Posted on 10/21/2002 9:35:21 AM PDT by wallcrawlr
Anyone who can read Hebrew and Greek knows that the word "brother" had a much wider denotation in Biblical times than it does in 20th century English.
Also, the find is described in the November/December issue of Biblical Archaeological Review, which does good work now and then but sometimes stretches a bit. They reported the microphone lowered into a drill hole in Siberia and the hearing of the screams of the damned coming from way down there. I did not renew my subscription after that one.
The inscription reads: "James -- SON of Joseph, brother of Jesus." All those lame Catholic arguments about "cousin" WILL NOT FLY anymore.
I'll bet pre-knowledge of this announcement is what forced JP2 to De-Maryize the Rosary a little by making it more about Jesus.
Unfortunately for them, the myth of the "Ever-Virgin Mary" is an albatross they will be Ever-handcuffed to.
In fact this has been the position of the Orthodox church for centuries.
The inscription, even if authentic, does not call James the "son of Mary".
Oh, and by the way, Martin Luther and John Calvin were both of the opinion that the Lord's mother was always a virgin as well. It's not solely a Catholic teaching.
WOW!!!! It IS making the mainstream news!!!!
Fatboy, if you consult the Gospel of Matthew you will see that the first garment to touch the slain Savior was the linen cloth (singular) provided by Joseph of Arimathea.
This does not mean that He was not subsequently wrapped in even more clothing as the burial continued.
The shroud could very well be that initial linen cloth that Joseph of Arimathea, the first person to recover the Lord's body, used.
Are you of the opinion that it really matters? Is there some principle that rests on this being so?
Considering the supposedly profound sacredness of your doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, I am arguing that a Greek-speaker would not have been so careless as to mention Joseph and Mary and in the same breath to mention James and Jude and the others as the Lord's brothers if they were only cousins.
What I am saying is that the Protestant reading is more natural, more respectful of the apostolic authors.
And speaking of "natural" issues, the real clincher in the Protestant argument is that a marriage between Joseph and Mary without intercourse would have been so unnatural as to be no real marriage anyway. (Heck, even RC tradition concedes this in a roundabout way. What I mean is that the RCC sometimes quickly grants annulments when there has been no intercourse! The RCC reserves the right to declare that no real marriage exists!)
So, there are a lot of problems with the RC "interpretation." We Protestants regard your views of marriage as pretty bizarre (which is part of the reason why we regard your priesthood as illegal). Please try to understand where we are coming from.
In short, the article at the top of this thread does pose problems for you--which is why you felt you had to post in the first place, of course! (And the whole thing will get worse for you if you will bother to read the Ya'akov thread. You also ought to read the passage which I mentioned from Eusebius.)
Anyway, I don't have time for further posts on this lovely thread.
I agree with you on that one.
God bless.
Actually there was a mistake in the translation. The epitaph actually read:
"Oh brother!
Jesus, did I ever have a bad day!"
Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation." (Faustus of Riez) Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith.
By rejecting the sacraments you are neglecting important helps given to you by God through His Church. But salvation comes from God alone - no one, not even your mother-in-law, can anticipate His judgment.
You're playing very fast and loose with the truth.
I believe God saved and preserved this artifact for just this moment in the End Times. Things are moving fast now towards The Rapture, and the hell on earth that will follow.
Eventually, all truth comes out.
The inscription, first of all, is far from being authenticated.
Second, the inscription says "son of Joseph", not "son of Mary".
Third, the virginity of the mother of God is not an exclusively Catholic doctrine, as you assert. It is maintained by Catholic Christians, Orthodox Christians and many Protestant Christians as well.
It would be interesting if you actually addressed the question at hand (i.e. what exactly does the inscription say), rather than pretend that the contradictions in your theory don't exist.
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.