Documentary Claims Jesus Was Married

[accordn2me]

The destruction of Jerusalem's Temple is an historical event. It is well documented by the Romans (including a depiction of the sacking -- stealing of the menorah -- on the Arch of Titus in Rome) and is also quite evident in the archaeological record. The destroyed temple had been built under Herod the Great. His rebuilding of the central Jewish shrine was intended to bring him favor with the Jews since he was not Jewish. Herod was of Idumaean and Nabataean descent (in other words, he was arab). However, the label "Second Temple" is misleading since there are accounts of three temples. There was the temple built by Solomon in the early years of the so-called United Monarchy. However, there is absolutely no evidence that this temple actually existed and the whole United Monarchy period under David and Solomon is disputed. According to the OT, Solomon's temple existed until the 6th century BCE when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem -- the beginning of the Babylonian exile. When the Persians conquered Babylonian a generation later under Cyrus, they allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and to rebuild their temple. This temple was in great disrepair by the 1st century BCE when Herod rebuilt it. His was the third version of the temple and yet it is referred to as the "Second Temple Period". Confusing I know.


As for Ann Rice's theory that the gospels were written prior to 70 CE due to the lack of reference to the destruction of the temple, I don't think it is a strong argument. The gospels deal with the years of Jesus' life which ended 40 years before the destruction of the temple. There would be no reason to discuss an event in 70 CE when your story is focused on the events of 4BCE-ca 33 CE.

You don't? OK. Had you heard that theory before?

Before I ask another question, let me apologize for not paying better attention in history class...or Sunday school.

You wrote: "There was the temple built by Solomon in the early years of the so-called United Monarchy. However, there is absolutely no evidence that this temple actually existed and the whole United Monarchy period under David and Solomon is disputed."

I don't understand why somethings are easily believed...like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, yet this "first temple" is disputed. Why would they make that up?

From reading what you wrote about the temples, it sounds 2me like this first temple was destroyed. The second temple was built by the Jews. Then Herod came along and renovated second temple. Unless he started from scratch, it probably wouldn't be counted as a 3rd temple, do you think?

 

[Dark Knight]

You don't? OK. Had you heard that theory before?

Before I ask another question, let me apologize for not paying better attention in history class...or Sunday school.

You wrote: "There was the temple built by Solomon in the early years of the so-called United Monarchy. However, there is absolutely no evidence that this temple actually existed and the whole United Monarchy period under David and Solomon is disputed."

I don't understand why somethings are easily believed...like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, yet this "first temple" is disputed. Why would they make that up?

From reading what you wrote about the temples, it sounds 2me like this first temple was destroyed. The second temple was built by the Jews. Then Herod came along and renovated second temple. Unless he started from scratch, it probably wouldn't be counted as a 3rd temple, do you think?

Because it is more than obvious that anything even remotely religious in nature is viewed with automatic skepticism while secular things are believed far more readily. You will find people believing Josephus more easily than, say, an Apostle. Speaking generally, of course. And so it is with events or locations, as well.

 

[Details]

Because it is more than obvious that anything even remotely religious in nature is viewed with automatic skepticism while secular things are believed far more readily. You will find people believing Josephus more easily than, say, an Apostle. Speaking generally, of course. And so it is with events or locations, as well.

Speaking generally - any source with a built in bias, used to prove that bias, is viewed with automatic skepticism. Whereas a source with a built in bias, reporting events that go opposite that bias - that's got less skepticism.

When Philip Morris says smoking is healthy and does not cause lung cancer - that results in far more skepticism than when a doctor, unpaid and unmotivated by any other company, says the exact same thing. They're both wrong, in this case, but that's the natural and logical skepticism for any report by a source biased towards what they report.

If the Sushi council says eating raw fish is good for your health - what is your first reaction? To see if there's an unbiased or less biased source for that information. They could be right, but with the bias, skepticism is the only logical response.

 

[Cypros]

You don't? OK. Had you heard that theory before?

No not that one. She makes a good observation. It just isn't enough to counter all of the evidence for the later dates of the gospels and, as I said, there was no reason for the gospels to mention the destruction of the temple in their story of Jesus' life.

Before I ask another question, let me apologize for not paying better attention in history class...or Sunday school.

You wrote: "There was the temple built by Solomon in the early years of the so-called United Monarchy. However, there is absolutely no evidence that this temple actually existed and the whole United Monarchy period under David and Solomon is disputed."

