Looking for Jesus in All the Wrong Places

In February 2007, National Geographic published an article announcing that director Simcha Jacobovici was going to air a film on the Discovery channel that would outline proof positive that he and others found the burial remains of Jesus Christ and his “family.” The film was the second of this genre for Jacobovici who earlier in 2003 directed a documentary presenting proof that the tomb of James (the brother of Jesus) had been found. This new film that provided “proof” that Jesus’ remains had been found along with those of his wife and son was also produced by James Cameron, director of the box office smash hit Titanic.


Something to Consider First
Before we look at the evidence, it is prudent for us to consider what it would mean to produce the remains of Jesus. The apostle Paul said that without the Resurrection of Christ, our faith is dead. He is right. Our faith hinges the guarantee of life we have in the resurrected body of Christ. If he is not resurrected, then how can we have hope of being so? The bible says that we are alive in Christ, yet if he is dead, then so shall we be.

With this in mind, it is important to consider that directly after the death of Christ, the apostles were making bold claims that they saw the Lord Jesus alive, without regard for their personal safety. The religious leaders in Israel believed that these claims were blasphemous. These very same leaders knew that Jesus said He would rise from the grave, and they placed Roman guards at the tomb of Jesus immediately after the burial to prevent anyone from stealing the body and falsely claiming Jesus had risen.

All the religious leaders in Israel needed to do to end what they believed was a blasphemous, heretical movement was to produce a body. These claims were not made in some foreign land where they could not be investigated. They were made only miles from the tomb, and only days from the Crucifixion. The leaders needed only to produce a body and parade it around the streets of Jerusalem and Christianity would have ended 3 days after Jesus' death.

The fact is that there was no body to produce then. If there was no body then, only 3 days removed, any rational thinker would have to be skeptical that remains have been produced now--2000 years later.

The Evidence
Discovery channel president Jane Root was quoted in the article as saying, “The evidence is compelling... the consequences are enormous.” Most of the leading experts in archaeology disagree. Sandra Scham wrote in an article published in Archaeology Magazine:

“For scholars, however, at least those who are not too busy fulminating on television about the publicity-seeking proclivities of those associated with this project, this case is an eminently flawed one.”

The “compelling” evidence can be defined in two categories. The first is the statistical category. When archaeologists found this particular tomb, there were several ossuaries (small coffins). Engraved on these ossuaries were the names of “Maria, Joseph, Jesus--Son of Joseph, Miriamne (said to be the name of Mary Magdalene), and Judah (said to be the son of Jesus).” The producers brought in a statistician saying that the odds of these names appearing in the same tomb were between 1 and 600 to 1 in 1000 that these ossuaries could belong to anyone else other than the family of Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus himself.

The second is the DNA evidence. DNA samples were taken from the residue in the ossuary (at this point the author thinks it would be prudent to mention that there were no actual remains found in the ossuary). Scientists were able to determine that the remains found in the ossuary labeled “Miriamne” and the remains in the ossuary labeled “Jesus, son of Joseph” were not blood relatives. The film makers assert that this is evidence that the two must have been married and that “Judah was there Son.”

Why is the Christian faith still around?
This whole documentary was discredited almost immediately after airing. This was partly due to the fact that Jacobovici’s subject matter for his previous documentary was proven to have been faked, and partly to the fact that the numbers used in creating the "statistics" were wildly exaggerated. In 2003, experts in Israel found that the ossuary supposedly belonging to James, brother of Jesus was a fake. Also, the archaeologist who originally found the tomb disputes the claims that Jacobovici make in the film. According to the National Geographic article, Amos Kloner, who originally examined the tomb, said that the names found on the ossuaries were the most common names of the day. He refutes the claims made by Jacobovici.

My Thoughts
Personally, I believe that hoaxes like this tend to discredit themselves quickly enough. When this film originally aired, there was an outcry; however, hardly a week passed after its airing before scores of brilliant, world renowned, secular archaeologist came forward to completely debunk the claims made in this film. I think this is the best possible scenario for Christian apologists. The refutation had much more gravity coming from secular scientists than it would have coming from apologists. Certainly there are heresies that must be confronted head on, but this issue was so ludicrous that it was wise in this circumstance to allow other scientists the opportunity to discredit it.

One would imagine that finding "the remains of Jesus" would change the world forever, but now, this film that was to change existence as we know it is but a vague and fuzzy memory. It is relegated to the, "Oh yeah! I kind of remember that" category.

Sources
De Pastino, Blake. “Jesus' Tomb Found in Israel, Filmmakers Claim.” National Geographic News; February 26, 2007. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070226-jesus-tomb.html

Scham, Sandra. ‘The "Jesus Tomb" on TV.’ Archaeology; Online Reviews; March 3, 2007. http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/jesustomb2.html

Why the Christian Right is Suspicious of Global Warming and Environmentalism

Many self-identified liberals are left scratching their heads, wondering why Christian conservatives are suspicious of global warming claims and tend to be less than sympathetic with environmental movements. Many wonder why conservative Christians choose to take such a hard line view of environmentalism when the issue seemingly has little to do with Christian theology or morality. As a matter of fact, any effort to destroy God’s creation would seem to arouse the ire of the evangelical movement. As with most political issues, the issue of environmentalism is not so cut and dry. Believe it or not, where one stands on the environmental movement has everything to do with one’s spiritual belief system.

The History

In the early to mid 19^th century a new movement began in America called Transcendentalism. In 1836, Ralph Waldo Emerson published his ground breaking essay, “Nature,” which is considered to be the work that began the movement in America. This essay was not only a philosophy about the interconnectedness of nature and the earth as a whole; it was also a manifesto on free thought and intellectual freedom that lead to Emerson's revolutionary speech called, "The American Scholar" which was credited for the modern scholarly ideal and approach. Later, authors such Walt Whitman, and Henry David Thoreau joined this movement, and the American intellectual ideal was changed forever.

The transcendental philosophy borrows heavily from the Hindu and Buddhist idea of Brahma. Hindu, and its spin-off religions such as Buddhism, are called pantheistic faiths. Whereas the Christian idea of God is a personal being with whom a relationship is possible, the pantheistic view of god is impersonal. They believe god is an impersonal force that is part of every living thing. They believe humans are ignorant of their own divinity and life is nothing more than the pursuit to connect to Brahma, which is the idea of becoming one with everything.

From this philosophy, it is easy to see how the early transcendentalists, having borrowed heavily from the Hindu belief system, believed so strongly in the oneness of man and nature that they began the modern environmental movement. The movement is not about preserving God’s creation for the betterment of man. It is instead about preserving our shared life force in nature. In this philosophy, man is no different than nature in that he is the same in spiritual substance as every other living thing. Other pagan and earth religions share this belief. It is from these faiths that we get the terms, “Mother Nature” and, “Mother Earth.”

Transcendentalists were the original hippies. The movement is a romantic ideal of which nearly every professor at Ivy League and state universities fancies himself a disciple. The Beatles, Led Zepplin, and other artists of the Baby Boomer generation were heavily influenced by Hindu beliefs and made pilgrimages to India to find gurus to help them achieve enlightenment.

The conservative Christian environmentalist

The conservative Christian is an environmentalist by nature, and feels as strongly about protecting the environment as does his more liberal counterpart. The difference is that Christians believe that all of creation was created for man. The conservative Christian believes he has been given dominion (Gen. 1:26) over all living creatures and plants. We understand however that with dominion comes the responsibility of care. We believe that God has left the planet in our care and that we will be judged on how we care for it. While this view has the same goal of protecting the environment, the guiding philosophy is 180 degrees opposite of the guiding principles of the modern day environmental movement.

How Liberals can Gain Sympathy from Christian conservatives on the environment

Conservative Christians are not against environmental movements. We are just as sickened by mistreatment of the planet as the most ardent green peace member. We are just instantly turned off when the movement takes on a religious fervor. Even well respected scientists have noticed the religious tone of the movement.

If liberals want to gain support for environmental programs from the Christian Right, they have to change their entire vocabulary. Christians do not believe we are one spiritually with a fish, but we will fight for clean streams and waterways. Whether intentional or not, environmentalist have chosen poor vocabulary in attempting to popularize their movements. “One Earth” and “One Planet” are great slogans for those who have leanings towards a pantheistic viewpoint, but for the 82% of Americans, who at least identify with Christian ideals and heritage, those words are off putting. Instead, refer to the planet as “our inheritance” and “God’s creation” and you will see more Christians identify with the movement.

Links:

Emerson's "Nature"

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=1233&pageno=7

Transcript of Emerson's Speech, "The American Scholar"

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=526142

Richard Lidzen, MIT environmental Scientist

www.cdfe.org/global_warming_religion.htm

Why the Christian Right is Pro-Life

Abortion is one of those topics that enters every political debate at some point. How one sides on the issue is usually a prerequisite question in most national political contests. In a recent CNN poll, according to question number 43, 50% of those asked identify themselves as pro-life. Only 43% identified themselves as pro-choice. Nearly 80% of those asked believe late term abortion should be made illegal.

While the issue of abortion is a hot topic in most political contests, it is a matter of life or death to those who possess a Christian worldview. Evangelicals believe that the Bible is God's perfect and literal word to mankind. Based on a literal view of scripture, conservative Christians oppose abortion for the following reasons:

1. It ends a life (Ex. 20:13)
   The fundamental question is whether or not an unborn child can be considered a life. When Roe vs. Wade was first rendered, what we know as pregnancy trimesters were created as an attempt to define when life begins. The courts ruled that abortion-on-demand could only be performed in the first "trimester," second trimester abortions most present a health risk to the mother, and third trimester abortions were illegal barring a serious health risk to the mother.
   
   As science has developed more advanced methods of observing fetal development, the trimester system is no longer viable. In fact, the supreme court backed away from it completely in the 1992 Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania vs. Casey case. Now, we can fully observe the staggering development of the child. We are able to detect a heartbeat in as little as five weeks, and organ development at 6 weeks. Even abortion Doctors use the terminology "kill the fetus" when referring to the practice.
   
   The simple answer is that conservative Christians are convinced that the unborn child is an innocent life. Taking innocent life is murder. When a person believes that mass genocide is happening, he must either take arms against it, or by his apathy, take part in it. Simply remaining neutral during the Jewish Holocaust was tantamount to its sanctioning. There are certain crimes so grievous that all of mankind must stand against them to defend humanity itself. To conservative Christians, abortion is one of these issues.
   
   
2. God says that an unborn fetus is a life!
   In Exodus 21:22-25, God prescribes the punishment for damaging an unborn child. The verses sat that if one harms an unborn child either on purpose or by accident (by accident is illustrated to demonstrate the severity of the charge) then it is to be done to the offender as was done to the child. If the unborn child is killed, then so should the offender(s) be.
   
   By prescribing the same punishment for killing an unborn child as any other living person, God makes it clear that the unborn child is alive.
   
   
3. God creates life in the womb.
   O Jacob My servant, and Israel whom I have chosen. Thus says the Lord who made you And formed you from the womb… (Isaiah 44:1-2)
   
   From My mother’s womb You have been My God (Psalm 22:10)
   
   For you created my inmost being;you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;your works are wonderful, I know that full well (Psalm 139:13-14)
   
   In Luke 1:39-44 John the Baptist leaps in his mother's womb just because he heard the voice of the mother of Jesus. This infers spiritual understanding in the womb.
   

These are just three of many scriptural examples that lead conservative Christians to stand against abortion. But even without scriptural support, the average person can come to the conclusion that there is a life growing inside a woman's womb. Even the authors of the Roe vs. Wade decision made provisions that prohibited abortion at certain stages of pregnancy. If a conservative Christian can come to no other conclusion that an unborn child is a life at any stage, he can neither support abortion from a a scriptural, nor moral point of view.

The conservative Christian feels as though man was created in the image of God and therefore a special creation. He also believes that taking the life of a person created in God's image is the most heinous of sins against God and mankind. No political movement can gain the acceptance of the conservative Christian that does not speak out against abortion. It is our defining issue.

Can political Liberals overcome the abortion issue and win some conservative Christians?
The short answer is--not likely. With that said, simply speaking out is not an option any longer. Candidates have been relying on the conservative Christian vote simply by speaking out on abortion, but this will no longer ensure votes. Political liberals can capitalize on this trend by emphasizing the virtual impotence of conservative politicians in repealing Roe vs. Wade.

Conservative Christians are now willing to back candidates who are unlikely to win or third party candidates rather than return to status quo inaction. This trend could detract a large percentage of overall conservative voters and allow an energized liberal base to make significant gains in some localities that have traditionally voted conservative by less than landslide margins.

My advice to political liberals on the issue of abortion.
Take advantage of wavering by conservative politicians. In debates, hold conservatives to the fire by asking what will they do specifically to end abortion. If they say anything other than "I will make it the number one issue of my term in office to end abortion on demand," conservative Christians will be turned off. While they will not vote liberal, they will most likely not vote, or support a less popular candidate. This will allow liberals to make strong gains in areas traditionally held by pseudo-conservatives.

My advice is to turn this issue into an equity by exposing inactivity on behalf of conservatives. Point out inconsistencies in speech and action. Do not try to win votes. Simply call the kettle black and watch conservatives stay home on election day.

The Christian Conservative Vote: About This Blog

Many people who I either know personally, or people with whom I interact online, often wonder why Christian conservatives, or "evangelicals" as we're now called, vote a certain way or align themselves with certain candidates. In fact, many feel as though certain positions by the Christian right are hypocritical. For instance, I saw a sign a few days ago that read "WWJB Who Would Jesus Bomb?" Many self-identified "liberals" often feel as though Christians only use scripture to justify the formation of a voting block only when it's convenient to their conservative world view.

On some levels, that is a fair assessment. Without naming names, I know of several groups that formed under the guise of protecting religious values only to then begin campaigning on issues which seem to be outside of the realm of morality or religious freedom. The leaders of these groups now clamor for political recognition by promising to deliver votes for candidates and publicly endorse candidates each year.

Ultimately, how we participate in the political process comes down to worldview. One's worldview is the filter through wich he views the world. It is comprised of his most deeply held beliefs and reflects his faith in God or lack thereof. This blog is an attempt to explain how a conservative Christian worldview translates into voting habits and political party support.

We will attempt to identify news stories that transcend normal political discourse and move into the arena of hills on which one might stake his life. These are the issues that drive us and define us. If we are ever to come together again as a nation, we must seek to identify the motivating factors behind the new American worldview.