Video: Talk show hosts tackle “the Jesus tomb”

posted at 9:01 pm on February 27, 2007 by Allahpundit

I ran this by our favorite “Christianist” Democrat before posting to make sure my knee wasn’t jerking in finding Hasselbeck’s argument silly. Nope, says KP; you can’t “prove” that the Bible is true with the Bible’s own assertions. Elementary stuff, I know, but I felt obliged to do due diligence.

KP’s question in response was, what on earth is Hasselbeck wearing? Alas, I said — it’s known but to God.

Meanwhile, here’s your question of the day as posed last night by Larry King to Simcha Jacobovici, the writer/director of the Jesus tomb documentary. Thanks to the Freepers for catching this one.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Why don’t you believe the Bible’s account of events?

PRCalDude on February 28, 2007 at 12:08 PM

Well specifically in this case, because this is no mention of Christ being married or not being married. In general, like most or many Catholics, literal interpretation of the Bible is not central to my faith.

honora on February 28, 2007 at 12:56 PM

The RC church takes the position that he was (in support of Mary’s eternal virginity); other Christian churches disagree.

The Orthodox Christian churches (Greek, Russian, Egyptian, Serbian, Antiocian, etc.) all agree with the Roman church on this point: Jesus was an only child.

Dave Shay on February 28, 2007 at 1:00 PM

Liz is correct and I’m not certain why this post was newsworthy anyways. The original archaeologist prof. Amos Kloner and Ronny Reich proved this tomb issue a fraud (be it a good one) back in June of 2003.

The patina in the echings don’t match the period. Dead issue.

Timber Wolf on February 28, 2007 at 1:06 PM

Correction to my previous post. Meant to type “only child of Mary”.

Dave Shay on February 28, 2007 at 1:13 PM

Well specifically in this case, because this is no mention of Christ being married or not being married. In general, like most or many Catholics, literal interpretation of the Bible is not central to my faith.

honora on February 28, 2007 at 12:56 PM

Define literal. If you’re reading or placing extra data into the Biblical text, the Bible is no longer authoritative, you are. Then there’s no point in believing any of it. The German higher critics went down this road in the 19th century.

PRCalDude on February 28, 2007 at 1:15 PM

Anything that attacks or seeks to undermine Christianity is automatically “newsworthy” (unlike anything that, say, paints Islam in a bad light), regardless of its relevance or accuracy. Opponents of Christianity have been making false or unsubstantiated claims for decades just to generate publicity for themselves, and the media, which is both hostile to and willfully ignorant of Christianity, is always too ready to go along with them.

For the record, the translations of the Gospels that I have read record that Joseph did not sleep with Mary “until” after Jesus’ birth, which to me implies that he did. Although I would prefer to be able to study the text in the original Greek myself to be sure, it certainly indicates that Mary did not remain a virgin all her life and does open the possibility of Jesus having half-siblings (fully human children of Joseph and Mary).

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that the belief that Mary was sinless, never had sex, and ascended to Heaven without dying was only made dogma by the Vatican in the late 1800′s. I have never understood it though. Why would Joseph and Mary not have a normal married relationship after their marriage and Jesus’ birth? There’s no Scriptural record of either one getting a command to that effect. It’s a totally different situation than the issue of Jesus himself marrying and having children.

Lancer on February 28, 2007 at 1:37 PM

It’s a totally different situation than the issue of Jesus himself marrying and having children.

Lancer on February 28, 2007 at 1:37 PM

Understood. My point is that there are various interpretation of the Bible, e.g whether Mary and Joseph had other children.

And I really think you are giving this Cameron guy way, way too much credit. I think most folks see him for what he is: a showman seeking to sensationalize religion–and really after Titanic, what else was left??

This too shall pass.

honora on February 28, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Why would Joseph and Mary not have a normal married relationship after their marriage and Jesus’ birth?

Good question.

As Honora pointed out earlier in this thread, and this may be one of the rare occasions I’ll agree with her (!), the subject of whether or not Mary had an additional children after Jesus is not a central concern of the faith. Perhaps this is why it isn’t mentioned within the Nicene Creed, which is a kind of “Cliff’s Notes” of the central beliefs of the Christian faith. In other words, if Mary’s continued virginity were pivotal to the faith, then it would be mentioned in the Nicene Creed and elsewhere.

To answer your question, though, consider this:

Suppose you are Joseph and you’ve learned that your wife gave birth to God incarnate. Would you then dare to have physical relations with her, or would you treat her as a treasured temple?

Dave Shay on February 28, 2007 at 1:47 PM

You present this as if it were a monolithic POV–all Christians believe this.

For myself, it’s not germane to my faith.

honora on February 28, 2007 at 12:53 PM

What I present is what defines Christianity.

I’m not making any direct judgements. While it is clear that you claim to be raised catholic, I do not recall that you have ever directly claimed that you are now a practicing Christian.

You claim to have minimal scholarly understanding of the Bible and Biblical Theology, yet you argue vociferously as though you do.

You can’t win any kind of argument about something, Biblical or otherwise, based on a faulty understanding of it.

Which is my sole purpose in posting on religious issues here on Hot Air.

My purpose is help people understand what Christianity is realy all about, and if they want to argue in disbelief, at least they can argue based on real issues.

Lawrence on February 28, 2007 at 1:52 PM

What I present is what defines Christianity.

Wow. I didn’t understand I was in the True Presence.

The big difference between us? I know what I don’t know. T

honora on February 28, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Honora,
We’ve went round and round a few times before, but this one I consider to be more serious, so I truly hope you’ll listen up with an open mind.
Now, I’m not a Catholic, though I know a few and my wife’s father was raised a Catholic (now a Protestant saved by grace through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ, and that the gift of God, not by works, lest he be tempted to boast.) But I digress.
I was frankly flabergasted to hear of the idea that Jesus had no siblings and that Mary remained a virgin. I’ll spare the Bible verse references here as some have already pointed out the obvious ones (Joseph KNEW her after, etc) but PLEASE visit this site: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/sisters.html
I am in no way beholden to the site, I simply found it with a 2 second search on Google (may salvation find them.)
Please read it carefully and understand that the scripture was authored so that a child could understand it. If he “knew her not until the Christ child was born,” that means he definately knew her afterward. Even in the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin, etc – Mary had sons and Jesus had brothers that were named specifically multiple times in the scriptures.
Blessings
Study to show thyself approved (an admonition that I myself fall short of,) and so as to not be forced to believe what someone decreed hundreds of years ago to be true.

y2church on February 28, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Luke 8:19-20 mentions Jesus’ mother and brothers trying to see Him. The best case, in my opinion, for the authors of the books of Jude and James in the New Testament are two of Jesus’ brothers.

I wanted to mention that James White, a Christian apologist, has started a blog category called Tomb Issues. He’s a smart guy and is continually updating.

White also links to this blog roundup of information: The Lost Tomb of Jesus at Countercult Apologetics. I am unfamiliar with this writer, but I have heard James White speak and have several of his books so I am linking to the site.

INC on February 28, 2007 at 2:12 PM

Wow. I didn’t understand I was in the True Presence.

The big difference between us? I know what I don’t know. T

honora on February 28, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Specious. Jesus wasn’t married and never had any children. The church is his bride through a mystical union. He’s simply repeating what’s found in the Bible, which you can’t believe because you are the authority, not the Bible.

PRCalDude on February 28, 2007 at 2:18 PM

Mark 6:3 also mentions and names the brothers of Jesus and makes mention of His sisters as well.

There is another incident I believe. I don’t have time to find it right now, but will look for it later.

INC on February 28, 2007 at 2:31 PM

What I present is what defines Christianity.
Wow. I didn’t understand I was in the True Presence.

The big difference between us? I know what I don’t know. T

honora on February 28, 2007 at 2:04 PM

Since you know that you don’t know what you are talking about why do you keep belaboring the argument?

I see that I have bested you in this debate, seeing that you must reverted to mockery and insults in lieu of your normally thoughtful responses.

Lawrence on February 28, 2007 at 4:05 PM

I see that I have bested you in this debate, seeing that you must reverted to mockery and insults in lieu of your normally thoughtful responses.

Lawrence on February 28, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Come on, Larry. Score, don’t spike.

Honora,

Don’t take our word for anything. Read the Bible for yourself, and don’t let anyone do the interpreting for you.

PRCalDude on February 28, 2007 at 4:43 PM

You present this as if it were a monolithic POV–all Christians believe this. I don’t think that is the case. Nor do I think that it is a matter of dogma. I know that not all Christians agree that Jesus was an only child. The RC church takes the position that he was (in support of Mary’s eternal virginity); other Christian churches disagree.

My point being that there is a great deal of room for interpretation. Some people point out that it was highly unusual for a Jewish man, particularly a rabbi, to have been unmarried at that point in time.

For myself, it’s not germane to my faith.

honora on February 28, 2007 at 12:53 PM

Jesus wasn’t an only child. James, the man who wrote the book of James, was His brother (half-brother to be specific). Mary had children with Joseph. It makes no sense to assume Joseph didn’t have sex with his wife.

This is even addressed when Mary went to visit Jesus while He was preaching. The discples said His family was there to visit, and Jesus said He was already with His family (His followers).

But about Him being married, there is nothing. As others have said, the spouses (or lack thereof) of other Apostles is mentioned on more than one occassion. It stands to reason a wife of Jesus would be mentioned.

On top of that, Jesus knew He would die soon. Widows were worse off in that day than women who never married. Why would He do that to a woman, specifically one He carred about that much?

Jesus was a homeless wanderer who travelled alone with His disciples. Where would He keep a wife?

You’re right that it doesn’t change the issue of faith, but it would change things. Afterall, Mary is frequently mentioned, even as Jesus was dying. If He had a wife, where was she and why was she not important? His mother was so important that He asked John to care for her like his own mother. But His wife didn’t mean anything to Him?

Esthier on February 28, 2007 at 5:02 PM

honora on February 28, 2007 at 1:46 PM

Leave it to a liberal to create something out of nothing. The bible did not mention whether he flew or not, so you could say he flew from place to place. The bible never mentioned he could or could not see through steel with x-ray eyes. It is best to use the text presented and rely on those, no mention of marriage, no marriage. No x-ray eyes, no x-ray eyes, and no he did not fly.
Other religions find it necessary to add to the scriptures, Christians do not.

right2bright on February 28, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Come on, Larry. Score, don’t spike.

PRCalDude on February 28, 2007 at 4:43 PM

True. There is little to be learned or won from these kinds of arguments.

Lawrence on February 28, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Texas Mike, glad to jog your memory. Even before I became a Christian in college, The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe had touched my heart as a child.

INC on February 28, 2007 at 9:39 PM

The WaPo has this column today:

‘Lost Tomb of Jesus’ Claim Called a Stunt: Archaeologists Decry TV Film:

Leading archaeologists in Israel and the United States yesterday denounced the purported discovery of the tomb of Jesus as a publicity stunt.

Among others, there’s this quote:

Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, expressed irritation that the claims were made at a news conference rather than in a peer-reviewed scientific article. By going directly to the media, she said, the filmmakers “have set it up as if it’s a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly rejected this,” she said.

INC on February 28, 2007 at 9:45 PM

There is a simple solution to solving the problem about whose religion is right, and whose is wrong, and what happens after you die.

Die and see!

William

William2006 on March 1, 2007 at 2:25 AM

William, Jesus told a parable of a rich man who died and begged to go back and warn his brothers. He was told that they have Moses and the Prophets and could read them. The rich man said, but if one comes back from the dead, then they will repent. He was told if they won’t listen to Moses and the Prophets, they won’t listen to someone who comes back from the dead.

Well, Someone did come back from the dead and there were some 500+ eyewitnesses. And some listen, but some won’t.

INC on March 1, 2007 at 9:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2