James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus

[Jayhawker Soule]

After reading the full analyais, there seems little doubt that ...

... their knee jerk reaction to the dismissal of forgery charges is ....

"knee jerk" indeed ...

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Nonsense! Even an agenda-driven moron knows that the inability to prove forgery beyond a reasonable doubt constitutes prima facie proof of authenticity. :yes:

It's a good thing I'm not an agenda-driven moron, otherwise it may obscure my awareness of the simple fact that the attempt by the skeptics to prove it to be a forgery was a failure. :yes:

Can you understand that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I suspect that you're not used to that generous a compliment.

Lol angellous_evangellous..well I do acknowledge a good sense of humour..

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's a good thing I'm not an agenda-driven moron, otherwise it may obscure my awareness of the simple fact that the attempt by the skeptics to prove it to be a forgery was a failure. :yes:

Can you understand that?

How nicely you have proved his point.

(reread his post again, ignoring the "moron" part if it distracts you)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Lol angellous_evangellous..well I do acknowledge a good sense of humour..

:takeabow:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

:takeabow:

:clap :foryou: :clap

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How nicely you have proved his point.

(reread his post again, ignoring the "moron" part if it distracts you)

The reason why there was a court case in the first place was because the skeptics tried to prove it to be a forgery,..that has failed big time,..get over it already!!!

Sure, you can read it into it just what you want to make your position right in your own mind, but the fact remains that the artifact could not be proven to be a forgery.

So you and js can now retreat to a position that you now have, that the court decision doesn't change our opinion and we still think it is a forgery.

But you don't speak for all scholars,.. there are certain to be many who will revisit the question with a now more open mind.

Btw angellous_evangellous, it wasn't the "moron" part, but the "agenda driven" jibe that hurt my feelings.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The reason why there was a court case in the first place was because the skeptics tried to prove it to be a forgery,..that has failed big time,..get over it already!!!

You've misunderstood the trial - completely.

The trial did not prove anything. Nothing. The ossuary wasn't proven a forgery OR that it was authentic.

The owner of the artifact, however, was convicted:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...acquitted-of-antiquities-fraud_n_1344994.html

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.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You've misunderstood the trial - completely.

The trial did not prove anything. Nothing. The ossuary wasn't proven a forgery OR that it was authentic.

The owner of the artifact, however, was convicted:

Oded Golan, James Ossuary Proponent, Acquitted of Antiquities Fraud

No, don't try and spin the facts to obscure the salient facts.

The ossuary was not proven a forgery in a court of law that employed the finest and brightest skeptics out to try and prove it was....period!

Now that has to count as something in people's minds, towards there being the possibility that it could actually be authentic.

Tell me this is the logic of a moron and I'll show you an agenda driven skeptic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, don't try and spin the facts to obscure the salient facts.

The ossuary was not proven a forgery in a court of law that employed the finest and brightest skeptics out to try and prove it was....period!

Now that has to count as something in people's minds, towards there being the possibility that it could actually be authentic.

Tell me this is the logic of a moron and I'll show you an agenda driven skeptic.

haha - that's not spin. The ossuary was NOT proven authentic, nor was it proven authentic. To imply otherwise is openly intellectually dishonest.

There wasn't enough evidence to convict anyone of forgery, but Golan was convicted of similar types of fraud. Because of the shady acquisition of the piece, no scholar will touch it, and there is no convincing argument that it is authentic. In other words, there is no reason for a scholar to try to demonstrate its authenticity so it won't be done.

 

[gnostic]

The reason why there was a court case in the first place was because the skeptics tried to prove it to be a forgery,..that has failed big time,..get over it already!!!

The court also didn't prove that either the box or the plaque to be "authentic". That's not really for the court to decide, in any case. The court, or any court around the world, are not experts in antiquities, so they can't prove one way or another.

What the court can try to do was to determine if Golan commit a crime or not. It doesn't authenticate either the plaque or funerary box to be authentic.

Both items are still to be thoroughly tested.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The court also didn't prove that either the box or the plaque to be "authentic". That's not really for the court to decide, in any case. The court, or any court around the world, are not experts in antiquities, so they can't prove one way or another.

What the court can try to do was to determine if Golan commit a crime or not. It doesn't authenticate either the plaque or funerary box to be authentic.

Both items are still to be thoroughly tested.

The skeptics did employ experts in antiquities, and so did the defense, so the experts for the defense were able to show that the experts for the prosecution were not sufficiently credible to convince the court...yes!!!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

haha - that's not spin. The ossuary was NOT proven authentic, nor was it proven authentic. To imply otherwise is openly intellectually dishonest.

