Ancients.info - The Online Resource for Ancient Coins & Antiquities  

Go Back   Ancients.info - The Online Resource for Ancient Coins & Antiquities > Miscellaneous > Archeology
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Sidebar Off

Archeology All aspects of archeology, including moral, ethical, and legal considerations.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Mar 2, 2007, 09:31 AM   #1
Salem
Registered User
 
Salem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Windsor
Posts: 204
   View My Photo Gallery
Jesus Tomb is faked here is the prove???

For days I have been working on the script that the Discovery Channel shows on the alleged Ossuary of Jesus. As a world renowned expert in Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic Script I say that the script that the Discovery Channal says it is Jesus Ossuary is not Aramic but Hebrew, and it is not even close to what they transelate as (YSHWA BR JOUSEPH) , I have noted that:

1: The text is NOT Aramaic on the alleged Ossuary of Jesus, as suggested by the researchers, but rather Ancient Hebrew text. I notice that there has been Graffitti added to the Ancient Hebrew script. I removed the Grafitti and noticed pure Ancient Hebrew letters which could go unnoticed by some one who is not familiar with both Ancient Hebrew and Aramaic script. The text is therefore in Ancient Hebrew and reads (Y or L)HN BR OGO(H or D)L, which means (LHN or YHN) son of OJODL, I included the script from the Discovery Channel, and I marked the added Graftti in red.
I believe this whole story to be false and in any case in Hebrew or even if it was Aramic the script is not close at all to YSHWA BR JOSEPF, (JESUS SON OF JOSEPH).

2: The reported Aramaic text as indicated by the researchers that written on the other Ossuaries are in Ancient Aramic .

3: The remaining Ossuaries of the rest of Jesus family in the Tomb have varying scripts, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and this lead me to believe that there is a mix of Ossuaries from maybe other Tombs collected in one tomb. I studied the text of each tomb and due to the differences in text believe that the tombs were not found together, but could have perhaps been placed together, strategically to indicate that this is Jesus family Tomb.

4: The ancient Jewish tradition is to always to put the name of the deceased and also his/her father’s name on the tomb. It seems very unusual to find the words “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus” on the tomb believed to contain James remaine .
5: This Tomb seems to be for a family who was from a middle to high class based on the Ossuaries decorations, and the Tomb from out side Decoration, Religious texts do not place Jesus in the middle upper class.

6: There is no indication that this Tomb was hidden from the public, historically. If this tomb did actually contain Jesus and His family, I would have expected that there would have been a holy place of worship nearby, as a religious stopping point for believers to worship the deceased. There are many religious sites in the Holy Land for example, the site of John the Baptist next to Alkafreen town in the Jordan vally, the Tomb of MOSES at Nebo mountain, the cave of the sleepers to the east of Amman (ancient Philadelphia) At these holy places you always find an adjacent place of worship , and why not in this case?

7: The style of the Ossuaries does not indicate that they are from the same time period. I have personally viewed many familial tombs, and have never seen such a mixed Ossaury with varying styles and scripts, in one family tomb of the same time period.

Please note the script that was shown in Descovery Channal as the script at Jesus Ossuary where I have noted the grafitti in red.

Regards,
Salem Alshdaifat
Attached Images
File Type: jpg discovery jesus.JPG (14.4 KB, 103 views)

Last edited by Salem : Mar 2, 2007 at 06:50 PM.
Salem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 11:04 AM   #2
Scotvs Capitis
Registered User
 
Scotvs Capitis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 432
   View My Photo Gallery
Send a message via MSN to Scotvs Capitis
Very interesting. This Discovery thing didn't seem right from the beginning to me, for many reasons. Salem, you say the tomb was not blocked or covered, do you mean that people have had access to this particular site for years?
__________________
SCOTT HEAD, Houston, Texas
SCOTVS CAPITVS BLOG
SOLI GLORIA DEO
Scotvs Capitis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 11:11 AM   #3
4to2centophilia
Registered User
 
4to2centophilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,499
   View My Photo Gallery
Salem

Since I have been participating in this discussion on the other board, I saw your post about this.

If you are confident in you assertions that this is Hebrew with graffiti included to change the letters, than I would have to say that you may be on to something.

Question for you. Do you have any contacts in the realm of archeology that you can share these observations with? I would be interested if they agree and if they would raise this issue on a broader level.

