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

[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.

[ER_in_OC,CA]

Polycarp wrote: Unfortunately, all we get is Eiseman's doubts and nothing additional See post # 20

Please don't edit my sentences in a way which changes the meaning of them. Here is what I wrote:
Unfortunately, all we get is Eiseman's doubts and nothing additional which could raise our suspicions about the people reporting this discovery.

Post #20 adds nothing to address my FULL STATEMENT.

My point is that Eisenman rasies doubts, but doesn't give us a motive for why these people would perpetuate the "hoax." He also doesn't share information which reflects positively on those who have inspected the item and who own the item. By ignoring this, he's not addressing the whole scope of a supposed "hoax."

My experience reading Shanks and the scholars he works with has shown them to be intellectually honest and thorough. An article which implies they are perpetuating a "hoax" but does not directly share balancing information about them is lacking.

Nevertheless, the bias of the writer doesn't automatically discredit his claims, which should be honestly reviewed. But I think it fair I turn a critical eye to his article just as he turns his on Shanks' article.

[Delbert]

Mary was a virgin..it plainly says so. No big deal there.

[Cicero]

Thanks for the follow-up post. The letter you post signed "Deal," is of course Deal Hudson, the editor of Crisis.

With reference to the story of the Ark of the Covenant being in Ethiopia, I posted the article from Crisis in the Religion section of FR a while back. Freepers can find it there by searching for its title, "In Search of the Lost Ark." Whether or not you finally believe it, it's a fascinating piece, well worth reading.

[RedWhiteBlue]

James, the brother of Jesus, was so well known and important as a Jerusalem religious leader, according to 1st century sources

The first sentance of the article is critical. Indeed, the writer does believe that Jesus had a brother named James, and points out that many in the first century documented this fact. The only point the author is trying to make is that he does not believe that the inscription proves that the ossuary belonged to THE James that was the brother of Jesus.

[MEGoody]

I suppose Mary could be considered our mother if you stretch the definitions. In the flesh, she was the mother of Jesus, and spiritually, we are joint heirs with Christ (thus His brothers and sisters spiritually). But I think it a better description to say Mary is our spiritual sister, since her relationship to Jesus now is not mother/son, but Savior/woman.

[BearCub]

Mary was a virgin..it plainly says so. No big deal there

...when Jesus was conceived. It says nothing about whether she remained so forever, though one could assume that Jesus' brothers weren't also concieved miraculously.

[Desdemona]

The only one who has FLED from truth they can't handle is Polycarp.

I don't want to get into the middle of the whole debate, because frankly any artifact from that time period remains somewhat in question, just due to its being "lost" for so long. I can't imagine a claim like this being made without some serious study of the artifact itself.

But Polycarp IS a busy guy and is probably otherwise occupied at the moment. Be patient.

[MEGoody]

"It contains no bones. Its empty."

Still no impact on my faith.

[Delbert]

Funny how that little church in Ethiopia says the Ark is there, but sorry we cant let you see it. But they all bring out there ark models once a year to parade those around town. If the Ark was truly in a little church in Ethiopia , I would think that the Israelis would have recovered it by now. Or anybody else that might be strong enough or diabolical enough to try and harness it's legendary power.

[Polycarp]

But for you to refer to the RCC and 'Christians' as though Roman Catholics aren't Christians is petty as hell. In fact I think the divisiveness is the work of Satan - and those who promote it are his agents - knowing or not.

Berned considers Catholics to be damned to Hell. Berned has publicly stated that Catholics ARE NOT CHRISTIANS.

That is why he chases after me, he's trying to save me from the "whore of Babylon," the Roman Catholic Church, because I'm one of the more outspoken Catholics here.

Just pat him on the head or ignore him. That's what we do.

[reformed_democrat]

Do Catholics believe that Jesus' mother Mary loved her son Jesus enough to VISIT Him at His tomb after He died? Or didn't she care enough about Him to bother even going to His tomb?

If so, show the Bible passage which SPECIFICLY states that Jesus' mother, Mary bothered to visit His tomb as He lay dead.

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking here. To the best of my knowledge, there is no passage in the Bible that specifically states Mary, Mother of Jesus, visited the tomb. I could be wrong, as there a numerous translations, and the nuances of a language can get lost in the first go-around, let alone the fourth, fifth, or sixth translation.

By the same token, I know of no passage in the Bible that mentions Joseph, Father of Jesus, visiting the tomb. Was Joseph even alive at the time of the Crucifixion? I'm not aware of a passage that references this.

If Joseph was not alive at the time of the Crucifixion, would he still be remembered well enough 30 years later to merit mention on the ossuary of his son, James? Would Joseph, possibly less well known at the time, be mentioned ahead of his Son, Jesus?

You are probably far more familiar with this subject than I am. I'm sceptical with regard to the authenticity of the ossuary, and curious about it. I'd like to hear your opinion.

I have to run some errands, and will check this thread later tonight. Thanks

[MEGoody]

It would most definitely NOT be a fundamentalist Christian trying to prove that Mary was not a virgin when she birthed Jesus. That would be a liberal 'Christian'.

Now, if you mean that a fundamentalist would try to prove Mary was not an ETERNAL virgin, that's another issue entirely.

[berned]

According to YOPIOS, she did not.

According to the Holy Spirit writing in the Gospels, Jesus' mother Mary DID visit Jesus' Tomb. Of course she did! As soon as possible, as any mother would!

But the problem is, Catholic liars like Polycarp CANNOT admit this, because the Mary who visited the tomb is called "Mary mother of James and Joses".

They have told the world that Mary never had any other sons even though the Bible clearly says that she did! (Mar 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. )

So they dare not admit that Mary went to the Tomb because that would prove that she had more sons than just Jesus, which would cause their entire house of cards to fall. That's why the run when asked the question, and why you have to corner the little "slippery ones" so roughly to get them to respond.

[Delbert]

I do not disagree with you on that point at all. Was a virgin when Jesus was born.

[Polycarp]

But Polycarp IS a busy guy and is probably otherwise occupied at the moment. Be patient.

Actually, I am seeing patients between FReeping ;-)

But Berned still cannot handle being ignored.

If he feels better thinking I'm fleeing from him, let him be. Its OK. I'm a big guy, I can handle it.

[berned]

see post # 93.

[BearCub]

Berned considers Catholics to be damned to Hell. Berned has publicly stated that Catholics ARE NOT CHRISTIANS.

Well I guess it depends on his definition of Christianity then. If by 'Christian' he means 'people who agree with every little factoid I insist is true' then maybe Roman Catholics aren't Christians.

I prefer to stay aligned with the many many Protestant scholars and theologians who agree that the RCC is a completely Christian denomination.

[BearCub]

I do not disagree with you on that point at all. Was a virgin when Jesus was born

Okay - was just making my view on it clear. Sowwie ;-)

[Desdemona]

With reference to the story of the Ark of the Covenant being in Ethiopia, I posted the article from Crisis in the Religion section of FR a while back. Freepers can find it there by searching for its title, "In Search of the Lost Ark."

Uhhh, guys, the legend of the Ark being in Ethiopia is at least 1500 years old. It's been tucked away there forever, supposedly. Local legend doesn't waver and historical evidence supports it. I've seen the legend referenced a lot in the last ten years. It's also the subject of specials on The History Channel, The Discovery Channel and the Learning Channel (some days even I am home sick).

[Desdemona]

I know that. And I didn't see your response before I posted. He was being obnoxious about it.