Two Common Bible Myths

Here are what I think are the two most pervasive myths when it comes to the Bible. These were first clarified for me in college. I had exposed them as myths for years, but balked a bit when I saw the first one below printed in a book recently, which led me to reexamine. Turns out, they are in fact myths.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Myth: When Jesus said this, he was referring to an actual place in Jerusalem, a gate that was very narrow, where the camel would have to take all of the stuff off its back and crawl through.

Man, I have heard this one for years. I guess it is so pervasive because it is a bit exciting to find out a cultural issue that sheds light on something Jesus said. Unfortunately, it's false.

This is the classic case of interpreting the Bible based on your current surroundings, rather than on the culture and time in which it was written. This myth dates back to 11th century France, when a monk came up with this explanation. The problem is, the gates in the 1st century in this area were big. They did not begin to build elaborate gates with small entrances until centuries later, which would have been observed by the French monk.

Myth: When the High Priest would go into the Most Holy Place in the Temple, he would have a rope tied around his waist, in case he was impure and was killed, they could pull his body out.

This, too, is a myth that dates back to Medieval times. Here is what Dr. Wave Nunnally has to say on this issue:

The earliest text in which it appears is the Zohar, a medieval mystical work that is the basis of Kabbalah. It appears in Emor section 34 (Yom Kippor), line 251, “Rabbi Yitzchak said, ‘A chain was tied to the feet of the High Priest when he entered the Holy of Holies, so that if he dies there they will take him out, since it is forbidden to enter there. How did they know whether he was alive or not? By a crimson colored strap. If its color did not turn white, it was known at that time that the priest was there in sin. And if he came out in peace, it was known and recognized by the crimson strap that turned white. Then there was joy among the higher and lower beings. If not, they were all in sorrow and all knew that their prayer was not accepted.’” Note the modern embellishments of this text that is itself a literary fiction: rope versus chain, ankle or waist versus “feet”, no longer hearing the bells tinkle versus the changing of the color of the crimson strap.

No modern speaker accepts this narrative as true in whole, as you can clearly see in some of the weird elements that are included. (All above references come from Dr. Wave Nunnally, New Testament scholar and Jewish Backgrounds expert).

Until next time, may we eternally seek the truth!

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 4: Josephus and Other Resources

In the final part of our look at the web documentary Zeitgeist, we are going to be looking at some of the most audacious claims in the documentary.

The point they are making is that the historical evidence for the existence of a man named Jesus does not exist. The claim is that only four first century historians mention Jesus. Three of them, Suetonius, Tacitus, and Pliny the Younger only mention Christ or Christos, which, since that is a title and not a name, they argue could be a reference to anybody. The fourth reference, and by far the most significant, is made by a Jewish Historian named Flavius Josephus. This is the place where the documentary makes that amazing statement, saying that Josephus has been "proven to be a forgery for hundreds of years." Here is the Josephus quote in question (from Antiquities 18):

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.

I studied a lot of Josephus in college. My professors quoted him regularly. I had never heard anything discrediting or even doubting Josephus as a source. Needless to say, I was shocked when I heard this, and had no idea what to say.

Again, here is the response of Dr. Wave Nunnally:

Lastly, they attack the writings of Josephus, saying that he has been "proven to be a forgery for 100's of years." This was completely new to me. Had you heard this before? On what grounds do they discredit him and his writings?

The works of Josephus are accepted as genuine and as legitimate sources for the reconstruction of intertestamental Judaism and NT backgrounds by EVERY expert in the field, whether Jewish, Christian, or non-aligned, and whether conservative, moderate, or liberal. This might well qualify as one of the most absurd statements I have ever heard in my entire career that was supposed to be associated with an "academic" discussion. I can only hope that whoever said it is not allowed to procreate…

An interesting response, to say the least. The response goes to show the difference between the anonymous, nonacademic, unsupported and unreferenced claims made by the creator of the documentary verses many years of study from world renown Colleges and Universities as well as trained professionals in the area of Biblical Studies. This is the initial response you will see a lot from the top experts when presented with some of the outrageous claims floating around today, including books by Michael Baigent in Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Jesus Papers. There is quite simply a huge difference between good, well researched, respected scholarship and the popular pseudo-scholarship that people like Baigent and the creator of Zeitgeist are furthering.

However, just to see the initial response of respected scholars is not enough. We should be able to talk about specifics. In a radio interview, the Creator of Zeitgeist elaborated a bit on his Josephus claim. Here is my paraphrasing of the claim in a question to Dr. Nunnally, followed by his more detailed response:

The claim: Josephus references 13 different Jesuses. The quote we see of this often quoted section about Jesus, talking about him raising from the dead, does not appear until 200 years after the death of Josephus, despite the fact that early Christians, Justin Martyr and others, would have been very interested in referencing this, though we don't know of them mentioning it at all. This section about Jesus was added later. Any further responses to this?

On the antiquities 18 passage, the answer is yes. First, all Josephus scholars acknowledge that SOMETHING was there in the original version of Josephus. This is because there is another passage (20:200) that mentions him without further explanation, which means he must have already introduced him and given sufficient information for his readership to have connected the two passages so the second would be understandable. Again, all Josephus scholars recognize this argument as being legitimate. Second, historically, there have been three different schools of thought about the originality of this passage. The earliest simply took it at face value. With the rise of critical scholarship and more careful analysis of ancient texts, two additional schools of thought emerged. One reconstructed it to read as a very negative statement about Jesus, and the other emended the passage somewhat, but retained the generally favorable tenor of the “original.” Both agreed that the original text had suffered from “creative” Christian scribes in antiquity. The problem was basically laid to rest in 1971 when Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines published an Arabic version of Josephus which followed none of the three earlier schools, but instead provided a “neutral” reading of the Josephus text. The point is, it was there and now we have a legitimate version of it with ancient textual support.

This is great, because it gives us the history of the argument. This is only scholars word for it, so if you would like to read more on this issue, check out Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament by F.F. Bruce and Jesus Outside the New Testament by VanVoorst.

Here are a few more resources. Here are three interviews posted on Youtube with Peter J, the creator of Zeitgeist. They are each in 4 parts.

Interview on 6/28/07 Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Interview on 7/13/07 Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Interview on 7/22/07 Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.

Also, in case you are interested in part two of the documentary, which I have not discussed here, here are two videos that represent both sides of the 9/11 argument. Zeitgeist, as you can imagine, is a bit one sided. These videos are here and here.

Also, a fellow blogger and fellow student of Dr. Nunnally, Nate Watson has written a bit about Zeitgeist as well. Check out his blog My Friend Ivan and the Zeitgeist material here and here.

Lastly, you can purchase the complete works of Josephus from Thomas Nelson Press very cheap. I got it at Barnes and Noble for $17. Here it is on Amazon for $12.73! A very good deal.

In conclusion, I think not only has this experience shown some more good reasons why many of us ascribe to the Christian faith, it has also shown us once again that you cannot believe everything you hear. In addition, I feel that we have a responsibility as followers of Christ to educate ourselves about these issues and be able to have meaningful, informed conversations about them. May we always demand good information, even if it challenges what we believe. May we stand for truth in all circumstances. And, may we love one another while doing it.

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 3: Jesus the Copycat

In our third look at the online documentary called Zeitgeist where we are responding to the allegations that are brought up in the first third of the movie about Jesus and religion, we will look at the most vicious and serious attacks the the documentary brings against Christianity. Remember, you can watch the movie by clicking here. Also, check in with parts 1 and 2 of this discussion below. Here we go.

The documentary claims that Jesus is a copycat of a number of other religious figures whose stories are remarkably similar, either Horus, or Mithra, or whoever (there are hundreds). In fact, when you list the essential events of Horus' life, who dates to 3000 BC, 3000 years before Jesus, they are very similar to the essential events in Jesus' life. For example:

Horus was

Born on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced in the east and attended by three wisemen.

He is of royal decent

At age 12, he was a teacher in the temple and baptized at age 30

He had 12 disciples

He did many miracles, including walking on water

He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days, and resurrected

He was called "The Way, the Truth and the Life," "The Messiah," and "the Word Made flesh" among others

Do these things sound familiar? Yes, they all existed in the life of Jesus. And, if these elements really were in a common astrological, Egyptian mythical religion that predates Christianity by thousands of years, that would be very suspect. This part of the video troubled me more than any other. So, I went to work to find the truth.

