• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Possible Earliest Artifact Identifying Jesus?

headscratcher4

Philosopher
headscratcher4
Joined
Apr 14, 2002
Messages
7,776
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59389-2002Oct21.html

This link is for those who have followed the various threads, from time to time, that debate the historical reality (or not) of Jesus. It is a Washington Post article from today that describes a possible very early historical confirmation of Jesus' existence (though, I note, that this artifact, even if authentic, would have nothing to say about Jesus' divinity or how his contmporaries understood him, his ministry, etc.). Anyway I thought the Bible debaters would find this interesting....
 
The ossuary has almost no ornamentation except for a simple, yet riveting, Aramaic inscription: Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui diYeshua, it says -- "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
Click to expand...
I am on thin ice here, but weren't these names quite common? :confused:
 
... A guy who walks on water, and performs other miracles dies ... he gets crucified by the Romans ... he rises from the dead ...

... and none of his followers can remember the site of his crucifixition? ... or the site of his tomb? None of the people who witnessed those miracles, or were healed by him made pilgrimages there? That information never got passed down?

... that always seemed a tad odd to me?
 
The names are common, but what are the chances of them occuring in triplicate with the proper relationship like that?

I mean.. Bob Mayer is a common name. I've met 3 of them, not counting myself. But none of them have fathers named Karl, and brothers named Nick and/or Joe.

I'd say a better question would be "is this just a fake?" Which that article doesn't elaborate on.
 
Bjorn said:
I am on thin ice here, but weren't these names quite common? :confused:
Click to expand...

Yes, they even mention that later on in the article. It's interesting though that the names are given in the correct relationship to each other, however, that still doesn't prove anything.
 
-----------------------
"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
-----------------------

Clearly must be some other family. If it were the correct family, it would have been Jesus' half -brother.
 
arcticpenguin said:
-----------------------
"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
-----------------------

Clearly must be some other family. If it were the correct family, it would have been Jesus' half -brother.
Click to expand...

This raises a point that I've always found facinating in the whole Jesus story, and I would appreciate the insights of anyone who has looked into the situation.

James, so far as I understand, is Jesus' brother. Is he an older sibling? Younger sibling? How many other siblings might there have been?

If James is older, is Mary his mother and what does that do to the whole virgin thing?

If James is younger, is Mary his mother? What does that do (if anything) about Mary as a holy vessle? Was Joseph James' father? So, Old Joseph, it seems was quite capable of begatting a son, why should anyone assume Jesus isn't Joe's natural born offspring?

Just some questions that trouble me from time to time...
 
--------------------------
So, Old Joseph, it seems was quite capable of begatting a son, why should anyone assume Jesus isn't Joe's natural born offspring?
--------------------------

Well, duh. Because the bible tells us it isn't so.

:)
 
headscratcher4 said:
This raises a point that I've always found facinating in the whole Jesus story, and I would appreciate the insights of anyone who has looked into the situation.

James, so far as I understand, is Jesus' brother. Is he an older sibling? Younger sibling? How many other siblings might there have been?

If James is older, is Mary his mother and what does that do to the whole virgin thing?

If James is younger, is Mary his mother? What does that do (if anything) about Mary as a holy vessle? Was Joseph James' father? So, Old Joseph, it seems was quite capable of begatting a son, why should anyone assume Jesus isn't Joe's natural born offspring?

Just some questions that trouble me from time to time...
Click to expand...
This from National Geographic's article on the discovery:
He is referred to as the brother of Jesus in both the Bible and in contemporary historical accounts. In Matthew 13:55-56, for instance, Jesus is said to have four brothers and two sisters. But the exact nature of these relationships—whether they were full siblings by blood, half siblings, or cousins—has been open to interpretation.

"If you're Catholic, you think they're cousins because the perpetual virginity of Mary is official church doctrine," said Witheringon. "But there are a lot of problems in the historical record with that."

"When James is referred to as the 'brother of our lord' in the New Testament, the word used means 'blood brother,'" he continued. "It would have to be qualified in context to mean something different."

A second interpretation is that James and the other siblings are half-brothers and -sisters, Joseph's children from a prior marriage.
Click to expand...
 
zakur said:
This from National Geographic's article on the discovery:
Click to expand...

Thanks, Zakur:

All of which begs the question....I don't recall from my Gospel readings any previous marriage for Joseph. Also, given the virgin mary's status -- i.e. mother of god -- and Jesus' father -- i.e. the big kahoona (sp?) -- why would Joseph's children be any blood relation at all -- other than in the quaint, modern "foster" brother/sister sense? Anyway, thanks for the info.
 
I like how Chris Rock put it in Dogma: "Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility."

-Uther
 
Uther said:
I like how Chris Rock put it in Dogma: "Mary gave birth to CHRIST without having known a man's touch, that's true. But she did have a husband. And do you really think he'd have stayed married to her all those years if he wasn't getting laid? The nature of God and the Virgin Mary, those are leaps of faith. But to believe a married couple never got down? Well, that's just plain gullibility."

-Uther
Click to expand...

Think, Joseph and Mary, married but not consumated

Mary: 'Hey honey, I'm late'

Joseph: 'Late? what do you mean'

Mary: 'I'm pregnant, up the duff, bun in the oven'

Joseph: 'erm how?"

Mary: 'well this big bloke with wings came down and told me I was'

Joseph: 'ok, I believe you, pack up we need to find a barn in bethlehem now'

somehow I think not.....
 
They were probably true brothers - virgin birth is a later addition

The law recognizes exceptions to the rule that hearsay is not admissible in court. One exception is an admission against interest - the thought being you wouldn't have said something that was adverse to your interests, so it was probably true.

John 7:42 - The Jews and Sadducees were confused about Jesus because they said "wasn't the Messiah supposed to come out of Bethlehem and be of the line of David?"

Since the apostles, who were debating with the Sadducees about Jesus' status as the Messiah, did not say "but he was from Bethlehem and Joseph was from the line of David!" we can logically assume that he was neither - as far as John knew.
 
I like the Kinneson take.



"Are you sure it was god? Not that I'm doubting you honey, you just don't know what I'm going through at work.

I tell ya, he better be the ONLY son of god, you get what I'm saying honney?"
 
Jesus had a brother?

How did I manage to get this far in life without knowing that?

Was his name James Christ? I bet he had a fun childhood.
 
LizardPeople said:
Another article at http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html

The most interesting point they make is that including the name of a brother on one of these is kind of odd, and indicates the brother (Jesus) may have been a person of some significance.
Click to expand...

Nice article, and that is an interesting point to consider. And while I realize that CNN's website is not exactly a scholarly source, it's still good to see the quote, "most scholars agree that Jesus existed" from a presumably impartial source.

I also liked this quote from the article: "The boxes 'are not popular on the market because ... people don't want a bone box in their living room'". :)
 
UKDan,

Jesus had a brother?
Click to expand...

Rest easy ... the Catholic church rides to your rescue! From here :

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity, even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man (Cf. DS 291; 294; 427; 442; 503; 571; 1880). . . . Para. 500: Against this doctrine the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus (Cf. Mk 3:31-35; 6:3; 1 Cor 9:5; Gal 1:19). The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, "brothers of Jesus," are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary" (Mt 13:55; 28;1; cf. Mt 27:56). They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression (Cf. Gen13:8; 14:16; 29:15; etc.).
Click to expand...
It would appear that Jesus was an only child ... perhaps explaining his "I'm the centre of the universe" attitude?
 
Loki,

Are the Catholics the only denomination that believe in the perpetual virginity?

I don't see this as a problem for other Christian denominations. Mary was a virgin for Jesus' birth - his brothers and sisters were normal birth.

Personally, I would love for this to somehow be archaeologically linked to the New Testament - so the argument about whether or not he really lived could be finally answered (since there will never be any way to prove he didn't exist).

-Ed
 
From the link provided by Lizard People:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html

The collector, who is Jewish, was not aware that Jesus had a brother. He discovered the interest in the object only when he met Lemaire at a dinner party last spring and asked him to decipher some Aramaic written on a number of collectibles, Shanks said.

The box owner "didn't realize the significance," Shanks said. "He threw up his hands, 'How could the Son of God have a brother?'"
Click to expand...

Do Jewish people believe that Jesus was the son of God?

I was under the impression that they considered him another prophet - in which case would there be any problem with him having a family?

However I will confess my knowledge of the Jewish faith is even less reliable than my scanty knowledge of the Christian faith:)

Sou
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom