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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-354 next last
To: Carry_Okie
Impressive post, sir.

I can't take credit. It's something I found and had in my clipboard while FR was having its temper tantrum. It's from the AP, but I had long since lost the link from where I copied it.

I should have made that clear when I posted it. Sorry.

41 posted on 10/21/2002 9:49:28 AM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jern
I apologize in advance for my comment which may seem esoteric, but here goes:

One of the underlying assumptions of the CNN report is that the only sort of evidence that is considered "hard" evidence is "stuff" such as buildings and (in this case) an ossuary.

Once again, literary documents from the ancient world are not given equal merit. And I am not referring here to the text of the New Testament and the oldest papyri that give evidence of it. Rather, I am referring to the two passages in Josephus (ca. 37--100 AD) that mention Jesus. The first one mentions this James the brother of Jesus by name. And the second one summarizes the ministry of Jesus. Most scholars consider that second text in Josephus to have been emended by Christians, but nevertheless there is a core text that goes back to Josephus. So my point is that, for those who are interested in such things, there already existed "direct evidence for Jesus."

42 posted on 10/21/2002 9:49:53 AM PDT by Remole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jgrubbs
ya scared me for a second there man..I thought you were one of those bloodline of the holy grail folks....which is a weird read in itself.
43 posted on 10/21/2002 9:51:00 AM PDT by Delbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Thinkin' Gal
Hehheh, I promise I didn't read your #36 before I wrote my #39. ;^)

Your's is much better. ;^)

44 posted on 10/21/2002 9:51:28 AM PDT by ksen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: jern
The first century Jewish historian Josephus recorded that ``the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, James by name,'' was stoned to death as a Jewish heretic in A.D. 62. If his bones were placed in an ossuary that would have occurred the following year, dating the inscription around A.D. 63.

This is not the only reference to Jesus in Josephus' works. A non christian, Josephus also referred to Jesus directly as being a teacher from Nazareth who performed many miracles.

45 posted on 10/21/2002 9:51:58 AM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Here we go again...Another Mary never had babies after Jesus thread....
46 posted on 10/21/2002 9:53:23 AM PDT by Delbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ksen; Thinkin' Gal
Look, I know the whole Mary argument is a favorite among the doubters (even though it was settled before 500 A.D. SOmebody else objected using exactly the same arguments.), but simply, in those days, and today in families like mine, a relative is a relative is a relative. They came from the same house. James was from the same house, either a cousin or a step-brother. Either way, it doesn't matter. They were raised together, probably as brothers.

There is no mention, to my knowledge, that Mary ever birthed more children. There are mention of brothers and sisters, but it's understood, as far as I know, that they were step-sibs and cousins. This info come from at least 1000 years before the 16th century revolters.
47 posted on 10/21/2002 9:56:25 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Desdemona
Mary did not birth him.

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?

48 posted on 10/21/2002 9:56:54 AM PDT by concerned about politics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Junior
One may not need proof, but it's still pretty exciting when proof appears. <----My sentiments exactly..Biblical Archaeology is fascinating...I dont need it, but I sure do like it.
49 posted on 10/21/2002 9:57:33 AM PDT by Delbert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Delbert
See post 47.

This was all thrashed out a long time ago.
50 posted on 10/21/2002 9:58:49 AM PDT by Desdemona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 341-354 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