James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus

[Ben Dhyan]

I think the court was unable to determine beyond reasonable doubt that the item was not a forgery. I do not attach any validation of the item in that determination, only that the required level of proof was not reached, that level being quite high. I don't think it is responsible to attach value this way or that, given that the court was unable to decide, you might say at a push that it is safe to say that if it is a forgery, it is a good one, but the point in issue remains unresolved, as no determination has been made.

Perhaps as disinterested observer, but in the world of collectors of antiquities, it can be now put on the market legally as being authentic, whereas before it was under the cloud in the legal sense of being a forgery. Suddenly its value would have gone through the roof so far as purchasing said box.

 

[garrydons]

Thanks ben d for posting the specific passages of the Bible regarding the subject at hand.

 

[cablescavenger]

I missed this 2002 news of the bone box of James, Son of Joseph, Brother of Jesus at the time, and am posting this old article which provides an analysis here in case that there are others like me who missed it at the time.

After reading the full analyais, there seems little doubt that Jesus was indeed a historical figure, not that I personally doubted it, but I know many do and this may help them to accept the fact.

little doubt?You mean nothing but doubt? The case fell apart because of the doubt. It is the start of another shroud fiasco.

On March 14, 2012, Golan was acquitted of the forgery charges but convicted of illegal trading in antiquities.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ossuary#cite_note-8 The judge said this acquittal "does not mean that the inscription on the ossuary is authentic or that it was written 2,000 years ago."

(Source)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

little doubt?You mean nothing but doubt? The case fell apart because of the doubt. It is the start of another shroud fiasco.

Can't you understand plain English, the case of it being a forgery brought those who claimed it was a forgery was thrown out,..dismissed...by the Judge of the Court due to lack of evidence implying forgery.

Do you doubt these legal facts?

 

[thau]

Beautiful: evidence is dismissed before being evaluated because it threatens dogma ...

What's equally disconcerting are conclusions accepted without evidence (example: evolution). Not that evolution bothers me as long as these dedicated adherents sober up and admit if it occurred it could only happen with an intelligent designer (read: G-d).

As an aside: I see you are Jewish. Does that mean a practicing one? I have no trouble with that, in fact there is no one I admire more than Israeli Jews and their endless plight and discrimination and global animosity directed towards them. As a devout Catholic I feel the presence of many enemies in today's world, I hope you are not one of them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What's equally disconcerting are conclusions accepted without evidence (example: evolution). Not that evolution bothers me as long as these dedicated adherents sober up and admit if it occurred it could only happen with an intelligent designer (read: G-d).

As an aside: I see you are Jewish. Does that mean a practicing one? I have no trouble with that, in fact there is no one I admire more than Israeli Jews and their endless plight and discrimination and global animosity directed towards them. As a devout Catholic I feel the presence of many enemies in today's world, I hope you are not one of them.

(What on earth is he babbling about?)

 

[gnostic]

The skeptics did employ experts in antiquities, and so did the defense, so the experts for the defense were able to show that the experts for the prosecution were not sufficiently credible to convince the court...yes!!!

You still don't understand, ben.

Authentication can't be settled in the court room, no matter how many experts both sides bring in. And it hasn't.

There are still tests to be done, and there are still doubts.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Can't you understand plain English, ....

You mean, perhaps, like the difference between

"not guilty" and "innocent"​

- or, perhaps,

"not proven to be forged beyond a reasonable doubt" and "proven authentic beyond a reasonable doubt."​

Yep, got it. :yes:

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You still don't understand, ben.

Authentication can't be settled in the court room, no matter how many experts both sides bring in. And it hasn't.

There are still tests to be done, and there are still doubts.

You people are so exasperating,.. I'm not talking about opinions outside the context of the court case in which charges of forgery were brought that the item in question was a forgery,..the case was thrown out due to lack of credible evidence that is was a forgery. Got it?

