http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/dig/

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/dig/

http://moreaboutmen.com/abc/dig/

I'm beginning to notice a pattern with these fundamentalists. You lay a few hard facts on them and they disappear.

Where did you get those dates? Christ doesn't appear to have been executed at all, as far as historians can trace, the commonest dates given by biblical scholars for the Gospel of Mark is 70-90 CE, Matthew is 80-100, Luke 80-130, and John 90-120. Agreement is general among biblical scholars (Ehrman, Metzger, many others, it's not hard to find) that the gospels WERE NOT written by the people whose names are on them, Pagels herself considers the Letters of Paul (50-80) to be Gnostic documents, and in my own judgement, the Gospel of Mark has the foottracks of Gnosticism all over it. (Not that my judgement is authoritative, but at least I state my source.)

And, as someone whose major subject of study was mathematics, I'm here to tell you the kind of odds calculation Cameron did is bushwah. The figure is essentially made up.

In fact much evidence suggest that most of the Gospels were done by the very people traditionalist say did them. Christ's execution appears to have occured around 27 AD. Mark, Matthew Luke and John were all know of before 90 AD and Mark as early as 56 AD. Meanwhile none of the so-called Gnostic gospels seem to have been written much prior to the late 2nd century long after those to whom they were attributed had died.

As for camerons work it is indeed largely fiction

He quotes the odds as being one in six hundred what he doesn't mention is that Jerusalem before its destruction may well have contained at its peak as many as six thousand such tombs, meaning mathematically that there were at least ten such tombs

Victoria:

I read the interview you cited. What's the what? Are we surprised that a student of Christianity is a Christian?

E Favorite,

As always, it's a pleasure to converse with you.

I look forward to seeing you again soon!

Peace,

Danny B.

Danny B - I may have "gotten" you, but you managed a very thoughtful answer.

I think you may have more to offer your spiritual leaders than they have to offer you -- for instance, you statement that, "If [Jesus were not the Messiah], I don't think it diminishes his message. Only his authority."

I think your clergy should know that. I suspect they may be keeping up a show, presuming that parishioners have higher expectations.

I think it's detestable that many clergy, who know better, keep their flocks in a childish Sunday school understanding of Christianity.

They're in a bind, I'm sure, but it's got to stop somewhere. Trusting, but questioning, thinking people like you might be able to change it.

Sorry if this seems rambling or vague. I get depress sometimes when I think about what Christianity could be, compared to what it is.

E Favorite,

You've got me on this one. Without fully researching the impact this would have on my faith, I can only say this; I feel less threatened by the disproving of many OT stories.

If it were proven that Noah died at 30, or that there really was no tower of Babel, or that Lot's wife actually fell off a cliff because she was looking the wrong way as she fled, I'd be less ruffled than if it were proven that Jesus never rose on the third day.

I don't think it could be conclusively proven that Jesus was not the Messiah, that's a pretty tall order. If it were though, I don't think it diminishes his message. Only his authority.

At that point I would have to rely very heavily on the guidance of my spiritual leaders. I would have to separate my emotion from the real task at hand...finding out how to achieve salvation now.

Danny B - I appreciate your carefully thought out response. I'm trying get a better understanding of how people process information that is contrary to what they know and what society has actively or passively been telling them their whole lives.

It sounds like the more serious or universally impactful the information was, the more you'd be likely to want the truth and feel obliged to hear the truth.

So, getting down to brass tacks, what if you learned conclusively (respected scientists, archeologists and theologians concurring) that the old testament stories were not factual and that the Jews and the Palestinians were essentially the same people and had occupied the same land from the earliest times?

E Favorite,

I try at all times not to blatantly lie. That being said, my possible approaches to finding out that a family "myth" may be false are:

Totally tell the truth by informing the family that there simply is no proof and letting them decide how they feel about that, whether they will still beleive the original story or whatever.

If the lack of eveidence about a percieved fact surfaced, and it involved widely chronicled history, like world history, I would feel that the need for the world to have facts (bearing in mind that in this scenario the fact is that there is no proof one way or another).

If it only affects the family, and I felt it would cause unnecessary turmoil, I would choose to say nothing. Technically, a sin of omission is a lie, but not in the sense that I am leading anyone to believe something they did not already believe. In this scenario, I would simply be maintaing the status quo.

If this relative's accomplishments are so highly prized by the family, and so far removed that none of know him personally anyway, and the information does not compromise information used by the world at large, I can't see making waves in that particular situation.

Remember that in out hypothetical situation we have only dicovered that a belief suddenly cannot be proven, which isn't the same as proving it untrue.

If suddenly documents surfaced showing that this relative was on the fast track to graduating magna cum laude from Harvard, but was expelled the week of graduation...that would be the kind of proof that I beieve should be shared, regardless of what any member of the family thought.

Lily,

Many (MANY) years ago I read "Even Cowgirls Get The Blues". That was Tom Robbins, wasn't it. I really don't remeber much more that the character who liked to hitch-hike because she had unnaturally large thumbs.

I will try out some of his work. I don't remembering him making much of an impression, but I was a teen then. I've re-visited other works as an adult and have discovered that more life experience really changes your appreciation of things.

Danny B thanks for your observations- as i stated before i didnt see this show- as far as you know they didnt claim to prove anything conclusively so the more attention paid to it- the more curiosity and buzz it will create- the more people will see it i guess-

i read a book several years ago called Holy Blood Holy Grail- apparently ron brown did also as he names his characters after the authors of this book-
the whole davinci thing was clearly lifted from it-

at least you commented on content-

Mr Connelly it was a rhetorical statement

heres a small interview she did-

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week706/profile.html
peace all

I really like what "Acarpist" says. He is right on regarding religion and supernaturalism. The bottom line is: most if not all of the Old Testament and the New Testament is fiction. Read Burton Mack, Gerd Ludemann, Robert Funk, Earl Doherty, and a host of other serious biblical literature critics and you will see what I mean. When we can get past the biblical literalism and get on with serious critical thinking then maybe our world will be a better place. The same, obviously, goes for the Qu'ran. But, lots of blog sites don't want to publish this kind of viewpoint, and maybe this one is in that camp. I would hope not. I admire Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham for what they are doing and hope they will continue to have freedom of expression on their site.

Here are some books that help clear up the mystery:

http://astore.amazon.com/truthbeknownfoun

Do a google search on "Jesus exist" for some interesting, documented history.

The tomb documentary should not be taken for fact, the producers, in a comment about withdrawing the show from India stated it was just a postulation. What if?

The story about the Ark was a total farce, as admitted by the person to "discover" the Ark, and filmed in the movie, to expose the charletains that prey on the faithful and gullible for profit. This isn't anything new.

What is new is that publishers and hollywood are cashing in as well as the church.

I love the following, Christians, beware:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDvYem4E0Ug

This is by Acharya S, with a new book "Who Was Jesus?", at www.truthbeknow.com. Prior to her book, she had several writings, one of which pointed to a quote by the Pope recorded in Catholic records as saying, paraphrased because the pages have been removed, I assume it's in the book: "This myth (of Jesus) has certainly been profitable for us".

Hello Danny B – There’s been a lot of conversation since my last visit here. Thanks for your additional musings on this. Fascinating –especially about your aunt supposedly dying of the Spanish flu.

Would I be right in saying you wouldn’t upset the family myth (the one I concocted about great, great-granddad) unless it had consequences outside the family?(You mentioned the story not being true wouldn’t matter unless it affected world history). You wouldn’t lie straight out right, but you would leave an opening so people could believe what they wanted, is that right? What is your reasoning for this? How upset do you think people would be to know the truth? How do you think they might feel about you for finding the truth about their ancestor?

And, here’s something else to think about – getting back to the original Bible story. Let’s say, not only is there no evidence of Jews being enslaved in Egypt and wandering 40 years through the desert on their way to Israel (that is, no pottery, no bones, no signs of ancient campsites), but that there is abundant evidence of the Jews being in Israel during all the time that the stories say they were in Egypt. For instance, pottery, bones, settlements, synagogues, agriculture. In fact, there’s no discernible difference between them and the Canaanites who were also there through that same period of time. Also, recent advances in DNA testing indicate that the Hebrews and the Canaanites also have very similar DNA – they are essentially the same people. How important a finding do you think that is?

I watched the documentry..and no where did it say it was proof of anything.

While I was still grinning from the original announcement it was coming on...the grin was for all the Christians that told me I was going to hell for not believing that Jesus died for me. I really enjoyed the moment that each Christian had that "gasping for air" moment.

I giggled at the thought that Mary of Magdala got married and had a child...whether true or not, I played The What if Game. I do remember reading some where that you had to be married to be called Rabbi...

For me the "Mary the Master" tiggled me...just thinking of the number of Religious men that would have to eat the words- Women can't be Priests because none of the apposles were women...and the men that claimed women should not speak up in church...except there is no "church" in the bible...The aposles would never have said that, church is not a hebrew word...it is Scottish, it comes from Kirk.

Cameron never claimed his documentry was proof, he said it would, he hoped, cause discussion...it is.

And I still am a bit smug about the anger that documentry caused...the religious folks that was on after it, was angry. Not just talking about it..but mad. Which I find very interesting.

Cameron has been called A lier, a cheat, and everything between...why the anger...?

The original Israelites were from Egypt, says Gary Greenberg in _101 Myths of the Bible_ and _The Moses Mystery_. His theory is that Moses was a priest of Akhenaten, the pharoah who established a monotheistic worship of the sun, and whose followers were driven out of Egypt.

I don't know that Greenberg has the best credentials as a scholar, but he makes a plausible case, and it's fun to read.

Is it true? I dunno.

Toni Bourlon wrote:
"Mr. Mark wonders if any Christians have ever studied Christian history? Well after seeing "The DaVinci Codes" I realized that no, I didn't know much about the Catholic Church - I converted after marriage - so I did some research..."

Thanks for the comment, Tony - and for making my point. As you point out, you didn't really know anything about the church's history. You were inspired to look into the early church by a myth-based movie that was released only last yeat (2006). I don't know if you had converted after marriage a year ago or twenty years ago, but for whatever length of time you had attended chruch, you hadn't heard a whiff about the early church, and, apparently, nothing your church told you inspired you to look into its history, as the Da Vinci Code movie did. Point proven.

"Recently finished reading "Who were the early Israelites & Where did they come from," by an archeologist who's name I can't recall, although he both mentions and disagrees with Finkelstein's assumptions. I didn't accept THAT books conclusions (early Israelites were actually Caananites), but I learned alot about archeology and how it works."

Yes, I know that work. However, I tend to agree with the author's findings that the early Israelites were actually Caananites, and I'll continue to believe it until new archaeological evidence (not Biblical, theological or "traditional" evidence) proves otherwise.

I would like to believe that even if the research you did didn't change your religious beliefs an iota, it at least enriched your beliefs to some extent.

Hey Danny B,

I forgot to ask you earlier, have you ever read anything by Tom Robbins. He's a very amusing guy. You should try reading Another Roadside Attraction, and Jitterbug Perfume. It's amazing where our imaginations can take us when supplied with a little information on a wide variety of topics.

Very interesting commentary, Elaine. So what do you have to say on the fact that creationism also sells - extremely well - in America? What do you have to say about the wholesale fraud of cottage industries that sell creationist books, market "young earth" field trips to Mount St. Helens and the Grand Canyon, and trot out phony "proof" of the lost Ark? (So many "Arks" on Mount Ararat! Was the Ark carrying a male and female Ark, too?)

