Hey Steve,

Name's Chris. Just stumbled over your site after I did a search for "knowing God."

I just wanted to say that as I read the Bible it's pretty clear that it's not the proving or disproving of gathered data which produces one single convert to Jesus Christ. I'm not trying to be critical of Christian books about personal journeys to discover artifacts, historical facts, etc... I'm just saying that any search to set out to find whether Jesus is who He claimed to be in the Bible- whether or not one thinks it could be tampered with (I don't obviously) the only way to truly discover this is by hearing that Jesus is really Lord God in the flesh, He is fully God and man, and did come to earth to live a sinless life, hang on a Roman cross bearing the sins of the world and satisfying the Father's wrath toward our sins, then rose again bringing life and salvation to anyone who repents and believes on Him- until He physically returns to make all Kingdoms fully God's in power.

Chris, I'm really having trouble trying to make sense of your second exceedingly long sentence in the paragraph above. What I think you're saying is: "The only way to find out whether Jesus is who he claimed to be is to hear the things Christians claim he did." Is that a fair summation?

I think this is rather circular reasoning, and you wouldn't fall for it in any other area of your life. In a criminal case would you decide whether the accused was telling the truth solely by listening to what others claimed he or she did? I think that would be judged inadmissible hearsay. You would hopefully expect the defense and the prosecution to provide evidence.

Now, that little bit is of course the Christian gospe- as you well know. And the way I see it, all the evidence or lack of it, is really immaterial compared to what can happen ONLY by the grace of God, when one hears or reads that simple message of Jesus Christ and God's great mercy and forgiveness ready to come our way- unto eternal life.

The message of the gospels is not so simple. They are overflowing with contradictions, so there is no clear message. What did Jesus teach about divorce, for example? Is there a clear and simple message there? No, there are contradictory statements, and it's anybody's guess what he may have really meant. Was he the "prince of peace" or did he come "not to bring peace, but a sword?" Are we to "turn the other cheek" or "sell our garment to buy a sword"? The list goes on and on. It's all well and good to claim that there's a simple message and that we should ignore the rest, but your simple message is inextricably entwined with the rest of the contradictory, absurd stories.

And what has happened when people have heard this story? Have you ever heard of the Crusades, the Inquisitions, witch burnings, anti-semitism, Jonestown, Manifest Destiny, or Charles Manson? When gullible people have taken the Bible to be the literal "Word of God" the results have seldom been pretty.

On an individual basis, it is simply untrue to claim that it is ONLY by hearing the Jesus story that anyone can turn their life around. People have been turning their lives around long before Christianity was dreamt of, and they continue to do it today in other ways apart from Christianity.

Maybe it's just in our natures as Christians to try and spend great hours debating with others in the hopes it convinces them. Sure Jesus taught, and the apostles taught- but it was always more of a direct statement of fact which was either accepted by men or rejected. I will never be able to convince anyone of Christ's claims being God, and rising from the dead, based on some dug up box,etc.. Ridicioulous anyway. The Bible says God will hold us all accountable for breaking his commands, but this doesn't change the fact that the Bible also says that the only one's who will be able to believe are His chosen Elect. It's a mystery to be sure, which is open to every accusation but I find it completely true and trustworthy personally. One sure thing about the God of the Bible- no one ever gets to boast that they came to know him without His grace and undeserved intitiation in the relationship. NO one ever.

I agree that it is human nature that causes Christians to debate. Human nature rebels at blind belief. It is because we have brains. I think on some (usually repressed) level most Christians know that what they believe in cannot withstand close scrutiny by their own minds. But, they will sometimes make an attempt to use some half-baked logic to blurt out a "reason" for their belief, and then promptly shut the door to their mind once more before considering the skeptic's reply.

Of course, the Bible itself instructs its believers to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you" (1 Peter 3:15) So, one would assume that Bible believers would follow that admonition from the very book they claim to believe in.

If you believe that only God's "chosen Elect" are able to believe, then I guess it's just too bad for the rest of us who insist on using our brains to distinguish fact from fantasy and truth from lies. I guess it's just too bad God gave us brains which prevent us from believing his "word", but there's nothing we can do about it since he decided not to include us in his "chosen Elect". But you claim this is a god of justice? Who are you trying to kid? Justice -- by definition -- requires an equal and fair opportunity for everyone.

You stated: "The Bible says God will hold us all accountable for breaking his commands." And your point is?

Who wrote the Bible? Do you know? No one does. Some ancient anonymous writers wrote it. Then some Bishops voted on which books were "god's word" (and they got a lot wrong according to later Protestants). What does that make the Bible? The ramblings of anonymous men voted on by other (mostly unknown) men whom most Christians believe made mistakes in their voting. An odd collection of books which contradict each other, themselves, known facts, and common sense. So, when you tell me what it says, my foremost reaction is: "so what?" I don't care what it says. I've read it, and the reading convinced me that the only sane people who could believe it to be the "inerrant word of God" are people who have never read it for themselves with anything approaching objectivity.

I Cor. 2:14 says that that the man without God's spirit views true spiritual matters, as "foolishness." This is because as the text says, these spiritual things can only be spiritually discerned and you cannot know them. This is why it's impossible to figure out Christ by anything other than viewing or hearing the very written text about him from Scripture. Whether paraphrased or not isn't the point- it's just the truth about Christ which opens blind and dead spiritual eyes. No other remedy.

But you are assuming your own argument. What if the stuff in "Scripture" about Jesus is not the truth? What if it cannot possibly be the truth (since truth cannot be self contradictory)? If reading Scripture is the only way to "figure out Christ" then we'll never figure him out, because "Scripture" is a mass of contradictions.

I do agree with the Scripture you quoted, though: I don't have the spirit of any god, and I view belief in the Bible as foolish indeed. But I don't think it's a very impressive argument to state (in essence) that only people who believe the way you believe won't regard what you believe in as foolish.

For instance, only the members of the "flat-earth" society fail to find a belief in a flat earth foolish. Suppose one of these members came up to you and said, "If you don't have God's truth in you to know that the earth is flat, our belief will appear foolish to you"? You could agree with that statement except for the uncalled-for premise that it is "God's truth". You see? It's not really much of an argument, is it?

We have to base belief on something other than the belief itself. It's similar to how I used to "prove" the Bible to people by quoting the Scripture: "All Scripture is inspired by God". Somehow the circularity of that "reasoning" escaped me! Anyone can write "this is the word of god" and include that statement in any book they care to write, and it would be just as believable as the statement in the Bible. It boils down to: "this book says that it's the Word of God, so it must be the Word of God". Hardly convincing.

If you say: "if you don't believe in this, the belief will appear foolish, and it only makes sense to believe in it once you have believed in it," you're never going to reach any sane individual.

That's all really. Just wanted to say that God holds you accountable (me too) for failing to respond to His call to salvation through His Son (God/Man) Jesus Christ, and yes the Bible also teaches that ecause of our own fallen sinfulness we don't, and can't respond but God is still going to judge us anyway and He says it's going to be a Just judgement. Sound illogical? Sure. Yet, when did God ever care to allow Himself to be known through wisdom or signs. This doesn't mean it's complete nonsense! I just mean that same passage from 2 Cor, makes it clear that those lost without God's intervention will never get it. They stumble over wanting to get a sign. They sneer because it lacks wisdom. Yet- for those who are being saved by God- it is impossibly sound and irrevocably true. I'm thankful, because somehow I get it. A sinner like me?!

You win the "double-speak" prize of the year for that paragraph! Please tell me how something you admit is "foolish" and "illogical" can be "sound and irrevocably true". Please tell me how it is even possible to believe two contradictory statements (whether or not they're in the Bible). How do you "get it" without switching off your brain (and if your brain is switched off, how do you know that you've "got it"?)

How do you know what God's plans are, and who he will or won't hold accountable, and why? Please listen carefully and ponder my motto:

"No one knows more about the unknowable than anyone else."


Yes, that includes all of the writers of the Bible (whoever they were), Billy Graham, the Pope, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and you and I. Don't presume to tell others what God is going to do as if you knew. You don't. No one does. No one even knows whether such a being exists; it is beyond our senses to be able to find out.

So don't preach to me about any "god-man". There have been dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of these mythical beings throughout history, long before the supposed time of Jesus, and his inventors had him do basically the same things as his predecessors. I'm not going to stoop to the idiotic notion that the one that happens to be popular now, in my particular culture, is THE one and only true one to whom all must bow in order to escape some vengeful tribal god's wrath. Give me a break!

Anyway, who would believe such "foolishness" that a certain historical figure named Jesus, was God in the flesh, performed miracles, taught great sayings, and was executed, then risen from the dead- and being God's only way of salvation? The only foolish man or woman who will believe that, is God's elect, but since these don't have a mark on their foreheads God also tells his children to go out and witness and live radically sold out lives of love and integrity before the world. To some it may just be a judgement which will condemn them when they meet God, for others- God uses that foolish little message to save them powerfully and give them a radical course correction because the Holy Spirit brings change and real living proof in experience of those changes. All that external mumbo jumbo Christian excess, is not what I'm referring to here. I'm talking about being truly able to begin loving God with all of our hearts, souls, minds, and strengths, and beginning to really learn to love our neighbor as ourselves. Granted none of that can save me, cause Christ did it all. But if it ain't there- it's just proof that that kind of faith "is dead."

Just wanted to add that little bit, because Christians waste their time trying to "prove" what can only be discerned by an act of God moving directly on your heart. I will pray for that.

A sinner saved by His grace, responding in faith despite all the answers,
Chris P.
*Full-time cell to cell evangelism and Bible studies in the prisons of New Hampshire.

So, you think that your god will judge me because I rejected the "message" from the Bible (a message you admit is "foolish"). But the "message" from the Bible is more than just foolish: it is so self-contradictory that it is not possible for me to accept it even if I wanted to. If your god is the creator, and he created my brain, why would he judge me harshly for making use of it?

Here is how my brain works: it cannot believe in square-circles or anything else that contains an inherent contradiction. It cannot believe that the Israelites killed all of the Midianites so that "not a soul was left to breathe" and then a few years later a huge Midianite army came and attacked the Israelites. It cannot believe that Jesus' prophecy about being "in the heart of the earth" for "three days and three nights" found fulfillment in his dying on a Friday and resurrecting on a Sunday as the Bible claims he did. These are just two examples off the top of my head: the list goes on and on (as my online book shows). The point is, no matter how hard I might try, it is simply impossible for me to believe these contradictory stories. I cannot believe them anymore than I can believe in a square-circle. It has nothing to do with being morally corrupt. It has to do with refusing to surrender one's reason.

How could I ever love the god of the Bible? This is the god who commanded his "chosen people" to rip open the bellies of pregnant women and run their swords through suckling babies. You want me to love that monster with "all my heart, soul, mind, and strength"? Are you out of your mind?

Chris, thanks for sharing your thoughts, but to me they just reinforce what I already knew: Christianity has no rational basis. It must appeal to blind faith. "First believe, and when you're a believer it will make sense to believe." I'm sure that works for any religion, or ideological movement, not just Christianity. But it's certainly not how I want to form a basis for my philosophy of life.

Of course, if I'm not one of your god's "chosen Elect" your prayers for me will be a waste of time, and if I am one of the Elect, your prayers will also be a waste of time. But, suit yourself.

--Steve
*Full-time thinker, prepared to follow the truth wherever it leads, and to shine a light on the darkness I left behind.



Hey Steve,

So good to hear back from you.

Phew... I certaintly didn't mean to convey that I find the message of the cross illogical. When I say that it is "foolishness" to those who are perishing, vs. those who are being saved, I wasn't implying that the Bible asks anyone to believe that 2 + 2= 5. If the Bible were full of contradictions and falsehoods, I would reject it's authority just as I do anything else. Instead, I have found the Bible to live up to it's claim to be the inspired Word of God, so I am confident that God has revealed it so I use it to teach, reprove, correct, instruct me or rule the decisions of my life. (2 Tim 3:16-17) I love to read the Bible- as a matter of fact I'm just applying correction myself this week, and getting back to it daily. I had a busy week last week, and really noticed a spiritual drop in my life. Anyway, as I read it every day, I apply the same human logic and reason that I employ as I read the newspaper or anything else. I apply normal means of interpretation, and know that when I transition from a section on history to a section on poetry, that certain different rules of intrepretation come into play. This is a reason for so many people's improper interpretation- right out of the gate. You can't interpret Jesus saying, here's a sword bring one, like you do Samuel asking Saul what that bleating of sheep is all about. Those are two different areas. One, in which Jesus is fulfilling prophecy but not advocating a kingdom with swords (which a student of the Bible would read enough to understand...) vs. a section of history out of Israel's past. Get my drift? Do you honestly believe that all Christians are given to complete "blind faith" meaning, we abandon our brains and logic or we can't stay Christians? Have you ever read men like C.S. Lewis? You are way off base Steve in lumping Christian Biblical thought into non-thinking, illogical, kool-aid drinking, alien abduction story telling, bunch of idiots. Where did you get that idea? Hopefully not from the point of my letter. Just because I didn't try to persuade you with certain empirical evidence did not imply it's not all there. Of course it's there, and you can view it all you desire if you want to investigate it seriously enough beyond what you have. I was only saying this:

Crossing over from unbelief to belief, or a complete embracing of the historic man Jesus Christ as the crucified, risen, Lord and authority of all creation, takes a spiritual discernment which can only be given as a gift from God.


It may sound like something any religion can claim, but what it really means is you can never find God to be "knowable" by human logic alone. It's logical enough a message to hear and understand. It's not full of contradictions and falsehoods as you apparently believe you've found. Yet, to cross beyond that to placing your trust in Jesus, is something God must initiate.Now that's the strict theological understanding of it, but the practical every day application of it involves men searching and scratching at it to find out if it's true. This is how God generally seems to work out to them that it's real, but at the same time it's the simple message of the cross of Christ which finally causes them to cross over.That's my whole point. Okay?

How serious of a quest for Him are you on after all? Those who have persevered and kept searching and seriously investigating for answers to the questions they have of the Bible, seem to be the ones God has drawn into this relationship that I enjoy. It was C.S. Lewis story, Lee Strobel, many others. Presidents, Kings, lawyers, Judges, small and large- something about this Bible rings so true and so convincing that even the most rational and logical sometimes fall for it's "truth." What do you make of them all? Irrational idiots? Certainly you jest! It seems that you are really more interested in posting your findings, then actually seeking real answers to any serious questions. If you were a serious seeker, there would be a bit more humility I think. After all, you are the one who thinks God is "unknowable," and I (and many many followers of Christ) are the ones so assured that He is "knowable." Sure, other false religions can make that claim- but really with what kind of history and credibility to back them up like Jesus? Heck- we even date our calendars around him. Yes. You were sucked into a horrible path of lies with a cult. Okay. Let's move on. You may have encountered hypocrisy left and right in what I call "religious Christianity." Namely the Roman Catholic church traditions and works based Christian faith. Yet, if you even remotely think God may be out there- do you think abandoning the search by simply posting 'contradictions' which even simple schoarly books can refute, is the answer? Get out there and do some serious research Steve! Then see if God is real or not. Stop looking up liberal sites. Go to the oppostive extreme. You know- those funadmental Bible believing scholars and creationists. You might find much more logic and reason there than you ever anticipated. Christianty has always been available for serious scrutiny, and nothing has been able to stamp it out. Even violence only brings more converts to Christ, because under persecution that Christian hope shines so brightly that others can't help but see the stark contrast between their lack of hope and our real and living anchor for the soul in Jesus.

The logic and reason which Jesus so skillfully applied in His teachings (which completely confounded the teachers and philosophers of his day) continues to speak today for themselves. There is a self-evidence of His divine nature in His teachings. I've never read anyone who can make as much sense as He does. He loved to frustrate those who just wanted to test him. No one is asking you to abandon clear thinking and swallow a falsehood, in order to embrace Christ as Lord. The logic and reason, which the O.T. Ten Commandments and Exodus codes embody, is stunning. I could spend all day bragging about God's wisdom as contained in the Bible. The O.T. teachings fromo those codes and commandments are beginning to make in-roads again in our criminal Justice system in the U.S. Chuck Colson is making good in-roads as it applies to "restorative Justice." Guess where he's getting his good stuff? The Bible. God taught that punishment must fit the crime. It was carried out through the O.T. civil code of "eye for an eye." It was meant by God, not as personal retaliation as the Pharisees of Jesus' days had made it, but instead as a means to limit retribution and vengeance. When the O.T. code taught a "tooth for a tooth" it limited punishment of the offender to go beyond the actual crime. In other words you don't murder someone who broke out your tooth. Anyway the reason for that little side discussion was just to say that I'm not trying to convince you that coming to faith means you abandon your logic. That wasn't my point. The Bible can more than stand up to any of your contradictions Steve. You really don't seem to be interested in being convinced though, I discern.

Over-all the Bible more than stands on it's own as an incredible historical and archaelogical piece of literature with so many evidences. Coupled with so many detailed and very credible pieces and fragments still available there is ample "evidence" to be poured over by the truly investigating mind. This is nothing compared to just a cursory glance at the wisdom of the Proverbs, the parables of Christ, and the deeper overarching theme of redemption woven through all of the Old Testament which culiminates so logically and prophetically in Christ on the cross. Have you never read Hebrews, and wondered how thousands of years could pass between Moses and Christ, yet there be so much of a type of Christ in the O.T. temple and it's symbolism and sacrifices? Illogical? Hardly.

Where I was going with all that "foolishness," is that human wisdom alone is not sufficient to bring you to the final piece of the puzzle in knowing God. Still, with your human wisdom you can find that apparent "contradictions" which by the way actually only boil down to only about 10 areas where Biblical scholars struggle, out of all the apparent contradictions you may have listed in your on-line commentary. That information has been around since the turn of the century, and as more and more manuscripts surfaced- less and less serious questions could be unanswered. The books are out there for the serious questioner, but I am assuming you've really not cared to seriously investigate them. These scholars won't come searching for you Steve, and the journey will be worth going on. Yes. By the way R.C. Sproul is great for logical/philosophical style Bible teaching.

The passage you quoted me about always being prepared to give an answer for the hope that we have as believers is true, but the context for that was found in I Peter 3- in suffering. In other words, when you suffer for Jesus be ready to give the reason for why you bear up under it with joy and faith.

Steve, you've seen enough of the beauty of the Bible and it's wisdom, and logic, yet you have still stumbled and failed to grasp Jesus. The problem isn't that God's existence isn't real enough for you or anyone to grasp intellectually, just examine the incredible complexity of nature. It's just that man is such a fallen rebel he doesn't want to worship and serve anyone but himself. Most want to have God like a Burger King Whopper- make him their way. According to the Bible the biggest no-brainer of all is that God exists, manifest through what He's made. How do you make sense of how immense this Universe is, and how incredibly complex we are as human beings? Certainly science has no logical answer which can make sense of that. Come on now- evolution is a huge joke nowadays, even among many serious scientists, given the art-work depiction of the monkey to man chart. It's amazing people still believe that it's true. Anyway, come up with how it is all put together outside of an intelligent designer such as my God. It says in the Psalm 14:1 that "the fool says in his heart that there is no God." Why? Because of the enormous evidence which does exist in creation that God is real and is all powerful, and man still refuses to seek to find Him. You've mentioned the "inquistion" and the "Crusades," but I say that Hitler and Stalin did a pretty good job of running with the concept that God is dead. Godless thinking has led to many an atrocity. It's actually those who have properly applied themselves to Jesus' teaching that find that the "Crusades" and the "inquistion" are completely contradictory to His message. Those who have loved Christ more than life were very instrumental in founding universities, hospitals, etc... Christians loving Jesus have made great contributions to the society which you now enjoy in this post-Christian culture.

As it pertains to the Elect understanding the message of Jesus Christ as the exclusive "truth" of the Almighty Sovereign God, I did not mean to say they arrive at this by passively sitting on a beach and WAMMO- hey I'm a Christian now dude!! I am saying that "the elect," hear the message of the cross and at some point have to be supernaturally enabled to receive it as the "truth." In the Bible salvation came to many as they heard Jesus teach. While others heard him teach and walked away confounded. I guess I need to keep clarifying that I really just meant it's a supernatural gift or it doesn't come.

Jesus said, "no one can come to me unless the Father draws him." (John 6:somewhere between 37-44) Jesus isn't saying- Hey don't check me out! He's just indicating that when men disbelieve him- keep pressing on to speak to others who will hear with spiritual ears. Jesus said, "I am the bread of life, whoever comes to me will never be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty." The Bible urges folks to listen, who have the ears to hear. Are you hungry and thirsty?

By the way recognize that Jesus spoke in spiritual terms, as well as in literal terms. It doesn't take one very long to understand Jesus wasn't speaking of cannabilism when he said "eat my flesh and drink my blood." Still, many no longer followed Him because they just didn't get it. Do you even want to get it Steve? Do you? Look closer at those texts!

He's there and I'm a friend who's willing to accompany you on the journey if you want- at least by e-mail.

Chris



Hi Chris,

Thanks for the offer, but that's a journey I already made once. I consider myself lucky to have survived that trip, and regained my senses, and I don't intend to ever go back there again!

You asked: " Do you honestly believe that all Christians are given to complete "blind faith" meaning, we abandon our brains and logic or we can't stay Christians?" Do children who believe in Santa Claus do so with "blind faith, abandoning their brains and logic"? Or is it more that they simply don't think about their belief in a logical way? If they were to examine their belief objectively and apply common sense and logic, I fail to see how they could remain believers. Yet, at the same time they are certainly capable of using logic and reason in other areas of their lives. In my view, it is a similar situation for adult belief in religious doctrines (including Christianity).

I understood your main point: that belief in Christianity requires a "gift from God", and without that gift, the whole idea will appear foolish.

I once was a believer. Now I am not. Now I realize that my belief was based on falsehoods I had swallowed from other unscrupulous men who lied. The basic falsehood was that the Bible was the inerrant "Word of God". It is obvious to me that anyone who has read it objectively and cover-to-cover knows that this is a lie.

So, what happened? Did God take his gift back? I promise you that I have not become "morally corrupt" or started worshipping Satan. So, why would God take away this "gift" which allowed me to see the Bible as true? It makes zero sense.

You said: "It's logical enough a message to hear and understand. It's not full of contradictions and falsehoods as you apparently believe you've found." Well, I think you're understating the evidence. Have you read my book? How can you claim that the Bible is not full of contradictions? Is it because dishonest men have dreamt up ludicrous "harmonizing" arguments which smack of so much sophistry that any child could see through them (and would cause most of them to giggle uncontrollably)?

"God's Word" should not need the apologetics of theologians constantly dreaming up excuses for it. If there were such a thing as "God's Word" it would certainly be nothing like our Bible. It would be something that any honest individual could immediately recognize as pure and good and true and beautiful, and a guide to moral living. It would not need men to do all kinds of contortionist balancing acts to try and make it somehow at least appear consistent. It would not relate a "God of love" delighting in the smell of burning animal flesh, or ordering his "chosen people" to murder babies and pregnant women. It would not pretend that the Ultimate Being's "divine plan" was to punish offspring for their ancestor's sin (committed before he knew the difference between good and evil) and then kill His own son to appease himself. Justice does not punish the innocent. I'm sorry to disagree with you, but there's nothing logical about the message, and it is full of contradictions and falsehoods.

You said

"The logic and reason which Jesus so skillfully applied in His teachings (which completely confounded the teachers and philosophers of his day) continues to speak today for themselves. There is a self-evidence of His divine nature in His teachings. I've never read anyone who can make as much sense as He does. He loved to frustrate those who just wanted to test him."


They fail to confound me, and I don't see where they always confounded them, either. According to the story, when they accused him of using Satan's power to cast out demons he said "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Did you really think that confounded them? Their point was that Satan could certainly put on a show of driving out some demons in order to lead people astray (by making it appear that he was against Satan) without endangering his "house". But Jesus seems to have failed to grasp their simple point. Then he went on to make an even better argument against himself by saying that when a demon is driven out, seven more come to take his place! If he believed this, then his driving out demons was furthering Satan's work! Jesus' supposed "logic" here was lacking, and even worked against him.

The Bible presents Jesus as having given contradictory rules about divorce. So, how can you say that his teachings provide evidence of his divine nature, or that he makes more sense than anyone else?

The Bible tells us not to believe every "inspired utterance" but to test them to see if they come from God. Jesus also purportedly warned that men would come performing signs and wonders, but they would be false prophets. So, it would seem prudent (and even a Biblical principle) to "test" a would-be god-man, and only trust him if he passed the tests. Yet, instead of passing (or even taking) the tests, you delight in pointing out that Jesus loved to frustrate those who wanted to test him. I don't see this as a positive attribute at all. How can we beware of falling for "false prophets" without testing them? And why should we believe in them if they refuse to take the tests?

You said, "The logic and reason, which the O.T. Ten Commandments and Exodus codes embody, is stunning." It's stunning all right. As I prove in my book, one of the "Ten Commandments" is "thou shalt not boil a kid in its mother's milk" (Ex. 34:26). Logical and reasonable? Well, to someone living way back then, in those primitive superstitious times, I suppose it was. Back then superstition was even more rife than it is today. Sympathetic magic was a constant concern. A kid would have magical ties to its mother, and boiling it in its mother's milk would be a double-whammy which would just be asking for trouble (i.e. it would harm the kid's mother and she would stop giving milk). But I don't believe that. Do you?

Another commandment from Exodus which stuns me with its logic and reason is: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Ex. 22:18) I'm sure countless women throughout history have appreciated that particular nugget of wisdom, especially those in Salem, Massachusetts!

Or how about the owning of slaves, or the forced separation of a slave from his wife and children (unless he agrees to be mutilated and remain a slave for life)? (Ex. 21:4-6)

Or how about the selling of one's daughter (Ex. 21:7-11)?

Or how about allowing a murderer to go free as long as he didn't lie in wait for his victim (Ex. 21:12-13)?

Or how about allowing a man to get away with murdering a slave as long as the slave takes at least a day to die from his beating (Ex. 21:20-21)?

Oh yes, I'm sure we really want to return to those days and change our laws to match them -- NOT!

You said:

"The Bible can more than stand up to any of your contradictions Steve. You really don't seem to be interested in being convinced though, I discern"


That's easy to say, but I don't see you, or anyone else providing any proof of that. My writings have been on the Web for years: available to the entire world. Where are all these super-intelligent Christians who can so easily prove that in spite of all my common sense, the Bible is "God's inerrant Word"? Why haven't they come forth? Why does God allow this attack upon "His Word" to stand unchallenged? All I've heard is, "Oh, you're just being negative," or "You don't have the Spirit, so you can't understand." Well, can someone please explain it to me? I'm listening, and I'll publish what you say verbatim. Go ahead, convince me! I'm ready. Please tell me how a "God of love" can order a foreign army to invade a country and "rip open the bellies" of pregnant women, and murder children, and "suckling" infants (when He knows ahead of time that this invading horde will turn out to be just like those people they killed in turning to "false gods" and "evil practices"). I'm listening.

You said,

"Have you never read Hebrews, and wondered how thousands of years could pass between Moses and Christ, yet there be so much of a type of Christ in the O.T. temple and it's symbolism and sacrifices? Illogical? Hardly."


Well, I agree: it's not illogical once you know that Christianity was built upon a combination of the pagan "mystery" religions and the Hebrew myths. Naturally they would base their god-man story around the symbolism and practices of the Hebrew Scriptures.

The last time I read Hebrews I wondered more about how people could miss the glaring contradictions in what it relates about Moses compared to what it says in Exodus.

You said:

"Still, with your human wisdom you can find that apparent "contradictions" which by the way actually only boil down to only about 10 areas where Biblical scholars struggle, out of all the apparent contradictions you may have listed in your on-line commentary."


Is that a fact? Maybe they only struggle with 10 because they're certain that the rest are contradictions, whereas there might be a valid harmonizing argument for these ten. Of course there are "fundamentalist scholars" and then there are scholars. It is common knowledge to any objective person that the Bible is 99% nonsense, and that can be proven just by comparing the Bible with the Bible and using common sense (as I have done in my book).

I am getting tired of people writing to tell me about all these other "smart people" (who are so much smarter than me) and who are believers. How would you like it if I told you that there were people smarter than you who reject Christianity? Not much of an argument: I'm sure there are people smarter than both of us on both sides of this issue. I'm not going to let "scholars" or "priests" or "evangelists" (or "kings, presidents, and judges") dictate to me what is true and what is a contradiction. I am going to use my own brain for that, thank you very much. When someone can give me a convincing argument that the offenses to common sense in the Bible make perfectly good sense, then, and only then, will it change my mind.

You said:

"Steve, you've seen enough of the beauty of the Bible and it's wisdom, and logic, yet you have still stumbled and failed to grasp Jesus."


Beauty? In the Bible? Okay, there's a golden nugget here and there in that vast wasteland, but they don't make up for the ugliness, stupidity, and cruelty which abounds. Judge Deborah sang the praises of a woman who went back on her word and hammered a nail into a man's head. Is that a beautiful song? Solomon believed that the sun orbits the earth. Is that wise? Paul taught that women should not teach and must remain silent in church and learn from their husbands (the highest IQ in history belongs to a woman). Is it logical to suppress the better half of humankind? Are these things in the Bible because I have "stumbled"? I don't think so. Are we just supposed to ignore them? Then why are they in "God's inerrant Word" in the first place? Just to stumble people like me?

You said:

"The problem isn't that God's existence isn't real enough for you or anyone to grasp intellectually, just examine the incredible complexity of nature."


I have examined nature. It is "red in tooth and claw". If anyone purposely designed it this way, then they are evil.

You said:

You said, "How do you make sense of how immense this Universe is, and how incredibly complex we are as human beings? Certainly science has no logical answer which can make sense of that. Come on now- evolution is a huge joke nowadays, even among many serious scientists, given the art-work depiction of the monkey to man chart. It's amazing people still believe that it's true. Anyway, come up with how it is all put together outside of an intelligent designer such as my God. It says in the Psalm 14:1 that "the fool says in his heart that there is no God." Why? Because of the enormous evidence which does exist in creation that God is real and is all powerful, and man still refuses to seek to find Him. You've mentioned the "inquistion" and the "Crusades," but I say that Hitler and Stalin did a pretty good job of running with the concept that God is dead."


How do you make sense of it? Appealing to the idea of a God who created it all hardly solves the riddle; it just pushes it back one level. If our complexity necessitates a creator, then our creator would be even more complex and "he" would necessitate a creator who would be even more complex and would necessitate a creator, and it would never end. Explaining something by appealing to the unknown is not an explanation at all.

There is fantasy and then there are hard facts. The Doppler Effect proves that the universe is expanding right now, today. That means that in the past everything was closer together. That means at some point it exploded outward and formed the matter we see today. Like it or not, those are verifiable facts, not fantasy.

Evolution is also a fact which has been conclusively proven in the laboratory as well as in nature. It is only a "joke" to fundamentalists. No non-fundamentalist scientist disputes the fact of evolution: they just argue about how exactly it worked itself out over time (something which is open to some honest debate since no one was around back then to witness it first hand). Some less than honest fundamentalists have taken this honest debate and tried to make it appear that it is over the basic facts of evolution. Too bad: they're keeping their dupes from the simple truths of the world around them.

No one has ever claimed that men descended from monkeys. Maybe you're thinking of the fact that human beings are primates, and that we have a common ancestor?

Of course there have been believers as well as non-believers who have committed atrocities throughout history. But the point is, when atheists commit atrocities it's not because they are atheists (atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god: in and of itself it has no agenda). But Christians have committed atrocities due to following the Bible.

You mentioned Hitler as running with the idea that "God is dead". But this is false. He stated, "By warding off the Jews, I am fighting for the Lord's work." In 1933, German Protestant theologians, calling themselves "Storm Troopers of Jesus Christ" professed that Hitler was "an instrument of God". In that year Hitler also met with high-ranking Catholic prelates and told them that he was only doing to the Jews what the Catholic Church had already done to them for 1600 years. He claimed to be "doing Christianity a great service". The prelates later described the talks as "cordial and to the point". In 1934 some German Christians held that Hitler was the new messiah, sent to earth to rid the world of Jews! Nazi propaganda was rife with the allegation that Jews were "Christ killers". So, the Holocaust was not driven by the idea that God was dead. Far from it: without Christianity having fueled anti-semitism for prior centuries, it's doubtful that the Holocaust could ever have occurred.

You said:

"It's actually those who have properly applied themselves to Jesus' teaching that find that the "Crusades" and the "inquistion" are completely contradictory to His message. Those who have loved Christ more than life were very instrumental in founding universities, hospitals, etc... Christians loving Jesus have made great contributions to the society which you now enjoy in this post-Christian culture."


Well, it's debatable whether such things were "completely contradictory to His message." Part of his message, according to the Bible, was: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword". Christians who massacred entire villages of Native Americans turned to the Bible for support, proclaiming: "The Scriptures show that sometimes women and children must be killed." The Bible also relates that Jesus engaged in vandalism and violence against those whom he thought were desecrating holy ground (that sounds very similar to the Crusades to me). Paul supposedly struck a man blind for failing to swallow his new religion, and Peter (or the "holy ghost") caused Ananias and Sapphira to fall down dead after having donated too little to the church (sounds sort of like a justification for the Inquisitions: executing those who refused to surrender to the authority of the church).

Yes, some Christians have made great contributions to society. So have Moslems. So have pagans. So have atheists. Should we tally up the contributions on one side and subtract the harm they've caused on the other? I think this would show Christianity to have a very negative balance sheet.

I wish this were a "post-Christian culture" but I don't think we're very close to that yet. Too many people are still carting around this ancient baggage, stuffed with nonsense, which keeps them deluded.

--Steve



Hey Steve,

I don't begrudge an honest seeker who approaches the Bible and asks, "How can I be sure this is the pure and true Word of God?" The Scriptures invite the reader to ask questions, think and consider, of course I don't ever expect God to help the reader who doesn't have a teachable heart behind that question.The apostles were not opposed to scrutiny, and the Berean church were said to be more "noble" because they searched the Scriptures to see if those things were so they were being taught. (Acts 17:11). So, if the Scriptures claim to have such authority as being "inspired of God," and to be sufficient for all things pertaining to the follower of God's life and for their being pleasing to God one should find it to be inerrant and infallible.

But, alas, one does not find it so.

So I assume you already know much, but I'll put in my two cents, with help from my favorite Bible teacher Dr. John MacArthur. (California president of Master's college)

3 principles have been used over the centuries to validate the writings Christians hold as the inspired Scriptures. 1. The writing had to have a recognized prophet or apostle as its author. (or one associated with an apostle) 2. The writing could not contradict previous Scripture. 3. The writing had to have the general consensus by the church as an inspired book. So, when councils met over the course of history, they didn't vote for the canonicity of a book but instead recognized, after the fact, something they believed God had written through men moved along by the Holy Spirit to pen those words from Him. (2 Pet. 1:20,21)

Point 1: Any seminary student can tell you that none of the books of the Bible (with the possible exception of some of the letters of Paul) were written by the men whose name they bear.

Remember: it was the Catholic Church that did all of your "validation". They have their own "traditions" which rely on wishful thinking rather than reality. They also have a tradition that Peter was the first Pope. If you don't buy this tradition, why do you accept the other?

Almost any non-fundamentalist scholarly work on this subject can supply you all of the facts on this. In brief: Paul's failure to quote anything from the Gospels (or to refer to anything Jesus said or did as related in the Gospels, even when such things would have exactly served his purposes) indicates that the Gospels were written after Paul's time. The failure of any of the early "church Fathers" to quote the gospels further indicates that the Gospels could not have been written by any of the "apostles" or their associates.

Bronson Keeler, in A Short History of the Bible, has this to say about the Gospels:

"They are not heard of till 150 A.D., that is, till Jesus had been dead nearly a hundred and twenty years. No writer before 150 A.D. makes the slightest mention of them."


In The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read, John Remsburg writes:

"The Four Gospels were unknown to the early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, the most eminent of the early Fathers, wrote about the middle of the second century. His writings in proof of the divinity of Christ demanded the use of these Gospels, had they existed in his time. He makes more than 300 quotations from the books of the Old Testament, and nearly one hundred from the Apocryphal books of the New Testament; but none from the four Gospels. Rev. Giles says: 'The very names of the Evangelists, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, are never mentioned by him -- do not occur once in all his writings.'"


Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits:

"The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning has no foundation in history."

"Enterprising spirits responded to this natural craving [for details about Christ's life] by pretended gospels full of romantic fables, and fantastic and striking details; their fabrications were eagerly read and accepted as true by common folk who were devoid of any critical faculty and who were predisposed to believe what so luxuriously fed their pious curiosity. Both Catholics and Gnostics were concerned in writing these fictions. The former had no motive other than that of a pious fraud."


And the Protestant Encyclopedia Biblica states:

"Almost every one of the Apostles had a Gospel fathered upon him by one early sect or another."


If the Gospels didn't exist until the middle of the second century, then they could not have been written by anyone who knew Jesus first-hand. Therefore, according to your first point, they should be thrown out.

Point Two: Since the Gospels all contradict one another, we would have to throw out at least 3 of the four. Since Stephen's summary of early Jewish history contradicts what is written in the "Old Testament" we would have to either throw out Acts or the "Old Testament". Since Hebrews contradicts Exodus, one of these "books" of the Bible would have to go. In fact, if anyone really used point two as a criterion, in the end we would be left with no more than a handful of books (instead of 66) making up the Bible.

Point Three: "General consensus by the Church" meant the Catholic Church, since this was the body which decreed which books were canonical.

It took well over a thousand years to canonize the New Testament. This canonization required many councils to decide which of the 200 or so "Gospels" and "Epistles" were "inspired". Writing of these councils, Keeler states:

"The reader would err greatly did he suppose that in these assemblies one or two hundred gentlemen sat down to discuss quietly and dignifiedly the questions which had come before them for settlement. On the contrary, many of the bishops were ignorant ruffians, and were followed by crowds of vicious supporters who stood ready on the slightest excuse to maim and kill their opponents."


And then they still got it wrong, according to the Protestants who later threw out the Apocrypha!

By Jesus' day the Old Testament had been written and accepted by the Jewish community. Not only does that O.T. of Jesus' day conform to the O.T. which has been used throughout the centuries, but it does not contain the uninspired apocrypha, where were 14 writings written after Malachi and attached to the O.T. around 200 B.C in the Greek translation of the Hebrew O.T. (The Septuagint or LXX)

Neither Jesus or any N.T. writer eve cited the apocrypha.

Off the top of my head I know that the canonical book of Jude makes quotations from the apocryphal Book of Enoch.

It is interesting that you mention the Septuagint. In a critically important quote in the Gospels, we are told that Jesus was born of a virgin to fulfill Scripture. But the Scripture in question related to a young woman giving birth (definitely not a virgin, since Isaiah "went unto her" prior to her conceiving!) But, in the Septuagint version the word for "young woman" had been mistranslated as "virgin". Now, if the Gospels were written by the apostles, how is it that they quoted from the Septuagint when it was not yet in existence at the time (and would not be in existence for over a hundred years)? Is it obvious to you -- yet -- what happened here? It was just another "pious fraud".

By Christ's time the O.T. was divided up into two lists of 22 or 24 books. In the 22 book canon- Jeremiah and Lamentations were considered as one, as were Judges and Ruth. The same 3 tests that applied to the O.T. applied to the N.T. Mark and Luke/Acts were considered to be penmen for Peter and Paul. James and Jude were written by Jesus' hafl-brothers. Hebrews is the only book where authorship is unknown, but its content is so in line with the Old and New Testament, the early church concluded it was written by an apostolic associate.

**The 27 books of the N.T. have been universally accepted since A.D. 350-400 as inspired by God. **

With the Roman Catholic Church's means of persuasion (i.e. the rack, iron maiden, burning at the stake, etc.) I can see where I would have gone along with whatever they said too. But the time for shaking in our boots is over, and we can now use our brains to examine whether these 27 books are inspired by any god.

I have heard that Martin Luther really wanted to throw out the book of Revelation, but there were too many political interests to appease, so it was kept in.

Steve we could talk about how we can know that the Bible we hold in our English speaking hands, is true to those from earlier centuries and their are answers which are more than adequate. I told you before there are over 5000 Greek N.T. manuscripts (ranging from pieces to the whole.) A few of the existing fragments have been dated to as early as 25-50 years of the original writings. Even though we have no original copies left, the decisive amount of material has given N.T scholars 99.99 percent probability that we have reclaimed the original writings.

This strikes me as irrelevant to our discussion. It little matters to me if they are 25-50 years from the "original writings", when the "original writings" were made at least 50-100 years after the events they supposedly relate.

It also little matters if we have "reclaimed the original writings" if the original writings are a mass of contradictions.

We have even older manuscripts of the sacred books of other religions. So what? At some point in the dim past there must have been an "original" of each of these books. That doesn't make their contents true.

That's just a small bit of the stuff I could quote from the material Dr. MacArthur alone has compiled and that's just from the beginning pages of my Study Bible! That's not researching the whole stuff out wholesale on-line.

I am by no means turning my logic aside, and I do expect that if it is God's Word it can stand up.

Here's my shot at one apparent contradiction you have mentioned..

Matt. 10:34 (I'm using the New King James version of the Bible)

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword...."


Here's the verses that follow from Matt 10:35-39. As always what comes before and after a passage is pretty crucial to understand something. Pulling one line out of a book would make little sense to anyone, without seeing the character development, the story line on that page, and a little input about the whole plot up to then and maybe even after, etc...

Yes, I agree, and this is why I am reading the Bible cover to cover and commenting on it as I go, to make sure I don't take anything out of context.

The Bible:

"For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daugther-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me, and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."


So, you ask why Jesus appears to be contradicting what the angels proclaimed over in Luke 2:14, when he was born of the virgin Mary? There it's recorded that the angels appeared to shepherds when Jesus was born and said: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!"

If you examine the surrounding context of Matthew 10, its Jesus sending out the 12 ahead of him into the villages where he was going to preach. (Luke 9 is a comparative of this and adds that Jesus had to specifically give them that power and authority.)

Anyway, Jesus sends them to preach repentance, and to heal, cast out demons from people, and gives specific instructions about that whole journey. After a short section of specific instructions for them in Matthew, Jesus begins to prophesy of the future, as the context obviously stretches way beyond their immediate journey (Luke doesn't choose to add this this)

Back in Matthew, Jesus tells his followers that they would be persecuted and they were not to be afraid of men. Yes, men can kill the body, but Jesus reminds his followers that there is one (God) who should be feared because he can go beyond that to cast a soul and body into hell.

Jesus reminds them that not even the sparrows fall to the ground, except God wills it. As we are so much more valuable to God than birds (see also Matt. 6:19-34 for that specific line of thinking) , we should not fear. Jesus is clearly saying that bad things will happen, but give into fear, keep following.

Followers of Christ are to know they live for God's glory, not their own comfort, and being faithful to Christ and His teachings is what's important. So, Jesus begins to warn them not to fall away and to confess him...After this comes your problem. (I'm sure I raised many more by what I said...)

Yes, you have, but I'm politely holding my tongue for now :-)

Jesus now says that He has not come to bring peace but a sword. Well, if you read over through chapter 11 and 12 in Matthew, you find John the Baptist, Jesus' generation, and the Pharisees, all doubt him, or don't believe him, or want to kill him. It follows this talk, and I think it's pretty strategic (rather than chronological) that Matthew includes these narratives there.

Jesus' ultimate aim IS and has always been to bring peace, but only to those who believe. For the rest he doesn't bring peace but judgment, because they reject him. The end of the gospel is peace to those who believe- this is throughout the New Testament and Jesus' clear teachings. BUT, quite frequently as you and I are finding out now (still fulfilling that prophecy), the gospel can bring conflict. In Jesus' day alone, it's recorded in Scripture that the Jewish leaders were throwing families out of the synagogues who followed Christ. Coming to Christ would bring great pain to a family (v. 33, 36), who did not want to follow Christ as well. It's still like this in many Muslim areas of the world. Persecution resulted from that in Jesus' day, and in our, and many times led to death.

Just to set the record straight: throughout history there has been much more of Christians killing Jews, "heretics", Muslims, and "heathens" than the other way around.

In v. 32, 33, 37-39, there is an underlying theme from Jesus that Christians are willing to suffer. What's wrong with our generation of Christians? They want the Rolls Royce Jesus. So sad and completely contrary to Jesus' teaching, but hey anyone can try and make anything say whatever they want.

Now you're starting to get it: people can (and do) make the Bible say whatever they want it to (via the "that doesn't mean what it says" school of interpretation, as well as the "let me tell you what that means" school). Along those lines I could support the Rolls Royce version of Jesus by quoting, "my yoke is kindly and my load is light". It all depends on which verses you want to expound upon and which ones you want to "explain away" (as you are attempting with the "I come not to bring peace but a sword" quote).

Jesus IS the "prince of peace, (Isaiah 9:6), yet Jesus is teaching that there should be no deluded thinking about it. Following him brings us into conflict with the world, and ultimately he does not bring peace to those who reject him- but condemnation and judgment in hell.

This is the way in which I interpret Jesus saying, "I came not to bring peace, but a sword." in that context. Look over other places like Luke 9:23-26, where Jesus says other similar hard sayings.

Okay, Jesus said point blank "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." He says that we're not even to think that he came to bring peace on earth. But you tell me that doesn't mean what it says. You say that I should think that Jesus is the prince of peace, but this means that Jesus is pro-peace for his followers and anti-peace for those who don't believe that he's the price of peace. For the latter, he has a nice hot spot reserved in hell where he'll delight in watching them squirm for eternity.

But even despots want peace for their own followers, while it's "to hell with the rest of the world!" So how is your Jesus any better than them in this regard? Someone who plans to torture people eternally (if this is what you believe about him) cannot in any sense of the word ever be called a prince of peace. Someone who deliberately plans to turn families against each other is not a promoter of peace. It doesn't matter how much of the surrounding text you have me read or how much you try to tone it down or how many smooth words you add to the mix. Once you're out of religion for a while you can recognize BS when you hear it.

Can you imagine Jimmy Carter at Camp David having begun the Mid-East peace talks with this quote? If not, then this quote is not what a "prince of peace" would ever have said.

I don't think you've read my online book, but rather just my off-the-cuff responses to your emails. So, let me end my discussion of this by quoting from my book's comments on these verses:

We often hear conservative Christians speaking about returning to "family values" these days. Let's hope they don't mean the "family values" taught by Jesus! This is one prophecy of his which unfortunately has come true: his words have acted as a sword to split up families over religious differences. But this isn't just an unfortunate consequence of God's being unable to write a clear account of what he wants us to know, believe, and do. Jesus said he had purposely come to break up families in this way!

Jesus expected us to love him, a character in a book, more than our flesh-and-blood families. This would seem to be the very height of egotism. It makes Jesus as jealous as the God of the Old Testament.

Mt:10:38: And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.


It's surprising that his followers didn't ask him at this point what he meant by his "cross" here. They hadn't a clue that Jesus would die on a cross, so they couldn't have the slightest idea what he was talking about.

Christians often refer to trials in their life as being their "cross to bear". When I hear that I can't help but think of those classic paintings showing Jesus carrying his cross. But Matthew tells us that Jesus didn't carry his own cross; someone named Simon did:

Mt:27:31: And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him. Mt:27:32: And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.


So, instead of "carrying" one's cross, could Jesus have meant by "taking the cross" that we must all be crucified in order to be "worthy of him"? If not, then what did he mean? Remember that Paul told us that all we have to do is believe in Jesus. If Jesus, on the other hand, told us that we must be crucified, that's quite a difference in requirements!


Steve, in (your) experience as the Bible does not live up to the reputation of being the "inspired Word of God." For the reasons you have given, and I'm sure many more, you do not allow your life to be conformed by it's teachings. It's "truth" does not teach you, reprove you, correct you, or train you in what is right or wrong. You find it's record of Jesus Christ, and his teachings, to be illogical and contradictory. So.. You reject the Bible as being "true," and have also rejected Him, who it records. You reject the idea that God's power and divine nature has been mediated through the physical evidence of what He's made. You find the big bang more probable for the origin of the Universe than an intelligent Creative all powerful unseen being-God. The Bible and it's description of my God and Lord Jesus have been tried in your court room and you find it illogical, contradictory, and find Him unfair, unjust, and His ways so detestable that you would never submit your life to Him or His ways.

You've got it.

"Then He said to them, 'These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to the, 'Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning in Jerusalem. And you are witnesses of these things." Luke 24:44-48 (New King James)


In Acts 16:11-15, Paul and Silas are on mission in Phillipi, down by a river where they hear people go to pray. They are, as always, looking to proclaim the message of the Risen Christ wherever people may hear. It says that they met a woman named Lydia, a businesswoman who sold purple cloth. As Paul proclaimed the message of Jesus, it says in v. 14, that "The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul."

From hearing some of your testimony you may have had a knowledge of who Jesus was, but you never embraced Jesus by faith as Lord and Savior in spirit and truth. So, don't give me that you had it- so how can you lose it stuff. With all respect, the demons that Jesus cast out of people had better theology than yours. If you were really seeking as hard as you say, you'd be doing a little more studying of the Bible itself again. I don't think your seeking at all anymore, so don't expect to find answers with that spirit.

I am reading the Bible cover-to-cover on my own for the second time, as I have stated. I refuse to shut off my brain during the reading, or swallow anyone's "that doesn't mean what it says" interpretation. If this is the Word of God, then it should reach me more assuredly than anything you or any "doctor of divinity" may write. If you expect me to assume your theology a priori (in order to "get it") then I'm sorry, but that is not reading with an open mind.

True faith is not just hearing but crossing over to embrace by faith and having the Spirit of God transform your life in ever increasing measure. You were checking it out for sure, maybe even thought you knew what it was all about, but man did you get deceived by a lie about the whole deal!

As a former believer I fervently believed in the god of the Bible and that Jesus was his son who died for my sins. I just can't believe in it now anymore than I can believe in Zeus or Apollo or Hercules.

But if you insist on dismissing my prior belief, then what about those other fundamentalist preachers who have since repudiated their former beliefs? Why did your god take away their ability to see it?

Anyway, Paul explains that God gets to do what God wants to do with His creation. He has mercy on whom He desires, and hardens whom He wants to. The illustration Paul used was how God hardened Pharoah's heart, (Moses asking him to let the people go but Pharoah refused) so that he would not let God's people go. Paul said God hardened him in order to display His glory and make known His name in all the earth. Paul never tried to make excuses for God. He states the objection which I'm sure you have, and so do others when they read that. (Romans 9:19), "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?"

Right? How dare you God?! Doing whatever you want in this Creation which you made. Where do you get off messing with minds like that, and for what purpose? To make your name known. That's right says God.

Here's Paul's answer to that objection, and all the objections like it:

"But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? What if God wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles." (Romans 9;19-24)


Steve, it's always been our pride as the creature which separates us from the Creator. It was Satan's first sin, and it's still our biggest problem in mankind.

You can't possibly begin to find fault with God. He created you. His compassion is real though. His mercy is deep. His love is great. This is where you say to him- Lord Jesus you have to help my unbelief if your really there because I need to see who you are. Then you go back and read Him again and ask to be raised spiritually from death to life.

"But He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?" Mark 8:29


Don't answer that yet.

In Christ,
Chris



Who am I to question what Paul's god wants to do to me? Well, who was Paul to tell me anything? I have just as much right and authority as Paul to write about what "God" does or will do and what "God" thinks is right and wrong. Paul was a man. I am a man. You are a man. Paul wrote some things about what he thought. Big deal. So what? Who was Paul? A man like any other (though given to "pious frauds" as he himself admitted). The point is, we must examine his writings as we would the writings of anyone else. We can't just say, "Oh, Paul wrote it, it must be true." Why must it be true? Because some anonymous idiots in the third or fourth century took a vote? That's not good enough for me.

You are describing a god who deliberately forced people to disobey him ("hardening their hearts") in order that he could show off by killing countless innocent people. This is not a god I care to worship, thank you very much. I prefer to point out to people that this is the exact opposite of morality, and that they need to wake up from their long comfortable slumber atop the Bible.

This is not an Ultimate Being and Creator of the Universe you are describing. This is just the primitive imaginings of the creators of the barbaric biblical god and his son.

Just because I create something, that does NOT give me carte blanche as to what I can do with it or to it. Ethics come into play here. If I write a computer program to spread a virus, I don't have the right to release it onto the Internet just because I created it. If I create a bomb, that doesn't give me the right to explode it where it will kill people. If I am a geneticist and I clone an animal, that doesn't give me the right to torture or kill that animal.

If some cruel monster created us, then I guess we could cower in fear and not dare to protest as he whimsically lets some of us be blinded and eventually consigns us to hell because of that. But I guess I'm a little braver than that. Yes, the "creator" must be held accountable! Yes, I -- a mere man -- protest!

ZAAAAAAAP!!! Oops -- guess you were right! ;-)

But seriously, my not being zapped for the above "insubordination" is a rather good proof that the god of the Bible (who zapped people for lesser verbal rebelliousness) simply does not exist.

In truth,
--Steve



Steve,

All right a few parting thoughts. Please write back one more time because I am interested in your final thoughts as well.

Here's two things I want to point out:

  1. You believe the Bible contains many contradictions and so it's not inerrant.
  2. You disagree with God's ways and His rules.


Even if I can understand (and disagree) with why you don't come to Christ because of your analysis of #1, I don't quite understand your thinking from #2.

Even if #1 were not an issue and you found the Bible do be completely in harmony, you say that you still wouldn't want to follow the God it describes there. This is a really big point.

Chris, I think you are trying to disentangle belief in God from belief in the Bible. But you haven't really done so because you are assuming that "God's ways and His rules" are given in the Bible.

We have yet to discuss "God's ways and His rules" all we have discussed is the god of the Bible's ways and rules.

Even if the Bible contained no other contradictions, it would still contain some critically important contradictions about its god. It says that he is a god of justice and love, yet he formulated unjust laws and ordered unloving actions. In fact, his entire "divine plan" is unjust. So, as long as you equate "God" with the god of the Bible, there is no way to separate the two: disbelieving the Bible is disbelieving in the god of the Bible. But we have yet to even begin to discuss the concept of God apart from this one specific, primitive tribal god.

If there is a God, then I don't believe it could possibly be anything like the barbarian described in the "Old Testament". No way. In fact, if God existed, I think one of the biggest insults you could pay God would be to claim that the "Old Testament" was true.

So, it doesn't make sense to me to say "if you believed the Bible was harmonious you would still reject the god of the Bible." One of the big reasons why the Bible is disharmonious is in its description of its god. If you could change the Bible to be harmonious you would also change the actions (and hence the nature) of its god. If I were then to believe, it wouldn't be the same god we find in the Bible today.

You disagree with His laws.

You mean to tell me that you agree with "His laws"? You think it's okay to own slaves and beat them to death (as long as they take at least a day to die)? You think witches should be killed, and rape victims stoned? You think that if you commit a sin, an innocent animal should be killed and burned in sacrifice? You think a man should be able to sell his daughter? You think that if someone picks up sticks on the Sabbath they should be executed? You may say all of these laws "passed away", but that misses the point. According to the Bible, these were all laws of God at some point, and they never could have been just.

You don't like the guilt, or depression, which comes from all the condemnation of His laws. That isn't a logic problem but a rebellion problem. Your telling the God described in the Bible- even if I was ever proved wrong on the Bible being inerrant, I don't like you and won't worship or glorify you.

I explained in my first note that I wasn't going to be able to convert you through a debate on #1 anyway, and your really establishing my point again. Even if I had been able to convince you that these were improper interpretations on your part, you still have that impossible chasm to cross from unbelief to belief because you find God untrustworthy, unwise, unjust, and you don't want Him.

All that you've said about my stance here is true. I would just point out again that we are still talking about the god of the Bible.

God's response to questioners of His justice and unfathomable ways, like Job chap 38-42 or Isaiah 40, goes like this.

(This is the god of the Bible's response.) By your great wisdom Steve, would you please explain to me why it is that this Universe seems to be endless? How did we get such an interesting set-up here on earth, which is the only planet we can find which is suited for us to live on? How is it that such complexity exists within the smallest of animals? By your great power, would you please command the sun to rise tommorow morning? By your incredible strength would you try and wrestle with some of nature's fiercest animals?

So if by your wisdom, reason, power, and strength, you cannot do even these small things (which are nothing for the Creator of those things), how is it that you think it acceptable to accuse Him of injustice, or being unwise, or untrustworthy?

Well, yes, if you like, it is rebelliousness. I won't be bullied. Your god is powerful? Big deal. So was Hitler, and I hope I would have had the courage to spit in his face and take the consequences. Rebellious? To an unjust authority, you bet!

Power does not grant justice or wisdom. In fact, as the saying goes, "power corrupts".

So there are forces in nature more powerful than me. So what? Does that mean I should fall down on my knees and worship them? I think not. Does it mean that a more powerful conscious being created them? No. Unconscious (non-sentient) forces are powerful (avalanches, tornadoes, earthquakes...) But I don't worship any of these.

Men have also created forces more powerful than me (dynamite, nuclear bombs, freight trains... does that make these men "just, wise, and trustworthy"? No, it just means they were inventive. Some of these inventions have not been put to wise or just use.

There is your deepest issue exposed. You wouldn't want God telling you how to live your life, even if He did prove His Word was reliable. You have seen His evidence in the world and failed to worship Him. You have sensed His laws of right and wrong written on your heart, and sensed your conscience defend and accuse you, yet you dismissed it's warning and ignored it.

If I had seen evidence of God in nature, it would in no way tie me to a belief in the god of the Bible.

The laws of right and wrong written in my heart tell me that the god of the Bible is wrong. If such laws were written there by God (as you claim) then my "God-given conscience" is telling me that the god of the Bible is a false god.

Because you dismiss God and His laws, you have no solid foundation to understand what is right and what is wrong. Your decisions are based on whatever seems right to you at the time. You can try and live by a moral code of doing good to others, but even your idea of "good" must have origin in something. Who? You don't know, because it's all so unknowable.

So, according to you I have an idea of "good" (though I don't know where I got that from), but no solid foundation for understanding right and wrong. And this unfortunate state is caused by rejecting the Bible.

First of all, how do you judge the Bible to be "good"? Is it not a judgment you yourself have made? On what basis? Every time you call the Bible or its god "good" you have made a personal judgment. Everyone does this: there is no getting around it. Even if someone claims that they just believe right and wrong are totally laid out for them in the Bible and that's all they go by. At some point they made a personal conscious decision to accept the Bible as "good". Therefore, people must be able to discern good and bad (right and wrong) apart from the Bible.

Since people must be able to discern right and wrong apart from the Bible, it follows that one does not need a belief in the Bible (and all that entails: including a belief in its god and his laws) to have a "solid foundation to understand what is right and wrong".

Such an understanding must precede the acceptance of the Bible (or anything else one judges as "good" or "right").

You said, "Your decisions are based on whatever seems right to you at the time." Well, that's not just me: that's true of everyone. I take it you make your decisions about what is right or wrong at the time by attempting to find a precedent or principle in the Bible. But you are still deciding what is right at the time (by deciding which of the contradictory stories to apply).

So, we both decide what seems right at the time. It's just that what seems right to me is based on empathy, while what seems right to you is based on what some anonymous men wrote thousands of years ago. If you read my online article "What Would Jesus Do?" you will see why I think that such a method of determining right and wrong can lead to unethical conduct.

If these are out parting thoughts, Chris, I would like to recommend to you a book which I think has captured the truth about the origins of Christianity better than any other I have read. It is called The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. I think it would prove to be a real eye-opener for you.

I can only pray for you Steve, and warn you (again) that the God which creation boasts about- because of His power and divine nature- cannot be mocked. He may yet show mercy on you, and this is my humble prayer for you.

Only He can open your eyes,

Chris P.