There wasn't enough evidence to convict anyone of forgery, but Golan was convicted of similar types of fraud. Because of the shady acquisition of the piece, no scholar will touch it, and there is no convincing argument that it is authentic. In other words, there is no reason for a scholar to try to demonstrate its authenticity so it won't be done.

The prosecution did employ scholars in antiquities, as did the defense, and the scholars for the defense were able to show that the scholars for the prosecution were not sufficiently credible to convince the court, not the other way round...yes!!!

 

[garrydons]

This is another astounding proof that Yeshua (Jesus) had a brother. Hence, the doctrine that Miryam (Mary) remains virgin in her whole lifetime is questionable.

 

[Kathryn]

This is another astounding proof that Yeshua (Jesus) had a brother. Hence, the doctrine that Miryam (Mary) remains virgin in her whole lifetime is questionable.

1. It's far from proof since it has not been authenticated and it's "finder" is sitting in jail for creating fraudulent "antiquities."

2. Jesus may have had brothers, or step brothers, or cousins or other close relatives living in His household. Extended households were the norm in that day,and any close relative, or even close friend, was called "brother." The greek word for "brother" that is used in the Gospels to describe Jesus' family is used interchangeably throughout the NT for the word "cousin" and "friend" and "relative."

3. The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has always been questionable - unless one is Catholic. I've yet to see any proof one way or the other.

 

[garrydons]

Please do not be offended especially devout Catholics. Maybe we need to examine carefully what has been written in the Bible. Let us be open-minded if we really needs to know the truth. When the Apostles said that here is your mother and your brothers, the Bible did not say that they are just step brother, close relatives or extended households. Otherwise we might be adding what is written in the Bible and violate God's command not to add or subtract His Words. Did the Bible ever say Mary is always and will remains to be virgin? The Bible did not say either. Of course when he conceived Jesus, she was virgin. Again, let us study the Bible with sincere, open mind.

 

[Kathryn]

Please do not be offended especially devout Catholics. Maybe we need to examine carefully what has been written in the Bible. Let us be open-minded if we really needs to know the truth. When the Apostles said that here is your mother and your brothers, the Bible did not say that they are just step brother, close relatives or extended households. Otherwise we might be adding what is written in the Bible and violate God's command not to add or subtract His Words. Did the Bible ever say Mary is always and will remains to be virgin? The Bible did not say either. Of course when he conceived Jesus, she was virgin. Again, let us study the Bible with sincere, open mind.

Did you even read what I posted about the Greek word for "brother" and how it is used throughout the New Testament?

 

[garrydons]

Shalom Kathryn. I do not disregard the fact that the term brother is also used for even just for friends. But I invite you to analyze these. Did Joseph abandon Mary when she begot Jesus? Or did was there a record in the Scriptures that Joseph did not touch Mary after Jesus was born? There is none right? So the possibility is there that Mary bore a child or children after Jesus.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

1. It's far from proof since it has not been authenticated and it's "finder" is sitting in jail for creating fraudulent "antiquities."

2. Jesus may have had brothers, or step brothers, or cousins or other close relatives living in His household. Extended households were the norm in that day,and any close relative, or even close friend, was called "brother." The greek word for "brother" that is used in the Gospels to describe Jesus' family is used interchangeably throughout the NT for the word "cousin" and "friend" and "relative."

3. The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity has always been questionable - unless one is Catholic. I've yet to see any proof one way or the other.

1. Of course there are those who are refusing to agree to its authenticity, but it has passed the test so far as those experts who do aver to its authenticity are concerned.

However the reality is that as of now, it can be now put on the market as authentic and the nay sayers can only standby and accept that. It doesn't mean that they agree, but they have to accept that it can legally be sold as an authentic item.

2. Jesus may have had brothers,...you've got to be kidding?

Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

Mark 3:31 "There came then His Brethren and His Mother, and standing without, sent unto Him calling Him."

Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.".

3. No comment.

Fwiw, in light of point 2, I do remember that some Catholics do not accept Jesus as having any brothers due to the virginity aspect of Mary, and hence it occurs to me that angellous_evangellous is one of those. If this is so, then in the context of the OP, his is an agenda driven denial based on church dogma, not scientific understanding.

 

[Inthedark]

I think the court was unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that the item was not a forgery. I do not attach any validation of the item in that determination, only that the required level of proof was not reached, that level being quite high. I don't think it is responsible to attach value this way or that, given that the court was unable to decide, you might say at a push that it is safe to say that if it is a forgery, it is a good one, but the point in issue remains unresolved, as no determination has been made.