Evidence for God from Science

A inscription on the James ossuary where it says he is the son of Joseph and brother of Jesus according to this article, has been verified as authentic. See for yourselves:


http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... c=E3249973

DRDS wrote:A inscription on the James ossuary where it says he is the son of Joseph and brother of Jesus according to this article, has been verified as authentic. See for yourselves:


http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... c=E3249973

Yes.. Very interesting. I'm a subscriber to BAR and received my copy in the mail just today. Can't wait to read it.

concluded that at the time there were 1.71 people named James with a father Joseph and a brother named Jesus; and Professor Fuchs says he can say this with 95 per cent assurance that it is a statistically accurate conclusion.

Wait? What does this mean? That only 1.71? Is that like half a person?

This is the same as with the tomb of Jesus.

Jesus and Joseph were common names at the same time. The inscription proves nothing by itself.

I'm really not getting the significance of this find. Even the link pretty much sinks its own ship near the end.

Moreover, the government’s chief scientific witness, Professor Yuval Goren of Tel Aviv University was forced to admit on cross-examination that there was original ancient patina in the word “Jesus.”

Whether the “Jesus” on the bone box refers to the founder of Christianity is a separate question. Jesus, James and Joseph were all common names at the time.

The headline is also somewhat deceiving. It contradicts what is said in quotations.

Swimmy wrote:I'm really not getting the significance of this find. Even the link pretty much sinks its own ship near the end. Whether the “Jesus” on the bone box refers to the founder of Christianity is a separate question. Jesus, James and Joseph were all common names at the time.

Of course not completing the text in this case takes it out of the context the article is pointing out. Let's see what happens when we add back in the final point;

Professor Fuchs also points out that it is very rare to find the brother of the deceased named in a bone-box inscription. In fact, in only one other case of the thousands of recovered bone-boxes is the brother of the deceased listed. In one other case the son of the deceased is named. Fuchs concludes that “there is little doubt that this [naming a brother or son] was done only when there was a very meaningful reason to refer to a family member of the deceased, usually due to his importance and fame.”

Swimmy wrote:I'm really not getting the significance of this find. Even the link pretty much sinks its own ship near the end. Whether the “Jesus” on the bone box refers to the founder of Christianity is a separate question. Jesus, James and Joseph were all common names at the time.

Of course not completing the text in this case takes it out of the context the article is pointing out. Let's see what happens when we add back in the final point;

Professor Fuchs also points out that it is very rare to find the brother of the deceased named in a bone-box inscription. In fact, in only one other case of the thousands of recovered bone-boxes is the brother of the deceased listed. In one other case the son of the deceased is named. Fuchs concludes that “there is little doubt that this [naming a brother or son] was done only when there was a very meaningful reason to refer to a family member of the deceased, usually due to his importance and fame.”

Now how many famous Jesus, James and Josephs do we read about in history?