High or Low Marks for Christianity? 5


In comments on my post regarding Koppel’s panel and then on his own blog “DaNutz” Mike Leaptrott expresses his appreciate for The Lost Tomb of Jesus and his dislike of The Critical Look panel discussion that Ted Koppel led. I thought I would post here (instead of in the comments where it can get lost) my response triggered by his last comment. Mike said,

I agree that one side of this argument is looking for hard evidence and rational debate while the other side is asking its audience to make huge assumptions about grand theories with no evidence. Ted Koppel and the panel of Christian experts gave Christianity a black eye tonight.

Aside from the fact that in his concluding comments Koppel implied his own agnosticism (if not atheism), I think that the panel was, in fact, a refreshing high point for Christians in a age of internal rancor.

To the left of Judy Fentriss-Williams were two men whose Christian traditions would not let her be ordained (btw, I do not know that she is ordained, in fact, I suspect she is not, but she is a fine OT scholar). Bock, or at least Dallas Theological Seminary, rarely has affirming things to say about Catholic teachings and practices. And yet all three were not only there and engaging in a well-mannered discourse with Tabor and Jacobovici but they even agreed upon the centrality of a bodily resurrection!

In the current spiritual/political environment of US churches (Ted Haggard, Episcopal Church stuff, Catholic priests scandals) last night was a rare, and pleasant sight.

 

Leave a Reply

5 thoughts on “High or Low Marks for Christianity?

  • Chris Brady

    I will not edit Chris’ post above, but I want to note to all that he seems to be trolling/trawling and posting this “comment” on any blog dealing with the Jesus tomb issue. Please cease and desist. If you would like to comment then by all means do so and you may include a link to your blog/site. But just spamming the blog will get you deleted.

  • danutz

    I did appreciate the civility near the end of the debate. What I disliked was the idea that film makers must suddenly be “journalists”. If he was a journalist or a scientist then he would have evaluated the evidence and presented conclusions, but he DID NOT make any conclusions. Give this film maker a break for starting up an important debate that may actually one day save Christianity from the literalists.

  • Chris Brady

    Only Simcha Jacobovici was considered a journalist because that is a claim he made for himself, repeatedly. And Mike he DID make conclusions, quite strongly. He couched them in terms such as “of course, it is possible that a man with the name of Jesus and a father named Joseph and a mother named Mary and a brother named Jose existed and maybe he and Jesus of the Bible walked past each other in the market and laughed about how they had the same name,” etc. He made his case and his argument and he should be judge by them. I doubt if this will save Christianity from “the literalists” because it doesn’t need saving from them.

  • danutz

    hmmm…. I’m not sure how saying something “….is possible” and “…maybe he and the Jesus of the bible…” could be called mistaken for “making claims”. That sounds like suggestions NOT claims.

    He did say he was a journalist, but he never said that THIS project was in any way making claims about the facts of these discoveries as a journalism project. He was documenting the discovery and investigation of these artifacts. The artifacts and the FILM MAKER and his crew were the subjects of the documentary NOT Jesus.

    If you wish, Feel free to followup with a documentary about Jesus, but this was a documentary about some artifacts and the examination of those artifacts. You are missing the point of the film.

    Don’t you agree that these artifacts exist? If so then you have to agree that he is reporting facts by reporting their existence and reporting his actions taken during the re-discovery and investigation.