Tangible proof?

[Ephesian]

What are everyone's thoughts on the newly discovered ossuary (bone box), dated from the first century (63 A.D.), with the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" written on it in ancient Aramaic?  Would this sway the minds of a skeptical world? 

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by Ephesian
What are everyone's thoughts on the newly discovered ossuary (bone box), dated from the first century (63 A.D.), with the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" written on it in ancient Aramaic?  Would this sway the minds of a skeptical world? 

I think this will only really prove that Jesus existed, which most scholars (secular or not) believed anyways. I don't think it proves any of the other stuff about Jesus, however (ie. virgin birth, miracles, resurrection).

 

[Ephesian]

You are probably right about the scholars, but what about the average Joe which is on the fence?

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

I don't think this confirms the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth. There were other Jesuses in Jerusalem at the time, as it was a quite common name.

But this raises a question for me. Why do most scholars believe in the existence of this Jesus of Nazareth, when the only surviving evidence we have is the testimony in the Bible? I'd think that you'd need a little more evidence that a book with an obvious goal in mind.

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
I don't think this confirms the existence of one Jesus of Nazareth. There were other Jesuses in Jerusalem at the time, as it was a quite common name.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992952

This link is from the debate about the same topic in the Science and Evolution Forum. It gives a few more details about it.
Perhaps most notable is the fact that Jesus, as the brother of the "person" in the Ossuary is mentioned, which was incrediby rare at the time. Usually, only the father was mentioned. This leads most to conclude that the brother was a very important person. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Jesus mentioned was THE Jesus of Nazareth, but it does narrow it down from any old Jesus living in Jerusalem.

Originally posted by Caffeine Socialism
But this raises a question for me. Why do most scholars believe in the existence of this Jesus of Nazareth, when the only surviving evidence we have is the testimony in the Bible? I'd think that you'd need a little more evidence that a book with an obvious goal in mind.

I think there is at least a little more proof than just the bible. If nothing else, I believe the dead sea scrolls makes reference to Jesus, and I believe one person (Josephus?) called him a sorceror. But anyways, you can probably find more information about this in one of the other forums.

 

[amie]

Thanks for that link strathyboy
I am interested in reading about it...

 

[David Gould]

This might sway the average Joe on the fence if they do not think about it too hard.

Most scholars, except for the Jesus myth guys like Doherty (who presents a nice chain of reasoning, by the way) believe Jesus existed.

A theological implication that is quite interesting is that the Catholic belief in the eternal virginity of Mary would have to be rethunk if they accepted the inscription as referring to the Jesus.

I do not think it will be possible to find conclusive evidence either way, though - no-one knows precisely where the box is from, it came through dodgy artifact dealers and has remained hidden for quite a long period.

Fun to speculate about it, though, and a pretty interesting find nonetheless.

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Ephesian
What are everyone's thoughts on the newly discovered ossuary (bone box), dated from the first century (63 A.D.), with the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" written on it in ancient Aramaic?  Would this sway the minds of a skeptical world? 

 

It has only been dated to 63 a.d. because that is James´ alledged year of death. Noone knows where the ossary comes from or how old it is. If one could prove that this box indeed was the ossary of the biblical James, well that would be interesting but I wonder how such a proof should be possible regarding the circumstances.

 

[agnostic front]

Originally posted by Ephesian
You are probably right about the scholars, but what about the average Joe which is on the fence?

Most people do not adopt religious beliefs based on any kind of evidence, so it won't make much of an impact at all.

 

[LilAngelHeart]

From what I know about atheists and non believers, I don't think even that evidence will be enough proof, they will just pass it off with some explanation other than that Jesus is really the Son of God. And like some said, they do believe that there once lived a guy named Jesus, but they believe him to be some great motivational speaker type person that touched many people and had a huge fan club but that he was just a man. I've argued with enough of them to know how they think.


Skye Leigh

 

[strathyboy]

Originally posted by LilAryanAngelHeart
From what I know about atheists and non believers, I don't think even that evidence will be enough proof, they will just pass it off with some explanation other than that Jesus is really the Son of God. And like some said, they do believe that there once lived a guy named Jesus, but they believe him to be some great motivational speaker type person that touched many people and had a huge fan club but that he was just a man. I've argued with enough of them to know how they think.


Skye Leigh

While I do believe that Jesus is the son of God, I fail to see how the find of the ossuary in any way provides proof that Jesus turned water to wine, for example, or rose from the dead.

 

[Caffeine Socialism]

I don't actually think that most of us atheists believe that there once existed a Jesus of Nazareth as described in the bible. The extreme lack of proof should be able to convince more people (as in non-atheists), but those scholars who are always mentioned in every story about the ossuary who believe in the existence of Jesus seem to be biased, I think.

After all, where in Jesus mentioned? The New Testament, a vague description by Flavius Josephus, the Dead Sea scrolls (a religious and therefore biased document), and possibly this ossuary. We have more information about peasants who lived in Rome before the supposed lifespan of this Jesus.

 

[LilAngelHeart]

Originally posted by strathyboy
While I do believe that Jesus is the son of God, I fail to see how the find of the ossuary in any way provides proof that Jesus turned water to wine, for example, or rose from the dead.

Hmmmm... Oh okay.


Skye Leigh