A little while ago, I had a discussion with my brother about the importance of the Jesus tomb theory. As a result, a number of thoughts come to mind: (1) If Jesus was not raised, historic Christianity will crumble. Though some creative ideas might be proposed, the immediate impact would have to be a radical restructuring (or abandoning) of the faith.
(2) This reminds us of the fact that even in a postmodern world, evidence matters. Though we may not be enamored by a “Josh McDowell” approach, we still care about what actually happened to Jesus.
(3) Clearly, much bias is being shown by those involved in this project. Being open to the evidence is one thing, acting like the world has been turned upside down and that we should lean in the direction of denying the resurrection is quite another. As my brother said, let’s follow the evidence wherever it leads, but let’s not assume that some recent discovery, which is being promulgated by people who have something to gain (contrast the early disciples!), should be the preferred interpretation.
(4) As for the early disciples, if we truly care bout history and what it is saying, we have to investigate the extremely strong evidence which in fact supports the fact that something incredible happened to those early followers of Jesus. We have ancient documentation by honest God-fearing individuals who made great claims about thing they were not inclined to believe. When Jesus died, the disciples did not rush to his tomb in anticipation of his resurrection. No, their faith was gone.
(5) We all have bias, but one important step is to acknowledge that fact and to do at least what we can to be open. To this end, has James Cameron ever thought about doing a documentary about the wealth of evidence supporting the resurrection? The conversion of Paul? The sudden change of the once-fearful disciples into zealous proclaimers of the resurrection? The strong support for the basic historicity of the New Testament? Do I detect any bias? Is he truly open? Indeed, if skepticism is the common perspective of such individuals, then the truly humble and open response would be an openness to resurrection. How much of that do we observe?
(6) The fact is that this “new” find will be for some an excuse for disbelief. Those already predisposed to unbelief are likely to embrace the Jesus tomb arguments. What this means, in other words, is that the real issue with many is not whether or not the evidence actually supports Cameron’s theory but whether or not such-and-such an individual is actually open to (or even concerned about) the evidence in the first place.
(7) I think it is fascinating (and sometimes frustrating) to consider the power of repetition. If something is stated over and over again, it seems to take on a force of its own. Never mind that it might not be true. If we ceaselessly use the same (even fallacious) arguments, many will buy into them.
(8) While there is much that I love about postmodernism, one thing that I have trouble with is the silly, exaggerated pluralistic assumption that all arguments are equal. In the name of being “fair” to everyone, everyone’s argument is given equal weight (unless, of course, it is not deemed politically correct . . . but that’s a different subject). So, one person gets to say that Jesus was a prophet, while another gets to proclaim he came from another planet. Then, amid a myriad of opinions, Christians say he was and is the Son of God. I am absolutely in favor of allowing people the freedom to believe whatever they want–no problem there. But, to say that we are, of necessity, to treat all opinions as equal is ludicrous. Some people still don’t believe that we landed on the moon; okay, fine . . . but few treat this theory with the same level of respect as they do the claim that Neil Armstrong and others actually landed there. Please understand, I’m not arguing that anyone should simply assume that the resurrection of Jesus took place. All I’m saying is that we should not approach history, or anything else for that matter, under the delusion that no opinions are better than others.
(9) If Jesus truly conquered death, then he is alive. In that case we should have some measure of faith that he is indeed God’s unique Son. Thus, to frantically run around, acting like we need to quickly answer every objection, treating Jesus like an impotent Savior who requires our protection, is to live by fear instead of faith. Yes, there is a place for defending the faith. But, let’s not get so crazy that we fail to realize that the living Jesus, if indeed he is alive, cannot be defeated by arguments of people living almost 200 years after the fact. Think about it–if Jesus could defeat the grave, he surely can defeat arguments leveled against him by those who, in some cases, are not even open to his influence in their lives. Just a thought.
(10) While the resurrection of Jesus is integral to the faith, it is not entirely clear what is required to, how shall we put it, initiate a relationship with him. Again, I am not at all trying to water down the orthodox belief in Jesus’ resurrection, and I do believe that without it we are–at least at one level–left with no faith at all. Still, in a practical sense, I would not deny that people can access the living God through his Son without being convinced (or, perhaps, without having even given much thought to the fact) that his body came out of that ancient tomb. I say this only to allow us all a little space for saying, “Lord, help us to figure this out.” As James put it: “The effective prayer of a right thinking person accomplishes a lot.” Or, as Jesus himself proclaimed: “Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find.” In our own lives and in our efforts to share the gospel with others, the Lord is gracious to all who are willing to look to him in faith and then follow him wherever he leads.
(11) As someone recently wrote (Darrel Bock?), it is high time for followers of Jesus to get out there and do some quality work of their own. If the resurrection is based on solid historical realities, we should share these with others. One word of caution, though. Along the way, we will fail if we come across as reactionary, fearful, anti-intellectual, and close-minded to the truth. I guess what I’m saying is that we need to possess and exude an intelligent faith, remaining open to what the true God, the God who raised his Son from the grave, is doing in our day.
(12) All of these discussions also cause me to inquire into the very nature of faith itself. What is faith? What should we believe? What does it mean to be a genuine follower of Jesus? I am not at all opposed to whatever avenues of help are available for accessing the living Jesus. If we are made in God’s image, it is certainly possible, indeed likely, that he will equip us to discover more and more about him. Still, at the end of the day, we are to place our trust not merely in ideas or nicely organized apologetic arguments but in Jesus himself. Again, our ideas are necessarily and our arguments can indeed by pathways to the Savior. All I’m saying is that I wonder what God is “up to” in all of these things. Could it be that he’s calling us back to a simple faith in him, trusting, truly trusting, that his Son is really alive and our lives our secure in him. “Look to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth” is one way that he put it. Are we, am I, looking? “God, grant us faith . . . and joy in believing.”
2 comments:
Lying about the name Jesus, for profit, yet again...
Hello Doc,
By the way, how will you be able to recognize the Messiah if you are worshipping a false name and false images? How will you know me?
The most interesting aspect of this Jesus Tomb story revolves around the actual names on the bone boxes compared to what is being asserted in the effort to make a profit. Pay special attention to the tortured explanations of how names like Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph, and others were "translated" (interpolated) from inscriptions that actually say otherwise. Most specifically, both Christians and those who are promoting this "Jesus Tomb" discovery and its associated assertions are profiting from the very same long-term process of obfuscation and meticulous misdirection. For anyone, whether Christian leaders and adherents or James Cameron to keep a straight face while claiming that the name Jesus was one of the most common in Second Temple Israel is highly instructive. The name that is commonly translated as Joshua was very common, but the name Jesus is a very unique and narrowly targeted construction of recent centuries that simply cannot have truthfully appeared anywhere in the ancient Near East. Likewise, many are writing that Jesus is instead the english form of Joshua, as if the millions of english speaking Christians and Jews named Joshua have foreign names. Furthermore, does anyone know of any person named Joshua who would seriously assert that the English form of their name is Jesus? These deceptive assertions are beyond absurd.
This long-term charade about a name that simply could not have been written or pronounced in Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, or even Latin, which is now being touted as one of the more common names from ancient Israel/Judea, serves as an illuminating microcosm for the entire New Testament and the many dubious assertions and activities that have accompanied it and Christianity throughout their entire existence. As Christians rally to "prove" that this archeological find can't be the tomb and bones of the "Jesus" and "Mary" of the New Testament, they too should honestly answer questions about why it is correct to interpolate those names in such a unique way to support the veracity of the most profitable story in history, but not to interpret an archeological discovery. Christians must truthfully answer the question of why it is wrong for the "Jesus Tomb" crew to use Christianity's own methodology to arrive at the names now being asserted as appearing on those bone boxes.
Read More ...
To be honest, I don’t think I have the time or energy to engage most of this. Clearly, the followers of Jesus (of which I am one), are a screwed up bunch, messing up on numerous occasions. We have missed many points along the way, and certain apologists tend to go into a frenzy whenever a contrary voice is heard.
That said, the basic history of Christianity is quite impressive. The documents themselves are quite early, with the synoptic gospels likely originating before 70 AD (though some might argue otherwise). The key, for our purpose, is that they represent the perspective of those closest to Jesus. They don’t exaggerate for effect. They don’t create false heros of the faith but instead prefer to “tell it like it is” (the denials of Peter, the misunderstandings of the disciples in general are a part of the story). They don’t orchestrate some kind of deception. The gospel writers don’t even conspire together to create completely consistent accounts (I happen to think that the small discrepancies we find actually demonstrate the integrity of these authors). Rather, they include candid accounts of the world of Jesus and his first followers. And one thing is certain: the same disciples who were convinced that Jesus’ death spelled the end to their hopes were somehow injected with a motivation and a purpose. The same individuals who hid from the authorities, fearing for their own lives, were transformed into messengers of Jesus. Now, I don’t know how to produce a resurrection. And I freely admit that it does seem like quite a claim. Yet, history seems to indicate that something strange did indeed happen, as they put it, “on the third day.” Ancient, reliable, historically solid, plausible realties seem to point that way. Of course we can portray the followers of Jesus as ignoramuses or as superstitious types. Maybe they also believed in UFOs and big foot. But, I truly don’t think the New Testament reads this way. These God-fearing Jews were willing not only to live for this cause but to die for it.
I will make this brief comment. At one point you write: “At which point during the long and sordid history of Christianity did its leaders and founders prove themselves as trustworthy or respectful of the truth? Never forget that faith and dogma are the opposite of seeking to prove the truth.”
Long? Yes. Sordid? Hmm, at times . . . but, again, this is never hidden from view in the Old and New Testaments; rather, there is an authenticity to the accounts.
How does one prove him/herself trustworthy or respectful of the truth? Indeed, what truth are we even talking about? I fully admit that leaders are sometime, well, goofy. But it is “over the top” to suggest that none of them ever respects the truth. Do you? On what basis? According to what standards?
Dogma, which you mention, is an interesting word. It can be used simply to elucidate basic beliefs. Here’s what we believe. Or, it can imply dogmaticism, that is, an attitude of arrogance and close-mindedness. Does this ever occur? You bet it does. But this does not implicate every believer, for many are convinced yet humble. As far as faith is concerned, we all necessarily walk by faith. That is, we trust certain things to be true either through investigation, learned behavior, instruction, or by habit. Ironically, you appear to believe certain things in a rather dogmatic manner. I think a healthier approach might be Faith Seeking Understanding. Or, if we want to be clever, we might also include Understanding Seeking Faith. Perhaps, both are true.
I'm very tired, so I have to go. At any rate, thanks for your comments.
Post a Comment