Physical evidence of Jesus found?

[Bosh]

Oh and this isn't a confirmation of Josephus since the guy with the inscription can't tell exactly what years its from from the physical evidence (the handwriting puts it mid-1st century) and the only reason he picked the exact date is to make it match with Josephus.

[Urban Ranger]

I like the question "Where has it been for all these 19 centuries?"

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


"Brother" is in the new testament but it is interpreted as "cousin" in the mainstream theology. Apparently cousins and other close relatives were also called brother and sister.

There's also a view that Mary was the second wife and that Jesus brothers and sisters were older step-brothers and step-sisters.

It's really a minor point, because there's no conclusive historical record that has been discovered.

What is interesting is the date (consistent with Josephus' account of James) and the fact that the Jesus mentioned (if it's the same one, which is reasonably probably) had such a degree of fame by that time (years in advance of the dictation of the New Testament books of the apostles.

Boshko - not "the only" reason. The handwriting puts it mid-first century, the particular burial practice ended in 70 AD, so that gives you a pretty constrained time range, and then you have a pre-existing contemporaneous account that matches the set of names. If if it was off a few years, that's not very significant, because you're still talking about a very specific time frame.

UR - the antiquity of the box has been confirmed by non-destructive examination, and not that many people know Aramaic (let alone find a blank box of the right age to make an after the fact inscription.) The shroud of Turin was an old forgery using primitive techniques, done in an era when credulity was high and so was the market price for apparent relics. Debunking the shroud as a forgery wasn't that difficult with modern technology.

Sava - to offend people, you'd have to be taken seriously.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I like the question "Where has it been for all these 19 centuries?"

Probably a spittoon or a feed trough for the goats

[Bosh]

If if it was off a few years, that's not very significant, because you're still talking about a very specific time frame.

Right, was just responding to a point raised earlier that it doesn't specifically confirm Josephus since Josephus is the only reason they're pinning it down at all and not just saying "mid first century before 70 AD."

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's common in archaeology. If you find a piece that you can date to the first half of the 14th Century in England, and something on it is consistent with an account that relates to the beginning years of Edward II's reign, you date it around 1307 AD. It's the best fit of all the evidence. Doesn't make it absolute, but it fits with the information you have available.

"Confirm" is a very strong word in archaeology. "Is consistent with" is much more on point.

It's still a tremendous find.

[Bosh]

Probably not explaining myself well, I'm not saying that 63 AD isn't the best guess out there, just that this doesn't do anything at all to confirm Josephus' account of the death of James aside from providing evidence that James did, in fact, exist.

Very interesting find, if it holds up it will probably smack the Jesus mythers back into the fringes of scholarship from which they were just starting to emerge, almost a shame they have some interesting ideas

[Robert]

MtG: Sava - to offend people, you'd have to be taken seriously.

I take Sava seriously!
I'm so happy that I finally found someone who knows everything about Jesus and about God! I'm so happy that Sava actually knows what God wants us to know, and how he wants us to live and all that!

Tell us more about it Sava, you seem to be so correct about God and about Jesus! It's really awesome!

Tell me more tell me more!

[Urban Ranger]

Yes Robert, what about your own opinions on evolution?

Anyway, an artifact like that is extremely hard if not impossible to date. Since it was found in any sort of dig site, there is no external dating. Neither C-14 nor uranium radiometric dating works.

I would like to know how they dated this thing.

[Roland]

"The shroud of Turin was an old forgery using primitive techniques"

Haven't followed this for a while. So how exactly did they get the image on (or rather into?) the shroud ?

[Robert]

Urban Ranger: Yes Robert, what about your own opinions on evolution?

I have a strong opinion indeed, and I know you do have one as well. I would never blame you for having a strong opinion.

Some people think that the "Tolerant Opinion" is the only acceptable one. But a "tolerant opinion" is just an opinion as an "intolerant opinion", in fact a "tolerant opinion" is oftenly not tolerant with an intolerant opinion, which makes a "tolerant opinion" another intolerant opinion. In fact a tolerant opinion is only tolerant against other tolerant opinions. Conclusion, tolerant opinions only accept opinions that are alike.

you get it

[Urban Ranger]

Have you confused yourself yet?

[Robert]

Urban Ranger: Have you confused yourself yet?

Does that mean that I confused you?
That means I'm smarter than you are
Which results of course in the factual and proven conclusion that I must be right and you must be wrong

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Roland
"The shroud of Turin was an old forgery using primitive techniques"

Haven't followed this for a while. So how exactly did they get the image on (or rather into?) the shroud ?

Theory is they crucified some bloke, stuck a a sword through his side and wrapped him in a shroud in the exact manner that Jesus reportedly died.

The only thing that makes the shroud a fake is its age per radiocarbon dating .IIRC.

[Dauphin]

This is interesting:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20020819/shroud.html

There seems to be ample evidence that an anomalous area was sampled for the radiocarbon analysis. The reported age is almost certainly invalid for the date the cloth was produced," he writes in a scientific review of the methods applied to the Shroud.