CNN: Archaeologists Report 1st Direct Evidence of Jesus

Oct. 21, 2002 | CNN

[jern]

BREAKING: Archaeologists Report 1st Direct Evidence of Jesus

[concerned about politics]

According to Bishop Papias, (Papi/av), c. 125:

He's Catholic too , no? To say Jesus had actual brothers and sisters would destroy the eternal virgin stuff, and discredit the teachings of his church.
Heck, according to scripture, (if taken literally) the temple of God is within you. That would tear down the walls of the church as well, because huge gold filled buildings would mean nothing.
What we need here is an unbiased source to find the answers. Neither Catholic, nor straight Biblical.
How about the Amish? They take every word literally. I'll ask them. They've kept the same teaching forever, without influence to change anything.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Lemaire says the writing style, and the fact that Jews practiced ossuary burials only between 20 B.C. and A.D. 70, puts the inscription squarely in the time of Jesus and James, who led the early church in Jerusalem.

I find it surprising that no one has questioned this: James, who led the early church in Jerusalem.

Jesus' successor was James, not Peter. Interesting that no one has tried to refute this!! Oh Aquinasfan where are you??? lol

But, it's true, James was the successor:

Eusebius:  Ecclesiastical History
http://biblefacts.org/ecf/cvol1/euseb_b2.html

Book  II

CHAPTER I.

The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, who, as has been shown was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen was one. He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose. And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name, which belongs to the martyrs of Christ. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together," as the account of the holy Gospels shows. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Savior, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."

[Siobhan]

You are simply marvellous, NYer. Thank you for all the well formed posts you share with us. We are blessed to have you among us.

[concerned about politics]

You are simply marvellous, NYer. Thank you for all the well formed posts you share with us. We are blessed to have you among us.

Geeez. Please be careful what you say. People will start to pray to him , too. LOL

[ET(end tyranny)]

He's Catholic too , no? To say Jesus had actual brothers and sisters would destroy the eternal virgin stuff, and discredit the teachings of his church.

Correct. Actually, I think Constantine sort of helped along the 'virgin' business when trying to get pagans to convert. Same when he changed the day of worship to Sun Day, in honor of the 'venerable day of the sun'. *rolling eyes*

'Let all judges and all city people and all tradesmen rest upon the venerable day of the sun. But let those dwelling in the country freely and with full liberty attend to the culture of their field; since it frequently happens that no other day is so fit for the sowing of grain or the planting of vines; hence, the favorable time should not be allowed to pass, lest the provisions of heaven be lost.' Quoted in Blakely, p. 269

Or if you prefer the Codex Justinianus:

'On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time [A.D. 321].)' Source: Codex Justinianus, lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3 (5th ed.; New York: Scribner, 1902), p. 380, note 1.

Doesn't anyone have a problem with Constantine changing one of God's Commandments?

Heck, according to scripture, (if taken literally) the temple of God is within you. That would tear down the walls of the church as well, because huge gold filled buildings would mean nothing.

Agreed. Think the Vatican kind of forgot about that while amassing their 'earthly treasures'? Oooops!

What we need here is an unbiased source to find the answers. Neither Catholic, nor straight Biblical. How about the Amish? They take every word literally. I'll ask them. They've kept the same teaching forever, without influence to change anything.

My post was meant to show that what we have from the Greek may not have been what was originally in the Aramaic!

If you do find out anything from the Amish, I would be curious as to what they say. Have kind of wondered about their thoughts myself.

[L.N. Smithee]

The inscription, in the Aramaic language, appears on an empty ossuary, or limestone burial box for bones. It reads: ``James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.'' Lemaire dates the object to 63 A.D.

Uh oh...now will begin the quasi-scriptural stuff about how James wasn't really Jesus' brother, that Mary was "ever virgin," and all that other mystical mythical stuff...

[rbmillerjr]

"Uh oh...now will begin the quasi-scriptural stuff about how James wasn't really Jesus' brother, that Mary was "ever virgin," and all that other mystical mythical stuff..."

Uh oh, now begins the "let's rationalize" everybody's religious belief away - except mine - the one and only belief.