There is no entity inside or outside the courtroom that can absolutely qualify it as authentic unless there was absolute consensus,..and there isn't!

If you think otherwise, you tell me who has the absolute authority to determine for the whole world that it is authentic or a forgery?

The debate will go on, I have no problem with the skeptics or with those who see it as authentic, I'm only a messenger providing the facts as they stand, and in that court case, the skeptics lost the battle,..though the war may go on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

After reading the full analyais, there seems little doubt that

There is no entity inside or outside the courtroom that can absolutely qualify it as authentic unless there was absolute consensus,..and there isn't ...

... the skeptics lost the battle,..though the war may go on.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You mean, perhaps, like the difference between

"not guilty" and "innocent"​

- or, perhaps,

"not proven to be forged beyond a reasonable doubt" and "proven authentic beyond a reasonable doubt."​

Yep, got it. :yes:

You understand very well that this Court case didn't go well for the skeptics, you can spin it all you like and it ain't going to change a thing.

But if you want to carry on, I'll extend to you the same challenge,.you tell me who has the absolute authority to determine for the whole world that it is authentic or a forgery?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You understand very well ...

I understand very well that you made a remarkably stupid and thoughtless claim in the OP and have danced through this thread disingenuously distancing yourself from that opening position. It is unethical, irresponsible, and more than a little comical. But please feel free to continue.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I understand very well that you made a remarkably stupid and thoughtless claim in the OP and have danced through this thread disingenuously distancing yourself from that opening position. It is unethical, irresponsible, and more than a little comical. But please feel free to continue.

Are you new to this you silly sausage, creating a strawman to distract from the challenge,...you tell me who has the absolute authority to determine for the whole world that it is authentic or a forgery?

Btw, it's snooze time in this timezone, goodnight, will be back tomorrow God willing, God bless...:namaste

 

[thau]

(What on earth is he babbling about?)

My apologies. I did not realize you were so secular. I take it all back.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... who has the absolute authority to determine for the whole world that it is authentic or a forgery?

(This speaks volumes -- and it's not very flattering.)

 

[Kathryn]

Shalom Kathryn. I do not disregard the fact that the term brother is also used for even just for friends. But I invite you to analyze these. Did Joseph abandon Mary when she begot Jesus? Or did was there a record in the Scriptures that Joseph did not touch Mary after Jesus was born? There is none right? So the possibility is there that Mary bore a child or children after Jesus.

Sure there's the possibility. The Scriptures are silent on the matter.

However, there is the interesting parallel between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant.

THE VIRGIN MARY AS THE ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT
"Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of God dwells. She is 'the dwelling of God [...] with men.'" CCC#2676

God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and then indwelled the Ark. The Ark became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Exodus 40:34-35]
God the Holy Spirit overshadowed and the indwelled Mary. At that time Mary's womb became the dwelling place of the presence of God [Luke 1:35]
.
The Ark contained the 10 Commandments [the words of God in stone], a pot of manna, and Aaron's rod that came back to life [Deuteronomy 10:3-5; Hebrews 9:4].
The womb of the Virgin contained Jesus: the living Word of God enfleshed, the living bread from heaven, "the Branch" (Messianic title) who would die but come back to life [Luke 1:35].

The Ark traveled to the hill country of Judah to rest in the house of Obed-edom [2 Samuel 6:1-11]
Mary traveled to the hill country of Judah (Judea) to the home of Elizabeth [Luke 1:39]

Dressed in a priestly ephod, King David approached the Ark and danced and leapt for joy [2 Samuel 6:14]
John the Baptist, son of a priest who would himself become a priest, leapt for joy in Elizabeth's womb at the approach of Mary [Luke 1:43]

David shouted for joy in the presence of God and the holy Ark [2 Samuel 6:15]
Elizabeth exclaimed with a loud cry of joy in the presence God within Mary [Luke 1:42]

David asked, "How is it that the Ark of the Lord comes to me?" [2 Samuel 6:9]
Elizabeth asks, "Why is this granted unto me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" [Luke 1:43]

The Ark remained in the house of Obed-edom for 3 months [2 Samuel 6:11]
Mary remained in the house of her cousin Elizabeth for 3 months [Luke 1:56].

The house of Obed-edom was blessed by the presence of the Ark [2 Samuel 6:11]
The word "blessed" is used 3 times in Luke 1:39-45 concerning Mary at Elizabeth's house.

The Ark returned to its sanctuary and eventually ends up in Jerusalem where the presence and glory of God is revealed in the newly built Temple [2 Samuel 6:12; 1 Kings 8:9-11]
Mary returned home from visiting Elizabeth and eventually comes to Jerusalem, where she presents God the Son in the Temple [Luke 1:56; 2:21-22]

God made Aaron's rod (which would be kept in the Ark) return to life and budded to prove he was the legitimate High Priest [Numbers 17:8].
God would resurrect His Son, who had become enfleshed in Mary's womb and born to bring salvation to all mankind, to prove He is the eternal High Priest [Hebrews 4:14].

In Revelation 11:19 John sees the Ark of the Covenant in heaven [this is the last verse of chapter 11]
In Revelation 12:1 John sees Mary in heaven. It is the same vision Juan Diego saw of Mary in 1531'the Woman clothed with the sun and standing on the moon.
THE VIRGIN MARY AS THE ARK OF THE NEW COVENANT

If any man touched the Ark of the Covenant, he was immediately struck dead -no human was allowed to touch the Ark. This is an argument used to bolster the doctrine of perpetual virginity.

I want to point out that the bible is also silent on whether or not Joseph was even alive during Jesus' ministry, or whether or not Jesus had biological brothers and sisters.

Just sayin'.

 

[Kathryn]

1. Of course there are those who are refusing to agree to its authenticity, but it has passed the test so far as those experts who do aver to its authenticity are concerned.

However the reality is that as of now, it can be now put on the market as authentic and the nay sayers can only standby and accept that. It doesn't mean that they agree, but they have to accept that it can legally be sold as an authentic item.

2. Jesus may have had brothers,...you've got to be kidding?

Matthew 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"

Mark 3:31 "There came then His Brethren and His Mother, and standing without, sent unto Him calling Him."

Mark 6:3 "Is not this the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the Brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.".

3. No comment.

Fwiw, in light of point 2, I do remember that some Catholics do not accept Jesus as having any brothers due to the virginity aspect of Mary, and hence it occurs to me that angellous_evangellous is one of those. If this is so, then in the context of the OP, his is an agenda driven denial based on church dogma, not scientific understanding.

Sheeze, why do I have to repeat myself so often?

The word for "brother" in the New Testament does not mean strictly "biological brother." It is used interchangeably to mean "brother," "cousin," "kinsman," and "close friend."

Do a word study on the Greek and then get back with me.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is a useful site for those interested in the topic. As for some of the more recent posts, issues of Christian dogma might best be served in their own thread.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

who has the absolute authority to determine for the whole world that it is authentic or a forgery?

Certainly not some judge in Jerusalem.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

This is a useful site for those interested in the topic. As for some of the more recent posts, issues of Christian dogma might best be served in their own thread.

Love how people ignore this:

The scholarly evidence was provided by experts in palaeography and ancient inscriptions who testified that the words “brother of Jesus” appeared to have been inscribed by a different hand and were highly unusual in ossuaries from the period. The scientific evidence derived from an examination of the patina that showed it had a different oxygen isotope composition to the other letters and the surface of the box. The circumstantial evidence rested on tools, soil samples and half-finished objects seized from Golan’s home and warehouses that appeared to be the raw materials for faking antiquities and covering them with a false patina.

While the ossuary itself may be authentic, it is the inscription or at least part of it that is problematic and the the fact that the tools to make such a inscription were found.