May 4, 2015

From Gary.... Underneath the dew...


During the last few days, I have experienced some of the most pleasant weather Florida has to offer; cool mornings and warm afternoons, accompanied by low humidity. This year, I have determined to genuinely appreciate it, because it will not be long before high temperatures and seemingly unbearable humidity arrive.   But, this morning was especially nice, with a gentle breeze and just a hint of dew on the ground. Somehow, I just knew how happy my Poodles were (well, the way they jumped around gave me a clue). After my dog-walk, I saw this picture on Google+ and instantly loved it.  Why? Well, there was something about this flower that was different- the dew. And under all that moisture, a flower of exquisite beauty that enriched my morning greatly!!! God is good!!!! The way HE provides is truly astounding!!! Consider the following passage for a moment... 


Exodus, Chapter 16 (WEB)

 11 Yahweh spoke to Moses, saying,  12 “I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel. Speak to them, saying, ‘At evening you shall eat meat, and in the morning you shall be filled with bread: and you shall know that I am Yahweh your God.’” 

  13  In the evening, quail came up and covered the camp; and in the morning the dew lay around the camp.  14 When the dew that lay had gone, behold, on the surface of the wilderness was a small round thing, small as the frost on the ground.  15 When the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another, “What is it?” For they didn’t know what it was. Moses said to them, “It is the bread which Yahweh has given you to eat.”



And "When the dew that lay had gone.."-a provision of God!!! Today, in your comings and goings, take a little time to consider the things about you and look a little deeper to see God's blessings;and then thank HIM!!! 

From Gary... Bible Reading May 4, 5



Bible Reading  

May 4, 5

The World English Bible

May 4
Deuteronomy 23, 24
Deu 23:1 He who is wounded in the stones, or has his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh.
Deu 23:2 A bastard shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of Yahweh.
Deu 23:3 An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh; even to the tenth generation shall none belonging to them enter into the assembly of Yahweh forever:
Deu 23:4 because they didn't meet you with bread and with water in the way, when you came forth out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you.
Deu 23:5 Nevertheless Yahweh your God wouldn't listen to Balaam; but Yahweh your God turned the curse into a blessing to you, because Yahweh your God loved you.
Deu 23:6 You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days forever.
Deu 23:7 You shall not abhor an Edomite; for he is your brother: you shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you lived as a foreigner in his land.
Deu 23:8 The children of the third generation who are born to them shall enter into the assembly of Yahweh.
Deu 23:9 When you go forth in camp against your enemies, then you shall keep yourselves from every evil thing.
Deu 23:10 If there is among you any man who is not clean by reason of that which happens him by night, then shall he go outside of the camp. He shall not come within the camp:
Deu 23:11 but it shall be, when evening comes on, he shall bathe himself in water; and when the sun is down, he shall come within the camp.
Deu 23:12 You shall have a place also outside of the camp, where you shall go forth abroad:
Deu 23:13 and you shall have a paddle among your weapons; and it shall be, when you sit down abroad, you shall dig therewith, and shall turn back and cover that which comes from you:
Deu 23:14 for Yahweh your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you, and to give up your enemies before you; therefore your camp shall be holy, that he may not see an unclean thing in you, and turn away from you.
Deu 23:15 You shall not deliver to his master a servant who is escaped from his master to you:
Deu 23:16 he shall dwell with you, in the midst of you, in the place which he shall choose within one of your gates, where it pleases him best: you shall not oppress him.
Deu 23:17 There shall be no prostitute of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
Deu 23:18 You shall not bring the hire of a prostitute, or the wages of a dog, into the house of Yahweh your God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination to Yahweh your God.
Deu 23:19 You shall not lend on interest to your brother; interest of money, interest of food, interest of anything that is lent on interest:
Deu 23:20 to a foreigner you may lend on interest; but to your brother you shall not lend on interest, that Yahweh your God may bless you in all that you put your hand to, in the land where you go in to possess it.
Deu 23:21 When you shall vow a vow to Yahweh your God, you shall not be slack to pay it: for Yahweh your God will surely require it of you; and it would be sin in you.
Deu 23:22 But if you shall forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in you.
Deu 23:23 That which is gone out of your lips you shall observe and do; according as you have vowed to Yahweh your God, a freewill offering, which you have promised with your mouth.
Deu 23:24 When you come into your neighbor's vineyard, then you may eat of grapes your fill at your own pleasure; but you shall not put any in your vessel.
Deu 23:25 When you come into your neighbor's standing grain, then you may pluck the ears with your hand; but you shall not move a sickle to your neighbor's standing grain.

Deu 24:1 When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it shall be, if she find no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
Deu 24:2 When she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
Deu 24:3 If the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorce, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife;
Deu 24:4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before Yahweh: and you shall not cause the land to sin, which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance.
Deu 24:5 When a man takes a new wife, he shall not go out in the army, neither shall he be assigned any business: he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer his wife whom he has taken.
Deu 24:6 No man shall take the mill or the upper millstone to pledge; for he takes a man's life to pledge.
Deu 24:7 If a man be found stealing any of his brothers of the children of Israel, and he deal with him as a slave, or sell him; then that thief shall die: so you shall put away the evil from the midst of you.
Deu 24:8 Take heed in the plague of leprosy, that you observe diligently, and do according to all that the priests the Levites shall teach you: as I commanded them, so you shall observe to do.
Deu 24:9 Remember what Yahweh your God did to Miriam, by the way as you came forth out of Egypt.
Deu 24:10 When you do lend your neighbor any manner of loan, you shall not go into his house to get his pledge.
Deu 24:11 You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you do lend shall bring forth the pledge outside to you.
Deu 24:12 If he be a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge;
Deu 24:13 you shall surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you: and it shall be righteousness to you before Yahweh your God.
Deu 24:14 You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he be of your brothers, or of your foreigners who are in your land within your gates:
Deu 24:15 in his day you shall give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down on it; for he is poor, and sets his heart on it: lest he cry against you to Yahweh, and it be sin to you.
Deu 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
Deu 24:17 You shall not wrest the justice due to the foreigner, or to the fatherless, nor take the widow's clothing to pledge;
Deu 24:18 but you shall remember that you were a bondservant in Egypt, and Yahweh your God redeemed you there: therefore I command you to do this thing.
Deu 24:19 When you reap your harvest in your field, and have forgot a sheaf in the field, you shall not go again to get it: it shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless, and for the widow; that Yahweh your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.
Deu 24:20 When you beat your olive tree, you shall not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
Deu 24:21 When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, you shall not glean it after yourselves: it shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless, and for the widow.
Deu 24:22 You shall remember that you were a bondservant in the land of Egypt: therefore I command you to do this thing.

May 5
Deuteronomy 25, 26

Deu 25:1 If there be a controversy between men, and they come to judgment, and the judges judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked;
Deu 25:2 and it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his face, according to his wickedness, by number.
Deu 25:3 Forty stripes he may give him, he shall not exceed; lest, if he should exceed, and beat him above these with many stripes, then your brother should seem vile to you.
Deu 25:4 You shall not muzzle the ox when he treads out the grain.
Deu 25:5 If brothers dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married outside to a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in to her, and take her to him as wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her.
Deu 25:6 It shall be, that the firstborn whom she bears shall succeed in the name of his brother who is dead, that his name not be blotted out of Israel.
Deu 25:7 If the man doesn't want to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate to the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuses to raise up to his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother to me.
Deu 25:8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak to him: and if he stand, and say, I don't want to take her;
Deu 25:9 then his brother's wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, So shall it be done to the man who does not build up his brother's house.
Deu 25:10 His name shall be called in Israel, The house of him who has his shoe untied.
Deu 25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draws near to deliver her husband out of the hand of him who strikes him, and puts forth her hand, and takes him by the secrets;
Deu 25:12 then you shall cut off her hand, your eye shall have no pity.
Deu 25:13 You shall not have in your bag diverse weights, a great and a small.
Deu 25:14 You shall not have in your house diverse measures, a great and a small.
Deu 25:15 You shall have a perfect and just weight. You shall have a perfect and just measure, that your days may be long in the land which Yahweh your God gives you.
Deu 25:16 For all who do such things, even all who do unrighteously, are an abomination to Yahweh your God.
Deu 25:17 Remember what Amalek did to you by the way as you came forth out of Egypt;
Deu 25:18 how he met you by the way, and struck the hindmost of you, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and he didn't fear God.
Deu 25:19 Therefore it shall be, when Yahweh your God has given you rest from all your enemies all around, in the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it, that you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky; you shall not forget.

Deu 26:1 It shall be, when you are come in to the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance, and possess it, and dwell therein,
Deu 26:2 that you shall take of the first of all the fruit of the ground, which you shall bring in from your land that Yahweh your God gives you; and you shall put it in a basket, and shall go to the place which Yahweh your God shall choose, to cause his name to dwell there.
Deu 26:3 You shall come to the priest who shall be in those days, and tell him, I profess this day to Yahweh your God, that I am come to the land which Yahweh swore to our fathers to give us.
Deu 26:4 The priest shall take the basket out of your hand, and set it down before the altar of Yahweh your God.
Deu 26:5 You shall answer and say before Yahweh your God, A Syrian ready to perish was my father; and he went down into Egypt, and sojourned there, few in number; and he became there a nation, great, mighty, and populous.
Deu 26:6 The Egyptians dealt ill with us, and afflicted us, and laid on us hard bondage:
Deu 26:7 and we cried to Yahweh, the God of our fathers, and Yahweh heard our voice, and saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression;
Deu 26:8 and Yahweh brought us forth out of Egypt with a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great terror, and with signs, and with wonders;
Deu 26:9 and he has brought us into this place, and has given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.
Deu 26:10 Now, behold, I have brought the first of the fruit of the ground, which you, Yahweh, have given me. You shall set it down before Yahweh your God, and worship before Yahweh your God.
Deu 26:11 You shall rejoice in all the good which Yahweh your God has given to you, and to your house, you, and the Levite, and the foreigner who is in the midst of you.
Deu 26:12 When you have made an end of tithing all the tithe of your increase in the third year, which is the year of tithing, then you shall give it to the Levite, to the foreigner, to the fatherless, and to the widow, that they may eat within your gates, and be filled.
Deu 26:13 You shall say before Yahweh your God, I have put away the holy things out of my house, and also have given them to the Levite, and to the foreigner, to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all your commandment which you have commanded me: I have not transgressed any of your commandments, neither have I forgotten them:
Deu 26:14 I have not eaten of it in my mourning, neither have I put away of it, being unclean, nor given of it for the dead: I have listened to the voice of Yahweh my God; I have done according to all that you have commanded me.
Deu 26:15 Look down from your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless your people Israel, and the ground which you have given us, as you swore to our fathers, a land flowing with milk and honey.
Deu 26:16 This day Yahweh your God commands you to do these statutes and ordinances: you shall therefore keep and do them with all your heart, and with all your soul.
Deu 26:17 You have declared Yahweh this day to be your God, and that you would walk in his ways, and keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his ordinances, and listen to his voice:
Deu 26:18 and Yahweh has declared you this day to be a people for his own possession, as he has promised you, and that you should keep all his commandments;

Deu 26:19 and to make you high above all nations that he has made, in praise, and in name, and in honor; and that you may be a holy people to Yahweh your God, as he has spoken.

May 4, 5
Luke 19

Luk 19:1 He entered and was passing through Jericho.
Luk 19:2 There was a man named Zacchaeus. He was a chief tax collector, and he was rich.
Luk 19:3 He was trying to see who Jesus was, and couldn't because of the crowd, because he was short.
Luk 19:4 He ran on ahead, and climbed up into a sycamore tree to see him, for he was to pass that way.
Luk 19:5 When Jesus came to the place, he looked up and saw him, and said to him, "Zacchaeus, hurry and come down, for today I must stay at your house."
Luk 19:6 He hurried, came down, and received him joyfully.
Luk 19:7 When they saw it, they all murmured, saying, "He has gone in to lodge with a man who is a sinner."
Luk 19:8 Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "Behold, Lord, half of my goods I give to the poor. If I have wrongfully exacted anything of anyone, I restore four times as much."
Luk 19:9 Jesus said to him, "Today, salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham.
Luk 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost."
Luk 19:11 As they heard these things, he went on and told a parable, because he was near Jerusalem, and they supposed that the Kingdom of God would be revealed immediately.
Luk 19:12 He said therefore, "A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
Luk 19:13 He called ten servants of his, and gave them ten mina coins, and told them, 'Conduct business until I come.'
Luk 19:14 But his citizens hated him, and sent an envoy after him, saying, 'We don't want this man to reign over us.'
Luk 19:15 "It happened when he had come back again, having received the kingdom, that he commanded these servants, to whom he had given the money, to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by conducting business.
Luk 19:16 The first came before him, saying, 'Lord, your mina has made ten more minas.'
Luk 19:17 "He said to him, 'Well done, you good servant! Because you were found faithful with very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.'
Luk 19:18 "The second came, saying, 'Your mina, Lord, has made five minas.'
Luk 19:19 "So he said to him, 'And you are to be over five cities.'
Luk 19:20 Another came, saying, 'Lord, behold, your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief,
Luk 19:21 for I feared you, because you are an exacting man. You take up that which you didn't lay down, and reap that which you didn't sow.'
Luk 19:22 "He said to him, 'Out of your own mouth will I judge you, you wicked servant! You knew that I am an exacting man, taking up that which I didn't lay down, and reaping that which I didn't sow.
Luk 19:23 Then why didn't you deposit my money in the bank, and at my coming, I might have earned interest on it?'
Luk 19:24 He said to those who stood by, 'Take the mina away from him, and give it to him who has the ten minas.'
Luk 19:25 "They said to him, 'Lord, he has ten minas!'
Luk 19:26 'For I tell you that to everyone who has, will more be given; but from him who doesn't have, even that which he has will be taken away from him.
Luk 19:27 But bring those enemies of mine who didn't want me to reign over them here, and kill them before me.' "
Luk 19:28 Having said these things, he went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem.
Luk 19:29 It happened, when he drew near to Bethsphage and Bethany, at the mountain that is called Olivet, he sent two of his disciples,
Luk 19:30 saying, "Go your way into the village on the other side, in which, as you enter, you will find a colt tied, whereon no man ever yet sat. Untie it, and bring it.
Luk 19:31 If anyone asks you, 'Why are you untying it?' say to him: 'The Lord needs it.' "
Luk 19:32 Those who were sent went away, and found things just as he had told them.
Luk 19:33 As they were untying the colt, its owners said to them, "Why are you untying the colt?"
Luk 19:34 They said, "The Lord needs it."
Luk 19:35 They brought it to Jesus. They threw their cloaks on the colt, and set Jesus on them.
Luk 19:36 As he went, they spread their cloaks in the way.
Luk 19:37 As he was now getting near, at the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works which they had seen,
Luk 19:38 saying, "Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven, and glory in the highest!"
Luk 19:39 Some of the Pharisees from the multitude said to him, "Teacher, rebuke your disciples!"
Luk 19:40 He answered them, "I tell you that if these were silent, the stones would cry out."
Luk 19:41 When he drew near, he saw the city and wept over it,
Luk 19:42 saying, "If you, even you, had known today the things which belong to your peace! But now, they are hidden from your eyes.
Luk 19:43 For the days will come on you, when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you, surround you, hem you in on every side,
Luk 19:44 and will dash you and your children within you to the ground. They will not leave in you one stone on another, because you didn't know the time of your visitation."
Luk 19:45 He entered into the temple, and began to drive out those who bought and sold in it,
Luk 19:46 saying to them, "It is written, 'My house is a house of prayer,' but you have made it a 'den of robbers'!"
Luk 19:47 He was teaching daily in the temple, but the chief priests and the scribes and the leading men among the people sought to destroy him.
Luk 19:48 They couldn't find what they might do, for all the people hung on to every word that he said.

From Jim McGuiggan... Musings on Leadership (3)


Musings on Leadership (3)

‘Authority’ is a Relational Concept
12. It’s correct to say that ‘authority’ is power but it isn’t enough to say that. Authority is a particular expression, exercise or manifestation of power. Authority is power within a certain context and is interpreted or shaped by numerous factors.

13. We can talk about the power or force of the wind, the sea, an atom-bomb or any other physical phenomenon but we wouldn’t speak of their authority. There is no ‘social aspect’ to force (power) but there is to authority. Authority is power exercised within relationships. People are called to ‘obey’ or ‘submit’ to authority or those who have authority. Authority is a ‘relational’ or ‘social’ exercise of power.

‘Authority’, Limiting Factors
14. Because life (moral, social and spiritual) is incredibly complex a woman may be an authority in one area but a novice in a host of others. She may be a brilliant high court judge but incompetent in managing her children.  A man may be a brilliant math teacher but ignorant on more complex ethical questions. A Christian may be technically brilliant at exegeting biblical texts but hopeless at congregational organization. This should mean that people are regarded as authorities only in the areas in which they are especially gifted or experienced. It isn’t unusual, of course, to come across people who excel in many life-skills and are therefore highly esteemed in all those areas.

15. In choosing leaders to have authority over them, a community is not confessing that the leader is uniformly capable in all of the life-skills. They fully expect their leaders to be weaker in some areas than in others but their choice of them is made on the basis that: 

• They are especially gifted in the areas which are of primary importance to the community as a community;
• They are humble enough to seek counsel from others in the areas of relative weakness and ignorance within the areas of their leadership responsibilities;
• They have an understanding of the limits of their authority so that they won’t conclude they have been granted God-like powers;
• Each of them is part of a leadership structure that will help to supply what is lacking in the individuals as individuals.

16. In choosing men to exercise authority over them, an assembly of Christians is not giving them authority over every aspect of each disciple’s life. However devoted to God and the congregation’s welfare, the leaders are neither all-knowing nor all-wise. It is neither humanly possible nor desirable for leaders to know all the intimacies of the lives of the community so as (let’s say) to ‘give them guidance’. Only God is capable of that task and he says less in specifics than most believers would want him to say to them. This should mean that the church has a clear view of what their leaders are called to do. If they do have a clear understanding about this, where goodwill prevails there will be fewer conflicts between the leaders and the followers; the leaders will be able to give more quality time and energy to the tasks to which they have been called and to which they committed themselves rather than having to judge or superintend every single thing and each disciple will be encouraged to “bear his/her own burden” and make his/her own contribution to the up-building of the congregation.
A Working Definition Of A Leader/‘Authority’
17. By a “leader” I mean one who guides, who shapes the actions and opinions of others. He is one who represents the views and feelings of others. He is someone ‘out in front’ showing the way or embodying the principles he shares with others.  He is one who has ‘authority’. The word leader is elastic enough to embrace all these ideas and more like them. Depending on context, leadership stresses one or more aspects of this complex of ideas. Like so many other rich words, leader insists on having a definite meaning but it resists verbal imprisonment. 

18. Sometimes a leader leads simply by repeating the mind of the community as a spokesman of the community.  At other times he shapes and moulds the vision and practice of that community. In this he is ‘leading’. Characteristically the leader embodies and/or promotes the principles on which a group is founded to a ‘better than average’ degree. He would be acknowledged as a leader precisely because he stands for and lives out those esteemed principles to a marked degree. It’s because we recognize others as more capable or devoted than ourselves that we are pleased to acknowledge them as our leaders. Our convictions are important to us so we want our wisest and most articulate people to lead us in this area. There’s nothing strange or sinister about any of this. As C.H. Dodd put it, “Truly religious people recognize their betters.” (Even truly non-religious people can recognize their betters. Christians have no monopoly on humility and honesty.)

19. These remarks centre on religious leaders and deal mainly with “good” leaders. Bad leadership will, now and then, serve as a backdrop for the discussion of good leaders. Anyone who has thought about it for a moment recognizes that there are good leaders who don’t profess the Christian faith. Being a Christian, however, I’d propose that good leadership is a gift of God to humanity and that wherever or in whoever goodness or giftedness is manifested that it’s the work of God. It’s Christian imperialism in one of its most degenerate forms to claim that God only blesses Christians with moral grandeur, wisdom and insight. It’s also nonsense. But I will be speaking in terms of biblical leadership even when I don’t use that adjective.


©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.
Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

Adult Stem Cells Match the Potential of Embryonic Stem Cells by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2347

Adult Stem Cells Match the Potential of Embryonic Stem Cells

by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

For years, ethical issues have plagued the development of embryonic stem-cell research in America (cf. Bush, 2001). Despite its slight potential for therapeutic benefits in the distant future, embryonic stem-cell research has been shown to be unethical because it necessitates killing people (seeThompson and Harrub, 2001; cf. Gibson, 2007; Colley, 2007). Scientists also have known for several years that adult stem-cell research has yielded greater results than embryonic stem-cell research (see Harrub and Thompson, 2004; Miller, 2007). Unlike embryonic stem-cells, however, adult stem-cells are only partially pluripotent, “capable of forming several cell types—principally blood, muscle, and nerve cells. It has been possible to recognize, select, and develop them to the point that they form mature cell types with the help of growth factors and regulating proteins” (Lillge, 2001; cf. “Stem Cell Basics,” 2006).
Now, it has been demonstrated that adult skin cells not only can be “reprogrammed” to assume earlier levels of development, but they actually can be transformed into “blank slates that should be able to turn into any of the 220 cell types of the human body, be it heart, brain, blood or bone” (Kolata, 2007). This method allows for the development of truly pluripotent cells without resorting to “therapeutic” cloning or the destruction of embryos (see Kolata, 2007). Stem-cells from adults may offer hope of developing therapies for patients suffering from diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s (see McIlroy, 2007).
Kyoto University’s Shinya Yamanaka and his colleagues “used a retrovirus to ferry into adult cells the same four genes they had previously employed to reprogram mouse cells” (Vogel and Holden, 2007, 318:1224). Yamanaka’s group reported on November 21:
Human iPS [induced pluripotent stem—CC] cells were similar to human embryonic stem (ES) cells in morphology, proliferation, surface antigens, gene expression, epigenetic status or pluripotent cell-specific genes, and telomerase activity. Furthermore, these cells could differentiate into cell types of the three germ layers in vitro and in teratomas. These findings demonstrate that iPS cells can be generated from adult human fibroblasts (Takahashi, et al., 2007, 131:1 parenthetical item in orig.).
James Thompson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and his colleagues were performing similar experiments and reported their findings at virtually the same time (Vogel and Holden, 2007). He toldScience that the reprogrammed adult skin cells “act just like human ES cells” (Vogel and Hogel, 2007, 318:1225).
Researchers agree that the next step is to learn how to reprogram cells without inserting new genes (318:1225). Stem-cell researcher Douglas Melton of Harvard University, commented: “It’s almost inconceivable at the pace this science is moving that we won’t find a way to do this without oncogenes or retroviruses” (quoted in Vogel and Holden, 318:1225). Gibson’s observation that adult stem-cells are “superior to both umbilical and embryonic stem cells” carries even more weight in light of current developments (2007). In view of the general desire to develop cures for major diseases, and the respect for the sanctity of human life, we suspect the pattern of developing nonviolent means of therapeutic research will continue. As it does, we will continue to be impressed by the striking evidence for an intelligent Designer, and recall His strictures against murder (see Miller, 2003).

REFERENCES

Bush, George W. (2001), “Remarks by the President on Stem-Cell Research,” [On-line], URL:http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html.
Colley, Caleb (2007), “Therapeutic Embryonic Stem-Cell Research ‘Just Not Realistic’,” [On-line],URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3504.
Gibson, Robert (2007), “Stem Cell Research Is Good News for Heart Patients,” The Epoch Times, [On-line], URL: http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-10-11/60678.html.
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2004), “Presidential Elections, Superman, Embryonic Stem Cells, Bad Science, and False Hope,” [On-line] URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2621.
Kolata, Gina (2007), “Scientists Bypass Need for Embryo to Get Stem Cells,” The New York Times, [On-line], URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/science/21stem.html.
Lillge, Wolfgang (2001), “The Case for Adult Stem Cell Research,” 21st Century Science and Technology Magazine, [On-line], URL: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html.
McIlroy, Anne (2007), “Stem-Cell Method Hailed as ‘Massive Breakthrough’,” The Globe and Mail, [On-line], URL: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071121. wstemcells21/BNStory/Science/home.
Miller, Dave (2003), “Abortion and the Bible,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1964.
Miller, Dave (2007), “Adult Stem-Cell Research,” [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3272.
“Stem Cell Basics” (2006), The National Institutes of Health, [On-line], URL: http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics5.asp.
Takahashi, Kazutoshi, et al. (2007), “Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells from Adult Human Fibroblasts by Defined Factors,” Cell, 131:1-12, November, [On-line], URL: http://images.cell.com/images/Edimages/Cell/IEPs/3661.pdf.
Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2001), “Human Cloning and Stem-Cell Research—Science’s ‘Slippery Slope’ [Part III],” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2510.
Vogel, Gretchen and Constance Holden (2007), “Field Leaps Forward With New Stem Cell Advances,” Science, 318:1224-1225, November 23.

“Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began” by Kyle Butt, M.A.


http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3825

“Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began”

by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Twenty years ago, John Horgan, staff writer for Scientific American, wanted to write an article titled, “Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began.” His editor at the time did not like the title and changed it. Horgan has waited 20 years, however, and the original editor is gone who did not like his title, so he simply re-used it for an article he wrote in February of 2011, two decades later (Horgan, 2011). The fact that Horgan could accurately say that the scientific community did not have a clue 20 years ago about the origin of life, and the situation has not changed in two decades of intense research, speaks volumes about the false theory of evolution and its explanation of the origin of life.
The reason that “scientists don’t have a clue how life began” is because those whom Horgan is labeling as “scientists” have prejudicially eliminated the only viable option for the origin of life. What Horgan means is that scientists who believe in evolution cannot give any plausible, naturalistic scenario that would make life possible. Horgan mistakenly equates “scientists” with “evolutionary scientists.” The fact of the matter is, thousands of scientists across the country know exactly how life began—God created life during the six-day Creation week. In fact, we at Apologetics Press have several highly qualified staff and auxiliary scientists who have studied the evidence and know how life began.
The quandary that Horgan and evolutionary scientists are in arises from the fact that, according to evolution, life had to spontaneously generate from non-living chemicals—and there is no plausible naturalistic accounting for this. To defend his position that “scientists” do not have a clue, Horgan explained that the idea of DNA molecules forming spontaneously has major problems: “DNA can make neither proteins nor copies of itself without the help of catalytic proteins called enzymes. This fact turned the origin of life into a classic chicken-or-egg puzzle: Which came first, proteins or DNA?” (2011). Horgan then noted that origin-of-life scientists have postulated that RNA might be the answer to the beginning of life. But he concluded: “The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation” (2011). The far out ideas to which Horgan eluded are notions that life was dropped off by aliens, or that microbes from outer space “seeded” our planet. Horgan correctly observed that such outlandish suggestions only “push the problem of life’s origin into outer space. If life didn’t begin here, how did it begin out there?”
In his concluding paragraph, Horgan wrote: “Creationists are no doubt thrilled that origin-of-life research has reached such an impasse…but they shouldn’t be. Their explanations suffer from the same flaw: What created the divine Creator? And at least scientists are making an honest effort to solve life’s mystery instead of blaming it all on God” (2011). Horgan is exactly right when he says that scientists (read that “evolutionary scientists”) do not have a clue how life began. He is wrong, however, to insist that the evolutionary scenario of life’s origin rests on the same footing as the concept of creation. The origin-of-life research has not shown that a naturalistic origin for life is merely improbable; instead, it has shown that it is impossible—life does not and cannot spontaneously generate from non-living chemicals. That being the case, the only truly “scientific” idea left would be to follow the evidence where it leads—to an intelligent, supernatural creator. Antony Flew, at one time the world’s foremost atheistic philosopher, came to just such a conclusion when he wrote: “The only satisfactory explanation for the origin of such ‘end-directed, self-replicating’ life as we see on earth is an infinitely intelligent Mind” (2007, p. 132).

REFERENCES

Flew, Antony and Roy Varghese (2007), There Is No God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (New York: HarperOne).
Horgan, John (2011), “Pssst! Don’t Tell the Creationists, but Scientists Don’t Have a Clue How Life Began,” Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28.

Discovering the Truth About “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.



http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=2130

Discovering the Truth About “The Lost Tomb of Jesus”

by Dewayne Bryant, M.A.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by one of A.P.’s auxiliary staff scientists. Bryant holds two Masters degrees, and is enrolled in Masters study in Ancient Near Eastern Archaeology and Languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, as well as doctoral studies at Regions University. He has participated in an archaeological dig at Tell El-Borg in Egypt and holds professional membership in both the American Schools of Oriental Research and the Society of Biblical Literature.]
Reinventing the Son of God is big business. Every year around Easter, Christians can expect to see the latest challenge to the historical picture of Jesus in magazines like TIME and Newsweek. For producers with bigger budgets, movies and television specials provide slick visuals to illustrate these new “truths.” There has been a recent flurry of these productions, ranging from popular novels to announcements about lost gospels, that allegedly will revolutionize how we understand the New Testament. For anyone with an interest in the sensational, the most recent addition to the growing host of heresy does not disappoint.
A new documentary titled The Lost Tomb of Jesus aired on the Discovery Channel on March 4, 2007. At the helm were award-winning filmmakers James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici. The documentary promised to shed new light on Jesus through the earliest artifacts connected to the rise of Christianity. They claimed to take us to the tomb of Christ Himself, showing that He was a historic figure in spite of those who would claim Him to be nothing more than a myth. Are they doing Christians a favor, or are they doing more harm than good?

THE FIND

In the modern Jerusalem suburb of Talpiyot, a construction crew uncovered an ancient tomb while digging for a new apartment complex in 1980. Archaeologists immediately were called in to document the find in a salvage operation, lasting from March 28 to April 14 of that year (Kloner, 1996, 29:22). The find was a rock-cut tomb with 10 limestone ossuaries (bone boxes), six of which bore inscriptions identifying the occupants as Jesus, Joseph, Matthew, Simeon, and two Marys. The names were common ones to the period, so the archaeologists thought nothing of them. No special significance was attached to the tomb. The excavators finished their work, the construction resumed, and the ossuaries were placed in storage. Bone fragments found inside the ossuaries were buried in a cemetery according to Orthodox Jewish custom. The tomb soon lay buried, hidden by modern development.
tomb1
Twenty-three years later, filmmaker Jacobovici began working on a documentary on the ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus. He observed that there were several ossuaries with familiar names, including Jesus, Joseph, and Mary. Could this be the holy family of the New Testament? He explored the work of the original excavators and found the evidence too tantalizing to pass up. After talking with the archaeologists who worked on the dig and writing a proposal, his work began. The fruit of his labor is the new documentary, The Lost Tomb of Jesus, which features the hidden tomb that supposedly contained the remains of Christ.
In order to determine the accuracy of the theory presented in the documentary, we first must look at the important idea of convergence. When the historical, archaeological, and biblical evidence is interpreted and weighed, we expect there to be harmony. The three will converge, or come together. There may be cases where evidence from one area might be lacking, but we do not expect the evidence to be in conflict without adequate explanation. This is a key factor in determining whether Jacobovici’s conclusions are right or wrong.

TALES OF TOMBS AND OSSUARIES

tomb2
A typical Palestinian rock-cut tomb
Rock-cut tombs were used in antiquity at least as early as the eighth century B.C. They are artificial underground caves in the bedrock slopes of Jerusalem, nearly always located outside the city walls (Magness, 2005, 124[1]:122-123). They were choice burial sites for those wealthy enough to afford them, while those with less financial means settled for trench graves, similar to those used in modern cemeteries. Families used rock-cut tombs over several generations, a practice which is reflected in biblical phrases such as “he slept and was gathered to his fathers” (2 Chronicles 34:28). They usually appear only in periods where the Jewish people had a measure of political independence.

In Jewish tombs, there were two burials involved for a single individual. In the initial or primary burial, the body would be placed on aloculus or kokh (rectangular burial niche) for the body to decay. About a year later, the bones would be gathered together for a secondary burial, usually in a limestone ossuary (bone box). Ossuaries began to appear during the reign of Herod the Great, dateable perhaps to 20-15 B.C. (Rahmani, 1994, p. 21). Their use continued at least until the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70, but may have extended through the early second century.

ARCHAELOGICAL EVIDENCE

One of the primary problems with connecting the Talpiyot tomb with Jesus Christ involves the expense of owning such a tomb in antiquity. Even modest tombs were outside the price range of most people. Further complicating the matter is the fact that Jesus and His family never are portrayed as wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb. If Joseph died early, as suggested by some who note his absence in Jesus’ adult life, an additional financial burden would have been placed on the family, further decreasing their already minuscule chances of owning a tomb.
On the Biblical Archaeology Society Web site, scholar James Tabor (who supports the idea that the Talpiyot tomb could be that of Jesus) has objected to comments about the default burial of Jesus being in a trench grave along with others who were too poor to own a rock-cut tomb. He argues that it seems only natural that a popular religious leader like Jesus would be given an honorable burial by His devoted followers (Tabor, 2007). However, Rahmani’s Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries notes that the name of Jesus is carved clumsily on the ossuary (labeled as no. 701). If this is the tomb of a popular religious figure, why give Him a simple, unadorned ossuary with only His name shoddily scrawled on the outside? Tabor’s objection clearly does not fit the evidence.
Another problem is that Jesus and his family did not come from Jerusalem. Joseph and Mary originally were from Bethlehem, and settled in Nazareth. While ossuaries frequently have the names of a person’s father or mother, ancient sources also typically make a distinction concerning the place of a person’s origin, as in the cases of Simon of Cyrene and Saul of Tarsus. Ossuaries in Jerusalem have been found that indicate a person’s place of origin when they were not originally from that city. If the tomb were truly that of Jesus Christ, we would expect Him to be identified on the ossuary as “Jesus of Nazareth” rather than “Jesus son of Joseph.” No one in the Talpiyot tomb is identified by place of origin. This evidence strongly suggests that the people buried in the tomb were natives of Jerusalem.
Additional evidence concerning the names on the ossuaries found in the Talpiyot tomb complicates the conclusions drawn by the documentary. The ossuary of the woman identified as Mary Magdalene is problematic, and conflicts with other evidence. First, if the ossuary belonged to Mary, we would expect her to be identified as “Mary of Migdal,” as she is in the New Testament (Luke 8:2).
Second, scholars are divided on how to translate the wording of MARIAMENOU MARA (the name appearing on one of the ossuaries), whether it gives two names for the same woman (“Mary, who is called Mara”) or if it indicates the names of two women—Mary and Martha—meaning that two people were buried in the same ossuary, which was not unknown (there are cases of as many as five people buried in a single ossuary). Stephen Pfann’s piece on the Society of Biblical Literature homepage disputes the reading used by the documentary, arguing that the inscription should be read MARIAMEKAI MARA (Pfann, 2007). In this case, the inscription would refer to two women, Mariam and Martha. Most scholars now appear to be accepting Pfann’s corrected reading of the ossuary’s inscription, concluding that the remains of two individuals shared this ossuary.
An additional problem with “Mary Magdalene’s” ossuary is that the inscription is in Greek. According to the documentary, Mary spoke Greek and helped her brother Philip in evangelistic work. In reality, Mary Magdalene came from Migdal, a small Jewish fishing village. Usually in the first century, only upper class Jews spoke Greek. The average Jew would have spoken Aramaic. So why is her ossuary inscription written in Greek? This evidence suggests a Jerusalemite woman named Mary who was from the upper classes, and whose family could afford to bury her in a rock-cut tomb.
The program claims that “Mara” in the inscription means “teacher,” a conclusion with which no reputable scholar agrees. The word is actually a shortened form of the name “Martha.” It is suggested that Francois Bovon, Frothingham professor of the history of religion at Harvard Divinity School, has equated Mariamne with Mary Magdalene (Desmond, 2000). Bovon has denied this claim, however, in a letter sent to the Society of Biblical Literature in which he says the “reconstructions of Jesus’ marriage with Mary Magdalene and the birth of a child belong for me to science fiction” (Bovon, 2007).
One final concern regarding the archaeological evidence: a primary assumption of the documentary is that the James ossuary comes from the same tomb in Talpiyot. The program claims that the 10th ossuary went missing during the original work on the tomb. To rebut this claim, Israeli archaeologist Joseph Zias has posted an excellent “viewer’s guide” to understanding the documentary on his Web site (www.joezias.com). Zias shows that the FBI proved the James ossuary was photographed in the 1970’s because of a criminal investigation against Oded Golan, the ossuary’s current owner (Zias, 2007). If the James ossuary was already in Golan’s possession when the tomb was discovered, it could not be the tenth “missing” ossuary. Zias also shows that he had indeed accounted for the tenth ossuary when the original work was done, and that it had no inscription.

SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

People in the Western world are trained to think that scientific evidence assures the quality of any product. Advertisers make sure the public knows that their work has been “scientifically proven.” This gives the consumer the idea that independent, objective research has gone into its production. The commercials for The Lost Tomb of Jesus did much the same in advertisements leading up to the premiere of the documentary.
The first major area of evidence concerns the DNA testing performed on two of the ossuaries, those of Jesus and Mary. Mitochondrial DNA was tested by the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario (Jacobovici and Pellegrino, 2007, pp. 167-174). It was determined that the two individuals in this tomb were not related to each other. Since this was a family tomb, the documentary suggests, the two must have been husband and wife. But the only thing this test proves is that Jesus and Mary did not have the same mother. In addition, there are a number of other possibilities in terms of family relations. Mary could have been Jesus’ daughter, daughter-in-law, sister-in-law through marriage to a brother, sister-in-law from a previous marriage of his father, mother-in-law from a subsequent marriage of his father, or paternal cousins, with more distant relations remaining as further possibilities. To leap to the conclusion that the two must have been married to one another is problematic and prejudicial, to say the least.
tomb3
Exterior view of a Jewish rock-cut tomb
In addition to the DNA evidence, further proof from statistics is supposed to support the claim that this is the tomb of Jesus. Andrey Feuerverger of the University of Toronto assembled the statistical evidence, shown on the Discovery Channel Web site, which supposedly proves the tomb to be that of Jesus (2007). Unfortunately, the names represented on the ossuaries are extremely common. In his book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckman indicates that the male names in the tomb are among the most popular, with Simon ranking first, Joseph second, Judah fourth, and Jesus sixth, with Mary being the most common female name (Bauckman, 2006, p. 70). This is why archaeologists initially thought nothing of the tomb when it was discovered. While the names corresponded to those of Jesus’ family in the gospel records, they were also the most common names in the first century. The equivalent today would be trying to find a modern cemetery that did not have anyone named Smith or Jones. Taking this evidence into account, the documentary claims that while the individual names are common, the cluster of names is not. After all, how many families in the first century could have people named Joseph, Jesus, and Mary?
While the argument initially sounds convincing, a number of problems persist with the statistics presented on the Discovery Channel Web site. In a letter to his colleagues posted on the Internet, Feuerverger admits that he made a number of assumptions before he performed his calculations. First, he assumed that the Joseph (Yose) of the ossuary and the Joseph, father of Jesus, are two different people—an unprovable assumption. He also assumed that the second Mary refers to Mary Magdalene, forcing a virtually statistical certainty that this is the tomb of Jesus. But this interpretation is impossible, as discussed earlier. A third assumption is that the presence of unknown people, such as Matthew and Judah, do not invalidate the statistical evidence, though that assumption goes against the historical evidence (Feuerverger, 2007).
The statistical evidence is invalid because the names on the ossuaries do not match the evidence for several reasons. First, there are two persons for whom the historical evidence does not account (Matthew and Judah). Furthermore, there are other family members that are missing, including His brothers James and Jude, and sisters Salome and Mary (who are named only in later tradition; cf. Mark 6:3). The documentary contends that Yose (Joseph) is not the father of Jesus. This contention drives the statistical probability higher, yet the documentary never addresses the fact that the Yose in the ossuary and the father of Jesus could have been the same person. Admittedly, this is not certain, but there is no good reason why the father of this Jesus could not have gone by Yose. Actually, a facsimile of the Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries presented on the Discovery Channel Web site shows that Rahmani’s opinion was that Yose very well could be the father of the Jesus in this tomb. Finally, attributing the ossuary to Mary Magdalene further inflates the statistics, though no evidence exists to connect the name on the ossuary to her. It also assumes that the Matthew of the ossuary is a relative of Mary, but not her son, despite a lack of any evidence to support that possibility.
The final piece of scientific evidence involves the use of “patina fingerprinting.” Patina is a thin layer of buildup on the surface of an artifact due to chemical reaction with the environment. According to the program, the makeup of the patina holds clues about the tomb. Though touted as an important piece of information in the documentary, it is completely inadmissible as evidence. The use of the term “fingerprinting” is a misleading description, since it gives the viewer the impression that the science behind the process is exact. The truth is, the procedure is not exact, nor would we expect it to be. The patina evidence is rigged from the start. The patinas from ossuaries discovered in other environments are tested and shown to be different from the ossuaries in the Talpiyot tomb. Those in the Talpiyot tomb were tested and shown to be relatively similar. But these conclusions are to be expected. The real test is whether ossuaries from tombs similar to the Talpiyot tomb are different, which would strengthen Jacobovici’s case. But there is no reason to expect substantial differences in patina evidence from similar environments. No way exists to connect a single ossuary with a specific tomb. The use of this evidence is intellectually dishonest.

HISTORICAL EVIDENCE

While the evidence from archaeology and science—the main underpinnings of the documentary’s premise—has been shown to be lacking, the program faces further difficulties in terms of the historical evidence. The basis for the documentary is drawn in part from later, extra-biblical traditions. It is strange, though perhaps to be expected, that the documentary draws on sources centuries later than the New Testament gospel accounts—further evidence of the utter lack of objectivity in the documentary. Rather than using the gospel records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (which have demonstrated their historical reliability and are accepted even by most non-believing scholars—seeLyons and Miller, 2004, 24[6]:57-63), the documentary is guided by pseudepigraphical works of highly dubious historical value.
The major problem is that no evidence exists to suggest that Jesus had a wife and child. There is no hint Jesus ever was married (Lyons, 2006). While archaeology occasionally fills in gaps left out by historical evidence, this fact would not have gone unmentioned in the earliest sources. The marriage of Jesus to Mary Magdalene is found nowhere in the ancient evidence.
The statistical probability of the Talpiyot tomb being that of Jesus hangs on Mariamne and Mary Magdalene being one and the same. Yet no early evidence connects the two. The only connection available comes from the Acts of Philip, an uncertain and widely disputed text, whose earliest surviving copy is from the 14th century, though possibly dated to the fourth. The text not only fails conclusively to connect Mariamne with Mary Magdalene, it has a few other discrediting features—including talking animals. Speaking from the historian’s perspective, it is grossly irresponsible to dismiss the best sources and use disputed evidence to support an already-drawn conclusion.

RESPONSE OF THE EARLY CHURCH

Finally, we must examine the response of early believers to Jesus. In the gospel accounts, after the crucifixion of Christ, the disciples are depicted as a band of disillusioned idealists. They thought their Messiah was dead and gone, buried in a tomb, when He was supposed to save the world. Despite their initial disenchantment, they soon transformed into powerful preachers bent on evangelizing the Mediterranean world. Going on missions that put them directly in harm’s way (cf. Acts 8:1-3; 2 Corinthians 11:23-27), they defied worldly authorities for the cause of Christ. Why the turnaround?
Being a Christian did not bode well for one’s health. History records that all of the apostles but one were martyred. So was James, the brother of Jesus. Even the average Christian at the time could expect to be executed if discovered by the Roman authorities. Of all the religious choices in the first century, why choose the one with the shortest life expectancy? It is hard to believe that such a religion would be the chosen course of people who had put Jesus’ body in the tomb, then later placed His bones in an ossuary. They would have been reminded of the lie every time the next family member was buried, at the very time people were preaching His resurrection. The only explanation for this complete inability to face reality would be insanity.
We are at a loss to find any other explanation for the dramatic turnaround of some of the fiercest defenders of the faith in the early church. There was tension in the family of Jesus, which would have included His brothers James and Jude (Mark 3:31-34). Paul actively persecuted the church (Acts 8:3). It is difficult—if not impossible—to explain such a dramatic reversal of men who were originally skeptics and even enemies of Christ.
In early church history, absolutely no awareness of this family tomb is indicated. During the reign of Constantine the Great, traditional sites of New Testament significance were marked. Churches were constructed over venerated locations, such as the purported burial place of Jesus and the site of his ascension to heaven, and even the site identified as Peter’s house. Before the reign of Constantine, Christians commemorated the final resting place of Jesus’ brother James. Yet, we are supposed to believe that the early church inexplicably lost track of the real tomb, in spite of the fact that it was used for at least four generations, until the end of the first century? Even so, the location never appears in Christian traditions or the writings of the early patristic writers. Christianity shows no awareness of the tomb from earliest times.
Both Roman and Jewish authorities were hostile to the early church. If the documentary is correct, all they had to do was point to the ossuary occupied by the body of Jesus to refute utterly the Christian claims of His resurrection. Yet there was no body to be produced. The fact that the body of Jesus was missing may well be reflected in a stone monument found in Nazareth in 1878, dubbed the “Nazareth Inscription Against Grave Robbing,” possibly dating to the time of the Roman emperor Claudius (A.D.41-54). The inscription states that tomb-robbing is a capital crime under Roman law. Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome in A.D. 49 because of problems generated by the budding Christian faith. He also may have issued this order because of problems concerning the claims that Jesus rose from the dead. This observation is uncertain, however, and so must be weighed with caution (Ferguson, 2003, pp. 586-587).
In the end, the tomb discovery has wide-ranging theological implications. Some of the most basic tenets of the Christian faith hang upon the bodily resurrection of Christ. While the producers of the documentary have downplayed this aspect, claiming that Jesus could have had a spiritual resurrection, their view is yet another instance of failure to understand properly the ancient evidence. The unusual aspect of Christ’s resurrection was not that it was physical—which is what the Jews anticipated. The unexpectedness of it is the fact that it occurred before the end of time. According to Jewish belief, resurrection was physical, as can be seen in the book of 2 Maccabees. In chapter 7, one of several individuals being tortured expresses the belief that his mutilated body parts would be restored in the resurrection. In 2 Maccabees 17:46, a man named Razis, who committed suicide by pulling out his own intestines, called upon God to restore them to him again, presumably in the afterlife. It has been suggested that the point of having an ossuary was to preserve the bones for a physical resurrection (Rahmani, 1981, 44[3]:175-176).

RESPONSES FROM EXPERTS

While critics of the Christian faith make fun of believers scurrying to do damage control in the wake of the documentary’s premiere, it is not Christians who are leading the charge against the film, but atheists and agnostics. The majority of the archaeologists who have denounced the program are unbelievers. Their ire is not because the program controverts the gospel message, but because it violates standards of scientific and academic professionalism (Thompson, 2007). The established process of presenting new discoveries and interpretations is by means of scholarly venues, such as papers presented at professional conferences and articles published in peer-reviewed journals. By announcing the findings of the program in the popular media, complete with a perfectly-timed news conference to coincide with the release of the book and documentary, Cameron and Jacobovici have stepped on the toes of scholars everywhere.
Amos Kloner, the archaeologist who initially worked on the excavation and later published his findings in 1996, argues that the documentary is nothing more than a commercial enterprise (Nissenbaum, 2007). Kloner’s colleague in the excavation, Joseph Zias (one-time curator of the well-known Rockefeller Museum in Israel), has lamented that the documentary makes a mockery of the archaeological profession (Zias, 2007). From their comments in the popular media, it is readily apparent that both men, who are reputable archaeologists—but unbelievers—are frustrated with the project.
Some of the harshest language about the documentary came immediately after its airing. In a scholarly program that discussed the validity of the documentary’s radical claims, The Lost Tomb of Jesus—A Critical Look, Ted Koppel interviewed two archaeologists. The first was William Dever, arguably the most recognized American archaeologist. The other was Jonathan Reed, a well-respected archaeologist who currently excavates at the site of ancient Sepphoris. Dever, who noted that he was not a believer and did not “have a dog in this fight,” labeled the program a “docu-drama.” Reed was even more hostile in his evaluation, denouncing the documentary as “archaeo-porn.” Reed’s evaluation of the evidence was that the theory is much like a chain made up of links, but one in which each link has a tremendous number of “ifs” that makes the final product difficult to accept.
It must be noted that Cameron and Jacobovici were unable to find archaeological experts to agree with their conclusions. While a few scholars have been sympathetic to the premise of the documentary, no one has endorsed it carte blanche. The vast majority of experts are frustrated, even angry, about it. In addition to the comments by Dever and Reed noted above, other archaeologists have expressed dismay and quickly moved to refute the thesis of the program. Jodi Magness, professor of archaeology at the University of North Carolina, has published articles on the Web sites of the Society of Biblical Literature and the Archaeological Institute of America exposing the shortcomings of the documentary (2007). Joseph Zias’ viewer’s guide posted on his Web site refutes nearly every claim made by the show, giving additional insight into what went into the program behind the scenes (2007). Tel Ilan, the scholar whose Lexicon of Jewish Names was used in providing the evidence for the statistical research presented in the program, has expressed outrage that her work has been connected to the documentary. The Web site of Scientific American has quotes from both Ilan and Magness expressing their anger and frustration (Mims, 2007). The verdict of the scholars? Professionals have given responses ranging from irritation to anger and disgust. Indeed, reaction of the experts is almost unanimously negative.

CONCLUSION

When one steps back from the documentary and looks to see if filmmakers handled the evidence properly, the result can be described only as pure disappointment. Rather than converging, the scientific, archaeological, and historical evidence are thrown into chaotic disarray. Evidence from one area is pitted against evidence from another. The best sources are dismissed, while disreputable sources are given an undeserved prominence in the conclusion of the program. Jacobovici has been unable to find any expert who will agree with him. The evidence is cherry-picked to create the appearance of the strongest possible case, but the end result is that the chain of evidence is weak at every link.
These artifacts have been known for 27 years, yet no one of scholarly repute has thought much of them until now. As vocal as critics of Christianity are, it is strange that this sleeping giant has lain undisturbed for nearly three decades. This is the kind of ammunition that the Bible’s detractors drool over, yet it never made a blip on the radar despite being published in 1996 and being featured on aBBC special the same year. Apparently, it takes a filmmaker to connect the dots on 2,000 year-old “evidence” that contradicts Christianity.
The Lost Tomb of Jesus has the potential to shake Christianity to its core, but the utter lack of good evidence means the documentary goes forth more with a whimper than a bang. Both Cameron and Jacobovici have admitted that neither is an archaeologist or scientist. They make it appear as if anyone with a budget and a film crew can do archaeology. This is painfully obvious at the end of the program, when Jacobovici goes to find the location of the tomb. He eventually discovers it and removes the concrete slab that seals it shut, essentially committing archaeological “breaking and entering.” Eventually, a representative from the Israel Antiquities Authority shows up to force the intruders to leave. Jacobovici demonstrates a flagrant disregard for proper procedure; the same may be said for the rest of his work.
In the wake of the program’s premiere, it appears that those involved are attempting to distance themselves from the project. In an e-mail to evangelical theologian James White posted on the Alpha and Omega Ministries Web site, Dr. Carney Matheson (the scientist responsible for DNA testing on the Jesus and Mary ossuaries) indicated that his responses in interviews with the filmmakers were manipulated (White, 2007). In a letter to his colleagues, Andrey Feuerverger, the statistical expert from the University of Toronto, emphasizes the assumptions that went into his calculations (2007). Even the Discovery Channel is refusing to promote the documentary, and now appears to be backing away from it. Despite drawing over four million viewers for the premiere, the channel has not celebrated its ratings. Subsequent re-airings of the show were cancelled. The channel scheduled the panel debate in The Lost Tomb of Jesus—A Critical Look quite abruptly, the conclusions of which cast serious doubt upon Jacobovici’s findings.
Do Christians have anything about which to worry? Not at all. The documentary’s conclusion is based on poor use of evidence and faulty statistics. The evidence in the documentary has been skewed, even manipulated—a charge brought by scholars who have no spiritual stake in the program. While the documentary makes for sensational television, it has no scholarly basis. Rather than the evidence achieving convergence, the documentary pits different aspects of the evidence against other aspects. The difficulties in reconciling the scientific, archaeological, and historical data in a meaningful way can be solved by one simple solution: this is not the tomb of Christ.
If we could travel back in time nearly 2,000 years to the territory now occupied by the suburb of Talpiyot in modern-day Jerusalem, we could observe Jesus’ funeral, with mourners dressed in first-century Jewish garb solemnly marching toward a rock-cut tomb. The family of the deceased would gather around sorrowfully to lay their beloved to rest in the cool, stone chamber. A year later, they would put his bones in a limestone ossuary. Our hearts would go out to the family—even though the deceased was not Jesus of Nazareth.

REFERENCES

Bauckman, Richard (2006), Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Bovon, Francois (2007), The Tomb of Jesus, [On-line], URL: http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=656.
Desmond, Peter H. (2000), “Woman Priests, Vegetarians, and Summer Dresses: Fourth Century Church Tales,” Harvard Magazine, May-June, [On-line], URL: http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/0500113.html.
Ferguson, Everett (2003), “Back”grounds of Early Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), third edition.
Feuerverger, Andrey (2007), “Dear Statistical Colleagues,” [On-line], URL:http://fisher.utstat.toronto.edu/andrey/OfficeHrs.txt.
Jacobovici, Simcha and Charles Pellegrino (2007), The Jesus Family Tomb: The Discovery, the Investigation, and the Evidence that Could Change History (New York, NY: HarperCollins).
Kloner, Amos (1996), “A Tomb with Inscribed Ossuaries in East Talpiyot, Jerusalem,” Antiqot, 29:15-22.
Lyons, Eric (2006), “The Real Mary Magdalene,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL:http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3059.
Lyons, Eric and Dave Miller (2004), “Biblical Inerrancy,” Reason & Revelation, 24[6]:57-63, June, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2541.
Magness, Jodi (2005), “Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 124[1]:121-154.
Magness, Jodi (2007), “Has the Tomb of Jesus Been Discovered?” Society of Biblical Literature, March 2 and April 3, [On-line], URL: http://www.sbl-site.org/Article.aspx?ArticleId=640 ; Archaeological Institute of America, [On-line], URL: http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408.
Mims, Christopher (2007), “Says Scholar Whose Work Was Used in the Upcoming Jesus Tomb Documentary: ‘I think it’s completely mishandled. I am angry’,” Scientific American, March 2, [On-line],URL: http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=says_scholar_whose_work_was_used_ in_the&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1.
Nissenbaum, Dion (2007), “Tomb of Jesus, Son Found, Film Reports,” Chicago Tribune, February 27, [On-line], URL: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0702270145feb27,1 ,1790100.story.
Pfann, Stephen (2007), “Mary Magdalene is Now Missing: A Corrected Reading of Rhamani Ossuary 701,” Society of Biblical Literature, [On-line], URL: http://sbl-site.org/PDF/Pfann.pdf.
Rahmani, Levy Yitzhak (1981), “Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs, Part One,”Biblical Archaeologist, 44[3]:171-177, Summer.
Rahmani, Levy Yitzhak (1994), A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries in the Collections of the State of Israel (Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority).
Tabor, James D. (2007), “Two Burials of Jesus of Nazareth and the Talpiot Yeshua Tomb,” [On-line],URL: http://www.bib-arch.org/bswbKCtombtabor.html.
Thompson, Marshall (2007), “Claims about Jesus’ Lost Tomb Stir Up Tempest,” MSNBC, February 26, [On-line], URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17345429/from/RSS.
White, James R. (2007), “Dr. Carney Matheson Responds,” [On-line], URL:http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1809.
Zias, Joseph (2007), “Deconstructing the Second and Hopefully Last Coming of Simcha and the BARCrowd,” [On-line], URL: http://www.joezias.com/tomb.html.