TalpiotTomb

[Kurisu35712]

Because my faith is so important to me and if this James ossuary IS from the Talpiot tomb, supposedly, according to most of what Ive been reading recently, means that all we’ve been taught is wrong and Jesus didnt ascend into heaven.
It all boils down to the soil and chemicals found on the ossuary.

No. It doesn’t. At all. Not only do actual scholars debate whether the “Jesus son of Joseph” ossuary even says Jesus on it, you’re literally talking about graves with the most common regional names on them.

As other archaeologists have pointed out multiple times in the sources I provided, there is no conclusive or even circumstantial evidence that the names on the ossuaries are from the same generations or even the same families. One specifically mentioned that the one marked “Joseph” is unlikely to be the father of the people in the one marked “(undetermined) son of Joseph.” Actual scholars do not even read the inscription as saying “Jesus.”

And unless these alleged researchers can provide a recorded scientific database with the chemical compositions of all of the tombs near Jerusalem including the Holy Speulcher, there is absolutely no reason to believe that a consistency in two extremely limited tests are conclusive that they are from the same tomb.

If they want their findings to be believable, not only do they need to publish in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, they need to run further tests that actually account for the variables in question. You cannot logically assert that such a limited test is conclusive of anything at all. There are thousands of undiscovered tombs in the area surrounding Jerusalem, that have not been compared with the James ossuary. They do not have any references to other soil or chemical compositions of tombs in the surrounding area that hold up to acceptable scientific standards and results. Their findings are at *best *inconclusive. I seriously do not know how else to communicate to you that they are using bad science. Their forensic analysis is unreliable. If they tried to use this in court to convict someone, it would be thrown out as inconclusive and the person would go free.

 

[Faith1960]

This is, I assume, the point you’re referring to. For one, this point does not reference the James ossuary’s origin, only the authenticity of the inscription on it. #9, on its own, simply states that there are a number of reputable scholars who question the authenticity of the inscription on the James ossuary. Meaning there are reputable scholars who question even the validity of an ossuary that other scholars accept. Meaning there are doubts even as to the authenticity of the widely accepted ossuary.

If reputable experts question the validity of the reasonably unrelated other ossuary, that speaks volumes when nearly all scholars and archaeologists disagree with this person’s conclusions regarding the tomb. There are experts who do not believe the James ossuary to be authentic. As a result, that should logically indicate that when nearly all scholars believe the Talpiot tomb to be inauthentic, they’re probably correct.

Worth noting as well is that number 6 indicates that it is unlikely that the James ossuary originated in the Talpiot tomb. If it did, why did initial excavations record only 10 ossuaries, when the James ossuary would have been an 11th? Furthermore, why would someone who previously found the tomb have only removed the James ossuary and not the supposedly significant others?

Also worth noting, as referenced in the UHL article… The paleontologist who reported the chemical composition in the soil as a “match” was misquoted and misrepresented. The man himself provided further comment. When he said “match,” he meant “consistent with the other data.” Not an irrefutable match. These analysts did not test the soil composition of every single tomb and grave around Jerusalem. Finding a similar or consistent soil composition does not mean that there is only one tomb that can provide these results. Basing a conclusion on that severely limited data is not only bad reporting, it’s plain bad science and bad forensics.

So based on what the scholars have to say about the new news of the James ossuary and the tomb itself, its safe to say this is not the tomb of Jesus?

To quote another poster from another thread, about a different topic the chances are none, zip, negative zero, zilch that this is Jesus’ tomb?

 

[Kurisu35712]

So based on what the scholars have to say about the new news of the James ossuary and the tomb itself, its safe to say this is not the tomb of Jesus?

To quote another poster from another thread, about a different topic the chances are none, zip, negative zero, zilch that this is Jesus’ tomb?

There is no chance that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, Son of Mary, Savior of the World. Zero. The tomb you’re looking for is located under the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The tomb in the OP belongs to different people, whose graves have been disturbed for propaganda, bad science, and biased speculation. Nothing about the Talpiot tomb should cause you to question your faith in Jesus Christ.

 

[Faith1960]

There is no chance that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, Son of God, Son of Mary, Savior of the World. Zero. The tomb you’re looking for is located under the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The tomb in the OP belongs to different people, whose graves have been disturbed for propaganda, bad science, and biased speculation. Nothing about the Talpiot tomb should cause you to question your faith in Jesus Christ.

Thanks for helping me. And thanks for your patience.