Some additional thoughts about the “Jesus Tomb”

• The Jesus ossuary is said to read Jesus bar Joseph. The problem is that if this were the family of Jesus of Nazareth they certainly would not have written this. They would not have called Joseph his father.
• It appears that so far the DNA cannot even determine the gender of the deceased.
• Mary and Jesus were married? This is a modern claim with no historic evidence of any kind. Even the late conspirator sources that claim Jesus to have had a relationship with Mary never suggested the existence of a marriage or a child.
• Matthew is there? Who is this – why is it assumed that this is Jesus’ brother, this name does not fit with any other information we have about the family of Jesus?
• Jesus’ family tomb was in plain site? By all accounts, the tomb of Jesus was empty. Even Roman and Jewish authorities acknowledge this as true (and they would have loved for it to be otherwise.)
• If the tomb was known in the first century then Christianity never would have taken off. On the other hand if it was hidden then why is it that the martyred brother James is claimed to have been placed in the same tomb with the body of the same Jesus he died for of whom he said had raised?
• Some assumptions are being made about Mary Magdalene’s “real name” being Mariamne because of the book Acts of Philip. The problem is that the Mary from Acts of Philip is said to be the other Mary… “Mary of Bethany” by its own account.
• What ever happened to the other Jesus Bar Joseph ossuary found in Jerusalem back in the 1930’s?

Our Generations Tomb of Jesus

Just in case you are unaware, Jesus’ family tomb has been found complete with 10 caskets including one for Jesus and one for Mary Magdalene and one for their son! At least that’s the story.

For many years now the Talpiot Tomb has been touted by some to be the final resting place for the Jesus of the Christian Bible. Located in the industrial regions of Palpiyot; just outside the city of Jerusalem, the tomb was first discovered in 1980 by a construction crew set to build an apartment complex.

Inside the tomb were ten “ossuaries” or coffins. Also found were inscriptions. Some of these are seemingly of little to no importance and have been largely ignored but the other names are sometimes associated with figures from the Christian gospels. Some of these include the names Jesus, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary (written differently), Jofa and Judah.

Why is this so important? Well it may not be but on the other hand, famed Titanic director James Cameron and Discovery Channel money machine Simcha Jacobovici have recently stated this as proof against the orthodox Christian view of the resurrection of Jesus from Nazareth. In other words the two have produced a new docudrama claiming the central tenet of Christianity is nothing more than myth and that Jesus died as was buried like an ordinary man. Additionally the proposal includes the idea that this is a family tomb and that Jesus and Mary were married and had a child who is also found in the cave.

It is worth noting that this information was “sat on” for some time. This is because lead archeologist Amos Kloner (expert on burials and burial customs in the 2nd Temple period of Jerusalem) has reportedly declared that no solid relationship between this find can be made with the biblical Jesus or any other New Testament persons. We should of course expect Kloner to be skeptical of such finds; it was after all he who recently proved the famous James (the brother of Jesus) ossuary to be hoax saying, “It is clear that the engraving on the bone box dates from a different period than its original installation. The inscription appears new. The writer tried giving the letters an ancient appearance by using samples from contemporaneous inscriptions.” On the topic of this new film Kloner has stated that the films purported evidences are “nonsense” saying additionally that it “makes a great story for a TV film”.

Kloner is not alone in his skepticism concerning the films conclusions. While the statistical information concerning probability of another family in this region having these same five names is around 600 to 1, it seems several difficulties have escaped the producers view. The inscriptions for example were strangely written in different languages and with different variations on the names in question. In fact, though some have pointed out the overwhelming popularity of such names, the combination of names as they are written does seem quit interesting and worthy of much investigation. What is damaging to the case however, is the possibility that the inscriptions were not original to the ossuaries or that this small tomb was originally unmarked or altered in some way. There is of course no scientific way to tell if the inscribers were telling the truth. Anyone after all could have inscribed these names on any number of family tombs with only little effort. In any case the inscriptions are of great interest.

This brings us to further questions. For instance, there is the issue of location. Though it could be argued that a poor carpenters family with no land in Jerusalem could not possibly have been able to afford such a tomb this is not proof in and of itself After all a collection for Jesus could easily have been taken up to pay for such a resting place. But if this were the tomb of Jesus and it was so simply found and labeled then why was this evidence not produced in the late first central when persecution was common among those who professed a belief in the resurrection. For me it is the combination of these two things that it most compelling.

Though the accuracy of the inscriptions will remain a topic of debate, the film still insists that DNA can be used to make a good connection between Jesus and the tomb. To produce such evidence the Discovery channel paid for the DNA tests. But what exactly was done? We of course have no Jesus DNA around from which to compare; so what was done was a cross-reference. So assuming that the poor Galilean family might have been buried outside Jerusalem and assuming that the martyrs died for unknowable reasons, and assuming that the existence of inscribed names are accurate, and assuming that Jesus and Mary Magdalene did have a reason to be buried in the same family tomb, then the DNA of one of the Mary’s (who is assumed to be Mary Magdalene) was cross-referenced with the DNA found in the Jesus ossuary. No match was made concerning a blood relation. From this, another assumption was made that these two individuals in question then must have been married and from this yet another assumption was made concerning the child (of whom I am told, no DNA remains) claiming that this must be the child of the assumed Jesus and assumed Mary found in the cave who are also the only two testable samples.

As someone with an obvious bias, I must state that I am not particularly impressed by the limited information available to me at this time. However, I believe we should all patiently await the presentation of evidence and participate thoughtfully and respectfully in dialogue. It may be that my initials thoughts chance dramatically in the following week. It may be that hysteria ha already ensued and that the assertions of the film have already been misrepresented. We should also remember that it is rare for Christians to get a chance to discuss such controversial issues within the public forum. Both sides should remember that there is of course absolutely no way to prove if this was actually the body of the Jesus spoken of in the Bible. Without a DNA sample on record, given by the Bible’s Jesus 2000 years ago, we have absolutely nothing to compare this “Jesus” with. In short, people of faith will simply have to rely on their faith as always, and skeptics will have to rely on their skepticism. Either way, there is no proof.

Above all we in the Christian community must remember that it is not offensive for non-believers to make claims such as these. To say that Jesus was a man or that he was married or that he had children is not offensive in anyway. It is we who believe the offence. We believe in the offense of the cross, it is we that believe that Jesus was both fully man and yet also fully God. It is we who believe that blood cleanses away sin and that the body of Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. This film in question is destined to make its mark. It has been done by two of our times most amazing documentary filmmakers and no one, Christian or not, should dismiss this film outright without giving it a fair change. So to Christians and Skeptics alike, keep your brains turned on and your hearts in the right place.

Blessings, - HaKohen

Paula White

Pentecostal Pastor and “life coach” Paula White has recently been suspected of purchasing some new boobies. To be honest I’m not really sure what all the fuss is about. Rather than focusing on her chest, I’d like to know just what this woman is all about.

Paula is the co-pastor of a 26,000 member church with her husband who calls himself “Bishop Randy White” though he has no credentials to back this up. She is said to be a “phoenix rising from the ashes of a troubled childhood”. And to be fair, she does seem to have had a difficult time. But at the tender age of 18 all of that changed when Paula was introduced to the Gospel. Shortly after she received a “divine visitation” whereby God gave her two visions. The first was of millions of people who’s “souls were saved, sick healed and broken restored” due to her “declaration of the Word of the Lord”. In the second vision Paula did not speak the “Word of the Lord” and millions “fell into utter darkness”. Ever since, Paula has been slathering on the makeup and praising Jesus on TBN with a host of other millionaire prophets. And recently Paula has embarked upon an all new adventure.  

Right now Paula White is starting a new tour. If you want to see her, you’d better not look to her church because she will be “out ‘n about” with Crazy haired Donald Trump and the enormous Tony Robbins. Together these three will be giving conferences to inspire get-rich-quickers in the basements of rented hotel conference rooms near you.

Don’t miss it!

Oh Paula… new boobies or not, you are my hero!

Concerned about Jackhammers!

This morning I ran across the great picture. As a concerned follower I have to say - we should all worry about the evil jackhammers! Let us unite as a single force so that we might protect this baby and others like it (sadly the baby is already born - and has “issues”).

“Military-Industrial Complex”

“Military-Industrial Complex” is a phrase popularized by Dwight D. Eisenhower who said these words during his Presidential Farewell Address. In short, this is a reference to the relationship between the making of U.S. forces weaponry, clothing, and all other goods by the American people which is later purchased by the American Government. The connection between the two and also the U.S. congress is a triangular relationship. The connection is unbreakable. Without the private production of goods for the military, nearly one million U.S. workers would be without employment (not to mention losses within the military itself). Without the Congress, who would create the contracts and without this large number of private industry where else would the tax money to pay for these goods and weapons come from.

To date over $370,000,000,000.00 has been approved for spending inside the “military-industrial complex” since September 12, 2001. This is the cost of 3,315.000 new homes for U.S. homeless (of which there are 3,500,000).

Some of my thoughts on Homosexuality and the Church - Ha Kohen

Here at Letter from a Concerned Follower we often struggle with the marriage of our culture and our faith. Among the most divisive issues in Christianity today is that of Homosexuality. We like many Christians do not see things being as completely one sided as we used to. Our world is changing as is our understanding of scripture. How are we to love someone and yet label a sin something that they claim to be at the very core of their being? How do genetics play a role and how does choice? In order to answer these difficult questions I think it to be only fair to reveal my own biases. 1) The Bible is the word of God and if my personal opinions differ from His, I am in the wrong and must accept that. 2) Culture does not determine morality, neither does “Might make Right” or “majority rule”.

With that aside I hear proclaim a number of thoughts posted for Christian readers. They are my personal views and are by no means perfect and by no means do they represent the entire Christian Community or even this site. And please remember, above all “Love thy neighbor”.

·        While many have argued that “in the New Testament we have no record of Jesus’ saying anything about homosexuality”. I have never personally understood the relevance of such a debate. Is not the whole Bible the Word of God? While it is true that I may take the Christological Canonical view of Scripture farther than some, it seems to me a clear biblical principle that God is the author of Scripture. Jesus’ words are then found not only in the memories of the evangelists but also in the words of Paul and even in the words of Moses. As such, for Christians this line of reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
·        Some people have argued that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is more about hospitality than sexuality. This I agree with, but I would also remind these people to take into account that homosexuality is certainly not revered in these text. Rather, even if it is mentioned only in passing, it appears that it is assumed to be immoral.
·        Lev 18:22, 20:13 and Deuteronomy 23:18 may actually be more about the abuse of captives or about the worship of other gods than homosexuality as we think of it today. It is possible that this is true and that these special circumstances may have influenced the writing of these passages, but again I would like to state that homosexuality is not spoken well of anywhere in ancient Jewish writings; rather these verses seem well in line with Hebrew concepts of morality in condemning homosexual acts in general. In addition these condemnations seem more likely to be influences by notions of purity or natural order than by notions of violence. As such, though they may possibly reflect the denunciation of rape or idol worship, they also seem to represent the upholding of natural order. What’s more this natural order seems clearly heterosexual in its context.
·        It is also possible that 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 may be about molestation or prostitution. However, similar to the references from Lev. and Deut. these verses also seem steeped in Jewish traditions concerning purity and natural order. It seems to me highly unlikely that Paul would ever speak about anyone “acting against there own nature” as if he were condemning only heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts (or visa versa) as some have suggested. This seems completely out of line with what we know about Jewish culture and about Paul. It seems very unlikely that Paul would say anything about individual sexual orientation. That is eisegetical and Paul simply would not ever imagine any act as being “genetic” or “innate”. Rather it is exceedingly clear that “natural relations” and “unnatural ones” refers not to individual preferences but to the order of creation (Rom. 1:26).
·        Although I can find no clear or compelling reason to believe anything other than the conclusion that God finds homosexuals acts sinful, I am uncertain how churches should deal with this issue. What sins keep people from worshiping in our churches for example? Do any? Because the original purpose of Church Discipline is no longer applicable how are we do deal with issues such as these? If gluttony is a sin against the flesh (as Christians often refer to homosexuality), why then do we allow gluttonous ministers and not homosexual ones? How can we allow obese people into membership but not homosexual ones? How can the church love the sinner and yet maintain a strong position against the sin where to two may in fact be impossible to separate? Can we allow this issue to divide the Body? These questions I cannot seem to answer.

·        Another question concerns homosexuality itself. For me it seems that there is merit to both sides of the genetic debate. Clearly some people do choose to commit homosexual acts. Prisoners are a clear example of this. On top of that, there are many recorded cases of identical twins whereby one is homosexual and the other heterosexual. This is obvious proof (being that the two are genetically identical) that choice or possible “nurture” does play at least some role in orientation. On the other hand science seems equally clear that some genetic factors may influence sexual behavior.

·        But does sexual orientation really matter or is it a mute point? What if some day scientists prove that pedophilia (just an example – not a parallel) is something caused by our genetics? Does that then automatically mean pedophiles have a right to commit sexual acts with “consenting” minors? Would that make pedophilia all of the sudden a moral choice? Would pedophiles simply claim “that is who God made me”? These are not attacking questions; they are valid queries. What’s more, if it is genetic a “cure” may in fact be possible – in this case would such a “cure” really be moral?

Here are some additional points:

• It is unfair of people to expect all Christians to abandon their sacred texts and thousands of years of history simply to embrace a lifestyle that has only recently become visibly prominent.
• The church must recognize special difficulties people in the homosexual community face and seek to elevate suffering. We should not express hate or violence against homosexual peoples in any way. The church should be available to address the high suicide rates among gay youth and provide comfort and non-judgmental counseling. We should remain a “sanctuary” rather than turn ourselves into fortresses.
• It is foolish of us to speak so heavy handed upon the gay community for seeking marriage rights. We who now have an equal divorce rate with the secular world have no right to speak “high and mighty” about “the sanctity of marriage” when our own marriages are failing. Perhaps our energy has been directed to outwardly and no inwardly enough.
• Non-Christians should not pretend to be theologians. Quoting verses that concern dietary laws or ancient cultural ideas do nothing for your case but show your ignorance of the Christian Bible. If you are not a Christian do not attempt to appeal to our sacred scriptures with insufficient knowledge of them.
• Perhaps most importantly – Christians have no right to impose our views upon secular society. If an individual church determines that it will speak out against homosexuality, that speech must only be directed towards other Christians who claim to follow the same scriptures, morals and faith traditions presented in the Bible. Christians have no more right to impose our religious views upon other faiths or secular communities than they do ours.
• At the same time, other faiths and the secular community must respect our traditions as they are taught within our own homes and walls so much as they do not teach hate or violence or stray from orthodoxy.
• Christians must accept not only the verses that they quote against homosexual people but also the context of those verses. Context creates meaning. The bible says, “Take your son, whom you love and sacrifice Him to me” but this is not a command for all people at all times; it was a “test” given to a particular person at a particular time. We must recognize context as essential to our understanding of all texts including those concerning homosexuality. If you do not have an in depth understanding of the context of a verse – do not quote it as if you do.
• The Christian community should not “hobby-house” any issue. There are literally hundreds of commands in the Bible for us to “feed the hungry”, “care for widows and orphans” and “visit those in prison” and only 6 verses about homosexuality (5 of them with highly debated context). We should continually be reevaluating the levels of energy and recourses we put into each issue and why.
• We must above all else remember: The Church’s primary task is to lead people into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ not to spread our morality but rather the “Kingdom”.
• Lastly the church must remember that we are, all of us, a collection of sinners in need of a savior.

Abortion Part 3. Disabilities

Abortion: Disabilities

            Often an argument is made that women should be allowed to abort a fetus if it might some day have a disability. This too I find morally repugnant. This idea suggests that intelligence and or physical form determine morality. If indeed abortion is the killing of a human being, what then does the appearance or mental capacity of that person have to do with anything? If the fetus is a living human being then there is no difference between shooting handicapped children at a local daycare and aborting fetus’ that may be disabled. (In fact it may be more immoral to abort being that many of the so-called disabled fetuses might not have been accurately diagnosed.)

Freak Out On Poor Logic