Comments on Ambassador Watch: Looney Tombs

Well, I guess I just like my religions to be as bi...

2007-03-07T13:53:00.000+13:00

Well, I guess I just like my religions to be as big and nasty as possible. Nobody can rival the Catholic Church when it comes to scandal and sin and abuse, though everyone is always trying to. There's just no need to look for all those small-scale, fake-imitation scandals and offenses of pipsqueak upstart sects when the Catholic Church has already got scandal patented and trademarked. I like my sin to have a real, bona fide historical pedigree, not a fake one tracing back to Tea Tephi or to the children of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.

P.S. You meant Pilate, of course.

I guess it just seems like going from WCG to RCC i...

2007-03-06T13:18:00.000+13:00

I guess it just seems like going from WCG to RCC is like going from ordering small fries to a large. Just more grease and salt.

"You can't seriously compare upstart johnny-come-l...

2007-03-06T12:42:00.000+13:00

"You can't seriously compare upstart johnny-come-lately wheel inventers and publicity hounds to the heaps of serious scholarship produced under the aegis of my other "ism." Sorry, the folks pushing this Jesus Tomb speculation are doing research of a nature and quality comparable to Armstrongist research." Jared

I was referring to your personal comment on my not being able to recognize a snake oil salesman. I picked up a copy of of The Jesus Family Tomb to see if it was worth the 30 bucks and didn't find it so interesting. If the James Ossuary is fake then this "amazing discovery" is going to have a tough go. Of course I care if it is true or not actually. In the long term, it matters not what I personally think as these things tend to play themselves out. I just find it interesting that those who just can't have be so w, within days, jump into all kinds of defensive and just knowing it's not true modes.

I guess I will always be fascinated how you can rant on "Armstrongists" and all it's one man, scandal ridden, pastoral abuse, history twisting, nothing as it appears to be history and defend, as a "Papist" all the same traits over millenia and not just decades. I don't judge it, I just find it fascinating. Snake oil comes in different sizes and bigger does not mean more correct anymore than smaller remnant types would be more correct. Each to their own is fine.

Humans were meant to find truth, but at the moment I can totally identify with the pathos Herod seems to have felt when he uttered "what is truth?"

Scientific American's weblog weighs in on this tra...

2007-03-05T02:56:00.000+13:00

Scientific American's weblog weighs in on this trainwreck of biblical archaeology:

http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=says_scholar_whose_work_was_used_in_the_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Betty Babble, it is not only a shame for a woman t...

2007-03-04T09:36:00.000+13:00

Betty Babble, it is not only a shame for a woman to yap away in church, it is also a shame for a woman to gossip away on blogs.

On the Discovery Channel is also Myth Busters.Coul...

2007-03-03T18:06:00.000+13:00

On the Discovery Channel is also Myth Busters.

Could we have an episode of Myth Busters where Jesus' Ossuary is dropped from a 50 foot crane and see if it survives?

Or some variation of Myth Busters.

Gavin,Apparently you question my credibility. I wo...

2007-03-03T14:18:00.000+13:00

Gavin,

Apparently you question my credibility. I won't leave any more comments on the matter, since the future will show who the credible one really was. Will it be me, you or Andy?

Thanks for the tip-off Betty, but any repeat posti...

2007-03-03T13:43:00.000+13:00

Thanks for the tip-off Betty, but any repeat posting of this item here will now count as spam and be deleted. If you have some new info then that's different.

Can I suggest that your item would be a bit more credible if you at least spelled the names - Kilough and McCullough - correctly.

To Andy Nonymous:Thou desirest chapter and verse? ...

2007-03-03T13:11:00.000+13:00

To Andy Nonymous:

Thou desirest chapter and verse? O thou of little faith! Thou will learn: When Betty Bible speaks, the people will harken!

Andy (and Gavin), remember my words:

Now that L. McCulluough and C. Kilouh were seen looking at land in Dallas to buy for a new headquarters and college for the United Church, their members in Texas will likely be excited to have the United HQ in their state.

You got the last word on me, Jared. Congrats.

2007-03-03T10:09:00.000+13:00

You got the last word on me, Jared. Congrats.

"Evidently not. I was, as were you, part of WCG fo...

2007-03-03T08:05:00.000+13:00

"Evidently not. I was, as were you, part of WCG for a time and you have moved into another 'ism' which you should know well will also attract the comment 'Jared, can't you recognize a snake oil salesman when you see one.'"

You can't seriously compare upstart johnny-come-lately wheel inventers and publicity hounds to the heaps of serious scholarship produced under the aegis of my other "ism." Sorry, the folks pushing this Jesus Tomb speculation are doing research of a nature and quality comparable to Armstrongist research. They're even peddling it through the mass media and sensationalising it. About the only thing that's missing are the SCREAMING ALL CAPS and underlined words and exclamation points.

"I don't care if it's true or not."

You should. The human mind is meant to grasp and adhere to truth. It's a bad thing when it doesn't.

"It's certainly interesting."

No doubt about that.

"But the threat to faith is far more obvious than the enjoyment of discovery without mental conditions or expectations as to results."

If it's enjoyment of discovery you're after, this Jesus Tomb stunt is going to leave you dissatisfied. About the only thing we'll discover from this is that you can make a case for almost any proposition as long as you disregard or suppress evidence that contradicts the proposition. But we already knew that.

"Besides, if it's a farce, or bad science or bad archaeology, it will come out sooner, not later as when kept close to only the chests of a few."

That's the thing -- it's already come out, before the show even aired. Jacobovici knew the 10th ossuary wasn't missing and had no inscription, but he still said it could be the James Ossuary. The statistical argument has been shredded and the DNA argument has been debunked. It's snake oil.

"The things above: Christians agreed with the Pharisees about the resurrection (Acts 23:6), 'liberty' (Rom. 8:21; John 8:36), 'God is their only ruler' (Matt. 4:10), 'do not value dying' (Matt. 10:28), 'do not heed death of relations' (Matt. 8:22)."

Well, that's not very many specifics about the Zealot creed, and it tells us what the Zealots of 70 A.D. believed, while leaving unanswered the question of what Judas of Galilee believed. In any case, how do we reconcile, "Love your enemies, turn the other cheek," etc., with the Zealot doctrine of "Hate your enemies, slaughter the pagans, turn their cheeks into raw hamburger"?

"But I don't agree that it's in the same category as believing in a flat earth. In my mind, it's not the majority position, but it is possible."

Well, it's possible the earth is flat, but it's foolish to argue in favor of a flat earth.

"I will also admit that there may have been an actual person, possibly even named 'Jesus Christ', after whom the myth was patterned."

That's very generous of you. :-D

"I realize you're a true believer and I'm not going to convince you."

And I realise you're a true unbeliever and I'm not going to convince you either.

"The epistles of Paul (at least the early ones which are believed to really have been written by Paul) were written prior to the four gospels."

Depends on when the Gospels and epistles of Paul were written. Unfortunately they don't have dates on them, so all we can do is hypothesise (guess, using reason preferably).

"Paul clearly has not read nor heard about the gospel stories because he speaks solely of a spiritual "Christ" and never of a flesh-and-blood person."

Incorrect. As I already pointed out, he talks about someone who was born of a woman, who was a Jewish man, a member of the tribe of David, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, who taught things to His disciples. Those are things that flesh-and-blood persons do, not merely "spiritual" entities. St. Paul refers to Jesus' body and blood several times. To St. Paul, Jesus was a real person, someone with flesh and blood and a mind, someone who was born and who died like the rest of us.

"In fact, if you read the NT in the order it was written, you'd be shocked at how the four gospels take a whole different direction from the earlier writings, those of Paul."

But a lot of others don't find this conflict that you do.

"The anonymous gospel writers are not reporting news but are writing to persuade. They say so themselves."

Ah, but the author of St. Luke's Gospel also says he carefully inquired into the matters of which he wrote, and the author of St. John's Gospel insists repeatedly that he was an eyewitness. They obviously weren't just "reporting news," but it's a false dichotomy to oppose "writing to persuade" to "faithfully recording what one has seen and heard, to best of one's ability." It's possible to do both.

Betty Bible said... "Now that L. McCulluough an...

2007-03-03T07:33:00.000+13:00

Betty Bible said...

"Now that L. McCulluough and C. Kilouh were seen looking at land in Dallas to buy for a new headquarters and college for the United Church, their members in Texas will likely be excited to have the United HQ in their state."

...And the link/reference/picture/whatever is located where? Who saw them? You?

Jared,I will admit that the position that Jesus Ch...

