UnSpace

This is my personal blog; nothing in here should be construed as official from the Pleasant Hills Community Presbyterian Church. Sometimes, like when I'm being sarcastic or trying to think something through, this blog doesn't even represent my own opinions. As the Acting Director of Communications, I need to be careful about how the things I do are interpreted.

One of the wonderful things about the Presbyterian Church USA is that there is plenty of room for differing opinions. For example, some people at the church do not have any problem with celebrating Halloween, others do. I don't, but in my work as Director of Communications, I am careful to not alienate anyone. Mostly this was accomplished by not even using the word "Halloween." I can write creatively when I need to.

I suspect I'm one of the few who believe whole-heartedly in predestination. I know that sounds strange for a Presbyterian church. But remember that there are far more crucial points being dealt with by our congregation: feeding the poor, caring for the sick, studying the Bible, glorifying the Name of Jesus Christ, etc. There simply isn't much time for the more theoretical considerations. So I cannot speak with a definitive voice for my church on many things simply because there is no definitive voice or no one really cares enough to make a definitive pronouncement. For example, if someone wishes to celebrate Halloween, they can, as long as they don't rub it in the faces of those who don't wish to celebrate it. I don't know of anyone who asks at the grocery store if the meat has been sacrificed to idols, either.

I do not blog from work for three reasons. One, I don't want there to be any possible confusion between work and this blog. Two, I don't have time to fly my radio-controlled helicopter (that's pronounced "STRESS RELIEF") at church (a large, usually empty gym is a definite work perk), let alone blog. Three, I've forgotten the password I used for this blog and can't log on from any computer but the home computers — I couldn't blog from work if I wanted to!

Yeah, I could fix that last problem, but remember #2 and the lack of time.

Given what I'm thinking about posting here on UnSpace, I decided there was a significant need to clarify the relationship of this blog to my church.

I just found out that there was this big debate: Was Jesus crucified with 3 nails or 4 — or maybe 2? Which side of the chest was He stabbed in?

I've always believed it was 3 nails and the left side — hence the blood and water released from the stab wound. Belief might be too strong a word — try "assumed. That makes me a "triclavianist." Apparently that was declared a heresy by the Roman Catholic church.

Me, who thinks the argument about "angels on the head of a pin" is actually a legitimate question as to whether spiritual "substance" has boson-like or fermion-like properties, thinks that this whole "How many nails" bit is the result of people wasting time that could be better spent helping folks.

I just got a chance to read Tony Norman's most recent column "Here come da Judgement Day."

Tony might have been a little more heavy-handed toward the end than I would have chosen, but his column is still better than anything I could have written. Tony did a better job of expresing my religious beliefs than I could, also.

"Here come da Judgement Day" is worth a few moments of your time, but I suspect it will wind up occupying more than a few moments once you've read it.

I read through a lot of news sites in the morning as I eat breakfast. Two articles which I pulled up back to back were:

• Death From All Sides: "An extensive evidence file assembled by the Iraqi National Police after the controversial Blackwater shooting suggests that the private contractors opened fire unprovoked from the ground and the sky."
• Nickel Mines legacy: Forgive first: "Members of the Nickel Mines Amish community came together to share their sorrow the day after the shooting a year ago that left five girls dead. When the community reached out to the widow and parents of the murderer they sparked a national conversation on the power of forgiveness."

For those of you not familiar with the Blackwater USA security firm, it's founder is Erik Prince, someone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Most of the Blackwater soldiers claim to be followers of Jesus.

For those of you not familiar with the Nickel Mines Amish community, you probably think of them as "technologically impaired." But the reason for their avoidance of most technology is to keep them from being distracted from Jesus Christ.

Like I said, the two articles showed up back to back. To the first, I would say "These people do not represent all Christians." Unfortunately, I would also say the same about the second article, with a totally different feeling about it.

Because my depression is gone (still, thank God![literally, I might add]), I'm getting things done better and more efficiently than before — but I'm also doing more! This "Acting Communications Director" gig at my church has me working harder than I expected. I'm having fun doing it, which means a lot of my energy is going toward the newsletter, bulletin, and all the other things the job entails.

I don't have the time to blog that I once did. I do hope to do a couple posts this weekend, but in the meantime, here's an update or three:

