James ossuary genuine? ...!

[Az]

On the behalf of the jewish people, I want to say that we don't give a ..... well, I don't want to sound too rude, so I'll just say this: we don't care. I most certainly don't, but neither does this make any headlines. Hey, JESUS EXISTED. He was preaching love, peace, etc. etc., had a medium sized following, and then got executed by the Romans. what about it?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Well, Molly, you certainly show your colors.

In what way, Ned? Because I don’t like veiled anti-semitism? It seemed to me that what you were suggesting was that Israelis=Jews had some anti-Christian agenda in ‘rushing’ to judgment on the box.

But you seem willing to believe it is the genuine article based on nothing more than your desire to do so.

Ask yourself- wouldn’t a precious relic, such as the box that had the bones of the brother of the Son of God, be something that early Christians protected and carefully treasured?

More to the point, how does the box itself ‘prove’ the existence of James or Jesus? Any more than the words of the Qu’ran found miraculously inside an aubergine proves the truth of Islam, or the face of the Virgin Mary on some flagstone proves Christianity? I mean, it's not as if it comes with a certificate of authenticity, a photo of the original inhabitant and a copy of the local newspaper circa 45 a.d., with births, deaths and marriages notices....

It’s Jerry Springer religion lite for the gullible and credulous. I happen to believe that in keeping with some other religions, the basic tenets of Christianity are revolutionary and profound- but the mystic paraphernalia and trumpery mumbo jumbo and rabbits out of the hat, obscure the message and replace it with the equivalent of a sideshow for the curious.

If you think this box is genuine on the ‘evidence’ so far, I have some properties you may be interested in buying- a bridge in Brooklyn, a palace in London, a tower in Paris and an opera house in Sydney.....

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel
On the behalf of the jewish people, I want to say that we don't give a ..... well, I don't want to sound too rude, so I'll just say this: we don't care. I most certainly don't, but neither does this make any headlines. Hey, JESUS EXISTED. He was preaching love, peace, etc. etc., had a medium sized following, and then got executed by the Romans. what about it?

Good.

[Ned]

Molly, I was concerned because of the controversy surrounding the new movie by Mel Gibson concerning the crucifixion of Christ. The Jewish organizations in the United States have mounted a concerted effort to have that movie never see the light of day.

[Spiffor]

I don't understand the problem.
If the relic is false, it would somehow induce that James didn't exist (it would mostly induce that some zealots in the past millenia forged evidence of Christian figures ). And if the relic is genuine, it would show that James existed, right?

What does it have to do with Christian faith? Actually, even if Jesus didn't exist, how is it exactly a problem to the words of Peace, Love and Tolerance that are found in the new testament?

[Urban Ranger]

Spiffor,

Yes and no. It is a complicated situation. The ossuary could be real, with later alterations. Or the ossuary itself is not an ancient piece. Or the ossuary with the carvings both are real and dated from ~60CE.

[Ned]

Spiffor, until the thread on the NYC school system denying the right to display Christain symbols during the winter holidays on the grounds that Jesus was not a real person, I had no idea that there was any real scholarly debate on whether Jesus existed at all. Certainly if he did exist and there was some scientific proof of that, Christian symbols would be given equal status with Jewish and Islamic symbols in US public institutions due to their historical basis.

But you are right about the teachings of Jesus as told in the New Testament. They are of value regardless of whether Jesus was a real person or not, just as are the teachings of Confucious, Plato and Aristotle regardless of whether they were real people.

Christians do not have to have the James ossuary in order to believe in Christ. But historians are always interested in this topic, especially given the effect Christianity had on civilization.

[Az]

I actually am rather sure that jesus existed, but I don't think he was the son of god, certainly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ned:

You seem to arouse my response quite easily.

I'm very sanguine about this ossuary issue. If it's proved to by false I lose nothing because my faith is not based on dead rocks, but a living God. If it can truly be linked to Christ, than we get to know the historical Jesus just a little better.

As to whether he was the Son of God, or a God himself - well I am agnostic. But I still think that Jesus was one of the most important humans to have every lived.

Why would you trust in an obviously delusional madman who kept telling people that he was God? Jesus never considered himself to be a great philosopher, but claimed to be God in flesh. So he either must be God, or a crazy madman, and if he is the latter, than I would not trust his philosophy.

So which will it be Ned?

[Zylka]

Oh come on guys.. it's likely still a fraud, let's just let them do their work and move on. Besides which, a true Christian doesn't need some insignificant article/historic piece as proof.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Azazel
I actually am rather sure that jesus existed, but I don't think he was the son of god, certainly.

I think he existed, but the James ossuary would make it more certain.

I don't know how anyone can be certain about whether he was the Son of God. I am like doubting Thomas in this regard. Unless I see it for myself, his resurrection and ascension for example, how can I be certain that he was? However, if they both occured, how can anyone be certain that he was not the son of God?

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Ned


I think he existed, but the James ossuary would make it more certain.

I don't know how anyone can be certain about whether he was the Son of God. I am like doubting Thomas in this regard. Unless I see it for myself, his resurrection and ascension for example, how can I be certain that he was? However, if they both occured, how can anyone be certain that he was not the son of God?

How can you be certain that I'm not the son of God? Its also far easier for me to prove that I exist, which already puts me ahead of Jesus.

Being the son of God would seem to an extraordinary claim which needs very convincing verifiable proof in order to considered likely to be true. Your method of determination would seem to suggest that any nut walking down the street who suddenly proclaims he is the son of God should be taken at face value, or at least we should take a neuteral position on the issue.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ned:

You seem to arouse my response quite easily.

I'm very sanguine about this ossuary issue. If it's proved to by false I lose nothing because my faith is not based on dead rocks, but a living God. If it can truly be linked to Christ, than we get to know the historical Jesus just a little better.



Why would you trust in an obviously delusional madman who kept telling people that he was God? Jesus never considered himself to be a great philosopher, but claimed to be God in flesh. So he either must be God, or a crazy madman, and if he is the latter, than I would not trust his philosophy.

So which will it be Ned?

Ben, the Bible is replete with references to the "Sons of God" and the " Sons of Man." From context, it seems that the term "Sons of God" means people blessed by God while the term "Sons of man" means a person who is a human being.

When Christ said that he was the "Son of God," what did he mean? Did he mean that he was blessed by God or did he mean that he was literally the son of God? John 10:31, reads

The Jews therefore took up stones to stone him. Jesus answered them, "Many good works have I shown you from my father. For which of these works do you stone me?" The Jews answered him, "Not for a good work do we stone thee, but for blasphemy, and because thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said you are gods?' If he called them gods to whom the word of God was addressed (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of him whom the father has made holy, and sent into the world, " Thou blasphemest," because I said, 'I and the Son of God?' If I do not perform the works of my father, do not believe me. But if do perform them, and if you are not willing to believe me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the father is in me and I in the father."

Now is Jesus talking here about literally being the son of God or is he saying that he has received "the word of God?"

During his trial, is not clear that he stated that he was the "son of God" in the sense that he was the Christ. What he did say apparently was that he was the Son of Man and that he would sit at the right hand of the power of God. "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64.

This does not say that Jesus admits that he is the son of God. It rather says that Jesus is a man, but will sit at the right hand of God.

The bible itself is not conclusive on the true nature of Jesus.

[Ned]

Mordoch, perhaps I was not clear enough. But you got my meaning backwards.