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.
“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.”
There is no evidence that Mary was ever taken into John’s home as a mother, nor cared for by her.
Even in the upper room, after Christ’s death, there is no evidence that this ever happened.
“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 fact they recovered the Gospel doesn’t mean they were infallible about everything. This argument doesn’t really mean anything.
“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.”
Actually, the believe that she remained a virgin is not a Biblical argument, not an Apostolic argument. It arose later. That it was later flagged as false by a reexamination of the totality of revelation only shows how wrong the corrupted church had drifted.
Worth noting. There is no theological reason that requires Mary to remain a virgin or not have other children.
But your take on it is... what? Surely not that John and Mary decided to disregard Jesus' dying words? Surely not that Jesus was in a delirium at that point, and spoke nonsense?
And, since the whole Church took these verses at face value for over a millennium, why can we now stop?
The Holy Spirit never bothered to fulfill Christ's solemn promise teach or lead them on this --- for 16 centuries?
You can't even name, I venture, who it was who first decided to reject this teaching, but I'll bet you a bag of dimes it wasn't before the 16th century. If you don't trust, especially, the Apostle-founded churches to have gotten it right about Mary, how can you think they can be trusted for the defining and preserving and transmitting the Canon of Scriptures? That comes on the same authority: the teaching and preaching their received from Christ's Apostles.
“The unanimous body of Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian, Coptic, testimony for 2,000 years doesn’t really mean anything? “
You are correct that they are unanimous. Incorrect about the 2000 year part. There is no evidence that the Apostles believed Mary remained a virgin. No theological reason to require it. No reason to believe Mary and Joseph would disobey God’s design and command to married couples to have sex. Without contraception, there is no reason to assume or require that they did not have additional children. There is no reason to question God’s choice of TWO specific Greek words - brothers and sisters - and His specific choice to not use the Greek word for cousins.
I remind you the Jewish leaders were unanimous that Christ was not the Messiah were unanimous that Messiah wasn’t coming to hang on a tree.
“The Holy Spirit never bothered to fulfill Christ’s solemn promise teach or lead them on this -— for 16 centuries?”
The Holy Spirit leading and man’s ability to follow flawlessly are two different things. I can see the significant failures of the Church in many areas over those 16 centuries, so a minor issue like Mary’s virginity is insignificant. There is no specific promise that any church would be infallible. Only that it would be led and that Christ’s Assembly would not be stopped even by the gates of hell.
“You can’t even name, I venture, who it was who first decided to reject this teaching,”
With respect, because I like you, this is the wrong question to ask. Before it was “accepted”, it did not exist. Can you tell me who was the very first to put forth this theory of perpetual virginity? That this error was later corrected is positive.
“but I’ll bet you a bag of dimes it wasn’t before the 16th century.”
Given that the Gospel was restored at a later date, it is insignificant that the restoration of many lesser truths occurred later. God has His sovereign timetable. I’ve learned it does little good to question it. It took thousands of years for many prophecies to come to pass. Many are still await future fulfillment after thousands of years.
“If you don’t trust, especially, the Apostle-founded churches to have gotten it right about Mary, how can you think they can be trusted for the defining and preserving and transmitting the Canon of Scriptures?”
I trust GOD to eventually set all things right. HE inspired, preserved, transmitted and defined His Word as He chose.
“That comes on the same authority: the teaching and preaching their received from Christ’s Apostles.”
The wonderful Apostles were the foundation of the Assembly Christ said He would build. Their role on earth is done. They are in heaven doing God’s will now. His assembly on earth continues to grow and expand and is not limited to Rome.
Christ’s authority continues to every Christian Assembly that knows Him.
blessings to you.
In Orthodox Christianity, FIRST cousins are referred to as brothers and sisters in the same way as siblings.
A FIRST cousin is cared for no less than a son or daughter.
If FIRST cousins are orphaned, they become the charge of the parents of their first cousins or of Godparents chosen by the parents or appointed by the Church, and always confirmed by the Church.
With respect to Godparents in Orthodox Christianity they are called ‘mother’ and ‘father’ by their God children and they in turn call their God children ‘my child’, ‘my son’, ‘my daughter’ regardless if the actual parents are living or dead.
Godparents with children will tell their biological sons and daughters ‘this is your brother/sister now’ when introducing the God children.
Orthodox Christians confirmed as Godparents take the role very seriously, tracking their God children as they grow and develop, participating actively in their lives even as the biological parents are still living, and of course overseeing a God child’s spiritual instruction.
When parents pass away or are unable to participate for example due to disease or accident, Godparents are expected and required to step in and act as full parents for the children no matter what the age of the child even if the God child is an adult. They are in fact charged to be sponsors of their God children. This role is vital to the Orthodox Church and the duties and responsibilities it carries are taken very seriously.
