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?
What is fascinating about your position is the number of people who have taken it upon themselves to prove that Jesus did not exist. This includes some very keen and trained minds. After serious and dedicated work in that direction they have concluded they were very wrong.
I suggest you not just talk about it but make it your lifes work to prove that Jesus did not exist. Be sure and let us know how it all comes out. {ggg}.