to light, has repeatedly made clear that it has an agenda—to stop looters and forgers—and in the bargain to oppose collectors, who in its view aid and abet looters and forgers. These are basically admirable aims (though I do not think it is necessary to tar all collectors with the same brush), but James and his ossuary should not have been made the poster child of this crusade. It is such a high-profile artifact that it needed to be studied dispassionately. The environment of extreme suspicion that surrounded this investigation, and the attempt to proceed by a process I can only call "justification by doubt" (a process in which one shows one's scholarly acumen by discrediting something), leaves me worried that the conclusions must surely be dubious at best. It is clear that the ossuary must undergo further tests in the wake of this report.

....

Time for some rethinking

One final matter needs attention: What about the fact that the inscription appears less weathered than the rosettes that are only faintly visible on the back of the ossuary? This fact seems to have been decisive in helping Professor Frank Cross of Harvard to conclude the inscription is probably a forgery. But there are a whole series of problems with this conclusion.

First, notice the differences between the rosettes on the Caiaphas ossuary and those on the James ossuary. Those on the Caiaphas ossuary, which dates to the same era, look like they were carved last week. The ones on the James box look very faint and weathered. Wouldn't they have both aged at the same rate, since they are both made of Jerusalem limestone and both from the same era and both were put in caves in Jerusalem to start with? Here is one answer: We know that construction work on and around the Temple and the Temple mount had ground to a halt by the time James died in A.D. 62. This left a lot of stone masons with too much time and limestone on their hands. How did they continue to make a living? One thing many of them did was carve ossuaries, which were apparently becoming increasingly popular in the period between Jesus' burial (A.D. 30) and James's (A.D. 63). Of course, stone masons carved ossuaries well before they were sold. Some ossuaries were not sold for a very long time. Undoubtedly some were left out in the quarry or yard where the stone was being kept, especially modest ones, such as the James ossuary. More elaborately carved ossuaries made of higher quality stone, such as the Caiaphas ossuary, would not be left to the elements.

....

But until all the experts gain access to the IAA's data, I can affirm that André Lemaire and the Toronto scholars and I have not yet found any smoking gun in the IAA's report. I am still convinced the inscription is likely to be genuine, and will be vindicated as even further study and testing is done. In the meantime, let the scholarly debate continue, and let no one think that the IAA report is anything like the definitive word on this issue. Only God has the last word.

The ossuary still cries out to us, as Jesus once said the stones of Jerusalem would do—and what it says is James, and what it says is Joseph, and best of all what it says is Jesus. The ossuary is just possibly the Word made visible.

Ben Witherington is professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary and coauthor, with Hershel Shanks, of The Brother of Jesus: The Dramatic Story & Meaning of the First Archaeological Link to Jesus & His Family (HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).

[dizzle]

Vorg was very vocal before....

[Vorkosigan]

You mean me? It's over, DeeDee. The thing is a forgery. That's why I haven't posted. Witherington is still holding out because he has a huge book deal that was threatened by this thing. You will note that he has not a single objective fact in his piece, just the usual slander and innuendo. The only thing he can do is claim the IAA is "biased." LOL.

Simple fact: the microfossils in the patina over the inscription were different than those in the rest of the object. Therefore the patina is a forgery. The complaints of the "independent scholars" Witherington refers to are irrelevant. No amount of whining can obliterate that simple fact.

I cannot tell you all, but I do know from several people inside the police investigation and close to key players that Golan is suspected of more than a decade of forgery and that objects in other museums are being looked at. The Israeli police have also strongly hinted that Lemaire is involved (as several of us argued from the beginning). This is a classic case of fraud, DeeDee, and very easy to spot. Some people are wearing blinders, is all.

I suggest you take a gander at Trevor-Roper's The Hermit of Beijing about a very similar forger who worked in Chinese texts. You will see parallels everywhere. Another good one is Selling Hitler about the famous Hitler Diaries.

As for Golan, I don't know why he was released (nobody has told me anything). But since faked inscriptions, tools, and other impedimentia of forgery were found in his home...well....you make the call.

Interestingly, Frank Moore Cross, the giant conservative Christian scholar, has circulated a letter asked BAR et al to stop this senseless campaign, and saying the thing is a fake.

Vorkosigan

[jpholding]

As usual, all Vork has to say:

1) All the critics are biased.
2) There's no point in answering any arguments anyone offers, because the argument is already settled. So there. :tongue:

Must be fun being Vork. :rofl:

[Vorkosigan]

Yes, it is great fun being right, and from the beginning, and in the face of massive criticism. Very satisfying.

In fact, I cited several bits of evidence, JP. You might note that little reference to microfossils. They are decisive. To undo them you will have demonstrate that the IAA either lied or erred. Good luck.

Also, you might note that little reference to the fact that Golan owns a forgery factory. That's almost as decisive as the microfossils.

Vorkosigan

[jpholding]

Yes, it is great fun being right, and from the beginning, and in the face of massive criticism. Very satisfying.

Nothing like Mormon epistemology. "We're persecuted, so we must be right."

In fact, I cited several bits of evidence, JP. You might note that little reference to microfossils. They are decisive. To undo them you will have demonstrate that the IAA either lied or erred

Not unlikely. After all, they are trying to cover the egg on their face from letting the ossuary out of their sight and into Canada to begin with. :rofl: What? I can't propose a conspiracy like you do? Oh my. :rofl:

The chalk coating is addressed by Lemaire at

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbba2906f2.html

He says:

********
The first factor she cites is that “the patina in the letters is grainy ... not similar to natural patina.” How did this patina get there? According to Dr. Cohen, “It appears that ground chalk mixed with water was used to coat the letters.” She then jumps on an evil motive without considering whether other, less nefarious, reasons may explain this grainy patina—perhaps it was the accidental result of a cleaning.

Why is this grainy patina here? Dr. Cohen guesses, “Probably to camouflage the intervention of the inscription.” (Italics supplied.) Again, she is not sure. But she assumes the worst (to camouflage a forgery), without considering other, more benign, possibilities.

Then she drops a bomb. She finds that the same yellowish patina that is on the side of the ossuary is also in the incisions of the letters of “brother of Jesus.” Her exact words are: “A microscopic examination revealed the same yellowish patina as on the ossuary surface inside the letters ’brother of Jesus.’” If I understand this correctly, it means that she finds the last two words of the inscription to be authentic! And if the last two words are authentic, then, based on the paleographic, linguistic and orthographic considerations outlined above, the entire inscription is very probably authentic. Paleographical analysis shows that the entire inscription was engraved as a continuum. And linguistically it would be difficult to explain an ossuary that was inscribed only “brother of Jesus,” with nothing else, but waiting to be completed by a forger.

Dr. Cohen does not reach this conclusion, however. Instead, she finds that “even though part of the inscription may be original, the inscription in its entirety is a fake.” (Italics supplied.) This sentence is completely illogical and reveals her prejudices. How can one say, “Even though part of the inscription may be original, the inscription in its entirety is a fake”? In the same sentence, we have two statements that contradict each other!

This brings us to the two geological statements, which really form the basis for the IAA committee’s conclusion. Dr. Avner Ayalon, of the Israel Geological Survey, a geologist and an “expert on identification of materials through the study of isotopes in rock,” appears to have performed the tests, which were then analyzed by Professor Yuval Goren, an archaeologist who is also an “expert on petrography and identification of materials and sources.”

Both men specifically declare that their statements do not constitute a final report. Dr. Ayalon emphasizes at the outset that “this document does not constitute a scientific article or report.” Professor Goren states, “The following detailed summary is not a scientific article.” Therefore, unfortunately, it is impossible for other experts to review their work. It must be taken on faith, which apparently is what the other members of the committee did.

Dr. Ayalon took seven patina samples and tested them for the ratio of isotopes of oxygen of different weights. He finds that the patina in the last letter of the inscription seems old. But instead of concluding that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of this letter, he tries to explain it as a testing mistake.

Moreover—a harbinger of things to come—Dr. Ayalon suggests in the next to last paragraph of his statement that the variations in the isotope ratio could be caused by water “at temperatures of 40-50 degrees centigrade.” Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade. Would it not be possible that an energetic cleaning with warm water (40-50 degrees centigrade), perhaps with soap or soap powder, could have created a patina with the isotope ratio he found? Dr. Ayalon does not explore this possibility.

This brings us to the Final Interpreter, Professor Goren. He lets the cat out of the bag, so to speak. He concedes that “the inscription was engraved (or at least, completely cleaned) in modern times.” (Italics supplied.) Why does he put the alternative in parentheses?

Elsewhere Goren explains that the person who created the coating applied it “in order to blur the freshly engraved signs.” How can he tell? Is there not another possible explanation—a rigorous cleaning with a brush and warm water?

Interestingly, in the first quotation above (with the “or”), Goren puts the possibility of cleaning in parentheses; in the later quotation (the coating was applied “in order to blur the freshly engraved sign”), the explanation of cleaning disappears altogether. The same phenomenon appears in his “Abstracts of Findings,” where he wrote first: “The inscription was inscribed or cleaned in a modern period,” but, later on, the alternative explanation of a cleaning is no longer considered.

In fact, we know that the ossuary was cleaned. Not only did the owner tell us of this possibility, but the GSI’s first examination also recognized this, as did the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) team, which found that it was cleaned with a sharp instrument to such an extent that some of the letters of the inscription were “enhanced.” Yet the ROM team found no reason to question the authenticity of the inscription. Most significant, however, only the first part of the inscription was thoroughly cleaned. This may well explain why the ancient patina remains in the letters in the second half of the inscription.

Let us look at what is probable—aside from the conjecture that the suspicious coating was a forger’s effort to conceal his dirty work.

The owner says that he bought the ossuary several decades ago from a Jerusalem antiquities dealer in the Old City. On the market, the price of an ossuary depends on the quality of its decoration and/or its inscription. An uninscribed, undecorated ossuary has very little value. Obviously, the seller wants to show off his goods to advantage, emphasizing the quality of the decoration and the clarity of the inscription. In this case, the decoration was so faint he may not even have noticed it. Even if he did, he could not argue that this significantly increased the ossuary’s value. The inscription, however, was a different matter. He very probably tried to clean it. How? With a brush, warm water and perhaps a nail to get inside the letters. In this way, the letters would look sharper. Admittedly, this is conjectural, but at least it is a plausible scenario.

Later, according to the owner, the ossuary was placed on the balcony of his parents’ apartment. The balcony was partially open and from time to time rain would come in and standard heating was sometimes used during the winter. Later on, the ossuary was on a balcony and in a small back room of his apartment and from time to time cleaned by maids.

Still later, the owner put the ossuary in storage, where it was when he first showed me a photograph of it. In the Tel Aviv area, it would have been in a much wetter atmosphere than in a Jerusalem cave—and also in a much warmer climate, with more variation in temperature.

The possibilities are better stated by Dr. Amos Bein, the director of the Israel Geological Survey, who told Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici quite specifically that the work Dr. Ayalon did for the Survey did not show that the inscription was a forgery. In Dr. Bein’s words:

“We didn’t decide the inscription is fake,” he said. “If somebody would like to preserve the inscription, or would like to improve its appearance, and he would like to clean it, and thereafter to make it shine better, and he made [a] procedure of cleaning, thereafter adding warm water and so on, he may have created some carbonate particles which may provide this isotopic composition.”

As between the two explanations—forgery or cleaning—the latter is consistent with the paleography and the linguistics, both of which indicate that the inscription is one continuum.

Surely, the explanation for the patina as a result of a modern cleaning (or cleanings) is at least plausible. In fact, this explanation has been espoused by two previous materials examinations, one by the Israel Geological Survey and the other by the ROM. Their studies, however, were not mentioned by the IAA committee.

*****
Also, you might note that little reference to the fact that Golan owns a forgery factory. That's almost as decisive as the microfossils.

Yes, we know. Guilty until proven innocent. Please do not try to get on the Supreme Court. :rofl:

[Vorkosigan]

Surely, the explanation for the patina as a result of a modern cleaning (or cleanings) is at least plausible.

LOL. JP, as numerous authorities have pointed out, patina is like baked on glass. You can't alter it with a brush and warm water. But, then, Lemaire does have a book to sell, and jail to avoid....

I'll let you have the last word. Indeed, since history already has, there's no need for me to.

Vorkosigan

[jpholding]

Vorkosigan:

LOL. JP, as numerous authorities have pointed out, patina is like baked on glass. You can't alter it with a brush and warm water. But, then, Lemaire does have a book to sell, and jail to avoid....



ROFLOL. As only one "authority" (a non-geologist) said that I know of, Vork. And he was completely contradicted by a geologist (an expert in limestone) I spoke to who said that patina could indeed be affected thusly.

I'll let you have the last word. Indeed, since history already has, there's no need for me to.

IOW you have no refutation and this is your way to save face. See ya.

[TheFiveSolas]

Another update showing that the IAA's (Israeli Antiquity Authority) report that the James ossuary is a fraud was itself deeply flawed.

Apparently, the geochemical testing done by the IAA, which was the basis for their determination that the box was a fraud, was based on flawed chemistry.

Full article here...

http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbbreakingflawed.html

Note: the article's author is...
James A. Harrell
Professor of Geology
Department of Earth, Ecological and Environmental Sciences
The University of Toledo

On top of that, are we still to believe that Oded Golan is an alleged expert forger and yet is STILL not in jail, nor even charged? And this in spite of the fact that Israeli laws of evidence/proof are nowhere near as stringent as in the states when it comes to arresting and charging someone with a crime. It's been what, six months? It seems the grandiose claims made at the beginning of this thread have disappeared into wisps of smoke.

[Rho_Cassiopeiae]

You guys really believe the ossuary is genuine?

I have some of Jesus' knuckles to sell you plus a burial shroud I just happened to acquire.

Some folks will just grasp at anything in hope of validating their faith and beliefs.

