The Resurrection of Jesus Wasn’t Supposed to Happen

 

 

 

 

End of post.

Advertisements

27 thoughts on “The Resurrection of Jesus Wasn’t Supposed to Happen

  1. HAH! 😆 I have always enjoyed NonStampCollector’s videos. I use the “Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)” video as an entertaining Intermission piece for my long, extensive, detailed point-by-point blog-page Why Christianity Will Always Fail. This one here Gary is perfect. Well done. 😉

    It all certainly points to just how grossly naive, flawed, convoluted, amputated, and mistaken post-74 CE Christianity became, or more accurately became Hellenic (Greco-Roman) Christology from Greek Apotheosis… and modern Believers don’t even realize it — that their “Christ” is not a glorious, sparkling, opulent Regal Carriage, but a mere pumpkin. Today’s Christology represents NOTHING of Second Temple Sectarian-Messianic Judaism (in 1st century CE Syro-Palestina) of which Nasoraeans/Nazorenes, Essenes, Ebionites, Sicarii, Samaritans, Hasideans, et al, were certainly a part of the attempts to protect and reform their religion against Hellenism and Rome. The Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran glaringly indicate this firestorm/clash of cultures and beliefs.

    But do modern fanatical or moderate Christians today know well enough ANY of this authentic ancient history?

    P.S. That’s a rhetorical question by the way. 🙄 😉

    Like

  2. Also Gary, on a bit of a side note and on the lines of resurrections, I want to mention some recent archaeology and anthropology excavations and studies have FINALLY been more widely circulated (accepted with less fear?) regarding the ossuaries of the East Talpiot tomb in Jerusalem and its discovery in 1980 then published by The Israel Antiquities Authority and The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities in 1994.

    Due to the highly controversial findings and the inscriptions on 6 of the 9 ossuaries (dated to the 1st century CE), this news saw nearly 15-years of covert, cloak-n-dagger treatment. From the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, Dr. James Tabor’s blog:

    The six inscriptions, the one in Greek and the rest in Aramaic are, in English: Jesus son of Joseph, Mariamene/Mara, Joses, Judah son of Jesus, Matthew, and Mary.

    As you may or may not know, artifacts from Antiquity quickly and often get stolen/pilfered for the black market for astounding prices. Unfortunately, another ossuary inscribed James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus in Aramaic that was reported to be in the same tomb in 1980, disappeared. Then it reappeared. Scientists and scholars have debated where it was originally found and its authenticity since it reappeared. Currently it is held by a majority of experts as an ossuary and inscription from 1st century CE Jerusalem.

    Finally, most or all of the ossuaries (I believe) contained 1st century human bones. Many scientists want genetic/DNA testing done on all the bones.

    Thought this might be an interesting tidbit. 😉

    Like

    1. Currently it is held by a majority of experts as an ossuary and inscription from 1st century CE Jerusalem.

      I’ve seen no consensus on this. Some tests show the the whole thing to be a modern forgery, some show the box to be ancient while the inscription is modern, and other show the whole thing to be ancient.

      Do you have a link to such a consensus being reached?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hello koseighty. Thanks for your feedback. 🙂

        I did want to reiterate and clarify the meaning of my very first and last sentences: “Also Gary, on a bit of a side note and on the lines of resurrections, I want to mention…” and “Thought this might be an interesting tidbit. 😉”

        I was mainly offering these discoveries, study and debate as ‘Oh, by the way’ and recent ongoing scientific examinations that too infrequently receive much lengthy, impartial reporting from conservative news publishers, less so within religious cultures where the vast majority of the population are moderate-to-staunch Christian believers, like the U.S. To be fair I was being a Messenger. My more serious and knowledgeable comment was the previous one. Have I opened up Pandora’s Box with my last one? 😛

        Nevertheless, I’ll address both of your comments in some detail. However, let it be known (for everyone here) that with human efforts to gain knowledge (and by default uncover ignorance) there are in the field of Agnotology at least four general categories/conditions ever present in these pursuits applying to every single person, namely in this case, time and mental constraints. IOW, everyone can’t be an expert on everything for many obvious reasons, myself included. Furthermore, few of us have infinite amounts of valuable, irreplaceable time and effort to do the homework/legwork for others. In the end, all of us must do it ourselves if we hope to equitably satisfy our personal sense of fairness and improved objectivity.

        That said, there must be a level of respect and neutrality given to those credentialed experts who specialize in specific fields of study and theoretical examination (then repeat) and have been doing it with peers of experts for the majority of their lives. That is not to say swallow everything one of them publishes hook, line, and sinker… as you koseighty are wisely showing. Thank you. Hence, I am a strong proponent of “Speak once, listen twice.” Or even better “Reserve rash conclusions, listen/read and test/retest all factors most.” Then, when as much homework/legwork has been done, volunteer your work/findings and be prepared for ANYTHING! 😛 And for polite clarity koseighty I am writing this in general, not to you specifically.

        Since my personal specialization is/was Educator (social studies, sciences) in General and Special Ed, as well as Psych/A&D Inpatient rehab and counseling, not highly specialized archaeology, anthropology, epigraphy, paleography, philology, etc. Therefore, I always defer to these highly qualified experts when I finish, or am in the process of, studying particular subjects/findings they have published.

        Just to be clear regarding Talpiot tombs A and B and their ossuaries contained within, their ‘dating’ is not in question by the academic/scientific community. The soil/patina testings date them between the 1st-century BCE and 1st-century CE; this was later confirmed and further satisfied by the 7+ year trial of Oded Golan and Robert Deutsch, owner of the James ossuary and his attorney, respectively.

        Do you have a link to such a consensus being reached?

        Yes, however, there are two possible/probable issues with answering that: 1) many WordPress blogs block/Spam comments with 2-or-more weblinks inside the content. I have no idea what Gary’s restriction-settings might be. And 2) most common bloggers/browsers do not spend more than 10-15 mins on any one particular webpage. Yet, this subject requires of the curious like myself years (decades?) of careful, meticulous study of all scholarly viewpoints. I’m sure you agree koseighty. 😉

        With those unknowns and relative restrictions, I can provide for the moment one single weblink that references (endnotes, bibliography) to many other relevant scholarly sources:

        https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/artifacts-and-the-bible/why-did-the-james-ossuary-forgery-trial-verdict-find-oded-golan-and-robert-deutsch-not-guilty/

        But koseighty, you’ll have to do most of the legwork I’m afraid given the confinements(?) of WordPress comment-sections.

        Perhaps this discussion might continue depending on Gary’s Spam/weblink settings, whether Gary’s blog-post here and comment section is the best, appropriate place to carry on, and more importantly time and effort available… for both you and I koseighty. This is certainly not the ideal platform to do justice to such a critical examination and debate on the veracity and authenticity of Christendom, especially Evangelical-Fundamentalist Christianity, or as I label it Hellenic Christology.

        Alright, now to tackle your second comment…

        Like

        1. Sorry. Biblical Archaeology Society has shown itself to be an extremely biased ‘source.’

          True to form, all of the links in the article you linked to refer to other Biblical Archaeology Society articles. Using their own opinion pieces to support their own opinion pieces. The circular logic we’ve come to love and expect from apologists.

          Any links to actual archeological journals to support your claim (that the consensus is now in favor of authenticity)?

          Also, has anyone been able to link the James in the box to the resurrected lord? (You know, with something other than just similar names.)

          Like

          1. Sorry. Biblical Archaeology Society has shown itself to be an extremely biased ‘source.’

            Hahahaha… only 7-8 minutes after I post my first reply you instantly reply with this? 😑 Okay. 😞 The BAS article was merely a singular link with further library-links (for members) to the names of many Antiquity scholar’s works regarding the Talpiot tomb and the ossuaries.

            Without knowing Gary’s comment-section settings regarding 2 or more weblinks within, though there are several/many more links anyone can search and find, I’ll try for now just three weblinks here regarding the ‘dating’ of the tombs, ossuaries, and the James ossuary…

            Has The Tomb of Jesus Been Found in Jerusalem? Huffington Post 2017 article with several links:
            https://www.huffpost.com/entry/has-the-tomb-of-jesus-been-found-in-jerusalem_b_58ab0ccce4b0b0e1e0e20de1

            By A. Rosenfeld, C. Pellegrino, H. R. Feldman, and W.E.K. Krumbein, the James Ossuary link to the Jesus Tomb:
            http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/JOTalpiot3.pdf

            Any links to actual archeological journals to support your claim (that the consensus is now in favor of authenticity)?

            Start with this one:
            https://www.academia.edu/23523583/The_Talpiot_Tomb_Reconsidered_The_Archaeological_Facts

            Also, just to be clear, you mentioned “Using their own opinion pieces to support their own opinion pieces. The circular logic we’ve come to love and expect from apologists.” I am not a big fan at all of BAS for the same reasons, however, I used their link as ONE link (with caution of Gary’s Spam settings) specifically and only to answer ‘dating’ of the Talpiot tombs, ossuaries, then of the James ossuary. Furthermore, when you ended those two assertions with “apologists,” if you’re possibly implying I am a Christian apologist that would be quite wrong. If you were possibly implying I was a Secular apologist, or skeptic or Freethinker, that would be correct. But then it should be remembered I am assuming Gary’s blog has the standard WordPress Spam/weblink restrictions for comments. I guess we will see about this IF this comment goes straight through. 🙂

            …has anyone been able to link the James in the box to the resurrected lord?

            Are you implying/supposing there were human bones inside the James ossuary when first discovered? The answer is no. Any bones originally inside the ossuary had been discarded, which is the case in nearly all ossuaries not discovered by archaeologists. However, it is very plausible that the Talpiot tomb was naturally reopened in 363 CE by an earthquake. Soon after grave-robbers plausibly could have tossed the bones aside because a few geologists and archaeologists like say the tombs would’ve eventually been resealed, via natural causes or by tomb-owners or Jewish custom.

            Alright, back to drafting my reply to your original 2nd comment. I’ll very much appreciate your patience in this process and discussion koseighty. Thanks.

            Like

            1. From your linked article “The Talpiot Tomb Reconsidered: The Archaeological Facts” by Gibson and Kloner:

              Tabor has suggested that the tenth ossuary might be the same as the“James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,” ossuary, implying that the ossuary was stolen by persons unknown and that it eventually ended up in the handsof an antiquities collector and dealer.
              The legal status of this artifact is stillunclear. The ossuary is undoubtedly authentic, but the inscription (or part of it) may be a forgery

              Which is what I’ve been saying.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. And myself and other scholars of chemical-and isotope-dating, philology, and linguistics — having examined the actual inscription — say the inscription’s exact translation as “Ya’akov son of Yosef, brother of Yeshua” has NOT be invalidated. Therefore, it can NOT bet 100% determined as a forgery. And in light of the cluster/grouping of the names, it becomes a secondary minor issue at best.

                I’m unsure why you are belaboring this single non-issue. “Son of God” was never part of any scholars debate. That is irrelevant.

                Like

    2. Also, it should be noted that all of the names were common to the time (many apologists use the commonality of the names of the New Testament as ‘proof’ of its authenticity).

      So, even if it is ancient, no link to the Jesus and James of the Bible has been made.

      For instance, the inscription does NOT say, “James the brother of Jesus the Son of God.”

      Like

      1. …it should be noted that all of the names were common to the time (many apologists use the commonality of the names of the New Testament as ‘proof’ of its authenticity).

        Yes, there is indeed this modern problem with language of parameters and parameters of language regarding the words “common” and “consensus.” And those parameters are not always perpetually fixed or fluid in conjunction with what IS known and what IS NOT (yet) known. However, before I dive into your long-known question/challenge on the subject, allow me to please state further my approach to Talpiot and its ossuaries.

        From the get go it needs to be stated (for the sake of one single decipher-key or final litmus test method) that I personally do NOT hold the Synoptic Gospels, Acts, and Epistles of the 4th-century CE New Testament with any reverence as “divine, inerrant or complete” like the mainstream norm of the Western hemisphere does. For me personally, the canonical New Testament that came to us over 400-years then Rome/Constantine made it enforced law/canon… is its own worst enemy! But that’s a different discussion/debate for another time and place. Therefore, I approach discoveries like this on Christianity’s veracity with (perhaps?) less social indoctrination or bias?

        That said, I don’t believe there is any single measuring stick to verify or corroborate subjects like the Talpiot tombs and ossuaries. IMO, the process should be cumulative, ongoing studies, findings, and facts and plausible conclusions that dictate scholarly degrees of certainty and truth. With that starting point even the Gospels cannot be 100% reliable as to who was part of Yeshua’s/Jesus’ biological family or exactly what name(s) while alive they went by 50-100 years earlier then what burial names would’ve been on their ossuaries. Do the later Gospels record or hint of these Second Temple customs? These plus/minus margins should be kept in mind. Wider lenses of context and disciplines of study usually lend much more accuracy than ONE tiny, narrow (biased) lens such as the Gospels, faith, or theology only.

        What seems to be overlooked too often in the media with regard to the inscribed 1st-century ossuary names (with or without the James ossuary included) is that whether the individual names were very common, common, uncommon, or very uncommon, doesn’t address or ignores the extraordinary reality of the cluster/group of 6 names together in one tomb. Of all the known male and female Jewish names of the time-window in question, 63 BCE and 70 CE, Dr. Claude Cohen-Matlofsky includes names on all cataloged Jewish ossuary names from near 1,000 Jerusalem tombs of ossuaries — by L.Y. Rahmani’s, A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries (1994) — and goes further by including the Corpus of Judaean and Palestinian inscriptions – Vol. 3 (2014) as well as names from the writings of Flavius Josephus and other ancient authors, biblical, and rabbinical sources, including the New Testament, the Dead Sea documents of Qumran, Murabba’at and other caves of the Judean desert, and finally the archeological material available. Cohen-Matlofsky concludes this:

        As for the names of the Talpiot Tomb A, in light of the chart above: Yeshua` is the least common, Yehudah is the fifth least common, Mathiah is not even listed among the top 8 most common male names.

        She also concludes that earlier statisticians who limited their opines and study just to the commonality of individual names from the tomb, rather than the cluster/grouping of the names in ONE tomb, must revisit the entire exhaustive context of the statistical odds/probability.

        Furthermore, of the hundreds of tombs in the Jerusalem area that have been opened in a random way over the past 200 years, no other tomb so far has been found with even this limited cluster of names: Jesus son of Joseph, Maria, and Yoseh.

        So, even if it is ancient, no link to the Jesus and James of the Bible has been made. For instance, the inscription does NOT say, “James the brother of Jesus the Son of God.”

        I believe I have addressed this error above regarding the 7-year trial of Oded Golan and whether his James ossuary was a forgery or not. The court ruling with hundreds of expert witnesses was determined authentic and from the 1st-century CE, not a fraudulent ossuary or forged inscription. Regarding the specific family-naming of the inscription, I will reuse one of my earlier weblinks stating it DOES indeed say, “James the brother of Jesus the Son of God.” Here’s that link again:

        http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/JOTalpiot3.pdf

        As I stated earlier, others ultimately must do the majority of their OWN legwork/homework. Afterwards they can make their own decision based on an equitable, lengthy investigation that satisfies, like a juror of a murder case, their sense of fairness.

        Take care koseighty and thanks again (beforehand) for your OWN comprehensive study of the ongoing research of the Talpiot tombs and ossuaries. I want to say in another way that my own time is very limited for quick, pseudo-reckless questions or challenges without first long (months, years?) of silent broad examination first and carefully consider presentations of such Q’s and C’s. A polite FYI. 🙂

        Like

        1. Grrrrr, apologies. I meant to change your quote koseighty of “James the brother of Jesus the Son of God” on the ossuary to what the authentic James ossuary actually says, “Ya’akov son of Yosef, brother of Yeshua“… or James son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus.”

          Like

        2. The court ruling with hundreds of expert witnesses was determined authentic and from the 1st-century CE, not a fraudulent ossuary or forged inscription.

          No it didn’t.

          There were some accused forgers. Not just of the ossuary, but of many pieces. The scientific tests were inconclusive. So, the judge suggested the prosecutors drop the cases. Which they did.

          The court didn’t ‘prove’ the authenticity. It decided it couldn’t conclude one way or another.

          Like

        3. I will reuse one of my earlier weblinks stating it DOES indeed say, “James the brother of Jesus the Son of God.” Here’s that link again:

          No it doesn’t. Nowhere in this document does the phrase “son of god” appear, and certainly not in a quote from the ossuary.

          Like

        4. Lots of words to say, no there is no connection between the ossuaries and the people in the Bible that have the same names.

          Like

          1. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, though I would add that such FEW words there can mislead and confuse the statistical odds/probabilities… especially Dr. Cohen-Matlofsky’s findings for those not fully informed of all the viewpoints.

            Again, I think you are missing the remarkable clustering/grouping of the six ossuaries in ONE tomb compared to all ossuaries (with names inscribed) discovered and cataloged.

            Like

          1. LOL… all contentious points-of-view can (never?) be totally satisfied. 😉 You are more than welcome to your own opinions based on your own list of scholars utilized. As I’ve already stated…

            this subject cannot be fairly and thoroughly covered right here, in a matter of days based upon your Q’s and C’s. Everyone will need to do their own extensive, LONG research, not taking my comments as “Gospel” or yours. 🙂

            Like

          2. Btw koseighty, there is no way to learn a bit about you, your background, your areas of study, experience, etc, on a WordPress blog or otherwise — your Gravatar and online alias doesn’t link to anything.

            Care to share this info/link so that we/I am able to understand your personal POV? That would be more human, more organic, more enlightening for these discussions. 🙂

            Like

  3. For anyone here following the discussion about the East Talpiot tomb and its ossuaries, in particular the James Ossuary and it’s inscription and their significance, the question of whether the ossuary and its inscriptions are authentic and not forged or tampered with was amply supported by many renown experts in their fields (as this record shows) and concluded by Judge Farkash.

    Implications of the “Forgery Trial” Verdict on the Authenticity of the James Ossuary found here:
    http://www.bibleinterp.com/PDFs/JamesOssuaryverdict.pdf

    In the record’s Conclusion it gives twelve (12) reasons why the verdict confirmed crucial facts. Then at its end reads:

    Judge Aharon Farkash’s verdict in the alleged forgery of the James Ossuary inscription clearly contributes more than ever to the strengthening of the contention that the [James Ossuary] inscription is genuine.

    However, for the sake of fair equilibrium, Dr. Claude Cohen-Matlofsky’s remarks about the trial’s verdict are worth noting. She states:

    I was among the first to question the authenticity of the so called “James ossuary”, prior to its exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum in 2002. I was residing in Toronto at the time and did some work for Ed. Keale, the former head of the Near Eastern Studies department at the Royal Ontario Museum. Dr. Keale curated the exhibit with Dan Rahimi. After close examination of the ossuary “in situ”, I revealed in an article published in the Globe and Mail (November 6, 2002) that one can only be certain of the authenticity of the ossuary itself, while the inscription needs more research. As a matter of fact, my main concern was the lack of provenance for the “James Ossuary” and I am not prepared to reintegrate it in the Talpiot Tomb either. Here is why: from the Talpiot tomb they catalogued 9 ossuaries.

    Although I am not going to enter the controversy in this comment, it is interesting to notice that in his report of the Talpiot tomb, Kloner (see A. Kloner, “A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem”, in Atiqot, 29, 1996, pp. 15-22) catalogues 9 ossuaries while recording 10 in his Table 3, on page 17, 10 as well in note 2, on page 22 of this same article, where he estimates the total number of interments in the Talpiot tomb. Rahmani (1994: No. 701, Comm.1) also mentions a tenth plain and broken ossuary. Where is the missing ossuary?

    I shall leave the investigation to others’ care. Nevertheless what Kloner (1996) does mention is: “The ossuaries […] are typical Jewish ossuaries of the first century CE. The number of ornamented ossuaries equals the number of plain ones (Table 3), a ratio common in burial complexes of the period (Kloner 1993: 104). Six ossuaries are inscribed (60%), which is a higher ratio than normally found. Five ossuaries are inscribed in Hebrew and only one in Greek: normally the proportion of Hebrew to Greek is 4:3 (kloner 1993: 105).” Therefore the tenth missing ossuary was plain according to the first preliminary report of Amos Kloner and in my judgement, cannot at this point be identified with the so called “James Ossuary”.

    Hence, your essay [Statistical Analysis of an Archeological Find] is just confirming that a judge is unable to authenticate an archeological artefact. Oded Golan was acquitted on a criminal matter, a “non lieu” as we say in French.

    That essay Dr. Cohen-Matlofsky is referencing can be found here:

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.1689.pdf

    Thank you Gary for your patience and leeway for our very involved, lengthy discussion. My hope is that at the very least it encourages everyone to be appropriately inquisitive, skeptical, and eagerly persistent in finding real facts and degrees of probability or improbability. 😉

    Like

  4. I read a number of reports when the news first hit the media and followed it on and off afterwards.
    I always understood that the inscriptions were considered forgeries?

    If one takes the view that the entire story in the gospels is nothing but historical fiction and the central characters ( with the exception of Pilate ) are simply narrative constructs then to spend so much time and energy to reach a ”hung verdict” or forgery seems a bit daft.

    Like

  5. The absolute worse thing about this video is Jesus speaking in an Aussie accent. This should be regarded as a Mortal Sin.
    The makers will be burned in Hell …. Gehenna, or reborn as Manchester United supporters.
    Unforgivable.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s