Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Experts Question Authenticity of Bone Box for `Brother of Jesus'
The New York Times ^ | December 3, 2002 | JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

Posted on 12/03/2002 9:08:03 PM PST by Kaiwen

keptics in growing number are weighing in with doubts about the authenticity of the inscription on a burial box that may have contained the bones of James, a brother of Jesus, and so could be the earliest surviving archaeological link to Jesus Christ.

When the existence of the limestone bone box, or ossuary, was announced five weeks ago, a French scholar asserted that the inscription — "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" — most probably referred to the Jesus of the New Testament. The script, he said, was in the style of the Aramaic language of the first century A.D.

Now that more experts have studied photographs of the inscription or seen it on display at a Toronto museum, they generally accept the antiquity of the ossuary itself, but some of them suspect that all or part of the script is a forgery. Apparent differences in the handwriting, they said, suggested that the Jesus phrase in particular could have been added by a forger, either in ancient or modern times.

"To say the least, I have a very bad feeling about the matter," Dr. Eric M. Meyers, an archaeologist and a scholar of Judaic studies at Duke University, said recently at a conference of biblical and archaeological researchers in Toronto.

Dr. Meyers said he had "serious questions about authenticity," in no small part because the origin of the ossuary is clouded in mystery. It was apparently found by looters at an undisclosed site and bought on the antiquities market in Israel. Professional archaeologists are not comfortable with artifacts of such dubious provenance.

Others who had just examined the ossuary at the Royal Ontario Museum were most concerned that the inscription appeared to be written by two different hands. The first part, about James, son of Joseph, seemed to be written in a formal script, while the second, about Jesus, is in a more free-flowing cursive style.

"The fact that the cursive and the formal types of letters appear in the two parts of the inscription suggests to me at least the possibility of a second hand," said Dr. P. Kyle McCarter Jr., a specialist in Middle East languages at Johns Hopkins University.

Dr. André Lemaire, the French scholar in Aramaic who proposed the inscription's connection to Jesus, stoutly defended his interpretation at a conference of the Society of Biblical Literature, also held in Toronto. A researcher at the Sorbonne in Paris and a respected specialist on inscriptions of the biblical period, he published his findings in the current issue of the American magazine Biblical Archaeology Review.

Dr. Lemaire repeated his contention that "it is very probable" that the burial box had held the bones of James, a leader of the early Christian movement in Jerusalem, and that the inscription referred to Jesus of Nazareth. It was extremely rare to name a brother on one's ossuary, he said, and so this particular Jesus must have been someone of prominence.

In an interview, Hershel Shanks, the magazine editor who published the report, said there were at least two reasons to doubt the accusations of forgery.

"If a modern forger did it, for a couple of hundred dollars he could get a blank ossuary, and it would be a dumb forger who doesn't start from scratch so the writing is consistent," Mr. Shanks said. "Also, you've got to assume the forger knows how to forge patina — something not known by others. All these things are possible, but extraordinarily unlikely."

Geologists in Israel who examined the ossuary judged its patina, the surface coating from aging and weathering, to be consistent with estimates that the box is about 2,000 years old. They also said they detected no signs of later tampering with the inscription. Josephus, a Jewish historian of the first century, recorded that James was executed in A.D. 62.

Mr. Shanks is co-author of a book, "The Brother of Jesus," to be published in March by HarperSanFrancisco. He will describe the discovery and interpretation of the James ossuary, and his collaborator, Ben Witherington III, who is an author and lecturer on the New Testament, will discuss its implications for understanding Jesus.

But the controversy is not likely to die down any time soon.

The owner of the ossuary, whose identity was not disclosed in the magazine article, has now come forward. He is Oded Golan, a Tel Aviv engineer and ardent collector of artifacts from biblical times. Called in for questioning by the Israel Antiquities Authority, Mr. Golan said he bought the ossuary 35 years ago but could not remember from whom, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported recently. Mr. Shanks said Mr. Golan had no understanding of the ossuary's possible importance until Dr. Lemaire saw it on a visit last year.

Israeli authorities said they were continuing the investigation. The ossuary is to be returned to Israel at the conclusion of its exhibition in Toronto, which continues until the end of this month. Other researchers have entered the fray, calling more attention to signs of possible forgery.

Rochelle I. Altman, who moderates an Internet bulletin board for scholars of ancient Judaism and describes herself as an expert on scripts, was one of the first to note the apparent discrepancy in script styles in the inscription. "There are two hands of clearly different levels of literacy and two different scripts," Ms. Altman wrote. "The second part of the inscription bears the hallmarks of a fraudulent later addition and is questionable to say the least."

Dr. Daniel Eylon, an Israeli engineering professor at the University of Dayton in Ohio, approached the problem from his experience in failure analysis investigations for the aerospace industry. Applying a technique used in determining if a malfunction of an airplane part occurred before or after an accident, he examined photographs of the inscription for scratches caused by moving the box against other boxes in the cave or in the final excavation.

"The inscription would be underneath these scratches if it had been on the box at the time of burial, but the majority of this inscription is on top of the scratches," Dr. Eylon said. "And the sharpness of some of the letters doesn't look right — sharp edges do not last 2,000 years."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: archaeology; catholiclist; ggg; godsgravesglyphs; history; james; jesus; ossuary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 12/03/2002 9:08:04 PM PST by Kaiwen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
Thank you for this post Kaiwen.
2 posted on 12/03/2002 9:16:42 PM PST by fatima
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
The way this story was originally researched and released in Biblical Archaeology Review, you would've figured they would have gotten their facts straight.

3 posted on 12/03/2002 9:21:01 PM PST by txzman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Irisshlass; MEGoody; epluribus_2; rintense
Some more news on the ossuary. The Biblical Archaeology Review's findings are being questioned.
4 posted on 12/03/2002 10:40:26 PM PST by reformed_democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk; Polycarp
The ossuary is being debated again. This time, the experts seem to believe the inscription (or at least part of it) may be a forgery.

Please don't tell berned we're here. He works my nerves something awful.

5 posted on 12/03/2002 10:50:33 PM PST by reformed_democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reformed_democrat
I think it's interesting that many actually want to prove this is a fake, rather than finding reasons to believe it might be real.
6 posted on 12/04/2002 5:46:54 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: reformed_democrat; berned; *Catholic_list; .45MAN; AKA Elena; al_c; american colleen; ...
some of them suspect that all or part of the script is a forgery...the Jesus phrase in particular could have been added by a forger, either in ancient or modern times.

"The inscription would be underneath these scratches if it had been on the box at the time of burial, but the majority of this inscription is on top of the scratches," Dr. Eylon said. "And the sharpness of some of the letters doesn't look right — sharp edges do not last 2,000 years."

An aweful lot of wishful thinking was expended on this hoax, with some going so far as to claim it was the straw that broke the Catholic Marian doctrines back.

I don't expect to see them offer a mea culpa though...

7 posted on 12/04/2002 7:18:51 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
There is not the slightest reason to think this is not genuine. The Jews of the day wanted to keep it very simple and avoid elaborate eulogies, statements of how great the person was, how he had died, who all paid for the funeral, and the likes. All these things the heathen did.

Thus the rather expensive ossuaries said ONLY "A, Son of B." That is ALL!

Prior to this case, we knew of only one ossuary in all Second Temple Judaism that went on to say, "brother of C." Such an addition would only have been made if C was so well known as to be the best identifier of just which A we are talking about, better than his own father.

From what we know of the history of early Christianity, it could well be that it was only after the death of James, at some later point, that someone deemed Jesus to be famous enough to merit such an additional script. Also, the ossuary could have been bought by James years before his death, pre-need as it were, and here again the additional word added only after death, an afterthought.

8 posted on 12/04/2002 7:31:04 AM PST by crystalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Tell us more, Polycarp about your previous assertion that Joseph had a wife BEFORE Mary that produced the sons James, Jude, Joses and Simon. Here, since your memory is selective, I'll repost what you said on THIS thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/783760/posts

Here is what YOU, Polycarp, "opined" on the subject earlier...

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.

Please, favor us all with some more of your "scholarly" thought on what YOU previously posted, Polycarp.

9 posted on 12/04/2002 7:31:13 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Good post. : )
10 posted on 12/04/2002 9:19:33 AM PST by eastsider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: berned
Grow up, Berned. You're just angry because your hoax has been exposed. You'll have to return to your unfounded YOPIOS to attack us now, since your pet bone box has been debunked. Sorry, chump, but you are the one that needs to retract reams of false allegations and theories based solely on this bone box hoax, not I.
11 posted on 12/04/2002 10:09:32 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: berned
Please, favor us all with some more of your "scholarly" thought on what YOU previously posted, Berned. You hung the sun, the moon, as well as the stars on this hoax. You too have been debunked, fortunately, but you will NEVER admit that.

When I'm wrong, or incorrect, I openly admit it, apologize and seek forgiveness. You have never admitted the sinister way you used this hoax to try to deceive folks on this forum.

That is the difference between a Christian and a fraud.

12 posted on 12/04/2002 10:20:50 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
There is no hoax. The box is real. Even the SKEPTICS agree that the inscriptions are from before the third century.

YOU didn't answer my previous post, a tactic that you , and the Democrat Party, have perfected.

Answer my previous post to you. Expound on what YOU posted about your l'il opinions on how Joseph had a wife BEOFRE Mary that produced the four sons mentioned in God's Word.

I hereby ask God to deal with you calling me names.

13 posted on 12/04/2002 10:21:16 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: berned
"The inscription would be underneath these scratches if it had been on the box at the time of burial, but the majority of this inscription is on top of the scratches," Dr. Eylon said. "And the sharpness of some of the letters doesn't look right — sharp edges do not last 2,000 years."

You owe the Catholic Caucus as well as this Forum a great big mea culpa.

I don't answer the demands of frauds like you. Sorry.

14 posted on 12/04/2002 10:24:47 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Apologize for what? Either the box and the inscriptions are real or they are not.

The BIBLE says that Jesus had four brothers. One of them was named James.

The Bible says that Joseph refrained from having sex with Mary UNTIL she had delivered Jesus.

The fact that there are some skeptics who question the archaeological finding is normal. ALL Archaeological finds are questioned by someone somewhere. Skepticism is a natural and normal part of ALL archaeology.

I ask you, Polycarp, in the name of Jesus, the Son of the Living God, did you, or did you not, write the note that I reposted, saying that the early church believed that Joseph had a wife BEFORE Mary that produced the four brothers of Jesus, James, Jude, Joses, and Simon?

15 posted on 12/04/2002 10:34:30 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: berned
did you, or did you not, write the note that I reposted

I did not write it. It was written by a Catholic apologist, if my memory serves me correctly. If I failed to post its source at the time, my apologies.

I've just dug up your old posts from previous threads on this bone box hoax.

Care to go tit for tat, or shall we both admit this was just a bad hoax, and we both made statements that have proven to be (to a greater or lesser degree, not commenting on whose was greater and whose was lesser ;-) both insupportable and even laughable given these latest developments?

16 posted on 12/04/2002 11:03:01 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: berned
Never mind, I should have known better than to give someone like you the benefit of the doubt.

I did indeed post the source of these comments in my post.

Yet you try to insinuate I wrote them, knowing fully that I posted a link to their original source.

Typical of the frauds you have perpetrated throughout the course of these bone box hoax debates.

I'll not debate any longer with a proven deceiver such as you.

17 posted on 12/04/2002 11:09:43 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
I assume you believe that God sees all things into the future, and that HE knew this ossuary would surface, IN THIS TIMEFRAME.

God knows whether the inscriptions are ACCURATE or not. (WHEN they were inscribed is irrelevant to the TRUTH of whose bones, and what his relationship was to Jesus of Nazereth).

So God knew this box would surface, and that it would generate many conversations around the world about what it might mean.

God also knows that right now, there is a movement afoot in Roman Catholicism about elevating Mary to "Co-Redemptrix" status with Jesus.

The truth will play out about this box and about many many other things. God is absolutely in control of all these things. He knows what MY true motivations are, and what YOUR true motivations are.

Roman Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity are on a collision course.

The future is known to God.

18 posted on 12/04/2002 11:29:34 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: berned
You are just incredible. You lie and misrepresent, refuse to acknowledge it or apologize even when you have been caught red handed in your lies, then continue your bigoted YOPIOS attacks.

Get lost Berned. And be careful, because God does indeed know what is in your heart, no matter how much you engage in self deception.

19 posted on 12/04/2002 11:42:02 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Where have I lied?
20 posted on 12/04/2002 11:50:55 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
Has anyone considered the possibility that, in the inscription "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus," "brother of Jesus" might modify Joseph, not James?

If so, it would not be the ossuary of James the Just.
21 posted on 12/04/2002 11:56:07 AM PST by Bohemund
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Where have I lied?

Did you not post these words, Polycarp?

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

Did you not write those words, Polycarp?

22 posted on 12/04/2002 12:00:30 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: txzman
you would've figured they would have gotten their facts straight.

BAR has a good reputation overall, but you really have to be careful with their articles because sometimes they publish a stinker.

23 posted on 12/04/2002 12:03:17 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
You have called me a liar. I ask you, in the name of Jesus Christ, to answer me... Did YOU, or did you not -- write the words:

"If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord"

in the note which I referenced?

24 posted on 12/04/2002 12:13:49 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: berned
Do you have any idea what "probable" means?

Do you know that lots of people speak based upon the facts available at the time, and that new evidence can change their opinions about things?

And that this isn't "lying," but rather behaving rationally?

SD

25 posted on 12/04/2002 1:11:06 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Ok. So WHAT, specifically is Polycarp accusing me of "lying" about? (Since Polycarp is doing one of his patented "drive-by accusations" -- where he runs away, refusing even to clarify his accusations.)

Polycarp called ME to this thread. I have answered forthrightly. For my trouble, that great Christian Polycarp has called me "a chump" and "a liar". Okay... what, pray tell did I "lie" about?

26 posted on 12/04/2002 1:21:04 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: berned; Polycarp
Ok. So WHAT, specifically is Polycarp accusing me of "lying" about?

It would seem that today's accusation comes from you attibuting words to him, that were actually words that he posted from another apologist.

But, in general, it is that you think this ossuary, even if authentic, proves anything about Mary's Perpetual Virginity. That even though the idea of Joseph having a previous wife is plausible, you persist in the idea that it is not.

SD

27 posted on 12/04/2002 1:34:06 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
It would seem that today's accusation comes from you attibuting words to him, that were actually words that he posted from another apologist.

Whose words were: ""If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord"> Are those words the author's -- or Polycarp's?

That even though the idea of Joseph having a previous wife is plausible, you persist in the idea that it is not.

Are you man enough to go on record? Do you believe that that is the case? Do you, as a Roman Catholic believe that Joseph had a wife BEFORE Mary who produced Jesus's four brothers James, Jude, Joses and Simon?

28 posted on 12/04/2002 2:02:35 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: berned; Polycarp
Whose words were: ""If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord"> Are those words the author's -- or Polycarp's?

As far as I can tell, they were Polycarp's. But they reflected his opinion at that time, before the doubts about the inscription came about.

Are you man enough to go on record? Do you believe that that is the case? Do you, as a Roman Catholic believe that Joseph had a wife BEFORE Mary who produced Jesus's four brothers James, Jude, Joses and Simon?

It does not really matter what I believe, as long as the Virginity of Mary is assured. It seems to me that the "Joseph as an older widow" theory is more likely than the "brothers were unspecified kinsmen" theory.

But here's the thing, I am not wedded to either idea. Not that I see how we could, but if certain evidence of one or the other appeared, I could adopt that belief.

I can believe Mary is a perpetual virgin and Jesus' brothers were what we call cousins. Or I can believe Mary is a perpetual virgin and Jesus' brothers were step-siblings from Joseph's earlier marriage.

Or some combination of both.

I am free to believe what I want.

SD

29 posted on 12/04/2002 2:21:49 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
It does not really matter what I believe, as long as the Virginity of Mary is assured

Mary WAS a virgin, up until the time Jesus was delivered. THEN God tells us that Mary & Joseph had a normal married life which included sex.

Mat 1:24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

Mat 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

After this she and Joseph had four more sons, James, Joses, Jude and Simon.

I am free to believe what I want.

You are FREE TO BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT???????????

Do you feel the Jehova's Witnesses are FREE to believe that Jesus was an angel IF THEY WANT???

30 posted on 12/04/2002 2:39:37 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
As far as I can tell, they were Polycarp's. But they reflected his opinion at that time, before the doubts about the inscription came about.

p.s. If Polycarp WROTE those words, (he did) and I attribute those words to him, then by what possible stretch of the imagination am I "a liar" (in polycarps words)??? What, pray tell, am I supposed to have "lied" about?

And more importantly, where does Polycarp get off falsely accusing me of being "a liar", when I have not in any way lied???

31 posted on 12/04/2002 2:43:44 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: berned
Mary WAS a virgin, up until the time Jesus was delivered. THEN God tells us that Mary & Joseph had a normal married life which included sex.

Your error is well refuted here, here, and here.

32 posted on 12/04/2002 2:50:35 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: berned
After this she and Joseph had four more sons, James, Joses, Jude and Simon.

The Bible never identifies any of these men are either sons of Mary or sons of Joseph.

33 posted on 12/04/2002 2:52:46 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Polycarp called ME to this thread.

I answer him forthrightly, and for my efforts I get called a "chump" and wrongly accused of being "a liar".

Then, when Polycarp can't fight his own battles, "Soothing Dave" jumps in to take Polycarp's side. So I deal with HIM and HIS accusations.

Now, that HE can't answer me, YOU, Campion, jump in..

Whenever Freepers saw Bill Maher on "Politically Incorrect" have three liberals all ganging up to bash the one conservative on the panel, they were outraged at the practice.....

.... But to you catholic Freepers, the exact same behavior is standard operating proceedure.

34 posted on 12/04/2002 3:16:19 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: berned
I have answered you completely. My answer was perfectly clear. I had posted the words of another Catholic apologist, and properly attributed the source of those words.

You tried to imply I wrote them, when I had clearly attributed it to the proper author, which was obvious from my post.

35 posted on 12/04/2002 5:11:30 PM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
Who wrote the words that YOU posted:

""If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord"

... about the James Ossuary?

36 posted on 12/04/2002 5:25:28 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: berned; Polycarp
" 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 earliest Church Fathers taught that Jesus had Stepbrothers. Jerome says no, they were cousins.

Which explanation is the truth? It can't be multiple choice.

Does Jerome prove the early Fathers wrong or should Jerome be labeled a heretic for teaching different from the earlier Fathers?

Maybe in catholicism it doesn't matter if 2 views are 180 degrees apart as long as they both support what you believe?

Since we are told that the Catholic Church is the sole deposit of truth and led by the Spirit to interpret scripture please tell me which explanation is correct.

37 posted on 12/04/2002 7:05:18 PM PST by Joshua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: berned
But to you catholic Freepers, the exact same behavior is standard operating proceedure.

Catholics are the liberal/communists of waterdowned Christianity.

38 posted on 12/04/2002 7:24:13 PM PST by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Joshua
Since we are told that the Catholic Church is the sole deposit of truth and led by the Spirit to interpret scripture please tell me which explanation is correct.

The appologists would see the problem here.

Or they might try and qualify how the church is sole deposit of truth when X but not Y. Then next week when Y and not X.

Hocus Pocus.

39 posted on 12/04/2002 7:26:52 PM PST by PFKEY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: PFKEY
It is amazing...
40 posted on 12/04/2002 7:39:22 PM PST by Joshua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: GatorGirl; tiki; maryz; *Catholic_list; afraidfortherepublic; Antoninus; Aquinasfan; Askel5; ...
ping
41 posted on 12/04/2002 7:46:25 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: berned
""

The WDF - World Debating Federation. They're tag-teaming you...:-)

"I answer him forthrightly, and for my efforts I get called a "chump" and wrongly accused of being "a liar". "

Look at the bright side. Poly<>< could have said he agreed with you on something. Now that would be insulting....

42 posted on 12/04/2002 7:47:54 PM PST by Joshua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
I didn't believe it when I first read about it. I believed it less when reports came out about the two different handwritings. I'm pleased that the experts are now pretty nearly unanimous that it's a fake.

The enemies of Christianity love to do this kind of stuff. I remember when the Dead Sea Scrolls first came out, they were all convinced that it would prove that Christianity was a fake. Now it's pretty evident that the Dead Sea Scrolls are documents that prove very little about anything, except for the activities of a small group of Essenes.
43 posted on 12/04/2002 8:16:33 PM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaiwen
It's amazing when more details come out, isn't it?
44 posted on 12/05/2002 12:43:17 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; berned
It would seem that today's accusation comes from you attibuting words to him, that were actually words that he posted from another apologist.

But, in general, it is that you think this ossuary, even if authentic, proves anything about Mary's Perpetual Virginity. That even though the idea of Joseph having a previous wife is plausible, you persist in the idea that it is not.

Perfect summary. Beyond this statement, further dialogue with the likes of Berned is pointless. His pet theories re: Jesus' "brothers" have been irrefutably debunked so often, he has no defense for repeating them here. Thus the validity of the charges against him, namely of willful deceiver.

45 posted on 12/05/2002 7:33:52 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
FOR THE FOURTH TIME, POLYCARP, I DEMAND YOU ANSWER ME IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, THE RISEN LORD.... -- who wrote the words:

"If authentic, as seems probable, it is to be welcomed as further archaeological confirmation of the life of our Lord"

Did the author you quoted write them, or did YOU, Polycarp, write them?????????????

46 posted on 12/05/2002 7:38:28 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: berned
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain...
47 posted on 12/05/2002 7:40:09 AM PST by ArrogantBustard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: berned
I've answered you fully. And your demands are those of a fraud, which I do not need to obey, and your use of His Name in the context of those demands is blasphemous.

I will pray for your eventual enlightenment and salvation.

48 posted on 12/05/2002 7:50:27 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Polycarp
On this day, your own lies and deceit have condemned yourself before all who read your words here, and before God.
49 posted on 12/05/2002 8:11:18 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: berned
Thank you for sharing YOPIOS. May God Bless you abundantly, illuminate your darkened intellect, and have Mercy on your soul.
50 posted on 12/05/2002 8:30:28 AM PST by Polycarp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson