← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · jay
Thread ID: 3185 | Posts: 27 | Started: 2002-10-22
2002-10-22 15:42 | User Profile
[url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021022/ap_on_re_us/jesus_inscription_8]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...s_inscription_8[/url]
Jesus Inscription Ripe for Debate Tue Oct 22, 2:20 AM ET By RICHARD N. OSTLING, AP Religion Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Archaeologists are expecting a long-running debate over the reported discovery of a first-century inscription naming Jesus of Nazareth.
AP Photo
Writing in the new issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Andre Lemaire of France's Practical School of Higher Studies says it's "very probable" that an inscription on a burial box for bones refers to Jesus of Nazareth and was written around A.D. 63.
The inscription reads, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus." That would fit the New Testament account that Jesus had a brother named James, and the tradition that James was the son of Joseph, the husband of Jesus' mother Mary.
The sensational claim, if true, could become one of the great archaeological discoveries in modern times.
But there's this major question: Did this box name Jesus of Nazareth or some other Jesus? After all, that name was common in the first century, as were James and Joseph.
Lemaire pins his circumstantial case on the unusual naming of both the father and brother on a burial box, known as an ossuary. There's only one other known example with three names, so he figures something about the brother must have stood out. Jesus would certainly qualify.
However, archaeologist Kyle McCarter of Johns Hopkins University noted at a news conference Monday that the brother might have been named because he conducted the burial or owned the tomb.
Under Christian teaching that would rule out Jesus of Nazareth, who rose from the grave and ascended into heaven decades before James was stoned to death as a Jewish heretic in A.D. 62.
Two poles of reaction quickly emerged Monday.
Rev. Ben Witherington III of Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky, another news conference speaker, sided fully with Lemaire's claim. He's a conservative evangelical who takes the New Testament as reliable history.
But Robert Eisenman of California State University, Long Beach, attacked Lemaire's claim, calling it "too perfect." He figures some "extremely clever" forger must have produced the box. That fits Eisenman's skeptical belief that the New Testament is highly fictional. He even thinks "Jesus' existence is a very shaky thing" ââ¬â something few other scholars would agree with.
Whether Jesus of Nazareth is the person named, Lemaire and the archaeology magazine offered a detailed case against forgery.
The magazine said two Israeli government scientists did a microscopic examination of the artifact's inscription and surface patina. They concluded the box is ancient and there's no evidence of modern tampering.
Lemaire said the handwriting is clearly in the style of the first century A.D. and another specialist, the Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer of Catholic University of America, agrees. Moreover, Lemaire notes that ossuaries were only in use from 20 B.C. to A.D. 70, fixing the time frame.
Another issue: The owner required Lemaire to shield his identity, so the box's location was not revealed. Nor is anything known about its history over the past 19 centuries.
Biblical Archaeology Review editor Hershel Shanks said the owner bought the box about 15 years ago from an Arab antiquities dealer in Jerusalem who said it was unearthed south of the Mount of Olives. The owner never realized its potential importance until Lemaire examined it last spring.
"Something so startling, so earth-shattering, raises questions about its authenticity," Shanks acknowledged.
Lemaire, who was raised Roman Catholic, said his faith did not affect his judgment, since he studies inscriptions only "as a historian ââ¬â that is, comparing them critically with other sources."
The archaeology magazine is negotiating to display the box in Toronto during a major convention of religion scholars in late November, and possibly in the United States.
James is depicted as Jesus' brother in the Gospels and head of the Jerusalem church in the Book of Acts and Paul's epistles.
Until now, the oldest surviving artifact that mentions Jesus is a fragment of chapter 18 in John's Gospel from a manuscript dated around A.D. 125. It was discovered in Egypt in 1920.
**This post is interesting because it says "Lemaire, who was raised Roman Catholic, said his faith did not affect his judgment".
But what about questioning Mr. Eisenman of HIS faith? Did that impair his skepticism? Don't expect the media to pursue that question. - Jay**
2002-10-22 16:48 | User Profile
Jewish hatred of Jesus goes way beyond their belief that Christians broke the first commandment by raising a mere mortal to equality with the God of Abraham. I can understand orthodox Jews considering Christians idolotors based on the old testament teachings. There is a certain logic there that I have no problem with. But I wish Christian zionists would face the reality that to Jews they are no better and no different than the ancient pagans who worshipped Baal.
