Stone box linked to Jesus damaged

Is it too much to assume that Joseph and Mary didn't have more children after Jesus (seeing as they were husband and wife)?

 

Jesus had a brother...? When did this scientific revisioning occur?

I was always taught that Christ had brothers and sisters...and not in the Christian term of brother and sister, but in the biologic term.

In fact, doesn't the bible mention that he had brothers and sisters?

 

I think... though I could be wrong, this is from the days of yore when I was in Sunday school.

 

Can you imagine what it would be like having the Messiah as a sibling?

"Your brother is out healing lepers and you can't even clean your room! Whats wrong with you?!"---Mother of you and the Messiah.

 

Lol, that would be tough, the kids would have a inferiority complex or something!

 

Reminds me of a thread over at the Straight Dope boards about Jesus as an adolescent.

Like trying to get him to clean his room. "Jesus, clean your room! Don't make me get your FATHER!!!"

Or how Jesus would always be invited to parties because they wouldn't have to worry about obtaining booze.

Okay, back to the OP-really, I think the box is going to be found to be a forgery. Or something. It's just a little too perfect.

(For the record, I am a lapsed Catholic who still believes in God but isn't sure what she believes as far as religion is concerned who also does not want to be witnessed to)

 

Wasn't an ossuary of Jesus and his family found in 1980? Apparentally the boxes said Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and Jude on them. However apparentally their discovery was suppressed(since it casts doubt on the crucifixion), or something...

 

Why would God allow something like that to be suppressed?

 

What I mean is, since it possibly contradicts the Christian faith, that perhaps it was "covered up" or ignored altogether. Granted, like James, there are no real remains, but I don't recall anything in the Gospels about Jesus getting stuffed into a box. For all we know the James Ossuary comes from the same tomb, and was removed prior to the discovery of the boxes of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Jude.

 

This just in:

It's a fake.

The Ossuary is of course real, as is the writing "James son of Joseph". However the Jesus inscription is a fake, done in a slightly different style of writing.
This isn't the first phony Jesus thingy-they were quite common around the time of the Crusades. There's the Josepheus interpolation and the Shroud Of Turin, both which have pretty much been proven to be phonies and which both originate from the middle ages.

 

Chris2

Where did you get this information? I checked CNN.com, the BBC and ninemsn and couldn't find a mention of it.

Any link would be most helpful.

Kithera

 

Is it too much to assume that Joseph and Mary didn't have more children after Jesus (seeing as they were husband and wife)?

Is it too much to assume there was just one kid? Everyone else and their brothers were mentioned in the Bible, why were Jesus' never mentioned? There is obviously a CHANCE he had them, but the Bible never mentions it, but mentions countless others.

 

The sources are Jewish:

Jewsweek magazine

Israel Insider


Globe and Mail

Canadian Television

 

Jesus's family are mentioned twice. Once when he's teaching(The same passage which reveals his former occupation as Carpenter) and another in which he ignores them in favor of his disciples. It is mentioned he has brothers and sisters, presumabely biological ones-at least in the "half", sense, cause he was half God-and not metaphorical ones.
What is strange is that in one Gospel,he entrusts care of Mary to John, the "Beloved disciple", when James and Jude presumabely could have done it...

 

So what was actually said was:

Some scholars, meanwhile, say more work has to be done on the interpretation of the "brother-of-Jesus" part of the inscription. Rochelle Altman, a U.S. epigraphy expert writing this week in Jewsweek, an on-line Jewish publication, argues the inscription is the work of two different people, with the first part "genuine" but the last part having "the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition [that is] questionable to say the very least." Other scholars have noticed the discrepancy, but wonder whether it's the result of a hired craftsman or craftsmen who didn't read or speak Aramaic and inaccurately followed written instructions.

I'd firstly like to point out that this was relegated to the last paragraph (of the first link)....

Now to what I really wanted to say.

The people mentioned in the article expressed some doubts, however there could also be simple explanations. It doesn't really say very much to my mind.

The thing is, is that with this sort of thing there are always going to be believers an skeptics and only very rarely is anything like this going to change their opinions. There will always be people trying desperately to dismiss stuff like this as a hoax, but people on the other side championing its cause.

Kithera

 

Interesting developments to say the least. I'm still following it with quite a bit of interest. To me, the study of archaeology is quite fascinating.

It might be a bit premature to say it's all a fake Chris. As Kit stated, there could be other explanations. We'll just have to wait and see. Maybe I'll be the one to eat cyber crow

 

Still, all previous dead bodies of bible characters have pretty much turned out to be fakes.

There are like, what, three John the Baptist skeletons hanging around? (JTB was Jesus's cousin BTW)

1)The mummified head wearing a crown that the Catholics have

2)The skull the Coptic Christians have

3)The new skeleton--with the head attached to the body--(Which pretty much disqualifies it if we take the bible story literally) at Quamran, which probably only dates to the 19th century!

 

Yes, but just because there are three "supposed" John the Baptist hanging around, doesn't mean one couldnt be him.

So, its a case of "One of these things is not like the other..."

Edit: I hang my head in shame at my grammar and spelling.

 

This is a very significant discovery. If it's real, then it could support the bible's claims. If it's not real, then it doesn't mean anything.

There have been some on these forums who have argued that Jesus never existed as a historical figure. Archealogical discoveries like this might shed light on that.

The bible says that Jesus' brother was James. "I saw none of the other apostles--only James, the Lord's brother." -- Galatians 1:19

Wylding started this thread not to prove that Jesus is the Son of God, but to present this ossuary for what it might be -- evidence for the historicity of Jesus Christ.

 

Christianity isnt suppose to be based on facts, its suppose to be based on faith.

Even if we have 100% proof of Jesus, even if we can prove he WAS the son of God, people who don't want to believe wont believe. Why? They don't want to, plane and simple, thats why faith is important to the religion, tons more so than facts. Afterall 2000 years ago people watched Jesus work miracles, and still didn't believe. Take the story of him healing the blind man to see, did people believe? Some did, others were outraged Jesus "worked" on the sabbath day. All he did was spit in the dirt, and take the muddy saliva and place it on the man's eyes, and poof he could see. Sounds like he broke a sweat, doesnt it?

Faith not Proof is important to Christianity.

 

jesus was just a nice guy who helped people out alot. he got alot of good press about it

 

Afterall 2000 years ago people watched Jesus work miracles, and still didn't believe.

In your opinion.

There's no evidence at all outside of the bible that jesus ever existed.

 

Then why do most historians agree that there was such a historic figure?

 

They don't?

 

Actually, I see a difference between me not wanting to believe and you wanting to believe. For whatever reason, many religious people I have met want to believe in a God for some reason. They want to be loved or valued or for whatever reason have a want inside of them to believe in a God.

Also the fact remains that God and Jesus have NOT been proven to exist as the Bible describes them. If there was proof, then you would be right in saying people don?t want to believe, but with no proof, it seems more accurate to me to say you want to believe than I don?t want to.

Also, if there was proof, could you truly have faith? To believe in something that does exist is too easy. Too obvious. With knowledge that God exists, doesn't belief become redundant?