Yeah, like you run away from the clear proof that James the Just was the son of Alphaeus, not Joseph.
This is because the Mary who visited Christ's tomb at earliest possible time is described as "Mary the mother of JAMES AND JOSES".
Exactly, berned, exactly. NOT as "Mary, His mother" or "Mary, mother of the Lord" ... because she wasn't that person. She was the "sister" of "Mary, his mother" identified as "Mary, wife of Clopas" in John 19:25.
And, incidentally, your claim that Catholics believe that "[the Blessed Virgin] Mary 'dropped Jesus like a hot potato' when she saw he was dead" is, without any question, doubt, or equivocation, the dumbest thing you have ever posted here.
And that's saying a whole lot.
Hey guys, check out some of the OTHER things your hero Eisenman believes!!!!!!!!!!!!
...In support of Islam, some Muslims have recommended "James the Brother of Jesus The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of Early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls" by Robert Eisenman, Publisher: Vicking, and brought this blurb:
Mail on Sunday, 30th March 1997, London (UK) Books of the Week, Murray Sayle Robert Eisenman's "James the Brother of Jesus" makes a penitenitial read, but he brings together much new evidence, from textual analysis and archeology, about this purely Jewish kind of Christian revelation. This kept to Judaism's strict monotheism, austerity, dietry laws and circumcision - teachings which its earliest members must have heard from the Master himself. The Christianity of James died out or was supressed but a faith spiritually descended from it is still alive. Its followers call it Submission (to the will of God) or, in Arabic, Islam.
Another very important part of Eisenman's reconstruction is that James was the high priest after the death of Jesus. Two things here. First, Eisenman holds that, if Jesus was even historical (which he is not at all sure about), the earliest Christians believed that he died a normal death (i.e., no ideas about Jesus not being crucified but only made to look that way).
Finally, since Eisenman sees the New Testament as a result of Paul's rewrite of nascent `Christianity', he also does not believe in the miracles associated with the life of Jesus. For example, in his new book he says that the virgin birth is a legend. So if you want to believe that somehow the Gospellers got this bit of data correct in spite of what Eisenman says (e.g., that, because of Paul, the Gospel communities grafted pagan myths onto the original Jewish memories), what (other than Qur'an) keeps you from thinking that they may also have gotten this piece right?
This is because the Mary who visited Christ's tomb at earliest possible time is described as "Mary the mother of JAMES AND JOSES".
Exactly, berned, exactly. NOT as "Mary, His mother" or "Mary, mother of the Lord" ... because she wasn't that person. She was the "sister" of "Mary, his mother" identified as "Mary, wife of Clopas" in John 19:25.
And, incidentally, your claim that Catholics believe that "[the Blessed Virgin] Mary 'dropped Jesus like a hot potato' when she saw he was dead" is, without any question, doubt, or equivocation, the dumbest thing you have ever posted here.
And that's saying a whole lot.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, all this has been explained to Berned so very many times that one can only draw one conclusion about Berned, i.e. re:
Catholic liars like Polycarp CANNOT admit this
Folks try to "see" in others that which they despise about themselves.