13563Re: [XTalk] Fwd: [ANE] James ossuary reportedly determined "fake"
- Jul 2, 2003--- Michael Turton wrote:
> Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Jack. Just a coupleHey, hey, hey - don't bring me into it. I wrote one, maybe two,
> of clarifications. Initially I had no "animus," the
> Ossuary was an interesting fake for me until you,
> Grondin and others on several forums began posting
> gleeful posts using it to bash non-mainstream views.
> Then I got motivated to follow it closely. So I'd like
> to thank you and Mike for that; I learned quite a bit
> and met some very interesting people along the way.
notes to XTalk when the thing was first announced and that was it. I
haven't been following it with any avidity, don't care much about
the end-result one way or the other, didn't even go to the Toronto
presentation - though I was at the annual meeting. I do find the
political interaction of the scientists fascinating, as well the
public exposure of shoddy and hasty scientific "examinations".
Mostly, though, I'm interested in the historical Jacob and the setup
of the Jerusalem church, which is why I questioned you about your
reasons for believing that Jacob wasn't the brother of Jesus. If
it's just because of the Epistle of James not sounding at all like
what a brother would write - well, that baffles me, too, if the
letter is authentic. But Paul called him "the brother of the Lord",
and Paul doesn't strike me as somebody who would've repeated a claim
that would enhance the status of anyone above him in the hierarchy
if he had any question about the truth of that claim. To say nothing
of the possible embarassment for Matt and Luke of having to admit
siblings for a virgin's child?
Mt. Clemens, MI
- << Previous post in topic