Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Archaeological evidence of Jesus?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 21 2002 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Archaeological evidence of Jesus?

www.msnbc.com...




posted on Oct, 21 2002 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Did find that interesting, I think as well Jesus is mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Which in fact in incredible, as he apparently earned mention. Either in his life or just after his death and resurrection. That such records exist to pertain to Jesus being an extremely important man in his time.



posted on Oct, 21 2002 @ 11:02 PM
link   
Oh come on... two obscure references and he's extremely important?

One thing that always confused me, even during my period as a believer, is the amazing lack of contemporary information on Jesus... given his ultimate historical importance... or unimportance to the two other Abrahamic religions.



posted on Oct, 22 2002 @ 08:27 AM
link   
I think its all a load of $hite. So what if it does have his name on it - all that proves is that there was a guy called James, who had a brother named Jesus.



posted on Oct, 22 2002 @ 08:44 AM
link   
yahoo has this story too, I got two problems with this story.

1: "An inscription in the Aramaic language "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" appears on an empty ossuary, a limestone burial box for bones"
-yahoo.com

they are saying that the inscription said 'Jesus'.. Impossible because I'm pretty sure there's no "J" in the aramic language and Jesus wasnt even his name to begin with.. Jesus was only a name the catholics changed to to fit in their pagan beliefs into Christianity.. Jesus is a latinized greek name from IESOUS.. which means "healing zues"


2: it said it was a burial box for his BONES, strange because Jesus was taken up to heaven in the physical.. so why make a casket for his bones when there's no body>?



posted on Oct, 22 2002 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I think the box is for his brother James.

I could be wrong.



posted on Oct, 22 2002 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Yeah, the box is for James, not Jesus...



posted on Oct, 22 2002 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Illmatic, how easy is it to believe lies on
the internet? But yet how hard is it to believe solid
doctrine and the truth of jesus.

His name does not matter. gentiles have translated his name
to jesus and thats what it is..

The catholicc church fit his name with pagan belief??

So what church did jesus creat??

This is the only church. the miracles in the church have been happening since
its beggining. i cannot believe you have this much doubt.

After the proof you have seen.

Go read up on the saints and key verses in the bible to confirm this truth.

i cant believe you believe some protestant ignorance of the church calling
it pagan when they nor you have a clue who founded it.

yet all the saints and the miracles, lasalett, fatima, stigmatas,
holy mothers, holy priest, that all worked miracles, and you still believe its pagan??


just don't get it.

[Edited on 22-10-2002 by Truth]



posted on Oct, 22 2002 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Illumatic, the name of jesus in aramaic is

www.revelations.org.za...

YAHU'SHUAH- The original Hebrew or Jewish Name of the professing Jewish Messiah, who was accepted as such by a certain section (some 3000 souls) of Israel, at and after His Appearance in Israel, some 2000 years ago.

To them He was known as YAHU'SHUAH (abbreviated: Y'SHUAH,also pronounced YEHOSHUAor YESHUA). In time, over the first few centuries after Messiah,

His Name was gradually changed to "Je-Zeus Khristos" by the pagan masses who converted and joined the originally Jewish Messianic Sect.

Out of this, Christianity was born, which was a mixture of originally pure Judaism, and gradually, progressive influences of pagan customs and traditions, together with a growing tide of an anti-Semitic spirit.



posted on Oct, 22 2002 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Go Chicken!!!



posted on Oct, 22 2002 @ 04:07 PM
link   
" out of this christianity was born ""

it couldnt of been born by christ though could it have ?


My god, i cant wait for the sign of jesus in the sky.



posted on Oct, 22 2002 @ 05:44 PM
link   
archaeological evidence of Jesus.

Well that is interresting but I do have a simple suggestion for those who are willing,

Firstly I would like to say that if you really want to know the existance of Jesus then debating about him or saying that his name means this and comes from that, or even supposing which religion he invented will not get get you very far.

Jesus is not just to be talked about or thought upon,, no, Jesus is to be EXPERIENCED. God wants us to be manifest with Jesus so that god can perfect our character that we may escape JUGDMENT and ETERNAL DAMNATION.

