CNN: Archaeologists Report 1st Direct Evidence of Jesus

Oct. 21, 2002 | CNN

[jern]

BREAKING: Archaeologists Report 1st Direct Evidence of Jesus

[concerned about politics]

It never says that in the Bible, but to suggest otherwise really makes 'em mad...be careful and tread lightly.

Now wait a minute. The Bible says Mary had kids. Jesus had brothers and sisters, yet they get mad because we mention it? Of course she laid with her husband. That's what wives do. She was just a body. If she'd have told God "no thank you", he'd have found a replacement. Geeeeez. The Bible says nothing about the dieity nor the sainthood of Mary for crying out loud. Whare'd that idea come from?

[Thinkin' Gal]

Our replies crossed. See #57.

[agrace]

Your post brings up an interesting question. The inscription mentioned in the article is written in Aramaic, not Greek. The view of the RCC has long been that the Greek word for "brother" (adelphos) can mean a variety of things, hence no proof that Mary birthed any other children. So does the same go for the Aramaic "brother"? I'd love to know some details on that particular word.

[BibChr]

Well yes, that's just it, isn't it? Those threatened by the truth of Jesus want to re-set the game by dismissing the evidence that's already withstood 2K years' examination with a sort of post-modernistic, "Yeah, but aside from the data, what proof do you have?" Like, "Okay, leaving aside the twenty-seven unimpeachable alibi witnesses, does the defense have any proof of innocence?"

Dan

[cantfindagoodscreenname]

pinging myself to read later

[Drawsing]

It has been proven beyond a doubt that Homer did NOT write the Iliad or the Odyssey. These epics were written by another man with the same name...

[Desdemona]

In my translation, Matthew says lived together, not came together. Luke is a better source for Mary anyway. And before you tell me, yes, I know, Luke says first-born son. But, James was not a full brother to Jesus.

Until we're all using the same translations, this is all useless.

[Tao Yin]

Not tonight honey, I just gave birth to the messiah.

[Delbert]

Ephesians 5 vs. 31 "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." [15] <---Except for Joseph and Mary.

They were married, but never had sex. God commanded men and women to be fruitful and multiply. But you have to read the disclaimer, it's in fine print at the bottom...Except Joseph and Mary. I'm a bible believing Christian..If it says James brother of Jesus..thats good enough for me...If it said James, Half brother of Jesus by Josephs first marriage(which I had never heard of)that would be good enough for me. If it's in the Bible, I will believe it. .....any scripture to back up the fact that Joseph was a widower?

[BibChr]

It's been remarked that if the Gospel wasn't in fact written by the Beloved Apostle (as the evidence indicates), the writer was a genius whose anonymity is hard to explain.

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site

[rintense]

What? Did they actually pick up and READ the Bible? /sarcasm

[Cobra Scott]

Far more evidence that Euclid existed and wrote Geometry.

[Delbert]

It has been proven beyond a doubt that Homer did NOT write the Iliad or the Odyssey. These epics were written by another man with the same name...<--Homerus Simpsonus

[Tao Yin]

And what does your version say in Matthew 1:25

24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

So Joseph didn't have sex with his wife until after the birth. That's what I understand it to mean.

[Aggie Mama]

The Roman Catholics don't believe this because then it would mean that Mary is just like any other woman

That's a slap across the face of Gabriel, Elizabeth, and God.

Luke 1:28, 30 Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you...Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God."

Luke 1: 42...and Elizabeth, filled with the holy Spirt, cired out in a loud voice ad said,"Most blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb."

[ksen]

Until we're all using the same translations, this is all useless.

I understand your hesitation. Here is the same verse from the Douay-Rheims translation:

Mt 1:18
Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost. (DR)

Also here is the same verse in 13 other translations. None of them say "lived together", in fact one of them even says "while she was still a virgin."

Would you mind telling me which translation you have?

[MSCASEY]

Bump for later!

[breakem]

One side question: Have the moslems built a mosque yet on the site whwre this was found.

[aruanan]

An expert on ancient inscriptions is claiming that the wording on a first-century burial box -- ``James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus'' -- refers to Jesus of Nazareth.

If the artifact is authentic, it raises two questions: Who was James? And did Jesus have a brother and other siblings?

The Gospels call James the ``brother'' of Jesus, and other New Testament books say he later led the Jerusalem church.

The second question is trickier and involves a three-sided church debate.

Protestants traditionally read the New Testament as meaning Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin and then had James, three other sons and at least two daughters with Joseph.

In accord with church fathers writing after the New Testament era, the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics teach Mary's ``perpetual virginity,'' which means she and Joseph never had marital relations.

The Orthodox think Joseph had James by his first wife, and after she died he married Mary -- whose only child was the virgin-born Jesus. Thus, James was Jesus' stepbrother.

Catholics commonly hold that James was merely Jesus' close relative, perhaps the son of Joseph's brother Clopas or a cousin on Mary's side. The new inscription, if authentic, would rule out that option.

If the artifact is genuine, then it is another confirmation of the Gospel accounts and says nothing about any of the various "interpretations". These stand or fall on their own merit. The most direct route to take is that New Testament accounts actually describe what they purport to describe. It is because of doctrines adopted many decades to hundreds of years after the middle of the first century that such "interpretations" become necessary. They aren't, however, necessitated by information contained in the New Testament texts.

[Bush2000]

A fossilized electric shaver?

C'mon, man. Jesus didn't shave ... haven't you seen all those old Biblical movies ... ?