1. I asked the question about "church marketing," knowing I'd be attending a seminar on church marketing by Yvon Prehn. She answered my questions, including some I didn't know I had, and a follow-up post will discuss that. But now that I think about it, the answer is the same as the answer for the standard technology question "Is ______________ evil?" Are computers evil? Is biochemistry evil? Is church marketing evil? The technology is neutral; the question is, what are you doing with that technology? If you're using it to send out computer viruses, neurotoxins, or stuff designed to manipulate people, then what you are doing with the technology is evil. But if you're using the computer to turn data from a CT scanner into images a doctor can use to save a life, medicines to cure HIV or diabetes, or let people know who Jesus is or when the collection of goods for the needy is, then of course it's good. Yvon pointed out some Biblical answers. Yeah, I was impressed. If you're involved in church communications, you should take one of her seminars! More than one, actually! Her web site is a great resource. I'm not just saying that because she wants me to send her the link to this blog.
2. Speaking of links to this blog, I need to get up a statement that points out all of the opinions expressed here are either mine or me playing with ideas. This blog is not sponsored by my church, my church does not even have imprimaturs to give out, and I know some of the opinions expressed here are part of big discussions in my church. This is my blog.
3. I was talking with someone about Mother Theresa, and before I even got to my theory about her, the person said "You know a lot about depression. Did she strike you as terribly depressed?" It's the whole "microexpressions" and body language thing (c.f. Blink). I'm beginning to realize just how much I operate on intuition — trained experience on a subconscious level. So yeah, I have no doubt Mother Theresa was depressed. If anything, watching her when she speaks in a language I don't know improves my ability to catch it. No, it's not a DSM-4 level of diagnosis — I can think of other things that present as depression. As a rough analysis goes, though, she was depressed. And yes, I blame the Catholic church for being in denial about her depression. There are very few churches out there that aren't in denial about psychological problems among their members. If you think I'm picking on the Catholic church, remember that they're just the most public current example.

More later.

Having been approved by our church's Session, I am now the "Acting Director of Communications" for my church. Seeking to improve my skills, I began searching Amazon.com to see what books are out there to help me keep from re-inventing the wheel. I found the following comment on a review of one of the books:

There has been no Biblical proof yet offered which shows that Jesus was a marketing man, or that marketing is to be part of the growth of Jesus' Kingdom. See my critique in Testing the Claims of Church Growth. This is good marketing, but poor theology.

Our church believes that everything we do should be Biblically based. Our form of church governance is modeled on what little is recorded in the Bible of the early church polity. Our basic worship format is taken directly from Isaiah 6 (with things like hot coals being taken metaphorically, of course). Evangelism, small group Bible study, etc. are all to be based on Biblical models. Even our internal arguments about things like whether practicing homosexuals should be accepted into the ministry are based on the model given us by the early church as it debated whether Gentiles should be accepted into the church.

I flinch every time I use terms like "advertising" and "marketing" in my job. Jesus Christ is not a pack of cigarettes or a politician running for president. If you watch the worst of the television preachers, you'll see them using the same manipulative tricks the cigarette companies and Swift Boat committees — tricks designed to cause the person to act against their "will" and best interest.

In doing the bulletin or newsletter or signs around the church, I know I'm using basic marketing skills. I'm surprisingly good at it. I'd like to think I'm not being manipulative (if it is even possible to communicate without manipulation), but still I wonder.

Is this Rodney Zwonitzer (who is marketing his own book by leaving comments on books he hasn't read) correct? Is "marketing" the church wrong? Or are there examples of "marketing" in the Bible? If not, then what should we be doing?

What do you think?

Mother Theresa said for years to her confessors and superiors that she no longer felt the presence of God. She was in agony and apparently they did nothing. Christopher Hitchens is equally obtuse, saying this proves she had lost faith in God.

Mother Theresa was obviously severely depressed. Duh, folks! While the depression was probably chemically based at some point, you have to admit that the things she saw and experienced would drive anyone to depression.

There's no indication the Roman Catholic Church got her any help. She was their poster girl for Roman Catholicism, and they didn't want to muck things up by helping her with antidepressants and therapy. Oh my! Someone might think she's not a saint if she gets help for depression! So they told her the symptoms were "proof" that she was loved by God and being specially tested.

Hitchens is just a wroter who engages in the very sort of shenanigans he accuses his opponents of using. I can't take him seriously.

Mother Theresa's superiors, on the other hand, had years and years to get it right and they couldn't. Their treatment of her (as their treatment of pedophile priests) shows a consistent and frightening propensity to do evil for the sake of appearing good.

I'm sorry for my Catholic friends like Funky from Ales Rarus. You deserve a better church than the ones your leaders are giving you.

Recently, my church offered me the position of Acting Director of Communications. It's "acting" because we are looking for a new head minister, and the new head minister should have the right to boot me to the curb should he need to. Furthermore, it's not exactly like they went through a hiring process — I just jumped in and volunteered for 3 months and they found out I was excellent at the job.

I told them flat out how depressed I was. I told them that emotionally, I did not feel God, and that the only reason I continued was because of what I have experienced and know logically. I hope none of you ever have to find out what it's like for an ENFP to run entirely on logic — it's not natural and it's not fun.

To help you understand, I also lost faith in Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. I've done the experiments and have seen both theories proven by my own hand/eyes/really expensive equipment. I've done the photoelectric effect, calculated and measured the spectrum of hydrogen, and found peculiarities in the heat capacity of gases. I've heard the relativistic doppler shift of a radio signal from a satellite, measured the speed of light several different ways, and shown the gravitational redshift with the Mossbauer experiment where you shoot radiation upward and measure how much is reabsorbed at different heights. But I lost the feeling that both theories were right. I lost the intuitive sense that let me work with them on some bizarre unscientific (but really, really good) level. I had to run on logic and not intuition.

Anyway, I told the minister and the business manager everything up-front — and I've not exactly been quiet about the depression. Anyone who cares to know (and many who might not) knows. My depression is not a state secret.

They hired me anyway — and told me they supported me and would pray for and with me.

And, after being hired, and after working with what has to be one of the best office environments possible, I find my depression is gone. I can feel faith again — faith in God, faith in quantum mechanics, and faith in relativity.

And trust me — if you want to find stuff that is irrational, illogical, and just obviously wrong, there's no better place than Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. As far as mysteries go, religion is a piker at it. If you think you understand either of those theories — you're not paying attention! That's why they're so cool, actually…

And yes, I wonder if it's really the medicine or if having a job with such a great bunch of people is why I'm feeling alive again. I'm doing something I'm incredibly good at, using many of my talents and abilities, I'm being forced to work on the nasty part of the learning curve (my intellectual home) and I'm finding skills I didn't realize I had.

They only hired me for 6 months, with an option to renew, and it all dependent on the status of the search for a new minister.

I'll deal with that problem when I get to it.

The email I got this morning blaming my depression on my belief in God pissed me off. This is a horrible thing to say, but I have grown used to extremist Christians saying that my lack of faith causes my depression. Somehow, I'd assumed the extremist atheists wouldn't be so moronic, but this is the second militant atheist to make this claim. I should remember that extremists are deranged, no matter what their actual beliefs.

The atheist claimed that my belief in God was the cause of my depression. I replied, asking for medical evidence confirming his diagnosis, as well as information about his training in psychiatry or psychology, but the e-mail was returned as undeliverable. The coward didn't have the courage to use a real name or e-mail. Many have been the times when I've regretted associating my real name with UnSpace. Here's an example of why I'm glad I did: I can get all self-righteous about the goofball not having the courage of his convictions to sign his name.

After close to two decades of being depressed (a depressing statistic in its own right), I should be used to garbage like this. Presumably well-meaning people suggest that I should "just cheer up." I keep waiting for them to tell me to simply "pay more attention to the insulin" in my blood, but I've not heard that one yet. On the other hand, I have heard people yell at congestive heart patients for being lazy and stroke patients to "just walk right," so it's not like I haven't seen that approach used to encourage others with medical problems.

Not that I haven't found myself slipping into a similar fallacy. "If I can find out what experience or circumstance in my life is making me depressed, then I can fix the depression." That's part of the delusion that accompanies my form of depression. My brain senses that something is wrong externally. The brain thinks it is normal, so obviously there must be something outside of the brain that causes this miserable feeling. Sure, there might even be something external to blame, like that wet carpet downstairs that feels a bit soggier today. But the real problem isn't external, it's internal. At least I have an excuse for falling into this fallacy: my brain is actively lying to me. Unlike a lot of people, I use — no, more than use, rely on my brain, so knowing that it's betraying me is aggravating. I've used the phrase before that "my brain lies to me." The sensation that there's something wrong external to me is strong. I can't help but wonder if it's similar to an amputee's phantom pain.

The psychiatrist has been very clear. Therapy might be somewhat useful for helping me deal with being depressed, but the cause is biochemical and/or structural. My family wasn't perfect, but it was good enough. I was loved, cared for, and eventually my parents and other relatives grew to accept the occasional damage from my childhood "scientific investigations" as an "anticipated cost."

Metabolic syndrome and concussions are known risk factors for depression. That I've responded temporarily to various medications indicates the general source of the problem is in my wetware. That the medications don't work too long serves as a reminder that current medical therapies aren't all that much better than using a hammer and chipped screwdriver for computer repair.

If you're going to comment on my depression, you should at least have some minimal understanding of the modern science related to the topic before you open your mouth and prove yourself uninformed and ignorant.

Now, if you'll pardon me, I've got more water to vacuum up.

Dr. David Hodge of the Arizona State University, published a meta-analysis of the studies on prayer that indicates prayer works. Here are some links:

• Research on Social Work Practice: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer (online abstract, paper not available without payment)
• ASU Insight: Prayer works, researcher says (press release)
• PhysOrg: Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'
• Science Blog: Meta-study finds God answers prayers

As the abstract is available online and only two lines long, I've decided to quote it in its entirety under fair-use provisions of the copyright law:

Perhaps surprisingly, many social workers appear to use intercessory prayer in direct practice settings. To help inform practitioners' use of this intervention, this article evaluates the empirical literature on the topic using the following three methods: (a) an individual assessment of each study, (b) an evaluation of intercessory prayer as an empirically supported intervention using criteria developed by Division 12 of the American Psychological Association (APA), and (c) a meta-analysis. Based on the Division 12 criteria, intercessory prayer was classified as an experimental intervention. Meta-analysis indicated small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer (g =–.171, p =.015). The implications are discussed in light of the APA's Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based Practice.

Despite the $15 cost and not looking forward to wading through a meta-analysis article, I attempted to purchase the article. Their system appears to have crashed (I may not be the only one who decided to buy today), and my only hope is that my credit card didn't get billed before the system crashed. Should I get a copy of the article, I will post my analysis of it.

