Posted on 11/01/2002 10:45:35 AM PST by Polycarp
COMMENTARY
A Discovery That's Just Too Perfect
Claims that stone box held remains of Jesus' brother may be suspect.
By Robert Eisenman Robert Eisenman is the author of "James the Brother of Jesus" (Penguin, 1998) and a professor of Middle East religions and archeology at Cal State Long Beach.
October 29 2002
James, the brother of Jesus, was so well known and important as a Jerusalem religious leader, according to 1st century sources, that taking the brother relationship seriously was perhaps the best confirmation that there ever was a historical Jesus. Put another way, it was not whether Jesus had a brother, but rather whether the brother had a "Jesus."
Now we are suddenly presented with this very "proof": the discovery, allegedly near Jerusalem, of an ossuary inscribed in the Aramaic language used at that time, with "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." An ossuary is a stone box in which bones previously laid out in rock-cut tombs, such as those in the Gospels, were placed after they were retrieved by relatives or followers.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Posts 1 & 206 are articles. This whole THREAD is a response to them.
Polycarp demanded that I REBUT a newspaper article. How does one do that?
The question I asked polycarp, which he adamantly refused to answer was...
There are four brothers listed in Mark 6: 3. James, Jude, Joses and Simon. Does he believe that these were the children of Alphaeus?
A simple yes or no. I didn't ask him to rebut an entire newspaper article.
He couldn't answer me.
1. Mary Magdalene
2. Joanna.
3. Salome (wife of Zebedee)
4. Mary --the Mother of JAMES and Joses.
Mat 13:
55 He's just a carpenter's son, and we know Mary, his mother, and his brothers--James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas
First of all which verse are you using to cite the 4 women at the tomb?
I found this:
Mark 15:39-41
39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
40 There were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome;
41 (Who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him;) and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem.
James the less is NOT James the Just. These are two different James'. This would mean that the Mary mother of James the less is NOT the mother of James the Just, hence, not the mother of Jesus.
The fact that this Mary is NOT the mother of Jesus, explains why Simon and Judas are not listed and why it doesn't say, 'mother of Jesus'. If she were the mother of Jesus it would have said so as it does in other places in the Bible. Why leave that out in THIS particular instance.
At any rate, James the less is not the same as James the Just and James the Just is the brother of Jesus, as mentioned by Eusebius.
Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History
http://biblefacts.org/ecf/cvol1/euseb_b2.html
Book II
CHAPTER I.
The Course pursued by the Apostles after the Ascension of Christ. First, then, in the place of Judas, the betrayer, Matthias, who, as has been shown was also one of the Seventy, was chosen to the apostolate. And there were appointed to the diaconate, for the service of the congregation, by prayer and the laying on of the hands of the apostles, approved men, seven in number, of whom Stephen was one. He first, after the Lord, was stoned to death at the time of his ordination by the slayers of the Lord, as if he had been promoted for this very purpose. And thus he was the first to receive the crown, corresponding to his name, which belongs to the martyrs of Christ. Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, "was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together," as the account of the holy Gospels shows. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: "For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Savior, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem."
Also, as Polycarp has repeatedly requested, answer #1, #206 and the other two posts as to which he has requested your answers in vain. Your specific response?
Which one of these do you believe is "James the Just"? Or do you believe there is a FOURTH James?
Now, again, which verse are you citing for the 4 women at the tomb?
I for example "believe" that there was a FIFTH and SIXTH James (Jacob) too. It was a very popular name at that time, even if the Bible does not say it.
I remind you that you did not answer my question.
You said - The Bible is the rock solid foundation of everything we believe.
My question was:
Do you believe that the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tm:3:15)?
Nice bumper sticker but really bad logic. By your thinking, we wouldn't believe in the Trinity because it isn't specifically defined. Sola Scriptura is implicit in the Bible, just as the Trinity is.
You should read the New Testament and see often Jesus appeals to Scripture as the final authority. Those of us who hold to Sola Scriptura merely follow the example of Jesus and the early church.
The church is the body of people who believe Jesus Christ is their Saviour. But human beings don't produce "the Truth". Truth comes from God.
Yes, Eisenman says that he thought James the Just and the 'Teacher of Righteousness' were one and the same. As to the Dead Sea Scrolls being 'christian', I think he meant 'christian as christian was in THAT day, which is not the same as christian today, since the early followers of Jesus and later James still followed as they had been taught by Jesus, following the Law, and keeping the Sabbath which today's christians do not.
That unsuccessful attempt took more than an hour and left me rather drained. He never did answer.
Like these:
Mark 16:1
And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
Matthew 27:60-62
60 And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.
61 And there was Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, sitting over against the sepulchre.
62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
Matthew 28:1
1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Mark 16:1-2
1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
2 And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
Luke 24:9-10
9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.
10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.
Mary the mother of James..and the other Mary. Both are too vague. I maintain that IF this were Mary the mother of Jesus, it would have SAID SO.
But, I'll wait for your verses.
Yes. And your point is?
The fact remains, and it is irrefutable, that Jerome translated the deuterocanonicals along with the rest of the Vulgate.
The fact remains, and it is irrefutable, that three councils -- Rome, Hippo, and Carthage -- at the end of the 4th century placed the deuterocanonicals with the rest of Scripture. Not coincidentally, they are also the councils that fixed the NT canon.
The fact remains, and it is irrefutable, Cardinal Cajetan's alleged opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, that the Council of Florence in the 15th century, a full century before Trent, cited them in their list of canonical books.
Remember, if you accept the "deuterocanonical" books as Scripture, you have to believe the following passage:
"If the Devil, or an evil spirit troubles anyone, they can be driven away by making a smoke of the heart, liver, and gall of a fish...and the Devil will smell it, and flee away, and never come again anymore." (Tobit 6:5-8)
No, Mike. You obviously have the exegetical subtlety of a sledgehammer. What I "have to believe" is that, according to the story (and that's what it is, a story or parable), an angel told that to Tobit. I stand on the side of Jerome, Athanasiusm, Origen, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Melito, Gregory of Nazianzen, Hilary of Poitiers, and many others in rejecting these kinds of superstitions.
I wouldn't stand with Origen on much of anything if I were you. He's useful mainly as a witness to the belief of the church in his age -- you know, Christ truly present in the Eucharist, the sacrament of confession, the baptism of infants ... I'm sure you've read him and agree with him on all of those things, since you claim to "stand with him." For your sake, I do hope you don't stand with him on his more notorious claim(s) to fame.
James was the successor of Jesus.
Touche!!!!! You got me!!!
What I should have said:Those letters written to farmers, peasants, shepherds,and all the other common people of that time.
The letters that were so complex that they couldn't be understood. The letters that caused the people to cry out to the Holy Spirit for over 300 years!
"Lord send us someone to tell us what letters are true and what they mean! Your people cry out Lord! It has been 300 years Lord. We don't know what letters are yours and what they mean. How can we know the author without a publisher? Why is it taking so long? Why does it take this long to get the majesterium up and running? How can we trust any of the early church fathers in the past 3 centuries to be true until we have the Catholic Church put their stamp of approval on this? Could you have them stop writing tradition for a few months nad have them get down to bible cannonization? Lord hear our prayers!" (Not a snub to Mary)
That is more in line with your belief.
I'll bet the clouds in your world are the color teal.
Just a hunch...*snicker*
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.