Possible Earliest Artifact Identifying Jesus?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mike B.

"My guess is this is a forgery, but then who knows?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What, the bible?



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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My sentiments exactly. I think he may have been being ironic here - aren't Jewish people good at that?


Its interesting that the catholic church obsess about whether Mary was a virgin even after Jesus was born. Why does it matter?

I've read one of the Holy Grail books (or something similar). If I remember rightly they're not very sholarly and seem to be firmly in the Templar conspiracy mode.

It did make me think though and there were a number of points which stayed with me.

- the authors claimed the belief that MM was Jesus' lover was shared by Da Vinci and pointed out the figure to the side of Jesus in the Last Supper is suspiciously feminine and cosy to Jesus. Every time I look at a copy I can't help agreeing.

- They also pointed out a number of similarities between pagan myths and the stories in the bible, including the resurrection. In earlier religions, a female deity was always involved in the ressurection story in some way (Isis I think being one example). From this they postulated that MM could originally have been deified. They also thought that the strong cult of MM in certain countries and the veneration of Black Madonnas may be a throwback to this. Even if these assertions are spurious I am sure other scholars have identified connections between the bible and pagan myths and I would be interested in any relevant links.
 
PotatoStew said:
Gregor:



Jesus didn't actually serve the guests... in fact, turning the water to wine would be more like serving the groom since it would probably be embarrasing for him to run out of wine. Plus there are several other elements in the passage that make it sound like Jesus was a guest, rather than the groom (emphasis added):

John 2:2 -- "Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding."

John 2:3 -- "When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, 'They have no more wine.'" (for BGreen... the guests didn't complain to him, only his mother)

 Why would Jesus' mother concern herself with this?

John 2:4 -- "'Dear woman, why do you involve me?' Jesus replied" (if he was the groom, it would be obvious why she would involve him... it would be his responsibility)


John 2:5 -- "His mother said to the servants, 'Do whatever he tells you.'" (If it was his wedding, why would the servants need to be told to listen to him?)

 Why should the servants listen to Jesus' mother?

John 2:9 -- "the master of the banquet tasted the water that had been turned into wine. He did not realize where it had come from, though the servants who had drawn the water knew. Then he called the bridegroom aside" (Why is the groom mentioned distinctly from Jesus if they are the same person?)

You'd need to come up with some sort of methodology that allows those verses to be explained away while leaving the rest of the passage intact -- otherwise you are left with Jesus as guest or else you are left without any wedding at all.
Click to expand...



I realize you are addressing the issue of the suggestion that this was Jesus' wedding, and I would agree within the context it is doubtful. Even more so, in the context of what we have available concerning Jesus' ministry and the beliefs of early Christians.


Just thought I would point out a couple of other mysteries in this story.

( addressing his mother as "Dear woman" sounds strange, as well as disrespectfull also.)
 
( addressing his mother as "Dear woman" sounds strange, as well as disrespectfull also.)
Click to expand...

It is my recollection that Jesus was not particularly patient or friendly with his mother or family...James, as I understand it, emerges in various letters as a leader of the Jerusalem church AFTER the death of Jesus. He is rather dismissive of his mother in other parts of the Gospels as well...I think. Is this impression false?
 
headscratcher4 said:
Gregor:

no, at least not intentionally hiding my "light" under a bushel (an interesting phrase, where from?).

Click to expand...

No one answered this for you? Matthew 5:

5:14
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

5:15
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
 
t is my recollection that Jesus was not particularly patient or friendly with his mother or family...James, as I understand it, emerges in various letters as a leader of the Jerusalem church AFTER the death of Jesus. He is rather dismissive of his mother in other parts of the Gospels as well...I think. Is this impression false?
Click to expand...

Which reminds me of an old joke, in case you haven't heard it.

Jesus was walking around one day when he saw a woman being stoned. Jesus asked what was going on. A man replied

"She is an adulteress, and according to our law is to be stoned to death!"

Jesus raises his arms and calls out, "Whosoever among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone."

The crowd grows quiet and ashamed, dropping their stones. But then an old woman in the back picks up a stone and hits the poor adultress right on the head.

Jesus glares at her and says, "Mother, sometimes you make me soooo mad!"
 
I wonder how carefull the inscriptions have been checked. Assuming the engraving was done very shortly after the slabs were cut, the degree of weathering on the inside of the engravings should be about the same as that on the flat part of the slabs (minerals weather when exposed to oxygen as well as through other processes). If there is a great difference in the amount of weathering, then the engraving was done well after the slab was cut.

Does anyone know if this sort of analysis has been done?
 
Diogenes said:


I was dissapointed by about page ten or so.

Headscratcher4 asked for : " Any thoughts, speculation, assertions or possible answers are appreciated."

Did I mention 'credibility'?


I do not even agree with you that it is ' a good story ' .
Click to expand...

This book does come up from time to time in various threads. The debunking is not widely known, as far as I can see, so I usualy chip in with my two cents whenever the topic is raised.

I would guess that the book is still selling well to this day. But then when has truth ever been important when it comes to selling books? Maybe they should move it to the fiction section.
 
Tricky said:
I wonder how carefull the inscriptions have been checked. Assuming the engraving was done very shortly after the slabs were cut, the degree of weathering on the inside of the engravings should be about the same as that on the flat part of the slabs (minerals weather when exposed to oxygen as well as through other processes). If there is a great difference in the amount of weathering, then the engraving was done well after the slab was cut.

Does anyone know if this sort of analysis has been done?
Click to expand...


It is doubtful. If this had been done, whichever side the results supported, would be screaming loud and clear.

The type of test you suggest, is what I'm anxious to hear about.
 
headscratcher4

Since have done some reading on a historical Jesus. I was wondering if you believed the account in the bible is

1. based on the myth a single man

2. based on an "amalgamation" of several men, as there may have been many messiahs walking around Jerusalem in those days

I am curious since I have heard the second idea put forward once in awhile, however with little argument.

Anyone else have an opinion.

Walt
 
wwayne said:
headscratcher4

Since have done some reading on a historical Jesus. I was wondering if you believed the account in the bible is

1. based on the myth a single man

2. based on an "amalgamation" of several men, as there may have been many messiahs walking around Jerusalem in those days

I am curious since I have heard the second idea put forward once in awhile, however with little argument.

Anyone else have an opinion.

Walt
Click to expand...

My personal opinion -- non-expert! -- is that much of the story comes down to Paul and how Paul interpreted Jesus (who he may have seen/been aware of as a contemporary, but apparently never actually met). In otherwords, the Jesus we know today is in my mind the creation of Paul, as my readings have lead me to believe that without Paul, Peter, James and others who knew Jesus would likely have had the man and his ideas/words absorbed into prevailing Jewish tradition (where, arguably, Jesus would have remained a minor figure/Martyr to Rome, etc.). IMO.
 
wwayne said:
headscratcher4

Since have done some reading on a historical Jesus. I was wondering if you believed the account in the bible is

1. based on the myth a single man

2. based on an "amalgamation" of several men, as there may have been many messiahs walking around Jerusalem in those days

I am curious since I have heard the second idea put forward once in awhile, however with little argument.

Anyone else have an opinion.

Walt
Click to expand...


Actually, there was an extensive thread on this recently..

"Did the Biblical Jesus Exist?" Thread
 
Paul Johnson's book The History of Christianity opens with the Council at Jerusalem. Johnson refers to this as the first “council” of the Church.
As Johnson tells the tale Paul and Peter go to Jerusalem to confer with James, Jesus' brother, over admitting 'gentiles' into the Church. Paul wanted to convert the gentiles and not make it a requirement that they convert to Jewish dietary laws and not have to be circumcised. James represented Christianity as a Jewish sect. Paul represented Christianity as being universal and separate from the Jewish religion. The upshot was that in Jerusalem converts had to be Jews but elsewhere they did not. [Bringing Peter with him gave Paul legitimacy]. Converts outside of Jerusalem could continue eating pork and keep their foreskins.
 
The comments above reminded me of the following dialog from a Christmas play (which was, I think, reported in Reader's Digest):

Joseph: May I have a room, please?

Innkeeper: I'm sorry, but we're full.

Joseph: Look, are you sure you can't give me a room? My wife is pregnant.

Innkeeper: Hey, that's not my fault.

Joseph: Well, it's not mine, either!
 
