CNN: Archaeologists Report 1st Direct Evidence of Jesus

Oct. 21, 2002 | CNN

[jern]

BREAKING: Archaeologists Report 1st Direct Evidence of Jesus

[Dog Gone]

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.

[Remole]

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."

[Delbert]

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.

[ksen]

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

Your's is much better. ;^)

[skeeter]

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.

[Delbert]

Here we go again...Another Mary never had babies after Jesus thread....

[Desdemona]

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.

[concerned about politics]

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?

[Delbert]

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.

[Desdemona]

See post 47.

This was all thrashed out a long time ago.

[Desdemona]

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....

[libertysdaughter]

I don't think you mean "Jesus'" son. How 'bout Joseph's? :) Other brothers would include Joses and Jude.

[Ready2go]

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.

[Delbert]

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.

[ksen]

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?

[BibChr]

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

Dan

[Thinkin' Gal]

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.

[libertysdaughter]

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.

[libertysdaughter]

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.

[libertysdaughter]

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.