Posted on 12/03/2002 9:08:03 PM PST by Kaiwen
Did you not post these words, Polycarp?
Bottom line: If the ossuary of James bar-Joseph is that of James the brother of the Lord, it sheds light on which of the theories Catholics are permitted to hold is most likely the correct one, but it poses does nothing to refute Catholic doctrine. If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord
Did you not write those words, Polycarp?
BAR has a good reputation overall, but you really have to be careful with their articles because sometimes they publish a stinker.
"If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord"
in the note which I referenced?
Do you know that lots of people speak based upon the facts available at the time, and that new evidence can change their opinions about things?
And that this isn't "lying," but rather behaving rationally?
SD
Polycarp called ME to this thread. I have answered forthrightly. For my trouble, that great Christian Polycarp has called me "a chump" and "a liar". Okay... what, pray tell did I "lie" about?
It would seem that today's accusation comes from you attibuting words to him, that were actually words that he posted from another apologist.
But, in general, it is that you think this ossuary, even if authentic, proves anything about Mary's Perpetual Virginity. That even though the idea of Joseph having a previous wife is plausible, you persist in the idea that it is not.
SD
Whose words were: ""If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord"> Are those words the author's -- or Polycarp's?
That even though the idea of Joseph having a previous wife is plausible, you persist in the idea that it is not.
Are you man enough to go on record? Do you believe that that is the case? Do you, as a Roman Catholic believe that Joseph had a wife BEFORE Mary who produced Jesus's four brothers James, Jude, Joses and Simon?
As far as I can tell, they were Polycarp's. But they reflected his opinion at that time, before the doubts about the inscription came about.
Are you man enough to go on record? Do you believe that that is the case? Do you, as a Roman Catholic believe that Joseph had a wife BEFORE Mary who produced Jesus's four brothers James, Jude, Joses and Simon?
It does not really matter what I believe, as long as the Virginity of Mary is assured. It seems to me that the "Joseph as an older widow" theory is more likely than the "brothers were unspecified kinsmen" theory.
But here's the thing, I am not wedded to either idea. Not that I see how we could, but if certain evidence of one or the other appeared, I could adopt that belief.
I can believe Mary is a perpetual virgin and Jesus' brothers were what we call cousins. Or I can believe Mary is a perpetual virgin and Jesus' brothers were step-siblings from Joseph's earlier marriage.
Or some combination of both.
I am free to believe what I want.
SD
Mary WAS a virgin, up until the time Jesus was delivered. THEN God tells us that Mary & Joseph had a normal married life which included sex.
Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:
Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
After this she and Joseph had four more sons, James, Joses, Jude and Simon.
I am free to believe what I want.
You are FREE TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT???????????
Do you feel the Jehova's Witnesses are FREE to believe that Jesus was an angel IF THEY WANT???
p.s. If Polycarp WROTE those words, (he did) and I attribute those words to him, then by what possible stretch of the imagination am I "a liar" (in polycarps words)??? What, pray tell, am I supposed to have "lied" about?
And more importantly, where does Polycarp get off falsely accusing me of being "a liar", when I have not in any way lied???
The Bible never identifies any of these men are either sons of Mary or sons of Joseph.
I answer him forthrightly, and for my efforts I get called a "chump" and wrongly accused of being "a liar".
Then, when Polycarp can't fight his own battles, "Soothing Dave" jumps in to take Polycarp's side. So I deal with HIM and HIS accusations.
Now, that HE can't answer me, YOU, Campion, jump in..
Whenever Freepers saw Bill Maher on "Politically Incorrect" have three liberals all ganging up to bash the one conservative on the panel, they were outraged at the practice.....
.... But to you catholic Freepers, the exact same behavior is standard operating proceedure.
You tried to imply I wrote them, when I had clearly attributed it to the proper author, which was obvious from my post.
""If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord"
... about the James Ossuary?
The earliest Church Fathers taught that Jesus had Stepbrothers. Jerome says no, they were cousins.
Which explanation is the truth? It can't be multiple choice.
Does Jerome prove the early Fathers wrong or should Jerome be labeled a heretic for teaching different from the earlier Fathers?
Maybe in catholicism it doesn't matter if 2 views are 180 degrees apart as long as they both support what you believe?
Since we are told that the Catholic Church is the sole deposit of truth and led by the Spirit to interpret scripture please tell me which explanation is correct.
Catholics are the liberal/communists of waterdowned Christianity.
The appologists would see the problem here.
Or they might try and qualify how the church is sole deposit of truth when X but not Y. Then next week when Y and not X.
Hocus Pocus.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.