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.
“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. “
I believe God will reward her service in heaven. How, He doesn’t reveal.
True, she has no greater standing before the Father than every believer who will stand there in the righteousness of Christ.
We have no idea of the ages of Jesus brothers and sisters...The boys could have been teens and less, not even being capable of taking care of themselves...
Jesus siblings thought Jesus was nuts...And either Mary thought the same thing, or, her boys were young enough that she had to hang with them while accusing Jesus of being nuts...
Perhaps the daughters were older and married themselves which would managing the raising of Mary's young boys...NO mention of Joseph so perhaps Mary was not able to care for them anyway...
Since the siblings thought Jesus was off his rocker, they likely didn't go to the Crucifixion...John was the only apostle to show up or Jesus may have picked Peter to watch over his mother...
Mary was spoken to first, before John; perhaps Jesus was telling Mary to watch over John and his crew since Jesus wouldn't be there to do it...
There are far more many biblical scenarios why Jesus did no entrust Mary to his siblings that the way your religion chooses to portray it...
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.
I think that is a poor, desperate analogy...
Mary was not at a wedding shower...It could have been months or years before her wedding was going to take place...
And when the angel told her she was going to be pregnant, perhaps she understood it to be 'immediately', which it was...
And the fact that Joseph waited UNTIL Jesus was born (biblically cited) and that Jesus had brothers and sisters (biblically cited), that analogy you posted doesn't even make sense...
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?
Sarah was definitely bewildered...But probably because she's speaking to an Angel...The angel just tells her she is going to get pregnant, by a Ghost...I'm sure she was real shook-up, except being consoled by the angel as much as possible...
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,"
You are speaking of your religion here...We know there is another side to church history which involves those who did not acknowledge your religion and were murdered and tortured and their bibles destroyed...Who, btw did not have the power of the International Roman Armed Forces to do their murdering for them...We know those groups refused to bow to your religion and popes, did not believe in the mother of God nonsense and all that...
Act 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. Act 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
Here again, Mary with her sons...
The belief that Mary was NOT "ever-Virgin" is very much a modern invention: just the last couple of centuries
That is just not true at all...It's Catholic propaganda...
If that was true, you guys would believe Jesus had real brothers and sisters...
YOu answered your own question for us...
That comes on the same authority: the teaching and preaching their received from Christ's Apostles.
There is no proof nor even evidence that any of your church fathers got anything at all from the apostles that was not already taught in the scriptures...
I mostly don’t.
See, First, I am old, and don’t get much opportunity for adultery. Second, I make a few mistakes, but don’t lie. In my business, if you lie, you get fired because if you lie, people who shouldn’t, die.
Considering the 4 gospels didn’t write about the birth narrative for 100 years (and the author(s) of Mark never did get around to it) the time table of G-d seems to be to never write about anything as long as there are reliable witnesses alive to dispute it.
IF you believe that Jesus left the tomb without rolling away the stone (the angel rolled it away for the women to see in), then it is no stretch for the Same Lord to leave Mary’s womb without the usual birth canal trip. ... Think about it, but the Grace of God toward you does not depend upon you believing this item.
Disagree on your time estimate. You must be getting dates from liberal profs.
“IF you believe that Jesus left the tomb without rolling away the stone (the angel rolled it away for the women to see in), then it is no stretch for the Same Lord to leave Mary’s womb without the usual birth canal trip. ... Think about it, but the Grace of God toward you does not depend upon you believing this item.”
I don’t know... Under this comparison wouldn’t the angel now be the midwife who rotates his shoulder as he comes out?
But it's not an item...Bible says a virgin had a baby...That's all we know...There's not only no indication that Mary continued to be a life long virgin, the bible, in spite of all the fables makes it clear that she wasn't...If the bible was silent on the issue, that's one thing...But the bible is not silent on the issue...
Nice to see you around, MHGinTN! May 2014 be a blessed year for you.
May the Lord’s Blessings rain down upon you and yours in this Year, AMPU. I find I’m humming ‘This Old House’ more and more of late ...
I find myself humming about my heart still humming. Nice to be alive.
So do I. Thinking of the talents, it's pretty clear that at the Judgment Seat of Christ there will be a gradation of rewards. Without a doubt, she will be at the top.
And I'll be grateful and comforted just to be in the same Heaven with her at all, at whatever level He chooses. What I am hoping is not to show up empty-handed.
And after we dispose of the frauds like the ossuary and the shroud, we can dispose of the frauds like the Gospel of Luke.
“You believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.
“And you don’t understand why I have doubts?”
I normally use the latest date that the evidence permits.
To use an earlier date requires evidence we don’t have.
Yes. But also note that this Scripture points out that He was their brother, not vice versa--which is the wrong point of view taken by the Romanists, who would make them His cousins. That is not what is said in this verse.
The context here is that they are all of one family, under one patriarch's rule, Joseph's. Mary also under his rule.
These other things are self evident as either fraud or even if real, not important.
But I do not know why you say Luke is a fraud. Is Acts also fraudulent?
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.