Truth Provided Newsletter 2-28-03
Like a Tomb
Ya'akov bar Ysef a khui Yeshua
Actual size of the ossuray is 20 inches by 11 inches wide
Christian greetings in these last days.
Some of you may be asking yourselves why I haven't made any mention as of yet regarding the burial box of James the brother of Jesus. Actually, I have a very good reason for that. I have been watching and waiting for Rome to make a comment. The only comment I have found thus far is a feeble attempt to blow off the discovery. Anyone that has been watching the Vatican knows, this happens to be the norm for Rome. They always skirt the issue and dance around it when it places a spotlight upon them and their spurious doctrines.
In an interview by the Associate Press, Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmeyer, acknowledges the writing style on the ossuary 'fits perfectly' with other first century examples and admits the joint appearance of these three famous names is 'striking,' he nevertheless concludes, "But the big problem is, you have to show me the Jesus in this text is Jesus of Nazareth, and nobody can show that." Ignoring the obvious is an infamous technique of Babylon that is designed to permeate the hearts of their congregation. Sadly, this is the case, as many devoted Catholics are now echoing Fitzmeyer's testimonial. I hope to share Biblical as well as Historic facts sufficient enough to prove Fitzmeyer merely seeks to AVOID the truth on this for obvious reasons.Intense curiosity and controversy I might add has been at the forefront globally as far as I can tell since the announcement of the discovery of an ancient limestone bone box last Spring dated 63AD, called an ossuary, (pronounced alternatively, "osh-oo-ary" or "os-yoo-ary") inscribed in Aramaic, which was the language of the Jews in Jesus day. The inscription reads, "Ya'akov bar Ysef a khui Yeshua" which translated is, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." Historical fact is, boxes like this were commonly used by Jewish families between 20BC and 70AD to store the bones of their loved ones. James is known to have been martyred in 62 AD, and the box has been dated 63AD. Tradition of that day was to place the body in a tomb until the flesh disintegrated, (1 year) and then move the bones to a ossuary to await resurrection.
Another interesting fact is that out of the hundreds of such boxes that were found, only TWO mention a "brother" in the inscriptions upon the burial box. Some scholars have confirmed that this eludes to the fact that the brother must have been famous or extremely important at the time so as to be mentioned upon a burial box of a sibling. The names James, Joseph, and even Jesus were considered common names in Jerusalem for that day.Professor Lemaire, who teaches at the Sorbonne in Paris, wrote in a recent issue of the Biblical Archaeology Review that it was "very probable" that the box belonged to Jesus Christ's brother James. In a city as large as Jerusalem was in that day (about 40,000) Lemaire estimates that as many as 20 men who were named James, would have had brothers named Jesus, and fathers named Joseph. However, he also concludes that the odds would be stacked greatly against the probability that there would be more than one person named James who had a brother that was as important or well known as Jesus was at that time. I can see plainly that historic fact actually confirms it. All one needs do is research this and you will find that there is no mention recorded in history of a man named "Jesus" for that period of time that had anywhere near the life changing fame of Jesus the Messiah. In fact, the Biblical Archaeology Review has researched an inventory of 900 ossuaries. Out of the 900, 19 of them have the name Joseph inscribed on them, and 10 have the name Jesus on them and only ONE had the name Jesus as the son of Joseph and brother of James inscribed on it. ONLY ONE! (For more info see,"Evidence Of Jesus Written In Stone," Biblical Archaeological Review, http://www.bib-arch.org/bswb_BAR/bswbbar2806f1.html )
I have been watching this story with particular interest to see if Rome will once again ADMIT to lying before the world for the last 149 years since Pope Pius IX proclaimed, "The Immaculate Conception" of Mary was dogmatic fact. We all saw in the "Mea Culpa" of John Paul II back in March of 2000 a bevy of admissions that proved the Roman Catholic church is no stranger to fabricating lies to further its agenda. We now have concrete historic fact they admitted it. Will they do right on this issue? The blunt defiance in Fitzmeyer's earlier statement paints an obvious picture of what Rome plans to do. They seek to take the defensive stance proclaiming "Your going to have to show me proof before I believe it! And as far as I can tell no one can." You would think that Fitzmeyer would use his "credentials" a bit more wisely then just shouting like a spoiled child and then stomping his feet as he flees the scene. A normal response I am sure for one caught red handed. Seriously, what other course does he have? He MUST openly deny the now concrete evidence before him so as to keep the Roman lie afloat.
History proves that once the agenda of the Vatican is threatened, they will go to absolutely ANY lengths to assure they can keep doing business as usual. Even if it means millions must die. The world saw dozens of Bishops and Cardinals stepping forward back in March of 2000, not only agreeing with the Pope's list of admissions, but also speaking of numerous vile and disgusting acts they themselves have done as well! (for more on this, )
They did this to save face because certain facts were no longer easy to hide for the Vatican, especially since it's possible now for even some of the poorest families in the World to access the historic facts online. Their only "wise" course at that time was to admit they killed millions and ask for forgiveness so as to appear to be genuinely concerned about what history so graphically records. Regardless of the fact that the Vatican is still in the business of threatening and even killing those that deny their doctrines to this day. (for more on this, ) However, with the discovery of the Ossuary of James, this is in no way an easy admission for Rome to proclaim as we saw by the knee jerking response of Fitzmeyer. Their counterfeit doctrinal statements regarding Mary depend completely on them keeping that lie going. This is Babylon, and Babylon worships the "Queen of Heaven" as Scriptures so openly proclaims. To deny their god is to deny their way of life.
For a Biblical expose' of the "Queen of Heaven" start your study with these verses...
Imagine if you will that Rome ADMITTED the Ossuary of James to be authentic. This would mean they LIED to literally billions upon billions of Catholics as well as non-Catholics since the lie was fabricated regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. Rome knows that this is not just some face saving lie that can be shrugged off as "mere sins of the flesh" as we saw paraded before us in all it's graphic decadence on March 12, 2000. Rome can easily afford to admit the sins of the flesh because it affords them the natural ability to play "the priest is only a man" card, and get away with it by asking forgiveness from their church members and the world. Asking forgiveness from those that believe is the Christ-like thing to do is a powerful tool in the art of ongoing religious deception. Because if you don't forgive them, you can be tagged a NON-believer, and then they again stand supreme above you even though they ADMITTED they killed millions. It's a win win situation for Rome. However, to admit to LYING about the perpetual virginity of Mary, as well as her "immaculate conception," would cause a MASSIVE upset in the halls of Rome that anyone with an ounce of sense can tell Rome is simply not prepared to do!
Think of it!
If Rome admits the Ossuary of James is authentic, and Jesus did in fact have siblings as Matthew chapter 13 already truthfully proclaims, that would mean a BEVY of doctrinal issues would have to be scrapped by the Roman Church.
First and foremost would be the spurious doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary herself. Fact is, I truly cannot see how they hung unto this lie for as long as they did in the first place. The Scriptures declare...
This verse confirms people in Jesus' home town, knew of Jesus and watched Him grow up from a young man helping His father in his trade as a carpenter, to doing great miracles right before their very eyes. They remembered Jesus lived there as well as the fact that He had four brothers. PLUS this verse confirms they still have Jesus' SISTERS living among them at that time. How many sisters did Jesus have? The Bible doesn't say. Why are they still living there? Did they get married and settle down in their home town to raise a family? Again, the Bible doesn't say, nor does it make a difference. The fact is the Bible accurately records that Mary had many children in that passage.
Matthew 12:46-49 declares... "While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his BRETHREN stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy BRETHREN stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my BRETHREN? and he stretched forth his hand TOWARD HIS DISCIPLES, and said behold my mother and my BRETHREN!"
