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

Yawn!

NEMETI IN SYRACUSE on February 27, 2007 at 9:06 PM

So glad to know that KP is an expert on this. *ahem*

What I think Elizabeth was saying that with so many different written accounts of Jesus’s resurrection that were not written at the same time and were written by different people, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for them to have consulted with one another to get the “story straight.”

It doesn’t “prove it” anymore than any other historical document proves the past, but there it is.

Rightwingsparkle on February 27, 2007 at 9:09 PM

I think she’s wearing a clown suit. I nearly expected her to start making animal balloons while she was talking. You know…a weenie dog or, perhaps, a poodle. As for Larry, are you kidding me? If it’s not a “pun”, as he suggests, then does that mean he actually believes in the Easter bunny?

thedecider on February 27, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Allah—Thanx for posting this. I was the one who posted this Larry King quote over at the Free Republic and caught a bit of flack there because I thought his quote was unintentionally FUnnie.

pjcomix on February 27, 2007 at 9:11 PM

Rightwingsparkle on February 27, 2007 at 9:09 PM

In a modern court, eyewitness accounts are considered credible evidence. Were there not several eyewitness accounts of Jesus seen after his death?

thedecider on February 27, 2007 at 9:13 PM

That’s why it’s called “faith” brother.

What?! No easter bunny!! OH HECK NO!!! This must be debunked post haste!

csdeven on February 27, 2007 at 9:13 PM

If it’s not a “pun”, as he suggests, then does that mean he actually believes in the Easter bunny?

Yeah, that’s what’s so funny. He seems to be going out of his way to emphasize that he’s not joking around. What the hell?

Allahpundit on February 27, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Why does the Easter bunny bring eggs anyways?

SouthernGent on February 27, 2007 at 9:17 PM

Everyone is aware that this sort of event happens on a regular basis and then fizzles, aren’t they? And accepting Rosie as a reliable repository of Christian history seems, disingenious at best. Her comment about the Bible written 200 years after the events is MSM pap. Compiling contemporary accounts of historical events is not the same as the accounts themselves being written 200 years later, after the events. We have a movie director who couldn’t even get a recent historical event correct, and after some shallow fiddling around with not exactly new material, he’s suddenly trumping the life works of dedicated archeologists and historians? What? You want more serious Bible archeology, read Bible Archeology Review Magazine. Don’t let the title fool you, it’s a non-Bible believing publication, just reports the results of digs, and discoveries. Come to think of it, BAR had this box business some years ago.

naliaka on February 27, 2007 at 9:20 PM

Oh Rosie….there is this section of the Bible called the Old Testament. The books in that part of the Bible were written over hundreds if not a thousand years before Jesus’ birth. The New Testament was written within 100 years of Jesus’ birth. The Gospel of John was written in AD 95. That was the last book to be written. The other gospels were written within the first generation after Christ’s death and resurrection. Paul’s letters and the remaining books of the New Testament were written in the first century, as that was when the authors were alive.

I will give her a little bit of benefit that perhaps she meant ‘wasn’t the Bible assembled a few hundred years after Jesus’ birth.’ Of course, when your Bible knowledge comes from the DaVinci Code, it is easy to become confused.

Mallard T. Drake on February 27, 2007 at 9:20 PM

Are you kidding this is the Easter Bunny’s finest hour. It is now the Time of the Bunny. The Bunny, you’ll recall, has absolutely nothing to do with the Resurrection, but is instead concerned with the apparently incongruous subject of hidden eggs. For years the Bunny has tried to annex Easter for its own, non-Christianity-related purposes and this may be the break it’s needed to finish the job.

Btw, Allah, did you tell KP “it’s a mystery”, then write back the new line, “known only to God””? Huh? Which is it, buddy.

Alex K on February 27, 2007 at 9:21 PM

Rosie and Joy are incorrect when they say that most of the Bible was written 200 years after Jesus’ death.

Most historians I have read posit that the majority of the Bible was written within a couple generations of Jesus’ life and that the four gospels were written within one generation of his life.

That’s neither here nor their, but, I wish idiots like them wouldn’t speak so authoritatively about something which they obviously have little knowledge of.

JadeNYU on February 27, 2007 at 9:21 PM

Just to clarify, I’m speaking about most of the New Testament and not most of the Bible……clearly, the Old Testament was written prior to Jesus’ life.

JadeNYU on February 27, 2007 at 9:22 PM

I am not sure Hasselbeck is trying to say that the Bible proves itself internally, but rather that there are “proofs,” or, as I would call them, “good reasons,” within the witness of the Bible itself, that would make one overwhelmingly lean towards a belief in the resurrection. In that sense, what she is trying to get out quickly, could be expanded to be a good argument. As it stands, it sounds like a bit of rambling.

As for Rosie and Joy’s claims that the NT documents were written 200 years after the events they narrate – that is simply untrue. The first documents, such as Galatians, were probably written within 20 years of the crucifixion, with the latest documents (though it is debated) probably dating from no later than 120AD. Mark, the earliest of the Gospels according to the most accepted theories of the Synoptics, probably dates from the 60′s. Matthew and Luke probably used Mark as one of their sources, and date from just a few years after Mark, maybe 80′s. Though we are looking at between 27-47 years after Christ’s death, one should realize that there was an oral tradition which began with the events, was probably written down in various places, and brought together by the authors of the gospels.

Just a couple of thoughts.

nailinmyeye on February 27, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Send Jimmy C into Mecca to check out the chrome orifice, then we’ll talk.

bbz123 on February 27, 2007 at 9:24 PM

Yeh, why do Easter bunnies run around with eggs? We should change it to the Easter Platypus.

naliaka on February 27, 2007 at 9:24 PM

Were there not several eyewitness accounts of Jesus seen after his death?

thedecider on February 27, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Of course.

I’m not big on arguing with those who require scientific proof and the like. As someone wise once said, “For those who don’t have faith, no explanation will ever be enough. For those who do believe, no explanation is necessary.”

Once one has experienced the power of faith, THAT is proof enough.

Rightwingsparkle on February 27, 2007 at 9:25 PM

Yeah, that’s what’s so funny. He seems to be going out of his way to emphasize that he’s not joking around. What the hell?

It his oblique way of asking will Christianity come crashing down now that ‘finding this tomb could prove that Christ never was resurrected’ and thus Easter has no more relevance. If no more Easter, then no more Easter bunny. But, I can’t explain why the Easter bunny exists or how it became associated with one of the two most significant events in Christianity.

Mallard T. Drake on February 27, 2007 at 9:25 PM

Sounds like poor Larry has skipped a dose or two…

Zorro on February 27, 2007 at 9:27 PM

Were there not several eyewitness accounts of Jesus seen after his death?

thedecider on February 27, 2007 at 9:13 PM

Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ,” or any of the Josh McDowell books are good places to start if you are interested in Christian Apologetics. They lay out credible, logic based cases for the ressurection of Christ.

Mallard T. Drake on February 27, 2007 at 9:27 PM

nailinmyeye on February 27, 2007 at 9:23 PM

Nicely summarized. There are also non-Christian accounts of a growing movement written by Seutonius and Josephus.
And Paul’s letters are only a couple of decades after the Crucixion.

There is as much documentation of the crucixion of Christ as there are of the murder of Julius Caesar, or the death of Alexander the Great, or the suicide of Socrates. Yet these historical figures are never called into doubt by the Discovery Channel, et. al.

Wonder why?

billy on February 27, 2007 at 9:31 PM

No your knee isn’t jerking, AP, but your comment count is about to um, ascend?

spmat on February 27, 2007 at 9:31 PM

Here is one brief history of the origin of Easter that I copied from Ask.com. The bunny and the eggs have to do with pagan fertility symbols.

Some of the confusion is dispelled by looking at the origin of the very word, “Easter.” For all the pagan traditions associated with it, “Christmas” is at least easily recognizable as a Christian holiday, from its name alone. But Easter is named after Eastre, a pagan Saxon goddess!

Eastre (earlier, Eostre, derived from the Saxons’ Germanic heritage) was the Anglo-Saxon name of a Teutonic goddess of dawn, spring and fertility. Our word, “east” is related to this deity’s name. Her male consort was the Sun god, and the sun does rise, after all, at dawn and in the east. Rites of spring were celebrated in her honor at the vernal equinox (first day of spring). The first Sunday after the first full moon succeeding the vernal equinox was also sacred to her, and this pagan holiday was given her name — Eastre. The full moon represented the “pregnant” phase of Eastre — she was passing into the fertile season and giving birth to the Sun’s offspring.

Eastre’s symbols were the hare and the egg. Both represent fertility and, consequently, rebirth. Since rabbits are more common in most lands than hares, over time the rabbit has been substituted — not without merit, since rabbits are notorious for their fertility. Thus was born the “Easter Rabbit” tradition.

Dyed eggs were already being used as part of pagan rituals at the dawn of history in the Near Eastern civilizations. These were the first “Easter eggs.” As the traditions of the Easter Rabbit and Easter eggs evolved, they were lumped together — somewhat incongruously. Thus in our modern Easter lore, although the Easter Rabbit is sometimes thought of as laying the Easter eggs so eagerly sought by children, the Easter Rabbit is nonetheless often regarded as male. Since rabbits don’t lay eggs anyhow, I suppose quibbling over gender wouldn’t make much sense.

Later, the new Christian religion, with its emphasis on rebirth (through the Resurrection), found it expedient to continue celebrating Eastre’s holiday. The focus simply switched to Christ — and the spelling, eventually, to “Easter.”

Mallard T. Drake on February 27, 2007 at 9:33 PM

billy on February 27, 2007 at 9:31 PM

Good call. Forgot about Josephus. Then again, the dude is so boring, how could you not forget about him?

nailinmyeye on February 27, 2007 at 9:35 PM

Hey, she’s pretty funny when she finally opens her mouth. And poor, poor Larry. I got news for Larry… Larry… the Easter Bunny has never been real. Larry… there is no Easter Bunny.

Griz on February 27, 2007 at 9:36 PM

IMAGINE the carbon footprint of the Easter Bunny Such a farce the whole bunch of lefty looney tuners

bones47 on February 27, 2007 at 9:36 PM

Hasslebeck’s argument isn’t silly on the merits. The NT is the best source we have on the life of Christ. It was written within a few decades of the events it records, and it was written by eyewitnesses to the events who could and did cross-check each other to some extent. The authors’ agenda was to preserve the record of what they saw, to the point of writing unflattering things about themselves and each other. The NT is far better verified than any other document of antiquity. Archeology has verified that the places and persons mentioned in the NT existed, to the extent that such things can be verified from this distance in time. There are manuscripts of the books of the NT that date to within a few decades of their writing. We can’t say the same for any other book of antiquity, including the works of Homer and Julius Caesar. And based on all of that, what the NT has to say matters, and it says that Christ resurrected from the dead. It could be wrong about that, but the burden of proof is on the accuser. The NT has withstood the tests of time and scholarship remarkably well.

Bryan on February 27, 2007 at 9:45 PM

An old saying I know, but it still stands

For a nonbeliever, no proof is sufficient, and for a believer no proof is necessary

abinitioadinfinitum on February 27, 2007 at 9:50 PM

IMAGINE the carbon footprint of the Easter Bunny Such a farce the whole bunch of lefty looney tuners

Isn’t Santa’s the worst? He flies around the whole planet in one evening – how much pollution does that cause? Plus, he has to make toys (out of wood!) for everyone on the planet. Plus, he drinks milk and eats cookies at every stop along the way. The gas he must expel along the way proves global warming in and of itself!

lorien1973 on February 27, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Btw, Rosie is as confused as the usually is. The Council of Nicea compiled and canonized the books that we consider to make up the Bible in the third century. That doesn’t mean the Bible was written then, which is what Rosie seems to think. The last book was written in the first century, about 60 years after the crucifixion.

Bryan on February 27, 2007 at 9:57 PM

For a nonbeliever, no proof is sufficient, and for a believer no proof is necessary

But evidence is sure nice to have, and there’s quite a bit of it in support of the NT.

Bryan on February 27, 2007 at 9:59 PM

Bryan on February 27, 2007 at 9:45 PM

Don’t you think that’s a little self-serving? “The burden of proof is on the accuser?” If you were debating someone you disagreed with, would you accept that as a ground rule?

Even so, it’s relatively easy – people don’t come back from the dead. The NT got it wrong, my friend.

I’m sure those NT writers were well-intentioned. Just like I’m sure MSM reporting is well-intentioned.

Enrique on February 27, 2007 at 10:05 PM

Don’t you think that’s a little self-serving?

After 2000 years and countless attempts to debunk it, no.

Bryan on February 27, 2007 at 10:08 PM

Technically people do come back from being clinically dead.

EnochCain on February 27, 2007 at 10:10 PM

Don’t you think that’s a little self-serving? “The burden of proof is on the accuser?” If you were debating someone you disagreed with, would you accept that as a ground rule?

Yet our entire legal system is based on that idea: the burden of proof is on the accuser or the plantiff.

The New Testament states that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead. There is proof in the Bible supporting that fact. Those who disagree are accusing the New Testament writers of fraud or deception. It is on the accusers to prove that charge. The New Testament authors have already made their case.

Mallard T. Drake on February 27, 2007 at 10:10 PM

The problem with science is arrogance and ignorance, but yes the NT as well as the OT has all the proof anyone should need if you can understand what GOD is saying. If it is science that you worship than I have a Bible study that will blow your mind and give you all the science to back up the WORD of GOD and debunk past science by the use of mathematics and quantum physics. Search khouse learn the Bible in 24 hours. GOD Bless

abinitioadinfinitum on February 27, 2007 at 10:13 PM

After 2000 years and countless attempts to debunk it, no.

Do you at least think it’s reasonable to doubt that someone could come back from the dead?

Enrique on February 27, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Bryan on February 27, 2007 at 9:45 PM

What he said. Additionally, many Christians are constrained by the doctrine of sola scriptura:

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The historical record per se is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for faith in Christ. Yes, it can supplement one’s understanding of scripture, but it cannot be integral to one’s faith.

It plays a substantive role in the process of apology, but that is necessarily a secular act. The defense of one’s faith in mixed company must use such tools as are available to the group as a whole. Scriptural authority may or may not be one of those tools. So, if all of the historical record were to turn against the scriptures, then there are clear commandments in scriptures to hold fast and not fall away, but no Christian at that point could be expected to defend themselves in a secular context on the basis of the historical record. Hasselbeck has no leg to stand on from a purely apologetic standpoint, but she’s on solid ground from a theological standpoint, at least in terms of her own faith.

And no, I’m not saying scriptures are ahistorical. I’m saying they trump academic consensus (which is what history is) with regards to scriptural authority in a theological sense.

spmat on February 27, 2007 at 10:21 PM

Jumping in where Fools fear to tread.

First:

The Bible accounts clearly say that Jesus physical body came back to life and went to heaven. This is the singular most important element of New Testament Theology that Christianity is based on.

If it can be “proven” that Jesus was really buried in a human tomb by finding his earthly remains, then the entire premise which Christianity is based on is false. And Christianity can be proven a false religion.

Second:

If Jesus is not the God Incarnate Messiah as He claims, then Christianity is a false religion, and this debate over Jesus’ Tomb is a mere academic exercise.

Some facts about the ossuary in question conveniently left out of the current debate. The archeologist who first studied the ossuary 25+ years ago refuted that this was the tomb of Jesus on more than one occasion. This claim was again refuted by archeologists after a British documentary about 10 years ago, where archeologist claimed that the documentary was made more for the purpose of making money that for any real scientific or historical prupose.

The claim that Jesus was married and had children is also something that has been thoroughly debunked by archeologists, historians, and theologians many many times.

Bottom Line: Archeological and historical evidence that this ossuary is in fact the tomb of Jesus? Zero, nill, nada. Just a creative idea by a movie producer to make money off the foolishly gullible American public.

Third:

1. It is not true that the Bible was written 200 years after the death and resurrection of Christ. The Bible is a collection of books written at various times through history. It is true, however, that the compilation of the books of “the Bible” as we know it was reaching its final compilation at approximately this 200 year mark.

2. The Old Testament begins with the books of the Torah and compiles the critical supporting texts of pre-Christ Judaism reflecting the Jewish prophecy of a coming Messiah.

3. The New Testament is a collection of books written by people who were alive at the time of Christ and for the most part knew him personally. These books are first hand accounts Jesus claiming to be the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. This is an accepted and well-documented historical and archeological fact.

4. Does the Bible prove itself true? Maybe, maybe not. What it does relate to is us the New Testament account of Jesus fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies.

5. CS Lewis says it best in his book, Mere Christianity. Either Jesus is the Messiah, or he is a liar and/or lunatic for claiming to be God incarnate. The Biblical books are the same way, they are either true as accurate theological and historical documents, or they are false. If Jesus is not the Messiah as He claims, then Christianity is a false religion.

Fourth:

Historically speaking, the Bible is accurate. Theologically speaking the Bible correctly reflects Old Testament Judaism and New Testament Messianic prophecy fulfilled (or what we now call Christianity). Scientifically speaking, it doesn’t prove anything one-way or the other regarding things the Bible doesn’t talk about. However, the Bible does speak of super-natural miracles that are unexplainable in human scientific constructs.

Lawrence on February 27, 2007 at 10:23 PM

I have always believed that the actual facts are secondary to the moral and religious lessons taught. I’m reminded of the Vatican theologian who, when asked about the Virgin Birth, said something to the effect of “Yeah, Yeah…but what do we learn from the story?”

Some things are larger than fact. (Insert Texas Air National Guard joke here ——->_________________________)

HerrMorgenholz on February 27, 2007 at 10:26 PM

But Global Warming is true………. and you better not question it, or you will be “Crucified”!

PinkyBigglesworth on February 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

Fact: The Earth’s orbit is circular elliptical.

Fact: Space is Euclidean curved.

Fact: Space and time are separate a continuum.

Fact: Light travels in the ether vacuum and is affected by gravity.

Truth: Murder is wrong.
Truth: Bearing false witness is wrong.
Truth: You should honor your father and mother.

Oh, and..

Truth: God does not throw dice.

spmat on February 27, 2007 at 10:37 PM

Well said Lawrence. Except for your science part. These people trying to debunk Jesus are clearly being manipulated by Satan himself, or his minions.and YES I DO TRULY BELIEVE THAT!

abinitioadinfinitum on February 27, 2007 at 10:44 PM

But Global Warming is true………. and you better not question it, or you will be “Crucified”!

PinkyBigglesworth on February 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM

I guess you will be joining me on the tree?

Lawrence on February 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM

abinitioadinfinitum on February 27, 2007 at 10:44 PM

My point is that we can’t argue scientific truths based on things the Bible doesn’t talk about. We can argue the factual accounts of issues like this ossuary because the Bible clearly talks about what happened.

The problem with a scientific argument in these cases is that the Bible generally reflects stories of Miracles, and is generally silent regarding human scientific concerns. And no matter how hard scientists try, natural science can’t prove or disprove theological issues regarding super natural Miracles.

If Jesus is the Messiah, then the Bible does prove Itself when we compare the Old Testament Prophetic writings with the first hand personal accounts in the New Testament fulfillment of those writings. This proof, of course, means nothing to non-believers because this is not specifically scientific. It is, however, logical.

Lawrence on February 27, 2007 at 11:11 PM

How about this…when Jesus comes back James Cameron and everyone else can show him their evidence that he was just a man.

EnochCain on February 27, 2007 at 11:19 PM

Lizzie’s dress sorta’ looks like something that the Easter Bunny might wear, dontchathink? I suppose it coulda’ been a lot worse — Rosie coulda’ been wearing it. Hmmm. Maybe as a part of this year’s Easter festivities, we could paint Rosie so that she resembles a giant egg. After all, she’s got the IQ of a boiled egg, doesn’t she?

Maybe two hundred years from now, books will be re-written so that Rosie will go down in history as a funny comedienne….Naaaah! They would have to burn all the video clips that prove otherwise.

CyberCipher on February 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM

Nope, says KP; you can’t “prove” that the Bible is true with the Bible’s own assertions.

I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. Statements like these are often made by people who have no idea how history works. You can’t “prove” that much in history, especially in regard to historical events that leave behind nothing other than the accounts of people who were there (conversations, assassinations, etc.). For the most part, you have to rely on what other people wrote down, and Jesus has more behind him than a lot (most, in fact) other events. There is, of course, an alternative: you can assume everything anyone wrote down is a lie unless there’s extra non-written proof that it isn’t. In this case, I’m selling tinfoil hats at a discount rate.

Darth Executor on February 27, 2007 at 11:25 PM

The latest document of the New Testament was Revelation, ca AD 90. Some scholars believe it was written before AD 70.

PRCalDude on February 27, 2007 at 11:29 PM

I thought Hasselbeck, who by the way was dressed like the Easter bunny, availed herself quite well on the View. Not everybody is as mentally well equiped as the HA panel of amatuer bloviators. There are SO many different tacks to take on this one and some angles have been well covered already in this thread. How about this…

Did anyone predict where you would be born?
Did anyone predict where you would be taken to as a baby?
Did anyone predict where you would grow up?
Did anyone predict what family you would be born into?
Did anyone predict when, i.e. what year, you would be born?
Did anyone predict you would be born of a virgin?
Did anyone predict you would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver?
Did anyone predict your hands and feet would be pierced?
Did anyone predict you would be beaten with stripes as a punishment?
Did anyone predict you would be hated and rejected?
Did anyone predict you’d be buried in a rich man’s tomb?

This is a partial list of the hundreds of prophecies, all written at least 400 years before the fact, that Jesus fulfilled. Oh yah, and his resurrection was also prophesied. Mathematically it’s simply not possible to fulfill all of the prophecies about Messiah… unless you’re Messiah.

Many of the greatest thinkers thoughout history were devout Christians BECAUSE of their reasoning skills, not despite them. Hollywood discovers that there was more than one guy named Joshua in ancient Palestine and suddenly it’s the end of Christendom. This is the yearly swipe at Christianity which happens each and every Easter season. Last year was the DaVinci code, this year it’s the DaCameron Code. What’s next? These dorks in SoCal need to buy a vowel.

Mojave Mark on February 27, 2007 at 11:32 PM

Let’s all avoid evidentiary apologetics for the time being and merely assert that the Bible is the Word of God, evidenced by the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the redeeming work of Christ.

PRCalDude on February 27, 2007 at 11:37 PM

These dorks in SoCal need to buy a vowel.

Mojave Mark on February 27, 2007 at 11:32 PM

Heh. I’m stealing that.

spmat on February 27, 2007 at 11:40 PM

I would also like to add that trying to appeal to the unbeliever’s logic as though there is some neutral intellectual ground is unbiblical. Scripture teaches that their intellect is opposed to God because of it’s enslavement to sin, therefore we can’t advance external evidences to the Bible’s authority that rely on man’s discernment or make man the ultimate authority over whether or not an argument is true.

PRCalDude on February 27, 2007 at 11:42 PM

I thought Hasselbeck, who by the way was dressed like the Easter bunny, availed herself quite well on the View
Mojave Mark on February 27, 2007 at 11:32 PM

I disagree. She did better than most people would have, but as soon as Rosie opened her fat mouth and said “wasn’t the bible written 200 years after Jesus” I would have been rolling all over the set laughing at her stupid ass. It would’ve earned Christianity huge points with Rosie’s audience, guaranteed.

Darth Executor on February 27, 2007 at 11:46 PM

Bryan on February 27, 2007 at 9:45 PM

Bryan, as mathmatics are very difficult to argue with then so is the NT. Either thousands conspired to manufacture a religion destined to inspire for an eternity or it’s as close to the absolute truth as we’ll ever know. I’m an optimist.

Griz on February 27, 2007 at 11:47 PM

I think the dam devil did that strike thingy.

Griz on February 27, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Mojave Mark on February 27, 2007 at 11:32 PM

I’ve seen that comparison somewhere before and think it’s excellent. There is plenty of proof and evidence already there, even for those who are simply given the “measure of faith” to understand it. You’re right – there are many, many more prophecies written centuries before the birth of Christ which would be impossible to fulfill unless you were, indeed, the true Son of God.

thedecider on February 27, 2007 at 11:51 PM

Even so, it’s relatively easy – people don’t come back from the dead. The NT got it wrong, my friend.

Why am I picturing a dude a few hundred years ago trying to comprehend people pushing buttons in a box and talking to people on the other side of the Earth. I’m sure if you could go back and try to explain it to him, he would tell you that since it’s not possible in his limited knowledge, then it’s not possible…you would shake your head at his foolishness.

jjjen on February 28, 2007 at 12:01 AM

jjjen on February 28, 2007 at 12:01 AM

LOL! Perfect. Analogy. Too bad so many won’t get that.

thedecider on February 28, 2007 at 12:04 AM

Well, it’s clear, I think, that there’s a powerful case made for Christ’s resurrection (in part, that if Christ was dead, the Romans/Jews could have just produced the body). But no, you can’t provide solid, repeatable scientific evidence, so you can’t prove (nor can you DISPROVE) the Resurrection based on science. You can’t prove history with science, simply because it’s not repeatable.

That said, based on the kinds of historical evidence usually admissible, it’s fairly clear that the Resurrection did take place (unless, of course, like many people opposed to the truth, you assume it’s a vast conspiracy–see, 9-11 truthers). Finding an alleged tomb that has been debunked numerous times, tenuous evidence, etc etc is not going to sink Christianity. *snort*

Vanceone on February 28, 2007 at 12:11 AM

After the crucifixion of Jesus the diciples were afraid and were hiding out for fear of their own lives. By the feast of Pentacost some 50 days later they were speaking boldly in Jerusalem about the resurrection. Peter said then that although King David’s tomb was still among them This Jesus God has raised up, of which we all are witnesses. That same day 3000 Jews believed into Jesus. What happened between the cruxifixtion and this feast?? – the resurrection of Jesus. Somehow, having a fancy tomb with Jesus’s body in it might have undercut his argument. These diciples, among many others even today, were later willing to die than renounce their belief in Christ and His resurrection.

A few years later, in Acts 21:20, Paul goes to Jersusalem and is told by James , You observe, brother, how many myriads(a myriad is ten thousand) there are among the Jews who have believed...) So, there are at least 20,000 Jewish Christians in Jerusalem just a few years after the crucifixtion. Jews back then, as today, are not dumb. Again, having a dead Jesus tomb in the city might have hurt this growth.

The resurrection is central to Christianity. No other relgious figure, be it Mohammed, Buddha, or whoever, said that he would rise again in three days.

You also have to look at the witnesses, other historical accounts such as Josephus – a Jewish historian at that time who writes about Jesus and other contemporary writings.

The evidence is overwhelming if a person looks into this matter in an unbiased way. As one person said, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or He is Lord. If the evidence is examined closely the third choice is the undeniable answer.

Texas Mike on February 28, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Do you at least think it’s reasonable to doubt that someone could come back from the dead?

Enrique on February 27, 2007 at 10:16 PM

Reasonable people would doubt that someone came back from the dead. It was no different back in NT days. That’s why Paul writes in I Corinthians 15 that Jesus died, was buried and rose again—and was seen by the apostles and over 500 other people at once. Essentially he’s saying, “yeah, I know it sounds unbelievable. Don’t just take my word for it—go ask those 500 people”. Later he points out that the whole of christianity hinges on whether or not the ressurection happened. That’s why he challenges folks to do their due diligence and check with the eye-witnesses.

KP is off her nut regarding whether the Bible can be used to “prove” itself. It’s a collection of ancient documents—sure enough can be used to “prove” itself.

jdpaz on February 28, 2007 at 12:17 AM

I was glad to see that Al Mohler was on Larry King. We didn’t find out until it was almost over and just caught some of the end.

My husband remembered the old book The Passover Plot from the ’60s. It was debunked. Several prominent Christians have refuted The Da Vinci Code. This looks like it’s next in line. However, I do get tired of people on TV doing no research and saying the most blatantly incorrect things off the top of their heads.

INC on February 28, 2007 at 12:20 AM

I would also like to add that trying to appeal to the unbeliever’s logic as though there is some neutral intellectual ground is unbiblical.

PRCalDude on February 27, 2007 at 11:42 PM

How then did Paul successfully defend himself before Agrippa, if not through use of logic, rhetoric and history?

Act 26:32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.

The substance of his defense is Greek (and Jewish), given his audience, even if the essence is Christian and the power Divine.

There is inherent value in logic, rhetoric and history within a Christian worldview. It’s just that their value is defensive in nature, as opposed to positive. One cannot positively prove the value of one’s faith through those means, but if a baseline of just law is established, they are sufficient to defend one’s faith against attack. E.g. in a criminal defense, you don’t have to prove your innocence; the prosecution has to prove your guilt.

Logic, rhetoric and history are necessary tools to defend the value of Christianity in a secular world. Always have been, always will be until the clock runs out.

spmat on February 28, 2007 at 12:21 AM

Texas Mike,

C. S. Lewis authored the choices as Liar, Lunatic or Lord. I think he developed it in his book Mere Christianity. Here is his essay What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ? from his book God In The Dock.

A couple of other excellent books on Christian apologetics are John Warwick Montgomery’s History, Law and Christianity (which can be read in just a few hours) and F. F. Bruce’s The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable? The link is to the online text of this book.

INC on February 28, 2007 at 12:23 AM

Don’t you think that’s a little self-serving? “The burden of proof is on the accuser?” If you were debating someone you disagreed with, would you accept that as a ground rule?

Enrique on February 27, 2007 at 10:05 PM

I would demand it as the ground rule in a court of law, as would be my right as an American and a free man.

This isn’t a debate. It’s a defense. An accusation has been made, and the burden of proof is always on the accuser under any system of just law.

Even so, it’s relatively easy – people don’t come back from the dead. The NT got it wrong, my friend.

That is a valid inference only if all parties agree to your system of axioms, i.e. “people don’t come back from the dead,” which is clearly false, as any first year med student will tell you. Now, if you were to say “people cannot come back from being dead 3 days and 3 nights,” you would be on more solid ground, but that statement is only an extension of the statement “miracles don’t happen” or “God does not interact directly with the world,” both of which are inherently religious in nature. You are, in effect, demanding the audience to accept your set of religious axioms before leading them along your primrose path of inferences.

You are welcome to hold that set of axioms, but your enforcing them as the ground rules for the debate is as absurd as me using the “devil made me do it” defense in a court of law.

spmat on February 28, 2007 at 12:39 AM

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

She looked spliced – and the combination of brown/pink…the bow…bad dress day, significant or not.

then does that mean he actually believes in the Easter bunny?

thedecider on February 27, 2007 at 9:09 PM

Of course – he thinks he is the bunny.

Entelechy on February 28, 2007 at 1:01 AM

As Christians we are to be ready to give a defense to anyone who wants to know the reason for the hope within us. Sometimes a person needs to know the logic of our thinking, sometimes they need to hear us answer questions of reality and meaning. Sometimes we have to debunk bad books and flawed agendas.

Paul’s logic, rhetoric and history led up to telling Agrippa of his personal encounter with Jesus Christ and what happened afterwards. For Christians, knowing Jesus is the sine qua non reason for the hope within us.

INC on February 28, 2007 at 1:15 AM

But Global Warming is true………. and you better not question it, or you will be “Crucified”!

PinkyBigglesworth on February 27, 2007 at 10:34 PM
I guess you will be joining me on the tree?

Lawrence on February 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM

Yeap, and if I might add……. “Forgive me Father, for I have Sinned…………..”

PinkyBigglesworth on February 28, 2007 at 1:24 AM

Thanks INC for the reference to CS Lewis – a professor at Cambridge- on whether Jesus is a liar, lunatic or Lord. Around 1970 a professor at North Texas State University suggested I read that book – Mere Christianity which I did. I was struggling and seeking and that book was quite helpful. I didn’t remember the quote came from that book. I copied a paragraph on CS Lewis from Wikpedia:

Lewis was a close friend of J. R. R. Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings, and both were leading figures in the English faculty at Oxford University and in the informal Oxford literary group known as the “Inklings”. Due in part to Tolkien’s influence, Lewis converted to Christianity becoming “a very ordinary layman of the Church of England”. (Lewis 1952, pp. 6) His conversion had a profound effect on his work, and his wartime radio broadcasts on the subject of Christianity brought him wide acclaim. Lewis is best know for his childrens series – The Chronicles of Narnia.

I wish more Christians were ready to give a defense of their beliefs and of the hope within us. This hope within us actually is a person – Christ – the same One who left an empty tomb behind and can change the hearts of men today.

Texas Mike on February 28, 2007 at 1:24 AM

Logic, rhetoric and history are necessary tools to defend the value of Christianity in a secular world. Always have been, always will be until the clock runs out.

spmat on February 28, 2007 at 12:21 AM

I agree. But you can’t allow man be the decider as to whether or not the Bible is true. You have to operate from the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God. From there, you set about to prove that the unbeliever’s presuppositions are false. Appealing to external evidence, like the trilemma or historical arguments, puts man’s logic in authority over the word of God. Man becomes the judge. This is unbiblical because man’s judgment is enslaved to sin.

PRCalDude on February 28, 2007 at 1:28 AM

Men who knew Jesus and witnessed every thing he said and did and saw him after his resurrection write down an account of what they experienced. Because people don’t think what they witnessed is possible they disavow what they wrote and say that it doesn’t count. That is illogical. Anyone who experiences a miracle usually becomes a believer and then what he says is not accepted because they say since the person is now a believer what they say doesn’t count. Again, that is illogical. It is hard to find an account of Jesus that is not written by a believer because those who knew him and experienced his life became believers. They are the witnesses and the ones who count.

Rose on February 28, 2007 at 1:37 AM

Rose, I agree that those who are believers and are willing to die for their belief are the best witnesses. There are however, other accounts from non Christians which are worth considering.

From a tenth century Arabic text, Josephus, a first century Jewish (non Christian) historian wrote in his Testimonium Flavianum:

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good and (he) was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders

The Roman historian Tacticus wrote concerning Nero’s blame on the Christians for the fire in Rome in AD64:

Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome. . .

Even the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of rabbincal Jewish writings – the earliest around 70 to 200 AD mention the crucifixtion:

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy

This quote is research by Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus (Joplin, Missouri: College Press Publishing Company, 1996

Pliney, a Roman, wrote in a letter in to the Emperor Trajan around 112 AD how to proceed against people accused of being Christians:

They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food–but food of an ordinary and innocent kind

There are others as well, but these give a taste of outsiders concerning the historical fact of Jesus.

Texas Mike on February 28, 2007 at 2:18 AM

The Passover Plot

I read this book in paperback during the late 60′s. I remained unconvinced as to its conclusions and its premise after I finished it.

The premise of the book is that Jesus was just an ordinary man, who believed that he was the prophesied Messiah due to his bloodline descent from David and birth locale. The author (Hugh J. Schonfield) casts Jesus as a political rebel who sees an opportunity to overthrow the Roman puppet king, Herod.

The book claims that his death on the cross was going to be faked by a combination of timing (Friday before passover), local politics and religious practice, and a drug administered to him in the water to fake death, followed by a miraculous “Resurrection” that would unite the Jews and stir them to overthrow Herod and the Romans and proclaim him king.

However, the Roman who stabbed him with the spear in the side, actually killed him in an unforeseen event, leaving the Disciples with an actual corpse which they later spirited away and a busted revolution.

What a movie script it would have made.

Surprise! In point of fact, about 10 years afterward, Hollywood DID make a movie from the book.

The entire premise of the book was fairly well debunked by other experts in the historical era, some of whom pointed out severe faults in the religious practices and political considerations as well as that any revolt by the Jews in AD 33 would have resulted in the exact same fate as the later one in 71 AD, and that the ordinary Jew knew it.

And now comes James Cameron with his movie.

I have read with great interest the analyses of the Bible made by many of you. And again, I disagree with KP.

Leaving aside the religious aspect of the book, as a history of the Jewish people in the Old Testament and in the two centuries after Christ in the New, it stands up to criticism as well as the works of other commentators (including Josephus, who incidentally corroborates the story of his execution). It is, as a historical document, remarkably accurate. It is at least as accurate as the histories of Herodotus, Thucydides, and even Julius Caesar himself.

The evidence of the man’s actual existence and life should be considered to be as well founded as that of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Why? History is a collection of oral and written records. We accept history because we trust the reporters of the events to not deliberately lie.

For example, the Iliad, which for centuries was considered to be just a fictional story was proven to be a true account of a war between the Mycenaean city-states in Greece and a contemporary city in Anatolia. The oral tradition that was “Homer” (and which wasn’t written down until at least 400 years after the event) was passed from generation to generation of Bards with remarkable fidelity.

So, even a 200 delay in putting the story of Easter to parchment does not negate the authenticity of the story. And as some of you noted, some books of the New Testament were written within 25 years of Jesus’ death.

What Cameron is doing is nothing more than a liberal attempt at revising history as well as attempting to provide a death blow to Christianity.

It is not the first attempt at liberals to revise history, and it won’t be the last.

These liberal attempts to “revise” history are dangerous because what we are, we are because of the history of our peoples. This is just the latest example. Others include claims that Pythagoras was black (because he live in Egypt), that Columbus was an evil man for not knowing how the follow-up expeditions would decimate the natives resulting from a continent-wide war of extermination and conquest that resulted in the United States some hundreds of years later.

And let’s not forget that because Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, that no schools, streets, towns, states, or public monuments should be made naming them, as they are not worthy of acclaim.

Finally, lets not forget the liberals revisionist claim that Bush was AWOL from the National Guard — and the Dan Rather proved it on 60 minutes in 2004.

One can believe that the Bible accurately reported the life and death, and resurrection of a man named Jesus, or not. Those that do have no need for “proof” because it is their faith. Those that do not, will never be convinced otherwise in spite of the historical record and other contemporary evidence.

Cameron’s story is nonsense, IMHO.

georgej on February 28, 2007 at 2:21 AM

Thank you Texas Mike. I graduated from a Bible college with a
minor in Biblical studies. I am aware of the outside historical evidence for Christianity but the eyewitness accounts are the basis for our beliefs. The secularists insist that these stories are made up but I doubt if any of them have even read them. The consistency of the accounts and the themes that are carried through all the epistles as well as the gospels reveal a truth that all these men could not have conspired to fabricate. There would have been no purpose or gain for them to do so.

Rose on February 28, 2007 at 2:37 AM

Why am I picturing a dude a few hundred years ago trying to comprehend people pushing buttons in a box and talking to people on the other side of the Earth.

LOL! Perfect. Analogy. Too bad so many won’t get that.

..God is a scientist from the future?

Reaps on February 28, 2007 at 3:57 AM

PRCalDude on February 28, 2007 at 1:28 AM

Lemme begin by saying I agree with the spirit of what you’re saying. I think I’m just quibbling over definitions with you.

But you can’t allow man be the decider as to whether or not the Bible is true. You have to operate from the presupposition that the Bible is the word of God.

I agree, but only among other believers. You can’t defend the veracity of the Bible among unbelievers while operating under that presupposition; you’re setting yourself up for failure. In any dispute, a common set of agreed upon assumptions and rules of inference must exist for there to be any resolution to that dispute. Non-Christians cannot be expected to agree upon an assumption of the Bible’s truth, seeing as how that’s the issue under consideration in the first place. They can, however, be expected to agree upon the basic laws of logic and some historical narrative. Beyond that it’s up to each party’s abilities to construct well-formed arguments for or against.

Again, I’m not talking about the positive action of evangelism. I’m talking about the defensive action of apology. Evangelism can use the tools mentioned above, but ultimately it is about finding a connection that transcends natural intellect, which you rightly describe as fallen (one might say insufficient).

Appealing to external evidence, like the trilemma or historical arguments, puts man’s logic in authority over the word of God. Man becomes the judge. This is unbiblical because man’s judgment is enslaved to sin.

I strongly disagree with this. Such arguments as the trilemma are exceedingly useful in apology, as they force statements such as “Jesus was just a moral teacher” into either a wholesale rejection of wide swaths of scripture or into contradiction. Not being allowed to “have it both ways” prevents whole classes of arguments from being leveled against Christianity, or at least these arguments have no legs.

This does not put man’s logic in authority over the word of God. God’s word has authority irrespective of man’s ability to either describe or argue against it. Like you said, the authority of God’s word is a presupposition, one that Christians take for granted, and non-Christians reject out of hand. Apology is not about conforming Biblical truth to the tenets of Western logic in order to justify it to believers. It’s an application of the tools of argumentation to defend the validity of belief among mixed company.

It’s about settling disputes, not winning people. Evangelism is about winning people.

spmat on February 28, 2007 at 4:21 AM

The day we start allowing Hollyweird to dictate our religous beliefs is the day we should shutter in fear.

I wonder if DeCameron has ever even read the Bible?

God forgive them, for they know not what they do

silenced majority on February 28, 2007 at 8:10 AM

What a collection of idiocy. Or is that a gaggle of idiocy ?

oldelpasoan on February 28, 2007 at 8:40 AM

the Easter Bunny has never been real. Larry… there is no Easter Bunny.
Griz on February 27, 2007 at 9:36 PM

What? You have gone to far…ban this heritic.

right2bright on February 28, 2007 at 9:13 AM

No book has undergone the scrutiny of the bible. The NT was compiled many decades after, but some of the writtings were within years. Written by eye witnesses. No other book from that period was better documented. More about Jesus was written and documented than Julius Cesear, did Julius exist, did his government exist?
The best theologians and the worst, have tried to tear this book apart and they haven’t yet. The NT is backed by hundreds of other documents, census, written accounts, government documents (except for the ones Sandy stole), prison rosters, etc.
The best someone can do, is miracoulsly find another book saying it (the bible) was incomplete, or find a pile of rocks, or create some mystical puzzle, but nothing with any historical documentation like they used to compile the bible.
Like someone said: Every Easter they try to debunk, and every post Easter they slink away.
BTW all documents, from the Christian church (and Judaism), are public record and published. They or at least exact duplicates, can be seen, analyzed, and studied, carbon dated. No other religion has been so open with actual documents.
Welcome to the Easter season, 2007.

right2bright on February 28, 2007 at 9:32 AM

Scripture teaches that their intellect is opposed to God because of it’s enslavement to sin, therefore we can’t advance external evidences to the Bible’s authority that rely on man’s discernment or make man the ultimate authority over whether or not an argument is true.

PRCalDude on February 27, 2007 at 11:42 PM

True. I guess my ideological desire to view mankind as better than we really are drives me to try and argue logically with un-believers. In so doing I am striving to help the Holy Spirit with things of which I have no business or ability.

The correct Christian answer is, as you recount above:

The Bible is the Word of God, evidenced by the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the redeeming work of Christ.

PRCalDude on February 27, 2007 at 11:37 PM

He Is Risen!

Lawrence on February 28, 2007 at 9:34 AM

“For those who don’t have faith, no explanation will ever be enough. For those who do believe, no explanation is necessary.”

enough said…

dread pirate roberts on February 28, 2007 at 9:53 AM

Even so, it’s relatively easy – people don’t come back from the dead. The NT got it wrong, my friend.

Enrique on February 27, 2007 at 10:05 PM

You’re right, Enrique. People don’t come back from the dead. That’s why Christians don’t worship people.

Btw, Rosie is as confused as the usually is. The Council of Nicea compiled and canonized the books that we consider to make up the Bible in the third century. That doesn’t mean the Bible was written then, which is what Rosie seems to think. The last book was written in the first century, about 60 years after the crucifixion.

Bryan on February 27, 2007 at 9:57 PM

That’s a point I wanted to bring up. The people who wrote the New Testiment were people who saw Jesus. Last I checked, they didn’t live a couple hundred years back then, and even if they did, the vast majority of them were executed before being able to die young.

I’m sure those NT writers were well-intentioned. Just like I’m sure MSM reporting is well-intentioned.

Enrique on February 27, 2007 at 10:05 PM

They were as well-intentioned as Anne Frank and received the same rewards she did.

Besides, wouldn’t showing the body or the coffin of Jesus have been more effective than killing all of them?

Esthier on February 28, 2007 at 10:04 AM

Even so, it’s relatively easy – people don’t come back from the dead. The NT got it wrong, my friend.

Enrique on February 27, 2007 at 10:05 PM

True. People can’t resurrect themselves. This is something only omnipotent God can do.

But the account of Jesus’ resurrection isn’t the only Biblical account of people being resurrected by Jesus. Lazarus is one account, another regards the death of a child. And Jesus could only resurrect Himself if He is God Incarnate as He claims.

The core theological point to this story, and what makes Christianity Christianity, is that Jesus and only Jesus has the ability resurrect each one of us from our spiritual death in sin.

Lawrence on February 28, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Yeh, why do Easter bunnies run around with eggs? We should change it to the Easter Platypus.

naliaka on February 27, 2007 at 9:24 PM

In France, it’s les cloches de Paques. That’s right, the Easter bells. How insane is that: a stationary object delivering all that candy??

Mimes and now this…..stupid French people.

Platypus? How about a more cuddly egg-laying critter?

honora on February 28, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Even if an ossuary with remains in it were found and bore the inscription “Jeshua, son of Joseph“, how could any DNA (assuming it could be extracted from the bones) be verified? Are there living relatives of Jesus anywhere to be tested?

The book “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” (basis of the ideas that “The Da Vinci Code” shamelessly ripped-off) claims yes, there is a genetic line of the family of Jesus living in France, to this day. So, these people would have to give up samples of their DNA and then have it checked against the “Jesus” sample in the ossuary.

However, the “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” theory is that: a pregnant-with-Jesus’-child Mary Magdalene escaped to ancient Gaul with one or more members of Jesus’ immediate family (brothers or sisters), so the other ossurary in this cache, ostensibly with “Mary Magdalene” on it, would destroy the entire “survivors in France” thesis. Which would make any DNA testing moot.
If Mary died in Jerusalem, then their could be no French family members.

This entire “news flash” sounds more like a novel, written a dozen years back, about a hoaxer trying to destroy Christianity, called “The Skeleton in God’s Closet“. Although the villain in the fictional book was more thorough than James Cameron’s crew, and went so far as to locate an ancient crucified skeleton and then “salted” it in a rock tomb for verisimilitude, then “discovered” it.

Whether Jesus was more than a great, compassionate man whose thinking overturned the old Vengeful God and transformed it into a Loving God, can never be rationally “proved”.

But, compared to all previous religious figures, he is the first to give hope to the world of a fully-human heart having a chance to overcome the cruel animal nature of the flesh.

Whether he died and was merely buried, or was resurrected, the more imporant thing is to understand that we are doomed without Love being greater than Hate.

For that gift, he lives as long as we carry foreward his profoundly compassionate truth.

Greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for a friend.”

Or his world.

profitsbeard on February 28, 2007 at 10:54 AM

I have never really understood why the notion that Christ was married and children is so problematic. So what? One of the first things we learn (we being Catholics) is that Christ was God and man. The physical part being man, and re-production being a facet of that. After all, we believe Christ was born of a mere mortal woman. He obviously ate, drank, slept, suffered, died. Why would marriage and reproduction be off limits?

Frankly this sound like more of the Church’s attempts to degrade and demonize sexuality. Oh those crazy celibates.

honora on February 28, 2007 at 11:03 AM

For that gift, he lives as long as we carry foreward his profoundly compassionate truth.

profitsbeard on February 28, 2007 at 10:54 AM

Maybe I misunderstand your point, but whether Jesus is resurrected very much is the most important issue. This is something He does on our behalf, not something we carry forward on His behalf.

We are doomed without Jesus defeat of death and evil as reflected in His resurrection. It is His Love that carries forward His Truth and compassion, not ours. We are merely the recipients of this compassion.

Lawrence on February 28, 2007 at 11:15 AM

It’s not just Catholics who object, it’s all Christianss. The reason why we object to him getting married is because it didn’t happen.

Frankly, this sounds like more of society’s attempts to praise and worship sexuality. Oh those crazy sluts.

*barf*

Darth Executor on February 28, 2007 at 11:16 AM

I have never really understood why the notion that Christ was married and children is so problematic. So what?

honora on February 28, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Because the contention isn’t about marriage and reproduction being off-limits.

The issue is falsely claiming that Jesus did something that historical accounts overwhelmingly reflect that He did not do.

Lawrence on February 28, 2007 at 11:27 AM

Because the contention isn’t about marriage and reproduction being off-limits.

The issue is falsely claiming that Jesus did something that historical accounts overwhelmingly reflect that He did not do.

Lawrence on February 28, 2007 at 11:27 AM

By historical accounts you mean, what, for instance? I’m not much of a Bible scholar (ok, I’m not in any way a Bible scholar) but I believe the Bible doesn’t mention this one way or the other.

honora on February 28, 2007 at 11:37 AM

This does not put man’s logic in authority over the word of God. God’s word has authority irrespective of man’s ability to either describe or argue against it. Like you said, the authority of God’s word is a presupposition, one that Christians take for granted, and non-Christians reject out of hand. Apology is not about conforming Biblical truth to the tenets of Western logic in order to justify it to believers. It’s an application of the tools of argumentation to defend the validity of belief among mixed company.

It’s about settling disputes, not winning people. Evangelism is about winning people.

spmat on February 28, 2007 at 4:21 AM

You’re asking man to choose between the evidence against the Bible’s claims about Christ and the evidence for. You’re still asking man to choose. It’s better to just point out that no man can weigh all the evidence for or against the resurrection, therefore man is in a position of total uncertainty about whether or not it actually occurred. He doesn’t find the arguments for the resurrection compelling, even though they are there. He is sinfully dependent on his own opinions regarding the resurrection and not dependent on the word of God, the Holy Spirit, and the redemption of Christ. He must be made to challenge his own dependence on himself.

PRCalDude on February 28, 2007 at 12:07 PM

By historical accounts you mean, what, for instance? I’m not much of a Bible scholar (ok, I’m not in any way a Bible scholar) but I believe the Bible doesn’t mention this one way or the other.

honora on February 28, 2007 at 11:37 AM

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

PRCalDude on February 28, 2007 at 12:08 PM

I understand that Salmon Rushdie isn’t recieving any phone calls from Dan Brown, Ron Howard, and James cameron, hoping to sink the Religion of Peace through cinematic outlet.

Actually, these attacks only strengthen my faith. When “Allah” becomes an accepted profanity in evey single hollywood-produced pile of rubbish on the planet, I might actually start to worry about the need to diversify my theological focus.

But I won’t. Will the next Jesus-bashing glory-seeker please get on deck? Cameron’s time at bat is almost up. I miss Peter Jenning on in that he’s no longer around to plunge his journalistic scimitar into the resurrection . . .

The Therapist on February 28, 2007 at 12:23 PM

(ok, I’m not in any way a Bible scholar)

honora on February 28, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Indeed.

While it is reasonable to question why Jesus didn’t get married. The simple answer is that He chose not to do so and never felt the need to have to explain why.

The Bible accounts are pretty clear on what Jesus did and what Jesus accomplished. Nowhere in the cannonized text, nowhere in non-canonized texts, nowhere in any hitorical texts of the time, nowhere in any traditional accounts of Jesus, and nowhere in any of the recorded Words of Jesus is it suggested that Jesus was married or had any intention of procreating.

All these texts describe Jesus as a bachelor without the financial means to support a family, and describe Jesus as someone who did not pursue lustful urges toward either women or men.

This ossuary issue is a way to offer archeological evidence in favor of a marriage, but the prepoderance of supporting evidence tells us exactly the opposite. In a pure scientific sense this proves the ossuary theory of marriage untrue.

Lawrence on February 28, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Actually, honora, the issue of Jesus getting married and procreating is very importnat if you think about it. One of the terms used to describe the Church (that is, the body of believing Christians) relative to Christ is as His Bride, and He is our Groom. If He already has a bride, that really ruins the description.
More importantly, Christ is God in the flesh. If he had children, what would they be? Demigods? Would they have supernatural powers like Christ? What about their descendants?

Most importantly, look at where the claims for Christ’s having a family come from. Almost invariably, it comes from the DeCamerons and Dan Browns, people who are outright enemies of Christianity.

Lastly, there is nothing in Scriptuer to suggest that He did marry and have children, despite the importance of teh subject and teh opportuinities.
So, no, He never married

Lancer on February 28, 2007 at 12:32 PM

(ok, I’m not in any way a Bible scholar)

honora on February 28, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Example of what I’m talking about above – doesn’t believe the Bible’s account, but hasn’t weighed all the arguments for or against it either. Nor can she being human.

PRCalDude on February 28, 2007 at 12:32 PM

I’m not much of a Bible scholar (ok, I’m not in any way a Bible scholar) but I believe the Bible doesn’t mention this one way or the other.

honora on February 28, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Peter’s wife is mention multiple times in the scriptures. Paul’s lack of a wife is mentioned multiple times in the scriptures. Jesus is mentioned as a bridegroom on many occasions, but in ever case it is as the bridegroom to his eternal bride.

Jhn 14:2 In my Father’s house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Jhn 14:3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, [there] ye may be also.

Mat 9:15 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

Jesus married His Church, not a woman. He no more needed or wanted an earthly bride than he did an earthly kingdom. His work was to preach the acceptable day of the Lord, suffer and die for His people, be raised the third day and ascend to sit on the right hand of God, to return some day and claim his Church. I hardly see how being married would have been of any import to that work.

There is sufficient evidence by omission to assume that Jesus was not married to an earthly woman.

spmat on February 28, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Indeed.

While it is reasonable to question why Jesus didn’t get married. The simple answer is that He chose not to do so and never felt the need to have to explain why.

The Bible accounts are pretty clear on what Jesus did and what Jesus accomplished. Nowhere in the cannonized text, nowhere in non-canonized texts, nowhere in any hitorical texts of the time, nowhere in any traditional accounts of Jesus, and nowhere in any of the recorded Words of Jesus is it suggested that Jesus was married or had any intention of procreating.

All these texts describe Jesus as a bachelor without the financial means to support a family, and describe Jesus as someone who did not pursue lustful urges toward either women or men.

This ossuary issue is a way to offer archeological evidence in favor of a marriage, but the prepoderance of supporting evidence tells us exactly the opposite. In a pure scientific sense this proves the ossuary theory of marriage untrue.

Lawrence on February 28, 2007 at 12:29 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

Comment pages: 1 2