The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) an apostate denomination

Here lies the boundary of a Christian church that knows itself to be bound by the authority of Scripture. Those who urge the church to change the norm of its teaching on this matter must know that they are promoting schism. If a church were to let itself be pushed to the point where it ceased to treat homosexual activity as a departure from the biblical norm, and recognized homosexual unions as a personal partnership of love equivalent to marriage, such a church would stand no longer on biblical ground but against the unequivocal witness of Scripture. A church that took this step would cease to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. ("Should We Support Gay Marriage? No") Wolfhart Pannenberg

More analysis at Viola Larson's blog...

I'm pleased to see that others are pointing out what we've known for a long time. This is the end game for egalitarianism. When men and women become interchangeable in the liturgical context of authoritative public ministry, you can't stoop the implication that other liturgical / public authoritative acts are bound by sexual/gender distinctions. END

I'm 

Conversion of St. Paul

Lately, I've been dealing with some folks on another blog that, by their defense of a heresiarch and their own indifference to doctrine while holding office in a church, have become enemies of Christ and His gospel. My first, human reaction was to get angry. But God has been dealing with me - breaking my heart for those who find themselves breaking upon the Law of God.

And today, in my Daily Office recitation, I come upon the story of Paul's conversion on this its feast. And in singing the office hymn, God reminded me that I should never give up hope for those who are now enemies of the Gospel. God may yet make them His greatest messengers. That's hope and change you can believe in!

Lord God of our fathers, who in reconciling the world to yourself have made friends of your enemies, forgive me when I forget how I was your avowed enemy before you won my heart. Use me to reach those who are set against you, through the love and grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit in everlasting unity. Amen.

	Clyde McLennan - We sing the glorious conquest .mp3
	Found at bee mp3 search engine

We sing the glorious conquest,
Before Damascus’ gate,
When Saul, the Church’s spoiler,
Came breathing threats and hate;
The rav’ning wolf rushed forward
Full early to the prey;
But lo! the Shepherd met him,
And bound him fast today.

O glory most excelling
That smote across his path!
O light that pierced and blinded
The zealot in his wrath!
O voice that spake within him
The calm, reproving word!
O love that sought and held him
The bondman of his Lord!

O Wisdom ord’ring all things
In order strong and sweet,
What nobler spoil was ever
Cast at the Victor’s feet?
What wiser master builder
E’er wrought at Thine employ
Than he, till now so furious
Thy building to destroy?

Lord, teach thy Church the lesson,
Still in her darkest hour
Of weakness and of danger,
To trust Thy hidden power;
Thy grace by ways mysterious
The wrath of man can bind,
And in Thy boldest foeman
Thy chosen saint can find.

More Gregorian than gregarious

Some people think that I'm not "nice" because I hold vowed officers of the church to the faith handed down by the apostles. Well, on this March 12, commemoration of Gregory the Great, Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Rome, I'm going to try to be more gregarious. . . or at least Gregorian.

Here's a little info on the sainted bishop.

Only two popes, Leo I and Gregory I, have been given the popular title of "the Great." Both served during difficult times of barbarian invasions in Italy; and during Gregory's term of office, Rome was also faced with famine and epidemics.

Gregory was born around 540, of a politically influential family, and in 573 he became Prefect of Rome; but shortly afterwards he resigned his office and began to live as a monk. In 579 he was made apocrisiarius (representative of the Pope to the Patriarch of Constantinople). Shortly after his return home, the Pope died of the plague, and in 590 Gregory was elected Pope.

Like Leo before him, he became practical governor of central Italy, because the job needed to be done and there was no one else to do it. When the Lombards invaded, he organized the defense of Rome against them, and the eventual signing of a treaty with them. When there was a shortage of food, he organized the importation and distribution of grain from Sicily.