First of all don't apologize. We all have the opportunity to learn throughout our lives.

I did not say that the First Temple never existed. The question is whether it was built by Solomon or under a much later king. The "historical" books of the OT were written long after the fact and there is much embellishment (undisputable). There is currently a big debate about the nature of the "State" under David and Solomon. The OT describes it as a United Monarchy extending from the Euphrates down to the Sinai Peninsula. This is obviously exaggerated and only extreme fundamentalists believe this account today. Later (post-Solomon) we know that the Hebrew population was divided into two kingdoms (Israel in the north and Judah in the south). Jerusalem was the political capital of Judah but supposed to be the religious center of both kingdoms. There were to be no other places of worship except the temple at Jerusalem (although we have found "high places" within the territory of Israel that show that people were not practicing this rule). The question is whether the story of the United Monarchy and the Temple being built during that time by Solomon (rather than a later king of Judah) was an attempt to provide the Hebrews with a glorified past of unity to which they should aspire again. It is too much to get into the details here, but if you are interested you might check out a book by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman titled The Bible Unearthed. There is also a series of articles debating this issue in Biblical Archaeology REview over the past few years.

I don't understand why somethings are easily believed...like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, yet this "first temple" is disputed. Why would they make that up?

Funny that you bring up the "Hanging Gardens of Babylon". Of all of the Seven Wonders of the World, that is the one that is most disputed. We do have the palace of Nebuchadnezzar and other monuments at Babylon (I had the great pleasure of visiting the site in 1989), but the location of the gardens is unknown. A number of locations within the city have been proposed but none provide very good evidence for being the site of a garden as described by the Classical writers. There is also the problem that the Classical writers often confused Babylon with Nineveh. We happen to KNOW that Nineveh had gardens that fit the descriptions of the "Hanging Gardens of Babylon". Many scholars today believe that they were actually the "Hanging Gardens of Nineveh". If you are interested in reading a good study of the confusion between Babylon and Nineveh you can check this article:

Dalley, Stephanie
1994 Nineveh, Babylon and the Hanging Gardens: Cuneiform and Classical Sources Reconciled. Iraq 56: 45-58.

So, you see, it is not just the biblical stories, characters, and sites that fall under the magnifying glass and receive critical analysis. In science, EVERYTHING is considered to be questionable until good evidence is found. Relying on a single source is never considered to be enough.

From reading what you wrote about the temples, it sounds 2me like this first temple was destroyed. The second temple was built by the Jews. Then Herod came along and renovated second temple. Unless he started from scratch, it probably wouldn't be counted as a 3rd temple, do you think?

Yes, except that Herod did not just renovate the temple. It was a MAJOR rebuilding. We have Josephus as one source and we also have the remnants of Herod's many other building programs that inform us of his style. We also have the Temple Mount which has the remnants of his massive platform construction. He completely converted the summit of Mount Moriah into a huge level platform. He completely changed the topography. Most scholars believe that the foundations of the earlier temples were buried underneath Herod's new construction. Unfortunately, Herod's Temple is no longer extant. It was destroyed by the Romans and any remnants are buried under the Dome of the Rock (or its vicinity).

P.S. I am not one to accept Josephus for his word. He is good on some things and unreliable on others. In the case of Herod's architectural feats Josephus' descriptions fit very well with the WEALTH of archaeological evidence known to us.

 

[accordn2me]

No not that one. She makes a good observation. It just isn't enough to counter all of the evidence for the later dates of the gospels and, as I said, there was no reason for the gospels to mention the destruction of the temple in their story of Jesus' life.



First of all don't apologize. We all have the opportunity to learn throughout our lives.

I did not say that the First Temple never existed. The question is whether it was built by Solomon or under a much later king. The "historical" books of the OT were written long after the fact and there is much embellishment (undisputable). There is currently a big debate about the nature of the "State" under David and Solomon. The OT describes it as a United Monarchy extending from the Euphrates down to the Sinai Peninsula. This is obviously exaggerated and only extreme fundamentalists believe this account today. Later (post-Solomon) we know that the Hebrew population was divided into two kingdoms (Israel in the north and Judah in the south). Jerusalem was the political capital of Judah but supposed to be the religious center of both kingdoms. There were to be no other places of worship except the temple at Jerusalem (although we have found "high places" within the territory of Israel that show that people were not practicing this rule). The question is whether the story of the United Monarchy and the Temple being built during that time by Solomon (rather than a later king of Judah) was an attempt to provide the Hebrews with a glorified past of unity to which they should aspire again. It is too much to get into the details here, but if you are interested you might check out a book by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman titled The Bible Unearthed. There is also a series of articles debating this issue in Biblical Archaeology REview over the past few years.



Funny that you bring up the "Hanging Gardens of Babylon". Of all of the Seven Wonders of the World, that is the one that is most disputed. We do have the palace of Nebuchadnezzar and other monuments at Babylon (I had the great pleasure of visiting the site in 1989), but the location of the gardens is unknown. A number of locations within the city have been proposed but none provide very good evidence for being the site of a garden as described by the Classical writers. There is also the problem that the Classical writers often confused Babylon with Nineveh. We happen to KNOW that Nineveh had gardens that fit the descriptions of the "Hanging Gardens of Babylon". Many scholars today believe that they were actually the "Hanging Gardens of Nineveh". If you are interested in reading a good study of the confusion between Babylon and Nineveh you can check this article:

Dalley, Stephanie
1994 Nineveh, Babylon and the Hanging Gardens: Cuneiform and Classical Sources Reconciled. Iraq 56: 45-58.

So, you see, it is not just the biblical stories, characters, and sites that fall under the magnifying glass and receive critical analysis. In science, EVERYTHING is considered to be questionable until good evidence is found. Relying on a single source is never considered to be enough.




Yes, except that Herod did not just renovate the temple. It was a MAJOR rebuilding. We have Josephus as one source and we also have the remnants of Herod's many other building programs that inform us of his style. We also have the Temple Mount which has the remnants of his massive platform construction. He completely converted the summit of Mount Moriah into a huge level platform. He completely changed the topography. Most scholars believe that the foundations of the earlier temples were buried underneath Herod's new construction. Unfortunately, Herod's Temple is no longer extant. It was destroyed by the Romans and any remnants are buried under the Dome of the Rock (or its vicinity).

P.S. I am not one to accept Josephus for his word. He is good on some things and unreliable on others. In the case of Herod's architectural feats Josephus' descriptions fit very well with the WEALTH of archaeological evidence known to us.

Do you know you know a lot of stuff! Or either you have a lot of reference material handy.... Unfortunately, I don't know enough, yet, to contribute to an intelligent discussion with you about this. Josephus...Dark Knight just mentioned him before you did. That's the first I've heard of this person. So, I guess I'm a little behind...

So I'm not surprised that I mentioned the most controversial Wonder of the World. I nearly called it the "Leaning Gardens of Babylon." Good thing I skipped my extra bowl of stupid for breakfast this morning.:crazy:

You know what I don't understand? The things scholars debate. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like spending a lot of time searching for the exact name of the town the gardens were located in, causes one to miss what the gardens were, why the gardens were, how the gardens were. Where they were is interesting but to spend a lot of time trying to figure it out when it can't be proven....well....is that time well spent?

It's just like trying to figure out if Jesus was married or not. So what if he was! It doesn't take away from his message. I can understand why this documentary is such a big deal if it's true they found a grave containing the remains of Jesus. That would blow a lot of things out of the water so to speak! :silenced:

I watched something about this on a Fox channel last night. The man "running the show" was giving the producer (I think he was the producer) a hard time about not publishing his findings in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. You know what he (the producer) said....scientists have known about this for 27 years!?!?!

NO WAY!! I can't believe it! They knew, and didn't tell us? What's with that? I can't believe it.

Anyway, I have a lot of time on my hands these days. I'm going to look up those references you gave me. If you have any time, you ought to think about picking up a copy of Christ the Lord by Anne Rice. I have a feeling you need to read some fiction. The paperback has the most up-to-date author's notes. I got mine from Buzz's favorite place, Costco. You may be interested in the authors she read while doing her research for her novel. She's about to write another one. I can hardly wait! :woohoo:

 

[reb]

<OriginallyPosted by txsvicki

It amazes me that so many people over the ages discount God and the Bible and have all sorts of so-called knowledge about everything, but not one can explain how the breath of life got into living creatures and how everything from humans down to tiny little germs are designed so intricately or how space came to be or what is out there past where we can't even see. There are no human explanations for these things at all or about where we/our souls go after death.>

uhh.. yeah, txvicki.. but just because all these wonderful and mysterious thing exist doesn't mean that some big god guy up in the sky made it happen. that's some pretty illogical logic. the fact is nobody knows. however my common sense tells me that the god myth doesn't make sense. just because we don't have 'human explanations' for a lot of things doesn't mean we have to take the easy way out. why can't christians just admit that they DON'T know and they DON'T have all the answers?? is it because fear of the unknown is just too terrifying... and they need an easy explanation to make them feel more secure?