[Siobhan]

That's "pray to her" actually - LOL.

I personally rely upon and am blessed by NYer's intercession. She is an awesome lady with a beautiful soul.

[L.N. Smithee]

Uh oh, now begins the "let's rationalize" everybody's religious belief away - except mine - the one and only belief.

Save it. Stick to the facts: The Bible says Jesus had siblings. James was identified as one of those (Matthew 13:53-56; Mark 3:31-35). There are NO citations in the scriptures indicating that the mother of Jesus was a virgin until her death. I dare you to find one.

I was not criticizing anyone's religious belief -- I was simply stating what THE BIBLE says and anticipating inaccurate comments from those who think/claim it says what it clearly does not say.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own truth.

[rbmillerjr]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is our only source of God's Truth? Answer: nowhere

[Siobhan]

You are in for a splendid re-education once you shuffle off this mortal coil.

[Gamecock]

You beat me to it:

Flavius Josephus, Jewish historian, became a Pharisee at 19, later commander, of the Jewish forces in Galilee. Captured by Romans and attached to their headquarters. Born: 34AD

“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first, did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.”

[A. Pole]

Where in the Bible does it say that the Bible is our only source of God's Truth? Answer: nowhere

Those are Luther beliefs - Sola Scripture. Since he considered the Church too corrupt he trusted only the Church Holy Scripture (after some editing of course like throwing out the deuterocanonical books).

He refused to recognise that the books of the Bible was compiled, selected and validated by the Church. Jesus Christ did not found the Bible - he founded the Church made from his disciples who later wrote books of New Testament. Same way was with the Church of Old Testament first were the people - Jews and onlt after were the books.

Also Luther was a run-away monk who married a nun - this could explain why his followers inherited the tendency to disparage the virginity.

[r9etb]

It ain't true.

Here is a set of references to Jesus. But one does commonly hear it, nevertheless, since none of the references occurs until years after Jesus died. (For example, Josephus wasn't born until about 5 years after Jesus died.)

To me this is immaterial -- Jesus did (and does) live. I was merely commenting on a common observation, which is now that much more difficult to defend.

[DallasMike]

How could the archeologists who discovered the artifact sell it to someone? I find that very strange.

It probably was not found by archeologists but rather by some goat-herder among the caves. Quite common in the Middle East.

[DallasMike]

But, it's true, James was the successor:

You are absolutely correct and kudos for being the first to mention it here. It's obvious from the scriptures that James headed the early church (he spoke last -- i.e., the concluding remarks -- at the first council and sent Peter on an errand). The early church and early secular historians considered James the leader of the early church. The bit about Peter being the head didn't come about until more than a century later.

Incidentally, here is an interesting site. It was well-accepted in the early church that James was the half-brother of Jesus. Pope Clement I (a contemporary of the apostle John), Eusebius, Pope Leo the Great, and the Council at Trullo all recognized James as the "brother after the flesh" of Jesus. So did Josephus and several secular historians in the second century. The idea that Jesus and James weren't half-brothers is preposterous and is something on the order of historians 2,000 years from now concluding that JFK and RFK weren't brothers. This ossuary, assuming it's authentic, merely confirms what the early church believed.

 

 

[William Terrell]

You are in for a splendid re-education once you shuffle off this mortal coil.

I suspect we all are.

[rabbitdog]

Jesus could not have been a Californian. As Paul wrote the first letter to the Corinthians he explains: "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" ICor.11:14 Funny....so many pictures of Jesus depict him with long hair. Not!

[UnBlinkingEye]

they flashed it across the bottom of the screen as a News Alert during the sniper coverage....

All sniper, only sniper, all day long, fair and balanced, FOX news is a joke.

[Happygal]

Well...You do realize that if you take the jewels, regal bearing, and intelligence away... You, in effect, posted a picture of a modern St. Louis girl. Admit it! Doesn't she just look like she is eyeing plate of "bicuits & gravy."

Thanks grump.
This is the first post I've read this morning, and you've just started my day with a great belly-laugh. Cheers mate! :-)