Possible Earliest Artifact Identifying Jesus?

[stamenflicker]

I wonder why they would not have written,” James brother of Jesus called Christ”.

That is an interesting point. But the word Christ is of Greek origination. Then again, maybe the guy was charging by the letter.

Flick

 

[Loki]

crindt,

... the latter was Barabbas, whom the Jews chose to release from crucifiction instead of Christ.

I believe that modern research (ref: 'Life Of Brian') has confirmed that in fact they attempted to released Roger (the robber and rapist), Reginald and Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer before settling on releasing Brian.

 

[Loki]

Flick,

What is your opinion on the lack of Christian 'locality' - none of the actual "historical sites" are known. Why would his tomb go unmarked? You hinted earlier at the destruction of the Temple as a likely cause - is that the only explanation?

 

[Brown]

I wonder why they would not have written,” James brother of Jesus called Christ”.

Or "James, the brother of Joses," or some other legitimate, full-blooded brother. If memory serves, another brother was named "Judas." Perhaps Joseph had an alliteration fetish, or perhaps Mary just wanted to hand down clothes to the brothers without having to sew new monograms on them.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I can't pass up the opportunity to wax a bit facetious, and point out, that it is still a bit sad that we are scrambling around this artifact, in our endeavor to answer questions about the veracity of the whole " is/was Jesus really what/who so many have claimed him to be" question..



I mean, is this really all, the all powerful, loving creator of the universe can give us, to bring us into the one true way?



(Yes, I know there are those who will say he has given us so much more. But think about it, these will include the same ones who are making such a big fuss over this new 'carrot'. Why the need to keep shoring up this rock-like faith that they have?)

 

[Loki]

(Mike B. wrote) : I think it is a well established fact that Jesus had at least one brother James. He was one of the leaders of the early church in Jerselum. Saul/Paul mentions him a few times in his letters (brother of the Lord). And remember these letters go back to the first Xian generation.
...
The Catholic Church is simply engaging in rank special pleading to say that he did not have brothers, the oldest gospel Mark (c70CE) quite clearly says he does. I think it is close to the beginning...I suppose they wish to maintain the virgin thing at all costs. I would assume this is a later addition to the story...

(headscratcher4 wrote) : There is much speculation that Jesus had a brother: James -- despite the Catholic Church's late 19th Century doctrinal marginalization of him.

(corplinx wrote) : Is there historical reference for when Mary first became a semi-deity in christian world?

Mary's status goes back far beyond the 19th century. A quick example, St Jerome writing in 383 CE : THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY

You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin.

So there you have it - Joseph was a life-long virgin also!!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Mary's status goes back far beyond the 19th century. A quick example, St Jerome writing in 383 CE : THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF BLESSED MARY


So there you have it - Joseph was a life-long virgin also!!

And that means.. (catches breath).. that ... that .. (catches breath again) that James must have been .... ADOPTED!!!

 

[PotatoStew]

wert:

Well, ya see...

You were the very first one to mention Tektonics in this thread. No one else saw fit to bring them into this discussion.

I mentioned it in passing, as a joke, and you saw fit to try to turn it into something more than it was and call me a hypocrite over it. So what's your point?

And IMHO, you did so in a disparaging way.

All else is pedantic rationalization and spin on your part.

I'll take that to mean that you can't actually demonstrate why my statement should be taken as disparaging, as I expected.

I'm quite content to let our readers decide for themselves.

Sounds good to me.

I even remember a few long time users of the forums expressing their dismay at your shameless kowtowing to JP *aka Robert Turkel*.

LOL! That's funny... I don't remember that, but I do seem to remember at least one long time (atheist) member calling you an "◊◊◊◊◊◊◊." Too bad the thread is gone so neither one of us can support our claims.

 

[stamenflicker]

What is your opinion on the lack of Christian 'locality' - none of the actual "historical sites" are known. Why would his tomb go unmarked? You hinted earlier at the destruction of the Temple as a likely cause - is that the only explanation?

I think Christians were by and large a marginalized people until Constantine. They were expelled from Jewish synagogues in 90AD, perhaps earlier. Imagine trying to find evidence of the Native Americans 2000 years from now-- perhaps that's not a good example given the specificity of their culture, but maybe the Palestinians. We have almost a zero chance for artistic expression or architecture, no permenant homes to speak of... only a lot of death and martyrdom.

Flick

 

[arcticpenguin]

-----------------------
Why would his tomb go unmarked?
-----------------------

It was a perfectly good tomb! Only used for 3 days, for crying out loud. And they were Jewish. Like they're not going to put someone else's name on it and re-use it, or sell it?

