Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CNN: Archaeologists Report 1st Direct Evidence of Jesus
Oct. 21, 2002 | CNN

Posted on 10/21/2002 9:04:51 AM PDT by jern

BREAKING: Archaeologists Report 1st Direct Evidence of Jesus


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: biblicalarcheology; bones; boxofbones; epigraphyandlanguage; faithandphilosophy; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; gospelofjesuswife; hewasarabbi; james; jamescameron; jamesossuary; jesus; jesustomb; karenking; letshavejerusalem; losttombofjesus; mariame; mariamne; marymagdalene; ossuary; rabbismarry; sectarianturmoil; simchajacobovici; talpiot; talpiottomb; weddingatcana
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-354 next last
To: concerned about politics
I'm Baptist. We believe Mary was just a vessel chosen to carry the blessed child. A womb, but that's all. After his birth, she proceeded with her normal wifely duties. She was born into sin like any other woman. Why shouldn't she service her husband like other wives?

I'm at work and can't get through the firewall. Does somebody have a Catechism handy? Or just a link to the argument we had in the last couple weeks on the Immaculate Conception.

I might not do any good, but....
51 posted on 10/21/2002 10:01:56 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
I don't think you mean "Jesus'" son. How 'bout Joseph's? :) Other brothers would include Joses and Jude.
52 posted on 10/21/2002 10:03:31 AM PDT by libertysdaughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: All
Mat 13:55 "How is this possible?" the people exclaimed. "He's just a carpenter's son, and we know Mary his mother and his brothers--James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas.

Mat 13:56 And his sisters--they all live here. How can he be so great?"

Mat 27:56 Among them were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of James and John (the sons of Zebedee).

Mark 6:3 "He's just a carpenter, Mary's boy, and a brother of James and Joseph, Judas and Simon. And his sisters live right here among us." And they were offended!

Mark 6:4 Then Jesus told them, "A prophet is honored everywhere except in his hometown and among his relatives and by his own family."

Mark 16:1 The next evening, when the Sabbath ended, Mary Magdalene and Salome and Mary the mother of James went out and purchased embalming spices.

Mark 16:2 Early the following morning, just at sunrise, they carried them out to the tomb.
53 posted on 10/21/2002 10:05:35 AM PDT by Ready2go
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
Because Mary was a perpetual virgin, she never thought about sex. Joseph never thought about sex either. It never says that in the Bible, but to suggest otherwise really makes 'em mad...be careful and tread lightly.
54 posted on 10/21/2002 10:05:37 AM PDT by Delbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona; Thinkin' Gal
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. - Mt 1:18 (KJV)

What does "before they came together" mean in the context of discussing the conception of Jesus?

55 posted on 10/21/2002 10:05:49 AM PDT by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Shenandoah
Thanks very much; I'm very glad to hear it!

Dan

56 posted on 10/21/2002 10:06:42 AM PDT by BibChr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
I could post a couple of verses from Matthew 1 (18 and 25), but I'm sure that someboby has spun those too. I just don't find the concept of Mary and Joseph being actually married, all that hard. In fact, if it weren't a real marriage, then that marriage would have been a lie. Kind of a cruel joke to play on both Joseph and Mary.
57 posted on 10/21/2002 10:07:24 AM PDT by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Delbert
Poor Joseph and Mary!! I don't think God would have condemned Mary and Joseph to a life without sexual pleasure just because she was chosen to give birth to the Son of God. What type of earthly father would that have made Joseph? Talk about "flustrated." ;)

BTW, sorry for harping on the son-of-Joseph-not-Jesus" misprint.

58 posted on 10/21/2002 10:09:59 AM PDT by libertysdaughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Delbert
Poor Joseph and Mary!! I don't think God would have condemned Mary and Joseph to a life without sexual pleasure just because she was chosen to give birth to the Son of God. What type of earthly father would that have made Joseph? Talk about "flustrated." ;)

BTW, sorry for harping on the son-of-Joseph-not-Jesus" misprint.

59 posted on 10/21/2002 10:12:26 AM PDT by libertysdaughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Delbert
Poor Joseph and Mary!! You're right, I don't think God would have condemned Mary and Joseph to a life without sexual pleasure just because she was chosen to give birth to the Son of God. What type of earthly father would that have made Joseph? Talk about "flustrated." ;)

BTW, sorry to whomever for harping on the son-of-Joseph-not-Jesus" misprint.

60 posted on 10/21/2002 10:13:38 AM PDT by libertysdaughter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Delbert
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?

61 posted on 10/21/2002 10:24:59 AM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ksen; Delbert
Our replies crossed. See #57.
62 posted on 10/21/2002 10:26:12 AM PDT by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480
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.
63 posted on 10/21/2002 10:26:38 AM PDT by agrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: txzman
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

64 posted on 10/21/2002 10:27:05 AM PDT by BibChr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

pinging myself to read later
65 posted on 10/21/2002 10:27:31 AM PDT by cantfindagoodscreenname
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: All
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...
66 posted on 10/21/2002 10:27:47 AM PDT by Drawsing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ksen; Thinkin' Gal
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.
67 posted on 10/21/2002 10:29:54 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Not tonight honey, I just gave birth to the messiah.
68 posted on 10/21/2002 10:32:28 AM PDT by Tao Yin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
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?

69 posted on 10/21/2002 10:34:32 AM PDT by Delbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: M. T. Cicero II
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

70 posted on 10/21/2002 10:35:06 AM PDT by BibChr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jern
What? Did they actually pick up and READ the Bible? /sarcasm
71 posted on 10/21/2002 10:36:06 AM PDT by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wastoute
Far more evidence that Euclid existed and wrote Geometry.
72 posted on 10/21/2002 10:36:42 AM PDT by Cobra Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 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...<--Homerus Simpsonus

73 posted on 10/21/2002 10:39:42 AM PDT by Delbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
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.
74 posted on 10/21/2002 10:43:16 AM PDT by Tao Yin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
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."

75 posted on 10/21/2002 10:44:15 AM PDT by Aggie Mama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona; Thinkin' Gal
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?

76 posted on 10/21/2002 10:46:57 AM PDT by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: MSCASEY
Bump for later!
77 posted on 10/21/2002 10:47:40 AM PDT by MSCASEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ksen
One side question: Have the moslems built a mosque yet on the site whwre this was found.
78 posted on 10/21/2002 10:49:57 AM PDT by breakem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
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.
79 posted on 10/21/2002 10:51:39 AM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: zarf
A fossilized electric shaver?

C'mon, man. Jesus didn't shave ... haven't you seen all those old Biblical movies ... ?
80 posted on 10/21/2002 10:57:23 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
This was all thrashed out a long time ago.

When you say that she didn't give birth to James, you have no proof of this. You are telling others that they can't make statements that James was the biological brother yet you assert that Mary positively did not give birth to James.

You can't have it both ways. If there's not enough evidence for one viewpoint then there's not enough for the other, either. And saying it was all decided by 500 A.D. doesn't wash, either. If it were settled we wouldn't be discussing it here.

81 posted on 10/21/2002 10:57:25 AM PDT by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

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

LOL! I'm sure that is one of the reasons the owner is trying to stay anonymous, so he can keep the horde of mosque builders out of his house.

Or another thought, when do the Muslims demand this ossuary because it is the fourth most holy item to Islam? ;^)

82 posted on 10/21/2002 11:00:16 AM PDT by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: ksen; BibChr
Even if "lived together" is used, the meaning is the same. That is, the timeframe described is when they were espoused, but did not live together yet, meaning the marriage had not been consummated, which is what would have happened when they did eventually live (join) together.

The idea Mary and Joseph had a real marriage, tends to irritate some folks.
83 posted on 10/21/2002 11:02:11 AM PDT by Thinkin' Gal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Mary is not worshipped, as she is not divine. She is venerated.

Near where I live there is a statue of Mary in a field. People kneel before the statue and pray, and afterwards leave money in a box. Sure seems like idol worship and sacrifice to same to me.

84 posted on 10/21/2002 11:04:07 AM PDT by William Terrell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
... therefore Joseph's son by Mary. I think most of us understood what you meant and let he who has never posted a typo cast the first flame.

I don't have a Bible in front of me, but doesn't one of the Gospels specifically state that Joseph knew his wife Mary after the birth of Jesus ? I never got this "perpetual virgin" business, but I suppose it goes hand in hand with the Roman Catholic Church's requirement for a celibate priesthood.

85 posted on 10/21/2002 11:05:00 AM PDT by katana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona; ksen; Thinkin' Gal; Tao Yin
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.


Until further notice I will assume you are using the NAB for your version of Matthew 1:18. I have taken the liberty of posting several versions, all of which include Matthew 1:25, which completes the Chapter.

Matthew 1:

RSV
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit;
25 but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.

Douay-Rheims
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.
25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus.

NAB
18 Now this is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about. When his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, 7 but before they lived together, she was found with child through the holy Spirit.
25 He had no relations with her until she bore a son, and he named him Jesus.

NIV
18 This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit.
25 But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

How do you explain Matthew 1:25 from any version?

86 posted on 10/21/2002 11:14:07 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal
Even if "lived together" is used, the meaning is the same.

I know, but I am trying to be accomodating right now. ;^)

87 posted on 10/21/2002 11:18:14 AM PDT by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell; OLD REGGIE; webstersII
Since you all have made up your minds on this, I'll quit talking and pray for you.

88 posted on 10/21/2002 11:18:54 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Thanks Reg. You are the master of coming up with and comparing the different translations. ;^)
89 posted on 10/21/2002 11:19:53 AM PDT by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona; William Terrell; webstersII
Since you all have made up your minds on this, I'll quit talking and pray for you.

Before throwing in the towel would you mind giving your interpretation of Matthew 1:25?
90 posted on 10/21/2002 11:23:14 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; All
But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son.

IOW, Joseph did not have sex with his wife UNTIL she bore the Messiah??

The customs of the time of Jesus were very explicit concerning burials. James would not have been called his brother had he not been his brother.

As for the concept of stepbrothers, where does it mention that Mary remarried a man who had kids ( they would have had to have been the other guys kids if she was a perpetual virgin ).

Just curious.

91 posted on 10/21/2002 11:24:52 AM PDT by PleaseNoMore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/10/1021_021021_christianrelicbox.html <---Much mor einfo here from National Geographis...heres an excerpt.......

Jesus and James

Whether Jesus was the son of God is a theological problem, said Lemaire. But historians don't doubt the existence of either James or Jesus; both are mentioned frequently in early historical accounts.

Following the death of Jesus in 29 A.D., James assumed leadership of the Christian church in Jerusalem until he himself was martyred in 62 A.D. According to biblical accounts, he was one of the first apostles to see Jesus after his resurrection.

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.

"The ossuary gives us another piece of evidence outside the Bible that these are blood brothers and sisters of Jesus," said Witherington.

92 posted on 10/21/2002 11:31:24 AM PDT by Delbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: katana
The RCC has a celibate priesthood because of property laws. Long time ago, property needed to be owned by a person. So if a priest was married and died, the church would belong to his wife. Not acceptable to the RCC, so priest needed to be single; therefore celibate.
93 posted on 10/21/2002 11:37:25 AM PDT by Tao Yin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Delbert
Thanks for the National Geographis reference. I have bookmarked the site.

Since the Holy Spirit is the father of Jesus, all his brothers and sisters would be 1/2 brothers and sisters. The common part of the 1/2 is that Mary is the mother of all the children.
94 posted on 10/21/2002 11:41:07 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
>>I agree with the Protestants, I think James was Jesus' son, and I think he had other brothers and sisters. <<

What? That's a new one on me. We must not hang around the same Protestants.

95 posted on 10/21/2002 11:43:43 AM PDT by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
>> HEHE LOL MAJOR TYPO

I ment James is Jesus' brother.<<

LOL

96 posted on 10/21/2002 11:44:36 AM PDT by SerpentDove
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
In my Presbyterian Christian singles group, the minister did say that Jesus had siblings and that they are mentioned in the Bible (not to any great extent).

Could you stand the pressure? "Why can't you be like you brother"? (but actually I guess that we are called upon to be more like Him).

97 posted on 10/21/2002 11:45:20 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Junior
Even if there absolute proof, there would still be those who would insist otherwise (we have seen such behavior from those who banked too much in believing BeelzaBubba to admit that he was a chronic liar).

I don't require "proof". I have faith.

98 posted on 10/21/2002 11:49:28 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult
I don't think that Ted Turner/CNN could ever prove that Jesus never existed; what they seek to prove is that Jesus was "just a man". It would seem that Ted Turner/CNN are on the same page as the Islamists in this regard.
99 posted on 10/21/2002 11:52:31 AM PDT by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
But, James was not a full brother to Jesus.

Right. Half-brother. Same mother (Mary), different Fathers (Holy Spirit, Joseph). If Mary had no other children, then Jesus had no biological siblings or half-siblings at all...

100 posted on 10/21/2002 11:57:05 AM PDT by Lyford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-354 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson