Name:CRosebrough •
Title: Jose is the Father of the Talipot Tomb •
Date posted: 02/27/07 15:58
Q: One of the linch pins in Cameron’s and Simcha’s statistical analysis is the assumption that Jose is the brother of Jesus. If the Jose of the Talipot Tomb is Jesus' brother then the statistical case for this tomb being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth is much stronger. If Jose is not Jesus' brother then their statistical case case begins to crumble.
This leads us to ask an important question... Why should we believe that the Jose found in this tomb is the brother of Jesus?
Answer: We shouldn’t!
The principle of Occam’s Razor compels us to look for the simplest interpretation of the evidence that this site presents us. That being the case let’s look for a simple interpretation that fits ALL the evidence that doesn’t require us to subscribe to Templar conspiracy theories or to rewrite history.
Simcha readily admits that Jose is a rare nickname for Joseph. Therefore, it would make far more sense to identify Jose (Joseph) as the father of the Jesus in this tomb instead of his brother.
You have to first ASSUME that this is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth before you can say that the Jose found in this tomb is Jesus' brother. That is bad scholarship and historical science.
It makes far more sense to say that the Jose(ph) of the Talipot Tomb is the father of the Jesus of the tomb.
I've written a comprehensive rebuttal of the claims of this website and film at ExtremeTheology.com. Please take the time to read it.
Chris Rosebrough
Theoologian
Name:followingchrist82 •
Date: 02/27/07 16:30
A: Well spoken. I'm enraged at the arrogance of the questioning on this site. They act like they've proven it and no one should reject it when most scholars rejected it years ago! Good grief!
Name:DMS •
Date: 02/27/07 20:09
A: I am a genealogist. My take on "The Christ Family" can be found here:
http://www.mismagicshouse.com/-genealogy499x/bottom.html#Jesus
Th-e- Hebrew and Aramaic name Yose, which is etymologically linked to Yosef or Joseph. It was particularly common during the Mishnaic period.
Most likely this "Yose" the step-father of Jesus.
Jesus' biological father was Antipater III (Gabriel), son of Herod I, Edomite; King of Judea; "The Great" (d.4 BC).
This tomb could be related to the family of Joseph Ben Elim of Sepphoris; (Heli/Eli/Ellemus/Ailem/Illem/Ulam/Joachim), Mary's father.
Joseph's father's brother, Antipater II, King of Judea; "The Idumaean", had a grandson Phasael II/Alfai/Chalfai (Alphaeus) who had 3 sons---
1) Antipater/Levi Mattithyahu (Matthew), Prince; Deciple; "Gift of Yahweh"
2) Herod/Ya'aqov bar-Halfai (James), Prince; Deciple; "The Lesser/Younger/Smaller"
3) Alexander/Yehudah Thaddai (Judas Thaddaeus), Prince; Deciple; "Lebbaeus who was called Thaddeus;" "Judas, not Iscariot;" martyred in Persia.
Name:DMS •
Date: 02/27/07 21:08
A: On a personbal note-
Does it really matter if Jesus was/is in this tomb? Are not his mother, step-father, siblings and cousins, lovers --- just as important a find??
Don't you see? If they existed, then He existed.
I think we shouid all be trying to put the puzzle pieces together, together.
Name:golfdane •
Date: 02/28/07 14:01
A: While the principle of Occam's razor tells us, that the simplest explanation is most often true, is it not a proof that it actually is so. Why Jose should be Joseph, and not the Joses of Mark 15:40 is not that clear to me. If Jose was indeed the nickname of Joseph, then why was a nickname used on his ossuary, but not on the one containing Jesus (whether that is the biblical Jesus or just a contemporary namesake)?
Again, why does Jose's ossuary not say "Jose, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"??
I hope they are able to obtain DNA samples from all ossuaries, to get the genealogy established more precisely (if possible).
The documentary has left many stones unturned (there's nothing like suspense.... If you wanna sell something). In spite of this cynical approach, do I think there's a distinct possibility, that this might be what they claim it to be (more or less). IMO, does it not alter the message of Jesus (since I doubt the Bible as being a precise historical document (to many inconsistencies)). The find (if the conclusions are correct) does not rule out ascension nor divinity. It just tells us, that someone has misunderstood the details of the message all together, but captured the great lines.
Other than that, do I agree that Simcha is quick to accept anything that corresponds to his view as more or less factual (aren't we all), without questioning further. From what I've seen so far, are they not sceptical enough (you need to question all evidence. Not only those that doesn't corroborate your preconceived conclusion).
I'll wait to cast my definitive vote a bit more (until more details are revealed).
Name:light •
Date: 03/30/07 2:31
A: Occam's so-called razor is a crutch for lazy thinkers. I'm sorry to hurt anyone's feelings, but it's one of those fad sayings (or concepts) that shouldn't be taken seriously. (Anyone ever even heard of Occam before the last two or three years?)
Like 'think outside the box' being touted by every trend follower who never thinks outside of any of the boxes in which they find themselves (and who assume we are all in the same 'boxes' anyway) - like 'totally' and 'gag me with a spoon' - in twenty years, mercifully, this expression will have passed from the common usage it enjoys today.
Life is not simple, much as some would like it to be. Humans are complex, life is complex, religious history is complex, etc. Reducing everything down to what seems simplest in your own opinion is just not smart. That's bad thinking before we get to any sort of scholarship.
If we were going to take that tack, then why not say, all these names (except Judas, son of Jesus) are attached to the story of Jesus in the records we have, so... by Occam's razor: Solved! No testing or thinking necessary. That would really be the simplest thing.
There is no reason to assume Yose is not the person mentioned in the bible. That doesn't 'make more sense'. You're starting with an assumption yourself.
