[Quix]

We need to find some ways to post some of that on this thread.

I don’t have time to retype it. I suppose I could print the page and scan it then post the pic of the scan.

Need to find the most useful sections.

I’d thought the box had been declared more recent but evidently not—given the very rigorous scientific study of the rock it was made of etc.

The best scholars seem to put it about 63 AD—which matches various annecdotal historic accounts rather well.

It certainly does trash the lie that Christ had no blood half siblings and therefore the lie that Mary had no more children.

Thanks Thanks.

[Lera]

I think this makes a good case for it being real.
They arrest the guy who added claiming he was making forgeries but what are the chances he would know the differences in the changes of the language ?
To claim it a forgery would benefit many.

” The script is very important for the date because the Aramaic script changed over time in way we could measure ,” said P. Kyle McCarter , a paleographer at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. “It’s the most important criterion for dating this object , and the script is consistent with the date in the middle of the first century A.D.

[count-your-change]

The age of the box was not in question but rather part of the inscription (and it’s the inscription that gives value to the box) some experts had declared of recent date.

The collector that sold the box was arrested for fraud. So at last I saw, it was dueling experts on part of the inscription’s authenticity.

[Lera]

I don’t have time to retype it. I suppose I could print the page and scan it then post the pic of the scan.

---

No need to type when you can cut & paste :)

Highlight the parts you want and hit Ctrl and C
then open up Word and paste what you want into it by hitting Ctrl and V

[Natural Law]

"It certainly does trash the lie that Christ had no blood half siblings and therefore the lie that Mary had no more children."

As much as I would like to believe otherwise the James Ossuary is a fake.

In an article in the Jerusalem Post dated 18 June 2003, the Israeli Antiquities Authority published a report concluding that the inscription is a modern forgery based on their analysis of the patina. Specifically, it appears that the inscription was added recently and made to look old by addition of a chalk solution.