Posted on 11/01/2002 10:45:35 AM PST by Polycarp
Dr. Rochelle Altman wrote (in part): >Marginalia, by definition, is material added *after* a text has been written. (Corrections are after the fact, too. Sometimes they are contemporary - but only sometimes!)
She herself admitted that sometimes there are contemporary additions after the fact.
The addition of something, even if it is in another hand DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN SUGGEST A "HOAX".
Are you arguing that the well-respected Biblical Archaeology Society doesn't have THEIR "Dr. Altman" with equal credentials and expertise, that examined the same inscription, saw the same things, but vouched it passes muster?
I understand your desperation to make this be "a hoax". So much of what you believe is riding on it not being authentic. Your core problem is that it VERIFIES what the Bible already says. That James was the brother of Jesus Christ.
Now, if it said something NEW or DIFFERENT, you'd have stronger ground. But your problem is, it CORROBORATES the Bible.
Huh? That's like saying "My mother is now my citizen-sister, since her relationship to me now is not mother/son but taxpayer/taxpayer."
Ridiculous. One's mother is one's mother, period. Motherhood is not something that can be switched off; it exists eternally. The Blessed Virgin is Jesus' mother, then, now, and always.
By the way: Jesus did not become our Lady's Savior upon His resurrection, as you imply. He always was her Savior, from the moment when she was conceived: "And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." [--St. Luke 1:46-47]. Jesus wasn't even born when she said those words, thus demonstrating that Jesus had already saved His mother from eternal damnation.
Then why did nobody come to his defense and everyone agree that his view was a novelty? Wasn't it the Holy Spirit's job to keep things on the right track? Had everyone forgotten the truth in 150 years, not to rediscover it until the 17th Century?
And CONTRADICTS what the Bible already says, that he was the son of Alphaeus.
Is it your assertion that the Mary mentioned in the "Jesus Family" verses (Mark 6:3, Mat 13:55, etc) was Mary the wife of Clopas/Alphaeus?
Is that what you are saying? Are you committing to that?
Okay Campion. Let's see if I understand what you are saying... Are you saying that in this verse...
Mark 6: 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Are you saying that the Mary in this verse, and the SONS mentioned in this verse, were the sons of Mary, wife of ALPHAEUS?
Are you saying that and committing to that belief? Yes or no?
And the Catholic Church has better than a HUNCH,
that their followers would prob'ly buy this bogus "family"
and PRESTO they became "The Joseph Bunch"!!!!!!!!!!!
"The Joseph Bunch"...
"The Joseph Bunch"...
This is how they fabricated "The Joseph Bunch"!!!
My faith is in Christ, not in James.
And so it is for all who know and believe the truth.
But for one rather large group of "believers" their whole existence depends on their interpretation of numerous scriptures in the Bible that are rather like an elephant in the room but are ignored anyway and are swept aside by some gobblegook explanation that these scriptures cannot be accepted as written since they are in direct opposition to the "party line" and do not mean what they say and are to be ignored and can only be correctly interpreted by some higher earthly authority of their own belief who are appointed by others in authority of their own belief.
(Should be no room for misunderstanding there, right)?
Sounds like a lock to me!
Was it not Thomas Jefferson who is said to have taken a pen knife and deftly cut out those scriptures in his Bible he did not accept as necessary?
Okay, but like the other discussions here have pointed out, silence on an issue doesn't mean much. None of the gospels talk about the middle 30 years of his life, but we know it happened.
I think the verse is really pretty clear. The "Mary" referred to is the BVM. The James, Joses, Simon, and Jude mentioned are the "brothers of Jesus". It doesn't tell you (here) who their mother is. It doesn't tell you who their father is, either. You can no more assume that they are the children of Joseph and Mary than you can assume Lot is simultaneously Abraham's uterine brother and his nephew, because, after all, Abraham calls him "my brother".
But other verses (which I have already cited for you elsewhere) do tell us that James and Joses were the sons of Alphaeus and another woman named "Mary," later identified as the "sister" of the BVM.
BTW, unless you have ceased to believe in the virgin birth, perhaps you can explain to me why Scripture calls James the "brother" of Jesus when even you believe he was Jesus' half-brother. While you're at it, you can check out the case of Herod and his (according to Scripture!) "brother," Philip, who (according to Josephus), was really his half-brother.
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.