Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'The Most Important Extrabiblical Evidence of Its Kind'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • replied
    Jesus life sounds so much like the life of more ancient religious practices....like the mystic lives of the Sanskrit traditions of the wisemen of the Himalayas....and Siddhartha from the Mahabarata...lol. It makes me wonder. The East and the Middle East had viable roads controlled by the Romans....so much interexchange and not all of it well recorded....

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Thank for your concerns

    They were not polyps...they were tumours the size of baseballs, thanks to the almighty they were benign....however I have to submit for routine check ups every 6 mos.

    The Catholics, believe that the virgin Mary maintained her virginity even after giving birth to Jesus....and that James was only the son of Josepth...So there is no conflict...The Protestant believe otherwise.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Jesus teenage years....what happened to them? In the bible no mention of his adolescent years. Why? I have always wondered....Eddie the Essenes had traditions of sending their Rabbis to places of worship and training....And you mentioned the Buddhist monastery drums.....extremely intriguing....lol. I think I will read up on that.....thank you.
    P.S. conciencia what polyps? Please be careful and take care of yourself Geronimo.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    James the Rabbi Brother of the Essene Rabbi Jesus


    Conciencia;

    Bro, first of all, I wish you well concerning the outcome of your surgery. Optimistically, perhaps, the 'tumors' were only polyps, and the doctors made more of it by trying to scare you into letting them operate. In any case, removing such "things" from the area is a good procedure, because polyps are pre-cancerous.

    Now, your article on James is not really that all confusing.
    For example, it has been traditionally held and endorsed by the early Christian Church, and never denied by the orthodox church of Judaism, that James was the brother of Jesus of Nazareth. Recall, when Mary, Jesus's mother came to Jesus with his brothers and other relatives in order to take him home, because his family thought, including his Mom, that Jesus had become mad because of the Messiahanic things he was preaching about himself? And Jesus turned his mother and brothers away from him by saying that he must be about his heavenly Father's business.

    We also know from the religious history of Jesus's times that his brother was a Rabbi in the Temple of Jerusalem. And that he had been converted to believing that his brother Jesus was the Messiah. And he spoke openly everywhere, including inside the Temple, witnessing to that fact. And we know that the Temple Police of the Temple were ordered by the chief Rabbis of the Temple to oust the Rabbi James by any means necessary. Therefore, he was murdered by the Temple Police when James left the outer court of the Temple and his body was discovered outside the Walls of the Temple.

    What do you, personally opine about this conciencia, and indeed this is an open question to anyone who can contribute to the history of the Rabbi James, the real brother of Jesus?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Yo I read this in the paper..

    and saw it on the news. I did like that man, and have been doing some more studing on it. This always amazes me, this discovery was amazing.

    ~Jake

    Leave a comment:


  • conciencia
    started a topic 'The Most Important Extrabiblical Evidence of Its Kind'

    'The Most Important Extrabiblical Evidence of Its Kind'

    This finding proves that the original language spoken by Jesus was Aramiac! Interesting enough...we indeed have translation problems!'


    The Most Important Extrabiblical Evidence of Its Kind'


    <Prev Page | Next Page> Page 1 2


    So James believed Jesus was the Messiah? James did become a believer. In the 1 Corinthians passage, Paul confirms that the risen Jesus appeared to him. After that we find him in Acts 1.14 and afterwards as a leader in the Jerusalem church. Does the rest of James' life--and death--match up with the ossuary evidence? Acts 21 informs us that Paul met with James in Jerusalem on his last journey to Jerusalem. This dates to the time when Festus and Felix were the proconsuls in Judea. This places this event to the period A.D. 58-60, probably the earlier end of that period. This confirms that James was still alive at that time, and since Paul and Luke left Jerusalem in A.D. 60, it is probably significant that Luke does not mention the death of James. This is because it did not occur when he was there, and he apparently did not know about it after they went to Rome and Luke wrote Acts. The Jewish historian Josephus suggests that James lived and died in Jerusalem, and now we know he was buried there as well, not in his home region of Galilee. Josephus also says that James died around A.D. 62, which fits the evidence of the ossuary. What else does the ossuary tell us? Several things: 1) The language of the Holy family and the earliest Jewish Christians in Jerusalem was, as we have long thought, Aramaic, not Hebrew or Greek. 2) This burial, if it took place around A.D. 63, suggests that the Jewish Christians had not yet fled the city, though the Jewish War with Rome 'The Most Important Extrabiblical Evidence of Its Kind' A Bible expert explains the meaning of the inscription 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus' on the newly-discovered bone box

