Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence Of Jesus Written In Stone
tenchi
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 21 (23069)
11-18-2002 4:32 AM


Ossuary Of Jesus’ Brother Backs Up Biblical Accounts
After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone. An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. This container provides the only New Testament-era mention of the central figure of Christianity and is the first-ever archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus.
The Aramaic words etched on the box’s side show a cursive form of writing used only from about 10 to 70 A.D., according to noted paleographer Andr Lemaire of the cole Pratique des Hautes tudes (popularly known as the Sorbonne University) in Paris, who verified the inscription’s authenticity. The ossuary has been dated to approximately 63 A.D. Lemaire details his full investigation in the November/December 2002 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, the leading popular publication in its field.
Ancient inscriptions are typically found on royal monuments or on lavish tombs, commemorating rulers and other official figures. But Jesus, who was raised by a carpenter, was a man of the people, so finding documentation of his family is doubly unexpected.
In the first century A.D., Jews followed the custom of transferring the bones of their deceased from burial caves to ossuaries. The practice was largely abandoned after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. No one knows for certain why the practice started or stopped, but it provides a rare period of self-documentation in which commoners as well as leaders left their names carved in stone.
The new find is also significant in that it corroborates the existence of Joseph, Jesus’ father, and James, Jesus’ brother and a leader of the early Christian church in Jerusalem. The family relationships contained on the new find helped experts ascertain that the inscription very likely refers to the Biblical James, brother of Jesus (see, for example, Matthew 13:55-56 and Galatians 1:18-19). Although all three names were common in ancient times, the statistical probability of their appearing in that combination is extremely slim. In addition, the mention of a brother is unusual--indicating that this Jesus must have been a well-known figure.
Laboratory tests performed by the Geological Survey of Israel confirm that the box’s limestone comes from the Jerusalem area. The patina--a thin sheen or covering that forms on stone and other materials over time--has the cauliflower-type shape known to develop in a cave environment; more importantly, it shows no trace of modern elements.
The 20-inch-long box resides in a private collection in Israel. Like many ossuaries obtained on the antiquities market, it is empty. Its history prior to its current ownership is not known.
The container is one of very few ancient artifacts mentioning New Testament figures. One such object is the ossuary of Caiaphas, the high priest who turned Jesus over to the Romans, according to the Biblical account. Caiaphas’s tomb was uncovered in 1990. Also, some 40 years ago, archaeologists discovered an inscription on a monument that mentions Pontius Pilate.
The James ossuary may be the most important find in the history of New Testament archaeology, says Hershel Shanks, editor of Biblical Archaeology Review. It has implications not just for scholarship, but for the world’s understanding of the Bible.
Source: Biblical Archaeology Review

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by gene90, posted 11-18-2002 10:41 PM tenchi has not replied
 Message 5 by joz, posted 11-19-2002 12:45 PM tenchi has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 2 of 21 (23159)
11-18-2002 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tenchi
11-18-2002 4:32 AM


[QUOTE][B]it shows no trace of modern elements.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
"Modern elements"?
I don't buy it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tenchi, posted 11-18-2002 4:32 AM tenchi has not replied

  
David unfamous
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 21 (23220)
11-19-2002 10:04 AM


quote:
The 20-inch-long box resides in a private collection in Israel... Its history prior to its current ownership is not known.
So... we don't know where it came from, or where it is now. Don't you just love this kind of evidence?

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 11-19-2002 11:32 AM David unfamous has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 21 (23242)
11-19-2002 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by David unfamous
11-19-2002 10:04 AM


quote:
Originally posted by David unfamous:
quote:
The 20-inch-long box resides in a private collection in Israel... Its history prior to its current ownership is not known.
So... we don't know where it came from, or where it is now. Don't you just love this kind of evidence?

What Tenchi didnt quote, funnily enough, was
"BAR editor Hershel Shanks told CT the ossuary had been in the private collection of an Israeli citizen for about 15 years. "I asked the owner why he didn't recognize it. He said, 'I never thought that the Son of God could have a brother.'"
Shanks became aware of its existence in June after the owner contacted French epigrapher Andre LeMaire to evaluate it for him. The owner "got it from an Arab antiquities dealer," he said. "He only paid a few hundred dollars for it. The antiquities dealer told him it was found in the section of Jerusalem called Silwan, just south of the Mount of Olives. It's an area that's pockmarked with burial caves. Some people have their basements in ancient burial caves."
So we are asked to believe that an Israeli citizen had the box for about 15 years and didnt know who the 'Jesus'was because it said he had a brother called James! He knew that Jesus was the Son of God though!
This is simply ludicrous, Jesus, Joseph and James on the same burial box and the owner doesnt catch on. What about all the other people that may have handled it during its murky past, I take it they didnt recognise the names either.
An Arab antiques dealer with no knowledge of the founder of the Jerusalem church, the Messiah or the messiah's father is beyond belief.
I am sure it is just a matter of time before this is exposed as a fake. But that will probably make no difference to the true believer, they will say that the claim that it is a fake will be a hoax!
I really think they should have waited a bit longer before triumphantly claiming this as genuine. You also have the possibility that it has nothing to do with the god-man Jesus, as these three names are very common.
It still doesnt prove Jesus was divine either, just that he may have existed. Hardly anything to get excited about, unless you are Roman Catholic and the perpetual virginity of Mary is jettisoned, although im sure there will be some ambiguous wording to allow them to keep that particular fantasy entact.
Best Wishes
Brian
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!
[This message has been edited by Brian Johnston, 11-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by David unfamous, posted 11-19-2002 10:04 AM David unfamous has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 21 (23258)
11-19-2002 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by tenchi
11-18-2002 4:32 AM


quote:
Originally posted by tenchi:
Ossuary Of Jesus’ Brother Backs Up Biblical Accounts
After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone. An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"

I hate to mention this but shouldn`t it read brother of Yahshua (Joshua?)?
The name Jesus comes from the Greek Iesous not the Aramaic form...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tenchi, posted 11-18-2002 4:32 AM tenchi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 11-19-2002 1:09 PM joz has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 6 of 21 (23261)
11-19-2002 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by joz
11-19-2002 12:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
Originally posted by tenchi:
Ossuary Of Jesus’ Brother Backs Up Biblical Accounts
After nearly 2,000 years, historical evidence for the existence of Jesus has come to light literally written in stone. An inscription has been found on an ancient bone box, called an ossuary, that reads James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"

I hate to mention this but shouldn`t it read brother of Yahshua (Joshua?)?
The name Jesus comes from the Greek Iesous not the Aramaic form...

The quote James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" is the english translation.
The writing on the ossuary is in aramaic.
Best Wishes
Bria
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by joz, posted 11-19-2002 12:45 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by joz, posted 11-19-2002 1:16 PM Brian has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 21 (23262)
11-19-2002 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Brian
11-19-2002 1:09 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
The quote James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" is the english translation.
The writing on the ossuary is in aramaic.

Thats kind of my point shouldn`t Yahshua translate from aramaic to Joshua rather than Jesus.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Brian, posted 11-19-2002 1:09 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by John, posted 11-19-2002 1:24 PM joz has not replied
 Message 9 by Brian, posted 11-19-2002 2:35 PM joz has not replied
 Message 10 by doctrbill, posted 11-19-2002 10:29 PM joz has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 21 (23265)
11-19-2002 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by joz
11-19-2002 1:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
The quote James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" is the english translation.
The writing on the ossuary is in aramaic.

Thats kind of my point shouldn`t Yahshua translate from aramaic to Joshua rather than Jesus.....

Anyone have pictures of this inscription?
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by joz, posted 11-19-2002 1:16 PM joz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by :j: Lizard Lips, posted 11-21-2002 10:38 AM John has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 9 of 21 (23268)
11-19-2002 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by joz
11-19-2002 1:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
quote:
Originally posted by Brian Johnston:
The quote James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" is the english translation.
The writing on the ossuary is in aramaic.

Thats kind of my point shouldn`t Yahshua translate from aramaic to Joshua rather than Jesus.....