There's a lot we can tell from the abstract, though. First, this is a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis attempts to combine the results of many studies with smaller data samples to determine what, if any, result is present. If you want to learn more, go read the Wikipedia article or, better yet, go take a statistics class. Meta-analysis, while often seen as "spooky" or problematic, is like any other statistical test: it's only accurate if it's applied correctly and its accuracy is based on the underlying assumptions.

That's why I'm not sure there's any point in me buying the article. I can sometimes pick out an incorrectly applied Student's T test or the like; I don't feel there's much hope of me evaluating the application and assumptions used in this article. It's not that I couldn't do it, but we're talking a year or two of study and probably a couple thousand dollars in Pitt classes to bring me up to speed on the statistics.

What can I tell you? Has science proven the existence of God?¹

Based on this article, no.

Do you see the line "…intercessory prayer was classified as an experimental intervention"? This means that prayer is a therapy for which there is not sufficient evidence to make it standard treatment. It might work. There is now enough evidence that prayer works that a larger, more rigorous study should be done to study the effects. In other words, we're talking about funding for research, not clinical practice and certainly not life-changing conversions.

There are plenty of treatment modalities and medicines out there that, at one time, were considered experimental that are now in use. They're not incredible therapies that cure everything, but they are useful. On the other hand, there are enough treatment modalities and medicines that were once experimental that are now listed under the heading "It seemed like a good idea at the time."

One also has to look at the individual studies. This study only suggests that prayer works. God is not necessary for prayer to work. I can postulate a number of mechanisms, some of them even totally materialistic with no spiritual dimension involved, that could permit these results but not require God. In the individual studies where some "transcendental being" was assumed, such a God would not be the God of the fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Muslims, fundamentalist Jews, nor fundamentalist Scientologists. I don't know enough about the fundamentalist Hindus to say, but I'd bet they're out, too.

My own view of God would need to change. I had this image of God being a bit snarkier and going out of the way to avoid being proven scientifically. This may indicate I'm in for a pleasant surprise — or not.

The fundamentalist atheists and fundamentalist religionists both seem to be going nutzoid over this article. For everyone else, take a deep breath, realize it's "interesting," and then ask yourself two questions:

1. Why are the atheists so upset about scientific results?
2. Why are the Christians who don't believe in global warming (with far, far, far stronger results) trumpeting this study?

And you know what? Maybe God didn't want me to buy that paper online.

1. Interestingly, that would cause problems for Robertson and Falwell and others who claim the scientists are always wrong. If the scientists are always wrong, and science proves God exists, does that mean God doesn't exist? I suppose they could become Satanists — the non-existence of God would not preclude the existence of Satan, and honestly, Satanism is much more in line with their political beliefs than Christianity ever was. Ok, so that's pure snark, but I had to say it. Ever since D. James Kennedy declared General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics incorrect because they offend his religious sensibilities (mostly because he doesn't understand GR and QM, I might add), this crew has seriously annoyed me. Is there "proof positive" that prayer works? Do we go to a "faith-based" model of social work? [back]

The National Association of Evangelicals, fresh from driving James Dobson up the wall by opposing global warming has come out opposing torture.

This story made my day. Of course, in a few minutes, I'll stop to ask why such an obvious statement was even necessary. Then Falwell or Robertson or someone will come out and proof-text the idea that Jesus wants us to torture our enemies. At that point, I'll be back in mourning.

But right now, I'm just going to feel relieved for a little bit.

Shawn Anthony complains about Rebecca Chopp's definition of church as a “constitutive community of emancipatory transformation.” Among other problems, he doesn't like the words used.

Those words strike me as 6th or 7th grade vocabulary, but then again, I was learning about Special Relativity and uranium decay chains in 6th and 7th grade. Yes, I recognize the words are a bit unusual. At least they're not "church words." We've got a lot of jargon in the church.

Jargon is used by a community to communicate concepts peculiar to that community. At a high power rocket launch, words like "CATO" and "shred" are used. Everyone's hoping they're not used two often, as they're examples of bad things that can happen to that rocket you just put out on the pad that costs an order of magnitude more than you told your husband or wife. But jargon makes it hard for outsiders to join in. Bloggers have their own set of jargon. At the last Blogfest, I caught the waiter looking a little puzzled at some of the snippets of conversation he overheard.

Christian jargon defines who "is" a Christian and who "isn't," acting as a shibboleth. The word "shibboleth" itself is from a Bible story, where the ability to say "shibboleth" vs. "sibboleth" was used to by Gileadites to kill off the Ephraimites. That's the problem with shibboleths: they're used to kill people, either literally or metaphorically. If you don't want outsiders to become Christians, then the more Christian jargon, the better. They get frightened by it and think we're nuts.

Shawn simply defines the church as the "Body of Christ." That's a nice definition that assumes a working knowledge of the books of Paul in the New Testament. It doesn't tell the outsider what the church does. It's Christian jargon. Granted, it's useful and saves time and conveys a lot in a little, which is the purpose of jargon.  But what if you're explaining th church to an outsider?

