Posted on 10/16/2008 8:58:00 AM PDT by presidio9
For as long as man has worshipped a god, there have been forgers, crafty hucksters who seize on a believer's desire to possess material proof of the divine. In Jerusalem, it is a bountiful trade. The old adage is that if all the splinters of the True Cross were gathered from across Christendom, it would yield a wooden crucifix the size of a Manhattan skyscraper. Even back in the Middle Ages, pilgrims visiting Jerusalem told of hawkers who sold counterfeit bones and relics of saints.
But indisputable historical evidence that Jesus Christ, or any of the other Biblical prophets, truly existed is something that eludes religious scholars. There was therefore much excitement in 2001 when a reclusive Tel Aviv collector, Oded Golan, announced that a stone reliquary had come into his possession inscribed with the words "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." The discovery of the ossuary was hailed in some quarters as a spectacular archeological find - solidly circumstantial proof, at last, of Christ's existence. For it would have held the remains of the Apostle James, who was killed in 62 A.D. and is described in the Bible as Jesus' brother.
When the James ossuary toured Canada in October 2002, it attracted thousands of the curious and faithful. Some visitors kneeled in quiet prayer. But back in Israel, police detectives, along with a growing posse of Biblical scholars, were growing skeptical of the ossuary's authenticity. After a two-year investigation,
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
When it was thought possibly authentic, Time viewed it as invalidating orthodox Christianity by undermining dogma about the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Now that it’s been falsified it is again reported as a blow against orthodox Christianity by demonstrating the paucity of physical evidence of Christ’s existence.
Is there any doubt left about the editorial objective of Time’s coverage of religion in general?
That's why I posted this. If these dorks ever somehow found and authenticates a nail from the cross, it wouldn't have the slightest effect on my faith.
An historically prominent rabbi (who’s name escapes me at the moment) once said: “If you have faith, you don’t need proof. If you don’t have faith, no proof is ever good enough.” Wise words!
It seems God's Word alone is the evidence God intends us to rely on. And even with the bible, the Holy Spirit alone brings light.
Ping to read later
Sounds like something Joe Biden would say, if you ask me.
Jesus could easily have had step brothers from Mary’s husband Joseph. He is generally considered much older than Mary, probably because of his death leaving Mary in the care of Jesus’s brothers (Joseph’s sons from his first marriage).
Comments from our Catholic friends?
Their strategy seems a good fit with what KGB defector, Bezmenov, said in that 1985 interview about achieving the “demoralization of the West.”
When I fist read the title, I thought is was going to be about the Mormon fraud that Lucifer was a brother of Jesus.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Whether the Ossuary is real or not has not been determined. So far some of the best scholars say it is real.
“The case against Golan is different. He is charged with actually forging something—the famous ossuary, or bone box, inscribed, “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.” The government claims it found in his apartment forgery instruments and materials to make forgeries, as well as some partially completed forgeries. On the other hand, some very prominent paleographers, including André Lemaire and the highly regarded Israeli paleographer Ada Yardeni, are convinced that the James ossuary is authentic. No expert paleographer has testified otherwise. Normally, the testimony of Lemaire and Yardeni would come as part of the defendants’ case. But, for some strange reason, the government called them as its witnesses. Their testimony that the inscription is authentic would in itself seem sufficient to raise a “reasonable doubt” concerning the government’s allegation that the inscription is a forgery, thus requiring dismissal of the charge.” http://www.bib-arch.org/debates/antiquities-trial-01.asp
That doesn’t mean this ossuary contains the bones of Jesus’ biological brother. The most probable explanation is that it contains the bones of a disciple of Jesus who called each other “brother”.
Matthew 13:54-56 And when [Jesus] had come to His own country, He taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, "Where did this Man get this wisdom and these mighty works? Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?"
This scripture is commonly interpreted as it is written -- i.e. that Jesus had four half-brothers and at least two half-sisters.
When it was thought possibly authentic.
The made in China dscal put me wise to him.
If the scripture is commonly interpreted as written, then Jesus would have had full-blooded sisters and brothers. There is nothing in the text that suggests anything but that. The problem is that later Catholic doctrine concerning Mary (much of which was invented in the Counter Reformation) would not allow us to interpret the passage as it is clearly written.
That's a conclusion based on your own flawed personal interpretation of Scripture. Scripture indicates that the Blessed Virgin Mary gave birth to one child only - Jesus Christ.
Incidentally, you obviously are ignorant of the teachings of the Church Fathers, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, amongst others, on the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother.
Point me to the line.
There is nothing in "THE GOSPEL" that precludes Mary from having further children. In fact, they are mentioned several times in the gospel texts. "DOCTRINE" is a whole different issue, but if you want to go by exactly what the Bible says, rather than later interpretations, the answer is clear.
None of this doctrine of the perpetual virginity is ever mentioned in the Gospel or in any of the other books of the Bible. They are later day inventions.
Then it is commonly interpreted incorrectly.
Are we to understand that someone like you accepts only what is written in the the Gospels, and rejects the rest of the New Testament?
I don’t reject the New Testament and there is nothing in the New Testament that would contradict my argument. But the Gospels represent The Word, while the New Testament books report the effect of The Word on others, such as Luke and Paul, in Acts and,say, Romans.
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.