So my suggestion is if you want evidence that Jesus is real then with a sincere heart just ask him

He has a mouth and can speak, but most importantly he is alive today and forevermore.



posted on Oct, 22 2002 @ 07:15 PM
link   
The sign of jesus in the sky? Is it gonna be like the image of mary showing up in the muffin? Or more like how satan came out of the smoke in the wtc attack?(There was some smoke, morons saw horns and hooves, which isn't satan. Satan is a fallen angel, not a cenataur)

Anyways, I think truth is acting as simple minded as the people in the old days. Let me guess, it will be ball lightning. Or maybe a meteor with god behind it and if you commit suicide god will pick up your soul and take it to heaven! Oh wait, that was I think Hal-Bob comet thing.



posted on Oct, 22 2002 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Hey Theyre here.....

In ancient cultures there were for forms of media spoken word, song, plays and written text. These two references in relations to the context in which they are presented (the written text) are significant. Specifically though in the sense he was recognized in his own age. Which is something that was very hard to do taking into consideration. The apparent vocation of Jesus that of a philosopher and mystic.



posted on Oct, 23 2002 @ 04:56 PM
link   
If you are looking for concrete evidence on the existence of Jesus or for clues about who he was and where he came from and what he did. You will in fact have a very hard job on your hands.

The triune God is not interested in supplying physical evidence of his existence. God is interested in you having FAITH in him, without faith you cannot please God. God greatly honours faith, and those who have faith in god will be blessed (accordin to their level of faith)
By desiring to have a faith in god he will then reveal his true existence to you personally.



posted on Oct, 25 2002 @ 06:18 AM
link   
other than those in a position to be on coins or monuments or inscriptions, there's precious little archaelogical evidence for many well-attested figures of ancient history.
What would be the archaeological evidence for most of us in 2,000 years time.
I would have thought that the most ancient church ruins were some sort of evidence as is the scattering of inconclusive references in Classical sources: but they've been looking for anything that might be compelling for a long time and they haven't found it yet.
As for the name, there's nothing mysterious. It occurs elsewhere in teh Bible -the famous Joshua, Moses' successor being an obvious example (but transliterated on the Hebrew model rather than the Aramaic of Christ's time.
"Yeshua" (the "e like the "a" of "about") would be close. It has its modern form first because of Greek: "a" is generally a feminine ending and male names generally prefer an -s ending but also, Greek is a inflected language: the end of a noun changes for subject/object and the like so the form is "iesous" (the "ie" being the best that Greek could come up with for "y").
The Aramaic "sh" had no Greek equivalent either ( it may have been rather different from modern English "sh" anyway.
The Greek form then becomes Latinised as "Iesus" ("-ous" not possible in Latin) - and the "I" becomes adopted in modern languages as "J" (as in "Iulius" becoming "Julius" or " Iove" becoming Jove.
This it should be noted was a convention of handwriting rather than sound which is why in, say, French, English, German and Spanish the same "J" has 4 different sounds to the point where an English-speaker confronting a Spaniard called (roughly) "Hat-yoos" may not even be aware that this is a "Jesus".
The name means "God saves" ( the first bit is related to the beginning of what is Englished as Jehovah); but it would be rather fanciful to argue anything from this: it was a common name and names in many cultures frequently name "God" - how many of us, unless we do some research, have much idea of the etymology of our own names?
The name "Adolf" contains the ancestor of modern "wolf" -did Mrs Hitler predict her son's cruelty.
The name "Usama" means "lion" in Arabic - did bin Ladin's mother predict that he would attack like a lion?
Nothing is to be made of the original name, I fear.



posted on Nov, 2 2002 @ 09:33 PM
link   
hello all
ive read many of the replies to this topic, please,allow me to clear any
misunderstandings.
1st, i read one reply that there is no
"j" in the arbic alphabet,well,thats true
though understand,it is not the english alphabet.the name would actual be YESHUA ,or ISHUEA.
2ND, the box was for the bones of JAMES
NOT JESUS.
3RD james was killed in 62 AD
the box was dated 63 AD.many belive this is inconsistant ,not true,again this
box was for the BONES.which means that
according the tradditation they would have retrived the bones,then set them in this box,the kicker is this,it is done a year after the death.
4th it is VERY AND PLEASE LET ME
EMPHASIZE, VERY UNCOMMON TO HAVE THE INSCRIPTION "THE BROTHER OF...."
IT IS ALWAYS "SO AND SO THE SON OF
SO AND SO".
AND ONE FINAL POINT:
ive heard it said that the names,joseph,james and jesus were very
common, true, HOWEVER, the chances
of all of these facts together as well as
these names are far too great to call a
coincidence. also, how many families do you know have a father named tom, with
two sons with the names dick and harry?
the only reason "THE BROTHER OF YASHUA" would be included is if he held
a GREAT and i mean GREAT importance to that time.
well, that concludes my input on the FACTS of this topic.
thank for reading, i'll keep writting so
keep your eyes crossward.



