Ossuary Inscription is a Fake!

The bone-box is original; the first inscription, which is in Aramaic, "Jacob son of Joseph," is authentic. The second half of the inscription, "brother of Jesus," is a poorly executed fake and a later addition. This report has already been distributed on at least two scholarly lists.

http://www.aish.com/societyWork/sciencenature/The_James_Ossuary_Inscription.asp

Talking About the Ossuary of James

<NERC> so if there is no mention of james in the major parts with Joseph, Mary , and Jesus then how could he just appear as Jesus brother later on?
<NERC> look at how the African-Americans us the word "brother"
<velleity> yes
<velleity> strange too how prots are always greeting one another "greetings brother" etc
<NERC> if we take it as the protestants us it; then there is a lot of inbreeding going on in the African-American ethinic group
<velleity> and they are the ones saying Jesus had biological brothers..beats me
<velleity> untennable
<NERC> so am i to say that every African-American is sibling?
<NERC> scott, NOTE the commints on "brother" above
<BigScott> Brother NERC... that is not something reserved to African Americans
BigScott hums Neil Diamond's "Brother Love's Travelling Salvation Show...."
<NERC> so if you look at it Jesus' name could be Jehoshua(i.e. Joshua)
<BigScott> NERC, agreed... but like I said, that "bone box" has not been proven to be authenitic
<BigScott> it was removed from where it was found and no one knows exactly what its origin is
<BigScott> hence there is no way to prove it one way or another
<NERC> how can james be the son of zebedee, son of joseph, son of alphaeus
<NERC> in my concordance page 119, #2385(greek dictionary) james son of zebedee 21x, james son of alphaeus 16x, james half-brother of Jesus 1x.
<NERC> were in the Bible does it say word for word "James the half-brother of Jesus"?
<NERC> but until it is proven that the ossuary is either real or fake, we can't add or subtract from it

Conclusion/Summary - There is no proof the ossuary that was found is authentic. There have been allegations the words, "Brother of Jesus" were a later addition to the piece as well. "I'm an expert on ancient scripts and I'm here to report that the "James ossuary" was genuine, but the second part of its inscription is a fraud." http://www.jewsweek.com/myturn/320.htm

I'd have to agree with NERC, we really can't say anything too negative or positive about it until it has been judged to be authentic or fake - but we can look at the evidence that has been floating around and decide whether or not we're going to give it much credit or not.

Firestorm Against Sungenis is Subsiding

Dr. Robert Sungenis

 

It appears that the firestorm against Sungenis is subsiding a bit, and his detractors are slipping into oblivion, and so will my responses in this matter also subside. I do not wish to direct any undo attention to those more interested in attacking a person's motives than his actual statements. I still encourage anyone to confront Sungenis' arguments and I will even offer space on this blog and perhaps even my website for any serious and respectful challenges to what Sungenis has said. I will also continue to keep links to some of the outstanding works that Sungenis has written and continue to recommend his "Not By..." series of books. 

Recently Sungenis and a team of theologians went to Rome to debate evolution, I am extremely interested in the results of that debate. 

Scott<<<

ACTS Homepage

Well, John Betts (of the boycott CAI blog) wrote me back and asks:

Scott,

I read your revised response, but am puzzled as to what you are asking for. What exactly are you asking I and other "disprove"? There is quite a laundry list of weird claims from Sungenis' articles. Are you asking us to "disprove" that FDR's alleged Jewish heritage did NOT influence him to supposedly allow Pearl Harbor? That the Vatican is NOT in cahoots with the UN & USA to give the Temple Mount to the Jews? That the Holocaust-denying Journal for Historical Review is NOT a discredible rag? Etc.? Have you read his "expose" on Bill Cork, wherein he confirms many of the anti-Semitic and extremist nonsense he first disseminated? Read it for yourself: http://catholicintl.com/epologetics/uncorking.html. What is it you wish from us?

Talk about the conspiracy theories. Talk about the FDR/Pearl Harbor controversy - as MANY have done, and even movies have been made (though not specifically pointing to a Jewish heritage for the reason). Talk about FACTS and not about MOTIVES and I have no argument against you. Is there no substance to the theory about FDR's roots? If not, say so - make your points via valid argumentation and stop attacking Robert's person (which is what you're doing when you attack his motives).

Bill Cork refuses to talk about the actual issues and is satisfied to continue attacking motives (Robert personally). I hope you are open to actually discuss the issues - and if they are so silly, show us how they are silly and/or untenable.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<
ACTS Homepage

Hey Folks! There's a Baby in that Bathwater! Recently Robert Sungenis posted a response to a document from a committee from the USCCB called Reflections on Covenant and Mission (RCM). Well, had his response stopped there we probably wouldn't be visiting this page today. Since you are reading this page now, you might be aware that he also cited some information from the Talmud and other sources that has created quite a stir. My purpose in writing this article is not to "defend" Robert, rather to question some of the other responses to Robert's article (which at the time of me writing this has been pulled entirely from CAI's website). The information Robert posted was rather critical of Jews, their Talmud and others of Jewish ancestry. The biggest problem was due to the fact that some of the information cited came from anti-semitic sources, one even being a piece of 1940's Nazi propaganda. Robert has since apologized for his oversight and has pulled the article to be revised. Robert and his webmaster, Jacob Michael, have not apologized for the content and have claimed the content was true. Some have stated that this then is no apology at all and are demanding that he apologize for allowing the information to be posted, period. This has degenerated the discussion from "what" he has presented to "why" he presented it and character assassinations. A tactic in debate is to destroy the credibility of one's opponent, thus (the thought is) you destroy the credibility of their argumentation. Such tactics, though effective in appearance, are truly invalid arguments. Once you go from discussing the points of an argument to discussing the person who raised the points, you've moved into the realm of "ad hominem" (Latin for "against the person"). For those not paying close attention, or for those who are already convinced, the argumentation seems quite good - but to the objective reader/judge - attacks on the person are seen for what they are, invalid argumentation. So, you attack the person and hope no one is watching when suddenly the discussion is not about "the argument" anymore, but it's about "the person." This appears to be exactly the motives behind some of the responses (and blogs) that have been attacking Robert Sungenis. If one looks at these responses objectively, one will see something lacking. Though the responses are rather verbose and emotionally charged, what they lack is substance. What I have seen, thus far, is a lot of attacks on Robert's motives and the slinging of terms like "anti-semitic." What I have not seen is evidence disproving what Robert said. This brings me to one of the reasons I am writing this response. I do not write this in "support" of Robert Sungenis, but in support of "real debate" on the subject(s) at hand. It's one thing to blast away at someone's motives; it's quite another to actually disprove his arguments. I, for one, would like to see a real debate on the issues here. We also see some calling for a boycott of CAI, and not only currently produced products and information from CAI, but even all past documents, books, etc. One has to ask, why is this boycott being called for? Based on emotionally driven claims? Again, I would like to see some real evidence introduced into this discussion. Yes, the evidence was real that he quoted anti-semitic material - but was the information false? That is what Robert's detractors should be out to prove. Another reason for this article is to express my concern over "fellow Catholics" attacking each other, in the name of Catholicism, over issues of personal motives. The motives here are really immaterial, what needs to come out is the truth. Those who yearn to prove Catholic disunity are having a hay-day with the way "Catholics" are bickering at each other over this issue. The sad part is that the strongest voices we have seen, thus far, are those preaching against Robert's motives - and not what was actually said. In my initial response, I attempted to list several other sites that also pointed out some of the horrendous statements in the Talmud. I take my hat off to John Betts, one of Robert's detractors, for pointing out to me that those sites were largely anti-semitic and/or white supremacist in nature. He speculated that I likely did a quick internet search to find those sites, and truthfully, that is what I did. Upon closer examination of those sites, I have to concur with John and have pulled that response entirely. I also must add, that the inclusion of those sites did more to detract from the main points I was trying to make, which I hope is being made more clear in this article. Those points are: The point that it is not why something was said, but what was said. The point that Robert did indeed apologize for the oversite in posting material from questionable sources (see below). That Catholics are divided on the RCM document (see below). Catholics should feel free to challenge what was said, but why it was said is immaterial. Arguments regarding the why things were said are speculative, at best, and scandalous or libelous at worst. Robert himself encourages people to debate him on what was said. I'll close with that. Below is the remainder of my initial article: One of the other things Robert did was take a quote from a document which, unbeknown to him, was Nazi propaganda from the 1940s. He immediately removed that part from his response and has apologized for the oversight. However, it seems that many out there are not satisfied and call for a boycott of CAI and anything to do with Robert Sungenis. In my humble opinion these Catholics are too eager to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Robert has apologized for the oversite, has removed that section from his response - and has, in fact, removed the entire article at the time of me writing this, and he is working on a complete reworking of it. Here is Robert's apology: RS5: If you want me to apologize for mistakenly quoting something from a Nazi, I apologize. I have stated over and over again that that quote was an oversight on my part. I have since taken it off, and it will remain off. But my critics still want their pound of flesh, but they are not going to get it. As for the Jews, I don't have any hatred for Jews or anyone else. You are the victim of a well-coordinated campaign to destroy me by people who are misinformed and are green with envy. They will answer to God for their lies. I am against Zionism. If you want to call me an anti-Zionist you can do so, but I am not anti-semitic by any stretch of the imagination. Catholics are Divided on "Reflections..." Catholics Divided... New Controversy Clarification from a Cardinal stating it "was a working document rather than an authoritative statement of belief. Catholic opinion that Rome will not prove "Reflections." Recent Vatican document encouraging love and understanding, but not a thought of denying evangelization. Now, I am sure I could find many more sites expressing concern and confusion over the "Reflections" opinion posted by the USCCB, but I think I have presented enough for the reader to get the point - Catholics are not united on this "non-binding" opinion. I also understand how many have been upset by Robert Sungenis' stand on this, but I also understand Robert's right and even duty, if he, as a faithful Roman Catholic, sees something he perceives as error being presented by any Catholic authority. It is also the right of fellow Catholics to express their concerns with opinions put out by other Catholics - however, to call for a "boycott" of Catholic Apologetics International and Robert Sungenis is hardly a "Catholic" attitude. Robert has produced many good, no, great works for Catholic apologists for evangelizing all non-Catholics, including Jews. It is my hope and prayer that all Catholics will stop these calls for "boycotts" and writing "hatemail" to message boards and blogs on the internet. Again, I fully support anyone to express an opposing opinion to Robert - and so does Robert! I emphasize the fact that no one should be calling for a boycott of CAI - unless Robert's bishop and/or Rome has declared him excommunicated and/or an heretic, then it is scandalous and even libelous to attack Robert personally and affect his ability to support his family. I reiterate, anyone should feel free to attack his arguments - and let your arguments or his stand or fall on their own merits. In closing, I ask all reading this to consider what they are saying about Robert Sungenis and who they are saying it to; are your statements said in charity, love and humility - or are they mean-spirited or spiteful? If you feel that Robert needs correction, then present your correction with charity and humility - especially if you want such correction to be effective. Also, lets be willing and open to hearing Robert's side. Robert has shown the ability to be corrected and the humility to apologize for presenting scandalous material has removed such material from CAI. In JMJ, Scott<<< Return to ACTS

Well, last night was interesting, we discussed the Robert Sungenis "anti-semite" controversy a bit. Though not all parties agreed on all counts, one concensus was reached (with the exception of The-Ox) - Robert's detractors are not dealing with the substance of Robert's statements. The detractors are largely playing the "emotion card" and challenging Robert's motives, and not what Robert said. The-Ox stepped forward and volunteered to be "the first" to challenge substance. The-Ox wants to know more details about this alleged FDR/Jewish conspiracy theory. Did FDR really allow some distant Jewish roots affect his foreign policy? What verifiable evidence can Robert produce that can show such an influence over the FDR administration - or, is this mere speculation?

We also had a good "round-about" with BeStrong over authority.

More later, still working on figuring out this blog.

Our First Blog Post

Welcome to our new blog (weblog)!

Addendum, January 10, 2016

Without much fanfare, the above sentence was the first message posted to the CathApol Blog.  Now in the 14th year, the CathApol Blog began on October 18, 2002.  It began as a place to make more permanent discussions from the #CathApol IRC chatroom.  The problem with chatrooms is, while the discussion is live and challenging - they exist only for the moment and for those who happen to be in the channel at the time.  Rather than expending all that time and energy for 5, 10 or even up to 20 to 30 people at a time, I established the CathApol Blog to archive discussions from #CathApol and other chatrooms on the IRC (Internet Relay Chat) network.  The #CathApol chatroom has since yielded completely to the more permanent blog, but I occasionally still pop into the old networks and stir up some chat.

In the years since the beginning of the CathApol Blog it has also become the place for writers, now called "bloggers," from the American Catholic Truth Society (www.americancatholictruthsociety.com) or ACTS and email discussion lists hosted by ACTS, to post the "current articles" for the ACTS website.  While the latter is still true, the volume of messages in the ACTS email lists has waned in 2015 so there isn't much from the former.  The CathApol Blog remains as a place which apologetically defends the Catholic Church - and a place of "Keeping Catholics, Catholic."  We stand firm in the Catholic Faith, supporting the one, true, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

During 2015 I spent a lot of my time on a BeliefNet forum - and have posted some articles here related to those discussions too.  On October 31, 2015 the BeleifNet forums went into a "read only" status - no more active participation.

So, currently, while I still post articles here, the active discussions are in a bit of a lull, which I have noticed is quite normal.  Discussions have ebbs and flows - so right now there's a bit of an ebb.   I have always been open to the Lord's Will in how busy the forums hosted by ACTS are, and they seem to slow down at times which are opportune to me - allowing me to focus on other (offline) issues.

It must also be noted, while the CathApol Blog began on October 18, 2002 - the ACTS organization began back in 1966!  We're actually in our FIFTIETH YEAR!  Half a century defending Christ's Holy Church!  ACTS went online for the fist time in 1989, so that puts us in our 27th year on the Internet!