The Jesus Family

Tel Aviv in the spring

Let us be hip (not always true in my case) and on top of things and respond to fresh and recent news. Here are two articles I found from ankerberg.com in regard to the Jesus Family. I will provide the link and comment on portions of the articles.

First from Ben Witherington:

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/historical-Jesus/the-Jesus-family-tomb/the-Jesus-family-tomb-witherington-response.htm

Witherington states:

James Cameron the movie director who made the enormously successful film “Titanic”, on the night after the Oscars, will give an Oscar winning performance at a news conference along with Simcha Jacobovici who have now produced a Discovery Channel special on the discovery of Jesus’ tomb, ossuary, bones, and that of his mother, brothers, wife, and his child Jude as well!

First of all, I have worked with Simcha. He is a practicing Jew, indeed he is an orthodox Jew so far as I can tell. He was the producer of the Discovery Channel special on the James ossuary which I was involved with. He is a good film maker, and he knows a good sensational story when he sees one. This is such a story. Unfortunately it is a story full of holes, conjectures, and problems. It will make good TV and involves a bad critical reading of history.

Interestingly Witherington knows one of the producers of the film.

He continues:

1) The statistical analysis is of course only as good as the numbers that were provided to the statistician. He couldn’t run numbers he did not have. And when you try to run numbers on a combination name such as ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ you decrease the statistical sample dramatically. In fact, in the case of ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ you decrease it to a statistically insignificant number! Furthermore, so far as we can tell, the earliest followers of Jesus never called Jesus ‘son of Joseph’. It was outsiders who mistakenly called him that! Would the family members such as James who remained in Jerusalem really put that name on Jesus’ tomb when they knew otherwise? This is highly improbable.

Witherington notes that the names found on the ossuaries were common ones as he writes: The chances of the people in the ossuaries being the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the New Testament must be very small indeed.

Back to Witherington:

2) there is no independent DNA control sample to compare to what was garnered from the bones in this tomb. By this I mean that the most the DNA evidence can show is that several of these folks are inter-related. Big deal. We would need an independent control sample from some member of Jesus' family to confirm that these were members of Jesus' family. We do not have that at all.

Yes, without actual known living descendents of Joseph and Mary living today, DNA evidence cannot demonstrate that this is the family of the Biblical Jesus Christ.

Witherington writes:

3) Several of these ossuaries have very popular and familiar early Jewish names. As the statistics above show, the names Joseph and Joshua (Jesus) were two of the most common names in all of early Judaism. So was Mary. Indeed both Jesus’ mother and her sister were named Mary. This is the ancient equivalent of finding adjacent tombs with the names Smith and Jones. No big deal.

Even if the popular names Jesus, Joseph and Mary match the Biblical family, if any of the other ossuary names do not match the probability of this family being that of Jesus Christ decreases significantly. These popular names matched the Biblical family, but if some names found in the ossuary do not match such as is the case with Matthew and Jude (the son and not half-brother of Jesus), then we likely have a different family despite any similar names.

Witherington continues:

4) The historical problems with all this are too numerous to list here: A) the ancestral home of Joseph was Bethlehem, and his adult home was Nazareth. The family was still in Nazareth after he was apparently dead and gone. Why in the world would be buried (alone at this point) in Jerusalem? It’s unlikely. B) One of the ossuaries has the name Jude son of Jesus. We have no historical evidence of such a son of Jesus, indeed we have no historical evidence he was ever married; C) the Mary ossuaries (there are two) do not mention anyone from Migdal. It simply has the name Mary-- and that's about the most common of all ancient Jewish female names. D) we have names like Matthew on another ossuary, which don't match up with the list of brothers' names. E) By all ancient accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty-- even the Jewish and Roman authorities acknowledged this. Now it takes a year for the flesh to desiccate, and then you put the man's bones in an ossuary. But Jesus' body was long gone from Joseph of Arimathea's tomb well before then. Are we really to believe it was moved to another tomb, decayed, and then was put in an ossuary? Its not likely. F) Implicitly you must accuse James, Peter and John (mentioned in Gal. 1-2-- in our earliest NT document from 49 A.D.) of fraud and coverup. Are we really to believe that they knew Jesus didn't rise bodily from the dead but perpetrated a fraudulent religion, for which they and others were prepared to die? Did they really hide the body of Jesus in another tomb? We need to remember that the James in question is Jesus' brother, who certainly would have known about a family tomb. This frankly is impossible for me to believe.

It is unlikely the family of the Biblical Jesus would be buried so far away from home as they were not wealthy from what the Biblical text indicated. We have no serious evidence within the Christian community that Christ was married or had a son and therefore to assume that Christ was related to these folks in the ossuaries is pure speculation. It is hard to believe that Jesus' half-brothers James and Jude would proclaim and write about the gospel while facing intense persecution and likely an eventual terrible death for something they knew was a lie. Yes, persons in history have likely fought for what they knew were lies but I have a difficult time finding the benefits for James, Jude and others to live an average life faced with persecution for what they knew was a false religion. If they were becoming wealthy and getting multiple wives/sex out of a false religion perhaps I can understand bad motives. I can understand the idea of those who are preaching what they know is false fighting militarily for their movement. However, it would not make sense for people who know they are not telling the truth to lay down their lives as non-resistant martyrs, as was the case of many followers of Jesus Christ.

My final comments from Witherington:

And one more thing to add---Eusebius the father of church history (4th century) tells us that there had been since NT times a tomb of James the Just, the brother of Jesus, which was near the Temple mount and had an honoric stele next to it, and that it was a pilgrimage spot for many Christians. It was apparently a single tomb, with no other Holy family members mentioned nor any other ossuaries in that place. The locality and singularity of this tradition rules out a family tomb in Talpiot. Christians would not have been making pilgrimage to the tomb if they believed Jesus' bones were in it-- that would have contradicted and violated their faith, but the bones of holy James were another matter. They were consider sacred relics.

Second from Darrell Bock:

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/historical-Jesus/the-Jesus-family-tomb/the-Jesus-family-tomb-bock-response.htm
Bock states:

First, there is a suggestion that this is a family tomb of Jesus, when Jesus was in Jerusalem as a pilgrim, not a Jerusalem resident. How did his family have the time in the aftermath of his death to by the tomb space, while also pulling off a stealing of the body and continue to preach that Jesus was raised BODILY, not merely spiritually.

A good point, and why would they preach that Jesus was bodily raised? Are not first century Christians known for being persecuted, rather than for being richly rewarded in a worldly sense for proclaiming Jesus?

Bock continues:

Second, we have to believe that in a family tomb, some who were not in the family are included, that is, Matthew. How do we explain this? Does this inflate the statistical numbers in the show to include such “evidence?”

On Larry King, Monday, the filmmakers discussed the statistical evidence in their favour, but the numbers are less favourable when people such as Matthew and Jude that are included in the ossuaries are shown to not be part of Biblical Jesus family.

For the critic may I state that I do not have blind faith and hold to the Christian faith because I believe that God has guided me through mainly Biblical evidence and philosophical reason. If evidence was to show that Christianity was perhaps false I would reconsider my views, but archeologists and scholars of religion alike seem to dispute the findings of the film, and therefore it is not a serious challenge to my faith/philosophical theology.

Cheers,

Russ;)

The meaning of life

Trees, Versailles

Greetings,

I am thankful to God today for a good formal academic review from my PhD advisor, but there is much more work to do. I am also thankful for discovering through the internet a product called Klear Screen which is alcohol and ammonia free and cleans glossy LCD screens like mine and works better than water as a cleaner. A little bit of water cleans the screen but at least on my screen leaves mineral deposits which are now gone. Plastic LCD screens should be cleaned differently than glass monitor screens which can be cleaned with traditional glass cleaner.

On the Albert Mohler program today I listened to a friendly debate between Mohler and atheist Susan Jacoby. I side more with Mohler's reasoning, but agree with Mohler that Jacoby made a good point when stating that many Christians do not know their Bible well enough for the importance they attach to it.

http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2007-02-22

I presented the argument below in a comment in a different form on satire and theology. It concerns meaning in life. As far as meaning is concerned, the following does not on its own demonstrate God's existence or everlasting life.

Premise 1: Strictly speaking, there is no scientific, empirical evidence for everlasting life.

Premise 2: The deduction is made that Donald Trump being a billionaire receives a life quality rating of 9/10.

Premise 3: The deduction is made that the male drug addict on Main and/or Hastings Street in Vancouver receives a life quality rating of 1/10.

Premise 4: Both of these men shall die and since they cannot take their physical body or any of their material possessions with them their life quality ratings will drop to 0/10. Neither person can take any of their earthly success with them because they are unconscious and dead and all that exists physically is their remains.

Premise 5: Trump's life will likely provide a superior legacy to that of the drug addict and some will at least enjoy Trump's legacy, and perhaps some will enjoy the legacy of the drug addict but as the centuries and millennia go by the legacy of both men will fade. Even with Trump's legacy all persons that enjoy his life work will die and not consciously remember Trump or experience his impact.

Conclusion: Human life is not substantially meaningful, if permanently terminated.

Outside of this argument may I state that the Christian understanding is that the Bible provides a historically based theology of meaningful everlasting life for believers through the atoning work and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Christ was empirically viewed by followers in his resurrection form although everlasting life itself has not been empirically, scientifically demonstrated. The culmination of the Kingdom of God would provide repeated verifiable scientific evidence of everlasting human life.

Thanks for reading.

Begging the question

Tuscany, Italy

Greetings,

I have 18 surveys returned to me so far, and so if anyone is on the fence about whether or not they should ask to fill out a survey or let someone else know about the questionnaire; would you mind jumping over to my side of the fence?;) I am not begging, but just asking.

In books and on blogs I see the term begging the question thrown around a lot. Here is a look at how three philosophy texts define this term.

Simon Blackburn in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy writes that begging the question assumes what is at issue in an argument. Blackburn (1996: 39). Although persons are commonly accused of begging the question there is no logical definition of those kinds of arguments that beg the question. Blackburn (1996: 39). In the widest sense any valid argument may beg the question since its premises already contain its conclusion. Blackburn (1996: 39). Blackburn explains that these types of arguments can still be reasonably held. Blackburn (1996: 39). I do however, attempt to avoid arguing my conclusion in any one of my premises although a premise could allude to a conclusion, although I attempt to avoid this as well. Blackburn writes that a best definition of begging the question would be if a clear premise would not be accepted by any reasonable person who is initially prone to deny the conclusion. Blackburn (1996: 39).

David H. Sanford within The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines begging the question under the heading of circular reasoning. It is described as reasoning that traced backwards forms it own conclusion and returns to that starting point. Sanford (1996: 124). Sanford explains that presuming a truth of a conclusion within a premise thwarts the attempt to increase the degree of reasonable confidence that a conclusion is true. Sanford (1996: 124). It is better when putting together different types of arguments to establish separate but related premises that would ultimately support a conclusion rather than weakening an argument by assuming the conclusion within a premise and therefore not providing actual evidence for the conclusion.

David A. Conway and Ronald Munson in The elements of reasoning explain begging the question (Petitio Principii) as when the issue at hand is begged and not really addressed. Conway and Munson (1997: 132). This is when some reason offered for some conclusion is not really different from the conclusion itself. Conway and Munson (1997: 132). This is stating a conclusion that also serves as a premise. Conway and Munson (1997: 132).

In my view it is not begging the question to define a viewpoint without argumentation or to state that if a certain view is assumed correct then a related point could be assumed correct in a hypothetical context. If a person defines a theory in response to a contrary view it is not begging the question because the person is merely pointing out the differences between two different perspectives and not arguing for or against those perspectives. Also if a person states that if an assumption is correct then another assumption may be true is also not begging the question since the person would be offering hypothetical analysis and not an argumentation on the truth of the claims. Begging the question would be if a person specifically argued the conclusion of an argument within a premise.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) ‘Begging the question’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York.

SANFORD, DAVID H. (1996) ‘Circular Reasoning', in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

The Horror

Sundial, Chilleurs-Aux-Bois, France

This article is inspired by the extra cable movies channels my Mom has purchased. My Mom is a retired senior with some health issues and spends a fair amount of the time watching television and being on the internet. Many of the movies are of good quality, but some of the horror/suspense/thriller films seem to lack basic quality in the story and are very disturbing.

As a child and teenager I remember staying up late and watching some classic horror/suspense/thriller movies with Vincent Price such as Pit and the Pendulum (1961), The Raven (1963), The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971), and Dr. Phibes Rises Again (1972). I personally do not enjoy watching this kind of material often, and I do not necessarily recommend that these films be viewed, but I have to admit that although these movies contained some disturbing scenes they were basically well written stories with good acting. These films although dealing with some evil subject matter still appeared to have significant artistic merit. Many of the current horror/suspense/thriller movies to me lack basic quality of story, have very disturbing scenes, glorify evil, and promote fear. I do not have a problem with evil being artistically shown in films in either the context of our real world or a fantasy world such as in The Wizard of OZ (1939), The Harry Potter series (2001), The Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001), or in the excellent new Spanish film I just viewed in the theatre, Pan's Labyrinth (2006). I do not see much artistic merit in films that appear to focus on promoting evil as something that should be glorified as entertainment and at the same time promote a fear of evil. Many modern horror/suspense/thriller films seem more concerned with establishing an atmosphere of terror rather than an atmosphere of artistically looking at the problem of evil. Below are portions of reviews from screenit.com of some of the movies I have had the misfortune of running into with my remote control. I debated on whether or not to include graphic material as in torture details but decided not to, however, that information can be found through the links provided.

Hostel (2005)

http://www.screenit.com/movies/2006/hostel.html

The following is a brief summary of the content found in this R-rated horror/suspense film. Profanity consists of at least 100 "f" words, while many other expletives and colorful phrases are also uttered. Sexually explicit dialogue is present, as are several sexual encounters (featuring nudity, movement and sounds) and various views of nonsexual nudity (many views of bare breasts, butts and some female full frontal).

Violence consists of many people being tortured, wounded and killed via sadistic means, most of which has extremely bloody and gory results (the film is definitely not for the squeamish), and those scenes and other moments of peril will likely be quite unsettling or suspenseful to viewers. The perpetrators of such acts, those who support them, and others have bad attitudes, while some of that and other behavior might be enticing for some disturbed kids to imitate.

Saw (2004)

http://www.screenit.com/movies/2004/saw.html

Here's a brief summary of the content found in this R-rated suspense/thriller. Profanity consists of at least 27 "f" words, while other expletives and colorful phrases are uttered. Some brief, but sexually explicit dialogue is present, a man calls off an affair in a motel room and a man's bare butt is very briefly seen in a nonsexual context.

Violence consists of lethal and bloody acts where people are killed by various means and in various fashions (shootings, a head repeatedly smashed, etc.), others are threatened and/or severely injured, and the results of earlier, unseen violence are visible (with extremely grisly and bloody results).

Those scenes and other moments (including some jump scenes) may be disturbing, suspenseful or downright scary to viewers, especially those with low tolerance levels for such material as well as younger kids if allowed to watch this. The killer who's responsible for the deaths and sick traps obviously has a bad attitude, while a married man is noted as having an affair (with some other related tense family material being present). A man smokes several times and a woman is noted as being a drug addict, but no use occurs.

The Devil’s Reject’s (2005)

http://www.screenit.com/movies/2005/the_devils_rejects.html

Here's a brief summary of the content found in this suspense film that's been rated R. Profanity consists of at least 203 "f" words, while plenty of other expletives and colorful phrases are also uttered. Various instances of sexually explicit (and sometimes crude) dialogue are present (including talk of bestiality and necrophilia) as is a sex scene with nudity, movement and related sounds, other sexual material, and various instances of full frontal and partial female nudity, while scantly clad women are also seen.

Violence consists of people being killed by various means (gunfire, stabbing and much more), while there are also scenes of sadistic torture. Much of that has extremely bloody and gory results, and those scenes and other moments of peril might be disturbing and/or suspenseful to viewers. All of the main characters have extreme cases of bad attitudes (including the cop after the killers).

Thanks for reading.

Russ:)

Chucky's Revenge?

Heritage Coast, Wales

My good friend known as Chucky responded to a multi-topic blog article I posted on satire and theology.

Within the article I had posted a link from the Albert Mohler program which discussed global warming, but also Richard Dawkins. Here is the Albert Mohler link:

http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2007-01-23

Chucky noted:

Sounds like Dawkins is kind of a scientific Jerry Springer: he is more interested in provoking, offending and getting people riled up than in seeking truth. His righteous anger toward religion makes me think of the character of Saul of Tarsus. It is hard to think that anything other than a revelatory experience would cause him to change his ways.

Re: Global warming, I simply don't understand how our governments can just keep throwing gazillions of dollars at out-of-control health care, pointless wars, ineffective gun registries, all kinds of "squeaky wheels", etc. while productive industry shifts to developing countries, never mind placing additional restrictions on businesses which may do nothing more than hasten their demise (due o inability to compete with non-Kyoto countries). Yet I believe that we ought to be good stewards of what God has given us. The dilemma we face is caused by having already gone too far down the wrong road (of fossil fuel depletion) to make things right, unless there is a concerted global effort to change. Probably only a global dictatorship would have a chance at this point. 1984 here we come...

I replied:

Philosophical truth should not be overlooked as questionable and for the most part only empirical scientific data accepted as the means by which truth can be understood. Since the universe is expanding it is likely not infinite and eternal and neither is matter. What existed before matter and what caused it to exist? If time is eternal we have a vicious regress and an infinite amount of time cannot me traversed. If time is finite, what existed before time and what caused time? These are problems that are in my view larger than the problem of evil which is my MPhil and PhD topic. My articles on first cause and infinite on thekingpin68 blog point out difficulties with rejecting some non-materialistic explanations for truth in reality. Certainly supernatural occurrences are not typical but I would conclude that the existence of finite matter required the first miracle as a supernatural first cause created the universe. This first cause would have the capability to intervene within creation when desired and this would of course have the potential to appear untypical. I reason that Biblical revelation is a result of the creator intervening within the universe..

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006_07_01_archive.html

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006_10_01_archive.html

I would add that I am no expert on Richard Dawkins or science, but I saw an interview he did on the Charlie Rose show and he basically indicated that religious people were not educated. Clearly it is not that simple or easy for scientists who rely primarily on empirical testing to dismiss religious views that are developed through rational, reasonable deduction and revelation. There are educated scientists and educated philosophers, theologians, and Biblical scholars. Rather than dismissing those of other disciplines I think it is better to admit one's own intellectual short comings with an open mind. If I need to go into a hospital for open heart surgery I do not want a theologian to attempt to operate on me with the use of the Bible and theology texts. If I am terminally ill in the hospital a surgeon's skill becomes useless to me and if a theologian demonstrates to me that God has historically revealed himself in Scripture and provided a means of salvation and everlasting life through Christ, then he is of use to me in my time of need.

Russ:)

The problem of evil: your input requested

Le Mont Saint Michel, France

Greetings,

As part of my PhD dissertation, I am issuing a short and completely confidential and nameless problem of evil questionnaire through the internet. Anyone who is attending a Christian church, my sample group, that is interested in filling one out please let me know by leaving a comment or contacting me at rnmwales@shaw.ca

I will send a copy to those who are not within my sample group upon request as well. I will shortly be looking to sample local churches.

Here is an explanation of what is basically contained within the questionnaire.

Part 1:

Questions on basic background information, but the questionnaire remains nameless.
Questions on the church attended and religious beliefs in general terms.

Part 2:

Questions on the nature of God.
Questions relating to free will, sovereignty, and soul-making views on the problem of evil.
Questions relating to practical theology from a feminist perspective.

Part 3:

Questions concerning society and the problem of evil.

Thanks for reading.

Russ Murray