posted on Nov, 2 2002 @ 10:24 PM
link   
I believe that there is enough evidence to support the fact that Jesus existed. Whether he was the Son of God remains a matter of grest debate though. Currently, the more conservative elements of Christianity hold the view that Jesus is the Son of God, or God incarnate. Other monotheistic religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and Zoroastrianism disagree. And it is because of this that there are many wars. It is all differences in beliefs. And welcome to the boards, CrossWard



posted on Nov, 2 2002 @ 11:06 PM
link   
It is interesting that Chicken pointed out that Jesus' name came from Jezus Khristos or whatever because in fact Khristos is a title not a last name...meaning "Lord" in a literal sense, not as in "The Lord" but as in a lord of an area.

Assuming that Jesus was the first born he'd be no different then the Lord Buddha giving up his riches to preach a belief...especially sense Jesus was a carpenter at the time which means he was indeed very wealthy because anyone with such a talent would have had much influence in a village area.

Also Jesus's parents had to travel to pay taxes, back in the day only Lords or wealthy personages paid such important taxes, the commoners would pay their locality's lord and he'd pay further up the chain of command, the beginnings of feudalism.

That all supports the fact that Jesus was indeed and important man already, and it had nothing to do with his preachings, for one, in a time of such strong religious control, it would seriously TAKE a Lord to get any followers.

It would also explain how Jesus managed to perform so many "miracles" such as feeding masses...he didn't perform miracles, he simply had the money to feed the masses, and rare for the time, chose to do so.

This would also explain the many servants of Joseph and Mary, such as the one who's hand was taken when she doubted Mary was still a virgin, and so....tested her


This would also lead to the fact of "who cares" just as now no one could care less except for the parents if the two had a child out of wedlock, but because they were of important families, it was a public matter and had to be hidden....who knows where the "virgin mary" thing did come from. It could simply be an invention of the church, they invented a lot.

This would also most importantly explain why it took so long for jesus to be executed, the Romans can't just go around and slaughter nobles of the land, this would cause civil unrest, and for those of you who live outside a world of the bible, the Romans before the Empire weren't too privy to civil wars.

An also interesting note is Jesus's time setting, it's only been an old man's story of the time of one of the Greatest men to have ever lived, Ceasar, and I am uncertain but isn't Augustus still in power? Who brought much peace to Rome and began the Empire...hmm the deciples of jesus were very well travelled were they not? I wonder if Jesus could have become the "sole benifactor" of the events of the time, later on, and the deciples simply wrote what was going on.

If you can't tell, aside from that Jesus was a Lord a noble...if you will, and not some impoverished peasant, the rest of all I said...is just me thinking out loud :p give comments, my knowledge of real history and biblical history of that particular time varies greatly (I have no biblical history of that time) but it's interesting they never mention Augustus as anybody in the bible...do they?

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 2 2002 @ 11:50 PM
link   
FREMASON,
who says jesus was wealthy?who even says he was a carpenter? he was a SON of a carpenter. and just so you know carpenters were a dime a dozen,meaning?,not so wealthy. also they had to travel for the census,they had to travel to their own hometowns.
why? because Caesar Augustus issued the census.{LUKE chapter 2}
also if they were so wealthy,why had the inn keeper not made room for them? or at least somebody else give them shelter?
also concering their wealth,{luke 2:21-24}
they offered as their sacrifice of purification (according to the law of Moses ) a pair of birds. what you might ask dose this have to do with anything?
well let me take you back to the old testament {LEVITICUS 12:7-8}
you will have to read this yourself, however,the offering is to be a LAMB,unless they cant AFFORD a lamb.
as a side note,its interesting to see that a lamb wasnt an offering for HIM,BECAUSE HE WAS THE LAMB.
well,happy to help again,
keep your eyes crossward.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join