The first step was to talk to a friend who is smarter than me. Here is my question and the response of Dr. Wave Nunnally, professor of Theology from Evangel University:

What is your response to the mentioning of, for instance, the Egyptian god Horus, who dates to 3000 BC, and has very much in common with the birth, life and death of Christ? In fact, there seem to be many examples of this; figures whose stories are very similar to that of Jesus, some of which seem to be older. Your thoughts?

As you learned here, there were many dying and rising god myths in the ancient world. In his NT intro, Robert Gundry dismisses any true parallels with the Jesus event by noting that these stories are all about events that supposedly happened in eons past, for which there was no eyewitness testimony. Also, their deaths were not true, but rather ethereal, quasi-deaths. Finally, their dying and rising were actually ways to personify seasons and other forces in nature. None of these things can be said of the death of Jesus, so the "parallels" are more or less over-generalizations that don't really work out when the details are analyzed.

Interesting response. However, it was too general. I wanted specific evidence of the claims being false. So, I kept going, and there seem to be several issues in play.

My first clue to this should have been the first quote that flashes up on the screen of the documentary: "They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." The author of that quote was listed as G. Massey, or Gerald Massey. Massey was an English poet and (supposedly self taught) Egyptologist who was a somewhat famous conspiracy theorist and Christ-myther (this is a label you will probably see again, there seem to be a whole fraternity of these guys, including the makers of Zeitgeist). If you did a quick search of his name on amazon, you would find many of the books he wrote, but the 2 most notable are The Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ, and Ancient Egypt: The Light of the World. Also notice that though he has been dead for like 100 years, that these books have been re-released recently (because religious conspiracies are so huge right now!).

This is all just background to the point I want to make. Massey is the source used by Acharya S, a female author of the book The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. She is the source of most Christ-mythers today and the primary source for this documentary, as cited on the sources page. So, if you are following the trail, Zeitgeist uses Acharya S, Acharya S uses Massey. Massey never sites a source. Aparantly Massey made all this up, because we find no evidence of this before him. The lies are passed on and on.

All of these sources and all of these Christ-mythers make the same mistake. As I debunked on this website a few years ago, you have probably heard of the similarities often cited between Abraham Lincoln and JFK. Upon further scrutiny, however, it is pretty easily seen that the similarities they claim that exist are either not spectacular, distortions of the truth, or flat out lies. This is exactly what has happened with the list given on Zeitgeist.

This is a great list, looking at the similarities between Horus and Jesus, as cited by Massey and taken from the Egyptian Book of The Dead (which, by the way, you can find at any Barnes and Noble. But, be warned, it is very weird). Using the website, it is not hard to debunk the list that is above, like so.

Horus was

Born on December 25th in a cave/manger with his birth being announced in the east and attended by three wisemen.

Let’s take this one apart and deal with each separate issue:

Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn't able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.

Horus was supposedly born on the last day of the Egyptian month of Khoiak, which corresponds on our calendars to November 15th.

Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya's footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.

Horus' birth was not announced by a star in the east

There were no “three wise men” at Horus’ birth, or at Jesus’ for that matter (the Bible never gives the number of wise men, and they showed up at Jesus’ home, not at the manger, and probably when Jesus was a year or two old).

Acharya's source for the last two claims appears to be Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the 'three kings' is still a name of three stars in Orion's belt . . . " Massey's apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the 'three kings' are a part. And even if there is a specific star called 'the star of Horus', there's no legend stating that it announced Horus' birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the 'three wise men' (the three stars in Orion's belt) attended Horus' birth in any way.

He is of royal decent

This one’s true! But it's not really a comparison to Jesus. When followers speak of Jesus being of 'royal descent', they usually mean His being a descendant of King David, an earthly king. Horus was, according to the myth, descended from heavenly royalty (as Jesus was), being the son of the main god.

At age 12, he was a teacher in the temple and baptized at age 30

He never taught in any temple and was never baptized.

He had 12 disciples

Horus had four disciples (called ‘Heru-Shemsu’). There’s another reference to sixteen followers, and a group of followers called ‘mesnui’ (blacksmiths) who join Horus in battle, but are never numbered. But there’s no reference to twelve followers.

He did many miracles, including walking on water

He did perform miracles, but he did not walk on water.

He was crucified between two thieves, buried for three days, and resurrected.

Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.

He was called "The Way, the Truth and the Life," "The Messiah," and "the Word Made flesh" among others.

The only titles Horus is given are “Great God”, “Chief of the Powers”, “Master of Heaven”, and “Avenger of His Father”. None of the above titles are in any Egyptian mythology.

Upon further scrutiny, it is clear that these supposed similarities are not that at all. Few are true, but those are very general (miracles, royal decent). Some are distortions, and others are flat out lies. If you click the link that compares Jesus and Horus, it gives more comparisons and goes deeper in the explanations. Here is the root site, that goes into more depth about this issue and also tackles the comparisons between Jesus and dozens of other god myths, in which you find the same issues at play. The site is a fantastic source. I think a quick look at it will pretty much settle the Jesus/copycat issue. It has for me.


While I was in the process of researching this and writing about it, I stumbled across Lee Strobel's new book called The Case for the Real Jesus, which is a response to the attacks that have come against Jesus in the past few years through sources like The Da Vinci Code and The Jesus Family Tomb. One of the issues he discusses in the book is the idea that "christian beliefs about Jesus were copied from pagan religions." Strobel addresses this issue very well. He interviews two experts about this issue and they weigh in on the validity of the argument. Perhaps the most revealing quote in this section is by Dr. Michael Licona who states "I know of no highly respected scholar today who suggests that these vague fables are parallels to the resurrection of Jesus. We only hear this claim from the hyper-skeptical community on the Internet and in popular books that are marketed to people who lack the background to analyze the facts critically." The Case for the Real Jesus p163. To be clear, this is exactly what we are dealing with: the highly skeptical community on the Internet as well as a production marketed to the laymen who typically don't have the background to argue with the claims.

If this has not convinced you, grab Strobel's book and read his chapter on this issue. It is very worth the $22 as it deals with a number of other scholarly issues that Christianity is facing today.

One more resource I should mention briefly is this page on the Always Be Ready website. It is simply a list of scholarly quotes that respond to many of the issues in Zeitgeist. It is worth a quick read, and the site as a whole is a good resource to bookmark as well.

This has been a very long post. Perhaps I should have made it two parts. Nonetheless, it is good info. Next time we will look at the documentary's attack of Josephus. Stay tuned!

-NF

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 2: Astrology

In the second post about the movie Zeitgeist, a highly skeptical documentary that contains, among other conspiracy theories, that Christianity is a lie, I am going to address address the films claims about astrology. To watch the movie, see the post below. You really should watch it before reading this, otherwise much of what I write about won;t make sense. Here we go.

The video essentially claims that for thousands of years the Egyptians have worshipped the sun and stars, and that all religions that exist today are derivatives of this initial belief system. Keep in mind that the makers of this movie put no stock in astrology. They are merely using it (a ridiculous belief system) to show that Christianity is a ridiculous belief system.

In addition, they claim that the Bible is riddled with astrological claims, saying "this text has more to do with astrology than anything else."

I am still friends with many of my professors from college. Here is the question and response of Dr. Wave Nunnally from Evangel University on this issue:

I'm sure you have heard some of these Astrological theories before (i.e. the idea that the Bible "has more to do with astrology than anything else."). Do you have any general comments?

The doc[umentary] as a whole seems to be poorly conceived. The Bible actually polemicizes against astrology in a number of ways. Moses, for example, describes the sun, mon, and stars as created "signs" that have no life within themselves and are to serve God and man. The writers of the historical books and the prophets denounce Israel's decent into paganism when the worship the "host of heaven." Despite this, authors like Marilyn Hickey and David Wommack have written volumes asserting that the gospel can be found in the stars.

There are several examples they attempt to give of of Christianity copying off of astrology and the bible referring to such, and I will address three of those instances here. Let me say that i am no astrologer or expert in astrology. However, since they are claiming that the bible makes astrological claims, I feel I am educated enough to weigh in on what the Bible does say.

First, they claim about Luke 22:10, "this scripture is by far one of the most revealing of the astrological references." They say "When Jesus is asked where the next passover will be after he is gone" that he replies saying "As you enter the city, a man carrying a pitcher of water will greet you. Follow him to the house that he enters." The documentary claims that this is referring to Aquarius, the man carrying water in the signs of the zodiac, and that Jesus is essentially saying that he (Jesus) is the representation of God in this age, but that a different age is coming, called the Age of Aquarius, in approximately 2100 AD. Keep in mind that the creator does not actually believe Jesus said this (because doesn't believe Jesus ever existed), just that this is what the writers of the bible wanted to communicate. The only problem with this interpretation of Like 22:10 is that this is not the question that the disciples asked Jesus. In fact, there question has nothing to do with the future. In verse 8 Jesus tells them to "Go and make preparations for us to eat the passover." "Where do you want us to prepare for it?" they asked. That is when Jesus tells them to go into the city, find this guy carrying water, and that he would give them a room that is furnished for the passover. Not future, now. Not in the next aeon, but right now. They gave the wrong context (as mentioned before) and it changed the entire meaning of the verse. Not only is it not astrological, but as it is, it cannot even be bent to be astrological. This terns out to be nothing more than bad hermeneutics.

Second, they say that Moses comes to power in the age of Taurus, the bull, but he represents Ares, the ram, and that the exchange on Mt Sinai marks the transition. And, it was because the people were stuck in the previous age is why he was angry about the golden calf, not because they were worshipping a false god. This is again solved if we look at the context. Ex 32:31 shows Moses repenting for the people, saying "oh what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold." Clearly it is that they are worshipping false God's, and not a mix up of the "ages" that has Moses (and God) so angry. They also attribute the blowing of the shofar (or rams horn) during this time as signs of ares. They don't consider that there are only a handful of instruments available at this time (harp, lyre, tambourine, and shofar etc.). The Israelites are only guilty of using instruments in worship, not of announcing the age of ares the ram.

Third, they claim that Jesus brings about the age of Pisces, the fish. Now, despite the fact that Jesus is oftentimes ministering in areas where there is a lot of coast, where fishing would be a large part of the commerce, and a large percentage of the men would be fisherman, and that the majority of the meat that is clean for Jews to eat is fish (I'm sure none of these could be the reason that fish are mentioned so much in the NT), we know why the fish became the symbol of the early Christian movement. The fish, or ichthys (pronounced ick-thoos) which is the Greek word for fish is an acronym, with each of the letters standing for a word in the phrase "Jesus Christ, Son of God." That is why the symbol of Christianity in the first hundred years and today is the fish, not because we are in the age of Pisces.

Some of these claims in the film are so outlandish that you can nearly laugh them off. If you know anything about the Bible, it is hard not to immediately find where they go wrong. this is just another good time to encourage us all to be diligent students of God's word, and to be intellectually honest and look for proof and evidence. If you except everything on faith, then when a documentary like this comes by, you have no way to answer it. However, if you have studied the history, archeology, and other disciplines that back up Christianity claims, it is not hard to come against these outlandish statements. Faith is good and absolutely necessary. but we don;t believe for no reason. We believe because it make sense, because there is a long line of evidence and experience to lead us to believe the way we do.

Next time I will be diving into the claims that Jesus is a copycat of the pagan religions. Stay tuned!

-NF

Zeitgeist: The Movie, Part 1: Introduction

If you haven't yet seen or heard about the web movie Zeitgeist, you probably will. It came out this summer and is causing a bit of a stir among young people. The word Zeitgeist is a German word meaning "spirit of the age," and the film is essentially trying to get at the primary laws and frauds of our society.

The movie is about 2 hours long and can be seen here. It is divided into three parts. After an intro and overview, Part 1 is titled "The Greatest Story Ever Told" and is about Christianity. The movie makes many outrageous claims that I will discuss further, but is essentially claiming that Christianity and the Bible are based on astrology and that Jesus never existed but was a copycat of many pagan deities and false gods. The 2nd part is titled "The Whole World is a Stage" and focuses on what they call the 9/11 conspiracy; you know, how the government is really responsible for 9/11. The third part is "The Men Behind the Curtain" (or something very close) and is about the Federal Reserve and how the men who control it are bent on world domination.

Now, I am no expert about 9/11 conspiracy theories or the Federal Reserve, so I won't comment any longer on these parts. I do however, know a little bit about the attacks on Christianity in part 1. I have decided to do a four part series on the Christian elements in Zeitgeist and address some of these claims that the creator makes. Before we start, though, you really should watch the movie, at least Part 1, so we are all speaking the same language (click on the link above). It is about a half an hour long and, be warned, there is some profanity. But, what I am going to be discussing will refer to the video, so it is better if you have seen it.

At this point, by way of an introduction to the film, I am going to make some general comments about the Movie as a whole. Here we go.

1. May we keep in mind that this is a conspiracy theory, put out by conspiracy theorists. They have an agenda (both anti-God and anti-government) and they are (apparently) trying to convert people to their side (i.e. making a free web movie to disperse freely and widely). These are important to note because they are obviously not objective sources. Now, to be fair, neither am I. I too believe something strongly and that, at times, can cloud my rational thinking. I too have an agenda; to share my knowledge and relationship with God with others. I must, therefore, be good at thinking critically even if the results are not always what I want. Ultimately we should want truth. So, that is the first thing to remember, that these are not impartial movie makers that decided to tackle this subject. Quite the opposite, in fact. They are radical conspiracy theorists who are dedicated to a belief system that is unfolded in the documentary.

2. This is that the documentary is not very academic and certainly not scholarly. They would like to claim differently, but many of their claims would be laughed at in the presence of scholars. The creator chooses to remain anonymous and we have no reason to belief he has any scholarly credentials. But, the goal of a conspiracy theory is to stir up the laymen, the common man. So, scholarship is not that important. They only need to be convincing enough to convince you and me. Some examples of this is that they do not quote scripture correctly. They never quote more that 1 verse in a row. Apparently context is a peripheral issue for them. There is no meaning without context. When they quote scripture, they either give no context at all, or they paraphrase the preceding context, which they get wrong (more on this later). They also misuse some terms, like "immaculate conception." This is a common mistake, but should not show up in well researched, scholarly work.

3. The scholarship they try to employ in this documentary is what would be described as liberal (this has nothing to do with politics). That is to say that when dating the books of the NT, you can date Paul's writings as early as the 50's, which would be the conservative view and, in my opinion, clearly the most accurate. You can also date Paul's writings as late as 140AD or later, and claim that it was not Paul, but someone else who wrote this as folklore to an existing group called Christians. This is the liberal view. This is convenient to conspiracy theorists because it removes any eyewitnesses from being involved in the writings, and thus discredits the documents.

The are some overarching generalities that are true of most conspiracy theorists. Next time I will dive into the meat of the documentary and challenge some of his claims. If you have seen the movie or watch it soon, post and let me know. I am interested to hear what is being said and what your responses are.

Thanks!
-NF

The Lies We Tell Young People

This decal that I saw on a Myspace page capsulates perfectly the mindset that many young girls have about dating and the opposite sex. Unfortunately, this seems to fit perfectly with what guys are wanting: attention (laughing at their jokes) and sex. It also seems to meet the wants (needs?) of the girls: attention (checking out their slutty clothes) and to be cherished (sex). I would suggest, though, that each thing that both the guy and the girl think they are getting in this scenario are cheap imitations of what they are actually seeking. They are pseudo-fulfillment of the deep needs that God put inside each man and each woman.

For the man, it is the need to be honored and respected by his wife. He has an innate sense that he wants to make her proud and represent her well. In addition, he has a strong sex drive, a desire for the most intimate connection with a woman; a connection and an intimacy that is partnered with the safety of commitment and the security of "until death do us part."

For the woman, it is the desire to be loved and cherished by a man. The desire to be special in his sight and catch his eye, and to captivate him with her beauty. In addition, the woman is cherished in the intimacy of sex, a sex that operates within the confines of love; love that "always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

This cartoon above is apparently the best that secular culture has to offer our young people. In a culture of moral relativism where feelings become the new determiner of truth, instant gratification becomes king. The fastest, easiest avenue to get what you want becomes the road they take. It results in a hollow fulfillment, emptiness, and disappointment, not to mention the more concrete results like STD's, divorce, single moms, and abandonment. Children in single parent homes are more likely to repeat this behavior, so the process is continued.

So, what is needed? Fathers, who will cherish their daughters and teach them the way a man should treat them, and who teach their sons the way men should act. Mothers who will love their children, not by spoiling them, but by instilling in them the values that make a whole person. Boys, who will stop viewing girls as objects and delay gratification for a better end, and who will think, even why society is telling them they should be idiots. Girls, who will see that they have value and worth and beauty, who will set their standards high and not sell themselves short to get attention. But most of all, I think what is needed is the Church, the local body of believers who will step up and change culture one young person at a time.

May we counter the message that is being sent to the young people of this age.

"The gold standard of academic integrity"

Concerning the whole Jesus family tomb issue that has been much discussed recently, I am left with one overarching thought. It seems that the great mistake that Cameron and Jacobovici made was not the controversial claim, nor was it the slip shod methods , nor was it the lack of conclusive evidence, for claims as ridiculous and controversial as this are made every day. No. The great mistake they made was going public into a multinational media forum without having offered it up to peer review, which Jonathan Reed from the Society of Biblical Literature calls "the gold standard of academic integrity." That step that was skipped is happening now, as you can see many archaeologists and scientists discrediting this "discovery" (which, by the way, was discovered in 1980, and is nothing new). Had they done a peer review, it never would have gotten far enough to be made into a prime time documentary, but they they would not have made their money, either.

If you have not yet, I encourage you to read up on this topic. It seems that the evidence is flimsy at absolute best. Here are a few articles:

This is the article quoted above.

This is a great article exposing a few of the major flaws by Jodi Magness of the University of North Carolina.

This is a blog by Dr. Ben Witherington pointing out many of the flaws as well.

Lastly, you can check out The Society of Biblical Literature Site that has scholarly articles on many current subjects. I have added it to my links on the right. And, may we always continually quest for good information.

Who are These "Wisemen"?

Last December, my blog was in its infancy. Now, a year later, I have had a blast writing about all sorts of things and even having a few people read some of what I write. This article was one of the first I posted on here, and since it is time that people are thinking about Christmas again (duh), I thought I would pull the old "re-post". Have a Merry Christmas everyone!


Of course you have seen them. They are the three tall old guys towards the back of the nativity scene that sits on your shelf. There is always one with dark skin, there are always three, and they are always present beside the crib...rather, manger of Jesus. But who are these wise men really? Scholars suggest that the biblical connection of these men dates back to the Exile, when Daniel is placed in charge of Babylon and "all its wise men" (Daniel 2:10, 48). These men were astrologers and great thinkers of their day and were perhaps instructed by Daniel about the God of Israel and the Prophesied Messiah that was coming, as he was their superior. There is a good chance that Daniel's influence and faithfulness to God in a pagan and foreign nation is the reason that we see these wise men, also called "kings" or "Magi", worshiping Jesus.

Nonetheless, grandma's old nativity set certainly has some inaccuracies it must work out. For one, they followed the star to Jerusalem from the east, and then to Bethlehem, a journey which probably took them years to complete. Thus, we would never see Wise Men and shepherds worshiping side by side as is so commonly seen (note: Matthew records Magi, Luke records shepherds, so there is no biblical claim that they worshiped the Savior together). Actually, the Greek word (I am not an expert in Greek, but I have friends who are) used to describe Jesus in Luke with the shepherds present denotes "baby", whereas the word describing Jesus in Matthew with the Wise Men is closer to "child". Thus, there is a good chance Jesus was several years old when the wise men dropped in. In addition, we have no way of knowing how many Magi were present. There could have been three or a dozen. We often assume there were three because three gifts are mentioned, though the true number is anybody's guess. As far as ethnicity, they would have most certainly been Persian, thus having olive colored skin and middle eastern features. In the end, we know for certain that men of wealth called "Wise men" visited Jesus and worshiped him and brought him gifts (which is also probably where the custom of gift giving at Christmas originally comes from). Pretty amazing that such men would worship a baby in this way. They must have known there was something special about this kid. He certainly was one extraordinary baby.

Myth of The Week: The Missing Day

Ok, so I am sure that all of you have gotten that email that claims that NASA's scientists found a missing day in the cosmos that matched up with the day missing recorded in the bible. I remember being very happy when I read this story, thinking that science was serving Christianity in a huge way (which I still believe it does). However, as this article shows, the fact that NASA experienced such a discovery is merely a myth. I get irritated when well meaning Christians get too ambitious for their own good and authenticity and truth are compromised. There are literally hundreds of these throughout the history of Christendom. Can we please just present the bible and our information truthfully so we don't come off looking desperate?

Anyway, give the article a read. Here is the closing paragraph from it, which I think makes a great point.

[O]ur willingness to accept legends depends far more upon their expression of concepts we want to believe than upon their plausibility. If the sun once really did stand still for a day, the best evidence we'd have for proving it would be the accounts of people who saw it happen. That is what the Bible is said to offer. Some of us accept that, and some of us don't.

Myth of the Week: Lincoln and Kennedy Really So Similar?

It's time once again for the weekly myth. The time when we look into history or science or politics etc. and find that which so many have repeated as fact, even when it's false.

This week we look at the myth that every one of has heard, about all of the coincidences and weird similarities between the lives and deaths of John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln. I don't know about you, but I was even taught this in school! This article does a great job of pointing out the mistakes that this myth makes, as well as debunking some things that seem remarkable, but upon further review, are nothing special at all. It makes a person realize that you can really bend information and statistics to make your point when you want to. Check it out. It is a very worthy article to read and subject to ponder.

Myth of the Week: A Though About the Brain

I thought I would start a new weekly series about myths and urban legends. I was surprised to see from this website how many myths there actually are out there that people pass off as fact. This irritates me, as I am one who puts heavy stock in truth and validity.

This week's article has to do with the Myth that claims human's only use 10 percent of their brains. This article goes to show, in so many ways, that it is simply not true. It also makes a valid statement about the faulty claims of psychics and New Agers. This is definately worth a read.

Who Are These "Wise Men"?

Of course you have seen them. They are the three tall old guys towards the back of the nativity scene that sits on your shelf. There is always one with dark skin, there are always three, and they are always present beside the crib...rather, manger of Jesus. But who are these wise men really? Scholars suggest that the biblical connection of these men dates back to the Exile, when Daniel is placed in charge of Babylon and "all its wise men" (Daniel 2:10, 48). These men were astrologers and great thinkers of their day and were perhaps instructed by Daniel about the God of Israel and the Prophesied Messiah that was coming, as he was their superior. There is a good chance that Daniel's influence and faithfulness to God in a pagan and foreign nation is the reason that we see these wise men, also called "kings" or "Magi", worshiping Jesus.

Nonetheless, grandma's old nativity set certainly has some inaccuracies it must work out. For one, they followed the star to Jerusalem from the east, and then to Bethlehem, a journey which probably took them years to complete. Thus, we would never see Wise Men and shepherds worshiping side by side as is so commonly seen (note: Matthew records Magi, Luke records shepherds, so there is no biblical claim that they worshiped the Savior together). Actually, the Greek word (I am not an expert in Greek, but I have friends who are) used to describe Jesus in Luke with the shepherds present denotes "baby", whereas the word describing Jesus in Matthew with the Wise Men is closer to "child". Thus, there is a good chance Jesus was several years old when the wise men dropped in. In addition, we have no way of knowing how many Magi were present. There could have been three or a dozen. We often assume there were three because three gifts are mentioned, though the true number is anybody's guess. As far as ethnicity, they would have most certainly been Persian, thus having olive colored skin and middle eastern features. In the end, we know for certain that men of wealth called "Wise men" visited Jesus and worshiped him and brought him gifts (which is also probably where the custom of gift giving at Christmas originally comes from). Pretty amazing that such men would worship a baby in this way. They must have known there was something special about this kid. He certainly was one extraordinary baby.