    By Ben Witherington III



    What's the importance of this find?If, as seems probable, the ossuary found in the vicinity of Jerusalem and dated to about A.D. 63 is indeed the burial box of James the brother of Jesus, this inscription is the most important extrabiblical evidence of its kind. It would confirm that James existed, was someone important, and was the brother of another early Jew who was very important--Jesus. Above: Artists' rendering of the ossuary inscription. Could the inscription be a forgery? The inscription in cursive Aramaic sets a limit on the period when it could have been written, and the careful checking of the characters suggests the inscription is from the appropriate time period, not a later forgery. The inscription reads "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus", not "James, brother of Jesus, son of Joseph." We might have expected the latter if this was a forgery. Also, if we had the latter inscription it would raise some questions about Jesus' relationship with Joseph. As it is written, it simply tells us James' relationship to two of his close relatives--his father and his brother. Could it be another Jesus and James? Weren't the names common? What is unusual about the inscription is not the patronymic "son of Joseph," but the reference to James's brother. This alone suggests that the Jesus in question was someone well known and important, since it was not the usual practice to put one's brother's name on one's own ossuary. [Biblical Archaeology Review on the frequency of the names: "The names James (Jacob), Joseph, and Jesus were all fairly common among Jews at the turn of the era. ...Rachel Hachlili has studied names used at this time in all types of inscriptions. Joseph appeared in 14 percent, Jesus in 9 percent, and James/Jacob in 2 percent of the cases. ...in Jerusalem during the two generations before 70 C.E., there were therefore about twenty people who could be called 'Jacob son of Joseph brother of Jesus.'" --Editor's note] Do the Aramaic words for "brother" and "son" confirm that Jesus was a blood relation of both James and Joseph? Does the language leave room for the interpretation that they could have been half-brothers or stepsons? The Aramaic word used on the ossuary, 'akhui,' certainly means brother. The order of the words in the inscription does not indicate that Jesus was the son of Joseph. The inscription intends to make clear the two closest male blood relatives of James. It is not commenting on Jesus' relationship with Joseph, but on James' relationship to Joseph and Jesus. There is some evidence, for example in Tobit, that occasionally the word 'brother' might mean something other than full brother, but without any qualification in the inscription the presumption must be that James was related to Jesus in the same way he was related to Joseph. On a related note, some scholars say the Greek word for "brother" used in the New Testament-- adelphos --can mean "relative." Adelphos is the word used in Matthew 13:54-5: "Is not this the carpenter's son? ...Are not his brothers James and Jospeh and Simon and Judas?" The Greek word adelphos has pretty much the same specific meaning as the Aramaic term, though it can occasionally be used in a wider sense. But since there was both a Greek and Aramaic term for cousin or a more distant kin, there is no good reason why such a term could not have been used in the Aramaic inscription on James' ossuary. What are some important New Testament references to 'James the brother of Jesus'? Our earliest references to James are in Galatians 1 ("But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother" and in 1 Corinthians 15 ("After that, [Jesus] was seen of James; then of all the apostles"). Both make clear he is the brother of Jesus. How does he fit in with other biblical 'Jameses'? This James was not one of the twelve apostles. New Testament references distinguish between "James, the brother of the Lord," "James, the son of Zebedee," and "James, the son of Alpheus." The latter two were of the Twelve. James "the brother of Jesus" was the head of the Jerusalem church, as is very clear from Acts, especially Acts 15 and 21. Galatians 1-2 also confirm this to have been the case. Paul considers him one of the three pillars of the Jerusalem church (the others being Peter and John). Is this the James credited with writing the book of James? Indeed, James the brother of Jesus is credited with the biblical book of James. It's interesting how many of the sayings in that book echo the teaching of Jesus and are in the same aphoristic form.


    <Prev Page | Next Page> Page

    was already percolating. 3) I conjecture that the reason the bone box contained no bones when found is because the Jewish Christians who fled to Pella (according to church tradition) probably took the bones with them, so James's remains would not be desecrated by the Romans. The bone box was probably too heavy to flee with, especially if the city was left in haste. 4) The bone box is not ornate, and does not suggest that a well-to-do person was buried in this ossuary. It is far less ornate, for example, than the ossuary of Caiphas.


Working...
X