To: Campion; berned; *Catholic_list; .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; Angelus Errare; ...
The ossuary itself is undoubtedly genuine; the well executed and formal first part of the inscription is a holographic original by a literate (and wealthy) survivor of Jacob Ben Josef in the 1st century CE. The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition and is questionable to say the least. Thanks for posting this.
Berned, since you cannot refute the other critics either, but only impugn their criticism by pointing out other beliefs they hold, you better start your character assassination against the author of this analysis too.
And quick.
Interesting thought:
Might Moslems haoxsters have a similar agenda to prove Jesus had brothers/sisters just like protestant fundies do?
If so, what is it about their beliefs about Jesus that would drive them to perpetuate this hoax, how does it intersect with the protestant heresies about Jesus and Mary, and what does it say about the gullibility of these fundies who have signed onto this hoax that they would be willing to accept the hoax of Muslim extremists to try to further their sectarian and anti-Catholic agenda?
To: Polycarp
Might Moslems haoxsters have a similar agenda to prove Jesus had brothers/sisters just like protestant fundies do? Actually, Muslims believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Our Lady. It is explicitly asserted in the Koran.
Since (as a Christian) I obviously believe they got that idea from us, its presence in the Koran, while not proving its truth, certainly proves its antiquity. (Actually, the belief was already centuries old when the Koran was written.)
148 posted on
11/01/2002 1:21:05 PM PST by
Campion
To: Polycarp
good point!
To: Polycarp
I am not trying to pick a fight here; I am genuinely curious. Are you saying that the Catholic Church teaches (and believes) that Joseph stayed married to Mary for however long after Jesus was born and did NOT have normal marital relations with her? That such marital relations would not, in a time when birth control would have been unknown, result in other children being conceived? To me the notion is ludicrous to say the least. What would be the purpose of such a belief? What would have been the purpose of such a marriage? It boggles the mind.
422 posted on
11/04/2002 9:41:02 AM PST by
dcwusmc
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson