by Gopher 22 Replies latest jw friends
I wonder what the Watchtower's take on this "box of James" will be.
It smells like the "Shroud of Turin" to me. The believers (particularly some Catholics regarding the shroud) really want it to be so, but strong evidence turned up against it.
I think this box will suffer the same fate under intense scrutiny. However, those who need a prop for their beliefs will use it as such.
My $.02.
Question
In the Washington Post they stated the actual writing was Jacob son of Joseph, not James. They indicated that James is the English rendering of Jacob. Since we have Jacob also in the Bible why would they have translated Jacob in the Christian Greek Scriptures to James? Is that valid?
could someone please tell me how they got a person's bones in such a small box?Did they cut them up or wait for the flesh to deteriorate or what?
Yes they did wait for the flesh to deteriorate. The bones were then broken to accomodate the box.Not all of the skeleton was put in the box.
Even IF this were PROVEN to be related to Jesus.....does this PROVE Jesus was WHO his diciples said he was? Many believe Jesus truley existed. The debate asks.......was he the Son of God? Was he supernatural. Was the story about him made up in THE MINDS of his followers?
This find does open some interesting things for those who doubt he existed at all....(if the find is authentic)
Edited by - Gumby on 22 October 2002 14:20:44
I think it's likely authentic and even more likely that it cannot be proven either way. I would expect the Romish church to waffle, since this would tend to prove that Jesus had at least one brother, thus Mary was not "ever Virgin."
We still tend to continue being a wonder seeking people looking for signs and portents. I think the best thing anyone can do would be to "enquire within" where Jesus said the "kingdom" was located.
Also, since Jesus used both God's Kingship and Fatherhood metaphorically, that He is neither. I think Jesus used whatever metaphor, parable, or other form of representative speech he could find in his attempt to explain an existential concept to the time-limited, space-bound, mortal, and not-too-bright human mind. And we have taken the concept of a "kingdom" between the teeth and run with it for two thousand years. In the wrong direction.
$0.02
francois
Edited by - Francois on 22 October 2002 15:34:26
Francois
the church authenticates no found relics, they only say they can't prove it isn't what it is claimed to be.
It also would have no problem with the inscription.
Quote:
"(2) The exact nature of the relationship between the Saviour and his "brethren". The texts cited at the beginning of this article show beyond a doubt that there existed a real and near kinship between Jesus and His "brethren". But as "brethren" (or "brother") is applied to step-brothers as well as to brothers by blood, and in Scriptural, and Semitic use generally, is often loosely extended to all near, or even distant, relatives (Gen 13:8, 14:14-16; Lev 10:4; 1 Par 15:5-10, 23:21-22), the word furnishes no certain indication of the exact nature of the relationship. Some ancient heretics, like Helvidius and the Antidicomarianites, maintained that the "brethren" of Jesus were His uterine brothers the sons of Joseph and Mary. This opinion has been revived in modern times, and is now adopted by most of the Protestant exegetes. On the orthodox side two views have long been current. The majority of the Greek Fathers and Greek writers, influenced, it seems, by the legendary tales of apocryphal gospels, considered the "brethren" of the Lord as sons of St. Joseph by a first marriage. The Latins, on the contrary, with few exceptions (St. Ambrose, St. Hilary, and St. Gregory of Tours among the Fathers), hold that they were the Lord's cousins. That they were not the sons of Joseph and Mary is proved by the following reasons, leaving out of consideration the great antiquity of the belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary. It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matt 12:46; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matt 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons? Since there was no estrangement between Him and His "brethren", or between them and Mary, no plausible argument is confirmed by the words with which he recommends her: ide ho uios sou, with the article before uios (son); had there been others sons, ide uios sou, without the article, would have been the proper expression. The decisive proof, however, is that the father and mother of at least two of these "brethren" are known to us. James and Joseph, or Joses, are, as we have seen, the sons of Alpheus, or Clopas, and of Mary, the sister of Mary the Mother of Jesus, and all agree that if these are not brothers of the Saviour, the others are not. This last argument disposes also of the theory that the "brethren" of the Lord were the sons of St. Joseph by a former marriage. They are then neither the brothers nor the step-brothers of the Lord. James, Joseph, and Jude are undoubtedly His cousins. If Simon is the same as the Symeon of Hegesippus, he also is a cousin, since this writer expressly states that he was the son of Clopas the uncle of the Lord, and the latter's cousin. But whether they were cousins on their father's or mother's side, whether cousins by blood or merely by marriage, cannot be determined with certainty. Mary of Clopas is indeed called the "sister" of the Blessed Virgin (John 19:25), but it is uncertain whether "sister" here means a true sister or a sister-in-law. Hegesippus calls Clopas the brother of St. Joseph. This would favour the view that Mary of Clopas was only the sister-in-law of the Blessed Virgin, unless it be true, as stated in the MSS. of the Peshitta version, that Joseph and Clopas married sisters. The relationship of the other "brethren" may have been more distant than that of the above named four."
---------------------------------------------------------
link:
Given the high credibility of BAR the ossuary is real. The ossuary is large not small. The writing calls it a "box" but it is a "large" box not a little box.
Also several years ago the ossuary for Pontius Pilate was found.
Yes, I believe it's very likely authentic. Although Jacob and Joseph
were very common names during the 1st century, the referal to "the brother of.." is seemingly very uncommon.
Such osuaries were very common in the 1st century, hundreds have been found. Incriptions were common, among others several references to biblical persons, Jesus and signs of the cross (this dismisses the Watchtower viewpoint).
Take a look at several "back issues" at;
Although these findings do not, "prove the divinity" of Jesus,
they do say something about what position Jesus had on his followers unto their death.
Finn
An inscription in the Aramaic language "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" appears on an empty ossuary, a limestone burial box for bones.
It seems the "stones" have cried out after all! Luke 19:40
IW
I think it's a real relic from the 1st Century, whether or not it's "our" James or not is not certain.
It may not be the Biblical Jesus. Could be a Mexican (Jesus, as in Hay-Soos).
Mike.