BR

Mark
4to2centophilia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 2, 2007, 11:22 AM   #4
Salem
Registered User
 
Salem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Windsor
Posts: 204
   View My Photo Gallery
in the past times they cover the Tomb with big stone to be able to put more dead people from the same family later, and when the tomb is full, and that make the tomb visable for many years befor it is full and they close it with a material that is close to wall cover today, and some time they cover it with soil, I am sure from the information and how I read the script, I will call David Hendin to confirm, and few other people who are familiar with Hebrew script.
plz read this article with ancient Hebrew script??????
http://www.forumancientcoins.com/boa...seen#msg226429
regards
Salem

Last edited by Salem : Mar 2, 2007 at 09:56 PM.
Salem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2007, 02:23 PM   #5
4to2centophilia
Registered User
 
4to2centophilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,499
   View My Photo Gallery
From a blog at Scientific American, in the comments section

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=says_scholar_whose_work_was_used_i n_the_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Comment from: Dr. Ben Witherington,III, Prof. of NT, Asbury Theological Seminary [Visitor]
Thank you for this clarification on the scientific side of this cause celebre. The problem here lies not with the execution by the scientists of the tasks they were asked to do. The problem lies with the presuppositions of the film makers which led to a giving of a certain kind of data to the DNA expert and the statistician, and the chemical analyst, and the conclusions they want to draw from the results of the scientific tests.

As someone who co-authored the book on the previous ossuary flap involving the James ossuary, it is very clear to me that such scientific testing seldom can produce conclusive results, especially when too little data is tested.

In the case of the DNA, all the named ossuaries needed to be tested, but were not, and there needed to be a control sample (say from the James ossuary) to compare what was found in the Talpiot tomb. If there was a match between the James ossuary test and one or more of those in the Talpiot tomb, then we have a real story. But it is ludicrous to argue-- "there was not a match between the two samples tested, and so these people are unrelated, and therefore they must be married!" What we know about Jewish clan tombs like this is they are multi-generational and there will be various people in the tomb who will not be shown to be related through a mitacondrial DNA test, which shows the matrilineal side of things.

This brings me to the statistical analysis and the conclusions drawn from it which are equally flawed. When you have a multi-generational tomb you do not have a fixed number of residents in Jerusalem to compare the data to. You would have to add up the population of probably 2-3 generations to have an accurate frame of reference for doing percentages in regard to the names.

In addition, the truth is, much of the data about names is yet to be unearthed-- the majority of tombs even in the Jerusalem area still are yet to be dug. My point is this--- you can't even begin to say that this preponderance of names is representative of the whole set, when the majority of the evidence, or at least a large segment, is yet to be unearthed! And as for the cluster of names, we find this very same kind of cluster of Jewish names, most of the very same names, in the Dominus flevit ossuaries, from a multi-generational Christian crypt in Jerusalem. There are in fact two known ossuaries with the inscription Jesus son of Joseph, and neither of them are likely to belong to the historical Jesus of Nazareth for the very good reason that neither his family nor his disciples called him 'Jesus son of Joseph'. He was known by them to be the son of Mary, but not of Joseph.

As for the patina finger print test on the terra rosa, it is interesting that the chemical analysis from the James ossuary and the Talpiot ossuaries shows a close similarity of chemical composition. However since terra rosa is a very common phenomena in the Jerusalem area, you absolutely cannot conclude from this similarity that these ossuaries all came from the same tomb, much less that the James ossuary is in any way related to the Talpiot ossuaries.

In short, while the scientific tests were no doubt done with care and integrity, the interpretation of the data by the film makers not only goes way beyond the evidence, it involves the sort of manipulation of data to fit your theory that scientists rightly abhor. It is not a surprise that scientists and archaeologists and historians are all up in arms about this. They have a right to be. Make no bones about, the Talpiot tomb is not at all likely connected to any member of Jesus' family. This show falls into the category of a docu-drama with an ax to grind, not a historical documentary.

Dr. Ben Witherington, III
Prof. of NT
Asbury Theological Seminary
March 3, 2007 @ 09:26
4to2centophilia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 3, 2007, 06:55 PM   #6
cogito
Moderator
 
cogito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Piedmont of North Carolina
Posts: 1,721
   View My Photo Gallery
While these may prove not to the remains of Jesus and friends, I'm always drawn in matters Biblical to the maxim of Occam's razor...

What's more probable? That a person died and all earthly remains disappeared from the face of the Earth, or that the person died and was deified by his followers and through centuries of oral tradition was given mystical powers? Heretical, I know...but still what's the most probable scenario?

Lastly, many are making an issue about the Jesus listed on the ossuary, but what of the ossuary that is clearly demarcated as Mary Magdelene? There were likely to be hundreds of Marys at the time, but how many with the same first and last name? What are the odds that an ossuary carrying her full name would be found with those hinting at the word Jesus and Joshua? And, why is it only her ossuary that has the full name? Is it because she was not related to the remaining individuals by birth or marriage?

Jeff
cogito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2007, 05:31 AM   #7
4to2centophilia
Registered User
 
4to2centophilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,499
   View My Photo Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by cogito View Post
While these may prove not to the remains of Jesus and friends, I'm always drawn in matters Biblical to the maxim of Occam's razor...

What's more probable? That a person died and all earthly remains disappeared from the face of the Earth, or that the person died and was deified by his followers and through centuries of oral tradition was given mystical powers? Heretical, I know...but still what's the most probable scenario?

Jeff
Jeff

I don't see how you can use that reasoning with a book like the Bible. The point of some of it's claims/stories is that these are extraordinary events that defy explanation. That means Occams razor would not be applicable.

I won't comment further since I am trying to avoid any comments championing or refuting any belief system. I am remaining as objective as possible.

Mark


BTW Just started reading this a moment ago.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/ma...a66&ei=5087%0A
4to2centophilia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2007, 09:16 AM   #8
cogito
Moderator
 
cogito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Piedmont of North Carolina
Posts: 1,721
   View My Photo Gallery
Mark,

I wasn't trying to refute the existence of God or Jesus. I was, however, pointing out that the current Bible has been changed repeatedly over the centuries, either as a result of political need or doctrinal whim. Using the King James Bible as a wayfinder for current archeological sites and knowledge is like using a 15th century map to find the island of California.

Just recently there was a substantial (and substantiated) find of the Gospel of Judas that indicates that he was not the villan made out to be in post-Medieval Bible versions. This find produced a minor hiccup of interest and then quickly faded from public consciousness. While I'm very skeptical about the whole Jesus tomb thing, I don't believe that if it were true that it would negate the spiritual worth and faith of millions. If anything it would be incorporated into a modified belief system, because it is not the doctrine that defines religious experience but our innate need to believe in something better than ourselves.

Jeff
cogito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2007, 09:56 AM   #9
Salem
Registered User
 
Salem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Windsor
Posts: 204
   View My Photo Gallery
I was focused at the story as every one, and never thought in the begining to look at the script, it is very easy, the name at the Ossuary is ancient Hebrew and it is not even close to Jesus name, it is completly deferant name, this is the end of the story for me, plz see this link http://www.forumancientcoins.com/boa...=35709.new#new

Salem Alshdaifat
Salem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2007, 11:37 AM   #10
Scotvs Capitis
Registered User
 
Scotvs Capitis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 432
   View My Photo Gallery
Send a message via MSN to Scotvs Capitis
Quote:
Originally Posted by cogito View Post
Mark,

I wasn't trying to refute the existence of God or Jesus. I was, however, pointing out that the current Bible has been changed repeatedly over the centuries, either as a result of political need or doctrinal whim. Using the King James Bible as a wayfinder for current archeological sites and knowledge is like using a 15th century map to find the island of California.


Jeff
Jeff,

I would challenge anyone to show me the supposed changes and sweeping edits that are often charged to the Bible by many, I for one don't see them. If you look at the oldest extant manuscript fragments available and compare them to a modern version, there are only minor syntactical revisions and some vocabulary edits, none of which change the meaning of the text. Even secular scholars, if they are honest about it (and many are), will attest to the unequaled preservation of the content of the old and new testaments. It is true that there are some episodes of questionable traslation motive, the King James as a political response to the Geneva Bible and the earlier Geneva's rather blatant anti-Catholic tone come to mind. Yet the translation debate around these versions are over a handful of words, and in the Genevs Bible's case not even the words but the notes.

What archaeology, textual criticism and linguistics continue to show is that the text of the modern Bible has been preserved with rather unusual fidelity. One can argue about the meaning of the writers and if Judas was or wasn't displayed as a terrible villain in the Bible (to use your example) but this isn't a result of editing/translating/revising, but of intent of the writer himself.
__________________
SCOTT HEAD, Houston, Texas
SCOTVS CAPITVS BLOG
SOLI GLORIA DEO
Scotvs Capitis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2007, 12:17 PM   #11
4to2centophilia
Registered User
 
4to2centophilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,499
   View My Photo Gallery
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salem View Post
I was focused at the story as every one, and never thought in the begining to look at the script, it is very easy, the name at the Ossuary is ancient Hebrew and it is not even close to Jesus name, it is completly deferant name, this is the end of the story for me, plz see this link http://www.forumancientcoins.com/boa...=35709.new#new

Salem Alshdaifat
Salem

I don't know which ossuary out of the six this is, but in case you didn't see this one, I figured you could check if this is decipherable.


Also the script below is supposed to be Judas, son of Jesus (Yeshua).

Attached Images
File Type: jpg untitled1.JPG (38.0 KB, 65 views)

Last edited by 4to2centophilia : Mar 4, 2007 at 12:22 PM.
4to2centophilia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2007, 12:34 PM   #12
cogito
Moderator
 
cogito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Piedmont of North Carolina
Posts: 1,721
   View My Photo Gallery
Scott,

What do you call the Apocrypha? The Book of Enoch is included in the biblical canon only of the Oriental Orthodox churches of Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, the Epistle of Jude quotes the prophet, Enoch, by name, and some believe the use of this book appears in the four gospels and 1 Peter. The genuineness and inspiration of Enoch were believed in by the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, and much of the early church. The epistles of Paul and the gospels also show influences from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of the Ethiopian canon, as well as the Assumption of Moses and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which are included in no biblical canon.

The high position which some apocryphal books occupied in the first two centuries was undermined by a variety of influences in the Christian church. All claims to the possession of a secret tradition (as held by many Gnostic sects) were denied by the influential theologians like Irenaeus and Tertullian, the timeframe of true inspiration was limited to the apostolic age, and universal acceptance by the church was required as proof of apostolic authorship. As these principles gained currency, books deemed apocryphal tended to become regarded as spurious and heretical writings, though books now considered deuterocanonical have been used in liturgy and theology from the first century to the present.

Commonly, among Protestant Christians, the apocrypha includes (but is not limited to) those books in the Old Testament that, early in his life, Jerome described as apocryphal in the 4th century. (Wikipedia ref.)

Jeff
cogito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2007, 12:44 PM   #13
4to2centophilia
Registered User
 
4to2centophilia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,499
   View My Photo Gallery
See why I avoid theological discussions here?

I'll stick to safer pleasures, like tap dancing in mine fields......tap, tap, bang....oops.
4to2centophilia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2007, 01:13 PM   #14
Salem
Registered User
 
Salem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Windsor
Posts: 204
   View My Photo Gallery
that one has the script saying Mtia (Mathew) they said it is Hebrew but this is indeed Aramic script.

the other one is clearly Aramic and it says Judah Br Yshwa (Judah son of Jesus)
regards
Salem
Salem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 4, 2007, 03:13 PM   #15
Scotvs Capitis
Registered User
 
Scotvs Capitis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 432
   View My Photo Gallery
Send a message via MSN to Scotvs Capitis
Jeff,

You and I are arguing apples and oranges, I think. The Apocryphal books are also extreme in their fidelity compared to what can be determined autographic by textual criticism. The various churches and councils, in their attempts to canonize, all accepted or rejected, but each did so on different criteria. If we can't accept that canon is determined over time, we have to throw out the whole Bible since the old testament canon took centuries to become widely established before there was even a "church" to codify the canon. I'm not trying to argue canonicity or which tradition/church/regional christology is the "proper" authority for establishing canonicity, just that the documents are certainly not edited and revised so dramatically that they have lost their original meaning over the centuries. No one believes that who has spent 10 minutes in a textual criticism study, not even atheists.

We COULD argue canonicity, that's a whole different game, though I would come at it from what I suspect is a slightly different angle than you would, if my assumptions are correct (and they often aren't ). IF the Bible is what it claims (divinely inspired word of God), then it would be no surprise that divinely guided inclusion and exclusion of certain manuscripts and books would be expected. But if the bible IS NOT what it claims (Not divinely inspired at all), then indeed it would be surprising if these later manuscript finds were not edited in for better clarity and fuller understanding. There would be no reason why these books should NOT be included.

You mentioned that Jude quotes Enoch, do you mean that a canonical reference to a non-canonical source should make the non-canonical source canonical? It IS one of the tests of canonicity, but it isn't always the case. As an example the Chronicles of the Kings (it in II Kings in a modern bible) quotes at least one other prophet who's writings were not considered part of the accepted scripture of the Jews, and though I can't recall off hand, there are several others referred to. Canonicity is certainly a touchy subject, I wouldn't argue that with you at all.

Religious topics are invitations for long, futile threads on message boards, but I love to debate them anyway - I find them exceedingly fun! Sorry to derail Salem's thread, I have tried to resist when the topic arises on this message board, sometimes I can't resist Its fun, but sometimes people don't enjoy a good debate and get bent out of shape, I hope I haven't offended anyone, I am certainly not offended.
__________________
SCOTT HEAD, Houston, Texas
SCOTVS CAPITVS BLOG
SOLI GLORIA DEO

Last edited by Scotvs Capitis : Mar 4, 2007 at 03:21 PM.
Scotvs Capitis is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content copyright © 2002-2006, VHobbies.com, LLC. All rights reserved.