Photocrat

If it was useful in such a way, that would mean that they knew of no other 'Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Yeshua' which would mean that the combination was unlikely & raising the probability that this might be the Jacob, Joseph & Yeshua we all know from the Bible.

Then again, it could be some other random set of three people & we might never know. To me, the mythicist position is weak enough that it doesn't require further refutation, anyhow.

Unless some crazy detail pops up that shows this to be the next Secret Mark (which was almost certainly a fraud, unless someone can find evidence of it that's actually ancient, rather than modern), which I find terribly unlikely (if not technically impossible), however, I think we should give this artifact the benefit of the doubt.

It's not as though sensible skeptics cannot believe that Jesus existed (in a non-supernatural sort of way) or that believers will abandon the faith simply because some ancient inscription might not have refered to the brother of Jesus, after all... :]

Photocrat

Actually, I think there was some group who claimed to be descended from Jesus during the middle ages (supposedly married Mary Magdelene & such). It's not something anyone has ever put any stock into, SFAIK, however :]

Photocrat

Given that I know what your position on the matter is, I assume you mean to exempt Christianity itself from that statement... :]

Ted Hoffman

Photocrat: Then again, it could be some other random set of three people & we might never know. To me, the mythicist position is weak enough that it doesn't require further refutation, anyhow.

Intensity: "further refutation"? You havent refuted ANYTHING concerning the mythicict position. And you wouldn't. You know why?
Because it is ironclad.

Photocrat: If it was useful in such a way, that would mean that they knew of no other 'Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Yeshua' which would mean that the combination was unlikely & raising the probability that this might be the Jacob, Joseph & Yeshua we all know from the Bible.

Intensity: We also know from the bible that Jesus rose from the dead and was born via "virgin birth". If you dont beleive these, why should you beleive anything in the bible? Which known methodology do you use in separating fact from fiction?

Photocrat: I think we should give this artifact the benefit of the doubt.

Intensity: Why? Because it exists?

Photocrat: It's not as though sensible skeptics cannot believe that Jesus existed (in a non-supernatural sort of way) or that believers will abandon the faith simply because some ancient inscription might not have refered to the brother of Jesus, after all... :]

Intensity: This is totally beside the point.
Toto: It is getting undue attention because of the information people got from the canonical Gospels. It is therefore valid to attempt to dispel that attention using other Gospels.

As for Antiquities 20.200, its contestable and its authenticity has been questioned. The meaning of the word "brother" itself has not been established unequivocally.

Jesus never referred to James as his brother and James never referred to Jesus as his brother.
Why should we then beleive they were brothers?

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

Radorth

Ah yes, three references in the NT say so, and one Roman reference if I recall, but that is only evidence of more and pervasive conspiracies,
and there is no written counter evidence other than a gospel Intensity only believes when it's convenient. Menawhile no Christian has concluded it is genuine, and are all waiting to hear all the evidence.

Not looking good for the self-proclaimed "rational thinkers" today.

(Some of whom might well, if they found a third century fragment purportedly written by John, and denying Jesus existed, wet their pants.)

Rad

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Viti

Radforth....did you read the article posted by Peter Kirby? Why should we believe this ossuary is James brother of THE Jesus and not the ossuary that actually is marked "Jesus son of Joseph"?

Layman

No. I did not say that. I said it was less common than Joseph and Jesus. I've cited many sources saying that the names were common. But James is significantly less common than Joseph and Jesus.

joedad

No one is stopping anyone from believing whatever he or she wants to believe.

But as for what is most likely the case, personally, I'm going with Apikorus and Kirby on this one.

joe

Photocrat

I didn't say that I was the one that had done it. Speculation based on arguements from silence, BTW, is NOT "ironclad" -- that's a rediculous way to approach history.

Perchance you don't know what the mythicist position is? It's the one that says there was no Jesus [as opposed to the more rational skeptical position that there may have been a man named Jesus who did some of these things, but the rest were theological inventions, especially the supernatural bits]

In any event, it cannot possibly be logically considered to be "ironclad" by a skeptic [though, perhaps you're not one; I suppose you haven't claimed to be]. A skeptic would realize that there might exist evidence they had not considered (in fact, such things almost certainly exist) and since it is not possible to be certain without all the facts, they must therefore properly reserve some doubt for their hypothesis, however little. Otherwise, believing those two notions at once is rightfully called doublethink...

I use my brain & senses as a means of separating fact from fiction; what do you use, exactly?

Well, because there was no reason to doubt that a man named James [Jacob] in that time & place had a father named Joseph & a brother named Jesus.

OTOH, it may well be a fraud of some sort for all I know [see this: <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/11211]" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/11211]</a> and if that's the case, I'm willing to own up to it. It's not as though it was really great evidence of anything in particular :]

That was the point... I guess you missed it?

Toto:

It is getting undue attention because of the information people got from the canonical Gospels. It is therefore valid to attempt to dispel that attention using other Gospels.

As for Antiquities 20.200, its contestable and its authenticity has been questioned. The meaning of the word "brother" itself has not been established unequivocally.

Jesus never referred to James as his brother and James never referred to Jesus as his brother.
Why should we then beleive they were brothers?

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</strong>[/QUOTE]

Well, you can make the Catholics happy at least :]
They don't have to worry about the virginity of Mary with regards to this artifact, if it's a fake.

Actually, as to Toto, Jesus refered to a whole bunch of people as his brothers [his disiples]. But I have to say, for a later Christian interpolation, saying that Jesus had a brother would be exactly the sort of thing they *wouldn't* want add, and perhaps would want to remove--it tends to deny the perpetual virginity of Mary, doesn't it? :]

Photocrat

Drat, that link I gave got messed up a bit. For everyone's convenience, here it is, again:

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/11211" target="_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/11211</a>

So this whole thing may be a fraud, after all :]
*shrug* Oh well.