Of course this article received much play thanks to Reuters
as well as many Vatican biased news services. Problem is, this isn’t an
entirely true statement. Nor is it considered fact by most who do understand
Scripture as well as natural science. Fact is, a far more reputable source in
the “Christian” community has put on record their response regarding this
It doesn’t surprise me in the least that the two
other groups of specialists from the Geological Survey of Israel and the Royal
Ontario Museum in Toronto, were NOT mentioned in the GLOBALLY reported findings
of the IAA by Reuters news service. It’s also no surprise that we have TWO
groups opposing the one the Vatican found. This not only lends credence to the
facts, it also displays evidence that MANY see this as such. Stil… it really
doesn’t matter. Even if they somehow get these scientists to join their ranks,
the truth is already on record. The Box HAS been authenticated, and the
inscription has been proven ANCIENT by not one, but TWO groups of
Like I stated in my original Newsletter that touched on this
topic, which by the way, has also become an actual page on my site, Rome
MUST lie about this burial box! If they are to admit to it’s authenticity,
they would have to literally scrap a multitude of Roman Catholic INVENTED
doctrines! THEY CANNOT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN! So they paid off… schmoozed… made
nice nice… or simply wined and dined the IAA into publishing this now
proven false report. And it was proven bogus by TWO groups of
scientists! Problem here is, the Biblical Archaeology Review doesn’t have the
global play that Reuters does. It’s mostly sought out by those in the work of
the Lord. And as we can all attest to, there sure doesn’t seem to be a lot of
them around lately. Again… no matter. Truth is truth!
The Vatican officials are known liars. They have been caught
time and time again with their hands in the cookie jar, or should I say “the
Eucharistic chalice.” One needs to understand the political spin-doctoring by
the Vatican that is being used here. It’s no different than a defending
attorney in a court of law attempting to get a child molesting priest out of
trouble. He knows that certain statements made will in fact be objected to, and
“stricken” from the record. However, this tactic is always 100% effective. THE
JURY HEARD IT! So the lying attorney makes the claim, knowing it will be
objected to, because human nature is on his side! And as we all know about
human nature, they WILL act accordingly, and remember those words regardless of
how much the judge insists on them forgetting them. Even if one were to present
factual truths exposing the lying attorney, the Jury STILL has that bogus
statement floating about in their gray matter. The Vatican has gotten their
“defending attorney’s” in the IAA to blurp out the bold faced lie knowing that
the people will hear and remember it no matter how bogus it may be. Regardless
of how loud the Biblical Archaeology Review yells, OBJECTION, it merely won’t matter! The damage has been
done. The only ones that may benefit now are sadly those that read the article
in the Biblical Archaeology Review, as well as those reading this
Newsletter. There aren’t a lot of us… but then again, nor are their many in the
REMNANT. And that’s the most powerful entity known to man. For we have a mighty
God on our side. So… again… it really doesn’t matter.
The Vatican knows that no one will be able to perform an
effective counter assault with news articles proving the Vatican is lying. The
Vatican has MANY new services in their pocket, and they will use them!
However.. the elect can NOT be deceived! I praise the Lord for that! No matter
how much this Antichristian entity wants to spew lies, the true child of God
sees them for what they are. LIARS!
I recall when this story first broke. I also recall how easy
it would become to literally predict Rome’s response. Here is one such response
that I found almost immediately after writing the original Newsletter on this
topic that later became a page on the site.
In 2002 a unique archaeological find was announced: a limestone ossuary (bone box) that may have held the remains of James the “brother” of Jesus. The box dates to first century Palestine and is inscribed in Jesus’ native language, Aramaic, with the words “James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.”
New attention was drawn to the ossuary by a book titled The Brother of Jesus, by Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington. Shanks is the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review; Witherington is a New Testament professor. To publicize it, the two wrote a tie-in piece in USA Today's weekend magazine, in which Witherington (the primary author) asserted:
It is possible the inscription on the ossuary--"James, son
of Joseph, brother of Jesus"--provides us with a challenge in regard to
some basic Christian assumptions about James. The Roman Catholic tradition is
that Jesus' brothers and sisters actually were cousins; Orthodox Christians
believe they were Joseph's children by a previous marriage. The inscription
conflicts with both of those Christian traditions, in fact, for there
certainly was an Aramaic word for "cousin" that could have been
used in this inscription but was not. If Jesus was the son of only Mary, and
James was the son of only Joseph, then Jesus and James would not literally
have been brothers, as this inscription states.
Witherington's statement proved highly controversial. Though his characterization of Catholic teaching is not without problem, his assertion that there is an Aramaic word for cousin was egregious.
The Source of the Controversy
The New Testament is
explicit that Mary was a virgin at the time she conceived Jesus by the Holy
Spirit. Christian tradition--later infallibly affirmed by the
Church--acknowledges that she remained a virgin afterwards.
Church of Rome does say she was a virgin till death. However, the Bible does
not as we all know.
The great majority of Christians acknowledges this. Only the Protestant community dissents.
better way to explain that is to say that "Catholic tradition"
is what acknowledges Mary as a virgin for life. Nowhere in the Bible does to
say that. Not one solitary verse. There is not as single Christian
denomination that claims she was a perpetual virgin. Only in Catholicism do
you see this, and if you click here you can see why.
But there are certain questions to be answered, such as who the "brethren" or "brothers" of Christ mentioned in Scripture are.
In English when we say "brother" we usually mean full brother--a male sibling sharing both biological parents.
Akin uses the word "usually" to confirm his opinion? Fact is, I
"usually" don't believe anyone that has no confidence in their
message. Do you?
But the term has a broader range of meanings. It can include half-brother (male sibling sharing one biological parent), step-brother (male sibling sharing one parent by marriage), and adoptive brother (male sibling adopted into the family). It can be given figurative meanings, such as "comrade," as when military men are described as "a band of brothers."
solid, or researchable proof. Just "opinions" of Jimmy Akin are
used here. Fact is, the Bible does use the term “cousin” within it. Notice
how he will completely evade that issue throughout this dissertation.
Which applies to the brethren of Christ in Scripture?
It is unlikely that the term "brother" is being used figuratively or mystically because all Christians are Christ's brothers in that sense, making it pointless to single out certain individuals for this description. Full brother is impossible, as Protestants also acknowledge, since Jesus was not the biological child of Joseph. Half-brother is ruled out by the fact that Mary remained a virgin.
Jimmy Akin assumes we believe Mary remained a virgin for life, and therefore
we must throw out the "half brother" assumption? That statement
alone proves he is grasping at straws. It also proves Rome is running scared,
as this article is obviously aimed specifically FOR Catholics! Do they hope to
prevent an exodus with it?Revelation 18:4 will ring loudly in some ears
regardless! Rome knows the burial box has exposed them in the most graphic
manner ever! By the way… one would think that if Jimmy Akin had Biblical
proof of that statement he would use it. I ask Jimmy Akin... Can you show me
one verse that says Mary was a virgin for life? Just one? Or show me one
verse that shows me Joseph did NOT consummate his marriage to Mary. Or show
me one verse that shows me Mary denied her husbands carnal desires for his WIFE.
Why can’t Jimmy Akin do this? Because there are no such passages. In fact,
the Bible states plainly that Joseph DID consummate the marriage AFTER she
gave birth to her FIRST-born son. And natural science reports that when one
consummates a marriage, that woman is NO LONGER a virgin!
Matthew 1:24-25, "Then Joseph being raised from
sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his
wife: And knew her not till
she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name
That simple and small word “till” in Matthew chapter one blows the entire house of cards over
as easy as opening the kitchen door during a hurricane.
It is possible they were adoptive
brothers, but there does not seem to be any evidence for this in the biblical
or patristic record.
Is Jimmy asking us to believe what he himself can’t confirm? Isn’t that
something? Human nature is at times easy to manipulate, even when the one
doing the manipulation is proving 100% to be unable to stake his claim. It
amazes me how often the “sheeple” maneuver is used. It is also amazing how
often it is effective. Modern day fact is, there ARE over 1 BILLION Catholics
More plausibly, they were step-brothers: children of Joseph who were Jesus' brothers by marriage.
Jimmy Akin is still "suggesting" an opinion here, and I have yet to
see any Scriptural or historic proof denying that which has been laid out in
documented scientific research, not to mention BIBLICAL FACT.
NEVER accept an "opinion" when there are FACTS laid out for
inspection. If you do, you play the fool. Jimmy Akin has yet to give a single
CONFIDENT statement in this whole article. ALL of what he is stating are mere
“opinions” and that’s all.
There is some evidence for this in the writings of early Christians. The earliest discussion of the matter that we have--in a document known as the Protoevangelium of James (c. A.D. 120)--states that Joseph was a widower who already had a family and thus was willing to become the guardian of a consecrated virgin. Though not inspired, the document was written within living memory of Mary, when Christ's family was still well known, as other sources attest (e.g., second century historian Hegisippus). It may contain accurate traditions regarding the family structure.
hypothesis was the most common until St. Jerome (the turn of the fifth
century), who popularized the idea that the brethren were cousins.
\Hy*poth"e*sis\, n.; pl. Hypotheses.
[NL., fr. Gr. ? foundation, supposition, fr. ? to place under, ? under + ? to
put. See Hypo-,
1. A supposition; a proposition or principle which is supposed
or taken for granted, in order to draw a conclusion or inference for
proof of the point in question; something not proved, but assumed for the
purpose of argument, or to account for a fact or an occurrence; as, the
hypothesis that head winds detain an overdue steamer.
Here Jimmy Akin is seeking our assumption so as to
better explain his own assumptions? You do realize what that equates to don’t
you? HE wants us to believe what he himself can’t prove. NO FAITH IN MESSAGE
= NO FAITH IN HEARERS.
One would not guess this from a casual reading of the New Testament, but many have tried to deduce it from statements in the New Testament.
Akin admits here that for 5 CENTURIES most people did not agree with his
church's theory UNTIL it was "popularized." Just because an
idea is "popular" it doesn't make it right. Cocaine is
"popular.” Adultery is “popular.” Lying is also “popular.”. Still… let’s
turn the tables to expose how evil his theology is.
folks… Jimmy Akin is merely stating, that once the lies of Rome become EVIL
ENOUGH for the people to embrace, they would accept it. Look around you
today, all that is evil is what defines popularity. Strange how Rome can
twist evil to make it appear good isn’t it?
Proverbs 14:12, "There is a way which seemeth right
unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."
Part of the issue turns on the meaning of the word "brother." Thus far we have been discussing the English word brother for simplicity. The Greek equivalent (adelphos) includes the same concepts in its range of meaning. But Greek also has a word for "cousin" (anepsios), which seems to have been the normal word used when referring to cousins. An advocate of the cousin hypothesis would need to explain why it wasn't used if Christ’s brethren were cousins.
Jimmy is displaying no confidence in his own assumptions. This is well
noted when he states, "which seems to have been the normal word used", in the above excerpt. My friends, when they have no
PROOF they always use "assumptions" to try and get YOU to believe
them. Plus, if in fact the Bible was going to use the word COUSIN here, it
would have. Want proof?
Luke 1:36, "And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and
this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren."
Again, yet another verse in the Bible that blows the house of cards completely off the table like an atom bomb greeting an outhouse! If in fact the Word of God was referring to COUSINS, it would have easily used that term, for if it uses it in one place, it would most assuredly use it in another.
The standard explanation is that the New Testament isn't ordinary Greek. Some have suggested that parts of it may be translations from Aramaic. It is unknown if or how much of the New Testament had an Aramaic original, but even if none did, Aramaic had a strong influence on it. Probably all the New Testament authors except Luke were native Aramaic-speakers, and much of the dialogue in the Gospels originally occurred in Aramaic. Sometimes the Gospels even tell us the original words (e.g., “Talitha cumi” in Mark 5:41).
above paragraph ALONE we see Jimmy Akin using these words...
which are strong words of confidence by any stretch of the imagination. ALL
these words are used in the context of someone who is totally UNSURE of his
message. A “false teacher” if you will. Or should I say a “hypothetical”
situation? Mere conjecture without basis in FACT is all I see in the
This is important because the meaning of the Aramaic word for "brother" (aha) not only includes the meanings already mentioned but also includes other close relations, including cousins.
Not in my Bible. My Bible uses BOTH the word “brother AND
cousin” in it. This by the way is why the Vatican (and many Protestants) hate
the King James Bible with such a passion. It easily proves them wrong. Plus,
they also hate it for the fact that MANY years after it was written, the dead
sea scrolls were found to be remarkably identical to that which is IN the KJV.
Now, faith AND history prove the KJV accurate. Hence… hatred abounds.
In fact, there was no word for "cousin" in Aramaic. If one wanted to refer to the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of his uncle” (brona d-`ayesbac off the mic mike. Your mmeh). This often is too much trouble, so broader kinship terms are used that don’t mean “cousin” in particular; e.g., ahyana ("kinsman"), qariwa ("close relation"), or nasha ("relative"). One such term is aha, which literally means “brother” but is also frequently used in the sense of “relative, kinsman.”
here he is expecting his readers to believe him on mere "opinion"
or "circumstantial evidence." Not one shred of provable fact,
neither Scriptural or historic has yet to have been used to CONFIDENTLY
portray his message as being authentic. Not one. That in itself, speaks
The first Christians in Palestine, not having a word for cousin, would normally have referred to whatever cousins Jesus had with such a general term and, in translating their writing or speech into Greek, it is quite likely that the Aramaic word aha would have been rendered literally with the Greek word for brother (adelphos).
There may be as many as seven men named James mentioned in the New Testament. For our purposes the most important are:
It is the first whose ossuary may have been found. He often was
called “James the Just” and was martyred in the A.D. 60s (Josephus, Jewish
Antiquities 20:9). He is not the same as James son of Zebedee, who was
martyred earlier (Acts 12:2). Advocates of the cousin interpretation commonly
seek to identify him with James son of Alphaeus.
Akin is trying to "confuse" the issue further. Did you know the
definition of the word "Babylon" is "to mix" truth with
error? Jimmy is doing exactly as Rome has always done. Pray for him people. It
is sad when it is so obvious to those of us with eyes that see what he is
actually doing here. HE truly can't see what he is doing. If he did, he would
know how absurd it is.
Engaging the Argument
In the USA Weekend piece, Witherington criticized both the step-brother and the cousin hypotheses. Regarding the former, he wrote, "If Jesus was the son of only Mary, and James was the son of only Joseph, then Jesus and James would not literally have been brothers, as this inscription states."
This argument seems flatly erroneous. The inscription does not state that Jesus and James were "literally" brothers. It says that they were brothers, period. It doesn't say "James, son of Joseph, literal brother of Jesus."
ALWAYS the case for Rome to use a lie as truth. They do the same with
Scriptures at every turn. When the Word of God is bluntly stating Truth, Rome
will always seek a way to place a "twist" on what the Lord said.
Satan did this in Eden effectively with our first parents, and very
ineffectively in the desert with our Lord. Those of us that are God's
children understand easily what's being said in His Word. For His children DO
hear His voice. Those that aren't His children, seek to look for ways around
what's being said by the Lord, or even better, they seek to alter that which
is written so as to make it appear to say something completely different..
22:28, "And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing
vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord GOD, when
the LORD hath not spoken."
since Jimmy Akin seeks a "literal" proof here. (even though it's
already there for those with eyes that see) I ask. Jimmy Akin, where is the
one verse that LITERALLY proves Mary was a virgin until death? Or how
about the verse that LITERALLY proves Joseph never consummated the
marriage? Or the one verse that LITERALLY states Mary denied Joseph's
carnal desires towards his God given WIFE? Fact is folks, one can use the
“LITERAL” card on either side. And I only do so to show how evil his methods
And what does Witherington mean by "literally"? To most ears, the most literal meaning of “brother” is full brother, all the other senses being in some sense accommodated to this primary sense. But we know that James can't be a full brother because Joseph was not Jesus' biological father. (A point that Witherington, who has written a book critical of liberal reinterpretations of Jesus, presumably acknowledges.)
catch that? Jimmy Akin is now using the exact same method Bill Clinton used
to define sex so as to “try” to get away with an evil act. Playing “dumb” is
not something you can do with a Creator God. HE knows the HEART! God is not a
man that he can be hornswaggeled, or taken by surprise.
Witherington is trying to get too much out of the single word "brother" in the inscription. It's range of meaning is simply too broad to rule out James being a step-brother.
Jimmy is trying to do the same thing with the word "cousin," yet we
are expected to believe him over documented facts, as well as Scriptural
proof that the word COUSIN is in fact used in Scripture. The fact he refuses
to acknowledge that is open evidence to his methods of deception. I would
like to ask Jimmy Akin that question one day. WHY do you claim “cousin” is a
word never used, therefore “brother” can be used in its place when Luke
chapter one says otherwise?
Even in English, which has a gigantic vocabulary that includes a term for step-brother, we tend to use just "brother." Someone making introductions is more likely to say "This is my brother" than "This is my step-brother," unless family relations are unusually icy.
Jimmy Akin is now using "assumptions" to preach this error. More
LACK of confidence from Jimmy Akin leads to one thing. A lack of confidence
in believers of his message. This is the norm however for Rome. When I was
Catholic, you were taught that “not knowing” was 100% acceptable. In fact, my
Catholic pastor at the time told me to STOP reading the Bible! Can you
Witherington dismissed the cousin hypothesis by simply asserting, "there certainly was an Aramaic word for 'cousin' that could have been used in this inscription but was not." For this argument to work, several premises have to be granted:
the word "BROTHER" was used on the ossuary, and Jimmy Akin is
trying to make us all believe it should have been "COUSIN." The
easy and blunt thing to notice here is. THE WORD COUSIN IS NOT ON THAT
BOX but the word COUSIN is in Luke 1:36. If it was used in Luke, then why Not
on the box?
James was the BROTHER of Jesus, not a COUSIN.
If you want to see the rest of the article, click the URL below. But understand this. Jimmy Akin merely repeats assumptions, lies, and twists facts as he has done above. I believe I made that crystal clear by simply using common sense, and then using his words. Plus, nowhere does Jimmy Akin prove his side of the story in his article, as did the actual Scientists that authenticated the box, or the historians that verified the words, or the preachers that shared the Scriptures that tied the two together. Jimmy Akin shared ONLY his … O P I N I O N !
One more tidbit from Jimmy Akin's article. He said, regarding Witherington's facts... "Witherington behaved irresponsibly by asserting in popular print that there is such a word. In so doing he misled people of multiple religious persuasions, disturbed the faith of some, confused others, and sparked a round of needless arguments."
You just did exactly what you accused Witherington of doing with the
word "cousin." And we now have it in POPULAR PRINT as well.
Difference is, you TRULY twisted words, to confuse the masses. We have God’s
WORD on that!
article URL= http://www.catholic.com/library/Bad_Aramaic_Made_Easy.asp
Once again… A list of doctrines that are now PROVEN bold
faced lies from Rome, by one simple AUTHENTICATED burial box.
Rome must now scrap the following doctrines…
(For more information as well as additional links to above facts )
I would also like to say that I am glad that there are
saints like you out there seeking the truth and sharing it with others who are
also seeking the truth like me. I have went to your website plenty of times and
read the articles and I'm impressed with the information you have. But as
always and you always say I read the word for myself and pray for
understanding. I will keep you in my prayers and thank you for the information
you emailed me not too long ago regarding prophecy (the two witnesses). God
Nic, awesome piece...even though the whole subject makes me sick!
In Christ's Love,
Nic … up until I began to read your site I never knew who Ellen White was, in fact I never heard the name until coming upon your ministry. Now keep in mind I use to be a Cathlic and I didn't know a whole lot about the other faith's. I have spoken to Jehovah Witness,I spoken to Mormons',Angligan,united. I know a bit about all those faith's and no offence to any of them but from what I know is those faiths seem to be off track in some cases entirely off track!,,,,,,,,but to make a long story short year's ago someone (my Dad) gave me a old book that was a reprint of "The Desire of Ages" and I read the book in it's entire and I fell in LOVE with it! But I didn't know who the author was because the book was missing the first couple of pages. My first favrorite Book is the holy Bible and my second favorite is Desire of Ages. I read it to my kids all the time before they go to bed and me and my wife talk about the book itself. Anyhow the other day I was looking at the book and I did notice that on one of the pages the previous owner of the book had a foot note in the back and they had wrote the name Ellen White, so I did a little research and I found out that it was a "SDA" book and believe it or not I alway's leaned towards that book for comfort and in that book I seen the truth even before I stopped being a R.C. So with that said I finally found out who Ellen White was outside of what I read through your site,,,,,,,,, Anyhow, I will be checking out a SDA church in my neigborhood next Saturday ........To find out that Desire of Ages was written by Ellen White has given me a clear indication on what faith is the right one!......
once again Nic......
May God Bless you and all of your's......
My name is E. C., we
have chatting on paltalk before. My name on pal is 'XXXXX' and sometimes
'XXXXX' . I wanted to ask you for your help on something? Me and my friend D.
have been planning many ways on how we want to help spread the 3 angels
message. One idea we had was to make newsletters that we can send out
throughout the internet every month or so. I asked where can we get some good
info. I told him that your site has some very good quotes and news that might
come in useful for us. We need things about the pope and the SUNday law and I
was think if you can please give us permission to use some quotes from your
site so that we can have some good proof of what we are trying to tell others.
Our mission is the same, to spread the 3 angels message which is what we are
supposed to do. We wont use your words from your site and make it our own, in
fact, we were planning in placing your site at the bottom of our newsletters in
case they might want to visit, of course, if we have permission.
Please write back
a.s.a.p and let me know what you think.
May God Bless you and may he
continure to use you for his survice. Keep up the good work!
Omega Networking Youth for Christ
please advise me how I can obtain a copy of your swish slideshows on the anti
christ??? I am willing to pay for all neccessary charges to obtain that
material for a young peoples ministry and for church viewing too. I am glad
that someone else out there is using alotta design creativity to make the
message come alive...........keep it up and keep pushin out more is all I can
say in Jesus Holy name.
Kindly await yr reply
Yr Brother in Christ R.
I really enjoy reading your site. It has a lot of helpful things on it. Although some of the stuff you have seem, well, eccentric to me (that's my opinion though, you keep preaching that gospel) I really do enjoy reading your articles.
….With all the apostacy and false doctrines being preached
in the Christain world, it occured to me that if people would just read the
bible for themselves, and ask for the Holy Spirit to guide them, they would not
be deceived. We need to stop relying so much on ministers and go with what God
tells us in His holy word. I mean seriously. I'll bet that only about 90% of
christians have actually read the bible all the way through. That's sad. I
mean, the bible is the Christian holy book. God's word to man. For example, if
I came up to you with a book by say, Michael Criton (or some other known
writer) and said, "Hey, this is a great book, it has a facinating story
etc etc." And your like, "Well did you read it?" And I was like,
"No, but I heard it was really good." How can we effectively witness
when we don't even know what the holy scriptures hold? Anyway, I'm sorry for
making this so long. God bless in your ministry. Please, let me know what you
think about what I've said. Oh! One more thing. You should check into accepting
PayPal for donations. Just a thought.
Truth is Truth!
PROCLAIMING THE 3 ANGELS MESSAGE!
Presents of God ministry = Po Box 522 = Fowler, IN 47944 =