S
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Tired of all the political strife and infighting?
Find out how Christians are supposed to act in the following study
https://christianforums.net/threads/charismatic-bible-studies-1-peter-2-11-17.109823/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[_ Old Earth _] family tomb a Christ found- possibly earth shaking news
Interesting, but most likely a fake. The man who did the James brother of Jesus ossuarie did a very nice job and his work even as a forgery is very popular right now.Silverchild79 said:
I have nothing against Simcha Jacobovici. In fact I enjoy watching his programs. They are putting a real teaser out on this one, but I would rather imagine the program will end up asking the question is it real or is it a fake
S
Silverchild79
Guest
I'm interested in what evidence you've found to suggest James was not the brother of Christ. I understood that to be a widely excepted recent discovery.
What's the saying "To believe Christ is the son of God is a leap of faith, but to think a married couple never got down?!?"
I'm not sure what exactly they are going to put forth but 27 years of research on the find before the first major documentary suggests they haven't jumped to any conclusions. I'll have to just wait and see.
I was talking about this with a friend and something occurred to me. Regardless of what anyone currently thinks, if this tomb is dated to 2000 years ago, is in the same area, has the members of all his family (I think the preview said Josef, the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalen (sp?), etc), if there is also a coffin labeled Jesus Son of Josef and that body shows sings of a crucifixion, can you in good conscious dismiss it as meaning nothing?
What's the saying "To believe Christ is the son of God is a leap of faith, but to think a married couple never got down?!?"
I'm not sure what exactly they are going to put forth but 27 years of research on the find before the first major documentary suggests they haven't jumped to any conclusions. I'll have to just wait and see.
I was talking about this with a friend and something occurred to me. Regardless of what anyone currently thinks, if this tomb is dated to 2000 years ago, is in the same area, has the members of all his family (I think the preview said Josef, the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalen (sp?), etc), if there is also a coffin labeled Jesus Son of Josef and that body shows sings of a crucifixion, can you in good conscious dismiss it as meaning nothing?
James was the half brother of Christ. Joseph was a widower with five children. Four of them were older but James was younger and Mary raised him along with Jesus.Silverchild79 said:
AT least that is the official position of the Catholic church and I do not see any reason to question them.
S
Silverchild79
Guest
the Catholic Church is no less foulable then any other institution maintained by man (to include anyone else's church) but, as advancing the theory of James the half brother doesn't seem to benefit them them I agree.
And obviously it's half-brother, I can leave out specifications when I write sometimes, anything I write should be deciphered with a dollop of common sense...
And obviously it's half-brother, I can leave out specifications when I write sometimes, anything I write should be deciphered with a dollop of common sense...
G
Guest
Guest
Silverchild79 said:
From what I have read - this is the SECOND documentary on this find. The first one was aired in the UK (I believe) in the mid 90s. The archeology was sloppy then - and from what I have read, it appears that it still is.
Gabbylittleangel
Member
Silverchild79 said:
Mar 16:6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified:
he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.
Luk 24:5-6 ......Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen...
A few years back I remember reading in a black and white magazine (the same one I read from concerning that a 2-ton baby had been born and another time about some sort of vampire), "Jesus' bones found!" :-D I doubt it, but it could be...
One of my concerns in a time period where Aramaic was supposed to be the dominant language for Jews, is why the name for 'Mary' is scratched into stone, using a Latin form of the name and a Hebrew script? Even in the Hebrew script, reading from right to left of the script, a 'final mem' is used at the beginning of the word and not just a 'mem'. See http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/7_lesson02.html
Wouldn't this be a little like a person who spoke Frisian using the English alphabet to write a Russian name on a gravestone?
The transliteration of 'Yaakov bar Yosef' in the James section seems logical to me. But what doesn't seem logical is that they assert that 'Yaakov' becomes 'James' in English. I thought that 'Yaakov' became 'Jacob' in English. The 'y' became a 'j' later through the Germanic languages I think. The 'v' comes from the Hebrew letter bet which can be pronounced in two different ways - neither one of them being an 'm' or some such thing. It stands for either a 'v' or a 'b' in all instances that I can think of unless in Aramaic it somehow also stands for a different letter which I doubt would be mistranslated over time to an 'm' or 's' which then leads us back to my Frisian-English-Russian illustration above.
