Bone Box Authentic Afterall?

Penn · Jan 25, 2005

You may recall a story about an ossuary found in Israel a few years back, with the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Shortly after it came out, Israeli authorities claimed it was a forgery and arrested the owner.

Well, it turns out there may have been some bias on the Israelis' part here. Follow the link below for an update:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/bonebox.asp

There was also an article in The Washington Times, on Sat., Apr 19, 2003, in the A&E section, reporting on this type of Ossuary alleged to have been carved from a limestone quarry near Jerusalem up until the year 70AD.

2ndAmendment · Jan 25, 2005

Good read Penn. But I found this most important.

In conclusion, the evidence points to the genuineness of the inscription. Thus, it is strong support for the existence of the historical Jesus, and that He was of such unique importance that He should be mentioned as a brother on an ossuary. But again, we point out that one’s faith should not be based on artefacts but on the Word of God.

Archeology has never proven the Bible false. On the contrary, many archaeological finds have been found through evidence from the Bible when no other evidence was available.

Dymphna · Jan 25, 2005

As I understand it, the problem people had with this artifact is that it challenged the idea the SOME people have that Mary remained a virgin her entire life. No where in the Bible does it say that, only that she was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth.

The angel told Joseph to accept Jesus as his own (to name him), and to accept Mary as his wife. Taking her as his wife kind of implies the marriage would be consumated. Since it was important to men of that culture to have sons to carry on his name and trade, it would have been shameful for Jesus to wander around preaching, instead of keeping the family business going, unless there were other sons to do it.

Not only that, but it would have been shameful to Mary if she didn't have other children. Just look at how her cousin, Elizabeth was viewed as a "barren" woman. A woman's status in that society was measured by how well she could reproduce.

dustin · Jan 25, 2005

Penn said:
"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."

Shoot you might be able to find a tombstone in Mexico with that inscripted on it...

I believe it's possible Jesus had brothers/sisters born after him which were conceived normally. Why not?

Railroad · Jan 26, 2005

Thanks for posting that!!

I'd certainly like to think the ostuary is authentic (I hope it hasn't been destroyed or lost). I don't recall the Bible mentioning that Jesus had a brother (or, more accurately, that Mary and Joseph had other children), but that certainly doesn't mean that there wasn't another child.
At the risk of splitting hairs, I would like to stipulate that Jesus couldn't have any full "brothers" by the traditional definition, because Jesus was the Son of God. Although He was born of Mary, God put him there. So, I guess you could say that James would have been Jesus' half-brother.

This is another of those questions to ask when you go to heaven!

Penn · Jan 26, 2005

Railroad said:
Thanks for posting that!!

I'd certainly like to think the ostuary is authentic (I hope it hasn't been destroyed or lost). I don't recall the Bible mentioning that Jesus had a brother (or, more accurately, that Mary and Joseph had other children), but that certainly doesn't mean that there wasn't another child.
At the risk of splitting hairs, I would like to stipulate that Jesus couldn't have any full "brothers" by the traditional definition, because Jesus was the Son of God. Although He was born of Mary, God put him there. So, I guess you could say that James would have been Jesus' half-brother.

This is another of those questions to ask when you go to heaven!

In the Gospel of Mark, it says in Ch 6:3, that "He is a just a carpenter, the Son of Mary and brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon. And His sisters live right here among us."

So, it would appear that Jesus had 4 half-brothers and sisters. They aren't termed that way in the Bible, but "half-brother or sister", would seem appropriate in the light of His Immaculate Conception.

Tonio · Jan 26, 2005

Penn said:
Well, it turns out there may have been some bias on the Israelis' part here. Follow the link below for an update:

What proof is there that the IAA is biased against Christianity? The article doesn't provide any solid evidence of that. That charge sounds too much like the old anti-Semitic myth of Jews conspiring to discredit Jesus or even destroy Christianity.

Tonio · Jan 26, 2005

Also, that organization has somewhat of a vested interest in attracting Christian tourists to Israel. So I think it would be biased in favor of anything supporting the New Testament.

2ndAmendment · Jan 26, 2005

Penn said:
In the Gospel of Mark, it says in Ch 6:3, that "He is a just a carpenter, the Son of Mary and brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon. And His sisters live right here among us."

So, it would appear that Jesus had 4 half-brothers and sisters. They aren't termed that way in the Bible, but "half-brother or sister", would seem appropriate in the light of His Immaculate Conception.

According to Mark, Jesus had 4 half-brothers and some unnumbered half-sisters. There must have been more than one sister since the text of Mark has the plural form "sisters".

2ndAmendment · Jan 26, 2005

Tonio said:
Also, that organization has somewhat of a vested interest in attracting Christian tourists to Israel. So I think it would be biased in favor of anything supporting the New Testament.

They want the Christians' bucks but do not want to do anything to support the validity of Y'shua (Jesus). To do so would lend credence to Christianity and tear at Judaism which is the official state religion.

Penn · Jan 26, 2005

Tonio said:
What proof is there that the IAA is biased against Christianity? The article doesn't provide any solid evidence of that. That charge sounds too much like the old anti-Semitic myth of Jews conspiring to discredit Jesus or even destroy Christianity.

I have to agree.

However, this Professor Andre LeMaire states that charge, by noting the lack of Christian scholars or New Testament scholars of any faith. So, it sounds as though he is the one raising the specter of bias.

In his mind at least, there appears to be some bias. :shrug:

Tonio · Jan 26, 2005

2ndAmendment said:
They want the Christians' bucks but do not want to do anything to support the validity of Y'shua (Jesus). To do so would lend credence to Christianity and tear at Judaism which is the official state religion.

This may sound stupid, but why would lending credence to one tear down the other? Sounds hard to believe that most Jews would feel threatened by Christianity.

2ndAmendment · Jan 26, 2005

Tonio said:
This may sound stupid, but why would lending credence to one tear down the other? Sounds hard to believe that most Jews would feel threatened by Christianity.

If Jews recognize the validity of Christianity, then they have to recognize that Jesus is the Messiah. The prophets of the Torah (Old Testament) foretold the Messiah. The scribes and Pharisees rejected Jesus and prompted the people to plead for the Romans to crucify the Messiah. To admit that your ancestors are responsible for the crucifixion of God come as man is a big deal. Of course, it was all God's plan anyway for the way of salvation for all, but accepting it means the end to Judaism. If Jews accept Jesus as the Messiah, then they have to accept Christianity if they are to believe God.

Railroad · Jan 26, 2005

This is fascinating! Thanks for directing me to that chapter and verse in Mark. I'm a bit embarassed that I didn't recall that.

As for the Jewish remarks, I doubt that any bias contributed to their decision, but I think they didn't work too hard at researching the artifact. Also, the Jewish faith doesn't officially include an "acceptance" of Christianity as a valid faith (why would they want to do that?); we coexist peacefully because we worship the same God and share many of the same principles.

2ndAmendment · Jan 26, 2005

Railroad said:
This is fascinating! Thanks for directing me to that chapter and verse in Mark. I'm a bit embarassed that I didn't recall that.

As for the Jewish remarks, I doubt that any bias contributed to their decision, but I think they didn't work too hard at researching the artifact. Also, the Jewish faith doesn't officially include an "acceptance" of Christianity as a valid faith (why would they want to do that?); we coexist peacefully because we worship the same God and share many of the same principles.

Where those that follow Judaism and Christians depart is Jesus being the Messiah. There are further details, but they are largely ceremonial with the need for them leading back to the difference of believing in Jesus as the Messiah.

Dymphna · Jan 26, 2005

Railroad said:
James would have been Jesus' half-brother.

Half-brother/sister and step- are fairly modern and Western designations. Other cultures call step- family "in-laws" and some cultures don't differentiate at all.

Tonio · Jan 26, 2005

2ndAmendment said:
To admit that your ancestors are responsible for the crucifixion of God come as man is a big deal.

I don't agree that the Jews were to blame. My opinion is that Pilate was covering his own behind.

2ndAmendment · Jan 26, 2005

Tonio said:
I don't agree that the Jews were to blame. My opinion is that Pilate was covering his own behind.

That doesn't agree with the Bible.

Tonio · Jan 26, 2005

2ndAmendment said:
That doesn't agree with the Bible.

For centuries, Christians read Matthew 27:25 and believed they had God's official okey-dokey to slaughter Jews. How can that be justified?

2ndAmendment · Jan 26, 2005

Tonio said:
For centuries, Christians read Matthew 27:25 and believed they had God's official okey-dokey to slaughter Jews. How can that be justified?

The problem with not reading the whole Bible. But Matthew 27 does affirm that the Jews were and accepted responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus.

Bone Box Authentic Afterall?

Dancing Up A Storm

Just a forgiven sinner

Loyalty, Friendship, Love

UAIOE

Routinely Derailed

Dancing Up A Storm

Asperger's Poster Child

Asperger's Poster Child

Just a forgiven sinner

Just a forgiven sinner

Dancing Up A Storm

Asperger's Poster Child

Just a forgiven sinner

Routinely Derailed

Just a forgiven sinner

Loyalty, Friendship, Love

Asperger's Poster Child

Just a forgiven sinner

Asperger's Poster Child

Just a forgiven sinner