Hey, where is that fraud Ron Wyatt, I'm sure he has the real ossuary.

LOL LOL LOL

I have contacted you several times by email asking for a response by email. My email is ddw@theologyweb.com. Your account will not be restored until you contact me.

[Vorkosigan]

On top of that, are we still to believe that Oded Golan is an alleged expert forger and yet is STILL not in jail, nor even charged?

Yes, they need his cooperation, and also the cooperation of those museums to whom he sold objects. The forger has had a long career, and his cooperation is essential. Additionally, he has a partner who the police want to bag as well. Or perhaps Oded has some friends in high places, which wouldn't be surprising, since Yuval Goren has already started to put pressure on museums to hand over several suspected Golan specials, and they are objecting strenuously.

All in all, this is a very complex story, and it has been a pleasure to watch it unfold. Let's hope the next installments are as exciting as the previous ones, eh?

Vorkosigan

[ClokWerk]

I can't wait to see if the likes of JP Holding will defend the "Jesus Ossuary" as faithfully as he has defended the James Ossuary!! This should provide lots of fun ahead!

It's interesting that the patina from the James ossurary matches that of the Jesus family. There was possibly an empty space that would have fit the James box. So, yes, Mr. Holding... MAYBE the James Ossury is authentic! And maybe the Jesus one is too! Not only are the skeptics wrong who deny that Jesus really existed, but we have his bones to prove it!!!

Put that in your pipe and smoke it...

[Teallaura]

Hmmm, haven't had that morning cup of coffee, huh?

The bones were reburied years ago, genius - they were not tested and no one 'has' them at present. They did DNA tests on the residue in the ossuaries for mitochrondrial DNA - which cannot rule out paternal relationships.

:no:

[jpholding]

Sorry chump,

It seems that the patina is a no-brainer....the type of dirt in question is very, very common....

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/ see point 8. I more or less suspected this before Dr W put it to rest. Plus no mention of the Silwan soil...hummm....

Maybe YOU need to take the advice of those who were cautious (as I was) about the James ossuary before weighing in on it....

If you want your bottom tanned some more, come see me in my own section here on TWeb....due to time constraints, I don't go anywhere else these days....

[ClokWerk]

ah, I see. Already on the other side with this one. No one who believes in Jesus is open to the possibility that they just might be wrong. Oh, they'll claim to be objective, reasonable, and open-minded. But ask yourself, What was the FIRST thing that went into your head when you heard about the James ossuary? Remember back to that? What was the second thing? the third?
Now what about the Jesus ossuary? You don't have to print it on here.. but just to challenge yourself, what was the FIRST thing that entered your head when you found out about it? Do you really have as open a mind as you claim?

I personally have no opinion on it either way. Maybe yes, maybe no. Doesn't really matter to me, but just interesting to see the lengths people will go on issues that support what they believe, and what they do with those issues that could be opposed to what they believe.

Carry on, and have fun!

[Rayado]

Doesn't really matter to me, but just interesting to see the lengths people will go on issues that support what they believe, and what they do with those issues that could be opposed to what they believe.

Funny how that more accurately describes those who support Cameron's view more than it does Christians.

[Dr.GH]

None of the TWeb posters have any personal, professional experience with his material. This includes myself. For some relevant information I suggest reading, "Against My Better Judgment." (http://www.telecomtally.com/blog/2007/02/against_my_bett.html)

[jpholding]

ah, I see. Already on the other side with this one. No one who believes in Jesus is open to the possibility that they just might be wrong.

Usually that's what happens when you have already done the requisite homework as opposed to spending your time readings books like The Skeptic's Pop Up Book of Bybull Errors.

Oh, they'll claim to be objective, reasonable, and open-minded. But ask yourself, What was the FIRST thing that went into your head when you heard about the James ossuary?

"That will be interesting if it turns out to be genuine." How''s that grab you, moron? :lol:


Remember back to that? What was the second thing? the third?

2) "I'll have to keep an eye on this. I'll be sure and check reputable sources like BAR from both sides"
3) "OK, now let's see what's on the other channel."

It's too bad this "motivation fair" is the extent of your arguments on these subjects. Otherwise you might one day be worthy to graduate from kindergarten.


Now what about the Jesus ossuary? You don't have to print it on here.. but just to challenge yourself, what was the FIRST thing that entered your head when you found out about it? Do you really have as open a mind as you claim?

Yep. The bad news for you is that I've done so much homework that I found it easy to spot the problems from the initial reports. An "open mind" like yours is the sort that is so open your brains have fallen out. :lmbo:


I personally have no opinion on it either way. Maybe yes, maybe no. Doesn't really matter to me, but just interesting to see the lengths people will go on issues that support what they believe,

And to backpedal when they're called down on what they say. :thumb: