Hmm? It looks pretty righteous/legit to me. But I'm no expert, either. 
Posted on 10/21/2002 9:04:51 AM PDT by jern
BREAKING: Archaeologists Report 1st Direct Evidence of Jesus
I visited the primary sites mentioned in that book in SW France. The trip was fascinating.
The first 2/3 of the book is an excellent history of the region and the times. But the final 1/3 is a joke. It even reads like it was written by someone else. Taken as a whole, it seems the first 2/3 is a setup for the final 1/3, which has Jesus galavanting off to the south of France with Mary Magdelene, has kids, etc... Wonder which of the authors, Baigent, Lee or Lincoln suffered from that mental problem?
She is worshipped\venerated all right. One of my theological professors from seminary visited a Catholic church in France which featured a huge cross inside with Jesus dying on one side and Mary on the other.
Jesus was sinless. Catholics say Mary was. Jesus ascended into heaven. Catholics say Mary did. Jesus is our redeemer and mediator. Catholics call Mary co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix. Jesus was God. Catholics call Jesus the "Mother of God." And when pictured with Christ, they almost always show her as an adult and him as a baby, implying her superiority over him.
Some of this non-biblical Mariology did not become dogma until the last 50 to 150 years. But Catholics pray to Mary far more than to Jesus, despite the fact that not one verse in the New Testament supports this. And Mary is not the Mother of God. There has never been a time in eternity past that the Son was not God. Mary is the mother of Jesus' human body and human nature only. And Christ was offered as a sacrifice once for all according to Hebrews chapters 8-10, not continually sacrificed and eaten in the Supper. Roman Catholicism since its beginning in the fifth century A.D. has become a mixture of some Christian doctrine, some pagan doctrine, and whatever else happens to appeal to enough Catholics and their popes. I appreciate the anti-abortion and anti-homosexuality stands of this current pope. But all of that could change at any time with some Papl declaration. And the leniency with which all of these homosexual priests have been treated makes me wonder how serious the RCC is about its anti-homosexuality stand.
I don't know why? They have no more claim to the Patriarchs than do their Israelite cousins.
In fact, at one point during Davids reign the 10 Tribes of the North outnumbered the ~3 tribes of the South by only a 60/40 margin. But while the number of Jews shrunk severely over the millenia, their Celtic Israelite cousins kept pace with the general global population increase. Today those the Northern Kingdom/ Lost Tribes of Israel/ Celts/ Europeans/Americans outnumber their Jewish cousins by almost 100:1.
Or, maybe they would want a royalty on each prayer?
Hmm? It looks pretty righteous/legit to me. But I'm no expert, either.
No, you did not. One passage from Holy Scriptures is enough. You do not need two, three, four or hundred places.
BTW, I have impression that Protestants do not read Holy Scripture - they read Luther's or Calvin's presumptions INTO the Bible and pick favored few passages which they read over and over. Every time I went for Protestant Bible study group they read the same fragments of Saint Paul letters. Later I found that they were the same fragments Luther was teaching at the Wittenberg University (when he was still a Roman Catholic monk).
Hold on, there, rb. "Contemporary" in this context means "while Jesus was still stomping around." Josephus wasn't even alive then -- he was born about AD37, and wrote during same the same period that the Gospels were being assembled. He's not "contemporary," and his references are not so much to Jesus, as to what Christians were saying about Jesus.
As for me personally, none of this matters much, because I already accept the existence of Jesus as the Son of God. The arguments about contemporary accounts, or about the discovery/validity of this bone box, are strikingly similar to the story of Doubting Thomas: Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
"Gods, Graves, Glyphs" PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
>>>...one commonly hears that there are no contemporary non-Christian refrences to Jesus, and some folks consider that to be proof that Jesus was fictional.<<<
The Jews believe Jesus existed, but they do not believe he was the Messiah.
Gideon Avni of the Israeli Antiquities Authority said the box is authentic and dates back 2,000 years, but the inscription was forged in recent times.
However, the Biblical Archeology Society is sticking by their claims:
Professor Krumbein concludes:
"The patina covering several of the inscription letters is no less authentic than the patina covering the other parts of the ossuary, which, according to the IAA team, is authentic."
HA!!! So there. Jesus DID have siblings. James, according to the Biblical listing, was the brother next closest to Jesus in age.
No step-brothers, unless of course Mary had a bunch of kids after Joseph died. ;) Jesus was the eldest, if He were not, then He would not be considered to be in the direct line of King David.
Very good.
Those of us who know Him have all the evidence we will ever need.
Is this an opening for Jewish Wives jokes?
She would and she did. The Bible states regarding Joseph "But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus." - Mat. 1:25
The Catholic Bible I have renders that verse this way; "But he had no sexual relations with her before she gave birth to her son. And Joseph named him Jesus.
It would have been a violation of Jewish law for Mary to take a vow of virginity and then be married to Joseph. It also makes no sense to try and paint her as "ever virgin" as the Catholic church does, as if somehow Mary and Joseph having normal relations as husband and wife would somehow "taint" the birth of Jesus, her firstborn. Also, the word "firstborn" is not used by accident in the Scriptures. Even the Catholic Bible says that "She gave birth to her first son..." - Luke 2:7.
If Jesus was the only child born of Mary and Joseph, the Word would have said "only" son. God is perfectly capable of having written in His Word exactly what He wants written.
"I've gone out to the CNN website and they've got nothing."
It's a miracle!
It is common in many cultures and especially today in Slavic cultures to refer to one's 1st cousins as sisters and brothers.
The inscription would not rule out James as a 1st cousin because it is rare that anyone other than the father would be included.
For example the sarcophagus of Barsabbas was discovered last century in the Kidron valley possibly referring to a person that replaced an apostle in ACTs. The only other marking on the sarcophagus was a cross.
So the inclusion of 'brother of Jesus' may have been nothing more than a distinction that went beyond inscribing a cross.
I firmly believe that God would not deny other children to a woman who loved and trusted Him so much.
Damnation, son, that thread's four years old.
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.