Americans blame Bush for the Iraq war and for skewing evidence of global warming, forgetting that they too allowed themselves to be swept away by war fever and compartmentalized thinking. Yet they have not yet shaken off Bush's proclamation that we should teach intelligent design in schools! Conveniently, they still follow Bush's line about "the jury's still out" on evolution when that's simply false, and while we are falling behind in science literacy compared to the rest of the industrialized world. It's time that Americans removed the log from their own eye, first.

Da Vinci's Last Supper originally included the image of Saint John sleeping beneath the table at Christ's feet. It was the image of St. John beneath the table which conclusively proved that the image to Jesus's right to be Mary. However, this image and all painted copies that included it were destroyed when the monks cut the doorway, ostensibly to reflect the monastary rules that prohibited women from eating in the same dining hall as the men.

Hello Lily,

Good to see you again.

I mentioned in the case of the hypothetical relative, that it would be different if they had been president, or if it affected world history.

When it comes to being cut off from my five-dollar bill from grandma on my birthday...maybe that is not worth it.

I am certain that real historic facts of all kinds have been suppressed by many different entities for as long as there has been recorded history. I feel confident that THAT is a fact.

Carefule making definitive statement David C. Unfortunately in today's world with all it's technology and the laziness it affords many americans, I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few people learn their history from the movies.

Danny B,

I knew I'd run into you again. Hope things are well.
Quick question, you said, "While I don't believe in "secret keeping" and very much value the truth, I would prefer to not upset someone."

Do you think that may be the stance that Christian authorities the world over and from the beginning may have had. What if the vatican holds evidence that disproves the Bible's claims and they keep it to themselves because to release it would upset so many people and create such havoc in the religious community, that who knows what might happen?

Kind of a silly question but something that I've always thought about. The Vatican, just like government, hides so many secrets based on the assumption that the people can't deal with truth. Well, that and to keep the balance of Power in their favor.

Let's not forget that fiction actually is a made up story pretending to be fact. I've never seen a play or read a book that periodically reminded the audience or reader that this didn't actually happen. The fact is that we don't really know much to be fact if we weren't actually there. Much of history is suspect because only governments who won wars were around to record history. The Jews wrote the Bible saying that Jews are God's chosen race; how convenient. There's no proof of a God. There just seems to be something in us that hopes for and yearns for something more. I don't mind people believing what they want, but they need to approach everything with common sense. We don't go to movies to learn history or get our news. There are plenty of places to get news.

Danny B.,

Thanks for your reply post.

Regards.

E Favorite,

Speaking for myself, to contiually find new pieces to a puzzle would intrigue me. If ever presented with enough information to draw an actual conclusion, I could live with the outcome.

As far as what I might tell my family, I mentioned before that I could do no more than toss out the fact and let them do with it what they may. I have actually re-thought that answer.

Knowing how people can be when confronted with things like this, if I could anticipate any of my relatives being truly upset by it (even though I consider the information unemotional) I would choose to say nothing at all. If the only fact is that there is no fact, and grandma would be devasted even by that, I would choose to say nothing.

My father does not drink, and my mother rarely does, but when my mother was a child her side of the family drank a lot. There's been no disputing that throughout the family.

My mother once made the simple statement, "If my parents had not drank so much we would have had more growing up."

One of my cousins, who just worshipped Grandpa (mind you both grandparents are gone at this point)was very put out that my mother said that. He claimed that she was bad-mouthing them.

All my mother did was state a fact, with no judgement attached to it. No one has ever disputed the level of drinking the family did in the past. How could that not affect the finances. My mother and aunt have always talked about how there was not a lot of money when they were young. So why the shock from my cousin that it was because of alcohol?

He was jumping to the conclusion that my mother was implying all sorts of horrible things about our grandparents. She has never done any such thing. It was a plain fact. I've never heard anyone say a thing against them. The "drinking stories" are usually pretty funny...but there are A LOT of them!

While I don't believe in "secret keeping" and very much value the truth, I would prefer to not upset someone. In the grand scheme of things, that would ultimately only matter if this esteemed relative had been the president or something. Something that might affect world history.

Thanks Danny B, for thinking about this with me.

Here’s another twist: What if you decided to check further, to try to find evidence of your great-great grandfather somewhere else. So you started checking the records of other schools, and found a record of him at a state college near where he grew up – same spelling, the right year, right home town, right major (according to the family stories) but not summa-cum-laude. You checked further and found no other people anywhere with the same name, except one of your cousins, many years later.

Now what would you think and what would you tell you family?

E-Favorite,

I just remembered something about my family history that is true. I can't believe this slipped my mind!

I have always been told that my Grandma's sister died in the Spanish flu epidemic as a little girl. The family was so poor that she was buried in an unmarked grave, so that with my Grandma gone no one will ever know where she is.

Recently her death certificate surfaced. According to that document, she actually died of malaria several years after the flu epidemic. Furthermore, my Grandma did eventually buy a head stone.

I personally found that death by Malria, of all things, was actually more interesting than the poor girl's participation in a great historic tragedy.

I have read the posts and have read the books, yet unfortunately was unable to see the documentary. I agree, there may not be enough evidence to prove the points being made, and yes, the Davinci Code is fiction, but you know what? It was a good book. You know why it was a good book? Because it made a person think and raise questions. That is what makes a discovery or a book standout, its ability to make us think. Would we even be talking about this if we weren't curious ourselves about what the truth is?

I know that I'd love to know, but for now, all we have is guessing and questioning. Is what we were told all our life a crock? Is it real? Many questions can come out of all of this and many answers can also come, but there will probably be alack of real evidence for quite awhile. What we tell our children regarding religion is what we were either told, taught, or learned. Whether or not a child actually belives Jesus was born on Christmas is up to him or her to decide, that is waht its about. Find your own way of thinking. Keep the questions coming, and hopefully, one day we can al lhave the answers we seek.

This article is pathetic. The Da Vinci Code is fiction. Dale Brown - you know, the guy who wrote it - has never claimed otherwise. Anyone in this country has the right to produce whatever piece of fiction they choose, and if you're offended, tough. Read the Constitution. That is fact.

Norrie Hoyt:

--In Provence, in southern France, there is an older than a thousand years tradition that after Jesus's crucifixion, Mary Magadalene arrived there with her and Jesus's daughter, Sara.

I've read that Catholic churches in the region have statues commemorating Mary's and Sara's arrival.--

Yes, I read about that too. I also read that many villages in France and Latin America too, have patron saints that are not recognized by the Catholic Church. The town recognizes them through tradition anyway.

As that relates to the DaVinci Code, the fact of that tradition makes for more compelling fiction, doesn't it?

What I meant above was that Sophie Neveu is a ficticious character, therefore she cannot be the progeny (got it right this time) of Jesus and Mary Magdalene even if it were true that they did have children together.

I'm just pointing out that DaVinci Code is fiction, and as far as I can see doesn't claim to be otherwise.

Regarding the resarch of my esteemed ancestor:

What I would think is, that it is very curious. Harvard not having the record though doesn't really prove he did not attend there. Things like that can be lost over time.

I personally would think that THAT is now the interesting story.

As for what I would tell my family, I don't really know. I might not say anything at all. That doesn't leave much to say.

If I did, all I COULD say is, "I contacted Harvard for more information, and they say they have no record of him." It's the truth, a fact, and let them do with that what they will.

If relatives say he did. Harvard says, "No record". The only fact: There is no proof of anything.

Good question!

This was a very well written article. I understood the precepts and evevn though I haven't seen the documentary I understood where the Author was coming from. I enjoy the study of Religion and have tried to become knowledgable about it. I think I know a little bit and I know that there is alot more for me to learn. The one thing that I do know is that during the period of Jesus, the word Virgin had a different meaning. Virgin meant a unattached woman and had nothing to do with sex. I do not know how or when the definition changed, I will have to do more research. Please think about this. I personally believe that Jesus was a great man and teacher, as for the rest I do not know. Be Blessed.

Anonymous,

I read that too.

--Much of their conclusions are based on lack of evidence...--

What I took away from that is this; There is no evidence. That is the conclusion.

As a result of that lack of evidence, they are taking archaeological facts about the period in question to try and create an image of the time, place and culture these stories refer to.

I don't get the impression that they are trying to disprove the Bible at all.

Danny B.,

You wrote: "The proginy [sic] of Jesus and Mary Magdelene as described in the novel never existed."

In Provence, in southern France, there is an older than a thousand years tradition that after Jesus's crucifixion, Mary Magadalene arrived there with her and Jesus's daughter, Sara.

I've read that Catholic churches in the region have statues commemorating Mary's and Sara's arrival.

Mr. Mark wonders if any Christians have ever studied Christian history? Well after seeing "The DaVinci Codes" I realized that no, I didn't know much about the Catholic Church - I converted after marriage - so I did some research on the subject. No, I'm a long way from an expert, but I read "The Concise History of the Catholic Church," which had stuff in it that was far scarier than anything the movie suggested! Next I read "Prisoner of the Vatican," and found out the reason the Pope is "infallible" is because Pious IX had quite an ego, go figure. Recently finished reading "Who were the early Israelites & Where did they come from," by an archeologist who's name I can't recall, although he both mentions and disagrees with Finkelstein's assumptions. I didn't accept THAT books conclusions (early Israelites were actually Caananites), but I learned alot about archeology and how it works. Finally I watched Cameron's film, and again I didn't buy his conclusions, but the DNA testing was interesting. He also attempted to use Gnostic text to explain why Mariamne was Mary Magdalene, even though Jesus had a sister by that name? Except DNA said they didn't have the same mother. So what? Catholics believe Joseph had children from another wife. He also didn't explain how a poor family could afford their own family tomb, or how a family of carpenters would even know how to write. Most poor people didn't know how to write. Oh well, as you said people believe what they want to, yourself included. Have a nice day!

Thanks, Danny B -- It's interesting to get your perspective, too: "To point out that no evidence exists, is not the same assertion as it never happened."

What if, according to your family’s tradition, your great-great grandfather had graduated summa cum laude from Harvard. You had never seen the diploma or his yearbook, but had heard many stories over the years from older family members about great-great-grandfather’s adventures and great achievements at Harvard. One cousin had even written down some of the stories, bound them up and distributed them among the family. They were among the family’s most treasured possessions.

A big family reunion was coming up, and you decided it would be a great idea to get even more information about this most esteemed family member, so you contacted Harvard. Much to you surprise, there was no record of him. You had them check multiple years and multiple possible spellings of the family name. You went there to see for yourself, but to no avail. There was no record of great-great grandfather at Harvard.

What would you think? What would you tell your family?

If anything, I need to investigate the "preview" button. Sorry abowt tha typoes.

E Favorite,

Thanks for the input.

If I am correct, you are saying that my confusion comes from not projecting on to these works more than they themselves offer.

That would be a good way of sorting out my confusion. I think that's the case, but was coming up short with the right words to descibe it.

I feel today, just as I did before, that my faith is intact despite exposure to these ideas. Ideas aren't bad or harmful. I think that not bothering to check for yourself is harmful.

Just like the book review you quoted. To point out that no evidence exists, is not the same assertion as it never happened. It doesn't shake my faith to hear someone say that, and I am not afraid of someone investigating whether or not that is true.

It's funny, whenever there is a book, movie, etc...where people are just in an uproar, wanting it banned and such, it just makes it more likely that I will go see for myself.

If someone know what they are talking about, then they have read, or seen it. Why shouldn't I then. This is where I really se the American in me...no one is going to tell me what I can and cannot read or see.

Thanks for the post.

E Favorite wrote:

"Below is some information to check out that is neither fiction nor speculative – it’s confirmed and accepted archeological evidence relating to old testament stories."

Actually it is yet another theory. Even in their own words, Finkelstein and Silberman say their book is an "attempt to formulate a new archaeological vision of ancient Israel," which is hardly saying they have irrefutable evidence. Much of their conclusions are based on lack of evidence, which is unfortunately how so much of the scientific world expects us to accept their theories as fact.

Speed123,

See John Conolley's post for Pagels' credentials as a scholar.

"I wonder who is a the head of many of these media companies? The descendants of the Pharisees."

I don't understand the meaning of that comment. Would you explain?

Danny B – You’re confused that you “had” to go to the fiction section to get a fiction book. You’re also confused that a TV show, short on conclusive evidence, gives you the impression of being speculative. I'm not sure, but perhaps what you're missing is an expectation that a book clearly labeled as fiction and a TV show clearly labeled as speculative somehow really should be something more than that.

Maybe this stems from the hype typically associated with religion, in which sensational but unproven or unprovable claims are regularly made by clergy and accepted by their congregations. Could be you’re so used to this that when obvious questions are raised, you recognize them, but don’t know what to make of them. I’d guess that whatever it is that you are “missing” is a common malady in our culture.

Below is some information to check out that is neither fiction nor speculative – it’s confirmed and accepted archeological evidence relating to old testament stories. Even so, it’s hard to believe, perhaps because it’s not a fiction thriller, and it hasn’t been front page news or a hugely hyped TV special.

Read the Amazon description of Jewish archeology scholars Finkelstein and Silberman’s “The Bible Unearthed” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684869128/ref=olp_product_details/002-1878591-2519231?ie=UTF8&seller=

Here’s the first sentence of the review: The Bible Unearthed is a balanced, thoughtful, bold reconsideration of the historical period that produced the Hebrew Bible. The headline news in this book is easy to pick out: there is no evidence for the existence of Abraham, or any of the Patriarchs; ditto for Moses and the Exodus; and the same goes for the whole period of Judges and the united monarchy of David and Solomon.

It's killing me. I watched James Cameron's program on Discovery, but missed the first five minutes. Is that where I missed the assertion that they had ACTUALLY found the tomb of the Jesus Family? Throughout the program I got the impression that they were speculating, that they were attempting to prove that speculation one way or another. They presented findings, then calculated and re-calculated the statistical probability that this was Jesus' tomb, but never claimed that they believed 100% that it was. The program ended with them saying they would probably never know.

I keep hearing conversations about this program, but never about the actual content. I keep thinking it's "much ado about nothing".

Likewise with DaVinci Code. I had to get it from a shelf of works of fiction at the bookstore. The book itself was labelled fiction. I found it thoroughly entertaining, but new that it was fiction.

Further reading led me to discover that the elaborate security system in the Louvre is fiction. Saunier never existed, therefore his membership in a secret society protecting these dangerous secrets never existed. The proginy of Jesus and Mary Magdelene as described in the novel never existed.

Again, much ado about nothing.

With all due respect I ask, "What am I missing?"

Victoria:

"Is this a scholar?"

Elaine Pagels is indeed a scholar. She is Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University, She was one of the translators of the Nag Hammadi scrolls, and wrote the book "The Gnostic Gospels," which the Modern Library has named as one of the hundred best books of the twentieth century.

Of course, if you really wanted to know, you would have typed her name in Google yourself.

Mr Mark and D –

I attended a New Testament class in a liberal Episcopal church with highly educated, mainly middle-aged and older people. At the beginning of the course, it was established that most had not studied the NT since Sunday school. People are astounded and obviously boggled by what they are learning. I’m glad they decided to take the class, but it also seems unconscionable that they should be allowed to be practitioners of a religion for so long, knowing so little about it. I think they probably researched their last car purchase more than they had their lifelong religion. The church shouldn’t allow such ignorance and parishioners should be aware that what they hear in church on Sunday is not nearly enough to appreciate the religion they practice.

Unfortunately, this is the state of religion education in the US today.

When I went to Bible Study, the thrust of the effort was to use the bible to show that the bible is right.

There are certain things that were not allowable topics: such as "What if the bible is just a pile of crap made up by men along time ago who were relatively ignorant?"

HA!

First she states, praises the Da Vinci Code and states that it "did much to raise public awareness" then she goes on to warn about "commercialized trash" and finally makes a veiled pitch for us to buy her books on the dead sea scrolls (a source written 400 years after the fact).

Pangels is just another sycophant looking to make a buck off the of the Christian bashing trend publishing/media.

I wonder who is a the head of many of these media companies?

The decendants of the Pharisees.

Having not seen this film- i dont have an opinion-

after reading the guests opinions- i still dont have one- no actual facts were presented to dispute the authenticity or to invalidate the films assertion one way or another-

besides a misleading connection between a hollyowod film- and complaints about sensationalism-

i have come away no more informed one way or another-

if i wanted a film critics thumbs down id have gone to imdb-

is this a scholar? where did the dead sea scrolls deal with christianity?

to my opinion- it is sensationalisim to equate one film with another without offering any reason why the film should be dismissed scientifically-

"1. Aren't some of thigs you're studting considered by other churches to be heretical?"

Absolutely, which is why I'm so glad I found my church. How in the world could I possibly decide for myself what I believe if my church told me I shouldn't study something? Churches' refusal to even discuss these topics is based on fear and control. It's as if they don't differentiate between education and practice.

"2. When you say such study, "makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly," does your study allow for you to reach conclusions that actually change your belief set, or are such studies geared to your reaching a pre-determined conclusion that reveals your church's existing dogma as innerant, in spite of or because of the study?"

We are never expected to end up at some pre-set church-accepted conclusion. I would never want to be led that way. It is much more gratifying to me to see that there are people who can have differences of opinion here and there, and still come to the same general belief in God and Saviour.

You want to hear Christians argue? Ask them if Jews will go to Heaven. That was a good one! (by the way, I believe that they will.)

To D -

One more thing. You wrote:
"Oh, and as for Ms. Jacoby's piece - her statistics are quoted from Prothero's book, which he in turn is quoting from "a poll" from 1997. I have NEVER given much credit to polls, especially ones that I'm told are reliable without telling me WHY I should consider them reliable."

First, these statistics are only 10 years old. Were they statistics about the penetration of DVD players in American households, we could rightly doubt their veracity. In the case of what Americans know about the items cited by Ms Jacoby, I doubt very much that there has been a sea change in Americans' awareness of such things. We take a census only every 10 years, yet we go with those statistics until a new set comes out. It's entirely possible that the 1997 stats are the most recent stats available. At least they're not from 1950...or 33CE, for that matter.

D. wrote:
"The church that I go to prides itself on adult education (among other things). snip

"At my church, we relish classes on the "tough" topics; it makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly.

"Oh, and as for Ms. Jacoby's piece - her statistics are quoted from Prothero's book, which he in turn is quoting from "a poll" from 1997. I have NEVER given much credit to polls, especially ones that I'm told are reliable without telling me WHY I should consider them reliable."

Thanks for adding to the conversation. Your post was enlightening, and I read it eagerly.

I have two questions:

1. Aren't some of thigs you're studting considered by other churches to be heretical?

2. When you say such study, "makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly," does your study allow for you to reach conclusions that actually change your belief set, or are such studies geared to your reaching a pre-determined conclusion that reveals your church's existing dogma as innerant, in spite of or because of the study?

Thanks for your answers.

The church that I go to prides itself on adult education (among other things). We have a very extensive education system in place, with 8 or so 8- to 12-week courses offered every 3 months, year-round on different subjects. We always have a class of guest scholars who have enlightened us on many topics. We study everything from Jewish history and beginning Christianity to end-times and current events. 80% of our adult membership attends classes every week, and many of the topic discussions carry over into the huge number of small groups that we have, which meet weekly to increase our knowledge of various subjects. We also throughout the year have a variety of guest speakers come by for a one-evening lecture on some topic of interest. We have had studies on the Gnostics, an incredibly interesting topic, and how there is a school of thought that the texts seem to be writings from the beginings of a faith that blended Christianity and Eastern religion (much of the wording is very similar to Hindu and Buddhism teaching). We also recently had a class discussing the failures of the Church in speech and practice.

At my church, we relish classes on the "tough" topics; it makes us think, study, and learn to justify our beliefs rationally and soundly.

Oh, and as for Ms. Jacoby's piece - her statistics are quoted from Prothero's book, which he in turn is quoting from "a poll" from 1997. I have NEVER given much credit to polls, especially ones that I'm told are reliable without telling me WHY I should consider them reliable.

Anyone who believes in gods, ghosts, ...

To D -

BTW, in a column entitled "Know-Nothing Nation: Flunking Religion Too," by Susan Jacoby - a column that is running concurrent on this site to the thread we're in - she writes the following:

"The United States is the most religious nation in the developed world, if religion is measured by churchgoing (or, to be more precise, by the claim that we go to church) and by belief in all things supernatural. Americans are also the most religiously ignorant people in the Western world. Call it blind faith.

"The depth of this religious ignorance is the subject of an important new book, Religious Literacy, by Stephen Prothero. Some of Prothero's statistics, based on reliable public opinion polls, are truly astonishing and depressing to anyone--religious or secular--who cares about our common culture. Fewer than half of Americans can name Genesis as the first book of the Bible. Only about half can name even one of the four gospels. One of the more surprising findings is that evangelicals are only marginally more knowledgeable about Christianity than other Americans.

"Predictably, we are even more ignorant about Islam and various eastern religions than we are about Christianity and Judaism."

Note that the statistics she cites are not her own, but come from a book by Stephen Prothero.

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Americans Xians are well-steeped in the history of the early church when only 50% of all Americans can even name one of the four Gospels, and even FEWER than that can identify Genisis as the first Book of the Bible (yes - I realize that Mr Prothero's statistics are tabulating all Americans, not just Xians, but most Americans are Xians, so the stats are valid. And you can discount the 9% of Americans who are atheists as figuring into that unlearned number - we tend to know where Genesis falls in the Bible).

Again - I invite you to disencumber me of the beliefs I expressed earlier in this thread (ie: that Xians don't know their church history).

Anyone who believes is gods, ghosts, spirits, angles, demons, devils and the like has no business trying to "Sort Fiction From Fact and Meaning."

Such people have given up their critical thinking ability to faith. There is no point in considering their point of view until they first prove that anything supernatural even exists. Their entire cosmology is based on the ignorance, fears and power struggles of ancient peoples. No facts, just fiction.

Religion itself is your "fiction pretending to be fact." I think that your problem with propositions like the Da Vinci Code and the finding of Jesus’ bones, etc. is that it pulls the consciousness of all people closer to the realization that religion is fake.

Bruce Chilton in his book "Rabbi Jesus" pp.7,8-9, 294, paperback edition, noted that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem of Judea but in 1st century AD Bethlehem of Galilee which is seven miles from the current Nazareth. He cited textural references from a later Talmud, the book of Joshua and archeological evidence p. 294.

Paul raised the words and deeds of Jesus from the dead and forgotten!! Paul's words nor history nor God raised the physical Jesus from the dead.
Read Paul's epistles carefully e.g. 1 Cor 15: 44-45.

As noted by Pope John Paul II and St. Aquinas Heaven is a spirit state i.e. there can be no bones there or bodies to include the theological glorified body. So where are the bones? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus very possibly would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.

Actually Professor Crossan spends little time analyzing the question about glorified bodies since the physical Ascension, according to his analyses and those of many Catholic universitiy theologians, did not take place nor did the apparitions. See his book, The Historical Jesus.

In his book, In Search of Paul p. 343, Crossan did address 1 Cor 15: 44-45, "When buried it is the physical body, when it is raised it will be the spiritual body. There is of course the physical body so there has to be a spiritual body. The first man Adam was a created living being but the last Adam is the life-giving Spirit. "

One assumes that a spiritual body or life-giving spirit has no bones.

As noted by Professor Crossan, bones or no bones, the Good Word has been spoken and is being practiced by billions and that will not change.

D. wrote:
Mr. Mark,

"I see you constantly throughout these forums lumping all Christians together as uneducated about history, religion, the Bible and the early Church. I personally find this offensive and demeaning. Many of the Christians I know are the exact opposite of what you accuse, and are equally as, if not more, knowledgeable than you.

"You said: "There is much to be learned in the "taking shape" aspect of Xianity's development, yet such important historical information is presented to most Xians as a big confused lump of information to be mentioned, then promptly ignored, that is, when it's mentioned at all."

"And you know this how? I'm assuming you don't go to church or bible studies, so how is it that you know exactly how such things are being presented to Christians? Things change in this world Mr. Mark, and not all churches are the same as they used to be. There are many highly-educated Christians who do not accept anything blindly, including their belief in God."

You're correct - I don't go to church or Bible studies ANYMORE. However, I was around churches for most of my adult life, and I did attend services and I not only attended but taught Bible studies at those churches. The agenda for Bible study at those churches never included the kind of historic study I mention above. My church-going years look something like this:

Raised Lutheran (Ohio Synod)

College - attended services at a fundy Xian church near campus and sang as a paid soloist in the UCC Choir.

After college - attended services & study groups at Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Lutheran, Roman Catholic and others as well as singing in Jewish High Holiday and Friday evening services (this all in NY, NJ and CT).

The only time I remember any mention of the early church or its personalities in all this was when my Lutheran Catechism class touched on the story of Polycarp.

When I speak with my sister who is a college-educated, Bible-believing, fundamentalist, Sunday School-teaching person, she has no idea about what I'm talking about when I mention the early church, its beliefs and its leaders. When I read many of (not all) posts on this blog by Xians I see very little evidence that they have a clue as to the history of the early church. When I read the columns by the hired help on this blog, I see almost no mention of what went on in the early church.

So, excuse me if I draw the conclusion that many (not all) Xians don't know and don't care to know about the seminal beliefs of the Xian church, any more than they care to spend any serious time learning about other religions throughout the world.

Maybe your situation is different. If so, good for you. Maybe you'd like to now take the opportunity to tell us all about the Bible studies and church services you've attended wherein these matters were discussed, and discussed at length. You can then give us your studied opinion on the subject. You may well prove me wrong in your case, and I would accept that with an open mind. I would actually enjoy a dialogue with a Xian who is steeped in these matters. It may well provide a whole new persepective on my present ideas, and I am more than willing to do the research if you wish to point me in the right direction.

I'm ready to be enlightened.

Thanks for your feedback.

Mr. Mark,

I see you constantly throughout these forums lumping all Christians together as uneducated about history, religion, the Bible and the early Church. I personally find this offensive and demeaning. Many of the Christians I know are the exact opposite of what you accuse, and are equally as, if not more, knowledgeable than you.

You said: "There is much to be learned in the "taking shape" aspect of Xianity's development, yet such important historical information is presented to most Xians as a big confused lump of information to be mentioned, then promptly ignored, that is, when it's mentioned at all."

And you know this how? I'm assuming you don't go to church or bible studies, so how is it that you know exactly how such things are being presented to Christians? Things change in this world Mr. Mark, and not all churches are the same as they used to be. There are many highly-educated Christians who do not accept anything blindly, including their belief in God.

Elaine Pagels,

You indicate the conspiracy is only a theory; and then you indicate that the Dead Sea Scrolls are real as presented!!

Can both statements be true? How dumb were the goats supposed to be? Carbon dating has been refused. What a crock. People are so desperate to have their 'faith' authenicated that they will believe almost anything.

Excellent article. I suspect the hype peddled by Dan Brown and James Cameron has largely backfired. They have made it more difficult for the authentic archeological discoveries to be taken seriously. They have also cemented the false conviction by many Christians that the scientific and entertainment communities are out to destroy their religion.

"Even the Da Vinci Code did much to raise public awareness that there are, in fact, genuine archeological discoveries that really are changing what we know about the beginnings of Christianity."

Exactly. It was through Dan Brown's novel that I discovered Pagels' work. If the book has led people to form their own opinions about religious doctrine instead of simply accepting the doctrine as fact, I see that as a positive outcome.

Elaine wrote:

"What genuine discoveries—like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the non-canonical gospels—do offer are new roads of access into the heart of the early Christian movement as it was first taking shape."

That is an incredibly complex statement, and one that I wish modern-day theists would explore more openly. It is a fascinating story, yet it's roundly ignored by today's church. I'm talking about the early beginnings of the church and the myriad and divergent beliefs that were held by competing Christian sects.

Today's Xians like to believe that the church got off to an incredibly fast start, that it hit the ground running, so to speak. Xians cite this as proof that Jesus existed and that the details of his life were widely known and proven facts from the get-go. Yet even a surface examination of early Xian sects reveals that such beliefs were hardly accepted orthodoxy.

How many Xians even know about the Gnostics? How many Xians know which of the Gospels was written first, or that Paul's epistles were written before any of the Gospels? Why does Paul never reference the events that make up the lifestory of Jesus in any detail? Why did Paul's visions of Jesus become the basis for Xian dogma while similar visions seen by the early church leader Valentinus have been relegated to the "who, what?" category? What of the Ophites and the Marcionites?

How many Xians realize that the version of Xianity they follow today wasn't actually codified until the 4th century? How many Xians have any interest whatsoever in what, exactly, was involved in the first 300 years of the Xian church "taking shape?"

There is much to be learned in the "taking shape" aspect of Xianity's development, yet such important historical information is presented to most Xians as a big confused lump of information to be mentioned, then promptly ignored, that is, when it's mentioned at all.

Theists view such phenomenae as "The Da Vinci Code" and Jacobovici's "The Jesus Tomb" as threats to be shouted down with the same vigor that a mother defends the concept of Santa Claus when her 5-year-old comes home in tears because some bully at school told her Santa didn't exist. Why not take the opportunity to engage the debate and to discuss the cornucopia of beliefs that made up the early Xian church, rather than taking the knee-jerk reaction of defending an orthodoxy whose codificaion was as far removed from the church's beginnings as we are today from the Renaissance?

If Xians are truly interested in "sorting fiction from fact and meaning," then they would do well to account for the beliefs that were held in those early centuries and to consider their own history and their place in that history.

I was disappointed that, after the presentation Sunday night on the Discovery Channel concerning THE LOST TOMB OF JESUS?, the archaeologists and the three ministers who were to criticize the documentary did not question why the DNA of "Jesus’" implicitly alleged bones, those of "Mary Magdalene", and of their implicitly alleged "child" did not have DNA extracted to ascertain if the child might be that of either or both the alleged "Jesus Christ" and "Mary Magdalene". Further, the DNA of the alleged "Joseph" and "Maria (Mary, the Virgin Mother)" could have been compared with that of the alleged "Jesus" to determine if it fitted with the alleged bones of "Jesus". And, lastly, there should be a determination whether the bones of the alleged brother of "Jesus (James)" yielded DNA compatible with that of the alleged "Christ", "Joseph," and "Mary." The fact that "James" ossuary was of the same ilk as that of the "Jesus" proves nothing.

I was pleased Monday morning, when I heard a bit of a radio discussion group with the journalist who started all this, that a caller did ask why the DNA of all the bones found could not be looked into and to determine how or if they all might be related. The journalist seemed to backtrack on that, and I wondered if something like that had been done and we weren't informed in the documentary because it did not support the view that was clearly desired.

I don't think, however, that, if "Joseph's" DNA were found in "Jesus," it would necessarily have been brought out. If it were found in "Jesus'" bones it might have given rise to the argument that it is NOT Jesus Christ's bones because of the Virgin Birth, and the whole tomb is NOT that of the Holy Family. And, on the other hand, if it had NOT been found in the"Jesus'" bones, it could reinforce the conception of the Virgin Birth but not remove the idea that it still might be Christ and that He was not resurrected at least in bodily form (but we could still cling to the faith that He was resurrected at least spiritually); and it would also result in defenestration of the "Doubting Thomas" story.

So I don't believe that Joseph's DNA is dispositive. But, as I indicated before, it seems to me that DNA evidence could determine whether the "child" is that of "Jesus'" and/or of "Mary Magdalene." That also would NOT be dispositive of whether it is Our Lord's body or not, unfortunately. But it would be helpful. Also, the DNA of the "Maria", the alleged mother of "Jesus" isN'T in the "Jesus" it would "blow away," I think, that it's the tomb of the Holy Family. Of course, if her DNA is there, it would not be dispositive that it is Christ in "Jesus'" ossuary, merely that the "Mary" is the mother of the "Jesus", but it would be helpful.

Certainly the Discovery Channel had every right under the rule of "freedom of speech" to put this on the TV, and the attempt by Widmon or some of the other ultra-conservatives to stop it was contemptible. But it would be equally contemptible if the Christian community does not call for more investigation.

It would be pretty damned certain, however unhappily for us, if "Joseph's" DNA is NOT in the "Jesus" but is in the "James" and "Mary, the Mother of God's" DNA is in both "James" and "Jesus"! OUCH! And, in such an event, if the DNA of the "Jesus" is in the child, I would say: DOUBLE OUCH!

I am very upset by all of this. But archaeologists and scientists of REAL integrity should check this out.

Elaine Pagels,

Was Jesus really "Jesus of Nazareth"?

I've read that there's no evidence he was from Nazareth and that Nazareth was not an inhabited place at the time Jesus lived.

And that "Nazarene" and variant-spellings thereof really refer to religious sects, not a place.

What sayest thou?

Elaine Pagels,

Was Jesus really "Jesus of Nazareth"?

I've read that there's no evidence he was from Nazareth and that Nazareth was not an inhabited place at the time Jesus lived.

And that "Nazarene" and variant-spellings thereof really refer to religious sects, not a place.

What sayest thou?

Jesus...a nice deluded guy who thought he was the Son of some mystical Being.

I'm sure there were many such men before him and certainly many more since.

There...All the truth without the hype.

Elaine Pagels --

Thank you, Thank you, hugs and kisses, may you live a hundred years!

Hopefully hearing these things from a bona fide expert like you will open some eyes.

As I just posted on Bishop Spong's thread, I'd love to know about Jesus of Nazareth ("without hype" as you say)and without relying on scholars' assertions about other scholars' assertions.

How to do that?