 

[reb]

<Well, according to my 8 yr old, when you look up in the sky and see rays of sunlight through the clouds- that's God...............lol>

well that sure is as good a definition as any... leave it to kids to see things in the pures way possible!
i do have reverence for the 'life' force' or whatever you want to call it... (how could you not?) but as for the christian diety.... i still want to know, and have never gotten a proper answer to the question: who decided that 'he' was a man? why do they think he's a man? why does he have a gender at all? oh yeah-- the men who wrote the bible decided, that's right. and then 'he' created man in 'his' image.. and we women were the afterthought... LOL. yeah, right, nice religion you got there that taught generations of unsuspecting peasants that women came out of a man's rib! ...please!!!

 

[reb]

UM&AMW fan... delusions & dogma... nice!!

cypros-

<They aren't? Then how do you explain the proselytizers in my neighborhood (they have stopped coming to my door) every few weeks, and little Jesus booklets are placed in mailboxes all across America, and that it is not uncommon to find someone standing on a street corner preaching and condemning all of us to hell is we do not accept Jesus as our Lord? When my brother and his family relocated to a new State, they encountered a very aggressive effort to identify their religion and make them active participants in the local church (the one associated with a recently miraculously cured minister). I hear o similar experiences all over the country. Quite a number of my college students have already participated in mission work (Catholic missions in this case). Cultures all over the world are being decimated by the conversion of traditional societies and belief systems to a hierarchical and Christianity. I remember stories of all of the missionaries waiting just over the border during the initial invasion of Iraq, waiting for the opportunity to sweep in and convert the muslims.>

i've wondered why xtians feel the incessant need to pester everyone too... the only thing i can come up with is there is some sort of inherent insecurity in their religion that says you have to convert as many people as possible... power in numbers... quantity, not quality.. they can't just let people be.. they have to prey on the weak and vulnerable. they never go into some remote poor village just wanting to help.. they always come with food (etc) AND an alterior motive. they can never just help for the sake of helping. very sneaky and conniving is you ask me.

and the cursing of people (you're gonna burn in hell if you don't.. blah blah) has been drilled into peoples' heads for centuries. since the all-powerful church used this on the ignorant masses for ages in order to control them and get them to obey, give all their money to the church, etc... i think people now are still stuck on that. it's really become an inherent part of their dogma.
it also may tie into what i said above, a sort of fear or insecurity of anyone who doesn't believe what they do and who isn't a part of their cult.
either way,, it's a desire to control by fear.

 

[Maral]

UM&AMW fan... delusions & dogma... nice!!

cypros-


i've wondered why xtians feel the incessant need to pester everyone too... the only thing i can come up with is there is some sort of inherent insecurity in their religion that says you have to convert as many people as possible... power in numbers... quantity, not quality.. they can't just let people be.. they have to prey on the weak and vulnerable. they never go into some remote poor village just wanting to help.. they always come with food (etc) AND an alterior motive. they can never just help for the sake of helping. very sneaky and conniving is you ask me.

and the cursing of people (you're gonna burn in hell if you don't.. blah blah) has been drilled into peoples' heads for centuries. since the all-powerful church used this on the ignorant masses for ages in order to control them and get them to obey, give all their money to the church, etc... i think people now are still stuck on that. it's really become an inherent part of their dogma.
it also may tie into what i said above, a sort of fear or insecurity of anyone who doesn't believe what they do and who isn't a part of their cult.
either way,, it's a desire to control by fear.

Or maybe it is just that they take the words in the Bible seriously. Jesus commissioned His diciples to go out and spread the Good News of the Gospels. Telling people about something is not the same thing as forcing and coercing them to convert.

 

[Cypros]

Do you know you know a lot of stuff! Or either you have a lot of reference material handy.... Unfortunately, I don't know enough, yet, to contribute to an intelligent discussion with you about this. Josephus...Dark Knight just mentioned him before you did. That's the first I've heard of this person. So, I guess I'm a little behind...
...

