Mysterious bones of Jesus, Joseph and Mary

The Daily Telegraph (UK) ^ | February 24, 2007 | By Tim Butcher in Jerusalem

[ichabod1]

Even if the Christ left behind remains it doesn't mean the resurrection story isn't true, but it sure would put a gaping hole in the side of the whole "where's the body?" story.

I just learned about first, second, third class relics last night. A First Class Relic of Jesus Christ himself. I'd pay a buck to see that.

[Campion]

Since the idea of such sinlessness and ascension by Mary was unknown in the uniform writings of the church fathers

??? "uniform writings of the church fathers"? What are those?

St. John Damascene is one of the more reputable sources discussing the Assumption, and he's clear that he's quoting an earlier account. St. Augustine excludes the Virgin from his discussion of original sin.

Didn't they make it into your "uniform writings"?

[hosepipe]

[.. Latin has no 'j's either. They used 'io'. And they would have pronounced it as if it had a 'y'. ..]

You're thinking Greek.. The Romans had a "J"...

[Rutles4Ever]

My point is that far too much Mary veneration happens in the catholic church this co-redemptrix stuff is over the top.

Human beings are vulnerable to abusing everything they come into contact with. Because there are some groups on the fringe that have raised Mary to inappropriate levels of veneration, doesn't mean that veneration of Mary is wrong. The knee-jerk reaction of certain Protestant groups has been to throw the baby out with the bathwater regarding anything to do with Mary. I mean, if Elijah and Enoch could be assumed into heaven, certainly the Mother of Christ is no less holy than they. And I don't think anyone would deny that it's within Christ's power to preserve whomever He wants from original sin - most especially the woman from whom He would receive His flesh.

[N3WBI3]

I mean, if Elijah and Enoch could be assumed into heaven, certainly the Mother of Christ is no less holy than they.

Such a momentous event was *mentioned in scripture*. Mary was just a jar like the rest of us, and yes God used here to store treasure prayers like the Hail Mary probably make her weep.

[ichabod1]

It will be a shock to us all when we get to heaven and find out it didn't matter if we wore make-up or danced or played cards or ate pork or worshipped on Saturday vs. Sunday.

My answer to this is something I saw on Southpark or Simpsons or something one time where some character winds up in heaven and hears like a game show announcer announce: "Mormon. The Correct Answer was Mormon."

[Rutles4Ever]

In fact, scripture does contain all that is necessary to doctrine and salvation.

That's an interesting twist. Scripture now contains everything necessary for doctrine as well as salvation? How do you support that statement? What about the Trinity? The hypostatic union?

Many of those we call church fathers were under the influence of the great explosion of heresy in various regions, Egypt being notorious for it. So their failure to maintain a strict and uniform doctrine indicated their fallibilities, not that of scripture.

Where does Christ say in Scripture that he is equally God and man? If you're saying they "failed to maintain a strict and uniform doctrine", and if Scripture "contains all that is necessary for doctrine", where is that doctrine spelled out in Scripture, and how could it be considered doctrine before it was defined?

What is ludicrous is that the Apocrypha, upon which these notions of Mary's sinlessness and ascension, were rejected from the canon of scripture (Council of Hippo) and were only included in the thirteenth century (Council of Trent).

You're referring not to the "Apocrypha", but "Apocryphal" books. In either case, you're wrong. "Apocryphal" books may not have been canonical, but that doesn't mean they contained a totality of error. e.g., if I taught a history class and remarked that the movie "JFK" was fiction, does that mean Kennedy wasn't shot in Dallas? Since the apocryphal Gospels assert the Jesus rose from the dead, does that mean he didn't?

[Rutles4Ever]

Mary was just a jar like the rest of us

Where does it say this in Scripture?

and yes God used here to store treasure

To store treasure? Scripture doesn't say that.

the Hail Mary probably make her weep.

And how is this a Scriptural belief?

[ichabod1]

As a protestant, I consider myself rather conservative. However, I don't believe it makes a difference as to which day we choose, just as long as we do rest at least one day/week, and we worship and fellowship with Him.

I dopn't see what's unconservative about that. It's a convention, we worship on Sunday for the reason you stated. We all do it, no need for an innovation. Yet some people have an innate need to innovate "just because."

[RockinRight]

Could be a stupid and sacrilegious joke played by some 9th century prankster. Or done last week...

[ShadowAce]

I dopn't see what's unconservative about that.

I merely mentioned that fact so that I wouldn't be labeled as a "liberal" Christian. That's all. :)

[ichabod1]

Nope, ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTUXY(igraeca)zeta.

[George W. Bush]

St. Augustine excludes the Virgin from his discussion of original sin.

Not in the way you suggest. Rome loves to claim Augustine while rejecting some of his most essential teachings. We Calvinists, of course, agree with him since Calvin based his "Calvinism" on a pretty pure exegesis and formal expression of Augustine's teachings. Augustine was, in fact, the inventor of what is called Calvinism.

