The Lost Tomb of Jesus at Talpiot

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In other news, "Hubble Space Telescope Gets First Clear Pictures of Asgard."

The disturbing news there is that the ice giants seem to be fully in control of the place. This is balanced out by the fact that Ouroboros appears ready to barf.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There you are pappa, Gawdzill thinks that Jesus never existed. You didn't have to wait long.
And Gawdzilla, why are you linking an extreme Christian site to refute this? Are you that gullible?
.

Nope, just laughing at the pissing contest between extremists. You on one side, some other brand of fundy on the other. Eat each other alive, please.

[mistermack]

No, they are not. The inscriptions are disputed. Some experts don't even think it says Jesus.

Like I said, there are very good reasons for the Israelis to rubbish this, and you will always find an 'expert' to try it on.
No unbiased person could find that. Even I can see it says Jesus.

Well, if not caring either way is unbiased, then I'm unbiased and I can't see that it clearly says Jesus in the inscription. I would go as far as saying it is clearly ambiguous.

When this first came out, NOBODY questioned the Jesus inscription. And that included the best experts in those scripts. Since then, some have mysteriously changed their story.
I first looked at this years ago, in very fine detail, and if you look up the characters, they are perfectly clear.
And that was confirmed by the best scholars available, none of whom voiced any doubt at the time.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

When this first came out, NOBODY questioned the Jesus inscription.
.

Bullshit.

[Pappa]

When this first came out, NOBODY questioned the Jesus inscription. And that included the best experts in those scripts. Since then, some have mysteriously changed their story.
I first looked at this years ago, in very fine detail, and if you look up the characters, they are perfectly clear.
And that was confirmed by the best scholars available, none of whom voiced any doubt at the time.
.

No, they aren't. The characters in the word Jesus are merged together for no obvious reason, and the inscription can have other interpretations. I can't comment on whether the experts you mention are actually the best or not, as I don't have any knowledge about the field. But I have read that some experts (and not just crackpot Israeli Jews or whatever you think they are), have reservations about the inscriptions and have offered alternative interpretations.

[mistermack]

No, they aren't. The characters in the word Jesus are merged together for no obvious reason, and the inscription can have other interpretations. I can't comment on whether the experts you mention are actually the best or not, as I don't have any knowledge about the field. But I have read that some experts (and not just crackpot Israeli Jews or whatever you think they are), have reservations about the inscriptions and have offered alternative interpretations.

I'm not saying anybody is a crackpot. I'm saying that the Israelis have very good reasons for kicking this into the long grass, and who could blame them?
I would do the same, in their shoes.
The same goes for most biblical scholars too. Where would they stand if these bones could be proved to belong to the biblical Jesus? Most would be looking for a new job.
You might think it's normal behaviour to find a tomb with a box inscribed Jesus, son of Joseph, ( as it was accepted then ), with all the other names as well, and just to put it at the back of a warehouse, and keep it quiet.
I think it's highly suspicious, and colours everything that comes out of the Israeli antiquities dept. thereafter.
.

[Pappa]

No, they aren't. The characters in the word Jesus are merged together for no obvious reason, and the inscription can have other interpretations. I can't comment on whether the experts you mention are actually the best or not, as I don't have any knowledge about the field. But I have read that some experts (and not just crackpot Israeli Jews or whatever you think they are), have reservations about the inscriptions and have offered alternative interpretations.

I'm not saying anybody is a crackpot. I'm saying that the Israelis have very good reasons for kicking this into the long grass, and who could blame them?
I would do the same, in their shoes.
The same goes for most biblical scholars too. Where would they stand if these bones could be proved to belong to the biblical Jesus? Most would be looking for a new job.
You might think it's normal behaviour to find a tomb with a box inscribed Jesus, son of Joseph, ( as it was accepted then ), with all the other names as well, and just to put it at the back of a warehouse, and keep it quiet.
I think it's highly suspicious, and colours everything that comes out of the Israeli antiquities dept. thereafter.
.

I don't think it's suspicious because I don't think it was ever as clear cut as you suggested it was. It has never been widely accepted by enough experts in the first place.

[colubridae]

Fuck me. It's jebsus (again) :sighsm:

face-on-mars 2 .jpg (15.91 KiB) Viewed 378 times

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Fuck me. It's jebsus (again) :sighsm:

face-on-mars 2 .jpg

Can be, not gay enough.

[colubridae]

Fuck me. It's jebsus (again) :sighsm:

face-on-mars 2 .jpg

Can be, not gay enough.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Damn it! "Can't be". I have a hard time being negative.

[mistermack]

I don't think it's suspicious because I don't think it was ever as clear cut as you suggested it was. It has never been widely accepted by enough experts in the first place.

Well, I'm happy with Professor Frank Moore Cross's opinion, given before the release of the film.
Professor Emeritus at Harvard, he had no doubt it read Jesus, son of Joseph.
Strange how the back-pedalling started, after the film. The film was just too Holywood, too sensationalist, and got in the way of the facts really.
Now nobody wants to be seen agreeing with the conclusion of a sensationalist, water muddying film.
But if you read wikipedia on it, or any other current rejection, you will read arguments that are patently bogus, many of them downright ludicrous, and you have to ask 'why?'.
.

[mistermack]

What were the bogus arguments used to discredit this find? Here are some of the most common:

1) The common names argument. Completely bogus, the name Mariah being treated as Mary, Jose being treated as Joseph. And no mention of the fact that no such cluster has ever been found before or since, remotely like this one.

2) The site of the Tomb. Some argued that it's too far (three miles), that they wouldn't have moved the body that far. Ludicrous, but it was said in all seriousness. Others, equally crazily, argued that the body would have been sure to have been taken to Galillee, and buried there. They can't both be right.

3)Those who know better have declared that the real family of Jesus was too poor to be able to afford a family tomb. This is absolute tosh. Jesus had many hundreds of followers, if not thousands, and it would be inconceivable that they wouldn’t give him a decent burial. Many hands make light work, so carving out a burial cave in the soft limestone would present no problem at all. He did, after all, have four brothers who were sons of a builder, so hammer and chisel work would come easily to them. Also, some of his followers were wealthy, so money would have been available.

In fact, the truth is the opposite of their argument. Jesus was one of a small portion of the population who you would definitely expect to be found in a family tomb. So this makes the authenticity more likely, not less.
.

[Pappa]

Jesus had many hundreds of followers, if not thousands

How can you possibly know that's true?

[mistermack]

Jesus had many hundreds of followers, if not thousands

How can you possibly know that's true?

I don't claim to know it's true, it's a reasonable inference. Firstly from what Paul wrote and secondly, by the fact that he was worth executing. And thirdly by the rapid growth of the cult. It had to start from some sort of following.
Anyway, it would only take half a dozen to start a tomb off, so it's not important.
.