His influence on the forms of public worship throughout Western Europe was enormous. He founded a school for the training of church musicians, and Gregorian chant (plainchant) is named for him. The schedule of Scripture readings for the various Sundays of the year, and the accompanying prayers (many of them written by him - and still sung!), in use throughout most of Western Christendom for the next thirteen centuries, is largely due to his passion for organization. His treatise, On Pastoral Care, while not a work of creative imagination, shows a dedication to duty, and an understanding of what is required of a minister in charge of a Christian congregation.

Doctrinally speaking, there is little of great interest. He is known to have defended the physical resurrection from a subtle attack by no less than the Patriarch of Constantinople himself! Eutychius speculated on our resurrection bodies being "more subtle than air" but there is a record of his having recanted before death. (Hey...maybe I'm gregorious in dealing with my own Eutychius after all! With him, I say Pro cuius amore in eius eloquio nec mihi parco - "For the love of whom (God) I do not spare myself from his Word.") Gregory's letters and sermons are still readable today, and it is not without reason that he is accounted (along with Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine of Hippo) as one of the Four Latin Doctors (=Teachers) of the ancient Church. (Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Basil the Great, and John Chrysostom are the Four Greek Doctors.)

English-speaking Christians will remember Gregory for sending a party of missionaries headed by Augustine of Canterbury (not to be confused with the more famous Augustine of Hippo) to preach the Gospel to the pagan Anglo-Saxon tribes that had invaded England and largely conquered or displaced the Celtic Christians previously living there. He was moved when he saw some fair-haired, blue-eyed Angle boys being sold in a slave market and quipped: "Non Angli, sed Angeli!" (they are not Angles, but Angels!) Gregory had originally hoped to go to England as a missionary himself, but was pressed into service elsewhere, first as apocrisiarius and then as bishop of Rome. He accordingly sent others, but took an active interest in their work, writing numerous letters both to Augustine and his monks and to their English converts.

I here mention something that was not Gregory's doing, but is an important part of Church history. It was in Gregory's lifetime that Rome, and with it the Western Empire, with astonishing suddenness, and for no reason that I know of, went monolingual. For more than six centuries previously, Greek had been spoken at Rome along with Latin. Every Roman with pretensions to being educated could speak it. Everyone involved in shipping and commerce, from banker to stevedore, could speak it. The list of the early Bishops of Rome has a fair proportion of Greek names. When Paul wrote an epistle to the Romans, he wrote in Greek as a matter of course. But in Gregory's lifetime this changed. Gregory was ambassador to the Eastern Patriarch at Constantinople for six years, but he never bothered to learn Greek. And in his day (not, as far as I have any reason to believe, as a result of his example or influence) most other Latin-speakers did not trouble to learn Greek either. The already existing difficulties of communication between Latin and Greek theologians were greatly exacerbated by this development. Increasingly, Latins did not read the commentaries and other writings of Greek Christians, and vice versa. Thus differences between the two that dialogue might have resolved were left to accumulate, culminating in the formal split between Latin and Greek Christendom in 1054.

If I were to select a ground on which this devout Christian of great accomplishments might reasonably be censured, it would be that his Dialogues, a book on the Lives of the Saints, is full of accounts of dreams and visions that various persons were said to have had of souls in Purgatory. Gregory, a man of keen critical judgment on many matters, was completely uncritical in his acceptance of these stories. A general belief in Purgatory was standard among Christians when he wrote; but his reliance on "ghost stories" to fill in the imaginative details gave the doctrine as held thereafter in Latin Christendom both a prominence and a coloring that it had not previously had, with results that many Christians, including adherents of the Pope, have found regrettable - and a constant impediment to church union.

PRAYER (traditional language):

Almighty and merciful God, who didst raise up Gregory of Rome to Be a servant of the servants of God, and didst inspire him to send missionaries to preach the Gospel to the English people: Preserve in thy Church the catholic and apostolic faith they taught, that thy people, being fruitful in every good work, may receive the crown of glory that fadeth not away; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

PRAYER (contemporary language):

Almighty and merciful God, who raised up Gregory of Rome to Be a servant of the servants of God, and inspired him to send missionaries to preach the Gospel to the English people: Preserve in your Church the catholic and apostolic faith they taught, that your people, being fruitful in every good work, may receive the crown of glory that never fades away; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.

Why I'm not in the PCUSA

Some people still don't understand why I set aside over a decade of preparation for ministry and official status in the high-paying PCUSA. It is fundamentally this: the PCUSA refuses to provide basic care to the people in the pew, especially when it comes to giving pulpits to false-shepherds who actively undermine the confidence God's people should have in God's Word. While I should have seen it long before I did, it took the flagrant scorn towards the Scriptures evidenced by an ordained clergyman in my (now former) presbytery of care to show me that even the best presbyteries were unwilling to do anything about the spreading cancer.

I am so sick and tired of these people pretending to have some sort of humility while also standing up, shaking their fists at the heavens and saying: "My God wouldn't do X or Y or Z like the God of the Old Testament does, so obviously the Bible is wrong!!!"

The best part is when these pretenders to the pastorate claim that an orthodox view of Scriptures is - at best - juvenile and naive. Of course, it doesn't take long for them to jump on the "okay...it's just a white male heterosexualist power trip in disguise, you meanie!"

To them, I'll say this: I've been deeply wounded by the words of Scripture. But those wounds were for my good. My pride has been pommeled. My lust has been lambasted. My sloth has been slapped. My avarice assailed and my gluttony gored. My wrath routed and my envy immolated.

Yes...Scripture hurts us. Scripture wounds people.

If it didn't, we couldn't be healed.

“Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God.” John 6

If You Thought They Messed Up the Olympics

This little gem is from the English (Engrish?) subtitles on a Chinese-made hack of Star Wars Ep III.
Believe it or not, Anakin Skywalker would be an improvement over some of the folks I know that got "made" [ministers] by the Presbyterian Church.

Bizarro World...er...church

As requested, I've worked my Photoshop-phu on that Bizarro pic so descriptive of the PCUSA's GAPJC ruling on the Janie Spahr case. (Okay...this wasn't done out of a sense of camaraderie. I was just feeling left out when Holston Presbytery endorsed minister, John Shuck, started name-calling.)


Shouldn't you just go ahead and rename the organization the Presbyterian Smirch?

Creativity an essential to religion

CAVEAT: I'm not PCUSA anymore, so this is tongue-in-cheek. (I don't have the class that Will Spotts shows in just staying out of it.) But it's my blog, so I can vent like that. This post was written before I was tidily swept out of the ordination process. However, with the recent GAPJC ruling, I think it's relevant. The real mess isn't about THE GAY, but about THE GOSPEL. Disobedience to evangelical truth lies at the root of the rot - across the mainlines sidelines.

At the bidding of Clifton Kirkpatrick, I was reflecting on what is essential to Christian faith. Since the only folks who will determine if I've met those essentials (and CPE) are in Holston Presbytery, I decided it best to visit the teaching ministry of our most Reformed blogger, who - unlike me - is able to hold ordained ministerial status. I found there an essential of creativity. With that in hand, I thought about the general impulse of the blog and decided I'd better get about the task of finding a politicized church where creativity was an essential (rather than all those essentials of the Christian faith he has trouble accepting or understanding, like the full deity of Christ and his second advent, the inspiration of the Scriptures, and the Triune personhood of God).

I think I finally found one. It essentializes creativity, looks for logical / scientific / evolutionary answers to the world's problems, holds that Christian history is full of human horrors caused by supernaturalistic dogma, forbids thought of an afterlife, thinks that religion is best occupied by political action rather than doctrinal issues, and is all about taking care of the environment. They even emphasize women clergy! (That's one better than those NWACko winos!)

CPE - An Essential of the Faith

Back in November, I received a letter from the Presbytery Committee that oversees my candidacy for ordination: Complete a unit of CPE (and magically pay to feed, house, and insure your family while you're doing that instead of working) or be removed from the process.

Apparently, in Holston Presbytery, the essence of Reformed ministry is CPE and stuff like resurrection, or inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, or the Trinity are just, well, adiaphora.

God, where are You calling me to go? I'll follow...if You'll give me bread for the journey.

The GAY and the GOSPEL

John Shuck delights in deleting my comments, no matter how irenic. So if I'm to respond honestly to anything over at Shuck-n-Jive, I have to do it here.

Flycandler, who claims to be an unrepentant homosexual Presbyterian who studies at Candler School of Theology, ponders why we evangelicals in the mainlines can't admit that we really just want to be institutionally homophobic. He implies that, in addressing our grievances about what's wrong in our churches, we can't do it without mentioning THE GAY. (Funny, but I seem to remember history telling a different story about who keeps bringing the issue up.

Anyway, here's what I said:

Anybody ever notice that the Progressives can't bring up justice, the love of Jesus, etc. without also bringing up "THE GAY"?

When we forget the Gospel (succinctly stated in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8), ALL of us get sidelined and tend to major in the minors.

That's the point...we keep getting into each others shorts because we welched on the Gospel. Polity is not going to solve this problem. The only thing that will is repenting and agreeing that the Bible says what God intends for it to say!

NWAC - Mission or Misogyny

The vice-moderator of New Wineskins Association of Churches is a woman who is a pastor, and their Executive Coordinator is also a woman who is an elder. There were several female pastors I met there, as well as numerous female elders. The reason that you'll see more men in leadership within NWAC is because NWAC is all about congregations, not institutions. In the PCUSA, men outnumber women 5:1 in terms of call as pastors/co-pastors. Blame it on sexism if you like, but the truth is that women outnumber men in most "specialized ministries." NWAC isn't about schools, hospitals, or bureaucratic offices - it's about local congregations trying to follow Jesus. So when you see men outnumbering women there, it's a reflection of their mission, not misogyny.

John Shuck's statements are both libelous and inaccurate, and they reveal far more about him than they do about the NWAC.

New Wineskins Reflections

First, I want to thank the good Presbyterians of Cuero, TX. Your benevolence towards me will not be forgotten. It was such a time of refreshing and reconnecting with my call to the ministry of the Word that I can hardly express my gratitude. It was also good to meet your pastor and so many other blogging friends. I was able to pray with them, break bread with them, and smoke with them!

Second, I want to thank Gerrit Dawson for submitting to the leading of the Holy Spirit in departing from his assigned text to focus on John 18. I believe God spoke encouragement directly to my presbytery situation through that text (see around time sig 48:00). It was also exactly my experience in seminary (and here).

Third, John Shuck has started blogging about New Wineskins. Great. He says that when representative bodies decide on taking an action, then we should accept that action and obey its mandates* even if we disagree (and choose to work for change). I think it's the height of irony that a man who endorses those in willful direct violation of our constitutional standards should turn around and tell the Reformed Evangelicals of our denomination to tow the line or lose your property. Ironic...but far from surprising.

* "I think it is great that you advocate for change. I do, too. We have the best process available to enact change. Whether or not people agree or disagree with the Theological Task Force report or whatever, it was passed by a representative body. It is very different to work for change and go with the process even when your vote is not in the majority from not getting your way and then trashing the place on your way out."

Making a Run for the Border

This is not a post about illegal aliens crossing a sovereign nation's borders.

Rather, this is about muddle-headed officers of the PCUSA who don't seem to understand what the Bible teaches about God and the "limits" of what we can say about him.

A God without boundaries is a "god" who can be both for the oppression of people and against the oppression of people.

To say that God is without boundaries is to make God a piece of putty with which we can do whatsoever we desire. The true and living God says that WE are the clay...not Him.

Scripture or Schism?

A recent pastoral letter was sent from the Holy See...er....OGA that assured presbyteries that they should act punitivel...er...pastorally to those who find themselves under the teaching of "schismatics" like those right-wing woman-hatin' NWACs. As always, there's so much to learn about the faithfulness of our demonimation (just don't lay the white-wash on too thick or the fragile exterior might crumble).

The Office of Theology and Worship (whom I deeply respect and, in fact, interned for) was asked to write a response to the charge of apostasy. It reiterated Calvin's concern over the major heads of doctrine being agreed upon ("God is one; Christ is God and the Son of God; our salvation rests in God’s mercy; and the like"). While it didn't expand on those, it is sufficient to note that Presbyterian ministers can routinely deny even the doctrines mentioned and still maintain their credentials / posts as teaching elders. More helpful is how they flesh out a basis for deductive reasoning which leads one to say, "you should leave this particular church / institution" on pages 6ƒ.

On pages 890-891 of his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, Robert Reymond gives a specific line of reasoning to deduce a singular reason for separation: "separation from one's church or denomination is appropriate if it will not discipline heretics." This conclusion is reached by the following line of reasoning:

1. Elders are charged to guard the church by guarding the truth
2. Apostates and heretics ought to leave the church
3. Unrepentent heretics who do not leave the church should be disciplined
4. Churches that will not discipline heretics become apostate
   

And the 4th point is painfully problematic in the PCUSA.

Correspondence on discipline and doctrine

Here's my initial email.

Rich,

I'm heartsick as I write this, but I don't know to whom I should turn.

Is Holston Presbytery aware of the theological positions of John Shuck? He broadcasts them on his blog, casting vitriolic derision on anyone who asks why a Presbyterian minister denounces the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the unique/ontological divinity of Jesus, and the inspiration of the Scriptures. Many (if not most) of his "theological explorations" end up equating God with the universe, or some other panentheistic concept. This is most repugnant because it represents a thorough collapse of Trinitarian Godhead. Given the level of misuse and neglect of the Trinity throughout our denomination (on both "sides"), the last seems especially troubling.

Am I alone in my concern for both him and the sheep entrusted to his care? I've gone to him personally, and communicated privately and semi-publicly. I'm not sure what else I can do

--
Chris

Here's the response I got.
Chris,
Thanks for your email.
You ask, "Is Holston Presbytery aware of the…" I can't speak for all of Holston Presbytery… but I can speak for myself and in regard to the Constitution of the PCUSA. So, let me try to address those concerns from my perspective and the Constitution.
I am aware of John Shuck's blog site. John is free to express his opinions and theological views—although much of what is on his blog are the viewpoints of other scholars and theologians—even if they are different from yours or mine or even mainstream Presbyterianism. John (and any ordained officer or church member, for that matter) is not free to depart from the practice of Presbyterian polity or Scripture.
The examination of officers and candidates for ordination is where an individual's conduct and beliefs are tested and judged by the Constitutional standards and according to the session's or presbytery's sense of orthodoxy. Church discipline in the PCUSA is designed to bring about repentance, reconciliation and restoration for those who have acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA.
John has appropriately and Constitutionally been examined by the Committee on Ministry, approved for membership in Holston Presbytery, and John has affirmed the Constitutional Questions required of ordination. I am not aware that John has acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA. (Just as I am not aware that you have acted contrary to Scripture or the Constitution of the PCUSA.)
I and the Committee on Ministry are charged with the responsibility of caring for pastors and congregations. Ideally, as the entire body of Christ, we all care for one another. So, my answer to your question, "Am I alone in my concern for [John] and the sheep entrusted to his care?" would be "No, you, Chris, are not alone."
Richard L. Fifield

I've sent comments along to other ministers within our presbytery, asking them to talk with John or the COM or the EP. No response has been given.

I was always proud (in a good way) to be from Holston. Good work is going on there. The gospel is being faithfully proclaimed (in word and in deed) by presbyters, deacons, and "laity." But when it comes to exercising discipline (formal or otherwise) against "troubler(s) of Israel," I'm guessing this is going to go in pretty much one direction.

I imagine that my CPM will see this as further evidence that I'm too adversarial to lead a church. Maybe. I doubt that the "heretics" at the various congregations I've served would say so. I'll talk Spong and Borg with them, and gently express what criticisms (and true statements) I find therein. But they are church members. Sometimes they are officers - but none are ministers.

As I read Paul's instructions to Timothy and Titus, the most pastoral approach to take with people that are unsteady in their doctrine is an educational one backed up by prayer for illumination and kindness. But this is not acceptable with those who would teach and lead. To turn a blind eye or deaf ear is not only unloving to the person who is stumbling in their doctrine, it's downright hateful to those who are under their teaching authority.

When I spoke with a friend in the Renewal network, I was asked if this was a hill I was willing to die on. The answer is "yes." I will risk my future in the PCUSA in order to clarify our denominational position towards those who mock the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus and decry God's merciful provision of salvation through Christ as mere exclusivist provincialism.

To that end, here are my public questions of complaint.
1. I'm not a polity guy, so there are things that aren't always clear to me. But my reading of the "shall" statements in our Directory for Worship (especially 2.2007, 3.3101(1), and 3.3401d) seem to necessitate that sermons be based upon the Scriptures. Would that mean that sermons based on the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary are acts contrary to our Constitution?

2. If doctrine doesn't matter, why would Timothy be instructed to watch both his life and his doctrine , because his (and his hearers') salvation was impacted by it?

3. Is preaching about the rotting body of Jesus an acceptable position within Holston Presbytery?

The problem isn't that Mr. Shuck reads and posts about these things. I'm all for that sort of freedom. The problem is that he believes them - so convinced is he of the truth that the Bible is not inspired (a belief he sees as sentimental at best, spurious, pernicious, and moot at worst), Jesus' body is still in the grave, and that there is no afterlife that he PREACHES these doctrines from a pulpit of Holston Presbytery. He veers dangerously close to (if not into) gnosticism, docetism, and unitarianism. If these doctrines - which are condemned by the Church catholic - are acceptable in a Minister of the Word and Sacrament in our denomination, then I need to know now before vows bind me any further.

As for me, there seems to be a veiled implication of my activity that is contrary to Scripture or our Constitution. I must admit that I have acted contrary to both. When I see the standards of righteousness and justice set before me in the pages of Holy Writ, I know that I not only fail to meet them but in many cases I willfully transgress. When I led a catechism class through the Westminster commentary on the Decalogue, I caught a renewed sense of my error (both in omission and commission). I was also driven even more forcefully to Christ as my only righteousness before the Godhead (and a foreign righteousness, at that).

That's why resurrection is such a big deal to me. I sin in my body and in my mind. And Paul declares that Jesus was raised for my justification ( Rom. 4:25). If Jesus is just a man, then he died for his own sins and not for mine - and that leaves me with a vain faith and no hope.

I have spoken with Mr. Shuck personally. I have communicated with him electronically. A number of ministers and elders from around the country have communicated with him and he still does not recant. I have no other option but to ask the church to intervene - for his sake and for the sake of his hearers. And if this action is considered unloving, mean-spirited, or arrogant then I need to go somewhere else, because I can almost guarantee that at some point in the future, I'll need a loving rebuke too.Hier stehe ich; ich kann nicht anders. Gott helfe mir! Amen.

Unmistakable Truths

Hmmm... dig up the corpse of Jesus and you get to claim that your faith is not beholden to fact because you can make it a metaphor or just dump the whole "realism" project. (Not to mention that everyone else who disagrees with your interpretation does so from intellectual dishonesty or, worse, moral bankruptcy.)

Dig up something an anthropologist claims is a human ancestor and you demand that everyone's faith claims have to change in accordance with that "fact."

Anyone else smell inconsistency? (Hint: it smells kind of lemony.)

Evolution and relativism = "unmistakable truth" over which only the mentally deficient can disagree.

orthodox Christianity = misogynistic powerplay for privileging a narrow "western" view.

A most fascinating hermeneutic....

Talpiot Tomb Tricks Truant

I just posted the following at John Shuck's blog. No claims to originality - most of this was culled from various readings and some outright copied from Ben Witherington.

A couple of things:

1) Craig Evans has written a recent (2003) article on Jewish burial traditions, focusing on how they illuminate the Gospel narratives. You can find it in a PDF file here.

By following his footnotes, you can find a wealth of information. Take a look at the Anchor Bible Dictionary or the Encyclopedia Judaica (you can read the old article on burial here). You'll find that the Gospels reflect intimate acquaintance with these traditions.

You'll also discover that the tomb of the family of Jesus would not be in Jerusalem. It would be somewhere in Galilee or Bethlehem (either the one in Galilee/Zebulun or the one in Judea/Judah).

2. The tomb was discovered in a suburb of Jerusalem back in 1980 by arcaheologists of the Israeli Antiquities Authority (though outside of the Jerusalem of ancient times, as all burials had to be done outside the city). Amos Kloner and Joe Zias, two of the original archaeologists involved in the project, have openly repudiated the findings of the show in strong terms, both on television and in the public forum.

Let's face it - if Jews could prove that they had the body of the man Christians say was resurrected (and Muslims say ascended without death), why would they sit on it for twenty years?

3) It does seem to date from before the second century, and it is a very nice tomb belonging to a middle-class (or better) family. It was decorated from the outside and on the inside with a strange rosette shape, indicating the attention was to be drawn to it rather than being a secret.

Do we believe that Jesus' family was well-to-do? Do we believe that anyone associated with Jesus and his family closely enough would want to draw attention to his burial place? It could hardly be argued that any of his disciples would want to do so.

4) The names are a big problem for those who believe it's the biblical Jesus. Some names are in Hebrew, others in Aramaic, and the one of Mariamne is in Greek! That suggests it's a multi-generational tomb (rather than everyone being piled in there at roughly the same time).

5) History of the names - Richard Bauckham provides the following statistics. Out of a total number of 2625 males, these are the figures for the ten most popular male names among Palestinian Jews. the first figure is the total number of occurrences (from this number, with 2625 as the total for all names, you could calculate percentages), while the second is the number of occurrences specifically on ossuraies.

1 Simon/Simeon 243 59
2 Joseph 218 45
3 Eleazar 166 29
4 Judah 164 44
5 John/Yohanan 122 25
6 Jesus 99 22
7 Hananiah 82 18
8 Jonathan 71 14
9 Matthew 62 17
10 Manaen/Menahem 42 4

No mention is made in the documentary of the fact that though we only have a few hundred ossuaries with inscribed names, there is in fact another ossuary with the inscription 'Jesus son of Joseph'. Apparently this was not a rare combination of names at all.

For women, we have a total of 328 occurrences (women's names are much less often recorded than men's), and figures for the 4 most popular names are thus:

Mary/Mariamne 70 42
Salome 58 41
Shelamzion 24 19
Martha 20 17

At one juncture we are told that the name Mariamenon is found in Hippolytus a second century church historian. Two problems with this. Firstly so far as I can see, that name never occurs in the works of Hippolytus [I'm using the Lightfoot The Apostolic Fathers vol. i, part ii (London, 1889-1890)]. Secondly, Hippolytus died in about A.D. 236. He comes to us from the end of the second century A.D. He could never have known any eywitnesses or even second-third generation followers of Jesus. Even if he did mention the name in question (the one on the ossuary found at Talpiot), he provides no early second century evidence for this name, much less for the theory that this name is one way of referring to Mary Magdalene.

In fact the Acts of Philip, at best a fourth century document is the basis of the theory of Prof. Bovon that Mariamenou Mara= Mary Magdalene, but nowhere in that document are the two equated. The woman referred to in that document is an evangelist in Greek who is the sister of Philip (whether Philip the apostle or the later Philip the evangelist found in Acts 8, is up for debate).

In sum, there is a reason that every Biblical archaeologist, save possibly one, interviewed either in the Discovery Channel special or in the hour long debate thereafter repudiates or is unpersuaded by the findings of the show.

It's not the tomb of the biblical Jesus of Nazareth.

If you want to find his body, you'll see it come together (usually on Sunday mornings) to be fed on the Word and then sent out into the world.

Or you can ask John Dominic Crossan to point to some fossilized dog turd to find the remains of a Jewish rabble-rouser that people falsely called God.