But jew animus towards believers in the new covenant is just too widespread especially among athiest jews to be explained away as doctrinal.
I know they like to wave the bloody shirt and say it's because they have been victimized by Christians for 1500 years that they despise them so.
But even that doesn't sufficiently explain the anti Christian hatred that, to me, defines jews.
30 years ago, the hot book on Jesus was The Passover Plot (written by a jew of course) that purported to prove that Jesus did not die on the cross but was drugged and only appeared to be dead - thus the resurrection.
The Roman soldier who pierced Jesus with a lance queered the deal and Jesus expired shortly after his so called resurrection - if my memory serves me.
Another in a long string of jewish Christ bashing.
2002-10-22 17:01 | User Profile
I liken the Zionists to parents whose children turned gay or had interracial marriages: they love them anyway. To me, this is irksome, but to them it's not. Some people just put up with crap.
One thing I read suggested that anyone who challenges the Jews ultimately meets a cruel demise. While I'm not big on "prophecy", that one seems to have a lot of truth. Still, I wonder why the media didn't ask this guy what his religion was. If he is Jewish, then his credibility should also be questioned.
-J
2002-10-23 00:29 | User Profile
**But Robert Eisenman of California State University, Long Beach, attacked Lemaire's claim, calling it "too perfect." He figures some "extremely clever" forger must have produced the box. That fits Eisenman's skeptical belief that the New Testament is highly fictional. He even thinks "Jesus' existence is a very shaky thing" ââ¬â something few other scholars would agree with. **
Eisenman ought to be well acquainted with clever forgery. Someone who claims the existance of Jesus is shaky can be portrayed in our papers as a reasonable scholar. But what about those who find holocaust evidence shaky? Christians would not put up with such garbage.
2002-10-23 01:34 | User Profile
**Someone who claims the existance of Jesus is shaky can be portrayed in our papers as a reasonable scholar. **
And not just in the papers. Somehow I suspect his CSULB colleagues won't be confronting him angrily, as they did with MacDonald.
But what about those who find holocaust evidence shaky?
Good question.
2002-10-23 01:47 | User Profile
**But jew animus towards believers in the new covenant is just too widespread especially among athiest jews to be explained away as doctrinal.
I know they like to wave the bloody shirt and say it's because they have been victimized by Christians for 1500 years that they despise them so.
But even that doesn't sufficiently explain the anti Christian hatred that, to me, defines jews. **
We all are familiar with MacDonald's conceptualization of Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy. Christianity can be characterized as a competing group strategy. Evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson discusses this notion in Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society, available here:
[url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/detail/-/books/0226901343/reviews/002-5615727-7550456#02269013437297]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/store...#02269013437297[/url]
From the publisher's synopsis:
**The key, argues Wilson, is to think of society as an organism, an old idea that has received new life based on recent developments in evolutionary biology. If society is an organism, can we then think of morality and religion as biologically and culturally evolved adaptations that enable human groups to function as single units rather than mere collections of individuals? Wilson brings a variety of evidence to bear on this question, from both the biological and social sciences. From Calvinism in sixteenth-century Geneva to Balinese water temples, from hunter-gatherer societies to urban America, Wilson demonstrates how religions have enabled people to achieve by collective action what they never could do alone. He also includes a chapter considering forgiveness from an evolutionary perspective, and concludes by discussing how all social organizations, including science, could benefit by including elements of religion.
Religious believers often compare their communities to single organisms and even to insect colonies. Astoundingly, Wilson shows that they might be literally correct. **
2002-10-23 11:32 | User Profile
Well, gentile converts were much put off by the insistence on circumcision and to a lesser extent the dietary laws. Paul finally prevailed on the jewish Christian sect to eliminate the requirement of circumcision and diet and focused instead on converts embracing the religious and moral elements. When this was decided at one of the first Church councils the break with Judaism was finally made.
The family of Jesus occupied an exalted status in early Church history until Popes began to consolidate power in Rome. There was a struggle for power and the surviving relatives of Christ who were primarily rural folk lost and faded into the mists of time.
