pris0ner6
Hmmm, who knows, but here is more evidence:
THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS PUERTO RICAN His first name was Jesus He was bilingual He was always being harassed by the authorities THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS BLACK He called everybody "brother" He liked Gospel He couldn't get a fair trial THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS JEWISH He went into his father's business He lived at home until he was 33 He was sure his Mother was a virgin, and his Mother was sure he was God THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS ITALIAN He talked with his hands He had wine with every meal He worked in the building trades THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS A CALIFORNIAN He never cut his hair He walked around barefoot He started a new religion THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS IRISH He never got married He was always telling stories He loved green pastures (and now the MOST Compelling EVIDENCE:) THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS A WOMAN He had to feed a crowd, at a moments notice, when there was no food. He kept trying to get the message across to a bunch of men who just didn't get it. Even when he was dead, he had to get up because there was more work for him to do.
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."
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.
I kinda doubt that they'll find any "direct evidence" that's more compelling.
It could be the oldest archaeological link to Christ, scholar says
10/21/2002
WASHINGTON - A burial box that was recently discovered in Israel and dates to the first century could be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus Christ, said a French scholar whose findings were published Monday.
An inscription in the Aramaic language - "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" - appears on an empty ossuary, a limestone burial box for bones.
Andre Lemaire said it's "very probable" that the writing refers to Jesus of Nazareth. He dates the ossuary to A.D. 63, three decades after the crucifixion.
 A detailed view of an inscription in Aramaic reading, 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus,' appears on an empty ossuary, or limestone burial box for bones, in this undated handout photo. (AP) |
Style backs theory
The Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, a Bible professor at the Catholic University of America who studied photos of the box, agrees with Mr. Lemaire that the writing style "fits perfectly" with other first-century examples. The joint appearance of these three famous names is "striking," Mr. Fitzmyer said.
"But the big problem is, you have to show me the Jesus in this text is Jesus of Nazareth, and nobody can show that," he said.
Mr. Lemaire writes that the distinct 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.
The names were common, but Mr. Lemaire estimates that only 20 Jameses in Jerusalem during that era would have had a father named Joseph and a brother named Jesus.
Moreover, naming the brother as well as the father on an ossuary was "very unusual," Mr. Lemaire wrote. There's only one other known example in Aramaic. Thus, this Jesus must have had some unusual role or fame - and Jesus of Nazareth certainly qualified, Mr. Lemaire said.
However, Kyle McCarter, a Johns Hopkins University archaeologist, said it's possible the brother was named because he conducted the burial or owned the tomb.
The archaeology magazine said two Israeli government scientists conducted a detailed microscopic examination of the surface and the inscription, reporting last month that nothing undercuts first-century authenticity.
Mr. Lemaire's assertion was attacked by Robert Eisenman of California State University, Long Beach, who, unlike most scholars, thinks that "Jesus' existence is a very shaky thing." Because Mr. Eisenman is highly skeptical about New Testament history, he considers the discovery "just too perfect."
| Also Online | ||
|
James is depicted as Jesus' brother in the Gospels and as head of the Jerusalem church in the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles.
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 the inscription would have occurred the next year, about A.D. 63.
Until now, the oldest surviving artifact that mentions Jesus is a fragment of Chapter 18 in John's Gospel from a manuscript dated about A.D. 125. It was discovered in Egypt in 1920.
There are numerous surviving manuscripts of New Testament portions from later in that century. Jesus was mentioned by three pagan authors in Rome in the early second century and by Josephus in the late first century.
Owner stays anonymous
The ossuary's owner required Mr. Lemaire to shield his identity, so the box's location was not revealed. Nor is anything known about its history over the last 19 centuries, one reason for Mr. McCarter's caution.
Biblical Archaeology Review editor Hershel Shanks said skepticism is to be expected. "Something so startling, so earth-shattering, raises questions about its authenticity," he said.
Mr. Shanks said the owner bought the box about 15 years ago from an Arab antiquities dealer in Jerusalem who said it was unearthed south of the Mount of Olives. The owner didn't realize its potential importance until Mr. Lemaire examined it last spring.
Mr. Lemaire, who was raised Roman Catholic, said his faith did not affect his judgment, because he studies inscriptions only "as a historian - that is, comparing them critically with other sources."
The magazine is negotiating to display the box in Toronto during a major convention of religion scholars in late November, and possibly in the United States.
Moreover, naming the brother as well as the father on an ossuary was ``very unusual,'' Lemaire says. There's only one other known example in Aramaic. Thus, this particular Jesus must have had some unusual role or fame - and Jesus of Nazareth certainly qualified
ROFL!!!! They call an inscription with the name Jesus on it direct evidence? What a joke! Looks like folks are grasping for straws to keep the myth alive before it goes the way of the dinosaur as people slowly become educated with facts.
The Jesus myth has been debunked many times over due the enormous lack of evidence that SHOULD be there and SHOULD be easy to find if it were true. That is more than enough proof to know that it isn't true. Tiny scraps of evidence point more to fraud or coincidence than anything else. I'm sure many man by the name of Jesus existed during these times, but the Jesus of Nazareth no way. You have to ask yourself why anyone had to resort to fraud if he were really true?
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
