|Dr G Habermas of LU|
Dr Habermas is the 'Distinguished Research Professor and Chair' in the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University, where he has taught for 26 years.
Dr Habermas catches Islamic attention
I was going through an old lecture by Dr Gary Habermas on the hype surrounding the Talpiot tomb; his lecture was an insightful debunking of what was over-hyped “nonsense” fuelled by Hollywood (James Cameron was an executive producer of the 2007 documentary).
However, neither the hype nor the assumption-laden crews from Hollywood grabbed my attention but a couple of outspoken remarks by Dr Gary Habermas got me wondering:
“I don’t think there is any crime if Jesus was MARRIED” [time slice 20-22mins]
“I don’t think there is any crime if Jesus had CHILDREN” [time slice 20-22mins]
Dr Habermas’ dismissal of any theological concerns arising from the thought of Jesus marrying is myopic to say the least.
'The Son of The Son'?!?!
The mind boggles! Does Dr Habermas not have an issue with somebody who Trinitarian Christians describe as the son having a son? Christian theologians would be taken aback by this conundrum even whilst utilizing the idea of hypostatic union (dual nature, the god-man) in an attempt to deflect the subsequent problematic thought patterns.
Another conundrum for the church
A further conundrum would be that of Jesus (who they church calls 'the son') being a father (if he sired a child); the tripartite formula would have another problem amongst other more serious complications. Apparently Dr Habermas does not see theological contention here.
'Trinitarians would believe God had a WIFE'?!!?
Surely there are issues here for Christian theologians. The problem for the Trinitarians is obvious. There are other problems such as, if the Catholics hold onto the (non-Sola Scriptura) idea of Mary’s immaculate conception as well as her perpetual virginity due to her title of Theotokos (“god bearer”) then surely there would be a whole host of issues around Jesus having a wife/wives and child(ren) within Christian circles.
Note Bene: immaculate conception should not be confused with the virgin birth. The two are distinct beliefs. Immaculate conception belief refers to Mary being born without original sin whilst the virgin birth is the miraculous birth of Jesus
God having marital relations?!?!
Theoretically, marriage also entails conjugal relations. I have seen rhetoric from fundamentalist Christians (chiefly Islamophobes) bashing the Islamic belief of Heaven being a place where sexual relations will take place as well as other physical pleasures such as eating (it must not be forgotten the ultimate bliss in Paradise according to Muslims is that of closeness to Allah – spiritual bliss). Quite how these Christians could stomach Dr Habermas’ proclamation is beyond me.
The idea of sex in Paradise is discussed here:
Would the (theoretical) offspring and wife (or wives) of Jesus be considered free from the original sin just as the Catholics view Mary. I would imagine the Catholics would have exempted the wife (or wives) and the offspring from original sin whilst the Reformed Church would have held firm and cited Sola Scriptura as their premise.
Surely Dr Habermas cans see the problems here..
Ssssshhhhhh!!! (LITERAL 'daughter and wife of god')
You are aware of the bible verse (1 Corinthians 14:34) which instruct women to be silent in the church; surely it would be a brave priest to enforce such a law upon the daughter (or wife) of the man they are worshipping.
Does Dr Habermas want to retract his comments?
Further problematic issues arising from this theoretical marriage:
*Would the offspring be considered those of a dual nature (i.e god men)?
*Also would the wife be afflicted with ritual impurity through giving birth to the children of her god?
*Why would Jesus take a wife if he was sent down as a sacrifice?
Of course, it is "no crime" for Jesus to have wife and child but for the Christian theologian it is a headache. Surely the evangelical Dr Gary Habermas will concede this point...
The Lost Tomb of Jesus Controversy – Dr Gary Habermas Debunks the Claim
Popular names are NOT evidence!
The names of “Yeshua” (Jesus), “Yehosef” (Joseph) and “Maria” (Mary) is NOT evidence of this tomb being that of Jesus as these names were immensely popular in Jerusalem.
Jesus had NO son (never mind a son called Judah!!!)
Furthermore, the name Judah son of Jesus (Yehuda bar Yeshua) automatically pours cold water on the initial assumptions of the documentary makers as there is NO record of Jesus having a son.
No attention for the initial documentary
Prior to the Discovery Channel’s documentary there was a BBC documentary on the SAME subject but the BBC documentary gained little attention; now that is saying something about the impotency of the wishful claims around the tomb. So why did the Discovery Channel’s documentary attract attention? Hype, Hollywood style:
“It doesn't get bigger than this” [James Cameron, Hollywood film director]
Archaeologist cuts through the hype
Perhaps the most important debunker is professor Amos Kloner, who oversaw the original archaeological dig of this tomb in 1980:
"It makes a great story for a TV film," Kloner told the Jerusalem Post. "But it's completely impossible. It's nonsense."
"I don't accept the news that it was used by Jesus or his family"
"The documentary filmmakers are using it to sell their film."
Would Muslims or Christians accept the idea of the body of Jesus being present in a tomb?
No! Muslims believe Jesus was raised up to God (Quran 4: 155-162)whilst Christians* believe in a PHYSICAL (bodily) resurrection thus NO Muslim or Christian believes in an earthly body of Jesus being available for discovery.
However, there is a theory of substitution which dictates Jesus was substituted by another man and thus saved from death. If this theory is correct this man mistakenly believed to be Jesus would certainly have a tomb and it would have been inscribed with the name Yeshua.
*Gnostics did believe in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus (from ~200AD onwards)
Invitation to Islam:
Feedback: yahyasnow@yahya firstname.lastname@example.org