Do You Think This is the Kind of Thing St. Paul Dealt with?

I know, I know. I really shouldn't pick at it...but I just can't help myself.

Check out the Proviso to the Website for that whacky documentary everybody is talking about...

http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/movie_overview/disclaimer.html

or continue reading if you don't want to go to the other site. I'll...uhm...paraphrase for you.

Hey, folks! Have I got some great news for you! Remember that scandalous anti-semitic argument in the Gospel of Matthew that accuses the ancient Jewish authorities of starting a rumor that the Christians relocated the body? Well, guess what? Those ancient Jewish leaders weren't lying! What would they have to gain by lying? They were, in fact, revealing the truth. The rumors were the reality...Christ's body was removed and relocated in another tomb. It was those whacky Christians who were making up the lies about people lying! And don't worry your head about all those other things that the Gospel said were facts and not rumors...like Roman guards blocking the entrance, a really heavy rock, and the apostles cowering in fear. Because the really important part of the story is the part that the author told you was not, in fact, true.

But, hey, if you want to believe in the resurrection, just imagine he came back to life in the second tomb! Everybody make happy! But, you know what, if there really are remains of Jesus to be found, that's okay, too, because the Ascension doesn't have to mean a literal ascension. Did you sillies really think that Heaven was really up? Pshaw. That is soooo pre-Copernican. But as for all those other theological points you believe, like the glorified body that could walk through walls and stuff...well...better luck next time!

Well, that was my impression of what they said, at least. These guys have all the politeness and understanding of an Iranian President at a conference on the Holocaust.

Comments

[Publius]

So...the apostles steal Jesus' body in the dead of night and proceed to bury him in another tomb...and then the rest of his family is buried with him? Doesn't sound too secret. You'd think that at least after the third or fourth member of his family was buried there, a curious Pharisee would sneak in, take a look around and then come out and proclaim, "Ah ha! That Jesus fellow wasn't resurrected! He was just moved to the tomb the rest of his family is now using! Why look, his wife is buried right next to him! Stupid, blasphemous Christians!"

[PeterTerp]

Or maybe the Apostles are so stupid they are clever-stupid. They hide the body in the most obvious place (his family's tomb) and engrave his name on the coffin. Clearly, those smart Romans and Pharisees wouldn't bother wasting time looking in the family tomb...because they would assume the Christians couldn't be so stupid as to hide the body there. It's a brilliant piece of double- if not triple-think!

The only reason why this tomb business is remotely problematic is not because it threatens the faithful, but because it confuses everyone else. It's also just obnoxious because it is mostly charlatanism dressed up like scholarship. Simcha Jacobovici will accuse people of attacking him personally, and then say people don't address his historical arguments. The thing is, when a person does present an accepted historical fact to thwart him, then Simcha just quotes someone else who disagrees. Then he demands that the other person disprove the theory he has put forward...when the other person can't find another way to prove it didn't happen the way he said it did (because they already exhausted their best evidence and Simcha refused to accept it), he takes that as a victory. You can't refute me! I must be right! But, of course, that's bogus logic. It's a classic debate scenario where you try to make your opponent make at least a polite concession for the sake of argument, but then you refuse to offer them the same courtesy. You can see it in the proviso where it attempts to make the reader concede: "Ok, he could have resurrected from another tomb"...but then the proviso refuses to allow the reader a belief in a physical ascension, instead demanding the reader accept the "ascension" on Simcha's terms.