Posted on 01/01/2014 3:47:12 PM PST by SeekAndFind
A 2,000-year-old burial box believed by some to contain the remains of James, the brother of Jesus Christ, is set to go on public display in Israel, after its owner was cleared of forgery.
Oded Golan, the Israeli antiquities collector who owns the limestone burial box, insists that "this is the oldest evidence that mentions the name of Jesus Christ," according to a report in The Guardian.
"There is no doubt that it's ancient, and the probability is that it belonged to the brother of Jesus Christ," he added.
Golan was cleared by the Israeli Supreme Court of having forged the inscription that mentions the name of Jesus after a 10-year investigation, though the Israeli officials who analyzed the evidence have been accused of vandalizing the box.
"It's not in the same condition as before the trial. The inscription was defaced, contaminated. They poured red silicon into the inscription and they let it dry and when they took it out they took the patina. It's ruined," Golan said.
"I have to evaluate the damage, see if it can be restored and if there is the possibility of carrying out further tests on the inscription in the future that will allow us to show its authenticity. The government said the second half of the inscription was forged – the words 'brother of Jesus' – and that's where the major damage has been done."
People will soon be able to see the inscription for themselves for the first time since it was briefly exhibited in Toronto in 2002. Despite the finding by the Israeli judges that the inscription was not forged, the authenticity of the box remains in question.
"Because of the differences in the depth and the clarity and the kerning (spacing) between the first half of the inscription that mentions James son of Joseph, and the second half, I'd be willing to wager that the second half was added in modern times," offered Prof Christopher Rollston of the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem.
Others, however, such as Professor Gabriel Barkay of Bar-Ilan University, have said that it is an authentic inscription.
"The inscription is written in the Jewish script, it was done with a sharp instrument and I think it was done by the same hand. It is an authentic inscription," Barkay said.
The authenticity of the box could also be a point of controversy for the Roman Catholic Church, which disputes claims that Christ had brothers and sisters.
Golan will also offer expert opinions from the trial as part of evidence in favor of the burial box, though further details about the public display have not yet been available. The James Ossuary Trial Jerusalem blog, maintained by journalist Matthew Kalman, offers updated news on the fallout of the trial and the future of the disputed box.
One wonders: Is the Bible an infallible doorstop?
I suppose that would depend on the version of the Bible and the nature of the door. With some doors, a particular version would perhaps not be infallible.
Should the Bible be so used? Probably not. Is it a flaw in the Bible if it was to fail in such use? No, the flaw would be due to being used incorrectly.
So you believe that the Grace of Christ is limited.
That is an interesting belief. If the penalty of sin is paid, then what other penalty is required?
If the penalty of sin is not paid by Christ, then to what purpose did Christ die?
Or is it all a made up story? Inquiring minds want to know?
**So you believe that the Grace of Christ is limited.**
Where did I say that?
I don’t care what the church teaches, I care about the Bible. I don’t say this stuff to be a problem or anything. I care about and love people. One of the biggest cults in the word is the RC religion. It’s extremely dangerous because it has sprinklings of truth here and there but it’s another of Satan’s lies. I know I won’t change minds myself and most won’t agree. If one person however seeks the truth, then it’s all worth it.
I'll get back to this. I'm off early this morning!
Happy 8th day of Christmas!
"And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS" (AV).
"And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus" (DRB).
The AV is translated from Greek as it is precisely given in Scrivener's Textus Receptus. Thayer's Greek-English lexicon, cited by e-Sword Bible software, limits the translational possibilities to:
G1097 (Strong's number)
γινώσκω
ginōskō
Thayer Definition:
1) to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel
1a) to become known
2) to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of
2a) to understand
2b) to know
3) Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman
4) to become acquainted with, to know
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a prolonged form of a primary verb
Citing in TDNT: 1:689, 119
(Actually, my 1889 edition of Thayers gives 15 column inches to γινώσκω, and anothe 4 inches to synonyms. TDNT ia abbreviation for Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, another 10-volume work.) However the above is quite adequate to describe the use of γινώσκω in this context; and in Thayers the only use of Mt. 1:25 is as follows:
γινώσκω
Case I.3. by a Hebraistic euphemism [cf. W. 18], found also in Grk. writ. fr. the Alexandrian age down, γινώσκω is used of the carnal connection of male and female, rem cum aliquo or aliqua habere(cf. our have a [criminal] intimacy with): of a husband, Mt. i.25; of the woman Lk. i.34; (Gen. iv.1,17;xix:8; 1 Sam. i.19, etc.; Judith xvi.22; . . . (other citations from Classical Greek ).
This use of γινώσκω is very particular and peculiar in that it does refer only to the expected connubial joining of a lawfully joined husband and wife. Because of the particular relationship of espousal, then cohabitation, Thayer's definitions af 1, 2, and 4 above can not possibly apply either preceding or going on from the birth of Jesus. Thus only Definition 3 above can possibly apply. Mary herself used the term herself in Luke, speaking to Gabriel, as to being "known."
What we have here is that, up until her first birth, Joseph did not know her (nor indeed not before her puriication subsequent to her first birthing experience). In comparison with the verb "to know by experience" which is not used for describing husband/wife relations in the lexicons:
επιγινώσκω is inclined toward knowledge of intellectual or spiritual things by personal experience and familiarity, and is not used of the carnal knowledge of a woman.
The second Greek word of concern here is εως, translated as "till." Strong's lexicon gives an accurate description of the use of this word in this sentence:
G2193
εως
heōs
heh'-oce
Of uncertain affinity; a conjugation, preposition and adverb of continuance, until (of time and place): - even (until, unto), (as) far (as), how long, (un-) til (-l), (hither-, un-, up) to, while (-s).
Thus this word--which means "until"--introduces the inescapable prescience of the nature of marital conduct of Joseph and Mary subsequent to the birth of (not Joseph's) child. Clearly, the Holy Ghost offers this very clear, unambiguous sense of their ongoing life as husband and wife.
As an aside, I know that as an only child for many years, you cannot learn by experience what it is like to be raised with conjoint siblings. There is absolutely no reason, other than to prop up the "Immaculate Conception" doctrine, that Jesus should not have had the knowlrdge by experience of being raised in a family with siblings to relate to.
Thirdly, if Mary was never to have another child, for what reason would the Holy Ghost insist on inscripturating the term "first born" here, rather than "only" if that were the precise thought (which it is not)? As God's Son, Hei is called by God "My Only Begotten . . ." (in the flesh, not of The Spirit) ". . . Son" as in Jn. 3:16. God never proclaimed Mary as His begotten-in-the-flesh daughter, did he?
Mary had other children, begotten of her righteous, faithful, law-abiding, Spirit-controlled husband Joseph to consummate the tasks as a Christian wife to a godly husband who certainly desired to raise more godly generations, and proceeded to do so.
The DRB, translated from the Latin of Jerome, who translated much of the Vulgate from the early Koine texts, explicitly says the same things.
The rule of interpretation is that when the plain sense of the Scripture make common sense, to seek no other sense.
Declaring Mary as being more holy by renouncing marriage vows is simple foolishness, and contradicts both the particular context, as well as the other, broader Scriptural setting that declares that Jesus had siblings that rejected his calling, for a time, with whom his mother sided, also in that time.
Anything after is pure speculation.
Anything that rejects the simple, plain, commonsense understanding of what the Holy Ghost has placed in Scripture regarding this is not only arbitrary conjecture, it is wild-eyed madness when dogma laid down regarding Mary's everlasting virginity is forced on a credulous, unbelieving follower who is turned away from the Jesus of the Bible, to another Jesus--of the same kind, but yet another--with another gospel and another spirit, both of a different kind, that blocks the seeker from knowing what he/she needs to trust in to be saved. IMHO
Seems your post 99 denies the power of grace over the sins you named.
So is it? Or can one commit sins, and have them forgiven? Can you be forgiven sins after coming to faith?
My understanding was that Christians were not perfect, but rather only forgiven?
“He was no heretic. He didn’t just decide one day that cousins would be called brothers. Everything he wrote was rooted in the writings closest to the apostles.”
Then you should have No problem posting a VERY complete bibliography of his EXTENSIVE sources that date to the apostles.
In the meantime, don’t miss that the God who inspired the writings of the Apostles, inspired them to use the Greek word for “brothers” and the Greek word for “sisters” and not to use the Greek word for “cousins”. Three inspired choices that specifically identify that Jesus was not an only child.
“
WHAT A RELIEF !!!!!!the gospel had been hidden for 1,600 years by the people who wrote it....thank the Lord that Luther came along just in time to save it from extinction.....whew!”
It was covered up in a syncretic mess of paganism, useless religious works and false teachings. I do thank God that He used Luther to light the fuse that resulted in salvation for hundreds of millions of souls.
“you obviously didn’t understand your teacher...the bible that you are trying to interpret yourself was written by Catholics...”
2/3 of the authors were Jews. The Writer of the entire inspired Scriptures was God.., Who is not Catholic.
-— . The Writer of the entire inspired Scriptures was God..,-—
If you mistrust Christ’s Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth,” which wrote, preserved and canonized Scripture, how can you trust the Bible to be inerrant?
“If he will not listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.” —Jesus
No they are not...Cousins are referred to as cousins...
Luk_1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her.
And neighbors are neighbors...
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.
Mar 6:4 But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
Brothers in the NT are literal or they hold something in commonality, i.e., 'brothers in the Lord'...Brothers of a fraternity...
And as we can see from the context, the brothers have to be relatives...And if they are relatives, they are literal brothers...
It was also written in Mandarin...
“If you mistrust Christ’s Church, “the pillar and foundation of truth,” which wrote, preserved and canonized Scripture, how can you trust the Bible to be inerrant?”
I will help by correcting your post.
If you mistrust GOD, who sovereignly worked throughout history in Israel, Sent His Only Son in love as a complete sacrifice for the sins of mankind, created an assembly to hold up His truth for the world, the same God who inspired, moved men to write, preserved and canonized Scripture, how can you trust the Bible to be inerrant?
Ah, now it is clear. God is always trustworthy, even when His messengers fail. We can always trust His Message.
And when His vessels do inevitably fail, He can easily raise up stones to shout a welcome to His Son’s triumphant entry into Jerusalem. He can easily choose an ass, as he did in the case of Baalam, and make it speak his message.
Baalam’s ass, however, never bragged about God using him. There is a lesson there for Catholics on FR. The ass never claimed to be infallible either... he accepted being used by God with humility.
It doesn't mean there weren't either...However, THAT added with they had no sex UNTIL later clinches the deal...You don't have an argument...
There is absolutely nothing in scripture that would indicate this is the case...
There is ample evidence in the scripture that this was not the case...Jesus had brothers and sisters and cousins and kin...Joseph waited for a while until he and Mary had sex...
God's command was for everyone to be fruitful and multiply...
Why is your religion so adamant to try and keep Mary a virgin???
Seems unlikely since the Douay bible reads brother and not cousin...
Douay-
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joseph, and Jude, and Simon?
Who cares what the aramaic says??? God had the bible written in Greek...
When I was in my early 20’s I sought out the truth of God..........I look to Gods word to keep him honest. He's just a man.
Welcome home, sister...
First, there's nothing in the Scripture that indicates that Mary and Joseph had children together. If they had, then those children would have been responsible to take care of Mary after Christ died. He would not have given her over to John, a non-sibling, since the Commandment of "Honor thy father and thy Mother" entails caring for them when they are old, sick, or without support; and especially since Jesus was an explicit, major stickler for that one, even condemning the use of "korban" to avoid the support of one's parents.
Second, Imagine this: You are at a bridal shower and somebody remarks to the bride-to-be, “Oh, you are going to have such gorgeous babies!” Everybody laughs, but the bride draws back, troubled and astonished, and says, “But...but...how shall this be? I know not man.” **Huh?** For a woman who is engaged to be married, there are only two possible explanations for such a reaction: either she has no idea where babies come from,—or she has every intention of remaining a virgin after marriage.
Why else would Mary be troubled? She’s a woman betrothed to Joseph, she knows about the birds and the bees. Yet she reacts with amazement at the news that she, a woman betrothed, will bear a son.
Notice that the angel does not say “You are pregnant.” He says “You will conceive in your womb and bear a son” (Luke 1:31). This is a promise that has been made to other women in Jewish history such as Sarah and Hannah and the mother of Samson. All of them understand the promise to mean, “You and your husband will conceive a child.” So why should the same promise bewilder Mary --- a young woman who also plans to marry—-- unless she had already decided to remain a virgin throughout her life?
Third, the “ever-virgin” argument boils down to, “The Church believes this because the Church has always believed this.” All the ancient churches of direct, literal Apostolic origin ---–Coptic, Chaldean, Assyrian, Arabic-speaking, as well as Latin --- which existed from Apostolic times --- refer to Christ’s mother as "Our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary," Aeiparthenos in Greek, or the equivalent in Syrian or Coptic or whatever. Our martyrs killed by Nero and Diocletian believed this. You can find an inscription in the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome: “Beata Maria Semper Virgine”, "Blessed Mary Ever Virgin.”
This same truth was firmly held by Luther, Zwingli, and other Christians until well into the Reformation --- even Calvin rejected arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity based on the mention in Scripture of “brothers of Jesus,” whom Calvin understood to be other close kin, e.g. half-brothers and cousins. The Anglicans in the 16th, 17th, even the 18th century, (John Wesley) hailed Mary as ever-virgin.
The belief that Mary was NOT "ever-Virgin" is very much a modern invention: just the last couple of centuries.Permit me to think the historic giants of the Reformation, agreeing with the unanimous testimony of over a millennium of Christian Faith, were wrong, but some 17th or 18th century innovator was right.
The older I get, the more I realize how dependent I am on the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit which, millennium after millennium, Christ has provided, as promised, to those who look to Him in every age.
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.