[Petronski]

The evidence fits too well therefore it can't be.

That's EXACTLY it. It fits in ways we would expect it to fit after 2000 years have past, but not in ways understandable at the time.

It's just like another post above: a hypothetical Roman coin stamped XXXVI B.C. and bearing the profile of the man who was leader at that time. Yes, it fits, but not in a way they could have understood at the time.

It also reminds me of Monty Python: "It says the Grail can be found at the Castle Aaaargh...." Perhaps he was dictating.

[berned]

The more I'm reading this article, the more I am laughing. The "objections" to the ossuary are so lame. Why don't you guys post what you consider to be the strongest points from this "rebuttal" and we'll discuss them one at a time!

I am greatly looking forward to this discussion!

[VRWC_minion]

It fits in ways we would expect it to fit after 2000 years have past, but not in ways understandable at the time.

Please explain what wouldn't fit 2000 years ago. I understood that their are similar inscriptions mentioning brothers in that time period. I agree that it is possible its a fraud and I agree its possible that this is a coincidence in names but I don't see how basing a logical proof on the concept that the evidence is "too good" works.