You know what I don't understand? The things scholars debate. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like spending a lot of time searching for the exact name of the town the gardens were located in, causes one to miss what the gardens were, why the gardens were, how the gardens were. Where they were is interesting but to spend a lot of time trying to figure it out when it can't be proven....well....is that time well spent?

It's just like trying to figure out if Jesus was married or not. So what if he was! It doesn't take away from his message. I can understand why this documentary is such a big deal if it's true they found a grave containing the remains of Jesus. That would blow a lot of things out of the water so to speak! :silenced:

I watched something about this on a Fox channel last night. The man "running the show" was giving the producer (I think he was the producer) a hard time about not publishing his findings in a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. You know what he (the producer) said....scientists have known about this for 27 years!?!?!

NO WAY!! I can't believe it! They knew, and didn't tell us? What's with that? I can't believe it.

Anyway, I have a lot of time on my hands these days. I'm going to look up those references you gave me. If you have any time, you ought to think about picking up a copy of Christ the Lord by Anne Rice. I have a feeling you need to read some fiction. The paperback has the most up-to-date author's notes. I got mine from Buzz's favorite place, Costco. You may be interested in the authors she read while doing her research for her novel. She's about to write another one. I can hardly wait! :woohoo:

LOL! Well, some of the topics of this thread fall into an area about which I am required to know a lot. I am much more knowledgeable about (and interested in) the OT than the NT period. And when you bring in Babylon, Assyria (Nineveh) and gardens, that is pretty much my specialization. And you are absolutely right about the relative importance of information. However, that is what scholars do and each has their own area of research. I don't think that it matters if the gardens were in Babylon or Nineveh except that getting to that answer helps us to better understand the writings, their context, purpose, perspective, agenda, access to information, etc. etc., and that helps us to understand some of the more important or relevant issues of the past (and of course what is considered important and relevant varies from person to person). The problem is that not everybody agrees on what is important. While you and I could care less if Jesus was married or not, there are millions of Christians who consider it blasphemy. The research, debates, and controversies are all out there in published format. There are hundreds of journals and millions of books that present the material. If the public does not make use of the information (all available in public libraries), they cannot blame the scholars. Popular media helps to dissipate some of the information, but they are in it for profit and so focus on topics that are of the most interest to the public. In the case of the Middle East, we get the Bible and Egypt over and over and over again, despite the fact that there is a wealth of information (including debates and controversies) to be gleaned in other areas.

In the case of the gardens, by the way, we know that the Assyrians (Nineveh) developed the concept of the palace gardens as a kind of royal propaganda. They imported trees and plants and exotic animals from the conquered lands and displayed them on the palace gardens -- a symbol of the Assyrian Empire. For centuries before one of the King's responsibilities was to assure fertility and abundance to the land and so the palace garden was an ideal symbol of this kingly power. The Persians borrowed this idea and created similar paalce gardens (paradeizo) which were then seen and borrowed by the Greeks (paradeisos). Today, grand gardens are symbolic of power, wealth, abundance, fertility.

 

[Glow]

Hey Lovely Pigeon, I sent you a PM :crazy:

 

[Dark Knight]

No human explanations, true. It is called Mother Nature and she, IMO, is the greatest power in existence.

"Mother Nature" is a false god, and we know how God feels about those! (First Commandment.)

 

[Dark Knight]

Not that this makes a difference. Once upon a time we didn't know what caused thunder - did that mean it was caused by God back then, but by electrostatic discharge once we do know? Just because we don't have a full explanation of some things doesn't make them proof of god.

No, God created the elements necessary for the electrostatic discharge that leads to thunder.

 

[Cypros]

"Mother Nature" is a false god, and we know how God feels about those! (First Commandment.)

LOL! Mother Nature is neither a god nor a goddess. Nature IS the Supreme Power and Man cannot control it nor completely understand it no matter how hard he tries. Mother Nature is neither wrathful nor benevolent (those are human characteristics). It just IS.

 

[Utopia]

Hi DK, you don't know me but I've been following this thread with interest and I thought you (and others) might be interested in this. I am a regular listener to CBC's radio program Sunday Edition. Although I am Canadian, I am currently studying in the UK so I listen to it on my computer and it is available at various times depending on what station you get it on.