The scratches for 'Yeshua bar Yosef' are now supposedly in Aramaic letters. Nothing wrong here except that it looks like scribbling and possibly not even letters in the first place. Perhaps the 'cross' or 'x' shape at the beginning of the name doesn't have any significance because the 'name' may not even be a name but merely chance scratches on stone. I could think of one reason why this appears to be so hastily and so incredibly obscurely scratched in stone if it is in fact a name. It may be because when Jesus was buried it was near the Sabbath time so they needed a fast inscription in order to obey the Sabbath (but they still could have scratched his name into the stone later and at a slower and better pace). I would tend to think that those who buried him might wish to honor his memory and thus would have taken a longer time to do a better job if this is supposed to be the name of the Messiah. Or... maybe they were sad and were doing a poor job out of agony. Who knows even if these scratches are a name and that name is supposed to be referring to the Messiah.
And why, again, would Mary Magdalene's name be scratched into stone in a Greek text now? First, it's supposed to be in a time period where Aramaic was the dominant language of the Jews, so a name is inscribed in Hebrew but pronounced in a Latin way and now Mary Magdalene's name is inscribed in a Greek text and with a Greek meaning and pronunciation. Personally, I'm skeptical. Aramaic is in close relation to Hebrew, but still... What in the world is going on?
One of my concerns in a time period where Aramaic was supposed to be the dominant language for Jews, is why the name for 'Mary' is scratched into stone, using a Latin form of the name and a Hebrew script? Even in the Hebrew script, reading from right to left of the script, a 'final mem' is used at the beginning of the word and not just a 'mem'. See http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/7_lesson02.html
Wouldn't this be a little like a person who spoke Frisian using the English alphabet to write a Russian name on a gravestone?
The transliteration of 'Yaakov bar Yosef' in the James section seems logical to me. But what doesn't seem logical is that they assert that 'Yaakov' becomes 'James' in English. I thought that 'Yaakov' became 'Jacob' in English. The 'y' became a 'j' later through the Germanic languages I think. The 'v' comes from the Hebrew letter bet which can be pronounced in two different ways - neither one of them being an 'm' or some such thing. It stands for either a 'v' or a 'b' in all instances that I can think of unless in Aramaic it somehow also stands for a different letter which I doubt would be mistranslated over time to an 'm' or 's' which then leads us back to my Frisian-English-Russian illustration above.
The scratches for 'Yeshua bar Yosef' are now supposedly in Aramaic letters. Nothing wrong here except that it looks like scribbling and possibly not even letters in the first place. Perhaps the 'cross' or 'x' shape at the beginning of the name doesn't have any significance because the 'name' may not even be a name but merely chance scratches on stone. I could think of one reason why this appears to be so hastily and so incredibly obscurely scratched in stone if it is in fact a name. It may be because when Jesus was buried it was near the Sabbath time so they needed a fast inscription in order to obey the Sabbath (but they still could have scratched his name into the stone later and at a slower and better pace). I would tend to think that those who buried him might wish to honor his memory and thus would have taken a longer time to do a better job if this is supposed to be the name of the Messiah. Or... maybe they were sad and were doing a poor job out of agony. Who knows even if these scratches are a name and that name is supposed to be referring to the Messiah.
And why, again, would Mary Magdalene's name be scratched into stone in a Greek text now? First, it's supposed to be in a time period where Aramaic was the dominant language of the Jews, so a name is inscribed in Hebrew but pronounced in a Latin way and now Mary Magdalene's name is inscribed in a Greek text and with a Greek meaning and pronunciation. Personally, I'm skeptical. Aramaic is in close relation to Hebrew, but still... What in the world is going on?
L
LittleNipper
Guest
Some people will believe anything. They are carried along by every new fad. This whole thing is just sad. If this was once an exposed sarcophagus, I sure that vandalism was as prevalent then as it is today. Anyone with a brain can only imagine what the latest gossip concerned....
I couldn't see it before, but I've been doing some more research on the matter. It appears that James can come from Jacomus which came from the Greek Jacobus which in turn came from Jacob that originally came from Yaakov. So they may be right there, but not all the information I've been reading has been praising this 'find'. :wink: And I'm of the belief that all truth will lead us to God if it is told in full.
S
Silverchild79
Guest
Packrat said:
That's my point exactly, if it's the truth you're trying to learn then there is nothing wrong with asking questions and searching for answers.
I keep an open mind, 500 years ago the Earth was the center of the universe and it was against God to even consider otherwise. We would do well to learn from the mistakes of our past.
All the stuff in the Bible, it all happened here. If anything there should be more scientific research on these matters, done without any particular agenda other then learning the truth.
S
Silverchild79
Guest
anybody watch this?
I would say that before I saw the program I was leaning toward thinking it was wrong but having an open mind and thinking it can't be proven
Now I would say that I'm open to the idea that it could be true, think it can't be as yet disproven, and further research should be done.
two questions for the board
Did you watch it
What did you think?
I would say that before I saw the program I was leaning toward thinking it was wrong but having an open mind and thinking it can't be proven
Now I would say that I'm open to the idea that it could be true, think it can't be as yet disproven, and further research should be done.
two questions for the board
Did you watch it
What did you think?
cyberjosh
Member
I could argue with you on this all day, but the James Ossuary has not been proven by the IAA to be a forgery, and actually the most recent developments (February 2007) saw the presentation by Oded Golan of pictures of the Ossuary dated to 1976 (refuting the claim that he forged it shortly before it was brought into the open what it was (and it was recognized not by himself but an Aramaic Scholar who was visiting and examining his Ossuaries and stumbled on it). The Ossuary itself is a 1st century Ossuary, and the first part of the inscription is proven authentic, its only the achui D'Yeshua ending which is brought into question because of an obscurity in the Patina (which was actually explained in the Geological Survey Report to be due to a recent cleaning in which some of the patina was wiped off). So the James Ossuary issue is not over, thanks to the pressing of Hershel Shanks for due process and a fair reexamination. I applaude Hershel Shanks persistance for the sake of finding out the truth once and for all about the Ossuary.
And even if it is all authentic there is a statistical probability of roughly 1 in 20 that it is the ossuary of the James brother of Jesus we know from the Bible, according to a comprehensive study. But in one of the books I have read from Hershel Shanks on the issue a good case can be made for it being the same James we know of based on factors of culture, prominence, and names statistics.
....
....
Well that was a mouthful but there you have it. My Reader's Digest version of the issue.
Later,
~Josh
Gabbylittleangel
Member
Silverchild79 said:
No.
Silverchild79 said:
I believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
S
Silverchild79
Guest
Gabbylittleangel said:
be careful before you close your mind off without considering this. Faith is belief, following anything with your eyes closed is ignorance. The only time ignorance ever leads to truth is on accident.
Open minded research has revolutionized our faith for the last 500 years. Begining with the reformation and leading us all the way to where we are now. The center of the universe, the siblings of Christ. Every time new evidence has come forward our faith has become better because we understand more of it.
L
LittleNipper
Guest
Silverchild79 said:
If this were the case, there wouldn't be any issue with Creationism being explained in the public school science classes, now would there...
Gabbylittleangel
Member
Gabbylittleangel said:
Silverchild79 said:
I don't believe that you understand.
I am a blood bought, born again, Bible believing child of the LIVING God. He walks with me and He talks with me. He answers my prayers. He heals. He provides. I have a close, personal relationship with The Lord Jesus Christ.
Jhn 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Perhaps I should have said, "I know that Jesus Christ rose from the dead." Often when a Christian says the word 'believe' the reader sees "I think, maybe, it could possibly be true, but I am not really sure."
I know Him.
B
blunthitta4life
Guest
Seperation of church and state my friend. Plus there aren't too many philosophy classes in high school.
S
Silverchild79
Guest
oops the quote function owned me
my response was to that you hadn't seen it and were weighting in on the subject, that was what I meant to be careful of, I was not contesting anything you said.
So far as public school goes it is separation of church and state. If you teach Christian creation in the classroom your obligated to teach Hindu creation, Buddhist, Muslim, Tribal, and so on. Our poor kids wouldn't have enough time in 12 years of public education to learn every creation theory accepted by at least one person in America.
I personally don't have any problem with the theory of Evolution because it's just that, a theory. They should also teach a general theory of creation and as I remember from school they do.
Religion should be taught in the family unit. I'll think you'll find better educators there anyways...
my response was to that you hadn't seen it and were weighting in on the subject, that was what I meant to be careful of, I was not contesting anything you said.
So far as public school goes it is separation of church and state. If you teach Christian creation in the classroom your obligated to teach Hindu creation, Buddhist, Muslim, Tribal, and so on. Our poor kids wouldn't have enough time in 12 years of public education to learn every creation theory accepted by at least one person in America.
I personally don't have any problem with the theory of Evolution because it's just that, a theory. They should also teach a general theory of creation and as I remember from school they do.
Religion should be taught in the family unit. I'll think you'll find better educators there anyways...
L
LittleNipper
Guest
Silverchild79 said:
Fine, talk about those other theories. I have no problem with them---perhaps you do? I am sure the Creation Christianity will be seen as superior to such other belief structures. This is why some do not what them talked about openly. They like to keep people in the dark..... Theory is theory. It is on the edge of belief. Either make some effort to discuss them all to some degree or leave the pondering to specialized courses in college.