Jesus' Tomb?

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're an idiot. Please try to actually respond to the points raised. The idea that you and your blog "expert" are trying to convey is moronic; that by mere coincidence the only ossuaries that had names put on them would happen to have Biblical significance. The fact that no other names are known cannot possibly be used to argue that the ones that are kn ...[text shortened]... drivel you spew forth; using bloggers to try to refute arguments is a new low even for you.

A valid rebuttal is a valid rebuttal -- regardless of where it comes from (a blog, a newspaper, a magazine, an archaeology journal, wherever). I can't see why the fact that this appeared in a blog should bother you so much. After all, it's not like the original TV program was based on an academic paper that Jacobovici published in NT studies journals.

(As an aside, is it any surprise that Discovery have decided to quietly bury the programme?[1])

Except for silly abuses and ad hominems (or an application of the genetic fallacy - take your pick), you have yet to present any argument of substance against the probability estimations provided. Indeed, I invite you to show your own estimation of the a priori probability of finding four people with these names in a random tomb with 10 and 35 bodies.

---
[1] http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11681

Originally posted by lucifershammer
A valid rebuttal is a valid rebuttal -- regardless of where it comes from (a blog, a newspaper, a magazine, an archaeology journal, wherever). I can't see why the fact that this appeared in a blog should bother you so much. After all, it's not like the original TV program was based on an academic paper that Jacobovici published in NT studies journals. ...[text shortened]... a random tomb with 10 and 35 bodies.

---
[1] http://www.tvweek.com/news.cms?newsId=11681

Fallacious and ill-conceived arguments are all you've presented in this thread. From the "Mary ossuary is a fake" (ridiculous for the reasons given) to the now irrelevant and false claim that "Discovery is burying the program" (I suggest you read the article you cited) to spurious math from bloggers. The only known sample is the names on the ossuaries; unknown names can hardly be included. And it's curious that the names that were found just happen to all inter-relate to the Jesus story. But I don't suppose you'll ever get around to any type of discussion of relevant facts.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Fallacious and ill-conceived arguments are all you've presented in this thread. From the "Mary ossuary is a fake" (ridiculous for the reasons given) to the now irrelevant and false claim that "Discovery is burying the program" (I suggest you read the article you cited) to spurious math from bloggers. The only known sample is the names on the ossuaries; u ...[text shortened]... But I don't suppose you'll ever get around to any type of discussion of relevant facts.

Actually, the sources Dr. Feuerverger used included both names and ossuaries and a general lexicon of names during the period. Check out the explanatory note on his website:

http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt

(Btw, it's false to assert that the only known sample of names from the period comes from ossuaries -- there are all sorts of other primary sources that one can obtain names from.)

What Dr. Feuerverger actually computed was the probability that a man named Yeshua bar Yosef had a mother named Maria, a brother named "Yose" and a wife named "Mariamne". Now there are issues with the way he has computed probabilities for "Yose" and "Mariamne", but let's set that aside for the moment. The point is that he assumed that the relationship between the four people in the tomb is that which the NT (and the imagination of conspiracy theorists) said. As you well know, the film-makers did not actually show that they were related in that manner; all they showed through mDNA testing was that "Mariamne" was not Yeshua bar Yosef's mother or related to him on his mother's side.

If anyone is not discussing the facts here, it's you. All you've done is provide a link to the official Discovery website.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, the sources Dr. Feuerverger used included both names and ossuaries and a general lexicon of names during the period. Check out the explanatory note on his website:

http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt

(Btw, it's false to assert that the only known sample of names from the period comes from ossuaries -- there are all so ...[text shortened]... , it's you. All you've done is provide a link to the official Discovery website.

You misunderstood me; I was referring to the sample in the Tomb - I'm perfectly aware of the source material for the distribution of names in 1st Century Judea. BTW, that's not what Dr. Feuerverger computed as you would know if you actually read his materials.

Your last paragraph is untrue; I've dealt with every point you've raised.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You misunderstood me; I was referring to the sample in the Tomb - I'm perfectly aware of the source material for the distribution of names in 1st Century Judea. BTW, that's not what Dr. Feuerverger computed as you would know if you actually read his materials.

Your last paragraph is untrue; I've dealt with every point you've raised.

So you keep claiming (in between abusive ad hominems).

BTW, that's not what Dr. Feuerverger computed as you would know if you actually read his materials.

I can do no better than to actually refer you to his explanatory note I linked above (scroll down to where he lists his assumptions).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
So you keep claiming (in between abusive ad hominems).

[b]BTW, that's not what Dr. Feuerverger computed as you would know if you actually read his materials.

I can do no better than to actually refer you to his explanatory note I linked above (scroll down to where he lists his assumptions).[/b]

I did check it out. I suggest you read it. He is not assuming that the individuals in the tomb ARE the persons mentioned; he is assuming that the names on the ossuaries would match their names. Unless there is some reason to believe that is incorrect (and you've offered none), that is a perfectly valid assumption.