A Discovery That's Just Too Perfect [James brother of Jesus Ossuary is a hoax-my title]

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-eisenman29oct29.story?null ^ | October 29, 2002 | Robert Eisenman

[ET(end tyranny)]

No it isn't. Because the crucifixtion took place on Friday, this is why they had to hurry and get Jesus into the tomb before sundown when the Sabbath starts.

The tomb verses take place in the next chapter before sunrise of the first day of the week, Sunday. Some 24-36 hours later.

[DallasMike]

Our Lord is talking about human traditions above and not what the Catholic Church means when She points to Sacred Tradition.

Nice, thoughtful response. Thank you.

I would argue that the religious leaders of Jesus' day thought that their traditions were sacred, too. The test is whether they nullify Scripture. Protestants (well, many of us) would argue that things like purgatory, praying to saints, and the various Marian beliefs do contradict Scriptures, at least at times. I can take you to Catholic churches in Dallas that I love and consider to be firmly based in the Scriptures, but I can also take you to Catholic churches (especially Hispanic) that I believe would shock you with their practices.

[wideawake]

No, I'm trying to assess the feasibility of DonQ's argument. Nowhere in the Gospel account of Joseph of Arimathea's internment of Jesus does it specifically state that Mary Jesus' mother did not attend.

I notice that you have a tendency to emotionalize your language when you're getting the worse of an exchange.

"didn't care enough to even bother" - come on.

The fact is, the sitting shiva thesis turns out to have some plausibility (though it's hardly been proven) and there is nothing in Jewish law which says that a body is not considered buried until its been treated with spices and ointments. That you seem to have made up out of whole cloth.

I think anyone who's spent as much time as you have reading the Gospel accounts of Christ's death and resurrection realizes that recreating an exact timeline with all the concomitant circumstances is not a cut-and-dried exercise.

I think DonQ's idea deserves to be weighed - as does your theory.

[TotusTuus]

There have to be AT LEAST three James's, and I can readily prove it.

I don't think anybody can "prove" it. I don't spend a lot of time chasing questions like these, since they are not of paramount importance, but from what I've seen, most Scriptural scholars, both Catholic and Protestant, attest to two James. Could there be a third one? I suppose. But with the information available, nobody can definitively prove anything. Your weakness seems to lie here:

We also know the James of Mat 13:55 is NOT the son of Alphaeus, because Alphaeus had ANOTHER son, and his name was LEVI (also called "Matthew")

Question. Why do you think these two Alphaeus' are one and the same? Alphaeus also was a fairly common name. Levi was a tax collector of all things! If Alphaeus who many believe is the same as the one called Clopas was the father of James, then it is unlikely that Alphaeus the father of Levi is the same person. I've just never seen among the many Scriptural scholars I've read, Protestant and Catholic alike, where they assume these two to be one and the same. In any event, either way, whatever. Not the most important issue in the Church. No Scriptural scholar I've read will come out and definitively state the solution to the "James debate", I guess that is what you would call it. Most concentrate on there being two James.

[ET(end tyranny)]

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.

In this verse it doesn't say James the less, though I suppose we 'could' assume that this is what is meant, however, why not mention that this Mary is the mother of the Lord and why didn't the writer see fit to mention, Joses, Simon or Judas?

I'm not real sure that it really matters if she were at the tomb or not. Would it change anything, if she were or was not?

[wideawake]

The test is whether they nullify Scripture. Protestants (well, many of us) would argue that things like purgatory, praying to saints, and the various Marian beliefs do contradict Scriptures, at least at times.

The proper term is "invocation" of saints. I understand where you're coming from - but I believe a Scriptural argument can be made for purgatory, invocation and the specific Marian dogmas of the immaculate conception and the assumption. All those doctrines tie in with the larger Catholic theology of the Scriptures.

I can take you to Catholic churches in Dallas that I love and consider to be firmly based in the Scriptures, but I can also take you to Catholic churches (especially Hispanic) that I believe would shock you with their practices.

I'm certain that you could. Of course, by the same token, I'm sure there are Protestant churches that would scandalize you with their crassness or their superstition. Even Rastafarians claim to be a Bible-only Reformed religion.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the best guide for finding out about the doctrines we really believe, and the General Instruction on the Roman Missal is the best guide for finding out what liturgical rites we really follow.

[Coeur de Lion]

I don't think the authenticity of the inscription on the box matters one iota. The Catholic doctrine like that of the Eastern Orthodox is the eternal virginity of Mary. This doctrine isn't upset if James was Jesus's step-brother or his cousin. The absurdity of this all is that somehow the inscription is proof that James is the son of the Virgin Mary. I don't find any claim in Scripture that James was this Mary's son. If Mary was present at the tomb wouldn't the evangelist have pointed that out instead of pointing out that she was the mother of James, but perhaps that's something the evangelist wouldn't claim because it was commonly held knowledge. What really gets me is that after 1500 years of the church we have these arrogant upstarts who somehow claim they have canonical proof of that the Virgin Mary is James's mother. When the reason that we have the Canon is because of the church.

[DallasMike]

I'm sure there are Protestant churches that would scandalize you with their crassness or their superstition.

Amem to that! I was with a friend earlier -- a Hispanic Catholic who is now a Protestant -- who was involved with a church several years back that was into the "gold dust" movement. I brought her back into reality from that sham. She found it particularly embarassing to buy into that fakery (for a couple of months at least) because of her experiences with brujas and curanderos in her childhood.

[VRWC_minion]

I agree that logically different handwriting would not necessarily indicate fraud one way or the other. In fact, using the "its too good to be true" test one might say that the fact their is a difference indicates lack of fraud because a good fraud would have found a box with no inscription and started with one fresh clean writing.

[DallasMike]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the best guide for finding out about the doctrines we really believe...

I own one. Plus I own Ludwig Ott's book. :-)

[wideawake]

So you can see, then, from paragraphs 2116 and 2117 of the Catechism, how 99% of the dubious practices indulged in by some Mexican Catholics are forbidden by the Church.

Are the "gold dusters" somehow related to those "holy laughing" guys? What's in the water in Toronto?

[wideawake]

It's not even a matter of 1500 years.

All the Reformers - Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Knox, Zwingli, Bucer, Chemnitz, etc. believed in Mary's perpetual virginity.

The vogue for denying Mary's virginity really dates from 1854, when Bl. Pope Pius IX proclaimed the immaculate conception.

Since that time it's become increasingly popular among many Reformed Christians to deny Mary's perpetual virginity.

[TotusTuus]

You've got to be kidding, right?

Mary the Mother of Jesus isn't mentioned in any of these verses. The "Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses" is a different woman.

Would you have us believe that the Gospel authors, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit no less, would not identify the Mother of our Lord as such. St. John, who was there with her, does - at the Cruxification. Look at the supposition of the find in the article. That "James son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" is important because a brothers name would only be used if he were really important. I'd say that Jesus is a really important Figure in the Gospels, wouldn't you? So even if you were to believe that Mary the mother of James and Joses, et. al. was also the same as her who is the Mother of our Lord, don't you think the Gospel evangelists would point that out and refer to her as "the Mother of Jesus"? The fact that they don't is the best proof that Mary the mother of James is not the Mother of God.

Your "tomb" example from St. Mark's Gospel is actually on Golgatha at the Cross.

In any event, why do you have a hard time assuming that Mary the Mother of our Lord would not have been at the tomb since He had already seen her. Since she, who knew Him more intimately than anyone else, keeping all the events of His Life since before His Birth and pondering them in her heart, would have known that He would Resurrect on the third day - as He made known to His Apostles (they didn't understand at the time. Scripture says nothing about Mary the Mother of Jesus not understanding). Scripture neither asserts nor precludes this fact. The early Church Fathers naturally assumed it, in fact, some argued that the Scriptures imply it - since Mary was absent at the tomb that first day of the week. That odd detail did not go unnoticed by them. It didn't make sense - unless she had already seen Him! Why would it be wrong for others to contemplate this as well? The Holy Scriptures in no way precludes this possibility. Their silence about her being at the tomb invites it.

[Coeur de Lion]

The response probably has more to do with the declaration of papal infallibility during Vatican I. Given that the pope declared the doctrine of Immaculate of Conception ex cathedra, which has nothing to do with the dostrine of the eternal virginity of the Virgin Mary, that's probably what provoked/provokes the attacks. Because the Reform are ignorant of this fact, it's no wonder that they've made this into a strawman.

[VRWC_minion]

Would you have us believe that the Gospel authors, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit no less, would not identify the Mother of our Lord as such.

I thought a little about this question and I have an observation that hasn't been mentioned. One of the chief reason, if not the only reason for mentioning who went to the tomb is to provide evidence of the risen Christ. Christ's own mother may not be the best witness to site as proof of the event. Further, I wondered if Jewish law which is fairly specific about number of witness, can't testify for self etc, have anything to say about mother or father as witness. Just curious.

[TotusTuus]

Protestants (well, many of us) would argue that things like purgatory, praying to saints, and the various Marian beliefs do contradict Scriptures, at least at times.

And that gets to the heart of the ol "Authority Debate". Who is given the authority to infallibly interpret the Holy Scriptures? Everybody will of course say God, and that is obviously correct. But how? Not only is there disagreements between the Catholic Church and various Protestant denominations on correct interpretation, the various Protestant Churches and ecclesial communions have conflicting interpretations between each other as well.

I would argue that Protestants, while not calling it by this name, also depend on tradition to interpret the Bible as well. They have too! Just look at all the comments concerning Scripture in this thread alone. Put 10 people alone in a room to read the Bible for the first time, and you've just given birth to 10 new denominations. Your average lay person has to rely on some authority to help guide them in understanding the Bible. Problem is, where does the tradition come from?

...but I can also take you to Catholic churches (especially Hispanic) that I believe would shock you with their practices.

Bet you can't! :-) I speak of being shocked.

But again, I would wager that you are seeing what we affectionately refer to as the "small t" traditions or customs, as opposed to "Capital T" Sacred Tradition. The two are different, but often get confused. And yes, these can become wrong real quickly. Hence our Lord founding His Church on the 12 Apostles with St. Peter as their head to authoritatively guide and protect the Church into all Truth, and protect against incorrect human traditions. Human traditions (take Church Law for example) do come into play and have to (we're human). The just need to be correlated correctly to the Word of God - hence the Church's claim of authority.

[TotusTuus]

I don't think the authenticity of the inscription on the box matters one iota.

Oh yea! This was a thread about a bonebox with some inscription on it. I remember now. Polycarp posted it a couple of days ago. How did I end up here...

Anyway, I'm in toal agreement!

[TotusTuus]

I thought a little about this question and I have an observation that hasn't been mentioned. One of the chief reason, if not the only reason for mentioning who went to the tomb is to provide evidence of the risen Christ. Christ's own mother may not be the best witness to site as proof of the event. Further, I wondered if Jewish law which is fairly specific about number of witness, can't testify for self etc, have anything to say about mother or father as witness. Just curious.

A fresh point of view, I'll have to think about it (I have to go now...)

The witnesses are another point. Do they need two? I can't remember, but do they have to be men?

[Robert A Cook PE]

"... (that there) is a difference indicates lack of fraud because a good fraud would have found a box with no inscription and started with one fresh clean writing.

Good point - One I didn't consider.

Think again of that family photo album you've been keeping for fifty years - received maybe as a heirloom from your grandmother who brought it herself as a treasure from the old country.....

You (personally) KNOW it is a "real" photograph of her dad's wedding picture, or of her grandfather's gravesite .... So there's NO CHANCE "you" are a "forger" of antiques whe nyou re-touch the photo....

All you did was "explain" (in new handwriting) on the photograph WHO "Joquin Smith, My Dear Departed Husband" was on the gravestone..... "Husband of my grandmother, Joanne Minion" .... Or that you took the "old-world" 1880's black&white and re-touched it in a new frame to include with YOUR family's 1965's photo's of other grandparents on your 1990's wall?

So, when the box was re-engraved fifty/150 years later, WHO was more important, and WHY was the relationship SO important to the re-writer that they "desecrated" their family's most important heirloom to engrave (in rock, trying to imitate the original as best they (now illerate ?)) could trace of the unfamilar letters: Jesus, James, or Joseph?

[Robert A Cook PE]

One point of several sermons is that the fact that the first witnesses WERE women emphasized the "new role" that women should have under Christianity (rather than the servant/slave/low status role they ahd under Jewish law.