I've been thinking about how to rephrase Rebecca Chopp's definition. I think it's got a point. "A church is a united community with the power to free people from the things they're enslaved to." That's wordy compared to the original, but let's face it, I'm addicted to "wordy." As I rewrote the definition, I too have the same problem with the definition that Shawn did: there's no mention of God. "A church is a community united in the death and resurrection of Jesus, empowered by the Spirit to free people from sin and the damage caused by sin, and to support each other in the life the Father has prepared for us." Even wordier yet, and it's pretty obvious I'm a Trinitarian, but I like it. In my second definition, I use some words that are "suspect": resurrection, empowered, Spirit, and Father. We live in a society in which the majority do not know the basic stories and concepts of the Bible — what would be called in "emerging church" jargon a "post-Christian society." Resurrection and empowered are known through other uses — characters in science fiction (almost called it SF — more jargon) and fantasy are "resurrected" by magic or medicine and empowered by spider bites or cosmic rays. Spirit might need some explaining; I'm old enough to remember when people still said "Holy Ghost" in my church and others complained that it conjured images of someone in a bed sheet. I know enough people who come from broken situations that the basic concept of "Father" as good, steadfast, and nurturing is one I think of as foreign to most folks, though it wasn't in my case.

At some point, you have to explain some terms, I guess. Of course, Nancy has forbidden me to ever teach genetics again to anyone without at least a degree in biology.

There's something pithy, though, about Chopp's definition. Make it "God's constitutive community of emancipatory transformation" and I'll probably use it at the Youth Group Leader's meeting tonight.Hey, I've got a reputation as a writer to uphold. Occasionally coming up with something incomprehensible is part of the schtick.

BTW: I think I caught all the typos. For some reason, my brain isn't adapting to this keyboard. Forget trying to use the number keys in touch-typing mode. If I missed any errors, I'm sorry and am trying to do the best I can.

What are the odds of the names "Jesus Son of Joseph, Maria, Mariamne, and Jose" showing up in a tomb? In Matthew 13, the family of Jesus is listed: "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? (Matthew 13:55 NIV)" So, if we find a tomb with a couple of these names, is it the Jesus of the gospels or not?

Dr. Andrey Feuerverger¹ does a standard statistical approach to analyzing the question. Take how common each of the names are (1 in 190, 1 in 4, 1 in 160, and 1 in 20), multiply them together, divide by 4 to account for biases in the name base you used, divide by the number of family tombs (1000 seems a good estimate, although it's obviously a ballpark number), and presto, you get the answer: there's only one chance in 600 that the set of names is a coincidence. As far as Dr. Feuerverger's analysis goes, it's standard and mathematically sound, even allowing for errors in the data sample.

There is an assumption in the statistical analysis: independent assortment. Dr. Feuerverger assumes in the calculation that the names do not affect one another. There's a problem with this. What are the odds of finding a tomb with four brothers, all named Jose? That would easily be one in 20 squared, divided by 4 and divided by 1000, or about 1 in 400. But are we likely to find such a tomb? Of course not. Unless there was a first century George Foreman, no one's going to name all four of their kids Jose.

Think of these identical names as "collisions." In naming children, collisions are avoided. If the most popular boys names are Joseph, Jose, Judas, Jesus, James and Simon, and Dad's already Joseph, what do you name the five boys? Ask any school teacher about naming fads — it still happens today. This group of names doesn't show much imagination, and might well be a far more common grouping than statistics would lead one to suspect.

If your name is Joseph, apparently the odds of naming your kid Jesus are 1 in 190. What are the odds that Yeshua Bar Yosef has a brother Jose? If he's got four brothers, the odds that the first brother won't be named Jose are 19 in 20. That's 1 in 20 the kid's named Jose. If the first brother isn't named Jose, the odds of the second brother being named Jose are 19/20*20 or 19 in 400. The odds of the third brother being named Jose if the first two aren't are 19*19/400*20 or 361/8000. The odds of the 4th brother being named Jose if the first three aren't are 361*19/8000*20 or 6859/160,000. Summing up the odds, we get odds of 18.5%. In other words, about one in five families with the name of Joseph for the dad and Jesus for a son have a Jose in the family.

In marriage, though, the collisions are unavoidable. Let's look at the collection of names we're dealing with. One of the things that drove me nuts when I first started reading the New Testament was the plethora of "Marys." I had trouble keeping track, and I can't say I ever figured them all out. But we certainly know there was Mary, Jesus' mother, and Mary Magdalene. You get two Marys together, what do you do?

My solution, when faced with two Ellens in college, was to add nicknames. Ellen #1 was a pre-med English major (don't knock it — she's now an MD), so I called her a "barbarian": Ellen the Barbarian. Ellen #2, whom I met second, was obviously a "clone" and thus Ellen the Clone. Pretty clearly I was setting up the pun with that set of names: "Clone and the Barbarian."

We see this in the Bible: there's Mary, mother of Jesus or Jose (depending), and Mary (of) Magdalene.