St. John Damascene is one of the more reputable sources discussing the Assumption, and he's clear that he's quoting an earlier account. St. Augustine excludes the Virgin from his discussion of original sin.

He was an advocate of sacred art, icons and imagery. He gave three sermons on the Assumption of which the second is considered the most substantial. His overweening focus on Mary and icons indicates a greater devotion to her than to Christ Himself. There is a disturbing phrase in Catholic tradition that refers to Christ as "Mary's Son" and other diminutions of the glory and work of our Savior. It is clear that many Catholics are more attached to her than to Him. Of course, this is not true of sound Catholics but there is a historical current of it.

Let's look at the Catholic Encylopedia to see the more of the basis for which this John Damascene claimed the support of ancient writings and upon which the doctrine is founded:

The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious. St. John of Damascus (P. G., I, 96) thus formulates the tradition of the Church of Jerusalem:

St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, at the Council of Chalcedon (451), made known to the Emperor Marcian and Pulcheria, who wished to possess the body of the Mother of God, that Mary died in the presence of all the Apostles, but that her tomb, when opened, upon the request of St. Thomas, was found empty; wherefrom the Apostles concluded that the body was taken up to heaven.

Today, the belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is universal in the East and in the West; according to Benedict XIV (De Festis B.V.M., I, viii, 18) it is a probable opinion, which to deny were impious and blasphemous.

Despite many problems with this as a historical account, it would seem probably that Juvenal refused to surrender Mary's body or it had been stolen or removed at some point. He merely gave this excuse to the emperor. He was wise to do so. Notice that he gave no teaching of doctrine on the matter, merely saying that the "Apostles concluded" she had ascended. And this then becomes the basis for superstition to arise among those vying to elevate Mary ever higher to a status of demi-goddess. Notice how, in the West, some person or persons had to concoct spurious writings to attribute to Jerome and Augustine in order to support the imposition of this myth upon the churches.

Viewed objectively, it is a far-fetched account when compared to the life and acts of Christ as described in multiple testimony in the accepted canon. And this is precisely why these doctrines were not held and affirmed in the ancient churches and why the Apocrypha were never accepted by the ancient churches or included in the canon.

[George W. Bush]

A First Class Relic of Jesus Christ himself. I'd pay a buck to see that.

You are a naughty naughty man. Doesn't poor Benedict have enough on his hands already?

[George W. Bush]

You're referring not to the "Apocrypha", but "Apocryphal" books. In either case, you're wrong. "Apocryphal" books may not have been canonical, but that doesn't mean they contained a totality of error. e.g., if I taught a history class and remarked that the movie "JFK" was fiction, does that mean Kennedy wasn't shot in Dallas? Since the apocryphal Gospels assert the Jesus rose from the dead, does that mean he didn't?

There is no point in discussion when your standards for historical truth and accuracy are this loose. Don't expect me to agree that the foundations of Christianity is so flawed as you would demand.

[lawdude]

The use of the word "Jesus" was not used until the advent of the KJV of the bible. It is an Anglicized translation.

[BlackElk]

Tolkien was quite consciously and militantly Catholic as were many of his close friends and acdemic colleagues except for C. S. Lewis.

[steve-b]

Baldrick: Moving on to relics, we've got shrouds, from Turin; er, wine from the wedding at Cana; splinters from the cross [gets a sliver in his finger from one of the splinters]; er, and, of course, there's stuff made by Jesus in his days in the carpentry shoppe: got pipe racks, coffee tables, coatstands, bookends, crucifixes, a nice cheeseboard, fruit bowls, waterpoof sandals... (picks up a piece of wood that's partly carved) Oh, I haven't finished that one yet.

Percy: But this is disgraceful, My Lord! All of these are obviously fake!

Edmund: Hah, yes!

Percy: But, but how will people be able to tell the difference between these and the real relics?

Edmund: Well, they won't! That's the point!

Percy: Well, you won't be able to fool everyone. Look (he takes a red cloth from his sleeve): I have here a true relic.

Edmund: What is it?

Percy: (unwraps the cloth) It is a bone from the finger of Our Lord. It cost me 31 pieces of silver.

Edmund: Good lord. Is it real?

Percy: It is, My Lord. Baldrick, you stand amazed.

Baldrick: I am -- I thought they only came in boxes of ten. [he opens a box of finger bones]

Percy: What?!

Baldrick: Yeah, yeah -- fingers are really big at the moment. Mind you, for a really quick sale, you can't beat a nose. For instance, the Sacred Appedage Compendium Party Pack: you get Jesus' nose, St. Peter's nose, St. Francis' nose, and [picks up a pair of false breasts] er, no -- they're Joan of Arc's.

Percy: [getting increasingly agitated as Baldrick shows all these "relics"] That little bastard verger! I'll show him! [exits into hallway] I'll show him!

[Mercat]

and my theory is that C.S. Lewis is a Roman Catholic now. :-)

[Smittie]

I know Catholics believe this, but I was curious as to where this is referenced to?