Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Who, exactly, doesn’t think there is a war on between materialists and non-materialists?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a recent column on the “lost tomb of Jesus,” Frank Pastore observes ,

Poor James Cameron. He wanted some of that Da Vinci Code action so badly that he jumped on a 27 year old story line that everyone else in Hollywood had wisely passed on. He ignored so many early warning signs, too. When he was hav-ing trouble early on finding A, B, or even C list “scientific experts” who were willing to throw their careers away if they would only validate his silly theories – and they all continued saying no – he didn’t let that slow him down one bit. He pressed on and signed the minor league guys. And later, when the best he could come up with for his advance publicity hook was to claim statistically similar names and unrelated DNA samples – He still didn’t pull the plug – even though any-one who has ever seen just one episode of CSI is sharp enough to spit out the bait. More astute critics simply repeated what the original archeologist on the scene had pointed out: that a poor family from Bethlehem could never afford a mid-dle-class tomb in which to place the ossuaries in Jerusalem, especially during a famine, and that the names on the boxes were far too common to jump to any conclusions about having found The Jesus Family Tomb.

Yes, I remember that “lost tomb of Jesus” canard kicking around in the early Eighties. The problems were so obvious that the story sank out of sight. See, it was one of those stories where, as Pastore notes, a person of average intelligence can see what’s wrong. Remember, Jesus’ family were so poor that they had to bring two doves (pigeons) to the Temple when they presented him – the lowest offering a poor family could bring, intended as a concession to extreme poverty. (It made sense. Anyone capable of producing a son and getting him to the Temple could presumably find a way to catch two pigeons … ) So these were not people who had money or a family tomb. And they had common names, so finding all these names together is no clincher.

The project principals would seem to be orthodox Jews, but the interesting part is the Discovery Channel’s role in all this. Pastore describes this story – accurately, I think – as “the requisite hit piece on Christianity that we’ve all grown accustomed to” in time for Easter, adding “Shame on you if you ever trust the Discovery Channel to teach your kids anything ever again.” 

Well now, that raises some interesting issues.

One way that many Christians in science have tried to avoid addressing either the current atheist putsch or materialist media hostility to Christianity (and all other non-materialist points of view) has been to announce that other Christians (the ID guys in particular) have bought into a “warfare thesis.” It is all their fault that science concepts are currently used to bash religion. If only they would just shut up and take what is handed out to them …

Such v oices are gladly heard – despite the fact that it would be hard to think of a point of view on the subject that is so much at odds with observable reality. There is in fact a war on – not between science and religion but between materialism and evidence. Materialists, who have a deathgrip on science, use it to assault any perspective that may harbour evidence against materialism.

Not only are science concepts regularly used to bash religion (in particular, Christianity), but notice two things: First, people have come to merely expect the bashing at key points like Easter.

The response from churchianity? Lame excuses, like “Christians have to face up to problems with the Gospel message.” Problems, yes. But nonsense? Streams of nonsense? Streams of nonsense on a big budget? Sponsored by major media organizations?

Second, it is no longer even thought necessary to find good stories to tell. The “lost tomb of Jesus” is not a good story.* So – if the warfare thesis is incorrect, why is the Discovery Channel fronting this stuff?

Now, I take the view that people do not deliberately run lame stories when they could run hot ones. So we can assume, I think, that no hot anti-Christian story has emerged, despite a pretty intense search.

The reality is that, as the recent attempt to institutionalize atheism – sponsored by major ultra-Darwinists – demonstrates, there is a war on. People who can’t deal with that fact drone on about a “warfare thesis” and accept lionization for their cowardice. The time for pushback never comes, it seems. But what else is new?

*No, “Mary Magdalene and Jesus” wasn’t a very good story either, in the strictly historical sense. But … Brown performed the brilliant manoeuvre of sheltering himself in the fiction aisle by telling it as a yarn. As a yarn, it worked. These “lost tomb” guys apparently couldn’t do anything clever like that.

Comments
rrf says "Why not present both sides and let the students decide?" Sure, and should that not apply to ID vs NDE as well? Present both sides, and let the students decide. Are you in favor of this? If not, why?Ekstasis
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PST
Here's a good link to a page entitles "Was Jesus Married? A Careful Look at the Real Evidence" on Mark Roberts's website. He says what I believe and what several here have mentioned already:
Another reason I have taken time on this issue is that most proponents of the marriage of Jesus thesis have an agenda. They are trying to strip Jesus of his uniqueness, and especially his deity. They want a Jesus who was a mere human being, one with spiritual insight, but otherwise ordinary. The supposed marriage of Jesus is taken by many to be proof that he really wasn't God in the flesh, but only a mortal man.
Charlie
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PST
When I said "However the fact that no such relationship is mentioned in either the Bible or Church tradition indicates that the Church or God has been hiding something and been a little less than honest," I meant to say "However the fact that no such relationship is mentioned in either the Bible or Church tradition indicates that the Church or God WOULD HAVE been hiding something and been a little less than honest,"jb
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PST
OK, so, whose version of events do we believe, the Discovery Channel and Mr. Cameron or the 12 disciples (make that 11)? Why not present both sides and let the students decide?rrf
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PST
bFast, you make a number of good points. However, I think, based on his comments, that Joseph already "gets it" that if Jesus rose from the dead his bones wouldn't be in a box somewhere. (sorry to speak for you Joseph; correct me if I'm wrong). But that's not what he's questioning. He's asking why is it that Christians find the idea that Jesus might have been married so offensive. That's a different issue altogether. My response to that would be twofold (speaking now more to Joseph): 1) There are some theological difficulties this would cause, although this--by itself--wouldn't necessarily demolish Christian belief. It would only introduce unecessary complications. 2) There is no textual, historical, traditional or any other evidence or reason to believe that there was any marriage (that I'm aware of), so--as Alvin Plantinga would say--"why think this?" What reason would there be to conjure up some relationship with Mary Magdelene or speculate about offspring if not to deliberately introduce the theological difficulties referenced in (1) above. Some of the theological complications would be: 1) Christ was sinless. Without going into a lot of detail, this is related to the virgin birth, original sin inherited from Adam, etc. If Jesus had children, what status would they have had with regard to this? 2) As Denyse pointed out, this would introduce unecessary power-struggle issues. 3) If Jesus was God incarnate, and if a person's children somehow inherit some piece of their spirit, (I admit this idea is a little fuzzy and open for discussion that maybe we don't want to get into on this thread) what status would these children have? Would they be like some sort of Greco-Roman-style demigod? Nephilim of some sort? 4) What sort of "special" status would his wife have had to have? Jesus' relationship with those around him would necessarily need to be somewhat egalitarian (altough, there was some special favor shown to some disciples, but not rising to the level of joining to be one with them in a consumated marriage). I realize that Roman Catholic tradition gives a special sort of status to Jesus' mother Mary, which I as a Baptist do not accept. However, even if I were a Catholic, I'd still have a problem here, because then you'd have not one, but two people with elevated status like this. Were this the case, you'd think that either the Bible or Church tradition would have had something to say about it, and neither do (about a purported marriage, that is). There are probably many other difficulties that this would raise, even though, as was pointed out by Craig Blomberg in a lecture he gave on the Da Vinci code, even though this would cause more head scratching, it wouldn't necessarily negate the rest of Christian doctrine. However the fact that no such relationship is mentioned in either the Bible or Church tradition indicates that the Church or God has been hiding something and been a little less than honest, which casts doubt on the whole affair (which was exactly the problem with the Da Vinci Code). I hope that helps. (bFast, are you suggesting that for Jesus to have had a congugal relationship with a lawfully wedded wife would have amounted to sin? I'm not so sure I agree with that, though I agree with the general gist of what you're trying to say)jb
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PST
OK, so, whose version of events do we believe, the Discovery Channel and Mr. Cameron or the 12 disciples (make that 11)? The Discovery Channel and Mr. Cameron are making $$ off of their "creative" approach to history. The disciples paid for their version with their own blood. Peter was crucified upside down, not feeling worthy of Jesus. The others, with the exception of John, died in similar a similar manner. Don't forget, the disciples could have admitted the whole resurrection thing was a hoax, and they would have gotten off the hook, and probably could have spent their retirement years in Medittaranean seaside villas living the good life and telling great stories about the Jesus heist. Somehow I thought the Materialists refused to believe anything that was not testable, verifiable, and repeatable. Suddenly they fall for this work of art and imagination, and call it truth. Or, at least they entertain the idea that it may be true, conjuring up fanciful visions of some imaginary Jesus. Some people continously search for the Holy Grail, and we either want to lock them up or get them serious help. Others endlessly search for reasons why God does not exist or is not to be taken seriously, and we call them brilliant scientists. Hmmmm.Ekstasis
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PST
Joseph, "I understand the resurrection." If Jesus was resurrected, what on earth are his bones doing in some box. Joseph, "I understand almost all of Christianity having attended Catholic schools as well as catechism." I don't know the rest of the world, but in North America, if you count by who is in church on any given weekend, you will find that it is the protestants -- specifically the evangelicals -- who fill the pews. The vast majority of evangelicals do not use the Catholic catechism. In fact, most evangelicals question the christian status of catholics. (I happen to think they are wrong in that reguard.) Joseph, "I also understand that even the “normal” scenario has Jesus being buried in Jeruselum. However in that scenario he didn’t stay there." You're right about that. He was burried for a whole 3 days, then he got up from the grave, bones and all. 40 days later he "ascended" into heaven in front of the desciples. There can be no bone box for Jesus. Joseph, "Jesus could have filled that scenario and still have fathered a child." Jesus could possibly have produced a child before dying and rising agian. If he did, he would have been a sinner by his own definition, and would not have qualified as the pure lamb of God that, because of his sinlessness, can take on the sins of everyone else. Alas, because of the resurrection thing, his bones still shouldn't be in a bone box. Bottom line, if Jesus really rose from the dead -- permanently -- as the Bible says he did, then there should be no bone box for the Jesus of Nazareth. If his bone box exists, then the Bible, in its primary tennet, is wrong, and all Christians are fools to believe. If the box found is not that of the Jesus of the Bible, then the rest of the tale wieved around the boxes has nothing to do with him either. BTW, Jesus is always referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth". Why does the bone box refer to "Jesus of Jerusalem"? Jesus, being greek for Joshua, one of the pivotal early Biblical characters, was a common 1st century name. There should well be lots of "Jesus" bone boxes which have nothing to do with the Jesus of the Bible.bFast
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PST
Jesus fathering a child raises the issue of 'What is the nature of the child?'- divine, human, partially divine/human as Jesus was both fully divine and human.devilsadvocate
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PST
I have thought it would be a point of celebration that Jesus had at least one child. Certainly worth at least a mention in Scriputre hmmmmm?tribune7
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PST
Interesting to compare this urge to discount the James Ossuary—should anyone have followed that story—and then this enthusiasm in regard to James Cameron. On the one hand they want an empty tomb and on the other hand they want it to be full! Here—probably y’all missed it—9 on this other thread—but today’s Purim and—remember Esther?—Purim’s message is quite pertinent. Haman the enemy—doesn’t he cast lots for the better part of a year in regard to his evil scheme? And Esther is the only book in the Hebrew Scriptures that doesn’t mention God. So on the one hand you have evil represented by the chance worshippers and on the other hand you have a nation that sees God in historic events: “There are no coincidences!” Losing Faith? With Purim upon us I thought maybe y’all would be interested in this take on the spirit of Amalek from Rabbi Avi Shafran: 'And it lurks … in the contemporary insistence that chance-based evolutionary theory is the only explanation for the diversity of species.'” ]]>Rude
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PST
Joseph wrote: I still don’t get it. I have thought it would be a point of celebration that Jesus had at least one child. Being a lawful Jew, Jesus would not have had a child without getting married. The Bible strongly implies that Jesus never married. One of these implications is that the Christian church is collectively the bride of Christ. We are therefore all children of God. Jesus would have made Christianity an extremely exclusive group if He had gotten married to one woman and had just one or two children.angryoldfatman
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PST
Re: Pastore's comment: “Shame on you if you ever trust the Discovery Channel to teach your kids anything ever again.” Amen to that. Don't you remember from the Discovery Channel's "Walking With..." series an episode entitled "The Strangest Animals You've Never Seen"? A bunch of computer-driven graphics portraying a number of odd creatures on "alien" worlds (my personal favorite was the planet Darwin 4), all demonstrating how live evolves purely on its own, no matter how inhospitable the environment. And the disclamer at the start of the program how these weren't real animals but projections "based on the laws of evolution." Whatever those are... DISCOVERY Channel?? More like, Spurious Conjecture Channel.TerryL
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PST
Joseph said: “If Jesus had a family how would that “remove his divinity”? I heard this before and still don’t understand the reasoning.” inunison: Hi Joseph, If true it will make Jesus a deceiver and a lier. Hardly a Divine attributes. I was unaware that Jesus said he didn't have a family. It could also be that his child was born after his death. In which case if he said he didn't have children while he was alive he would not be lying. And as I said earlier the Gospel could have been censored. It was put together by man. Never forget that. bfast: If the Jesus of the Bible married Mary Magdaline and was burried in Jerusalem, then the entire easter story is a mere story. I understand the resurrection. I understand almost all of Christianity having attended Catholic schools as well as catechism. I also understand that even the "normal" scenario has Jesus being buried in Jeruselum. However in that scenario he didn't stay there. Jesus could have filled that scenario and still have fathered a child. "Be fruitful and multiply" Denyse: Anyone who could claim to be his descendant would have a claim on the whole church. Maybe, maybe not. Ya see Chistrianity is about worshipping Christ. I am pretty sure that Jesus didn't want to be worshipped. He was trying to bring people closer to "The Father". Denyse: If such claims didn’t arise within the community, the most likely reason is that no one could believably make one. How could such a claim be verified? Do we have the DNA of Jesus? And why would anyone want such a burden? I still don't get it. I have thought it would be a point of celebration that Jesus had at least one child.Joseph
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
05:51 AM
5
05
51
AM
PST
Re 21 -- Great Post, Kairosfocus!!!tribune7
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PST
If the Jesus of the Bible married Mary Magdaline and was burried in Jerusalem, then the entire easter story is a mere story. If it is true, Christianity is a hoax, plain and simple. So the bottom line is not what this report suggests happened, but what could not have happened if this scenerio is true that is the issue to Christians. Does that help? Good point, bfast concerning Cameron's claims. Concerning a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalen before the Resurrection, it is not that it's an offensive idea, it's just that there is no objective reason to believe it. Those who do, base it on what they want to believe and filitering evidence through through own wishful thoughts, not by looking at things with cold, hard reason.tribune7
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PST
H'mm: It's worth commenting a bit on evidence and proof with a couple of examples that illustrate the problem of selective hyperskepticism, which is relevant to this particular point and also to the main theme of this blog, intelligent design. For, much hinges on what is deemed an acceptable degree of warrant in particular contexts. 1] What is “proof”? An easy way to look at that is to take on board a remark by Simon Greenleaf, a founding father of th emodern theory of evidence, in his Testimony, one based on centuries of courtroom experience:
[27] . . . . A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. . . . . If, therefore, the subject is a problem in mathematics, its truth is to be shown by the certainty of demonstrative evidence. But if it is a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable. Now as the facts, stated in Scripture History, are not of the former kind, but are cognizable by the senses, they may be said to be proved when they are established by that kind and degree of evidence which, as we have just observed, would, in the affairs of human life, satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man.
However, often we are tempted to an inconsistency, which SG did not label, so we may descriptively term it, selective hyperskepticism:
In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd . . . The error of the skeptic consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth . . . .
In short, when something does not sit well with how we wish the world to be, we often demand an inappropriately high degree of proof that would not obtain in a comparable case. This is an error. 2] Now, did Jesus exist? As Jehu observed: According to the Blasphemy Challenge guys Jesus never existed But this sort of assertion is based on selective hyperskepticism. For, Jesus is as well documented as any other person from the C1, and his astonishing example, teaching and work is the best explanation for the religion that began in Palestine at about the time of his ministry. Indeed, Paul Barnett has given us an apt summary from extra-NT sources [NB: in addition, we have good reason to see the NT reports as being based on a strong historical core]:
On the basis of . . . non-Christian sources [i.e. Tacitus (Annals, on the fire in Rome, AD 64; written ~ AD 115), Rabbi Eliezer (~ 90's AD; cited J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1929), p. 34), Pliny (Letters to Trajan from Bithynia, ~ AD 112), Josephus (Antiquities, ~ 90's)] it is possible to draw the following conclusions: 1.Jesus Christ was executed (by crucifixion?) in Judaea during the period where Tiberius was Emperor (AD 14 - 37) and Pontius Pilate was Governor (AD 26 - 36). [Tacitus] 2.The movement spread from Judaea to Rome. [Tacitus] 3.Jesus claimed to be God and that he would depart and return. [Eliezer] 4.His followers worshipped him as (a) god. [Pliny] 5.He was called "the Christ." [Josephus] 6.His followers were called "Christians." [Tacitus, Pliny] 7.They were numerous in Bithynia and Rome [Tacitus, Pliny] 8.It was a world-wide movement. [Eliezer] 9.His brother was James. [Josephus] [Is the New Testament History? (London, Hodder, 1987), pp. 30 - 31.]
That brings us to . . . 3] Are the Gospels a credible history in any reasonable sense? On this, we can begin from a remark by John Wenham:
H. E. W. Turner [16] has distinguished two basic approaches to the Gospels: the historical and the interpretative. The former believes that the Gospels were intended to be historical records, the latter that they were essentially propaganda, written to present a particular view of Jesus. The former assumes that the records are true unless good reason can be showed to the contrary; the latter assumes the opposite. The attitude . . . has been summarised as . . . '(1) If it reflects the faith of the church after the resurrection, it must be regarded as a creation of the church, rather than an authentic saying of Jesus. (2) If there is a parallel saying attributed to a Rabbi, it must be held as a Jewish tradition which has been erroneously attributed to Jesus . . . This approach produces an improbable view of both Jesus and the early church. Jesus becomes an eccentric who took almost nothing from his environment. The church becomes inexplicable, since it took almost nothing from its master. [Christ and the Bible, (Guilford, Surrey, England: Eagle, 1993), pp. 45 - 46. Emphasis added.] _______________ 16: H. E. W. Turner, Historicity of the Gospels (London, 1963)
The interpretive approach, of course results in a patent absurdity: a “messiah figure” isolated from his cultural base, and a church that did not follow his teachings or value them sufficiently to accurately record and transmit them. It only prevails by applying unreasonably high dates of myth formation, and by imposing now unquestionably far too late dates on early Christian documents. For, apart from rather arbitrarily skeptical schemes, there is no really good reason to date the bulk of the NT's fact claims and teachings later than the early 60's AD. Food for thought GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PST
Joseph said: "If Jesus had a family how would that “remove his divinity”? I heard this before and still don’t understand the reasoning." Hi Joseph, If true it will make Jesus a deceiver and a lier. Hardly a Divine attributes. Further, it really does not fit gospel narrative.inunison
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
02:12 AM
2
02
12
AM
PST
This is all so confusing. According to the Blasphemy Challenge guys Jesus never existed. They are still handing out DVD's of the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There." Now this latest documentary tells us that not only did Jesus exist but He was married and had children and we have His tomb to prove it. Can't all these anti-Christian folks get on the same page and get their story straight?Jehu
March 5, 2007
March
03
Mar
5
05
2007
12:43 AM
12
12
43
AM
PST
Ms O'Leary: You have aptly put your finger on a key cultural trend, one that was highlighted in the last generation by men like Francis Schaeffer. Going back 2,000 years [Paul, e.g. in Romans 1 - 3], and even 2,500 years [Plato, e.g. The Laws, Book 10, which is also an ID source], there has always been a trend in Western culture to turn the back on evidence that may point to God. Knowing that backdrop, it is no surprise that -- as some evolutonaty materialists lash out at their major cultural opponents, they would now clutch at stories that simply don't pass the basic historical smell test. For, as British Attorney Frank Morison observed long ago:
[N]ow the peculiar thing . . . is that not only did [belief in Jesus' resurrection as in part testified to by the empty tomb] spread to every member of the Party of Jesus of whom we have any trace, but they brought it to Jerusalem and carried it with inconceivable audacity into the most keenly intellectual centre of Judaea . . . and in the face of every impediment which a brilliant and highly organised camarilla could devise. And they won. Within twenty years the claim of these Galilean peasants had disrupted the Jewish Church and impressed itself upon every town on the Eastern littoral of the Mediterranean from Caesarea to Troas. In less than fifty years it had began to threaten the peace of the Roman Empire . . . . Why did it win? . . . . We have to account not only for the enthusiasm of its friends, but for the paralysis of its enemies and for the ever growing stream of new converts . . . When we remember what certain highly placed personages would almost certainly have given to have strangled this movement at its birth but could not - how one desperate expedient after another was adopted to silence the apostles, until that veritable bow of Ulysses, the Great Persecution, was tried and broke in pieces in their hands [the chief persecutor became the leading C1 Missionary/Apostle!] - we begin to realise that behind all these subterfuges and makeshifts there must have been a silent, unanswerable fact. [Who Moved the Stone, (Faber, 1971; nb. orig. pub. 1930), pp. 114 - 115.]
This of course reflects the core eyewitness testimony and record of the Christian church, dating to the 30's - 60's AD [cf 1 Cor 15:1 - 11] that we may read in the NT, and which finds significant support across Jewish and pagan sources. [Cf here.] Many skeptical alternative attempted explanations have been made up over the years, especially since the hey-day of Deism. But, they all founder on the rock of comparative explanatory power. (The same fate that is increasingly meeting Dawkins et al as such materialists are increasingly forced to confront evidence that points to Design in nature, with similarly unwelcome possible implications.) In short, yes, Virginia, there is a cultural war going on over God, possible signs of his handiwork in the world, and the linked issue of moral accountability before him -- for at least the past 2,500 years . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
11:12 PM
11
11
12
PM
PST
Joseph, you don't seem to be getting a straight answer here. I don't suppose that you are displaying anything but your lack of understanding of Christian theology, so let me help you understaind. All of Christianity is hinged on the event of Christ's crucifiction and ressurection. The appostle Paul said, "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." (1 Corinthians 15:14) If the Jesus of the Bible married Mary Magdaline and was burried in Jerusalem, then the entire easter story is a mere story. If it is true, Christianity is a hoax, plain and simple. So the bottom line is not what this report suggests happened, but what could not have happened if this scenerio is true that is the issue to Christians. Does that help?bFast
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PST
This crappy documentary has nothing to do with materialism per se. It's about James Cameron's ego and stupidity. No, if there was some convincing evidence for Jesus' tomb...Now that would be cool.bdelloid
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PST
The trumpet of this gigantic spiritual warfare marks the dawn of a new day and the end of the long darkness of the Middle Ages. For modern civilization, in spite of the progress of culture, lies bound in the fetters of the hierarchy of the Middle Ages; and social and civil life is ruled, not by the science of truth, but by the faith of the church. We need but mention the mighty influence which irrational dogmas still exercise on the elementary education of our youth, we need but mention that the state yet permits the existence of cloisters and of celibacy, the most immoral and baneful ordinance of the “only-saving” church; we need but mention that the civilized state yet divides the most important parts of the civil year in accordance with church festivals; that in many countries it allows the public order to be disturbed by church processions, and so on. We do indeed now enjoy the unusual pleasure of seeing “most Christian bishops” and Jesuits exiled and imprisoned for there disobedience to the laws of the state. But this same state, till very recently, harboured and cherished these most dangerous enemies of reason. In this mighty “war of culture,” affecting as it does the whole history of the World, and in which we may well deem it an honour to take part, no better ally that Anthopogeny can, it seems to me, be brought to the assistance of struggling truth. The history of evolution is the heavy artillery in the struggle for truth. ~ Ernst Haeckel Did James Cameron Find Jesus?bevets
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PST
The poverty argument does not hold much weight with me because Christ's tomb was donated by a man of status,Joseph of Arimathea, according to the Bible. "Joseph took the body(of Jesus), wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb" Matthew 27:59-60 It does not seem like a stretch that the rest of Jesus' family might be burried there also if Jesus did not physically rise from the dead. Did anyone else check AOF's link in comment 14 under the post RE the anti-God crusade? When Judaism and Christianity Began: essays in memory of Anthony J. Saldarini. Is this describing the same tomb because the author lists two Jesus in the tomb, which would be strong evidence suppporting the commonality of names rebuttal, but this is not mentioned by anyone else including the archeologist who did the initial inventory. So I am begining to wonder if this is the same tomb or if the name translations are incorrect by either party.devilsadvocate
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PST
"Who, exactly, doesn’t think there is a war on between materialists and non-materialists?" There shouldn't be any such war. The line between materialism and non-materialism, properly understood, is obliterated by the modern paradigm of information and process. Who ever new what the heck "material" was anyway? Much less "spiritual." These days, however, I think "materialism" and "non-materialism" only serve as proxies for, "rational empiricism" vs. a conception of the world that is essentially not grounded in experience and/or logic. Personally, I think religious and non-religious people fall on both sides of that particular chasm.great_ape
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PST
There are plenty of good non-dogma based reasons to think Jesus did not have a family. There are no good reasons to think he did other than wishful thinking. It's exactly opposite of what convention wisdom would have you believe about the motivations of those holding their points of view.tribune7
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PST
One reason I think it implausible that Jesus had a family is that a family was NOT a disqualifier for honour in his culture. Quite the reverse, in fact. Anyone who could claim to be his descendant would have a claim on the whole church. If such claims didn't arise within the community, the most likely reason is that no one could believably make one.O'Leary
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PST
A gift, Like the tomb which held his body for three days :-)tribune7
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PST
I get the feeling it is much more than “where is the evidence?”. OK, why is that some claim Jesus and Mary Magdalen had children?tribune7
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PST
I don't understand the "poor families couldn't afford tombs in Jerusalem" argument. The example of doves brought as offerings at Jesus' presentation is fine evidence if the tomb had to have been purchased when Jesus was a child but was that the case? The tomb could have been acquired in any number of ways. A gift, an inheritance, or just striking it rich in later years.DaveScot
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
10:06 AM
10
10
06
AM
PST
If Jesus had a family how would that "remove his divinity"? I heard this before and still don't understand the reasoning. The fact that the NT doesn't mention that Jesus fathered a family could also be a sign of censorship. It could have also been omitted out of fear for the survivors- that is people going after his family. It could have also been omitted on purpose. That said I do understand the implications with finding the remains of Jesus. And I seriously doubt that Cameron has done so.Joseph
March 4, 2007
March
03
Mar
4
04
2007
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PST
1 2 3

Leave a Reply