An alternative scheme is to make slight variations on the name. My Uncle was Bob, and (something modern Jews don't tend to do) I was named after him. To make myself distinct from my Uncle, I had everyone call me "Rob." It definitely saved on the confusion.

So, if Miriam is one in four Jewish female names, you can bet the two women will be known by variations: Maria and Mariamne would be two examples, and they'd suggest the possibility of a third: Miriam, the most common version.

I'd argue that the odds of there being a Mariamne overall are low, but if you get two or three Miriams together, having one named Mariamne gets to be a lot more likely. Using the figure of 1 in 160 for Mariamne grossly overestimates the rarity, at least in the presence of at least one Miriam and maybe two.

The ossuary of James, brother of Jesus isn't used in this calculation. If it were, and if it can be shown to be authentic, and if it did come from this location, then statistically even I'd have to say this is looking amazingly like the Jesus of Christianity's family. But that's a lot of ifs. The unknown provinence and mishandling of the James ossuary mean that it will be very difficult to authenticate.

Note also that the name Matia, which isn't listed as a brother of Jesus and bears a strained relation to Matthew of the New Testament, whose presence would be problematic to explain. There's no way to factor a "miss" like that into the odds as calculated.

Lastly, as far as independent assortment is concerned, is the possibility that the naming was deliberate. Would a Jewish follower of Jesus named Joseph have named his kids Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? Well, maybe not Judas. That name might have been out of popularity with followers of the Way (as early Christians were called) for some obscure reason.

What about deliberate fraud, with someone in ancient times trying to mess with the Christians? Could someone have been unhinged and decided to make their family the Jesus family? In my days as a paramedic, I met a few Marys and at least one Jesus who thought they were the Divine Thing.

There are other problems. Some of the names aren't an exact match, like Jose instead of Joses. There's some debate about how the script should even be read — the names may not be a correct reading. Why would Miriam, Jesus' mother, have decided to go by the name Maria? The Latinized version hints at some relation to the Roman empire — perhaps a husband who is a Roman citizen. Perhaps Jesus' mother was originally named Maria, but that strikes me as odd. It's not a nickname she would have chosen, especially after her Son's treatment at the hands of the Roman overlords.

Finally, try to imagine a scenario where Jesus and his relatives get burried together. There's this whole thing about Him having supposedly risen from the dead. If you've swiped the body, are you going to label the ossuary? If you're part of a scam — or even if you're an innocent bystander — do you want any association with it? You cared enough to take care of these bones. If most ossuaries are unlabled, why label these, knowing full well that if they're found, someone's going to mess with them big time?

Here's an interesting question: What would it take to positively identify the ossuary with the Jesus of the gospels? I can think of only one possible scenario. There are those who hold the Shroud of Turin is real, despite carbon dating results to the contrary. They claim contamination and the taking of a sample from a mended portion of the cloth, etc. The arguments remind me of the arguments for the validity of the James ossuary, actually. Now, if a DNA sample from the shroud and from the supposed ossuary of Jesus matched, that would be the one piece of evidence strong enough to debunk Christianity.

Off Topic But Interesting: The various people keep trying to connect Judah son of Jesus in the ossuary to adults in the Biblical narrative. Jesus' ministry lasted three years. Jesus met Mary Magdalene during that ministry, casting out demons from her when he met her. So the upper limit on Jesus' purported son's age at the death of Jesus would be 2 to 3 years old.

1. There is a typo in the Discovery.com PDF named tomb_evidence.pdf, created February 23, 2007 at 9:23:44 AM and modified February 23, 2007 at 2:25:56 PM with Dr. Feuerverger's name not capitalized. I mention this to document which version of the PDF I am using. I downloaded the PDF on February 27th 2007 at 7:38:59 AM. [back]

I figure I'll be on the leading edge of a big tail item by commenting now on the report that Jesus' tomb was found.

Update: Too leading edge. I discovered more information about the find on the Discovery.com site. Changes have been made to this article to reflect some of the new things I've learned. New information is italicized.

A couple years ago, there was a claim that the ossuary¹ was found that belonged to James, the brother of Jesus. The discovery was hailed in many quarters as "proof" of Jesus. Later, those studying the box reached the conclusion it was a forgery. Because the box went through several less-than-reputable people, it's true origin was thought to be unknowable.

Well, now someone claims that a tomb with an ossuary for the rest of Jesus' family (Jesus included) has been found, and is linked back to the original James box.

The case has been compared to an episode of "Crime Scene Investigation." That comparison makes the evidence sound strong, but the truth might be that it's like an episode of "Crime Scene Investigation: Miami," which we all know (at least if you read my blog) is terrible science.

The Evidence

The ossuary itself was found over a quarter century ago by a construction crew, and its contents listed by L.Y. Rahmani in "A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries." There were names on some of the ossuaries, in a mishmash of Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. Written in the script from the first century, there is significant question as to the accuracy of the names. The names themselves are Jesus Son of Joseph, Judah son of Jesus, Maria, Matia and Mariamene e Mara.

Now, names like Jesus, Judah (which could also be written in English as James, Jude, or Judas), Maria (Latin for the Jewish name "Miriam," and Matia (a Hebrew version of "Matthew") were tremendously common in first century Palestine. Mariamene would probably be what Mary Magdeline would have been called, with the "e Mara" meaning "the Master."

DNA was taken from the Jesus Son of Joseph and Mariamene ossuaries. The two are unrelated. This leaves the possibility that the Jesus individual and the Mariamene individual are a couple, although that's mere supposition.

The encrustation of the ossuaries was analyzed and found consistent with the James ossuary that is believed to be a fraud. How exclusive such a patina was is questionable: does it really prove the looted James ossuary came from this ossuary — and if so, how? Remember the "batch analysis" the FBI used to do that "proved" a bullet came from the same brick of bullets? That analysis was found out to be insufficient to actually show a particular bullet came from a particlular lot.

The Analysis

The list of names is interesting, to anyone who's read the Bible — or seen the fictional work "The Davinci Code." Joseph was nominally Jesus' father, Miriam (Maria) his mother, James a brother (please, Catholics, let's not get started on the cousin/brother thing), and Mariamene a known associate. Mary Magdalene is thought to have an important place in the ministry of Jesus, so one might even stretch things a bit and make calling her the "Master" fit. Matthew the disciple (also known as Levi) was, from the gospel accounts, apparently unrelated to Jesus. Does that mean Jesus also had a brother named Matthew, or that Matthew the disciple hung out with everyone else? The Discovery.com site hints that Matthew was the second husband of Mary. Of course, Judah would be Jesus and Mariamene's son, though no DNA evidence is presented to document that:

Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper.

I just read through the Book of John, chapters 13-17, which describe the Last Supper, and there's no mention of a child sleeping in Jesus' lap. I suspect Jacobovici refers to this passage (based on the Discovery.com site, I was correct):

His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means."

Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?" (John 13:22-25 NIV)

This hardly sounds like the description of a child. The Discovery.com site cleans up Jacobovici's analysis, making it a little more logical, but personally, I think someone's pushing it. If I had to "blue sky" an excuse for the proof of Jesus' child in the gospels, I'd have picked the streaker from the book of Mark:

A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind. (Mark 14:51-52 NIV)

I can't actually say there's any proof in that verse that the young man was Jesus' child, but then again, there's no proof in the John verse, either. One unidentified person is just as good as another at this point. The Discovery.com site also claims that the child was there, unlisted, at the foot of the cross and thus reinterprets the following passage:

Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus saw his mother there, and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, "Dear woman, here is your son," and to the disciple, "Here is your mother." From that time on, this disciple took her into his home. (John 19:25-27 NIV)

So first, the Discover.com site suggest taking Jesus' words, assume that they were the exact words said but not in the context given, and then attribute them to Mary Magdalene and a son created out of thin air. Never mind that this directly contradicts the earlier mention of the "son," who was supposed to be "the disciple Jesus loved." Instead, we have Matthew taking in Mary, not John (as the "disciple Jesus loved" is traditionally interpreted. If this were a comic book retcon, the fans would be screaming at the inconsistencies and never put up with such nonsense. As history, it's even less plausible.

The linking of the James ossuary is extremely problematic. The inscription on the ossuary is believed to be a forgery. Any attempt to link the name "James" on that ossuary would be dubious at best. Others have questioned why a "tomb raider" would have taken the James ossuary and left the Jesus ossuary. I think that complait assumes a lot about the intellectual skills of the thief.

James Cameron, who is the producer of The Tomb of Jesus documentary and known for his other movies, said "… statisticians found 'in the range of a couple of million to one in favor of it being them [the Jesus of Christianity and his relatives].'" Anyone who has ever read the Bible Code type books would be familiar with the abuse of statistics to produce large yet meaningless numbers.

The Repercussions

If Jesus' bones were found, the effect on Christianity would be profound. The basis for Christianity is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, followed after a short period of time by his bodily ascention into heaven. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Paul the Apostle said it best: "…If the dead are not raised, 'Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.' (1 Cor 15:32 NIV)"

There are those who do not hold to a bodily resurrection of Jesus, and one would expect that their faith would be unaffected by such a discovery. They are fairly few in number, though. Personally, I would find their faith to be without power, fairly much whistling in the dark. But that's my opinion, and I'm sure they'd disagree with me.

My Conclusions

I have to go with the evidence. If someone found the bones of Jesus "who was Crucified," I'd give up on Christianity. To me, there would be no point. I'd probably start exploring "models of God," trying to figure out what one would expect a supreme being to be like. I do that now, but it's mostly an intellectual exercise. I doubt my personal behavior would change much. Well, you could pretty much forget me going charging into dangerous situations as I have in the past. Saving my own carcass would take on a much higher priority, and the rest of yunz are on your own. Tough luck.

From what I've read of this evidence, I don't buy it. This isn't a case that would prove beyond any doubt (let alone a reasonable one) that Jesus didn't rise from the dead or that Christianity is wrong. It's an interesting coincidence of names, sort of like finding a marathoner in his late 40s who is named Rob Carr. Stuff like that happens.

The statistics (which granted, I haven't seen) sound hokey at best. Even if they're valid, I have to wonder if there's some other reason: an early Christian that named his family after Jesus as a tribute or someone who created an ossuary collection to screw with Christian's minds. Maybe it's my dark side coming out again, but I could see that playing out any number of ways that would leave you with a pile of interesting names, full of sound and fury but signifying didly. The statisticians should have seen that, and the people producing the documentary should have known that.

Frankly, this is the abuse by statistics and logic I'm more used to seeing from the Christian nutcase end of the spectrum — the same one that "proves" evolution didn't happen or that you shouldn't vaccinate your daughters against HPV because they won't die horribly if they have sex before they're married. I continue to marvel that religious fanaticism causes similar behavior among all religions — including atheism.

I will watch the TV show to see if there's better data than what's currently available. I'm skeptical, but willing to listen. On the other hand, I don't expect much. My emotions are what they are, albeit rather consistent.

I can't believe I had to put all this effort into this post instead of one about wave mechanics and the atalatl. And yes, I'd love an atlatl for my birthday, but don't get me one. I'm not coordinated, remember? We're talking major bad idea for me to be slinging darts with crossbow-like efficiency. Contribute to the computerized microscope fund for me instead.

Update (not related to the Discover.com article and added before I discovered that): I completely forgot to mention my cynical view of archaeology which was formed by the book "Motel of the Mysteries." Now, archaeology is fun, and I like to follow it, and there's a lot of good work. Sometimes you just have to wonder if they're pushing the data a little too hard. Like off a cliff. Speaking of cliffs and archaeology, I "firmly believe" the Cahochia mounds were used for primative hang gliding. It makes as much sense as every other theory I've ever heard, and explains all the bird motifs better than most. Yeah. Right.

1. An ossuary is a box in which bones of a person are placed after the rest of the body has decayed away. [back]

Imagine you are having a medical problem. Two paramedics show up. Do you ask their religion?

Strangely, some people did. I used a standard vague answer that kept the Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and the one Wiccan calm.

I've been on the wrong side of the heart monitor, and my concerns were not about the religion of the medics treating me. I was worried about their ability to take care of me and (in one case) find the hospital.

So it's with my "hammer theology" I approach the whole "Romney's a Mormon Presidential Candidate" brouhaha. I disagree with him on a number of stands and wouldn't vote for him — his being a Mormon has nothing to do with it. Not everyone feels that way. A number of Roman Catholics I've spoken with don't consider Mormons to be Christian, and so would not vote for Romney. These same people would freak at similar opposition to a Roman Catholic candidate.

In reading the Reuters/MSNBC article, I noticed that the author does not explain why Evangelicals and Fundamentalists do not accept Mormons as Christians. It comes down to how different religions view the nature of God and salvation. Mormons do not accept the concept of the Trinity (one God, three Persons in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) but instead believe that they are separate individuals united in purpose and divinity. The Mormon church also teaches that doing good deeds and faith are synonymous, while many Protestants believe in salvation by faith alone, with doing good things being a natural outgrowth of that faith. Note that some Protestants and Roman Catholics consider the Roman Catholic church to teach salvation by good deeds and faith. My father, a CCD instructor and Deacon in the Roman Catholic church would have disagreed, but if my theology is based on a hammer, my Dad's was fractal in nature to the point of being close to jerrymandering.

Would I allow a person's religion to affect whether I voted for her or him? My reaction would be "no," I wouldn't care what the person's religion was. I would be concerned with what the person would actually do in office.

If you wish to see the first seven stations, as well as other information about the Stations of the Cross at Pleasant Hills Community Presbyterian Church, see the first post, "Stations of the Cross: Stations 1-7." As before, the title for each photograph is a link taking you to the meditation on that photograph. The photographs can be clicked to get a larger version of the image.

Eighth Station

Ninth Station

Tenth Station

[Note: To avoid interrupting worshipers, I took these photographs while the stations were still being set up. Yes, there is a sign at the base of Station 10 that says IX. The sign was placed there while someone went to look for something to hang it with at the 9th Station. As I said, these are preliminary photos. I did get more today, but they're not processed — or even downloaded from the camera.]

Eleventh Station

Twelfth Station

Thirteenth Station

Fourteenth Station

The Artists

Last night, as a part of Lent, the youth group ministry (CrossOver) of Pleasant Hills Community Presbyterian Church set up 14 stations of the cross for meditation before or after the Ash Wednesday service. They chose 14 stations from the gospel accounts of Christ's last hours.

Here are the preliminary photographs of the stations. The title of each photograph is a link that will take you to a meditation that accompanies the following photograph. If you click on a photograph, you will be taken to a larger version of the photograph, sometimes necessary to read text on the artwork or to get a better view. Please note that the photographs are crude approximations of experiencing the art live.

Program cover
History of the stations of the cross
Practice of the stations of the cross

The First Station

The Second Station

Third Station of the Cross

Fourth Station