These family cultural attributes and customs of Orthodox Christians mirror those found in the structure of ancient Hebrew families who were given injunctions to care for the needy of the community as a result of Exodus 22, especially Exodus 22:23-24.
The social evolution from this ancient script in Exodus led to customs in family structure whereby brothers of fathers were known to a child as fathers and the children of these fathers were known as brothers and sisters. The difference then accorded to first cousins was to separate them from more distant cousins in the social responsibility patriarchy structure.
In ancient Hebrew families the coded means of parental succession called first for sibling brothers to assume the role as father. For widows, after a period of mourning, a brother of the deceased husband was instructed to take the widow as wife or otherwise commit to the widow’s care. The children of the widow would be referred to as sons and daughters and would refer to their first cousins as brothers and sisters.
The Greek word ‘syngenis’ means relative or kinswoman. It is often misinterpreted to mean ‘first cousin’. In the New Testament, the relationship of Mary and her ‘cousin’ Elizabeth is described using this word ‘syngenis’ meaning ‘alike origins’ or simply a relative. Ancient Jews used ‘cousin’ to mean someone of the same tree but of different branches. First cousins were given more social status than more distant cousins. First cousins were of the same cluster or shoots. The fruit of a cluster were known as sisters and brothers.
"Actually, the believe that she remained a virgin is not an Apostolic argument."
This is an assertion without evidence. My contention--- that it was an Apostolic doctrine, because all of the Apostolic churches accepted it --- is the one that has evidence. To refute it, you would have to show that all these churches on three continents --- Africa, Asia, and Europe --- developed an identical heresy of Mary's ever-Virginity, with no debate, no controversy, no Council or Synod to arbitrate opposing sides.
Fat chance. They debated everything. They debated about the difference between "homoousios" and "homoiousios," between "Christotokos" and "Theotokos," between "Filioque" and no Filioque --- but all simultaneously and silently swallowed a huge heresy about "ever-virginity" without clamor or quibble? From the Chaldeans to Cadiz and from the Phanar to Addis Ababa? Impossible.
"It [the doctrine of ever-virginity] arose later."
When, may I ask? Later than the Catacomb of Priscilla?
And where? In Rome? Rome didn't control Constantinople. In Constantinople? Constantinople didn't control the Chaldean Christians in Baghdad, or the Assyrian Church of the East --- or even, if I understand aright, the Copts.
Again, I say when --- when did they adopt this supposedly new, supposedly "heretical" consensus without discussion or even evidence of communication about the innovation?
"That it was later flagged as false by a reexamination of the totality of revelation only shows how wrong the corrupted church had drifted."
Be careful here. The same consensus of Churches that gave us their testimony of the ever-virginity of Mary, gave us the preservation, transmission and canonization of Scripture itself. If "the practice of the Churches" is insufficient authority to transmit doctrines about Mary, they had equally little authority to determine the canon of the Sacred Writings.
Can you tell me who it was, then, who first decided to break with historic Christianity on this question? I would like a name or names, the time (within a couple of decades) and the authority they claimed.
I'd be interested in why they either ignored, or totally discounted the "totality of revelation", in which the inspired authors give us numerous foreshadowings, prophecies, images and types of Mary from Genesis to the Revelation of St. John.
"Worth noting. There is no theological reason that requires Mary to remain a virgin or not have other children."
It would be more modest and more accurate to say, that there is "no theological reason of which you are aware."
The principal one would be based on the profound OT understanding of the set-apart-ness (sacredness) of people or things that have been consecrated to God. Mary is untouchable and inviolate for even stronger reasons than the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy of Holies would be untouchable. For instance, the Ark contained signs of God’s presence, providence and power (the manna, the tablets of the Law, Aaron’s staff) but Mary, in a way far excelling this, contained the Living God Himself.
If only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, certainly no man could enter Mary: the idea here is set-apart-ness, inviolability.
In the NT, Mary herself bears witness to her commitment to virginity. When the Archangel Gabriel tells Mary she will conceive and bear a son, she seems astonished --- revealing that she was not only a virgin, but committed to virginity.
It is unimaginable that God would act in such a crass way in relation to the woman consecrated to Him: "Here, Joseph, I got her first and I got what I wanted; now you can bed her if you want!"
It would be like saying Christ is less sacred than manna.
And not only is Mary prefigured by many signs in the OT, but she herself prefigures or foreshadows another great reality: the Church. Everything true of Mary is true in an allied sense to the Church. Bride. Mother. Called Blessed through all generations.
Yet some never call her Blessed. It's a little troubling, really.
It takes so many words, so many exogenous references and so much justification to get to the view you are advancing, to support a doctrine that didn’t exist in Biblical New Testament times, which is not required by any important doctrine revealed in Scripture.
And of course, it misses the central point of Divine Inspiration...
GOD, who directly inspired the writers by the HOLY SPIRIT, MOVED them to choose the EXACT Greek WORDS for “brothers” and “sisters”. HE also avoided choosing the Greek word for cousin, when HE could have done so.
But you are arguing God slipped up and really meant something else. Apparently, He didn’t understand Hebrew culture.
I have to trust Christ to cover my sins, as I cannot earn my way into heaven by good works (of the law).
And Latin, And?
Are you saying that you don’t have free will and can choose sin as well as goodness?
Do all non Catholics claim this irresponsibility? (Not answering for their sins.)
Always a good response from you FRiend.
“This is an assertion without evidence. My contention-— that it was an Apostolic doctrine, because all of the Apostolic churches accepted it “
My evidence is God’s inspiration of the text of His Word. Your contention assumes an unbroken chain that cannot be supported with evidence. Consequently, it is your assertion that misses the mark in the discussion. For this reason - the lack of evidence to support your rubric of an unbroken chain of belief - I do not have to show anything. Your claim falls to the ground until you provide the evidence.
“Later than the Catacomb of Priscilla?”
All that matters is that from the Apostles to the time of your Catacomb was 2-300 years.
“If “the practice of the Churches” is insufficient authority to transmit doctrines about Mary, they had equally little authority to determine the canon of the Sacred Writings.”
The God I worship is involved in history. He brings His will to pass.
“Can you tell me who it was, then, who first decided to break with historic Christianity on this question? “
The break was from a normal, blessed Mary, to Super Mary. Not from Super Mary to blessed Mary.
“The principal one would be based on the profound OT understanding of the set-apart-ness (sacredness) of people or things that have been consecrated to God. Mary is untouchable and inviolate for even stronger reasons than the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy of Holies would be untouchable. For instance, the Ark contained signs of God’s presence, providence and power (the manna, the tablets of the Law, Aaron’s staff) but Mary, in a way far excelling this, contained the Living God Himself.”
Not wanting to insult anything you consider sacred FRiend, but that is all so much eisogesis backfill that was written to support a false doctrine. If you doubt it, find it taught in the first 100 years of the Church.
Protestants generally make too little of Mary. Catholics and Orthodox too much. All three are wrong.
“When the Archangel Gabriel tells Mary she will conceive and bear a son, she seems astonished -— revealing that she was not only a virgin, but committed to virginity.”
Again, ditto.
“It is unimaginable that God would act in such a crass way in relation to the woman consecrated to Him: “Here, Joseph, I got her first and I got what I wanted; now you can bed her if you want!””
Mary didn’t have sex with God. I find this argument silly.
“And not only is Mary prefigured by many signs in the OT, but she herself prefigures or foreshadows another great reality: the Church. Everything true of Mary is true in an allied sense to the Church. Bride. Mother. Called Blessed through all generations.”
None of which means she couldn’t fulfill a godly marriage that involved sex or other children.
Mary was blessed among women as chosen bearer of Messiah. We agree on that.
I hold that sin is meaningless.
Rather than merely avoiding putative sins, I hold that people should practice virtue.
So what do you do if you commit a sin? Lie? Cheat? Commit adultery? Gossip?
that’s not what St. James tells us.
Faith AND works.
You may want to re-read that book of your Bible.
Thanks for the note. I always like to compare tradition with the records reported in the Bible. I was not exposed to the culture of Orthodoxy in my early years, and what little I know now has been by way of casual personal reading, although I’ve read through Kenneth Latourette’s 1500-page “A History of Christianity.” Your discussion gives a little greater illumination in this social part of Eastern Christian roots.
I’ve got to get back to you later. I have a project going on now: organizing a prayer vigil at a PP clinic. But you give a yell if I don’t get back, OK?
None of which means she couldn’t fulfill a godly marriage that involved sex or other children.
Mary was blessed among women as chosen bearer of Messiah. We agree on that.
She qualified for, and fulfilled, her role in the right place (Nazareth) in the fullness of time. Subsequent to His birth, He of course was not in her, but I suppose being privileged with His care was probably instructive. As to the presence of the Holy Ghost, most probably she also gained spiritual rebirth with others of the group of 120 gathered in accord on the first moment of the birth of the church age. But really, after Acts 1:14 nothing more is said of distinguished service above that of others in the propagation of The Faith, nor any special recognition of her on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirut became an Indwelling Presence of every believer-disciple.
Why would she, though specially blessed for a mundane task of child-bearing, be considered to subsequently be idolized by her contemporaries, who were given equally critical tasks in the propagation of The Faith?
I say that he revered Mary has no greater standing before The Father than the newest spiritually reborn babe in Christ, in whom resides God Himself, and to whom the righteousness of Christ is imputed at the moment of exercising a saving confession/repentance/faith; whose sins are not merely covered, by completely washed away through the Blood of Christ applied; and written in the Book of Life. How can she be more holy than this, eh?
How could bearing other children after her vows of marriage were consummated make her less holy? Eh?
Understood. We are scrambling to prepare for snow!
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.