Many teachers of Catholic doctrine believe that Jesus called only those that believed in Him His brethren. Did you notice the statement made to Jesus BEFORE He calls all in the room His brethren in the above passage? A person comes to Jesus to tell Him that His mother and brethren are out side waiting on Him. Jesus took this opportunity to illustrate to the believers (disciples, as they are mentioned) and apostles in the room that THEY are considered brethren now because they believe in Him. Jesus actually says in Matthew 19:29 "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life." This verse is for believers that have to deal with unbelievers close to them. Does this verse not also show Jesus calling those people that are not believers BRETHREN as well? Notice this often missed fact in the passage. If you look at that verse closely you see the word "BROTHER" is not used by Jesus to describe those close to us in life. Does this mean Jesus believes NO ONE will have "brothers?" Of course not! Yet in that very same verse we see the word "SISTERS" is used. Does this not prove that the word "brethren" in this verse actually means "brothers?" This fact also confirms the Roman Church lies when it says the word "brethren" = "cousins" does it not?
People from all walks of life call there fellow man brethren. What of the term, brothers in crime? And yes, just like back then, we have brethren in Jesus. Having Jesus explain if they believe in Him they become His brethren, does not mean that Jesus denied His siblings. He just gained more brethren on this day in Matthew 12. Plus, yet another obvious point many miss is this. Does not Matthew 13:56 declare plainly that "his SISTERS" were still living among them in Nazareth when Jesus stopped by? Let's give those that say the word "brethren" only means believers in Christ the benefit of the doubt for the sake of illustration shall we? How will they then explain the word "sisters" in that verse?. They cannot say it ALSO means "brethren" because the word "brethren" has already been used in the verse preceding it. (Mat 13:55) PLUS, what about the fact that the Word mention's "his mother and his BRETHREN" in verse 47 of Matthew 12 above? Is not Mary considered part of the brethren? Is she not a believer in Christ?
Fact is folks. Lies are that easy to expose at times. Problem with lies is, you have to keep ADDING to them to keep them going. Plus, you have to remember what you lied about as well so as not to be exposed. Or... you can do as many liars choose to do which also appears to be the course of Fitzmeyer and the Vatican lately. They remain silent and hope the subject is dropped.
Did you catch that? These verses are now calling the Apostles by name one by one, and then Mary the mother of Jesus with His brethren are then mentioned. Question: Are not all in the upper room Brethren? Yes they are. Then why is Mary and His brethren mentioned after naming the brethren we call the Apostles? It's just illustrated here that Jesus' Mother and siblings are in the room at this time. What better way to illustrate the fact that Jesus has an earthly family as well as His Church family. Seriously... think about what happened here... all the Apostles are mentioned by name in the room, THEN Mary and the BRETHREN of Jesus are mentioned. Is this an attempt to show that Jesus had siblings? AMEN!
This I must concede is another of my favorite verses on this subject. How can it not be realized that the term "His brethren" used here is BLUNTLY speaking of His siblings? The argument is mute for those that would claim, "brethren" must always equal "disciple" as well. How? The BRETHREN in this passage are telling Jesus to be on His way and go perform His miracles so that His "DISCIPLES" will see it "For neither did his brethren believe in him." If brethren = believers, then who are these non-believing BRETHREN? See how CoNfUsInG Rome likes to make it? If "His brethren" in this verse means believers, apostles, or disciples, then WHY are "His brethren" telling Him to leave and show His miracles to His disciples? I must admit, when I was a Catholic, I recall NUMEROUS occasions where the Bible seemed to me confusing because of what the church was teaching. Isn't it wonderful to know that our Father which art in Heaven is NOT the author of confusion?
By the way, as is commonly known, the brothers of Jesus did not believe in Jesus at first as John 7:5 says above. It wasn't until AFTER He resurrected did they believe. (See 1 Cor 15:7) It is confirmed in Scriptures when they were later seen in the body of believers in Acts 1:13 after the resurrection. In fact, the Bible confirms two of the brothers of Jesus by name that became believers. These brothers actually wrote of Him in the Scripture itself. James of course for the book of James. And then Jude for the book of Jude. (see Matthew 13:55 & Galatians 1:19 to verify James) & (see Matthew 13:55 & Jude 1:1 to verify Jude) PLUS, according to Christian tradition, James the brother of Jesus was actually the leader of the early Christian church in Jerusalem. Many Catholics of course are unaware of that fact merely because they are not told. I know I was never told when I was a Catholic.
Wow! How blunt can you get eh? Is this not an obvious verse? We found earlier in Matthew 13:55 that one of Jesus' brothers was named James, and here we see James is mentioned again as The Lord's Brother. Plus, the verse is using the words "apostle" and "brother" in different contexts. One is to verify he is an apostle, and the other is to verify he is His brother. Otherwise it would come back as being redundant. Think about it, if the word "apostle" is being used to describe a man, then WHY would the word "brother" also be used, UNLESS he was the actual blood brother of Jesus? Is not an Apostle considered a brother already? By the way, this is the same James buried in the 'Ossuary of James.'
Did you notice that the Bible calls Jesus the firstborn son of Mary? Why would the infallible Word of God call Jesus the Firstborn if He is supposed to be the last-born, as well as the one and only son of Mary? According to Catholic doctrine this can't be. But I ask, how can Catholic doctrine call Mary a virgin until death when the Bible states the exact opposite numerous times? So the question here is for the one with the heart for Christ. Who will you believe? Man? Or the Creator of man? Simple Truth is, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and the FIRSTBORN Son of Mary.
Also notice the word "till" in that verse? The verse preceding this one tells us that "Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife..." It then states, " And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son:" [Matthew 1:24,25] It seems rather plain for those that have eyes to see. Joseph went ahead and did as the Angel told him to do and took Mary as his wife. Then we see the Bible tells us Joseph "waited" to consummate the marriage "till she had brought forth her firstborn son." This easily proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mary was no perpetual virgin! It is easy to see that "firstborn" actually means she had MORE children, otherwise the Scriptures would have called Him the only son of Mary. Fact is, Scripture does call Him the only begotten Son of the Father does it not? Why would it leave out mention of the fact that He was also the only begotten son of Mary as well? Because it is not true, and our God is not a liar!
On more obvious note to ponder... As blessed and loved as Mary was of God. Do you honestly believe that the Almighty and ever living God of all creation would punish her with a barren womb after submitting to His perfect will without question and having His only begotten Son? Remember that it was considered a blessing to have children back then, unlike today's society with their millions of self centered flesh pleasing abortions. PLUS, would it not be considered sin on Mary's part to DENY Joseph's carnal desires towards his wife? Is it not written plainly in.. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, "Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."
Yes, it appears Rome knows it will have to admit a LOT MORE than murdering 150 million Christians as they did on March 12, 2000, if they admit the Ossuary of James is authentic. They will have to give up "just a few" doctrines of demons and traditions of men, and I don't think they are prepared to do that. A few of these spurious doctrines in a list might look like this...
(For more information as well as additional links to above facts )
If I was a betting man, AND I AM NOT, I would have to ask, who wants to lay odds on the final response of the Vatican? (If they ever respond that is) Will they jump at the chance to now lie again and say Joseph had children from a previous marriage? Virtually no Christian church holds to that view today. However, that never stopped Rome before has it.
By the way... To claim Joseph had a previous marriage, would mean yet another a re-write of Scripture for the church of Rome. For it is NOT written that Joseph had a previous marriage in the Word. "YET"
THE TRUTH PROVIDED NEWSLETTER E-MAIL BOX
Don and Diane G. and kids
(To copy anything off the site, all you need to do is hit "CTRL A" on the page you seek to copy, then paste the contents into a word processor. If you don't want the black background and graphics, paste it into "Notepad" and ALL the graphics and colors will be filtered out )
Can't make it to church each week? Presents of God ministry now has an AUDIO CHAT room on the site at www.remnantofgod.org/pogmchat.htm This AUDIO CHAT will broadcast LIVE Bible studies and Church services for those that have yet to find a church near to their home.
This online church service is NOT meant to be a permanent replacement. It can however be used to share in Bible study and worship services until such a time as a church is found near your home.
The audio chat room allows for TWO WAY communication. In ther words, you can actually participate LIVE by either microphone or text chat.
My fervent prayer is that you have been blessed by the Truth Provided in this Newsletter.
Truth is Truth!
TIME IS VERY
Can you help spread the 3 Angels message?