LittleRedCorvette said:

I'll add the text for those that hate to click on links...

WASHINGTON, Oct. 21 — A burial box that was recently discovered in Israel and dates to the first century could be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus Christ, according to 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” the writing refers to Jesus of Nazareth. He dates the ossuary to A.D. 63, just three decades after the crucifixion.
Lemaire, a specialist in ancient inscriptions at France’s Practical School of Higher Studies, published his findings in the November/December issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
The Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, a Bible professor at Catholic University who studied photos of the box, agrees with Lemaire that the writing style “fits perfectly” with other first century examples. The joint appearance of these three famous names is “striking,” he 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,” Fitzmyer said.
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.
All three names were commonplace, but Lemaire estimates 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,” Lemaire wrote. 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, Lemaire concluded.
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.
Lemaire’s claim was attacked by Robert Eisenman of California State University, Long Beach, who unlike most scholars thinks that “Jesus’ existence is a very shaky thing.” Since Eisenman is highly skeptical about New Testament history, he considers the new discovery “just too pat. It’s just too perfect.”
EARLIEST KNOWN ARTIFACT FROM A.D. 125
Virtually all that is known about Jesus comes from the New Testament. No physical artifact from the first century related to him has been discovered and verified.
James is depicted as Jesus’ brother in the Gospels and head of the Jerusalem church in the Book of Acts and Paul’s epistles.


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 the inscription would have occurred the following year, around 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 around 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 KEEPING IDENTITY SECRET
The ossuary’s owner required Lemaire to shield his identity, so the box’s location was not revealed. Nor is anything known about its history over the past 19 centuries, one reason for 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.
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 never realized its potential importance until Lemaire examined it last spring.
Lemaire, who was raised Roman Catholic, said his faith did not affect his judgment, since he studies inscriptions only “as a historian — that is, comparing them critically with other sources.”
The archaeology 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.

© 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Who was James?


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

Who can say... Jesus was a very popular name back then... much like Brittney or Courtney are today.

Very cool.

Deity aside. I don't think anyone doubts there was ever a man named Jesus that lived in the first century.

This find only supports that. Now evidence that a man named Jesus was the son of a one true God is found in the bible, written by 5 authors, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. This, back then, was suffice, for it was 5 different eye witness accounts to what they saw.

There is even a note in a journal from a Roman military figure named "Josephus" that saw Jesus and wrote that he surely must be the son of God because no man could have done the things that he saw.

So, although this is a cool find. The evidence of Jesus' Deity for most people would only satisfy if a TV crew went back in time and filmed all the miricles and such. Even then, there would be doubts.

I am sure that I can round up at least fifty people who will claim that they saw Benny Hinn perform miracles... Benny Hinn is not god, the son of god or an associate of the holy trinity.

IceNine said:

I used to love to watch that show for Sunday morning laughs.

Also, I worked with a guy for a few years that looked exactly like him. He said at airports, people would come up to him and kiss his hand and try to give him money.

Good thing he was an honest man and gave it all back and told them he wasn't Benny Hinn.

At least that's what he told me.
[This message was edited Tue Oct 22 6:32:17 PDT 2002 by yamomma]

yamomma said:

The REAL Benny Hinn would never turn down cash!

Kind of an inside joke at work with this guy.

I'd always stumble into his office holding my head asking for a healing.

Now when I see that show, I get sick to my stomach that someone can live with theirselves doing that to poor and uneducated people.

The worst part is after they find out the truth of the "show", most never want to hear about any God, the Son of God or anything else to do with the bible.

yamomma said:

True, true...

He even duped THE REAL DEAL... EVANDER HOLYFIELD!!!

Holyfield sued him to get his money back.

Benny Hinn should be ashamed of himself.

IceNine said:

Pretty friggin' evil in my book.
I remember an investigation going on with Hinn.
I wonder what ever happened with that.

Regardless of any religious connection it's an incredible archeological find. Too bad they didn't find any human remains.

IceNine said:

Yes the name was popular back then, but as the article states, there could possibly be only 20 incidents in which the father's name was Joseph and the brother's name was James. Also I find it interesting that the timing of the burial would fit so perfectly with the timeline that Josephus gave.

When I heard this, this am. I got chills on my arms...

So it must mean something wonderful..

By the way... even if the existence of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth is proven, it still does not make that historical figure god, the son of god or anything other than a human.

IceNine said:

Right.
Deity aside. I don't think anyone doubts there was ever a man named Jesus that lived in the first century.

To much evolved and revolved around one person to be just "made up".

IceNine said:

No it doesn't, that is still left up to personal faith. However, the implications of this find within religious circles will be graet. It does give a little more credence then to the Bible. If as

yamomma said

Then more evidence will be mounting towards a greater belief in the Bible. There will always be those that will deny the deity of Christ, preferring instead to believe in a more scientific foundation. However, even science at this time cannot explain everything, and there are times when science is in error (such as the world is flat belief only 600 years ago.)

However, I still believe that beliefs are valid for that person. I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything, nor am I questioning those who believe or do not believe in Christ. Besides there are things in the world that do not need to be proved to be believed in, even for those that do not believe in Christ.

Given the evidence all around us, one would conclude that life itself and the planet we're on was created.

So far, only life creates life.

There is too much design and patterns for all of this to happen by chance.

And where there is design - there must be a designer.

And if there must be a designer then it would make some since for that designer to leave evidence of himself.

The bible claims to be that evidence of the designer's history of communication to man.

Now, if that's true, then it's story of Jesus therein tells the reader/listener that He was of devine nature.

So, far it's the only documentation that answers the three questions: (over other manuscripts, scriptures, etc. that describe some sort of meaning to life and existence)

• Where we came from
  
• Why we are here
  
• Where we are going
  

Sure it's been transcribed, for two thousand years, by many different people, but the stories are still the same.

The rest, is that "faith" factor that I'm sure someone has preached to many of you before so I won't.

yamomma said:

Actually I know of people who do doubt Jesus existed. They claim that there is no proof to substantiate his existence, except for what was written in the Bible and they believe the Bible to be an epic along the lines of The Iliad and The Odyssey.

yamomma said:

There are those that would argue and say that life was not by design but by accident. Therefore there is no design, nor designer. (I do believe that there is a design/designer). What would you say to someone who gave you the "accident" explanation of life?

LittleRedCorvette said:

There's more evidence of life creating life than life happeing by accedent -(0 evidence).

Let's expeirement:

Have a mass explosion, you get mass destruction and mass confusion. Nothing is created.

Pollinate a flower: you get more life.

Life + Life = Life
Life + Nothing = Life
Nothing + Nothing = Nothing

Can't go wrong with math.

Accedent:

Just like an unplanned pregnancy, although it was an accedent, it still took a deliberate action to create life.

Let me pose a question to those of you who believe that humans and animals were "designed" and "created" by a god. I am going to make this terribly simplistic, so forgive me:

If a god created people, etc., why would this god go to the trouble of creating humans/animals with so many various parts, each of which can malfunction or be attacked by disease?

If you were all-powerful, you could take a lump of clay and animate it with life... there is absolutely NO need for all the intricate internal workings of life if a god created life and as they say, the simplest and most elegant solution is the best solution. Wouldn't it be easier for a god to animate an object that has no internal workings? AND... since this creature is god, the laws of physics should bend to its will, therefore it could make a lump of marble walk, talk and live.

Can you explain why an all-powerful god would create something with so many parts that can and will fail? AND... why is it that this same god who created all these unnecessary parts will allow small children to die of cancer that is attacking all of these parts that he has created when he did not have to use parts at all.

In short, if a god did create life, it did a very poor design job... in my opinion.

...
[This message was edited Tue Oct 22 9:40:09 PDT 2002 by IceNine]

IceNine said:

You can't determine whether or not anything was designed poorly, until you know what the purpose of designing it was...you have to define "failure" and "success" before you can deem whether or not anything has failed or succeeded...and the only way you can do that, is if you know what the designer intended for its creation...

We often define "perfection" as the absence of anything "bad"...in reality, perfection is the absence of mistakes...so, the only way our bodies could be considered a "poor design job" is if things are happening within it that were never meant to happen...and the only way to know that is to say you also know what the purpose of creating and designing us--life--is, because that's the only way you'll know if something occured that was not meant to occur...and the only way to really know that, is to first accept the existence of a Creator or a God as a reality, and not just as a concept...trying to do it in reverse will never work--that is, trying to say "the reasoning makes sense to me, therefore, the reasoner must be real and exist"...or even worse, "the reasoning does not make sense to me, therefore, the reasoner can't possibly exist"...if that were the case, then I would be doubting the existence of half the people on P.org (booyah!!)..

IceNine said:

Can't say.
I know that with my own creations, paintings, drawings, illustrations, etc. I've been questioned with why I did things the way I've done them. and there is no real reason to give. That's just the way I designed it. There were pre-concieved patterns in my design that I followed through with the whole peice.


Can I say the same for an all-powerful God?

Nope.

That's just speculation on my part.

The Bible talks of a world that was a little different before a great flood. It also talks of people living for like 900 years and such. It doesn't talk of disease or frailty before the flood.


It (the bible, not me, I can only tell you what I've read and could very well be wrong) also talks of that fruit Adam and Eve ate, talking of God telling Adam that if he ate of it he would surley die.

wellbeyond said:

IceNine said:

WellBeyond said:

IceNine said:

WellBeyond said:

IceNine said:

Edit: messed up the quote thing...
[This message was edited Tue Oct 22 9:56:04 PDT 2002 by IceNine]

I don't think there are any absolute answers that can justify either point of view.

The fact is: truth is truth.

(Not the best example but I got a lunch date with my wife)
You put a pencil in a box, the truth is the pencil is in the box. No doubt about it. 5 other people saw you do it and told 100's of others that you did it.

Now two thousand years later, proove it!

There's an old book that says you did it, but it's been transcribed in all sorts of different languages over the years. The story still says you put a pencil in a box, just a little different.

It used to say it in Hebrew then Greek, then old English.

It used to say "He putteth the pencil in thy holy container of squarish porportions."

Now the book reads: He put the pencil in a box.



So what do you believe?
All you have to go on is what ever evidence you find.

yamomma said:

.
[This message was edited Tue Oct 22 10:02:20 PDT 2002 by AzureStar]

yamomma said:

True enough, but you can view the effects of disease and such and formulate an opinion on the will of god.

It must be said that a creature such as god is beyond good and evil and would not be concerned with trivial human concerns... also, good and evil would not be different to a god, as it would have been the architect of both good and evil. How could it prefer one over the other if it created both?

The answer is that it does not prefer one or the other, as it is beyond good and evil.

...
[This message was edited Tue Oct 22 10:01:49 PDT 2002 by IceNine]

The bible point of God's design describes life for eternity and that life on earth was designed to be temporary.

So i guess the bible does say "He meant to do that".

It also talks of a child having a sure ticket to an eternal heaven/paradise/greater place.

yamomma said:

But... why would this creator purposely make it so that the objects of his creation would suffer great pain and horrible torment?

I would not be the god who created such misery.