Barabbas == 'Son of God'?

wwayne said:
Since have done some reading on a historical Jesus. I was wondering if you believed the account in the bible is

2. based on an "amalgamation" of several men, as there may have been many messiahs walking around Jerusalem in those days
[/B]
Click to expand...

I read an interesting conjecture in the The Hiram Key (Knight and Lomas, 1996), a book that speculated about the origins of Freemasonry. The book was an entertaining read but was, as a whole, difficult to swallow. The conjecture that caught my eye, however, proposed a twist on the "amalgamated Jesus" theory. They claim he was an amalgamation of two men: Jesus, king of the Jews and Jesus, son of God. The former was the Jesus crucified in the Bible, the latter was Barabbas, whom the Jews chose to release from crucifiction instead of Christ.

The authors state that Barabbas is translated as 'Bar':='son of' + 'Abba':='Father' == 'Son of God'. Noting that early translations of Matthew 27:16 actually refer to Barabbas as 'Jesus Barabbas', the authors claim a stunning discovery: the Jews chose to have their kingly messiah crucified (as 'king of the Jews') instead of their priestly messiah. They base this on what they call 'a traditional requirement for there to be two messiahs...A kingly messiah from...the royal line of David would be joined by a priestly messiah from the tribe of Levi'.

This is, of course, very speculative and not peer reviewed, but is nonetheless an interesting assertion.

P.S.

Apologies if this has been mentioned elsewhere.
 
Mary

In my catholic education, I met catholics who did not believe the virgin myths. Some people proposed that these beliefs came from the borg era of the church where they assimilated the beliefs of others to bridge christianity to them. In other words, the virgin Mary was a compromise to widen early christianity's appeal.

Unfortunately, as I am not an early christian scholar I have no idea if this is historically correct. Is there historical reference for when Mary first became a semi-deity in christian world?

Of course, all this is moot seeing as how if this artifact's inscription is genuine it will be virtually impossible to prove if the Jesus mentioned is Jesus of Nazareth.
 
Beth Paulkey said:

5:14
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.

5:15
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.

5:16
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Click to expand...

Paul actually posted bible verses relevant to the discussion at hand? I can't believe it! I've never...

...oh...

Beth Paulkey.
 
Mike B. said:
I think the reason they are saying one in twenty is probable is that the only other time they found a brother reference on one of these boxes is when the brother was important...
Click to expand...
That is not what the report states.
 
Tricky:

I wonder how carefull the inscriptions have been checked. Assuming the engraving was done very shortly after the slabs were cut, the degree of weathering on the inside of the engravings should be about the same as that on the flat part of the slabs (minerals weather when exposed to oxygen as well as through other processes). If there is a great difference in the amount of weathering, then the engraving was done well after the slab was cut.

Does anyone know if this sort of analysis has been done?
Click to expand...

and Diogenes:

It is doubtful. If this had been done, whichever side the results supported, would be screaming loud and clear.

The type of test you suggest, is what I'm anxious to hear about.
Click to expand...

From the cnn article (emphasis added):

Two scientists from the Israeli government's geological survey tested the box last month, inspecting the surface patina and inscription under a microscope. They concurred that the object is more than 19 centuries old, the archaeology magazine reported.
Click to expand...

It sounds like they did something like that. I mean, if that's such an obvious test *to us*, I'm sure the professionals are thinking along those lines as well.

As far as screaming loud and clear goes, if the test showed the inscription was done *later* then there would probably be loud and clear screaming because that would disprove any claims about the box. However if the test showed the inscription dated to the time of the box, I doubt there would be much screaming about it, because while that would support the claims it wouldn't definitively prove them.
 
Also, from http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/4340094.htm :

Otherwise, however, the ossuary passed all its tests. Scientists from the Geological Survey of Israel confirmed to Biblical Review's Shanks that the limestone ossuary was typical of biblical Jerusalem. The Survey also said its surface patina matched patina in the grooves of the characters, indicating that box and inscription were the same age.

Fitzmyer was at first puzzled by some of the Aramaic characters, but found them used in a book of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Aramaic, which uses the Hebrew alphabet, was probably the most widespread language in biblical Jerusalem.
Click to expand...

So yes, the test has been done, and it passed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom