NOTE: Actual size of the ossuray is 20 inches by 11 inches wide
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
UPDATES: 11-14-13 Not too
long ago, something happened in the global arena that put the Vatican once
again in the spotlight as a lying entity. Of course I am speaking of the
Ossuary, or burial box of James the brother of Jesus Christ. When the story
first broke, I purposely remained silent on the issue because I wanted to see
what the Vatican would do about it. The only comment they made to the press at
first was a feeble attempt to blow off the discovery. Anyone that has
been watching the Vatican long enough 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. They later solicited the help
of a questionable source so as to help them appear vindicated. We will get into
that a bit later. 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 strange testimonial. 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 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 alludes 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. Looking
back, one 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. This Roman Catholic
doctrine stipulates that Mary was a virgin till death, and Jesus never had any
siblings. 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 in writing. 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. To do otherwise would be disasterous! 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. Families in the poorest nations have access
to the Internet in libraries or Internet cafés the world over. The Vatican’s
only demonically "wise" course at that time is 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, 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 when Rome admitted to killing over 500 million
souls. Rome can easily afford to admit the sins of the flesh because it affords
them the natural ability to play "the priest, cardinal, bishop, or pope 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. It is also a very powerful tool in the art of
this 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 are the ones that killed millions. It's a win win situation
for Rome to admit to the mass murders. 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 He did, that would mean a BEVY of doctrinal
issues would have to be scrapped by the Roman Church. 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. Some women
actually murder their children to avoid getting stretch marks! Can you imagine
how cold a heart must wax to do such a thing? The massive number of abortions
alone prove the prophetic statement of Matthew 24:12 an absolute confirmed
fulfillment! Mary in her day would never seek a barren womb like many women
today. PLUS, would it not be considered sin on Mary's part to DENY
Joseph's carnal desires towards his wife, in that pre-birth control pill era?
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, …” Yes, it appears Rome knows
it will have to admit a LOT MORE than just murdering 500 million Christians as
they did on March 12, 2000. If they admit the Ossuary of James is authentic,
they will have to give up quite 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... They will have to admit
they lied about…
(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? 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"
Burial box
'held the bones of Jesus's brother' Tests on a 2,000-year-old stone box support claims
that it once held the bones of James, said to have been the brother of Jesus
and an important early Christian leader, scientists have concluded. The results of the experiments, which are disclosed
in a television documentary, back the suggestion that the "bone box",
or ossuary, may be the oldest archaeological link with Christ. Last year, the tomb ossuary, inscribed with the words
"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus", came to light in Israel,
prompting speculation over whether it was genuine or a fake and whether it
referred to Jesus of Nazareth. Since then, the box has been subjected to tests which
are consistent with it coming from the right place and the right time, said Dr
Ed Keall, a curator at the Royal Ontario Museum. "It is a genuine box with
a genuine inscription, dating from first century AD, likely from the Silouan
Valley, Jerusalem," he said. He argued that it was rare for the inscription to
refer to a brother - they usually mentioned the father - although he agreed
that this fell short of proof that it contained the bones of James. The findings will revive interest in James, whose
major role in early Christianity has been eclipsed by St Peter and St Paul. He
is described in two of the Gospels as the brother of Jesus, but in some
traditions he is thought of as merely a cousin. Scholars believe that he became the leader of the
early Christian movement in Jerusalem following Jesus's crucifixion, but he may
have regarded himself as a member of a sect of Judaism rather than of a new
religion. Fr Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, the uncle of the Archbishop of Westminster
and leading Biblical authority, said: "James was a Jew who became a
follower of Jesus and remained true to his Jewish faith. "He was the leader of the Mother Church, the
Church of Jerusalem, during its adolescent years, its whole formative
period." The limestone burial box measures 20in by 22in by
10in and carries a worn pattern of six pointed stars on one side. On the other
is an inscription with distinctive letters: "Ya'akov, bar Yosef, akhui di
Yeshua" - "James [Ya'akov], son of Joseph [Yosef], brother of Jesus
[Yeshua]." The words are in Aramaic, the language spoken by Christ, and
close to ancient Hebrew. The palaeographers date the style of lettering to
around 50 AD. This timing is just right for a memorial to James who, according
to the "Jewish Antiquities" of Josephus, was stoned to death for his
beliefs in AD 62. In the journal Biblical Archaeology Review, Prof
Andre Lemaire of the Sorbonne, Paris, concluded that it could be the earliest
artefact relating to Jesus. Now scientists have backed his contention with
tests. A team at the Geological Survey of Israel extracted
the patina, a cream-coloured film adhering to the stone, and found it matched
that inside one of the letters after a study with electron microscopy,
as would be expected with the genuine item. The Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto subjected the inscription
to a tougher test, using long-wave ultraviolet light which should highlight
attempts to fake it. Again, it looked genuine, said Dr Keall. Prof Camil (fooks) Fuchs, of Tel Aviv University,
analysed the probability that the James ossuary refers to the Jesus of the New
Testament, after critics said James, Jesus and Joseph were common names in
first century Palestine. He concluded that the inscription on the ossuary
probably referred to James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus of Nazareth.
"Also, I have to point out that out of the thousands of ossuaries that
have been found, there is only one - other than the James ossuary - that
mentions not just the deceased, and his father, but the brother," said
Prof (fooks) Fuchs. Because the ossuary did not come from a controlled
excavation, where archaeologists plot every detail and possible clue to a
discovery's context, scholars said they despaired of ever knowing the
inscription's meaning beyond doubt. Another issue is how many times the ossuary has been
used. There is no way to tell that the bone fragments it contains are of St
James or of a later lodger. The present owner, Oded Golan of Tel Aviv, bought the
box from a Jerusalem antiques dealer in the 1970s. Mr Golan said he never
suspected the ossuary could be linked to Christ. Usually only the father of the deceased would be mentioned
on a ossuary. The reason Jesus’ name was added to the ossuary was because of
His fame. ROMAN CATHOLIC "EXPECTED" RESPONSE... (Found on "Catholic Answers" website) Notice how Jimmy Akin does exactly as
expected. As usual the Roman Church seeks to cloud the issue regarding the word
"brother" or "brethren." On my “Jesus had Siblings?” page
in the RCC Doctrines section of the website I share ample proof regarding the
so called perpetual virginity of Mary, as well as the smoking gun passage in
Matthew 13:55,56 that proves Rome lied. (my brief comments are in BLUE below) Bad Aramaic Made Easy
|
|
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. --"In the Name of
the Brother," USA Weekend, April 13, 2003 |
|
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. (A GREE JUS) (Conspicuously bad or offensive) 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. The great
majority of Christians acknowledges this. Only the Protestant community
dissents. The 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 either. Only in Catholicism do you see
this. On my Mary Worship page in the RCC Exposed
section of the website you can see why they teach this. 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. Jimmy Akin uses the word "usually" to confirm his opinion? Fact is, I "usually" don't believe anyone that has no confidence in their own message. Do you? Think about it. He seeks to convince us by his lack of factual evidence. That “usually” means they have no evidence, or confidence in what they speak. I take that back, it ALWAYS means they have no evidence or confidence. 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." No solid,
or researchable proof. Just "opinions" of Jimmy Akin are used here.
Nowhere does the Word or even the Ossuary intimate that any of these opinions
apply. 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. Again, a
lack of confidence in his own theory is intimated when words like, “unlikely”
come into play. Still, here Jimmy assumes we as Protesting Christians 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 in a desperate manner. One would think that if Jimmy Akin
had Biblical proof of that statement he would use it. As is always the case,
they merely use assumptions to preach as if they have concrete evidence. I ask Jimmy
Akin... Show me one verse that says Mary was a virgin for life. 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. I know Jimmy cannot do this, however a babe in Christ would have no
trouble finding the verses that do prove Mary was not a virgin for life,
Joseph did consummate that marriage, and Mary did not refuse her husband’s
carnal desires. It is possible they were adoptive
brothers, but there does not seem to be any evidence for this in the biblical
or patristic record. More plausibly, they were step-brothers: children
of Joseph who were Jesus' brothers by marriage. Plausibly?
“Possible? Jimmy Akin is still "suggesting" an opinion here,
nothing more nothing less. I have yet to see any Scriptural or historic proof
denying that which I laid out previously. Nor do I see Jimmy sharing any
Biblical verses proving his perpetual virgin theory. Friends... NEVER accept
an "opinion" when there are FACTS laid out for inspection. This is
an unwise act for anyone to embrace. Would you walk into a burning building
that you see totally engulfed in flame after a friend suggests it appears to
them to be safe? The facts never lie. This is why Jimmy and Rome itself avoids them
repeatedly. 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. This is all
Catholic documentation (notice the LATIN title) and therefore 100%
untrustworthy. Rome lied in the past, and Rome lies today. In fact, Rome
admitted they lied for all its history in the pope’s Mea Culpa of March 2000.
So, should we trust Roman documentation that Jimmy himself admits is
uninspired? This is another tactic of Rome. If they cannot find proof in the
Bible to back their doctrines, they will look for it in MAN’S WORD. According to Scripture that is an
unwise act. Babylon is the house of Antichrist. For proof, The step-brother
hypothesis was the most common until St. Jerome (the turn of the fifth
century), who popularized the idea that the brethren were cousins. 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. Jimmy admits here that for 5 CENTURIES most people did not agree with his church's theory UNTIL it was "popularized." And it was a Hypothesis that was popularized. In other words, and educated GUESS was accepted as proof, and now we are expected to believe this to be the final say? Still, just because an idea is "popular" it doesn't make it right. Truth is, sex, drugs, and rock and roll are "popular." 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. Again, Jimmy is displaying no confidence at all 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. Why should we believe them when they themselves don’t believe what they say themselves? Plus, if in fact James was a cousin as Rome proclaims, and since both Aramaic and Greek do in fact have a word for cousin, I ask why wasn’t it used if in fact James was only a cousin? The bible uses the word cousin as well as the word BROTHER... 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." 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." 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). In the
above paragraph we see Jimmy Akin using the following words...
None of which are strong words of confidence by any stretch of the imagination. ALL these words are used in the context of someone who is UNSURE of what he is surmising 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. In fact, there was no
word for "cousin" in Aramaic. Here we see
Jimmy speaking untruthfully. Professor Witherinton who was quoted in "USA
Today" stated there is in fact an Aramaic word for cousin. If one wanted to refer to
the cousin relationship, one has to use a circumlocution such as “the son of
his uncle” (brona d-`ammeh). 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.” Again, here
he is expecting his readers to believe him on mere "opinion" or
"circumstantial evidence." Not one shred of provable evidence
either Scriptural or historic has yet to have been used to confidently
portray his message as being authentic. Not one. In my book, this is the
message of a liar who seeks to hide something. Please forgive the blunt manner
of which I speak. But when lie sof this magnitude
are shared, one needs to address them accordingly. 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). |
|
Which James? 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. |
Here Jimmy Akin is trying to "confuse" the issue further so as to prevent truth from cutting the heart. 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 is actually being done here. He may not be able to see what he is doing. If he did, he may choose not to do it.
|
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." This is a common technique of Rome. They 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 so as to confuse the issue. This is actually how the method called "spin-doctoring" was invented. Seeing how they felt they were so efficient in spinning lies around truth so as to push Rome forward politically, they decided they could do the same thing with anything they needed to hide in the media of today. 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. Case in point. Study up on how Satan has always used
"what God said" in a way to make it appear He is saying something else.
He has done this since the Garden of Eden. So, 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? What’s good for the goose is good for the
gander I always say. So Jimmy, I ask, where is your LITERAL proof? 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.) Did you
catch that? Jimmy Akin is now using the exact same method Bill Clinton used
to define sex so as to get away with an evil act. He takes an obvious fact
and twists it to generate some question in the mid of those listening to him. No matter how vague the twist may
be, it’s effective for those that have no faith. 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. Truth is folks, Jimmy is trying to do the exact same thing with the word "cousin" here. Yet we are expected to believe him over documented facts? A man that uses words like "maybe, perhaps, could be, and possibly" to proclaim his message? We have God's Word to rely on. I say that's enough. 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. Again, Jimmy
Akin is using "assumptions" to preach this error. More lack of
confidence from Jimmy Akin leads to one thing, and one thing only. A lack of
confidence in those that hear him and his message. I praise the Lord for His
Word and the factual evidence He supplies for His followers. It’s amazing how
this God of ours never leaves us without evidence of His truth as does Rome
leave its preachers fumbling about in the dark looking for ways to explain
their doctrines. What I
truly find amazing is how Jimmy thinks he can compare a flippant statement
with an etched epilog. How can anyone assume calling a step-brother “brother”
in a casual manner as most people do is comparable to etching “brother”
instead of “step-brother” on a bone box? Like today’s tombstones, one doesn’t
find it a good idea to be inaccurate when etching in stone the final, and
permanent last statement of a person’s life and or title. Epilogs are not
"usually" fiction. Still, Jimmy uses
this method to try and pull the onus off the fact that he has yet to share
one solitary speck of viable evidence to support his vaporous theories. 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: Fact is, 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. 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
here. I believe I made that crystal clear by simply using common sense. Plus,
nowhere does Jimmy Akin prove his side of the story 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. I will
share 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." Jimmy...
You just did exactly what you accused Witherington of doing with the
word "cousin." And we now have it in POPULAR PRINT as well. |