 

[PotatoStew]

-----------------------
Why would his tomb go unmarked?
-----------------------

It was a perfectly good tomb! Only used for 3 days, for crying out loud.

lol! Another consideration would be that tombs are usually marked/remembered/visited/etc because in most cases there is someone important buried there. But if Jesus rose from the dead, then there wouldn't be any body in the tomb, so people might not have seen a reason to visit it or remember it.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

I disagree 100%. The site itself would've been considered very special/holy ground, so people would've flocked to it. Your argument only holds true if Jesus was just a human, but we're claiming that Jesus was God, therefore the site where he was buried and raised from the dead would've been one extraordinary piece of land.

lol! Another consideration would be that tombs are usually marked/remembered/visited/etc because in most cases there is someone important buried there. But if Jesus rose from the dead, then there wouldn't be any body in the tomb, so people might not have seen a reason to visit it or remember it.

 

[PotatoStew]

I disagree 100%. The site itself would've been considered very special/holy ground, so people would've flocked to it. Your argument only holds true if Jesus was just a human, but we're claiming that Jesus was God, therefore the site where he was buried and raised from the dead would've been one extraordinary piece of land.

You may be right. Of course, at this point, we're both just speculating.

 

[Mike B.]

I don't think it is too surprising we do not have sites for a "marginal jew" on the peripheries of the Roman Empire. We don't even have a grave for Alexander the Great who conquered the whole world...

I am sure the destruction of Jerselum had something to do with it.

Also, John Crossan of the Jesus Seminar, seems to think that Jesus's body was thrown to the dogs, as many crucified people were.

Not all apparently were because a crucified skeleton was found formally buried in a dig in 1968, but it is something to consider. Just a theory...

The earliest resurrection talk: Saul/Paul does not mention an empty tomb but appearances: "First he appeared to Cephas, than to the 12, etc.

 

[arcticpenguin]

----------------------
You may be right. Of course, at this point, we're both just speculating.
----------------------

Speculating? I thought I was trolling. Oh well.

BTW, where is this "heaven" that Jebus ascended into?

 

[Guest]

Brian Barabbas's Life

I believe that modern research (ref: 'Life Of Brian') has confirmed that in fact they attempted to released Roger (the robber and rapist), Reginald and Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer before settling on releasing Brian. [/B]

Ouch, I suppose I left that one out over the plate...(hmm, Melbourne)...er, wicket.

Nonetheless, I was curious if the 'Barabbas' translation was valid. If so, it's interesting, isn't it? Of course, I'm no biblical scholar---it may just be stupid.

Cheers.

(BTW, Melbourne's a great place, but I haven't been able to stoke up much of an interest in cricket).

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

If it does prove to be authentic, then it seems a stretch to conclude that the box can't be included in the historical evidence-- I saw someone's odds above.

I suspect that it is authentic, with a probative value somewhat equal to that of the Josephus reference to James.

I have seen more serious scholarship done on Jesus' missing years that involved submerging himself in the Essene culture ...

No, you haven't.

The language Jesus employs throughout the gospels is reminsent of some of the Dead Sea scroll stuff I've read.

You mean 'the language attributed to Jesus'. So What? The language attributed to Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz is reminiscent of that used in Kansas at the the time.

 

[Smalso]

A couple of warning lights flashed on when I read the original article. One was the wording of the inscription. In the dim reaches of my memory I seem to recall that he would not have been called "Jesus" in Aramaic. That is the Latinization of the Greek (or something like that) for Yeshua (Joshua=deliverer) and the inscription would be something like "Yeshua bar Yosep" and whatever the Aramaic for "James" is. Maybe there will be more details later.

The other thing I thought odd was that the guy who has this thing will not reveal where he is keeping it because he does not want to pay for the insurance or something like that. Seems a strange way to treat afind of ths (supposed) importance.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I disagree 100%. The site itself would've been considered very special/holy ground, so people would've flocked to it. Your argument only holds true if Jesus was just a human, but we're claiming that Jesus was God, therefore the site where he was buried and raised from the dead would've been one extraordinary piece of land.

Not a good argument.


Very few people considered Jesus special until long after his death.

And as PS alluded to, the ones who did think he was special, thought the tomb was a place he took a nap.

 

[The Fool]

My initial unsubstantiated guess would be that, at best, it is a very old artifact produced for sale by someone when making and selling fake religious relics was all the rage....eg shroud of turin, Some saints testicles in a pickle jar, enough pieces of the true cross to build a house, locks of Jesus's hair and all the other wacko stuff the church sold.....

Its often very difficult to tell if something is 1500 or 2000 years old. And I bet the guy who has it finds some origional excuse for not having it closely examined.....

At worst it is a very cheap and nasty contemporary fake....like the Hitler diaries.