2007-03-03T06:45:00.000+13:00

Jared,

I will admit that the position that Jesus Christ is a fictional character is a minority position. But I don't agree that it's in the same category as believing in a flat earth. In my mind, it's not the majority position, but it is possible.

I will also admit that there may have been an actual person, possibly even named "Jesus Christ", after whom the myth was patterned. But it's plain that this person did not live the life described in the four gospels.

I realize you're a true believer and I'm not going to convince you. But I do feel compelled to respond to some of your points.

The epistles of Paul (at least the early ones which are believed to really have been written by Paul) were written prior to the four gospels. Paul clearly has not read nor heard about the gospel stories because he speaks solely of a spiritual "Christ" and never of a flesh-and-blood person. In fact, if you read the NT in the order it was written, you'd be shocked at how the four gospels take a whole different direction from the earlier writings, those of Paul.

The anonymous gospel writers are not reporting news but are writing to persuade. They say so themselves. It is clear they combed the OT for any scripture that could possibly be interpreted to be a prophesy of Christ, then wrote their Christ character to fulfill these prophecies. In some cases it's laughable. They were clearly working off the Septuagint, and sometimes they would write their character to fulfill what appeared, in the Septuagint, to say one thing, but in the older Hebrew it really says something different. Hence their perceived need to write Jesus as born of a virgin, as one expample.

Jared, I am not casually dissmissing the writings of Christians from the first century AD. I have done a great deal of study of both sides of the issue since leaving WCG, and it became very clear to me who was twisting facts and logic.

Others have addressed many of the points in your post, and frankly this subject could fill volumes, so I'll stop here. Suffice it to say that I am thoroughly convinced that the bible was written by men not god. Regarding Jesus Christ, I think it probably that he never existed, but it is possible that a real person did exist who was at the root of the myth.

"Upon death, depending on what that is or means, I...

2007-03-03T06:35:00.000+13:00

"Upon death, depending on what that is or means, I'll either learn the truth or not. Until then, I find myself frequently asking, "What can I know?", and its corollary, "What can I not know?" I'm just not one who can totally embrace any single ideology without being conflicted."

I like you Bob! Nice posting and all of what you said is how it is. I have on illusions about my perspective. I don't have a need to believe and have lost my fear of not believing what I simply now find to be unbelievable at face value. While there may be deep, gnostic and allegorical meanings in the Bible, there are also rancourous politics and a people inventing a history for themselves that is less than provable. The NT bases many literal beliefs and deep theology on the mythology of Adam and Eve. I can't accept that at this time. It seem manipulative to an end that favors others and not the believer.

I don't wish to be pulled along by the nose with stories that are not true. When I was a child, I learned real lessons from fairy tales. The lessons and archetypes were real even if the means were not.

When I was a kid, and Presbyterian, the answer to the questions was always "it's an earthly story with a heavenly meaning." It meant the story was not true, but the meaning was. Perhaps or perhaps not depending on the story told, the motive for telling and the audience at which it is aimed.

The meaning behind the story in Acts by Luke about Peter who 'kills' two lying church members is a Peter bash by Luke and Paul who scorn him for doing the same thing to Jesus. We have lost the nuance of church political writings in our time.

Intercalating Peter's story between accounts of Judas betrayals in John was not missed by John's community of believers. Peter was not qualified to lead and John, (I think the disciple who Jesus loved but could be wrong) was.

When three times Peter is mentioned in John, John associates him with Judas and for denying Jesus three times, followed by being forgiven three times and John is shut out, it is politics of the church speaking.

Anyway, I stray. good and practically true post.

"His doctrines were identical to Jesus'"Jared Olar...

2007-03-03T06:33:00.000+13:00

"His doctrines were identical to Jesus'"

Jared Olar said....
How do you know that? Next to nothing is known about the doctrines of Judas of Galilee, assuming he even had any doctrines.

According to Josephus:
"But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord. They also do not value dying any kinds of death, nor indeed do they heed the deaths of their relations and friends, nor can any such fear make them call any man lord. And since this immovable resolution of theirs is well known to a great many, I shall speak no further about that matter; nor am I afraid that any thing I have said of them should be disbelieved, but rather fear, that what I have said is beneath the resolution they show when they undergo pain. And it was in Gessius Florus's time that the nation began to grow mad with this distemper, who was our procurator, and who occasioned the Jews to go wild with it by the abuse of his authority, and to make them revolt from the Romans. And these are the sects of Jewish philosophy."
[The things above: Christians agreed with the Pharisees about the resurrection (Acts 23:6), "liberty" (Rom. 8:21; John 8:36), "God is their only ruler" (Matt. 4:10), "do not value dying" (Matt. 10:28), "do not heed death of relations" (Matt. 8:22).
Flavius Josephus - Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 1 part 6.

""Time will tell."Dennis, can't you tell a snake o...

2007-03-03T06:13:00.000+13:00

""Time will tell."

Dennis, can't you tell a snake oil salesman when you see one? "

Evidently not. I was, as were you, part of WCG for a time and you have moved into another "ism" which you should know well will also attract the comment "Jared, can't you recognize a snake oil salesman when you see one." I have chosen to tread water for a time. Time will always tell.

An interesting aspect of history is that, dependin...

2007-03-03T05:10:00.000+13:00

An interesting aspect of history is that, depending on a person's assumptions and methodology, it is almost as subject to interpretation as the Bible itself.

Way back when, I had considered HWA to be somewhat of an authority on history simply because he seemed to know about such characters as Simon Magus, and would occasionally quote Velikovsky and Hislop. I later learned that he was totally wrong about Simon Magus, and that Velikovsky and Hislop had been largely discredited. At AC, I actually knew one of the chief researchers who helped produce the alleged history of the COG movement. At that point in time, I had no idea that this "research" was based on massive doses of proof texting, an academic fraud.

On these COG related sites, forums, and blogs, I believe that I am capable of recognizing those who really know what they are talking about regarding history. They seem to know what sources are primary, what sources are tertiary, and can readily quote verifiable and respected historians from the early Christian era, and actually trace the development of a belief. They can often take characters mentioned in the NT, and track them in later secular or church records. Let's face it, as groups, the Jews were the custodians of the pre-Christian era, and the Catholics performed the same function for the post-Christian era. There were also some historians amongst the nations surrounding Israel, or those who had captured Israel during both eras.

Even if one knows how to identify those who are knowledgeable and credible amongst us, and to distinguish them from those who are repeating cliches or simply blowing smoke, there are still numerous conflicts. This produces just enough of a grey area to keep an agnostic agnostic. A person could read the well researched writings of Jared Olar, and begin to contemplate turning himself in to his local diocese. But, then he could read Dr. James Tabor, and feel compelled to go off to synagogue.

Where does that leave us? Are believers simply those who choose one theory or ideology, and then put on their blinders? I resigned myself to the fact that I probably won't get the answers I seek in this lifetime. Upon death, depending on what that is or means, I'll either learn the truth or not. Until then, I find myself frequently asking, "What can I know?", and its corollary, "What can I not know?" I'm just not one who can totally embrace any single ideology without being conflicted.

BB

I need at least three more fundamentalist websites...

2007-03-03T05:02:00.000+13:00

I need at least three more fundamentalist websites to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is nothing to this scary historic fake, farce, forgery. Just a few more and I will be proof websited into submission.

I don't care if it's true or not. It's certainly interesting. But the threat to faith is far more obvious than the enjoyment of discovery without mental conditions or expectations as to results.

It's just too early to make sweeping statements about it's truth or fallacy and to attack it because of how the information comes to the public is weak. It's a topic of massive interest and deserves massive coverage. Besides, if it's a farce, or bad science or bad archaeology, it will come out sooner, not later as when kept close to only the chests of a few. I looked at the book but decided to save the $28.00 bucks and read about elsewhere. Besides, peer review fell for Piltdown man and it took 50 years to uncover the lie that a couple guys wanted to build their careers on. A Piltdown news conference would have exposed it sooner and of course, the whole thing was unnecessary as there was ample information yet to be and now discovered to make the point about human origins. I would say as well that disproving man's Garden of Eden origins was equally as raucous as this. Probably more.

"Time will tell."Dennis, can't you tell a snake oi...

2007-03-03T04:54:00.000+13:00

"Time will tell."

Dennis, can't you tell a snake oil salesman when you see one?

"Which of course shows that Paul knew nothing spec...

2007-03-03T04:52:00.000+13:00

"Which of course shows that Paul knew nothing special about the physical birth of Jesus or all the miraculous events in his life, birth and death, when it would have been to a huge advantage to him to speak up about it in his writings."

That's an argumentum ex silentio fallacy. His silence doesn't prove ignorance of those things, but can readily be explained by the fact that he had no need to mention them in those letters, which were pastoral in nature and not attempts to write an account of Jesus' life and teachings.

In any case, St. Paul obviously speaks of Jesus as a person who really existed, not a mere myth or an allegory. If there never was such a person, how did St. Paul succeed in duping everyone into believing Jesus existed? (I know you aren't arguing that, Dennis, but "the skeptic" is, and while I disagree with your other points, I'm going to try to stick to the question of Jesus' existence.)

"That should tell you, believer or not, all you ne...

2007-03-03T04:48:00.000+13:00

"That should tell you, believer or not, all you need to know about the validity of these claims. "

Time will tell. We live in an age of information and the freedom for more than just the chosen few to examine it. The Dead Sea Scrolls managed to be be controlled by the select few for decades and it was politics and career building, not so much examining the implications for the memes accepted by the public and to which they pay mental, emotional and finanacial allegience. Libraries also exist to withhold information from the public depending on who controls the keys.

Would to God Galileo had called a press conference :) Ok, they'd have killed him.

Time will tell.

Ah, here's another "fundamentalist," Jerome Murphy...

2007-03-03T04:43:00.000+13:00

Ah, here's another "fundamentalist," Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, OP, who thinks the Jesus Tomb hubbub is garbage:

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0701131.htm

"St. Paul had plenty to say about the life of Jesu...

2007-03-03T04:41:00.000+13:00

"St. Paul had plenty to say about the life of Jesus,"

Your idea of "plenty" and mine are different.

"what he said agrees perfectly with the essentials of what the Gospels say about him -- that he was a Jew, a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah,"

Which of course shows that Paul knew nothing special about the physical birth of Jesus or all the miraculous events in his life, birth and death, when it would have been to a huge advantage to him to speak up about it in his writings. Each Gospel corrects the problems created by the previous one depending on what order one accepts.

Also, Paul does not agree with the Gospels as the Gospels had not been written yet, of course. The Gospels would agree with Paul but I doubt the Gospel community of believers cared much about what Paul thought. The Gospels reflect nothing of the theology of a cosmic Christ found in Paul who preceeded them. That's why the authors reached back into the OT in Midrashic fashion to come up with a story of Jesus that they did not know much about in fact. All of Matthews ideas of how Jesus was born was misappropriated out of the OT history and statements and not based in any facts Matthew really knew. It's why Matthew's statements about Jesus seem so amazingly prophetic. Matthew formula was:

Find an OT story that can be mined for meaning of Jesus.

Take the story out of context and make it point to Jesus, even if it doesn't and couldn't.

Make it mean what it never meant.

Not count on the other guy who writes his birth story not reading your story, so we end up with contradictory stories which can't both be true.

As a Bible literalist screams.."yes they are, yes they are" often until they believe it.

Add to this the fact that Matthew and Luke copy massives amounts of Mark and you have to wonder about the inspiration factor. The rule for Matthew and Luke was copy and duplicate most, add a bit from some other source, make up a bit, throw out a lot, and there you go... scripture!

The thread of science that lead through open minded,not conformist, non church doctrine fearing scientists through history
on any topic sensitive to the Church's need for the text to be literally true, has led us off the planet learning wonderful things. Had the Catholic or any other controling religious institution had the final say, we'd still all be herding sheep, paying tithes to priests and fearing the consequences of free thought.

Over at extremetheology.com, "Newspaper Hack" post...

2007-03-03T04:32:00.000+13:00

Over at extremetheology.com, "Newspaper Hack" posted this comment, which we should all take to heart:

I don't care about the theology of the mess, am not a big fan of religion and, frankly, all the hullabaloo of the "discovery" bores me.

But I heard this from a professor of theology, and believe it to be true: if this find was really all it's cracked up to be, it would have been thoroughly researched and put through the paces in academic journals and peer-reviewed.

Instead, the announcement was made in a press conference.

That should tell you, believer or not, all you need to know about the validity of these claims.

Speculative infotainment on finding the bones of J...

2007-03-03T04:12:00.000+13:00

Speculative infotainment on finding the bones of Jesus in an ossuary on the Discovery Channel?

What's next? Discovering the tomb of Lieutenant Commander Data and Seven of Nine? Stay tuned.