Anyway, they will be speaking with Father Neuhaus, a catholic priest who started out as a Canadian Lutheran and is now an American Catholic Priest. I thought you might be interested in his story given your own history. Here's a description:

"In our middle hour, meet the man who is probably George W. Bush's favorite Catholic priest. Richard John Neuhaus is the editor of First Things, a conservative magazine on current affairs. He is also a supporter of the war in Iraq, is against the ordination of women and in favor of a celibate priesthood. His writings and opinions have made him one of the most powerful clergymen in the US. That's a long way from his Protestant upbringing in Pembroke, Ontario. Our conversation with Father Neuhaus in Hour Two."

You can go to http://www.publicradiofan.com/cgi/program.pl?programid=492, it should take you to Sunday Edition and to the stations and times it is offered on. If that doesn't work, go to http:www.publicradiofan.com and select by program, chose "Sunday Edition" and it will give you the stations and times that it is on. From there simply click on the icon for the time you want and you will be connected. Right now it is in the middle hour on EST (it is a three hour program) and the interview is coming up shortly but it is also coming on later.

Hope this makes sense.

Utopia

 

[BirdieBoo]

LOL this whole discussion cracks me up.

It's a James Cameron publicity stunt. Publicity for his film. Apparently it worked.

 

[Maral]

LOL this whole discussion cracks me up.

It's a James Cameron publicity stunt. Publicity for his film. Apparently it worked.

BirdieBoo, I think most people participating in this discussion realize that the Cameron film is a publicity stunt. But the topic of the film has generated some very interesting discussion.

 

[Glow]

"Mother Nature" is a false god, and we know how God feels about those! (First Commandment.)

I understand in what way you mean that DK!
Ancient documents from Babylon and from points of mans migration show that the worship of “nature gods” (such as the Babylonian sun-god Shamash, the Egyptian rain and thunder god Thoth, and the Canaanite fertility god Baal) became very prominent in those early times. The “nature gods” were associated in people’s minds with periodic or cyclic manifestations of power, such as the daily sun, the seasonal results of solstices and equinoxes (producing summer and winter, spring and fall), the winds and storms, the falling of rain and its effect on earth’s fertility in seedtime and harvest, and similar evidences of power. These forces are impersonal. So men had to fill in the blank, providing personality for their gods by their own imagination.

The 10 commandments were given originally to the Jews. The first one states there is ONE God and there are to be no others worshipped as that.

So the worship of such “nature gods” by the Israelites was considered apostasy, amounting to worshiping the "creation" rather than the One who "created" it.

Also, the personalities they conjured up for these "nature gods" were generally capricious; highly immoral and most importantly they lacked any greater purpose.

IF there is a God, then "He" is not governed by or limited to celestial or earthly cycles. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel, in treating the view of God contained in the Hebrew Scriptures, observes that “the important and predominant feature is not force or power but the will which this power must execute and therefore serve. This is everywhere the decisive feature.”—Translated and edited by G. Bromiley, 1971, Vol. II, p.

 

[Glow]

But the topic of the film has generated some very interesting discussion.

I agree, I have learned a lot personally!

 

[Dark Knight]

Hi DK, you don't know me but I've been following this thread with interest and I thought you (and others) might be interested in this. I am a regular listener to CBC's radio program Sunday Edition. Although I am Canadian, I am currently studying in the UK so I listen to it on my computer and it is available at various times depending on what station you get it on.

Anyway, they will be speaking with Father Neuhaus, a catholic priest who started out as a Canadian Lutheran and is now an American Catholic Priest. I thought you might be interested in his story given your own history. Here's a description:

"In our middle hour, meet the man who is probably George W. Bush's favorite Catholic priest. Richard John Neuhaus is the editor of First Things, a conservative magazine on current affairs. He is also a supporter of the war in Iraq, is against the ordination of women and in favor of a celibate priesthood. His writings and opinions have made him one of the most powerful clergymen in the US. That's a long way from his Protestant upbringing in Pembroke, Ontario. Our conversation with Father Neuhaus in Hour Two."

You can go to http://www.publicradiofan.com/cgi/program.pl?programid=492, it should take you to Sunday Edition and to the stations and times it is offered on. If that doesn't work, go to http:www.publicradiofan.com and select by program, chose "Sunday Edition" and it will give you the stations and times that it is on. From there simply click on the icon for the time you want and you will be connected. Right now it is in the middle hour on EST (it is a three hour program) and the interview is coming up shortly but it is also coming on later.

Hope this makes sense.

Utopia

Thanks for letting me know, Utopia!!! I appreciate it!