Summary: The book, The Four Views of Hell presents the theological viewpoints of John F. Walvoord, Zachary J. Hayes, William V Crockett, and Clark H. Pinnock on the subject of the existence of Hell and eternal punishment. The primary question the book attempts to answer is; does a literal Hell exist? JohnWalvoord initiates the debate with his presentation of the literal view scripture portrays. Walvoord in support of the literal view presents a lengthy discussion defining the various terms used for Hell, Gehenna, and Sheol. His arguments are clear, securely founded in scripture, and convincing Walvoord succinctly builds a foundation and lays out the framework utilizing word studies and contextual exegesis. Walvoord simultaneously tackles the question in the back of everyone’s mind. “How can one harmonize the concept of a loving gracious God with a God who is righteous and unforgiving?” ? How can the God of Love welcome one person to heaven and condemn the next to eternal damnation without any opportunity for a second chance? Both the Old and New Testament teach that for those whom are judged righteous the life after physical death is one of peace and joy. In contrast, Jesus states for the unrighteous there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Walvoord accurately points out the real issue is not the subject of hell and eternal punishment. The problem appears to be more a reluctance of theologians to accurately present the truth. There are primary issues with the subject of hell that each person must come to decisive conclusions about. First, one must decide and come to a conclusion of biblical inerrancy and infallibility or not. The other primary issue is accurate comprehension of what the scriptures are actually conveying to the reader. Eternal punishment is a concept that is a hard pill to swallow for anyone. Contrarily there seems to be no hesitation from theologians to discuss the blessedness of heaven. Ministers feel the pressure to only speak of the positive messages in the Bible. Initial reactions to hell are usually twofold. The first is, “of course there is a real literal hell but we must ignore it and the other is outright denial. Many people seem to choose the second route. Both of these conclusions are usually reached without a serious consideration of the scriptures. As a theological consideration, hell has probably been beat to death with analysis but with the wrong stick. Theologians have haggled over hell since the beginning of time. Life after death has been a settled subject for thousands of years. The subject of controversy is what the nature of that life is. Will it be eternal death or eternal reward? And bliss. Walvoord expresses the hope that punishment will somehow be shortened or terminated. Out of this literal translation of scripture has developed several competing views. For the sake of brevity those views are the literal view, the metaphorical view, the purgatorial view, and a conditional view. The problem with hell is very similar with the problem with the problem with evil. Many are too fearful to accept hell for what it is and therefore become busy bodies attempting to downplay the real possibility. As a result of fear some theologians and preachers begin to water down the scripture to make it more palatable. Scripture is clear that the wicked and unrighteous will be punished and that by unquenchable fire and then there is the second death.
The first attempt at watering down scripture is argued by William Crockett as he attempts to persuade the reader all of the scriptures that mention fire in connection with eternal punishment do not really mean literal fire. It is only symbolic, a Metaphor. According to Crockett’s arguments, literal fire in scripture really depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. Crockett somehow knows thousands of years later, what exactly the writers of the New Testament really meant. If only they would clue the rest of us in. The writers did not really mean everlasting punishment by fire; they really meant something else but similar or maybe something entirely different altogether like being eternally chased by the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man from the movie “Ghostbusters” who continuously throws burnt smores at the unrepentant. Crockett states “the writers of the New Testament were not concerned so much with the exact nature of hell as they were with the seriousness of coming judgment” I assure you an eternal supply of smores is serious business. In order to accept the metaphorical view one must believe that Jesus did not mean what he said when he described hell. It is recognized the following quote is utilized too frequently but it becomes appropriate out of necessity. Famous scholar George R. Beasley Murray stated; “There’s all the difference in the world between believing that the Bible merely contains the Word of God and believing that the Bible is the word of God. One way you are free to pick and choose what parts of the bible you wish to accept and follow and deem authoritative. But if you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then I’m afraid it’s a whole different matter, isn’t it. Then you must accept the Bible both when you like what it says and when you don’t. Then poignantly he added: of course there’s a price to pay for either one you choose. Obviously many people do not believe the Bible to be the word of God because they cannot or will not accept what it says about hell.”Then this debate really comes down to the debate of inerrancy. Choosing the orthodox /literal view does not make things easier but choosing the metaphorical or conditional view seems to leave too many holes in the boat. Jesus warned us to build our house upon the rock and not sand. Certain preachers and theologians do not like the concept of hell. They are picking and choosing only the pieces and parts of scripture they like. The metaphorical view leaves too much unsettled for interpretation. “Crockett once again jumps into his time machine and states emphatically the biblical writers do not intend their words to be taken literally.” Reader response criticism plainly just does not have a firm foundation upon which to stand. Jesus always said that faith in him would require sacrifices. Walvoord points out that the detractors from the literal view follow a purely theological and philosophical path and not an exegetical path. Those who do not support the inerrancy of scripture can easily pick and choose their way around until the bible no longer even mentions the word hell. Crockett of course presents no evidence for his assertion. To add insult to injury, Crockett emphatically states “the biblical writers do not intend their words to be taken literally” as if he can read their minds or they directly told him what their intentions are. Crockett claims to even know how all Christians feel about hell and has determined that Christians are somehow embarrassed by the subject. Crockett is actually imposing his own feelings upon all Christianity. Surely Jesus jests when he said there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Crockett implies Jesus is lying about his descriptions of hell. If Jesus is lying about hell, what else is he lying about? Maybe Jesus is lying about the resurrection and heaven as well. Maybe there is not any reconciliation after all and we are all going to hell. The metaphorical house is sinking quickly is it not? Maybe salvation is really metaphorical along with the rest of the New Testament.
Analysis:
The remaining viewpoints are the purgatorial and the conditional views. With all respect to our Catholic brethren; the purgatorial view relies upon one section of extra biblical writings that are not accepted as canon by Protestants or the Jewish canon. This hardly qualifies as authoritative. Walvoord stated early in the book the problem with the other views of hell argued in this book is that they are founded upon philosophical grounds and are not scripturally sound. SolaScriptura has been the standard for biblical interpretation since the reformation. It continues to be so. Finally we have Clark Pinnock and the conditional view. With all due respect to Mr. Pinnock and his recent departure from this life; everything in his latter theology became conditional and not exactly arguable from scripture. In order to seriously consider the conditional view of hell the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture must be ignored and completely denied. I’m certain that Mr. Pinnock’s section will be removed from this book in the future. Without a foundation built upon rock, the house will fall and great will be its destruction. This book purports to be for general audience reading. The topic itself and how it is presented do not allow for general reading. The language used by the various authors is not difficult reading but the layout of the book can be confusing requiring advanced readers with an advanced education in order to keep track of where the discussion is and where it is leading. As stated, all of the views presented on hell except Walvoord are based upon philosophical arguments and are without scriptural foundation. These types of arguments can confuse the readership looking for authoritative answers to the questions posed. The book jumps back and forth between the four different viewpoints, becoming another stumbling block of understanding for the readership. A similar point is made by all the authors which needs to at least be seriously considered. No one this side of death knows hells realities though Mr. Pinnock does now and maybe no one should be guessing or speculating. But in the absence of primary knowledge maybe it is best to stick to the literal view of scripture which is grim indeed. It would be better to adhere to the literal view and be right than to adhere to one of the other views and be wrong.
Conclusion:
The format is unnecessary. There are other books covering different topics in the same series. These books are not recommended simply because of the format style. Ultimately this book is not about hell but about biblical inerrancy and infallibility. That is the subject that has to be firmly settled in the heart before tackling an issue like hell. Sola Scriptura must be firmly planted in the heart and mind before wrestling with the philosophical ramblings that are presented in this book. The Four Views of Hell receives solid thumbs down from this reviewer.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
The "Family" Tomb of Jesus of Nazareth???
Taken from an article at Liberty University Online: http://www.liberty.edu/academics/religion/lbi/index.cfm?PID=9720&blogpid=12747&id=300377
The Tomb of Jesus
JESUS FAMILY TOMB FACT SHEET
Compiled by Dr. Randall Price
My deepest gratitude to Dr. Price and Dr. Habermas for this entire article to whom all credit is due and given.
Blessings,
Big Mo
What’s Going On?
(1) On March 28, 1980 in the neighborhood of Talpiot, a Jerusalem suburb, construction workers accidentally uncovered a first-century burial cave containing ten ossuaries. An ossuary is a burial box used to store bones. Six of the ten ossuaries had names on them: "Jesus, son of Joseph; Maria; Mariamene; Matthew; Judas, son of Jesus; and Jose, a diminutive of Joseph. The excavators published a report of the find, archaeological magazines and journals wrote articles about it, the cave was closed, the bones were re-buried according to Jewish law, and the ossuaries were stored in a warehouse run by the Israeli Antiquities Authority.
(2) Two years ago, Israeli-born and now Canadian documentary producer Simcha Jacobovici was researching a story about the controversy over the James Ossuary. In the process he came across the Talpiot tomb discovery and decided it had greater significance than the excavators had known. After further research, he co-authored a book The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History by Simcha Jacobovici & Charles Pelligrino. The foreword by James Cameron, the Hollywood producer who directed the films “The Titanic” and “The Terminator.” In addition, The Discovery TV Channel aired the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" documentary Sunday night March 4th.
(3) The book and program claim that the Jesus of the Gospels was buried in his family tomb in Talpiot alongside his wife Mary Magdalene (called Mariamene) and their son Judah. Others buried in the tomb include his mother Mary and father Joseph, and family associate, Matthew. The film also suggests that the "James, brother of Jesus" ossuary, which surfaced in 2002 may also have come from this tomb.
Their Evidence:
(1) Statistical probability of finding in a first-century tomb in Jerusalem so many names of people mentioned in the Gospels in one location – 600-1,000:1.
(2) The filmmakers retrieved samples from the "Jesus" and "Mariamene" ossuaries for DNA analysis. "The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related. Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple" and that "Judah may have been their son."
(3) The filmmakers claim that the 10th ossuary, said to have disappeared from the collections of the Israel Antiquities Authority, may be the so-called "James, Brother of Jesus" ossuary. If so, there can be no denying that this is in fact the tomb of Jesus.
What’s at Risk? (1) The Gospel Witness: Even though this evidence is false, millions of unbelievers may still be deceived into thinking Christianity is a farce and that they were justified in not believing the gospel. In addition, uniformed Christians could also become disillusioned and leave the faith becoming skeptics or worse (since they will have abandoned their moral base). (2) Orthodox Christianity (which includes Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism): The conclusion of the book The Jesus Family Tomb and the television production “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” is that there was no bodily resurrection. They state that they are not theologians, but don’t see why believers can’t simply believe that Jesus rose (and ascended) “spiritually.” Neo-orthodoxy may be compatible with this notion of a “Christ of faith,” but this is incompatible with the Jesus of history and historic Christianity. This is because Christianity came from a Biblical Judaism that believed in physical resurrection, and because the New Testament authors state unequivocally that Jesus rose and ascended bodily, declaring that if this were not a fact then the Christian faith was invalid (1 Corinthians 15:17).
What is the Evidence Against This Claim?
(1) One of the Israeli archaeologists who excavated the site (Amos Kloner) and the anthropologist (Joe Zias) who examined the ossuary remains in 1980, have stated categorically that this tomb has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth and that the claims the authors and producers are making are nonsense.
(2) The name “Jesus” (“Joshua”) was one of the most popular names among Jews of the first-century. James Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary says he has a first-century letter “written by someone named Jesus, addressed to someone else named Jesus and witnessed by a third party named Jesus.” The New Testament also mentions a “Bar-Jesus” (Acts 13:6). In fact, all of the names on the ossuaries make the top ten list of popular first-century names. Based on account of 2,625 males with these names in the first century and/on discovered ossuaries we find: Joseph 218/45, Judah (Judas) 164/44, Jesus 99/22, Matthew 62/17. Of 328 occurrences for women we find: Mary/Mariamne 70/42 (21% of Jewish women were called Mariamne/Mary), Martha 20/17. This reveals that the chance of the people in the ossuaries being the same individuals mentioned in Gospels is extremely slight.
(3) The statistical analysis commissioned by the authors and producers is untrustworthy. Statistical analysis is only as good as the numbers that were provided to the statistician. He did not run numbers he did not have. In the follow-up critique program hosted by Ted Koppel (aired on The Discovery Channel on March 4th), the statistician admitted that to get the high numbers given in the book and on the program, one would have to accept the assumptions made about the identifications and relationships (familial) of the individuals in the tomb have to be put into the numbers pot. However, if only the individual names “Jesus,” “Mary,” and “Joseph” were used the outcome would not be significant.
(4) According to the gospels, Matthew was not a family member, and a “Judas son of Jesus” is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament or extra-biblical writings. In fact, there is no historical evidence that Jesus was married or had a child. Therefore, this can’t be Jesus’ family tomb if Matthew is there, and can’t be the Jesus of the Gospels if son named Judas there!
(5) The ossuaries are inscribed in different languages: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek (“Jesus,” and “Judah” are inscribed in Aramaic, “Joseph,” “Maria,” and “Matthew” are in Hebrew, and “Marianmene e Mara” in Greek). If the tomb is of Jesus' family, why are the inscriptions in different languages? If “Marianmene e Mara” is really “Mary Magdelene” and she is Jesus’ wife, why isn’t her ossuary also in Hebrew? There is no evidence she was a Hellenistic Jew (Jesus wasn’t). This evidence suggests that different individuals, perhaps of different backgrounds, were buried in the tomb.
(6) The DNA evidence is suspect. Over the past five years my excavation team and I have collected more than 50 bone deposits from Qumran. Despite the large number of bones (including teeth), the excellent state of the bones, and our careful method of extraction and preservation in view of DNA analysis, our genetics expert, Dr. Gila Kahila (who performed the DNA analysis of the Dead Sea scroll fragments from Cave 4 at Qumran) has had little success in getting any DNA samples. The bones of the ten ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb were given a proper Jewish burial back in 1980, and any scant remains that may have been found in this new investigation have probably been contaminated with the DNA of the excavators and others. All one needs to do is breathe on a bone sample to contaminate it. The two ossuaries from which their samples were taken had been cleaned of their bones, handled many times, and had been in open storage for 25 years! Even if they had a good DNA sample, there is no DNA evidence that this is the historical Jesus of Nazareth. We would also 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. Moreover, because only two boxes were tested and they show no relationship we do not have enough information to even conclude this was a family tomb. In addition mitacondrial DNA does not reveal genetic coding or XY chromosome make up anyway. They would need nuclear DNA for that in any case. The only evidence is that the DNA of the Mariamne and Jesus in the tomb do not match. This evidence does not prove she is a wife. It simply says that this Jesus and this Mary are not biologically related. If it is a family tomb, then she could just as easily have been the wife of any one of the other males in the tomb. In other words, the DNA could prove the exact opposite of what is being claimed.
(7) The earliest followers of Jesus never called him "Jesus, son of Joseph." According to the New Testament, “Jesus” was the legal son of Joseph, but not his biological son. From a study of names in first-century Israel, it is known that there were regional designations for ossuary inscriptions. If an individual was from Judea they would have been designated by their fathers name: “Jesus ben (son of) Joseph;” if from the Galilee (Jesus home), then by the name of the town: “Jesus of Nazareth” (as Jesus is consistently called in the New Testament). It was this title, written as a legal designation by the Romans, that appeared in the inscription attached to Jesus cross at His crucifixion (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19).
(8) It is highly unlikely that Joseph, who died earlier in Galilee, was buried in Jerusalem, since the historical record connects him only to his adult hometown of Nazareth or to his ancestral home of Bethlehem. Moreover, the traditional tomb of Mary (the mother of Jesus) is in Ephesus, where Christian tradition says she lived with John after he was released from his exile on the island of Patmos.
(9) The ornamentation on the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb indicate they would have belonged to a rich family, which does not match the historical record for Jesus’ family. According to Gospels, Jesus was buried in a rich man’s tomb (Mark 15:43), but it did not belong to his family, but to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin. However, the ossuary for Jesus is of inferior quality, the name merely scratched on the limestone surface like graffiti. If the family could afford a rich man’s tomb and had an entire year prepare to an ossuary (the time it takes for the flesh to decay from the bones) why would they choose a graffiti-like script to name their dead hero. Surely they would have honored Jesus more than this? By contrast, the ossuary for Mary is ornate and the name is beautifully chiseled. Was Mary more important than Jesus in the New Testament? Would Jesus’ family have deliberately made His ossuary less ornate? Why? Even though Jesus displayed humility during His life, why would His own family feel He needed to be abnegated in death? Why not also Mary, since she had often humbled herself (cf. Luke 1:38, 48; 2:29)?
(10) The two Mary ossuaries do not mention anyone from “Migdal” (or “Magdala”), which might be expected to distinguish Mary Magdalene (“Mary from Migdal/Magdala”), but simply has the name “Mary.” The Aramaic term Mara in this first-century context does not mean “master,” as is claimed, but is an abbreviated form of the name “Martha.” Most likely the ossuary contained the remains of two women named “Mary” and “Martha” (Mariamne and Mara), again common names of the time. Moreover, to get Mariamne to match Mary Magdalene and not a host of any other Mary’s, one has to appeal to an apocryphal Acts of Philip, a late fourth-century Gnostic (heretical) manuscript. Without this, there is not even a possibility of a connection. The Acts of Philip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene also state that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene (the basis for the claim in Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code). Again, these are fictional accounts written by a religion that opposed orthodox Christianity and was branded as heretical. Therefore, we do not know Mary/Mariamne = Mary Magdalene, the key point that has to be true for the claim of the authors and producers of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” to have any merit.
(11) By all ancient accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty. This conflicts with the idea presented in the book and program that Jesus’ body was moved to another tomb, decayed for one year's time, and then His bones put in an ossuary. Hostile Jewish and Roman sources such as Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus all say that it was believed by the early Christians that Jesus was raised from the dead and that they worshipped as a god. Archaeological evidence also confirms this: early Jewish-Christian ossuary inscriptions and graffiti found at the site of Dominus Flevit on the Mt. of Olives (in Jerusalem) reveal that the earliest Christians prayed to Jesus and committed themselves to Him in death. How could this have been done if they knew He had not defeated death? Moreover, if Jesus’ family had a tomb had been known, both the Jewish authorities and the Roman government, who wanted to stamp out the Jesus’ movement, would have exposed Jesus’ bones and ended Christianity in the first-century. On the other hand, if the tomb had been kept a secret, are we really to believe that Jesus’ disciples, who knew He didn't rise bodily from the dead and were perpetrating a cover-up and a fraudulent religion, would die for it as martyrs? Suppose even the disciples didn’t know? Who, then, removed the body? At least James, who became the head of the church in Jerusalem and was Jesus' brother would have known about his own family tomb! Yet, the New Testament records that he personally beheld the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:7).
(12) The James ossuary could not have come from this tomb. Soil samples taken from inside the James ossuary clearly links it with Kidron Valley area, not Talpiot. This matches the testimony of Oded Golan (the owner of the James Ossuary) who says the ossuary came from Silwan (in the Kidron Valley). According to the fourth-century church historian Eusebius, the body of James, the brother of Jesus, was buried alone near the Temple Mount (where he was executed) and that his tomb was visited in the early centuries. Two years ago Joe Zias discovered the fourth-century Byzantine inscription on the “Tomb of Absalom” in the Kidron Valley (near the Silwan) that said it was then known as the “Tomb of Zacharias,” the father of John the Baptist. Church tradition says that James was buried in this same tomb. Moreover, Oded Golan is on trial for forging the words “brother of Jesus” on the James ossuary. According to Joe Zias, who used to inspect antiquities dealers on behalf of the Israeli Antiquities Authority, he saw the James ossuary in an antiquity shop without these added words in the early 1990’s. However, during the during the forgery trial of Oded Golan, former FBI agent Gerald Richard testified that a photo of the James ossuary, showing it in Golan's home, was taken in the 1970s, based on tests done by the FBI photo lab. If the ossuary was in Golan’s home in the 1970’s it could not have been discovered in the Talpiot tomb in 1980. Remember, in order for the case to be made for this being the Family Tomb of Jesus, this James ossuary has to be proven to have originally said “brother of Jesus” and to have come from the Talpiot tomb.
Closing Quote: "In light of all the incredible number of problems with the recent claim that Jesus' grave has been found, the time-honored, multi-faceted evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is more convincing than ever. Even the early opponents of the Christian message acknowledged that Jesus' tomb was empty. And the evidence for Jesus' bodily resurrection appearances has never been refuted." - Dr. Gary Habermas (Research Professor, Liberty University and expert on the resurrection of Jesus and author of The Case for the Resurrection).
For more information contact:
Randall Price, Th.M. (Dallas Seminary), Ph.D. (University of Texas)
President: World of the Bible Ministries, Inc.
Website: www.worldofthebible.com
E-mail: wbmrandl@itouch.net
Office: (512) 396-3799
The Tomb of Jesus
JESUS FAMILY TOMB FACT SHEET
Compiled by Dr. Randall Price
My deepest gratitude to Dr. Price and Dr. Habermas for this entire article to whom all credit is due and given.
Blessings,
Big Mo
What’s Going On?
(1) On March 28, 1980 in the neighborhood of Talpiot, a Jerusalem suburb, construction workers accidentally uncovered a first-century burial cave containing ten ossuaries. An ossuary is a burial box used to store bones. Six of the ten ossuaries had names on them: "Jesus, son of Joseph; Maria; Mariamene; Matthew; Judas, son of Jesus; and Jose, a diminutive of Joseph. The excavators published a report of the find, archaeological magazines and journals wrote articles about it, the cave was closed, the bones were re-buried according to Jewish law, and the ossuaries were stored in a warehouse run by the Israeli Antiquities Authority.
(2) Two years ago, Israeli-born and now Canadian documentary producer Simcha Jacobovici was researching a story about the controversy over the James Ossuary. In the process he came across the Talpiot tomb discovery and decided it had greater significance than the excavators had known. After further research, he co-authored a book The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence That Could Change History by Simcha Jacobovici & Charles Pelligrino. The foreword by James Cameron, the Hollywood producer who directed the films “The Titanic” and “The Terminator.” In addition, The Discovery TV Channel aired the "Lost Tomb of Jesus" documentary Sunday night March 4th.
(3) The book and program claim that the Jesus of the Gospels was buried in his family tomb in Talpiot alongside his wife Mary Magdalene (called Mariamene) and their son Judah. Others buried in the tomb include his mother Mary and father Joseph, and family associate, Matthew. The film also suggests that the "James, brother of Jesus" ossuary, which surfaced in 2002 may also have come from this tomb.
Their Evidence:
(1) Statistical probability of finding in a first-century tomb in Jerusalem so many names of people mentioned in the Gospels in one location – 600-1,000:1.
(2) The filmmakers retrieved samples from the "Jesus" and "Mariamene" ossuaries for DNA analysis. "The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related. Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple" and that "Judah may have been their son."
(3) The filmmakers claim that the 10th ossuary, said to have disappeared from the collections of the Israel Antiquities Authority, may be the so-called "James, Brother of Jesus" ossuary. If so, there can be no denying that this is in fact the tomb of Jesus.
What’s at Risk? (1) The Gospel Witness: Even though this evidence is false, millions of unbelievers may still be deceived into thinking Christianity is a farce and that they were justified in not believing the gospel. In addition, uniformed Christians could also become disillusioned and leave the faith becoming skeptics or worse (since they will have abandoned their moral base). (2) Orthodox Christianity (which includes Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism): The conclusion of the book The Jesus Family Tomb and the television production “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” is that there was no bodily resurrection. They state that they are not theologians, but don’t see why believers can’t simply believe that Jesus rose (and ascended) “spiritually.” Neo-orthodoxy may be compatible with this notion of a “Christ of faith,” but this is incompatible with the Jesus of history and historic Christianity. This is because Christianity came from a Biblical Judaism that believed in physical resurrection, and because the New Testament authors state unequivocally that Jesus rose and ascended bodily, declaring that if this were not a fact then the Christian faith was invalid (1 Corinthians 15:17).
What is the Evidence Against This Claim?
(1) One of the Israeli archaeologists who excavated the site (Amos Kloner) and the anthropologist (Joe Zias) who examined the ossuary remains in 1980, have stated categorically that this tomb has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth and that the claims the authors and producers are making are nonsense.
(2) The name “Jesus” (“Joshua”) was one of the most popular names among Jews of the first-century. James Charlesworth of Princeton Theological Seminary says he has a first-century letter “written by someone named Jesus, addressed to someone else named Jesus and witnessed by a third party named Jesus.” The New Testament also mentions a “Bar-Jesus” (Acts 13:6). In fact, all of the names on the ossuaries make the top ten list of popular first-century names. Based on account of 2,625 males with these names in the first century and/on discovered ossuaries we find: Joseph 218/45, Judah (Judas) 164/44, Jesus 99/22, Matthew 62/17. Of 328 occurrences for women we find: Mary/Mariamne 70/42 (21% of Jewish women were called Mariamne/Mary), Martha 20/17. This reveals that the chance of the people in the ossuaries being the same individuals mentioned in Gospels is extremely slight.
(3) The statistical analysis commissioned by the authors and producers is untrustworthy. Statistical analysis is only as good as the numbers that were provided to the statistician. He did not run numbers he did not have. In the follow-up critique program hosted by Ted Koppel (aired on The Discovery Channel on March 4th), the statistician admitted that to get the high numbers given in the book and on the program, one would have to accept the assumptions made about the identifications and relationships (familial) of the individuals in the tomb have to be put into the numbers pot. However, if only the individual names “Jesus,” “Mary,” and “Joseph” were used the outcome would not be significant.
(4) According to the gospels, Matthew was not a family member, and a “Judas son of Jesus” is nowhere mentioned in the New Testament or extra-biblical writings. In fact, there is no historical evidence that Jesus was married or had a child. Therefore, this can’t be Jesus’ family tomb if Matthew is there, and can’t be the Jesus of the Gospels if son named Judas there!
(5) The ossuaries are inscribed in different languages: Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek (“Jesus,” and “Judah” are inscribed in Aramaic, “Joseph,” “Maria,” and “Matthew” are in Hebrew, and “Marianmene e Mara” in Greek). If the tomb is of Jesus' family, why are the inscriptions in different languages? If “Marianmene e Mara” is really “Mary Magdelene” and she is Jesus’ wife, why isn’t her ossuary also in Hebrew? There is no evidence she was a Hellenistic Jew (Jesus wasn’t). This evidence suggests that different individuals, perhaps of different backgrounds, were buried in the tomb.
(6) The DNA evidence is suspect. Over the past five years my excavation team and I have collected more than 50 bone deposits from Qumran. Despite the large number of bones (including teeth), the excellent state of the bones, and our careful method of extraction and preservation in view of DNA analysis, our genetics expert, Dr. Gila Kahila (who performed the DNA analysis of the Dead Sea scroll fragments from Cave 4 at Qumran) has had little success in getting any DNA samples. The bones of the ten ossuaries from the Talpiot tomb were given a proper Jewish burial back in 1980, and any scant remains that may have been found in this new investigation have probably been contaminated with the DNA of the excavators and others. All one needs to do is breathe on a bone sample to contaminate it. The two ossuaries from which their samples were taken had been cleaned of their bones, handled many times, and had been in open storage for 25 years! Even if they had a good DNA sample, there is no DNA evidence that this is the historical Jesus of Nazareth. We would also 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. Moreover, because only two boxes were tested and they show no relationship we do not have enough information to even conclude this was a family tomb. In addition mitacondrial DNA does not reveal genetic coding or XY chromosome make up anyway. They would need nuclear DNA for that in any case. The only evidence is that the DNA of the Mariamne and Jesus in the tomb do not match. This evidence does not prove she is a wife. It simply says that this Jesus and this Mary are not biologically related. If it is a family tomb, then she could just as easily have been the wife of any one of the other males in the tomb. In other words, the DNA could prove the exact opposite of what is being claimed.
(7) The earliest followers of Jesus never called him "Jesus, son of Joseph." According to the New Testament, “Jesus” was the legal son of Joseph, but not his biological son. From a study of names in first-century Israel, it is known that there were regional designations for ossuary inscriptions. If an individual was from Judea they would have been designated by their fathers name: “Jesus ben (son of) Joseph;” if from the Galilee (Jesus home), then by the name of the town: “Jesus of Nazareth” (as Jesus is consistently called in the New Testament). It was this title, written as a legal designation by the Romans, that appeared in the inscription attached to Jesus cross at His crucifixion (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19).
(8) It is highly unlikely that Joseph, who died earlier in Galilee, was buried in Jerusalem, since the historical record connects him only to his adult hometown of Nazareth or to his ancestral home of Bethlehem. Moreover, the traditional tomb of Mary (the mother of Jesus) is in Ephesus, where Christian tradition says she lived with John after he was released from his exile on the island of Patmos.
(9) The ornamentation on the ossuaries in the Talpiot tomb indicate they would have belonged to a rich family, which does not match the historical record for Jesus’ family. According to Gospels, Jesus was buried in a rich man’s tomb (Mark 15:43), but it did not belong to his family, but to Joseph of Arimathea, a member of the Sanhedrin. However, the ossuary for Jesus is of inferior quality, the name merely scratched on the limestone surface like graffiti. If the family could afford a rich man’s tomb and had an entire year prepare to an ossuary (the time it takes for the flesh to decay from the bones) why would they choose a graffiti-like script to name their dead hero. Surely they would have honored Jesus more than this? By contrast, the ossuary for Mary is ornate and the name is beautifully chiseled. Was Mary more important than Jesus in the New Testament? Would Jesus’ family have deliberately made His ossuary less ornate? Why? Even though Jesus displayed humility during His life, why would His own family feel He needed to be abnegated in death? Why not also Mary, since she had often humbled herself (cf. Luke 1:38, 48; 2:29)?
(10) The two Mary ossuaries do not mention anyone from “Migdal” (or “Magdala”), which might be expected to distinguish Mary Magdalene (“Mary from Migdal/Magdala”), but simply has the name “Mary.” The Aramaic term Mara in this first-century context does not mean “master,” as is claimed, but is an abbreviated form of the name “Martha.” Most likely the ossuary contained the remains of two women named “Mary” and “Martha” (Mariamne and Mara), again common names of the time. Moreover, to get Mariamne to match Mary Magdalene and not a host of any other Mary’s, one has to appeal to an apocryphal Acts of Philip, a late fourth-century Gnostic (heretical) manuscript. Without this, there is not even a possibility of a connection. The Acts of Philip and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene also state that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene (the basis for the claim in Dan Brown’s The DaVinci Code). Again, these are fictional accounts written by a religion that opposed orthodox Christianity and was branded as heretical. Therefore, we do not know Mary/Mariamne = Mary Magdalene, the key point that has to be true for the claim of the authors and producers of “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” to have any merit.
(11) By all ancient accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty. This conflicts with the idea presented in the book and program that Jesus’ body was moved to another tomb, decayed for one year's time, and then His bones put in an ossuary. Hostile Jewish and Roman sources such as Josephus, Suetonius, Pliny and Tacitus all say that it was believed by the early Christians that Jesus was raised from the dead and that they worshipped as a god. Archaeological evidence also confirms this: early Jewish-Christian ossuary inscriptions and graffiti found at the site of Dominus Flevit on the Mt. of Olives (in Jerusalem) reveal that the earliest Christians prayed to Jesus and committed themselves to Him in death. How could this have been done if they knew He had not defeated death? Moreover, if Jesus’ family had a tomb had been known, both the Jewish authorities and the Roman government, who wanted to stamp out the Jesus’ movement, would have exposed Jesus’ bones and ended Christianity in the first-century. On the other hand, if the tomb had been kept a secret, are we really to believe that Jesus’ disciples, who knew He didn't rise bodily from the dead and were perpetrating a cover-up and a fraudulent religion, would die for it as martyrs? Suppose even the disciples didn’t know? Who, then, removed the body? At least James, who became the head of the church in Jerusalem and was Jesus' brother would have known about his own family tomb! Yet, the New Testament records that he personally beheld the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:7).
(12) The James ossuary could not have come from this tomb. Soil samples taken from inside the James ossuary clearly links it with Kidron Valley area, not Talpiot. This matches the testimony of Oded Golan (the owner of the James Ossuary) who says the ossuary came from Silwan (in the Kidron Valley). According to the fourth-century church historian Eusebius, the body of James, the brother of Jesus, was buried alone near the Temple Mount (where he was executed) and that his tomb was visited in the early centuries. Two years ago Joe Zias discovered the fourth-century Byzantine inscription on the “Tomb of Absalom” in the Kidron Valley (near the Silwan) that said it was then known as the “Tomb of Zacharias,” the father of John the Baptist. Church tradition says that James was buried in this same tomb. Moreover, Oded Golan is on trial for forging the words “brother of Jesus” on the James ossuary. According to Joe Zias, who used to inspect antiquities dealers on behalf of the Israeli Antiquities Authority, he saw the James ossuary in an antiquity shop without these added words in the early 1990’s. However, during the during the forgery trial of Oded Golan, former FBI agent Gerald Richard testified that a photo of the James ossuary, showing it in Golan's home, was taken in the 1970s, based on tests done by the FBI photo lab. If the ossuary was in Golan’s home in the 1970’s it could not have been discovered in the Talpiot tomb in 1980. Remember, in order for the case to be made for this being the Family Tomb of Jesus, this James ossuary has to be proven to have originally said “brother of Jesus” and to have come from the Talpiot tomb.
Closing Quote: "In light of all the incredible number of problems with the recent claim that Jesus' grave has been found, the time-honored, multi-faceted evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is more convincing than ever. Even the early opponents of the Christian message acknowledged that Jesus' tomb was empty. And the evidence for Jesus' bodily resurrection appearances has never been refuted." - Dr. Gary Habermas (Research Professor, Liberty University and expert on the resurrection of Jesus and author of The Case for the Resurrection).
For more information contact:
Randall Price, Th.M. (Dallas Seminary), Ph.D. (University of Texas)
President: World of the Bible Ministries, Inc.
Website: www.worldofthebible.com
E-mail: wbmrandl@itouch.net
Office: (512) 396-3799
Monday, December 28, 2009
George Said, "there’s all the difference in the world between believing that the Bible merely contains the Word of God and believing that the Bible is the Word of God.” Then he added, “If you believe that the Bible just contains the Word of God, then you’re free to pick and choose what parts of the Bible you wish to accept and follow as authoritative. But if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then I’m afraid it’s a whole different matter, isn’t it. Then you must accept the Bible both when you like what it says and when you don’t.” Then, poignantly, he added: “Of course, there’s a price to pay for either one you choose"
Monday, October 19, 2009
I know Why The Caged Bird Sings
you say you want me to be as tall as the cedars of Lebanon
yet you cut me down and burn me in the fire
you say you want to clothe me with the finest of silks
yet you give me blankets with holes infested with moths
you say you want me to be as strong as Samson
yet it is you who shaves my head
you say you want me to drink fine wine, laugh and be merry
yet you destroy my vines with pestilence
you say you want me to be well fed
yet you sow tares in my fields
you say you want me to run marathons but it is you that breaks my legs
you say you want me to build a house
yet it is you that destroys the foundation
you say you want the heart
yet you destroy the the glass box that holds it safe
I know why the caged bird sings
I know why the caged bird sings
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Getting your hands dirty
"dealing with lost people will cause us to get our hands dirty and sweaty just like tending to yard work. Part of evangelism is to clear up misconceptions and misperceptions people have about the gospel. Dealing with people and evangelism is often messy."
The hardest part of evangelism is stepping out the door and onto the road, because you never know where it will lead. Every facet of our Christian walk is like planting a garden, not just evangelism. It was planned by God to be like that in the first place. It is hard enough to properly prepare the soil and the seedbed for planting. As Christians, we must make friends that are not Christians and we must live a life dedicated to Christ in front of them. We must plant our seed, water our seed, pull the weeds, keep animals and bugs away from the plants and patiently wait for the harvest. In evangelism, one plants, another waters and another reaps the harvest. I worked with a man once whose nephew is a minister. This man took every opportunity to point out all the little things he thought that his nephew and I did wrong. He then would immediately say we both were going to hell. Funny how he knew exactly what sin may or may not entail. He listened each day and would ask questions of us. He would then poked fun at our faith. This man definitely heard the gospel everyday in some way. Did he ever receive Jesus as savior? Not to my knowledge. A group of friends and I did prison ministry at one time. We would bring in pretty girls to sing in order to attract the prisoners to our voluntary event. My friends would preach and I would pray for the men. We ambushed them. Many times people wait until they have a crisis, like going to prison, to call on God. In the middle of an emotional event people make a decision to receive Christ. I ran into a high school friend at one of these prison events. He received salvation at the end and I had the privilege of praying with him. Often, this is when the initial seed is planted. Since there is seldom any follow up, the seed is never watered, fertilized or protected so that a real harvest can be reaped. Fortunately, the prisons have chaplains. We have to take advantage of these emotional events to show the love of God to those needing Christ. As McRaney said, “we want more than just decisions.” Decisions are not commitments. Commitments take spending time and effort with those that need Christ in their lives, so that when the next crisis comes along they will be better prepared to face it knowing they have God with them to overcome that crisis. I have tomato plants growing and producing tomatoes. If I did not plant tomatoes, I would not be able to enjoy my BLT sandwiches.
The hardest part of evangelism is stepping out the door and onto the road, because you never know where it will lead. Every facet of our Christian walk is like planting a garden, not just evangelism. It was planned by God to be like that in the first place. It is hard enough to properly prepare the soil and the seedbed for planting. As Christians, we must make friends that are not Christians and we must live a life dedicated to Christ in front of them. We must plant our seed, water our seed, pull the weeds, keep animals and bugs away from the plants and patiently wait for the harvest. In evangelism, one plants, another waters and another reaps the harvest. I worked with a man once whose nephew is a minister. This man took every opportunity to point out all the little things he thought that his nephew and I did wrong. He then would immediately say we both were going to hell. Funny how he knew exactly what sin may or may not entail. He listened each day and would ask questions of us. He would then poked fun at our faith. This man definitely heard the gospel everyday in some way. Did he ever receive Jesus as savior? Not to my knowledge. A group of friends and I did prison ministry at one time. We would bring in pretty girls to sing in order to attract the prisoners to our voluntary event. My friends would preach and I would pray for the men. We ambushed them. Many times people wait until they have a crisis, like going to prison, to call on God. In the middle of an emotional event people make a decision to receive Christ. I ran into a high school friend at one of these prison events. He received salvation at the end and I had the privilege of praying with him. Often, this is when the initial seed is planted. Since there is seldom any follow up, the seed is never watered, fertilized or protected so that a real harvest can be reaped. Fortunately, the prisons have chaplains. We have to take advantage of these emotional events to show the love of God to those needing Christ. As McRaney said, “we want more than just decisions.” Decisions are not commitments. Commitments take spending time and effort with those that need Christ in their lives, so that when the next crisis comes along they will be better prepared to face it knowing they have God with them to overcome that crisis. I have tomato plants growing and producing tomatoes. If I did not plant tomatoes, I would not be able to enjoy my BLT sandwiches.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Community and Relationship
On page eight of The Art of Personal Evangelism by Will McRaney Jr., the author states “it is not enough to (simply) get decisions: we ultimately desire to develop disciples.” I believe that we want to make more than disciples. What we really want is a continuously growing family. A family that builds a community grows together and depends on one another. Furthermore, we desire a community of faith and love. That was God’s original intent when He created the Garden of Eden, the original community. We want to have a community where I can call on a brother that is a carpenter to help me reach my neighbor who is a carpenter because I’m an accountant that doesn’t speak the same language as my carpenter neighbor. We desire for people to develop a close personal relationship with Christ in order to create an extension of the greater body of Christ at large. Someone was made famous a few years ago by writing a book titled It takes a Village. In order to effectively evangelize, it takes a village of believers in Christ. These believers come with different backgrounds and experiences, all walking and working together to reach out to those without Christ. It is a community of interdependent relationships founded on love, trust and respect. To me, the author starts down the wrong track when he emphasizes following “commands” and talking about “lordship”. We are not a society or culture that can relate to the terms “commands” and “lordship”. This is especially true in the postmodern culture referred to by McRaney. America is a country of personal freedoms. I believe that using these terms, undefined, may have the opposite of the desired effect on potential Christians. People are told that they need to make Jesus “Lord” of their life and they instantly become defensive and cold because they do not understand the context. Instead, we need to define the context of the Lordship of Christ and also be examples of the relationship that God desires. This is a relationship built upon love between members of the family of Christ. Jesus said people would know us by our love that we show our family. He did not say people would know us by all the commands we obey. Legalism does not have a place here. We desperately need to go back to the Genesis example of taking a leisurely stroll with our Father and communicating one with another. I have a good relationship with my Dad. That does not mean that we always agree. We sometimes have heated conversations. Regardless of our disagreements, I love him. We talk. He does not stand around and command me and tell me I better do this and that or he will whack me. A relationship of true love, not lordship, will draw hurting people to Christ. We can then build the context of Jesus being Lord of our lives. When Jesus said “if I be lifted up I will draw all people to me”, I do not believe that He was talking about the physical cross itself, but was really commenting on “For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son”. Our demonstration of true love, care and concern for the lost will change people and their hearts and lives. Love never fails.
References
McRaney, Will, Jr. The Art of Personal Evangelism. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2003. Page 8..
References
McRaney, Will, Jr. The Art of Personal Evangelism. Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2003. Page 8..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
