Recently, I had a substantial debate on the topic of abortion with three pro-abortionists and fellow Christian, pro-life blogger Detective J. Hopefully, I will be able to post some of the content of that debate on Kingdom Advancing in the future. Today, however, I want to address a very small segment of the discussion.
At the conclusion, Detective J made known his belief in Jesus (my name makes my belief in Christ rather obvious). One of the pro-choicers replied with this:
I want you to know that I believe in G-d, too — only I believe that G-d aches for desperate women at least as much as for potential [unborn] children...
Now, I don't know why she dashed out the O's in her references to God, but that's beside the point. One could make the observation that this is a great example of a "figment-of-your-imagination"-god, a violation of the Second Commandment. But, that's not how I have decided to address the issue. This is my reply (I posted a link at the original site of the debate, but nowhere else, because I don't think that the antagonists in the debate would be interested anyway):
Of course God cares about desperate women. But turning to abortion only grieves Him more. God hates "...hands that shed innocent blood." (Proverbs 6:17) He would prefer these "hands that cause sin" (abortion, in this case) to be "cut off" (banned). (Mark 9:43) Women should not look for some kind of "salvation" or "savior" through abortion. For "...there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12) Jesus says, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me." (John 14:6) "Choice" is not the way; Planned Parenthood is not the truth; abortion does not bring life. Jesus says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28) He does not say, "Go to Planned Parenthood..." God does not want women to try to solve their 'problems'--real, imagined, or distorted--on their own or apart from Him in any way. "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He will make your paths straight." (Proverbs 3:5-6) For "...you cannot make..." even "...one hair..." on your head "...white or black..." (Matthew 5:36) So, trusting God, Jesus says, "Do not worry then... for your Heavenly Father [knows your needs]." (Matthew 6:31-32)
Can Jesus sympathize with desperate women and their temptations, trials, and weaknesses, even the temptation to have an abortion? The Bible says that He can. "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews 4:15) Jesus takes it a step further: "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried... He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed... the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him... He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due... My Servant will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53:4-6, 8, 11; emphasis mine)
Does God care about desperate women? As I said at the beginning: of course! "Are not two sparrows sold for a cent? And yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father... So do not fear; you are more valuablel than many sparrows." (Matthew 10:29-31) Cast "...all your anxiety on Him, for He cares for you." (1 Peter 5:7) Christians are called to love "...not...with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth." (1 John 3:18) We, as Christians, should be willing to do whatever we can to make the decision as easy as possible for pregnant women.
But the Bible also tells us that women--and men, for that matter--have bigger problems than unwanted pregnancies. "For what is man profited if He gains the whole world, and loses himself [his own soul]?" (Luke 9:25) "For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23) and "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of god." (Romans 3:23) Only the shedding of One--and only One's blood can rectify the dire situation. (Hebrews 10) Then, we are not to continue to sin. We are not to compound one sin (immorality) with another (abortion). "Are we to continue to sin so that grace may increase? May it never be!" (Romans 6:1-2)
Women, considering abortion based on desperateness, convenience, or a sense of entitlement, need to remember the story of the man, who, after being released from a great debt, then went to demand repayment for a much lesser debt owed him.
"For this reason the kingdom heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he had begun to settle them, one who owed him ten thousand talents [a talent was worth more than fifteen years' wages of a laborers; in other words, 150,000 years worth of labor] was brought to him. But since he did not have the means to repay, his lord commanded him to be sold, along with his wife and children and all that he had, and repayment to be made. So the slave fell to the ground and prostrated himself before him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you everything [note: impossible].' And the lord of that slave felt compassion and released him and forgave him the debt. But that slave went out and found one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii [a denarius was a day's wages; in other words, if you go by our current 365 days-each-year structure, the slave owed to the king 547,500 times as much as the other slave owed him]; and he seized him and began to choke him, saying, 'Pay back what you owe.' So his fellow slave fell to the ground and began to plead with him, saying, 'Have patience with me and I will repay you.' But he was unwilling and went and threw him in prison until he should pay back what was owed. So when his fellow slaves saw what happened, they were deeply grieved and came and reported to their lord all that had happened. Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy with you?' And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed to him [note: never]. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart." (Matthew 19:23-35)
Are children--are fetuses--indebted to their mothers? Of course! They effect their moms' health, appearance, social life, finances, free time [is there any?], and the list goes on... But how much more do mothers and mothers-to-be--how much more do us all--owe to God? How great has His mercy and grace--even His common grace to believers and unbelievers alike--been? How widespread His forgiveness? How much are we counting on it in the future? How much did all our lives hang in the balance when our moms made the life-and-death decisions when we were in our earliest days of existence?
"Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them." (Mark 10:14) Permit them to LIVE! Get right with God (for without that, none of the reasoning in this article will persuade you), stand up, and say, "I can do all things through Christ Who strengthens Me." (Philippians 4:13)
~Kingdom Advancer
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
"What Will They Think?" ; "What I'd Love to See in My Lifetime"; and "Amazing Grace"
If we’re not careful, it’s easy to look back and look down upon the Israelites, who repeatedly rebelled against God, despite His clear presence and their clear dependence upon Him. We cast a critical glance towards our own country’s ancestors, for such things as allowing slavery, yet not (initially) allowing women to vote. We may scoff at the Salem Witch Trials or at the sometimes inhumane and unfair treatment of Native Americans. We may look with pitying condescension at how political disagreements escalated into the War Between the States.
Looking beyond our country’s history, we may quiver at the “darkness” of the Dark Ages, or mock the primitivism of those who lived long before us.
Yet, all is not negative. Within each period of history, we remember and recollect great men, powerful leaders, expansive civilizations, interesting cultures, spectacular literature, breathtaking art, achievements rivaling believability, and astounding advancements in technology and industry. Both the positive and the negative elements define epochs of time, with one usually overriding and smothering the other—to one extent or the other.
Whence comes the poem I am to unveil today. Written during the Sanctity of Life Week 2007, the poem is titled “What Will They Think?” In it, the “they” I refer to are the eyes and minds of the future, reading the history chapters of the present. The idea behind it is that, while there are many positive things that have happened in my lifetime which will be remembered, there are also many evil and despicable things, which will stain the memory of my small piece of time in His Story, if drastic changes do not occur. (Though, if the world does not slow in its spiritual and social execution of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the world of the future may not consider “bad” what I do). Particularly, in this poem, I am referring to abortion, and I hope this poem motivates you to continue to battle for what’s right.
What will they think when they think of when I lived?
An age of technology like there’s never been?
An age of prosperity and communication?
An age of world travel and worldwide friends?
But when I think of this time I live in,
My thoughts often travel in the direction
Of that terrible thing I wish nothing in common,
That terrible thing which is known as abortion.
I wish my time had no relation,
With this time when abortions are freely given,
And in any convenient situation,
One can kill her own baby if she gets the notion.
Oh! This shame of America, if there’s ever been!
This national dishonor, this national sin!
This self-curse upon us, which one day must end,
If God is just, in great punishment.
That is, unless a big change does commence,
Bringing with it an act of true repentance,
A cry out to God for less consequence,
Than we rightly deserve as our just sentence.
For God is love, and He’s full of mercy.
He offers His grace, and He offers His peace.
But if we will not show mercy to our own babies,
What should we expect from the Righteous One judging?
So what will I do, and, so what will you?
We had better do something, and you can bet that that’s true.
Looking beyond our country’s history, we may quiver at the “darkness” of the Dark Ages, or mock the primitivism of those who lived long before us.
Yet, all is not negative. Within each period of history, we remember and recollect great men, powerful leaders, expansive civilizations, interesting cultures, spectacular literature, breathtaking art, achievements rivaling believability, and astounding advancements in technology and industry. Both the positive and the negative elements define epochs of time, with one usually overriding and smothering the other—to one extent or the other.
Whence comes the poem I am to unveil today. Written during the Sanctity of Life Week 2007, the poem is titled “What Will They Think?” In it, the “they” I refer to are the eyes and minds of the future, reading the history chapters of the present. The idea behind it is that, while there are many positive things that have happened in my lifetime which will be remembered, there are also many evil and despicable things, which will stain the memory of my small piece of time in His Story, if drastic changes do not occur. (Though, if the world does not slow in its spiritual and social execution of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, the world of the future may not consider “bad” what I do). Particularly, in this poem, I am referring to abortion, and I hope this poem motivates you to continue to battle for what’s right.
What will they think when they think of when I lived?
An age of technology like there’s never been?
An age of prosperity and communication?
An age of world travel and worldwide friends?
But when I think of this time I live in,
My thoughts often travel in the direction
Of that terrible thing I wish nothing in common,
That terrible thing which is known as abortion.
I wish my time had no relation,
With this time when abortions are freely given,
And in any convenient situation,
One can kill her own baby if she gets the notion.
Oh! This shame of America, if there’s ever been!
This national dishonor, this national sin!
This self-curse upon us, which one day must end,
If God is just, in great punishment.
That is, unless a big change does commence,
Bringing with it an act of true repentance,
A cry out to God for less consequence,
Than we rightly deserve as our just sentence.
For God is love, and He’s full of mercy.
He offers His grace, and He offers His peace.
But if we will not show mercy to our own babies,
What should we expect from the Righteous One judging?
So what will I do, and, so what will you?
We had better do something, and you can bet that that’s true.
I also have a portion of a song I wrote that is relevant to this post. I normally do not post my songs on the Internet, but this song is incomplete, and I don’t see it being finished any time soon. However, the chorus is still very poignant. Titled “What I’d Love to See in My Lifetime,” it’s a play on a very common question asked in interviews: “What would you love to see in your lifetime?” The question infers both where you’d like to go, and what you’d like to happen in the world around you.
Using this pretext, I make brief mention of abortion, along with the sanctity of marriage, and the continuing need for evangelistic efforts to change people’s hearts for Christ.
What I’d love to see in my life, would be that babies get the right to choose.
What I’d love to see in my lifetime, is marriage treated special too.
What I’d love to see in my lifetime, is more and more finding out the Bible is true.
That’s what I’d love to see in my lifetime.
As I type out this poem and chorus of a song, I’m reminded of one of the best movies—okay, I’ll go all out—probably that I’ve EVER seen. At least, it’s the best movie I’ve seen in the recent past. It is powerful, inspirational, emotional, enamoring, and educational, and fully worthy of our support. The title is Amazing Grace, and it’s the true story of English abolitionist William Wilberforce, perhaps the foremost contributor to ending the slave trade. A devout Christian supported by devout Christians in his efforts, the politician Wilberforce battled against slavery on moral grounds for years…and years…and years…when “only Christians were 'crazy enough' to think slavery was wrong.” (Quote: Author of the book Amazing Grace on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes) Finally, as citizens’ minds were changed one-by-one and the political system was creatively and astutely manipulated, Wilberforce had the sweet satisfaction of godly success. He is a role-model for Christian activists today, an example of politics in the name of God, and a trailblazer for transforming society.
~Kingdom Advancer
Saturday, March 10, 2007
The Politics of Death Quiz
A Nonpartisan Look at the Numbers
You’ve got Conservatives/Republicans using the number of victims under Saddam Hussein to justify the Iraq War. You’ve got Liberals/Democrats using the number of Iraqis who have died since the inception of the Iraq War to demonize it. You’ve got Liberals/Democrats using the number of soldiers K.I.A. in Iraq to try to show that they care more about the troops. You’ve got Conservatives/Republicans using the number of victims on 9/11/01 to show why we need to be tough on defense. You’ve got Conservatives/Republicans comparing the president of Iran to Hitler. You’ve got liberal wannabe heroes speaking out about Darfur. You’ve got them speaking out about AIDS in Africa.
The bigger the numbers—the better the statistics—the more effective the argument. Yet, in the distraction of all these debates and issues, the most astronomical numbers are largely ignored—and seemingly forgotten. And, if things do not change, it will be to America’s everlasting shame.
Take the “Politics of Death Quiz”:
Who killed (kills) more?
a.) Saddam Hussein
b.) Abortionists and pregnant women in a nine-month period
What has killed (kills) more?
a.) The War in Iraq [Iraqi citizens]
b.) Abortion in a one- to six-month period
Who has died (dies) more?
a.) American soldiers in Iraq
b.) Unborn babies in one day
When did (do) more die?
a.) American citizens—victims of terrorism—on 9/11/01
b.) Unborn babies each day on average.
Where have (do) more been (get) killed?
a.) Darfur
b.) Abortion clinics in America in half-a-year
What has caused more suffering (deaths)?
a.) AIDS
b.) Abortion in America
What was (is) more deadly?
a.) The Holocaust to Jews
b.) Five years of abortion to unborn children
As you might’ve guessed, the answer to each and every question is “b”, and the questionnaire could go on indefinitely with similar results.
An average of 1.3 million babies is aborted each year—just in America! That’s about four thousand per day!
This is the shame of America. The verdict over when life begins is virtually in. 4D Ultrasounds, “In the Womb” (National Geographic), a surviving baby born at 22 weeks, double homicide cases concerning pregnant women, Abort73.com ("Abortion Unfiltered"), simple logic (like the S.L.E.D. acronym), and tender consciences are some of the contributors showing that those denying the humanity of unborn babies are not only wrong and deceptive, but downright diabolical.
Some on the “pro-choice” side now rely more heavily on hypothetical-theoretical rape, incest, and fatal situations, as well as the erroneous and absurd woman’s “inalienable right to choose.” The aforementioned three scenarios are rare—especially the last one—and are entirely insufficient to continue to allow Abortion On-Demand.
Yet it is, as liberals celebrate in silent glee, conservatives occupy much of their time with other things, and Roe V. Wade’s anniversary inches closer to golden and farther from silver.
Keep in mind that we are not talking about Iraqis or Africans, for example. This is flesh of our flesh. We are not even talking about volunteer soldiers. This is innocence if there is any—as vulnerable as can be. How can this be? We’ve been “sung to sleep/ by philosophies / that save the trees and kill the children…” (“While You Were Sleeping,” By: Casting Crowns)
However, good things are still happening—the battle is still being fought. There are now more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics in America. South Dakota almost passed a ban prohibiting all abortions except when the mother’s life is at stake. Almost a month ago, Senator Sam Brownback revived the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, a bill that would require all women going in for an abortion after the 20th week to be informed of the pain her child would experience, and be given the option by a doctor to administer a drug to take the pain away from the child. (This, obviously, would likely reduce abortions. If the baby can feel pain…then it’s a baby. Right?) I'm not sure how his efforts are going. There are important issues going on right now concerning partial-birth abortion and tax-funding of Planned Parenthood (a.k.a., Legalized Infanticide). [Check out the American Center for Law and Justice to learn more and find out how to get involved.] Abort73.com is taking a “no more Mr. Nice Guy” approach to the issue. I encourage you to check it out, if you have a strong stomach and a box of tissues. There are virtually countless pro-life efforts, even though the media and big-name politicians seem to rarely mention the issue nowadays.
The fight must continue. God has been far more patient with America than we could ever ask, but He will not be mocked. Christians must stand-up, not just for the sake of our unborn children, but for the sake of our country and her future!
So, the next time you hear someone say that so many people died or were killed in one way or another for some reason or another, tell them to take the “Politics of Death Quiz.”
You’ve got Conservatives/Republicans using the number of victims under Saddam Hussein to justify the Iraq War. You’ve got Liberals/Democrats using the number of Iraqis who have died since the inception of the Iraq War to demonize it. You’ve got Liberals/Democrats using the number of soldiers K.I.A. in Iraq to try to show that they care more about the troops. You’ve got Conservatives/Republicans using the number of victims on 9/11/01 to show why we need to be tough on defense. You’ve got Conservatives/Republicans comparing the president of Iran to Hitler. You’ve got liberal wannabe heroes speaking out about Darfur. You’ve got them speaking out about AIDS in Africa.
The bigger the numbers—the better the statistics—the more effective the argument. Yet, in the distraction of all these debates and issues, the most astronomical numbers are largely ignored—and seemingly forgotten. And, if things do not change, it will be to America’s everlasting shame.
Take the “Politics of Death Quiz”:
Who killed (kills) more?
a.) Saddam Hussein
b.) Abortionists and pregnant women in a nine-month period
What has killed (kills) more?
a.) The War in Iraq [Iraqi citizens]
b.) Abortion in a one- to six-month period
Who has died (dies) more?
a.) American soldiers in Iraq
b.) Unborn babies in one day
When did (do) more die?
a.) American citizens—victims of terrorism—on 9/11/01
b.) Unborn babies each day on average.
Where have (do) more been (get) killed?
a.) Darfur
b.) Abortion clinics in America in half-a-year
What has caused more suffering (deaths)?
a.) AIDS
b.) Abortion in America
What was (is) more deadly?
a.) The Holocaust to Jews
b.) Five years of abortion to unborn children
As you might’ve guessed, the answer to each and every question is “b”, and the questionnaire could go on indefinitely with similar results.
An average of 1.3 million babies is aborted each year—just in America! That’s about four thousand per day!
This is the shame of America. The verdict over when life begins is virtually in. 4D Ultrasounds, “In the Womb” (National Geographic), a surviving baby born at 22 weeks, double homicide cases concerning pregnant women, Abort73.com ("Abortion Unfiltered"), simple logic (like the S.L.E.D. acronym), and tender consciences are some of the contributors showing that those denying the humanity of unborn babies are not only wrong and deceptive, but downright diabolical.
Some on the “pro-choice” side now rely more heavily on hypothetical-theoretical rape, incest, and fatal situations, as well as the erroneous and absurd woman’s “inalienable right to choose.” The aforementioned three scenarios are rare—especially the last one—and are entirely insufficient to continue to allow Abortion On-Demand.
Yet it is, as liberals celebrate in silent glee, conservatives occupy much of their time with other things, and Roe V. Wade’s anniversary inches closer to golden and farther from silver.
Keep in mind that we are not talking about Iraqis or Africans, for example. This is flesh of our flesh. We are not even talking about volunteer soldiers. This is innocence if there is any—as vulnerable as can be. How can this be? We’ve been “sung to sleep/ by philosophies / that save the trees and kill the children…” (“While You Were Sleeping,” By: Casting Crowns)
However, good things are still happening—the battle is still being fought. There are now more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics in America. South Dakota almost passed a ban prohibiting all abortions except when the mother’s life is at stake. Almost a month ago, Senator Sam Brownback revived the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, a bill that would require all women going in for an abortion after the 20th week to be informed of the pain her child would experience, and be given the option by a doctor to administer a drug to take the pain away from the child. (This, obviously, would likely reduce abortions. If the baby can feel pain…then it’s a baby. Right?) I'm not sure how his efforts are going. There are important issues going on right now concerning partial-birth abortion and tax-funding of Planned Parenthood (a.k.a., Legalized Infanticide). [Check out the American Center for Law and Justice to learn more and find out how to get involved.] Abort73.com is taking a “no more Mr. Nice Guy” approach to the issue. I encourage you to check it out, if you have a strong stomach and a box of tissues. There are virtually countless pro-life efforts, even though the media and big-name politicians seem to rarely mention the issue nowadays.
The fight must continue. God has been far more patient with America than we could ever ask, but He will not be mocked. Christians must stand-up, not just for the sake of our unborn children, but for the sake of our country and her future!
So, the next time you hear someone say that so many people died or were killed in one way or another for some reason or another, tell them to take the “Politics of Death Quiz.”
Friday, March 02, 2007
Poor
That's about the most positive way I can describe "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" and The Jesus Family Tomb. Poor job. Poor try. Poor viewers who might actually believe this intellectual garbage. The evidence is porous, at best. As I wrote in my last article, the makers and authors should have held themselves to a higher standard.
Of course, it's always difficult to "prove" and "present evidence" that something true--in this case, what the Bible says--is "false" or "inaccurate." Truth always seems to penetrate the falsity, eventually, like light pentretrates darkness, when the dawn comes. Over the past two thousand years, there have been countless efforts to extinguish the fiery flame that is biblical Christianity, different in format and style but always similar in purpose.
Even in comparison to other such endeavors, however, this one is rather...well, poor. Only a person who's willing to wager his soul's eternal status on a work produced by the director of Titanic would put much stock in it.
The following is a sampling of evidence that shows that this documentary (and book) has little to no credibility. Each point may not be a case-closer in-and-of itself individually, but as a collective unit, it proves that the "case" is barely legitimate, if at all.
Still, though, Christians should be willing to address this issue--rather than justifiably ignoring it--so that "by all means we might save some."
DNA:
The "DNA evidence" that is being so highly touted only proves that "Jesus" and "Marianme" (claimed to be Mary Magdalene) are not maternally related. It certainly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, does not prove that this tomb held the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the Bible. We do not have the DNA of Jesus, and we never will. Therefore, no matching of DNA is or ever will be possible.
But even beyond that, this evidence does not even show that "Jesus" and "Marianme" were totally unrelated. In other words, it does not prove that they were not cousins; it does not prove that they were not uncle/niece; it does not prove that they were not aunt/nephew. It only proves that they did not spring forth from the same womb. If these two people were related in anyway, the theory of the makers of this documentary would fall apart. But, even if it could be shown that they were in no way related, problems would still remain. For all the puzzle pieces to fit, the quantum leap of a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene must be made. This, however, is an unsubstantiated, sensationalistic idea with no basis but that of a Gnostic Gospel or two and the imagination of Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code). Another "evidence" of the marriage that might be claimed is that of the existence of "Judah, Son of Jesus," present in the tomb. But, now we're using evidence from the tomb to try to prove conclusions made from the tomb. Other than the presence of Jesus' son and other fanciful notions, I haven't heard any other argument why Mary Magdalene would've been married to Jesus rather than to one of the other males present in the tomb.
So, the conclusion of the oft-mentioned DNA evidence is that it proves very, very little.
Names:
Some critics don't even think the name translated as "Jesus" was done so correctly. "Hanun" might be the actual name. If that be the case, all has been for naught--for a simple mis-translation. Even if the name is "Jesus," though, the "Son of Joseph" title raises red flags. Jesus was not commonly called the "Son of Joseph," especially by those who knew and loved Him.
Then, there are problems with other names in the tomb. The name "Marianme" is reportedly written in Greek, and is claimed to be the Greek equivalent of Mary Magdalene. But, why would an ardent Jewish family have a Greek version of a name inscribed, especially when all the others are written in either Aramaic or Hebrew? More importantly, Dr. Darrell Bock points out that there is not sufficient credible evidence that "Mariamne" is Mary Magdalene's name:
...to get Mariamne to match Mary Magdalene and not a host of any other Mary’s, one has to appeal to an apocryphal Acts in a fourth century manuscript. Without that, there is not even a possibility of a connection, the Acts of Philip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, old evidence that was already vetted in the DaVinci Code discussion. In other words, we do not know Mary/Mariamne is Mary Magdalene, a very key point that has to be true for this claim to work.
Sure, they're related, but it's like saying that finding that Maria and Maria are related names is a surprise.
I've also heard that the inscription might even say (translated) "Mary and Martha," which would make very little sense--at least fitting into the fiction mystery that is The Jesus Family Tomb. Mary Magdalene is not the sister of Martha and Lazarus. Back to the Bock article:
Here are the words of Prof. Bauckham, “'Mara' in this context does not mean Master. It is an abbreviated form of Martha. probably the ossuary contained two women called Mary and Martha (Mariamne and Mara).”
The problems continue. "Jose," a rare nickname for Joseph, is the name on one of the ossuaries. But, this would not be Jesus' father Joseph, because, on Jesus' ossuary, it states of "Son of Joseph," not "Son of Jose." Why would there be such a discrepancy?
The conclusion of taking a look at the names, is that this might not even be "a" Jesus and his family, much less the Jesus.
Family Ties:
This is yet another category in which the claims of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" get really shaky. The "Jose" and "Matthew" in the tomb have to be explained away. They are both distant relatives at most, if this is the Jesus of the Bible. There is no reason to think they are Jesus' brothers.
If it can be determined that they are in fact distant--i.e., not immediate family--relatives, it only serves to open up another can of worms. Who are they? And why are they in such an intimate tomb of mother (Mary), son (Jesus), wife (Mariamne), son (Judah)? Why is Joseph absent? (As I pointed out, it doesn't make sense that "Jose" and "Joseph" would be used in the same tomb to denote the same person.) Why are Jesus' brothers, namely James, Judah, and Simon, missing, when less immediate (supposed) members--Matthew and Jose--are present? Why are Matthew and Jose--not immediate family members--in this tomb in the stead of other non-immediate family members? Are we to assume that neither Matthew, nor Jose, nor Judah, Son of Jesus, married or bore children? Why not? Did not Judah find a way to extend the bloodline of Jesus Christ? Not to mention that Judah's ossuary is the only evidence that he ever existed.
Of course, a point can be made in defense that all family members can't fit into one tomb, but the presence of supposed wife Mariamne and who-knows-who Matthew and Jose are what causes the problem in the first place.
Odds:
The best "evidence" put forth for this film is that they used "statisticians" to come to the conclusion that it is probable that this is Jesus' family tomb. Nonetheless, historians and archaeologists say that all the names found in the tomb were very common at the time. "Jose" might have been a relatively "rare" nickname for Joseph, but Jose is a problem for supporters of the thesis anyway.
About the commonality of the names and probability, Dr.Darrell Bock blogged with these facts:
Here are the details on names provided to me by Prof Richard Bauckham of St. Andrews and sourced in a famous catalogue of ossuary names that has been out since 2002 with the information known about this locale since c. 1980.:
“Out of a total number of 2625 males, these are the figures for the ten most popular male names among Palestinian Jews. The first figure is the total number of occurrences (from this number, with 2625 as the total for all names, you could calculate percentages), while the second is the number of occurrences specifically on ossuraries.
1 Simon/Simeon 243 59
2 Joseph 218 45
3 Eleazar 166 29
4 Judah 164 44
5 John/Yohanan 122 25
6 Jesus 99 22
7 Hananiah 82 18
8 Jonathan 71 14
9 Matthew 62 17
10 Manaen/Menahem 42 4
For women, we have a total of 328 occurrences (women's names are much less often recorded than men's), and figures for the 4 most popular names are thus:
Mary/Mariamne 70 42
Salome 58 41
Shelamzion 24 19
Martha 20 17
You can see at once that all the names you're interested were extremely popular. 21% of Jewish women were called Mariamne (Mary). The chances of the people in the ossuaries being the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the New Testament must be very small indeed.”
He stated well, that:
Darrell Bock at Leadership U
Of course, it's always difficult to "prove" and "present evidence" that something true--in this case, what the Bible says--is "false" or "inaccurate." Truth always seems to penetrate the falsity, eventually, like light pentretrates darkness, when the dawn comes. Over the past two thousand years, there have been countless efforts to extinguish the fiery flame that is biblical Christianity, different in format and style but always similar in purpose.
Even in comparison to other such endeavors, however, this one is rather...well, poor. Only a person who's willing to wager his soul's eternal status on a work produced by the director of Titanic would put much stock in it.
The following is a sampling of evidence that shows that this documentary (and book) has little to no credibility. Each point may not be a case-closer in-and-of itself individually, but as a collective unit, it proves that the "case" is barely legitimate, if at all.
Still, though, Christians should be willing to address this issue--rather than justifiably ignoring it--so that "by all means we might save some."
DNA:
The "DNA evidence" that is being so highly touted only proves that "Jesus" and "Marianme" (claimed to be Mary Magdalene) are not maternally related. It certainly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, does not prove that this tomb held the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the Bible. We do not have the DNA of Jesus, and we never will. Therefore, no matching of DNA is or ever will be possible.
But even beyond that, this evidence does not even show that "Jesus" and "Marianme" were totally unrelated. In other words, it does not prove that they were not cousins; it does not prove that they were not uncle/niece; it does not prove that they were not aunt/nephew. It only proves that they did not spring forth from the same womb. If these two people were related in anyway, the theory of the makers of this documentary would fall apart. But, even if it could be shown that they were in no way related, problems would still remain. For all the puzzle pieces to fit, the quantum leap of a marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene must be made. This, however, is an unsubstantiated, sensationalistic idea with no basis but that of a Gnostic Gospel or two and the imagination of Dan Brown (The DaVinci Code). Another "evidence" of the marriage that might be claimed is that of the existence of "Judah, Son of Jesus," present in the tomb. But, now we're using evidence from the tomb to try to prove conclusions made from the tomb. Other than the presence of Jesus' son and other fanciful notions, I haven't heard any other argument why Mary Magdalene would've been married to Jesus rather than to one of the other males present in the tomb.
So, the conclusion of the oft-mentioned DNA evidence is that it proves very, very little.
Names:
Some critics don't even think the name translated as "Jesus" was done so correctly. "Hanun" might be the actual name. If that be the case, all has been for naught--for a simple mis-translation. Even if the name is "Jesus," though, the "Son of Joseph" title raises red flags. Jesus was not commonly called the "Son of Joseph," especially by those who knew and loved Him.
Then, there are problems with other names in the tomb. The name "Marianme" is reportedly written in Greek, and is claimed to be the Greek equivalent of Mary Magdalene. But, why would an ardent Jewish family have a Greek version of a name inscribed, especially when all the others are written in either Aramaic or Hebrew? More importantly, Dr. Darrell Bock points out that there is not sufficient credible evidence that "Mariamne" is Mary Magdalene's name:
...to get Mariamne to match Mary Magdalene and not a host of any other Mary’s, one has to appeal to an apocryphal Acts in a fourth century manuscript. Without that, there is not even a possibility of a connection, the Acts of Philip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, old evidence that was already vetted in the DaVinci Code discussion. In other words, we do not know Mary/Mariamne is Mary Magdalene, a very key point that has to be true for this claim to work.
Sure, they're related, but it's like saying that finding that Maria and Maria are related names is a surprise.
I've also heard that the inscription might even say (translated) "Mary and Martha," which would make very little sense--at least fitting into the fiction mystery that is The Jesus Family Tomb. Mary Magdalene is not the sister of Martha and Lazarus. Back to the Bock article:
Here are the words of Prof. Bauckham, “'Mara' in this context does not mean Master. It is an abbreviated form of Martha. probably the ossuary contained two women called Mary and Martha (Mariamne and Mara).”
The problems continue. "Jose," a rare nickname for Joseph, is the name on one of the ossuaries. But, this would not be Jesus' father Joseph, because, on Jesus' ossuary, it states of "Son of Joseph," not "Son of Jose." Why would there be such a discrepancy?
The conclusion of taking a look at the names, is that this might not even be "a" Jesus and his family, much less the Jesus.
Family Ties:
This is yet another category in which the claims of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" get really shaky. The "Jose" and "Matthew" in the tomb have to be explained away. They are both distant relatives at most, if this is the Jesus of the Bible. There is no reason to think they are Jesus' brothers.
If it can be determined that they are in fact distant--i.e., not immediate family--relatives, it only serves to open up another can of worms. Who are they? And why are they in such an intimate tomb of mother (Mary), son (Jesus), wife (Mariamne), son (Judah)? Why is Joseph absent? (As I pointed out, it doesn't make sense that "Jose" and "Joseph" would be used in the same tomb to denote the same person.) Why are Jesus' brothers, namely James, Judah, and Simon, missing, when less immediate (supposed) members--Matthew and Jose--are present? Why are Matthew and Jose--not immediate family members--in this tomb in the stead of other non-immediate family members? Are we to assume that neither Matthew, nor Jose, nor Judah, Son of Jesus, married or bore children? Why not? Did not Judah find a way to extend the bloodline of Jesus Christ? Not to mention that Judah's ossuary is the only evidence that he ever existed.
Of course, a point can be made in defense that all family members can't fit into one tomb, but the presence of supposed wife Mariamne and who-knows-who Matthew and Jose are what causes the problem in the first place.
Odds:
The best "evidence" put forth for this film is that they used "statisticians" to come to the conclusion that it is probable that this is Jesus' family tomb. Nonetheless, historians and archaeologists say that all the names found in the tomb were very common at the time. "Jose" might have been a relatively "rare" nickname for Joseph, but Jose is a problem for supporters of the thesis anyway.
About the commonality of the names and probability, Dr.Darrell Bock blogged with these facts:
Here are the details on names provided to me by Prof Richard Bauckham of St. Andrews and sourced in a famous catalogue of ossuary names that has been out since 2002 with the information known about this locale since c. 1980.:
“Out of a total number of 2625 males, these are the figures for the ten most popular male names among Palestinian Jews. The first figure is the total number of occurrences (from this number, with 2625 as the total for all names, you could calculate percentages), while the second is the number of occurrences specifically on ossuraries.
1 Simon/Simeon 243 59
2 Joseph 218 45
3 Eleazar 166 29
4 Judah 164 44
5 John/Yohanan 122 25
6 Jesus 99 22
7 Hananiah 82 18
8 Jonathan 71 14
9 Matthew 62 17
10 Manaen/Menahem 42 4
For women, we have a total of 328 occurrences (women's names are much less often recorded than men's), and figures for the 4 most popular names are thus:
Mary/Mariamne 70 42
Salome 58 41
Shelamzion 24 19
Martha 20 17
You can see at once that all the names you're interested were extremely popular. 21% of Jewish women were called Mariamne (Mary). The chances of the people in the ossuaries being the Jesus and Mary Magdalene of the New Testament must be very small indeed.”
He stated well, that:
To get to the high numbers, all the assumptions about the identifications have to be put into the numbers pot, including Matthew, a name called “consistent with the family.” How? Where is the evidence for this?
Besides, in the end, odds are just odds anyways. Would you bet your soul like you'd bet on a horserace? I don't think so.
Other Common Sense Notes:
The documentary implies that the body of the most influential Person (because He was said to have resurrected) in history has been under the noses of enemies and allies of Christianity alike for almost two thousand years. Is that very possible, with His name right on the ossuary?
Where is everyone of repute supporting this documentary? Dr. Albert Mohler astutely noted on his radio show a few days back that few, if any, reputable people are placing their reputations on the line for this discovery, unless they have something financial or agenda-wise to gain.
Shouldn't the tomb have been a secret one, since the buriers would've been concealing the lie of Jesus' bodily resurrection? This tomb was not secretive.
This was a middle-class or above tomb. Jesus' family was a poor one. The idea that they would've "had the resources later" because they were the "leaders of a popular movement" is bogus and leads into many other problems.
If this were true, it would mean people were giving their lives for a known lie. Make sense?
The supporters of this work are denying any possibility of fraud. How can one be so certain?
This is a tomb originally found in 1980, and it has long been widely dismissed and ignored. This documentary and book is simply a re-packaging. Ultimately, we know it can't be true just because it goes against what the Bible says.
~Kingdom Advancer
P.S. Here are some other sites that have written about this issue:
Pushing Back the Frontiers of Ignorance
Talk Wisdom(Links to several other articles.)
Extreme Theology
Darrell Bock at Leadership U
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