Christ himself never to my knowledge intended to minister to gentiles, as Paul eventually led the Church into. Christ on occasion would refuse to heal gentiles and once likened them as to dogs who should eat scraps from the tables of jews.
2002-10-23 17:59 | User Profile
Originally posted by eric von zipper@Oct 23 2002, 05:32 Christ himself never to my knowledge intended to minister to gentiles, as Paul eventually led the Church into.
Go therefore and make disciples of **all nations**, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.
Matthew 28:19, 20 RSV
-J
2002-10-23 18:21 | User Profile
That's very interesting, Jay.
Do you have any similar quotes attributed to Christ BEFORE he was crucified?
I'm not a NT scholar and would appreciate it.
2002-10-23 19:38 | User Profile
Originally posted by eric von zipper@Oct 23 2002, 18:21 Do you have any similar quotes attributed to Christ BEFORE he was crucified?
What difference does it make if Jesus's statement is before or after the crucifiction?
Conversly, did Jesus say anything to indicate that he had no concern for gentiles hearing his message?
Jesus said "whoever" believes in him... "Whoever" is not limited to Jews. Jesus said that he came to save the "world". Jesus said "all men" should honour the Son. Jesus said he has sheep "not of this fold." Apparently a reference to gentiles. Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerualem and the temple and says that afterwords will be the time of the gentiles.
2002-10-23 22:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by jay@Oct 22 2002, 08:42 **This post is interesting because it says "Lemaire, who was raised Roman Catholic, said his faith did not affect his judgment".
But what about questioning Mr. Eisenman of HIS faith? Did that impair his skepticism? Don't expect the media to pursue that question. - Jay**
Apparently only those who firmly have a preconceived disbelief are considered "objective" researchers.
Vicious circle...what happens when unbelievers, through their research, become believers?
Do those scientists and researchers who acquire faith magically "lose" their objectivity as a result?
(Good catch, Jay!)
2002-10-23 22:30 | User Profile
Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Oct 23 2002, 12:38 Jesus said "whoever" believes in him... "Whoever" is not limited to Jews. Jesus said that he came to save the "world". Jesus said "all men" should honour the Son. Jesus said he has sheep "not of this fold." Apparently a reference to gentiles. Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerualem and the temple and says that afterwords will be the time of the gentiles.
Good collection there, Hacker. It seems pretty straightforward...Jesus is for anyone who desires to accept Him, regardless of background or past.
2002-10-24 01:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by Mercuria@Oct 23 2002, 16:17 Vicious circle...what happens when unbelievers, through their research, become believers? Do those scientists and researchers who acquire faith magically "lose" their objectivity as a result?
That's an interesting question you bring up. By the left's own admission, anyone who discusses faith in an open forum is out of line with our founding. The amazing thing is that it never stopped Gore/LIeberman from babbling constantly about it....trying to reverse the Clinton image.
Liberals will use whatever point they want to make and twist it as it suits them.
-J
2002-10-25 14:10 | User Profile
**For those who are interested, here is an interview with Eisenman on NPR, along with Dominic Crossan and Karen Armstrong. **
And all of them terrible historians.
When someone says a line like this:
It is not possible, I think to over-emphasise the importance of James, and it is not possible to over-emphasise the need to remedy the oblivion of James.
You know they have an agenda, as Crossan surely does, and are not interested in the history as much as pushing a point of view.
Robert Eisenman: Who and whatever James was, so was Jesus.
Wrong. Who and whatever James was was James and nothing more. That's all that can be said. To assume James is some photocopy of his (step-)brother is an error of the first order. He may or may not have had similar views. Brothers often disagree, and family members often take different approaches to problems. Sometimes they even travel to opposite poles. How many civil wars have been fought by brothers?
If anything, one can probably trust non-relations who devoted themselves to Jesus as they were more likely to commit themselves to his opinions and wouldn't feel comfortable straying far from them. The same can't be said of a relation, who would find confidence in his shared blood to make a change here and there as it suited him.
**In other words, who would have known Jesus better, those who succeeded him in Palestine, those who went around with him in his whole life, or someone who never saw him before in his entire life and claims to have a rather visionary experience of him? The latter person is Paul. **
But Paul also had the backing of Peter and John, who the evidence--every source cited by Eisenman: Nag Hammadi, Jerome, etc--insist accompanied Jesus during his mission. Indeed, Paul probably even had James' backing as well. Nothing in his letters indicates that James had excommunicated Paul, and everything suggests they were in communication. They may have had different takes on issues like ham sandwiches and circumsicion, but the mission to the Gentiles proceeded apace. It boiled down ultimately to question of how it was to be done: Were they to follow a previous Jewish practice or go by a "circumcision of the heart"?
We are told Jesus doesn't have any brothers and sisters, yet we also read that James is Jesus' brother. Why do so many Christians just phase out that piece of information?
Nobody phases out the information. James has always been known, in psalters, scripture and hagiographies, as the Brother of Jesus. The explanations may be wrong, but no one's put him aside.
'Oh well, we have these documents about Jesus' but we don't, because we just have the Gospels, and the Gospels, as more and more people are discovering, are not very reliable.
"Not very reliable" meaning they don't agree with Mr. Eisenmann's opinion. Historically, they've been shown to be accurate reflections of the time. Archeaology has again and again confirmed their accuracy. People said the Romans didn't nail Crucifees, in 1968 such a victim was unearthed. People had doubts about John's reference to Gabbatha; an inscription was unearthed proving this. People claimed there was no Pilate; again an inscription popped up with his name on it. Then there's Caiaphus' ossuary box, the Gallilean fishing vessel (described accurately) and Luke's account in Acts of Paul's journey, each detail proving that the author had made that journey.
You can doubt the miracles if you want, or ascribe them to madness, but the historicity of their material details are quite good. Certainly better than Nag Hammadi in which Eisenmann and Crossan put so much faith.
Of course Paul's letters are pretty substantial, but outside the Scripture, we don't hear Paul hardly mentioned at all, and Peter, very little. James is one of the most substantial persons. He appears in the Nag Hammaditext as a very important personage. You can find him Eusebius' history of the early church. Eusebius relies on earlier historians like Hegesippus and Clement, and Origen, and Jerome is very big on James.
So why all the complaint about James being ignored? What Eisenmann overlooks here is the fact that all of these figures, save the Nag Hammadists, were Pauline Christians. So, having all that information about James, why did they stick with the orthodox route?
Also, to say there's hardly any information is somewhat misleading. There are plenty of texts, no more dubious than what's at Nag Hammadi, telling of Paul. The Apocryphal accounts, some of them, go back to the second century. Historically, they're rather dubious, but no more so than the sources Eisenmann relies on.
You just find James everywhere.
Including the Scriptures, where one book of the NT is attributed to him. What's your point, Eisenmann?
What these three are doing is imputing to James their own view of his opinions, which they back up by interpreting the texts the way they want, incorporating things they like--vegetarian, exclusive; adding some things--James was a unitarian; and ignoring all the inconvenient items that contradict their point of view, writing them off as later "inventions" of the Church.
Best, P
2002-10-25 14:49 | User Profile
Consider the attitude displayed in the following account of an encounter with a left-over Canaanite (Matthew 15:21-28; RSV):
If you look at the verses in question, the woman is specifically identified as a "Syro-Phonecian." That's an important factor. Along with the Druids, the Syro-Phonecians were the only groups in the Roman Empire who, at that time, practiced human sacrifice. They were seen as being particularly unclean because of this nasty behavior. Thus the "dogs." Yet, when she shows repentance, she is accepted. What the story means is that Jesus' message was ultimately available to everyone, including someone like a Syro-Phonecian.
But if you're going to go by episodic citations alone, then you have to add in the centurion, and Jesus' statement after he granted his request, something to the effect that "many will come from afar and eat at the banquet, while the unfaithful sons of Abraham and Isaac will be cast out."
Jesus did limit himself to the Jews, but he didn't plan on staying around too long (if you accept the premises of the story). Even so, to say he had no future intimations of going beyond those limits are wrong. I pointed out the centurion, we also have the cited cases of Samaritans and Jesus met with Greeks while in Jerusalem according to John.
Also, Jesus was consciously following the prophecies of Isaiah. If you follow those through, and he certainly knew them, towards the end of the book they talk about offering salvation to the whole world in rather egalitarian terms.
**Paul's historical revisionism aside, Jesus' plan, his message, and his prophecy are reissued in the Revelation to John (RSV): **
You know, with everything that keeps getting dumped on Paul, he has got to be one of the all time geniuses of history. He's constantly on the go-- being tossed into jail, preaching, writing letters and baptizing souls--yet he also has the time to fabricate an entirely new and revolutionary theology that conquers the Western World and suppress his rivals in Jerusalem, Anatolia, Alexandria and Rome, while coopting two of Jesus' closest associates (Peter and John), and on top of all this, he gives all the credit to some other guy.
This story requires far more faith than the Gospel version ever did.
**As to the contents of Matthew 28:19, this verse is already widely acknowledged to be textually corrupted, most likely an interpolation from the post Trinitarian period. **
The language is Matthean and the trinitarian formulation is cited in Clement's Letter to the Corinthians, dated AD 96, so if it was put into Matthew, it was put in very shortly after it was written. It appears in every early manuscript we have, including the Sinaticus. It follows from Matthew's high Christology; from the conception narrative with the Holy Spirit, in the middle where he goes around amending laws in the Torah, and to the end where he sets up a new covenant.
(By the way, the Arians accepted the trinitarian formulation. They didn't see Jesus as being fully divine, but neither did they see him as being merely human. He was just one rank below God in their take.)
What should be noted, though, is that even if the "Father, Son & Holy Spirit" were interpolated into the text, the commision itself was not. The disciples were still ordered out unto all the other nations of the world.
Best, P
2002-10-25 17:26 | User Profile
P: Outstanding responses. I have nothing to add, other than to say your responses were very detailed.
I'm not sure if miracles exist or ever really did occur, but I do accept the Gospel inasmuch, as you claim, the contrary doesn't look much more believable.
-J
2002-10-25 19:17 | User Profile
Originally posted by jay@Oct 25 2002, 17:26 **P: Outstanding responses. I have nothing to add, other than to say your responses were very detailed.
I'm not sure if miracles exist or ever really did occur, but I do accept the Gospel inasmuch, as you claim, the contrary doesn't look much more believable.
-J**
-J,
Agreed. My faith in the supernatural is pretty much gone (I'm sorry to say), but that doesn't mean one needs to swallow silly counter-theories being offered.
Best, P
2002-10-26 05:39 | User Profile
I know next to nothing about the history of Christianity and I don't want to argue about any particular fact, but I would like to express my opinion about Jesus. Yes the dogs under the table bit is troubling, but I think it fair to say that in many ways Jesus was a profoundly wonderful man. The Lord's prayer for instance is a marvelous prayer which could be adapted to many religions (by making appropriate substutions). :)
I just posted this and then wanted to delete it because its off topic. I just just felt that some of the exressed attitudes were unnecessarily saturnine.
2002-10-28 09:39 | User Profile
Originally posted by Polichinello@Oct 25 2002, 14:49 > Consider the attitude displayed in the following account of an encounter with a left-over Canaanite (Matthew 15:21-28; RSV):**
If you look at the verses in question, the woman is specifically identified as a "Syro-Phonecian." That's an important factor. Along with the Druids, the Syro-Phonecians were the only groups in the Roman Empire who, at that time, practiced human sacrifice. They were seen as being particularly unclean because of this nasty behavior. Thus the "dogs." Yet, when she shows repentance, she is accepted. What the story means is that Jesus' message was ultimately available to everyone, including someone like a Syro-Phonecian.
But if you're going to go by episodic citations alone, then you have to add in the centurion, and Jesus' statement after he granted his request, something to the effect that "many will come from afar and eat at the banquet, while the unfaithful sons of Abraham and Isaac will be cast out."
Jesus did limit himself to the Jews, but he didn't plan on staying around too long (if you accept the premises of the story). Even so, to say he had no future intimations of going beyond those limits are wrong. I pointed out the centurion, we also have the cited cases of Samaritans and Jesus met with Greeks while in Jerusalem according to John.
Also, Jesus was consciously following the prophecies of Isaiah. If you follow those through, and he certainly knew them, towards the end of the book they talk about offering salvation to the whole world in rather egalitarian terms.
**Paul's historical revisionism aside, Jesus' plan, his message, and his prophecy are reissued in the Revelation to John (RSV): **
You know, with everything that keeps getting dumped on Paul, he has got to be one of the all time geniuses of history. He's constantly on the go-- being tossed into jail, preaching, writing letters and baptizing souls--yet he also has the time to fabricate an entirely new and revolutionary theology that conquers the Western World and suppress his rivals in Jerusalem, Anatolia, Alexandria and Rome, while coopting two of Jesus' closest associates (Peter and John), and on top of all this, he gives all the credit to some other guy.
This story requires far more faith than the Gospel version ever did.
**As to the contents of Matthew 28:19, this verse is already widely acknowledged to be textually corrupted, most likely an interpolation from the post Trinitarian period. **
The language is Matthean and the trinitarian formulation is cited in Clement's Letter to the Corinthians, dated AD 96, so if it was put into Matthew, it was put in very shortly after it was written. It appears in every early manuscript we have, including the Sinaticus. It follows from Matthew's high Christology; from the conception narrative with the Holy Spirit, in the middle where he goes around amending laws in the Torah, and to the end where he sets up a new covenant.
(By the way, the Arians accepted the trinitarian formulation. They didn't see Jesus as being fully divine, but neither did they see him as being merely human. He was just one rank below God in their take.)
What should be noted, though, is that even if the "Father, Son & Holy Spirit" were interpolated into the text, the commision itself was not. The disciples were still ordered out unto all the other nations of the world.
Best, P**
You make an interesting point.
I always took the story of the Caananite woman as a sort of test Jesus laid for his Apostles. His expression of these ugly anti-gentile sentiments are for rhetorical purposes only.
Jesus knew the ugly xenophobia rampant among his enemies, the Pharisees, and He rejected that (else, how can one understand the parable of the Good Samaritan? or his over-the-moon praise for the Roman Centurion?).
Thus, I always took His sangfroid about gentiles being "dogs" as a sort of "eat-your-own-words" condemnation of the opinions held by some of his own followers. In other words, Jesus let the Apostles, who were probably infected by the extreme hatred for gentiles of his day, hoist themselves on that particular petard. His rhetorically adopting the position of his enemies forced His Apostles to become proponents of the opposite position - He let their moved hearts defeat the poisoned arguments of the Pharisees by adopting them Himself as a strawman.
Talk about selective readings of the Scriptures. Jesus said that the mission of God's Salvation will be taken from the Jews and given to another nation, and his parable of the Good Samaritan, his praise of the Roman Centurion, and the Gospels' sympathetic treatment of Pilate, Paul's celebrated mission to the gentiles (including travels with St. Luke, author of Acts), and Peter's mission to the Romans all attest to His belief - and that of his closes followers - in the spiritual equality of the gentiles and the supersession of His Church (made mostly of gentiles) to the mission of Salvation.
Walter
2002-10-28 18:12 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Oct 28 2002, 04:39 **Talk about selective readings of the Scriptures. Jesus said that the mission of God's Salvation will be taken from the Jews and given to another nation, and his parable of the Good Samaritan, his praise of the Roman Centurion, and the Gospels' sympathetic treatment of Pilate, Paul's celebrated mission to the gentiles (including travels with St. Luke, author of Acts), and Peter's mission to the Romans all attest to His belief - and that of his closes followers - in the spiritual equality of the gentiles and the supersession of His Church (made mostly of gentiles) to the mission of Salvation.
Walter**
That about sums it up for me. Well said, Walter.
2002-10-28 21:01 | User Profile
*Walter Yannis wrote:* Talk about selective readings of the Scriptures. Jesus said that the mission of God's Salvation will be taken from the Jews and given to another nation, and his parable of the Good Samaritan, his praise of the Roman Centurion, and the Gospels' sympathetic treatment of Pilate, Paul's celebrated mission to the gentiles (including travels with St. Luke, author of Acts), and Peter's mission to the Romans all attest to His belief - and that of his closes followers - in the spiritual equality of the gentiles and the supersession of His Church (made mostly of gentiles) to the mission of Salvation.
What is all this stuff about spiritual equality? What is it supposed to mean? IMO if two things were equal, they would be the same thing. I think that Jesus may have been a wise man but a lot about early Christianity is troubling to me. What exactly was the necessity for Christianity? Why would those living at the time regard the early church as anything other than an attempt by Jews to Judaify gentiles? If a universal religion was necessary for some reason, then why was Christianity the one chosen? (It wasn't the only possible choice).
2002-10-29 02:07 | User Profile
The story of the Caananite woman comes immediately after Jesus has denounced the Pharisees. He and his disciples leave Israel for the first time. Jesus who has come for Israel has been rejected by the Jews. The first time the Caananite woman addresses him as the 'Son of David.' It is to this that Jesus replies that he is sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The woman persists, she worships him and calls him 'Lord.' Then Jesus heals her daughter.
2002-10-29 13:04 | User Profile
Originally posted by amundsen@Oct 29 2002, 02:07 The story of the Caananite woman comes immediately after Jesus has denounced the Pharisees. He and his disciples leave Israel for the first time. Jesus who has come for Israel has been rejected by the Jews. The first time the Caananite woman addresses him as the 'Son of David.' It is to this that Jesus replies that he is sent for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The woman persists, she worships him and calls him 'Lord.' Then Jesus heals her daughter.
Exactly. Jesus sent out His Apostles to the Jews first as a sort of last-chance offer to renew the Old Covenant. They rejected Him and His freedom and embraced the tribal solipcism of the Pharisees (a fact He wept over).
Jewish rejection of Christ's mission released God from His duties under His contract with Abraham, and freed Him to cut a New Covenant with us gentiles.
Christ UN-CHOSE the Jews precisely for their failure to bear fruit. He cursed and killed the fig tree - symbol of Israel - for being barren. When He died, the curtain in the sancturary was rent asunder. The gospels shout that God could raise up decendants to Abraham from stones - not exactly a ringing endorsement of permanent Jewish exceptionalism. The list could go on.
Here's the clincher: MT 21 42-45:
"Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them."
I ask all Judeo-Christians what the Gospel of Matthew could have said to convince them that the traditional Christian understanding of supersessionism is the correct one.
The New Covenant is Yaweh's new deal with any who will accept Christ, Jew and Gentile alike. The old deal with Israel is long over. His Church has replaced the mission of the Jews, who remain only as a continuing curse (Matthew 27:25).
Walter
2002-10-29 13:11 | User Profile
Originally posted by Sporon@Oct 28 2002, 21:01 > Walter Yannis wrote: Talk about selective readings of the Scriptures. Jesus said that the mission of God's Salvation will be taken from the Jews and given to another nation, and his parable of the Good Samaritan, his praise of the Roman Centurion, and the Gospels' sympathetic treatment of Pilate, Paul's celebrated mission to the gentiles (including travels with St. Luke, author of Acts), and Peter's mission to the Romans all attest to His belief - and that of his closes followers - in the spiritual equality of the gentiles and the supersession of His Church (made mostly of gentiles) to the mission of Salvation.**
What is all this stuff about spiritual equality? What is it supposed to mean? IMO if two things were equal, they would be the same thing. I think that Jesus may have been a wise man but a lot about early Christianity is troubling to me. What exactly was the necessity for Christianity? Why would those living at the time regard the early church as anything other than an attempt by Jews to Judaify gentiles? If a universal religion was necessary for some reason, then why was Christianity the one chosen? (It wasn't the only possible choice).**
Well, modern Orthodox Jews believe that Jewish souls are made of the un-created divine substance, are thus are truly divine. They believe that the souls of gentiles are wholly-created, and thus are in substance like unto the animals.
I don't know, actually, whether that Cabbalistic notion was accepted by the Pharisees of Jesus' day, but it seems clear that the Pharisees saw Jews (especially Pharisees) as being superior by nature to other men.
Christ's message was one of spiritual equality for all human beings.
Of course, the Church had to think long and hard about whether Africans were sufficiently close to whites to be deemed human, but it decided in favour of African humanity and I accept that (reluctantly).
As Scheweitzer said, the Negro is my brother, but he is my little brother.
Amen.
Walter
2002-10-29 23:03 | User Profile
Originally posted by Walter Yannis@Oct 29 2002, 07:11 **Well, modern Orthodox Jews believe that Jewish souls are made of the un-created divine substance, are thus are truly divine. They believe that the souls of gentiles are wholly-created, and thus are in substance like unto the animals.
I don't know, actually, whether that Cabbalistic notion was accepted by the Pharisees of Jesus' day, but it seems clear that the Pharisees saw Jews (especially Pharisees) as being superior by nature to other men.
Christ's message was one of spiritual equality for all human beings.
Of course, the Church had to think long and hard about whether Africans were sufficiently close to whites to be deemed human, but it decided in favour of African humanity and I accept that (reluctantly).
As Scheweitzer said, the Negro is my brother, but he is my little brother.
Amen.
Walter**
What exactly do you mean when you claim that humans have a different type of soul from that of animals? What exactly do you mean by "the spiritual equality of all human beings"?
This idea that humans are not animals has been used repeatedly by leftists to deny that the laws of nature apply to humanity. Recently Darwinism was denounced by Christians on a southern USA schoolboard as being racist, and so it is. Reality is not consonant with leftist fantasies.
2002-11-02 12:55 | User Profile
Yahoo News
Ancient burial box that may be oldest link to Jesus seriously damaged on the way to Canada Fri Nov 1, 7:02 PM ET By MERITA D. ILO, Associated Press Writer
TORONTO - A limestone burial box that may be the oldest archaeological link to Jesus was badly damaged in transit from Israel to Canada, Royal Ontario Museum officials said Friday.
Dan Rahimi, the museum's director of collections management, said in a telephone interview the box ââ¬â called an ossuary ââ¬â had wide cracks but remained whole.
"The box was badly damaged, but still intact. It has not broken," Rahimi said. "It's very serious damage, but not unusual for a limestone box of this age."
He said impact or vibration during the trip from Israel probably widened old cracks and caused new ones. Some of the cracks were a millimeter (0.039 inches) wide, enough to "slip a dime in," Rahimi said.
The limestone box, which is scheduled to go on display Nov. 16, is inscribed in Aramaic with the words "Ya'akov (James), son of Yosef (Joseph), brother of Yeshua (Jesus)."
If, as some scholars maintain, the box and the inscription are authentic, it would be the first physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus.
Israel granted a four-month export license for the ancient burial box, which belongs to a private Israeli collector.
Museum officials said the owner was responsible for the object's transportation to Canada and insurance. Rahimi said the company that handled the packing and shipping was reputable, adding that antiquities such as limestone boxes always presented a risk during transport.
The museum offered two proposals for treating the damage, and the owner had yet to respond, according to Rahimi.
"Both proposals involve injecting adhesive into the cracks with pigment that will fill in parts of the cracks and consolidate the piece," he said.
The box's inscription would fit a New Testament account that Jesus had a brother, James, and the tradition that James was the son of Joseph, husband of Jesus' mother, Mary.
However, the names James, Joseph and Jesus were common in the first century, and it is possible the inscription refers to someone other than Jesus of Nazareth.
The existence of the ossuary was announced last month in the United States by the Biblical Archaeology Review.
The magazine said two scientists from Israel's Geological Survey also examined the ossuary and determined it was from the first century and the inscription had not been tampered with.
Edward Keall, the Royal Ontario Museum's director of Near Eastern and Asian civilizations, called the box "a tangible artifact from a period rather pivotal in the history of our civilizations."
He said that although it almost certainly dates from the time of Jesus, it may never be definitively established whether the ossuary once contained the bones of James, Bishop of Jerusalem and believed by some to be the brother of Jesus.
"It's something very contentious," said Keall. "As I like to say, it won't stand up in a court of law. So in the end, it's a spiritual thing, an act of faith."
2002-11-18 17:13 | User Profile
I came across this related piece in the POLINCO forum, where it was provided by Nestorius whom, I believe, was a member of the now defunct SFF.
[url=http://www.graal.co.uk/ossuary.html]http://www.graal.co.uk/ossuary.html[/url]
-Z-