The report here: Whoops! Page Not Found | Discovery reads:
"The 20 Aramaic letters etched on a side of the newly revealed ossuary read "Ya'akov bar Yosef akhui di Yoshua," or "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
So obviously the translators have translated Yoshua as 'Jesus' for the less knowledgable christians out there.
Here is another interesting article:
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Ossuaries.htm
"With regard to the authenticity of the James’ inscription, Dr. Rochelle Altman argues that the ossuary and the first half of the inscription are probably authentic but that the second half of the inscription, the part which reads brother of Jesus, is not. She shows that it is written by a second hand in a very different script. Whereas the first part of the inscription is carefully written by a skilled stone carver who formed and placed the letters with skill, the second part is clearly done by a hand not trained in cutting letters into stone. The letters are uneven and inconsistently formed, some letters are simply done incorrectly, and the writer cannot even keep to a straight line. Altman thinks that this second part of the inscription was probably done a few centuries after the ossuary was originally made.
It seems that there are some serious doubts about the authenticity of the ossuary already. Christians adding text to support their messiah, memories of the Josephus forgery come to mind.
Bria
------------------
Remembering events that never happened is a dangerous thing!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by joz, posted 11-19-2002 1:16 PM joz has not replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 2764 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 10 of 21 (23308)
11-19-2002 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by joz
11-19-2002 1:16 PM


quote:
Originally posted by joz:
Thats kind of my point shouldn`t Yahshua translate from aramaic to Joshua rather than Jesus.....
Yes indeed, it should.
It may interest you to know that in the Septuagint (Greek Bible of circa 250 BC), the book of Joshua is called the book of IESUOS (Jesus). That's right, Jesus was named after the bloodiest military conqueror in Hebrew legend.
db

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by joz, posted 11-19-2002 1:16 PM joz has not replied

  
:j: Lizard Lips
Inactive Junior Member


Message 11 of 21 (23495)
11-21-2002 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by John
11-19-2002 1:24 PM


http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20021104/jesusbox.html
this will show you a pic, and some links to zoom into the inscription.
of the box of james that was found made of lime stone...
good day.
me
------------------
If i were smart, i wouldn't be in here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by John, posted 11-19-2002 1:24 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by John, posted 11-21-2002 1:15 PM :j: Lizard Lips has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 21 (23511)
11-21-2002 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by :j: Lizard Lips
11-21-2002 10:38 AM


quote:
Originally posted by :j: Lizard Lips:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/afp/20021104/jesusbox.html
this will show you a pic, and some links to zoom into the inscription.
of the box of james that was found made of lime stone...
good day.
me

One weird thing I notice is that the article states that the inscription is in Aramaic, but it damn sure looks like Hebrew to me. I can't make out much of it though. The picture isn't good enough.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by :j: Lizard Lips, posted 11-21-2002 10:38 AM :j: Lizard Lips has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-21-2002 8:05 PM John has replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 21 (23568)
11-21-2002 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by John
11-21-2002 1:15 PM


Something i wonder about is why is it damaged? You would think that they would be very careful about moving something like this now wouldn't you? Funny that it's damaged. Maybe i'm paranoid but the damaging of archeological finds that would support anything biblical seems fairly common place. I wonder why that is?
------------------
saved by grace
[This message has been edited by funkmasterfreaky, 11-22-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by John, posted 11-21-2002 1:15 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by joz, posted 11-21-2002 9:46 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied
 Message 15 by John, posted 11-22-2002 1:02 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied
 Message 21 by Brian, posted 11-23-2002 4:00 AM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 21 (23592)
11-21-2002 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by funkmasterfreaky
11-21-2002 8:05 PM


You`re paranoid....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-21-2002 8:05 PM funkmasterfreaky has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 21 (23634)
11-22-2002 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by funkmasterfreaky
11-21-2002 8:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
Something i wonder about is why is it damaged?
'cause its fake.
quote:
You would think that they would be very careful about moving something like this now wouldn't you?
Not since its fake.
quote:
Funny that it's damaged.
Convenient. It helps hide that it is fake.
quote:
Maybe i'm paranoid
Yes, definitely.
quote:
but the damaging of archeological finds that would support anything biblical seem to have a way of getting damaged.
It might perhaps have, assuming some other find that isn't fake, something to do with several thousand years of being knocked around.
quote:
I wonder why that is?

evil atheist conspiracy
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-21-2002 8:05 PM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-22-2002 1:26 AM John has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024