Quote:
Originally posted by Colin
Well, I don't believe in that but I still think there was likely a real person named Jesus that might have had a small following - maybe David Koresh like in size.
|
I agree. As far as the Ossuary, assuming none of the evidence avalible now is seriously contradicted, it seems reasonable to me to believe that this is the real thing. The pedigree of those who accept it is certainly impressive. Lamaire was also the first to translate and recognize the significance a ninth century B.C. stone inscription created by King Mesha of Moab that referred to "the House of David."
Quote:
|
James, Joseph and Jesus were common names in ancient Jerusalem, a city of about 40,000 residents. And Lemaire estimates that there could have been as many as 20 Jameses in that city with brothers named Jesus and fathers named Joseph.
|
There may have been a few jesii around in the first century with brothers named James and fathers named Joseph, but as is noted by Lamaire these sorts of inscriptions on Ossuaries are rare and were only done in the case when the persons relations were of particular significance.
Unfortunately the fundie xtians are now going to misuse this discovery, as they do nearly everything else, and will soon begin claiming it provides substantiation, if not outright proof, of the truth of their nutty religious beliefs.
Its a shame, but many people will fall into superstition because of this.
Hardly anyone, believer or not, who knows anything about first century ANE history doubts that a man named Jesus who had a small following actually existed. Its certainly an amazing artifact, but it provides no additional evidence in the debate over Christianity.