"How we doin', any converts today?"
"Not a one, nay, nay, nay."
"We flattened their fingers, we branded their buns!
Nothing is working! Send in the nuns!"
Posted on 10/26/2002 1:59:09 PM PDT by polemikos
In October 2002 it was announced in Biblical Archaeology Review that a first century stone ossuary had been discovered that is believed to have held the bones of St. James, the brother of Jesus, also known as "James the Just."
An ossuary is a box used to hold the bones of a dead person. Stone ossuaries were widely used by Palestinian Jews between 20 B.C. and A.D. 70.
This ossuary bore the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." It had been bought a number of years previously by a Jewish collector who prefers to remain anonymous. He did not initially realize its potential significance until he asked Andre Lemaire of the Sorbonne, a paleographer or expert in ancient writing, to translate the Aramaic inscription on the ossuary.
James, Joseph, and Jesus were very common names in first century Palestine, and Lemaire estimates that there may have been as many as twenty individuals in Jerusalem who were named James and who had fathers named Joseph and brothers names Jesus. Nevertheless, Lemaire and other experts believe it probable that the James to whom this ossuary belonged very probably was the one referred to in the New Testament as "the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19).
It is extremely uncommon for brothers to be named in ossuary inscriptions. Of the hundreds of such ossuaries that have been found, only two name a brother as well as the father. The fact that this one does so suggests that the brother was considered very important. It is unlikely that there were other men named James who had fathers named Joseph and who had brothers named Jesus that were so important that they warranted mention on an ossuary.
Following the announcement of the discovery, many were quick to ask its potential apologetic significance. If authentic, its immediate significance is that it provides the earliest known inscriptional evidence for the historical reality of Jesus, as well as providing confirmation of two of his family relationships. Previously the only first century data on Jesus and his family has come from literary sources, such as the documents of the New Testament and (with important qualifications) from the first century Jewish historian Josephus.
Some non-Catholics were quick to tout the box as evidence against the perpetual virginity of Mary, however this does not follow. The ossuary identifies its James as the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus, it does not identify him as the son-much less the biological son-of Mary. The only point that Catholic doctrine has established regarding the "brethren of the Lord" is that they are not biological children of Mary.
What relationship they did have with her is a matter of speculation. They may have been Jesus' adoptive brothers, stepbrothers through Joseph, or-according to one popular theory-cousins. As has often been pointed out, Aramaic had no word for "cousin," and so the word for brother was used in its place. This inscription is in Aramaic, and so there would be little surprise if it were being used in that way.
While the inscription does not establish the brethren of the Lord as biological children of Mary, it does have an impact on which theory may best explain the relationship of the brethren to Jesus. If James "the brother of the Lord" were Jesus' cousin then it would be unlikely for him also to have a father named Joseph. This would diminish the probability of the cousin theory in favor of the idea that this James was a stepbrother or an adoptive brother of Jesus.
The stepbrother hypothesis is, in fact, the earliest one on record. It is endorsed by a document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which dates to the year 120, within sixty years of James' death (James died in A.D. 62). According to the Protoevangelium, Joseph was an elderly widower at the time he was betrothed to Mary. He already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a virgin consecrated to God. The stepbrother hypothesis was the most common explanation of the brethren of the Lord until St. Jerome popularized the cousin hypothesis just before the year 400.
The stepbrother hypothesis is also supported by the fact that Joseph apparently was significantly older than Mary, as he appears to have died before our Lord's public ministry began.
Bottom line: If the ossuary of James bar-Joseph is that of James the brother of the Lord, it sheds light on which of the theories Catholics are permitted to hold is most likely the correct one, but it poses does nothing to refute Catholic doctrine. If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord.
James, who is called the brother of the Lord, surnamed the Just, the son of Joseph by another wife (as some think, but, as appears to me, the son of Mary sister of the mother of our Lord of whom John makes mention in his book), after our Lord's passion at once ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem, wrote a single epistle, which is reckoned among the seven Catholic Epistles and even this is claimed by some to have been published by some one else under his name, and gradually, as time went on, to have gained authority.
Hegesippus [the second century historian] who lived near the apostolic age, in the fifth book of his Commentaries, writing of James. says
"After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed. He alone had the privilege of entering the Holy of Holies, since indeed he did not use woolen vestments but linen and went alone into the temple and prayed in behalf of the people, insomuch that his knees were reputed to have acquired the hardness of camels' knees."
He says also many other things, too numerous to mention. Josephus also in the 20th book of his Antiquities, and Clement in the 7th of his Outlines mention that on the death of Fetus who reigned over Judea, Albinus was sent by Nero as his successor.
Before he had reached his province, Ananias the high priest, the youthful son of Ananus of the priestly class taking advantage of the state of anarchy, assembled a council and publicly tried to force James to deny that Christ is the son of God. When he refused Ananius ordered him to be stoned. Cast down from a pinnacle of the temple, his legs broken, but still half alive, raising his hands to heaven he said, "Lord forgive them for they know not what they do." Then struck on the head by the club of a fuller such a club as fullers are accustomed to wring out garments with-he died.
This same Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death. He it is of whom the apostle Paul writes to the Galatians that "No one else of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord" [Gal. 1:19], and shortly after the event the Acts of the apostles bear witness to the matter.
The Gospel also which is called the Gospel according to the Hebrews, and which I have recently translated into Greek and Latin and which also Origen often makes use of, after the account of the resurrection of the Saviour says, "but the Lord, after he had given his grave clothes to the servant of the priest, appeared to James (for James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he drank the cup of the Lord until he should see him rising again from among those that sleep)" and again, a little later, it says "'Bring a table and bread,' said the Lord." And immediately it is added, "He brought bread and blessed and brake and gave to James the Just and said to him, 'My brother eat thy bread, for the son of man is risen from among those that sleep.'"
And so he ruled the Church of Jerusalem thirty years, that is until the seventh year of Nero, and was buried near the temple from which he had been cast down. His tombstone with its inscription was well known until the siege of Titus and the end of Hadrian's reign. Some of our writers think he was buried in Mount Olivet, but they are mistaken.
See also: Brethren of the Lord and Mary Ever Virgin
"How we doin', any converts today?"
"Not a one, nay, nay, nay."
"We flattened their fingers, we branded their buns!
Nothing is working! Send in the nuns!"
...then how do you know that their, shall we say, UNIQUE interpretation of "Upon this rock..." is not ALSO nothing more than the slick lie of a false snake-oil religion?
If their claim of "infallibility" has now been shattered, destroyed, and debunked, (IT HAS) then what makes you think you are a member of "God's true church"?
On what basis do you believe that? Is it: "ok, they lied about Mary, but they might be telling the truth about the OTHER stuff"? Are you willing to defy God's Word, which you WILLFULLY have CHOSEN to disregard and not read, and hang your ETERNAL SALVATION on an organization whose credibility (which you are staking your salvation on) is now utterly bankrupt?
Are you truly THAT dumb, Chuck?
Yes Chuck they do change that is why we need an anchor to the truth, because God does not change, what was sin then is sin now, what was false then is false now, what was an abomination to God then , is an abomination now.
When you place your beliefs in the hand of men and tradition they will fail every time ..the Word of God will never fail ..it will never change
Mal 3:6 For I [am] the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
Hbr 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
I stake my salvation on Christ's sacrifice and I believe the Holy Roman Catholic Church is THE Church that Christ instituted, and that it's truths contain the elements required to imitate my Lord and Savior. I have looked at the alternatives and rejected them, especially the one that holds the bible as some kind of Rubek's cube, whose perpetual manipulation substitutes as sanctity. If you want to attract people to even consider what you believe then you would do well to follow the pope's example of asking forgiveness for past wrongs and showing respect for others' faiths.
I've got to go away for a few days but I will remember you as I pray the rosary, meditating on the luminous mysteries this evening. Pax et bonum.
If His mother was so unimportant, as most Protestants would have us believe, and his brothers were so numerous then why would Jesus bother to say anything and why would it be in the Scriptures?
The Baptism of Jesus in the Jordan;
the Wedding Feast at Cana (where Jesus fullfilled His mother's request);
The announcement of the Kingdom;
The Transfiguration:
and the Institution of the Eucharist.
Thank God for the rosary and its strength against evil!
You can never again plead ignorance of what the Bible says in these matters, or claim that you didn't know that God has commanded His people to get out of the organization He calls "The Whore of Babylon".
The theological ball has most definitely been put into YOUR court, and it's now your responsibility to delve into these matters which you've been avoiding by purposely NOT reading God's Word.
I genuinely wish you well.
I would not suppose that anyone on the street could tell me what Revelation means. Why should I accept your view of a book that Luther removed from the cannon?
I was a protestant and I know what it means to only accept my own interpretation. But one day I woke up to the Truth. "unless you recognise the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy meal you will be guilty of grave sin." The Eucharist is Jesus Christ in the world today. He is not in the Bible in the same way. We cannot eat the Bible and become like Christ, one body.
This is the crux of the problem. We as Christians must find a way to unite, not separate.
There are only two reasons to join the Catholic Church; it is the only place in which your sins can be truly forgiven and whether we like it or not, it has the Truth...Jesus Christ in Body and Blood.,
Ummm, yes. I believe it was called "The Inquisition".
Please refer back to my post # 177 where I list half dozen traits of the organization God calls "the Whore". See if you can name any other organization on earth OTHER than the RCC, that fits each and every one of the descriptions.
Actually, I'm not one to say his mother was unimportant. I believe his mother was very important.
However, IF we assume a (seeming) blood-brother relationship between Jesus and James and others, then we have limited choices.
Either Jesus shared one parent with those brothers OR he shared both parents with those brothers.
It is impossible to carry on a conversation with someone who just drops the debate one one thread when they are cornered, then pops up in another thread.
There was no passage. You claim that Mary is W/O sin. The passage in Luke tells of the offering of a sinner. Leviticus confirms what the offering was for.
This also gives credibility to the verse that Mary calls God her saviour.
Sinless people don't need saviours or to make offerings for sins.
We don't find Jesus making this offering out of humility so we must assume Mary would not have had to do it either.
You claim that tradition and scripture don't contradict each other. Explain this contradiction.
Please don't cut/paste the writings of some dead RC apologist who had the uncanny ability to go back 2000 years and tell us what probably was going on in the minds of these people.
If tradition and scripture compliment each other give me some concrete proof that Mary was sinless and these verses are wrong.
No assumptions or probabilities. Give me proof.
When a prot makes a statement the burden of proof is with them. That's what the catholics here tell us. Now lets have your proof
Again I don't want to hear what the early fathers believed. I want concrete evidence. <><
I always thought you were a "Prince Abert in a Can" man! Than you most likely the kind who would not let him out:)
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.