On our "mailbag" page, we have many letters from visitors to this site who have a different point of view. This is fine; we welcome such correspondence; it keeps us honest.
But I wondered what it would be like to be on the other side: responding to a website with a point of view radically different from my own. This would give me another opportunity to test my viewpoint rather than simply resting quietly and comfortably with it.
So I went searching for a pro-Christian website to respond to. I found one which had an article specifically geared towards atheists. I decided to respond to this article.
The article was entitled something like "Was Jesus a Liar, a Lunatic, or What He Claimed to be?" It was largely based on the writings of one Josh McDowell. I have since lost the link (or I would include it here), so let me give you the gist of the article which is discussed in the emails below.
The main point of the article was that if Jesus was not the Son of God, then he was either a lunatic or a liar. However, he couldn't have been a lunatic because he was so wise. That leaves the liar possibility. But, since he was willing to die for his belief, it must not have been a lie (because people don't die for something they know is a lie). Therefore Jesus must be what he claimed to be.
Hello,
I'm an atheist, and I thought you might like to hear my reaction to this part of your site.
First of all, these aren't the only possibilities. Another possibility is that Jesus never made the claims that later writers attributed to him.
But the possibility which seems most in harmony with the evidence is that Jesus is a fictional character based on pagan gods of the past (some 16 of which were crucified prior to the supposed time of Jesus). Later, he was mistaken (by the "literalist" sect of the Christians) for an historical figure, and the "gospels" were then manufactured to supply a biography.
You stated: "A lunatic is the opposite of wise." And gave examples of people in mental institutions with divinity complexes. But this statement is false. John Nash, for instance, was a brilliant mathematician (the subject of the movie "A Beautiful Mind") who was also a "lunatic". Mental illness does not necessarily preclude wisdom; it can be localized to just certain aspects of one's life. Your statement really does a disservice to the mentally ill.
--Steve
Hi Steve,
I found your points very interesting and some not unlike reactions that I once had about Christianity. The idea that Jesus never said some of the things that are in the gospels or never existed would then make the writers liars. Two points come to mind on this issue. First is that there were still many people alive when the gospels were written that did know Jesus. They would have quickly pointed out the false statements and therefore would have stopped this small group. Remember that this group was not quiet about these points such as the resurrection. They did not go and hide for years and then write the gospels. The second point is that most of these men died very terrible deaths. Not one broke rank and said it was a lie. Many men and women have died torturous deaths for something they believed was true but I know of none that would die like that for what they would have known was a lie. Why would they? Once Peter died upside down on a cross, I would have to believe the rest would run. Unless they knew that it was the truth and Jesus' promise was worth it.
I am sure that your statement about the 16 pagan gods that were crucified is true. It is the first time that I heard that number. The one point that I would make is that no mater how Jesus would have died, you could find a pagan god that died that way. That is to say if he had died by fire you could dismiss it because other so called gods died that way. The fact that crucifixion was used in stores should not make it untrue for Jesus.
Your other point intrigues me. I have never heard of localized wisdom. To me, I would look at John Nash as to having great knowledge and ability but not wisdom. Wisdom, as I understand it, is to be able to make the right decision based on past experience. In other words drawing on many things,including knowledge, to make the right decision. I would think that you would agree that outside of math problems, Mr. Nash made some poor decisions.
Well Steve I just want to let you know how I came to believe the statements on our Web Page are true. Please feel fee to email me at anytime. I enjoy discussing these issues with people of strong beliefs.
Your friend,
Rick
Hi Rick,
And, likewise, many of the things you said in your reply are things I used to think about Christianity.
I'm sure you must realize that most unbiased scholars would dispute your claim that the Gospels were written shortly after the supposed time of Jesus' death.
If Jesus is a fictional character whom his inventors placed in a time 50-100 years in the past, there would have been no one around to dispute it.
In more primitive times, authors frequently wrote "sacred" things under the names of legendary figures of the past (in order to give their work added credence amongst the poorly educated). This is rife in the Old Testament, and we should not be surprised to find it also in the New, so that we don't know who the authors of the Gospels were, other than they clearly were not who they claimed to be. They did not consider this "lying," though you and I might differ with them on this point.
Today, we have the tabloids. In the supermarket checkout the other day I saw these headlines:
"Statue of Elvis weeps real tears!"
"3,000 year old mummy pregnant - janitor admits he's the father!"
You could argue that few people take these seriously, and I would agree, but I can imagine some archaeologist hundreds of years from now uncovering this document, and proclaiming that it must be true because certainly people would've disputed such claims if they were false. The point is: no one thinks them worth disputing, and those who want to believe it are considered deluded but harmless. The same could have happened with the Gospels. It's just unfortunate that the Roman Empire discovered the power they could wield over all their conquered nations by forcing such beliefs upon them and forming the Roman Catholic Church (from which all the many Protestant branches of Christianity have sprung).
Yes, many people have suffered for their beliefs (be it Christianity or some other belief). This does not make such beliefs true. And, the fact that people are willing to die for them does not necessarily mean that they witnessed what they believe in first hand. People die for firmly held delusions too. Just look at the Jehovah's Witnesses dying for want of a blood transfusion.
On the other side of the coin are the "heretics" who refused to swallow the official Christian dogma. We all know what happened to them. Talk about dying horribly for one's beliefs! Throughout their latter history, Christians have been more on the giving than the receiving end of that practice!
I agree that the fact that other gods and incarnations died by crucifixion does not make Jesus' crucifixion untrue. But, it seems rather cultural-centric to dismiss all of the others out of hand as "false and pagan" and yet embrace the very same belief when it comes to the religion of one's own culture. Then too, this is far from the only similarity between Jesus and his predecessors. The similarities are too numerous and specific to ignore (which is why at least one "church father" came up with the idea that the devil had purposely introduced these christ-like pagan gods in advance of Jesus so as to undermine belief in Christianity!)
This is why the other branches of early Christianity laughed at the "literalist" branch (the one that eventually won out). "You have mistaken the ancient mysteries and symbols for history!" They exclaimed in disbelief at their comrades' gullibility.
We probably won't get anywhere with the "lunatic" discussion, because there are too many fuzzy definitions here (including "wisdom") but what I'm trying to convey is that people who would be considered "lunatics" in some respects could be wise in others. For instance: some Pentecostals speak in tongues, foam at the mouth, and see visions: all clinical signs of psychosis. Yet I think at least some of them can go home and live normal lives and make rational decisions.
--Steve
It is very refreshing to hear from an "Atheist" that has read the Bible and did some research. Some simply say the Christianity is wrong and have no intention on ever reading the Bible. In fact, it sounds like you were a church goer at one time. Is that true? If you do not mind me asking...What made you turn away or change your mind?
In brief: I was raised a Roman Catholic, converted to another religious cult, and eventually "saw the light". ;-)
All of the atheists I know have gotten that way after reading the Bible for themselves. But I can't blame those whom you say have rejected Christianity without reading the Bible. Have you rejected Mormonism without reading the Book of Mormon? Perhaps you have read it, but I think most people who have rejected it haven't read it. They feel they know enough about Mormonism to reject it without having to read its "sacred" books.
I have not yet come across any "unbiased scholars." People tend to see everything through glasses that are clouded by their beliefs.
There's a large element of truth to that. Let me rephrase: Scholars who are practicing Christians ("believers") as well as non-Christian scholars have both agreed that the Gospels had a later date than we had originally assumed. There seems to be no real controversy or debate about this by anyone who knows the facts.
That is not to say that after looking over the evidence they can not change their beliefs but normally people look at these issues from one side or the other. I know of many people that have started out trying to disprove Christianity and then became a Christian because the evidence was so overwhelming. One such person would be Josh McDowell who wrote "More than a Carpenter." It goes over 10 common questions like: Are the Biblical Records Reliable, What about Science, and What good is a Dead Messiah? Since you like to do research...If you like, I have an extra copy that I can mail you.
Well, that's exactly how I became a cult member! I set out to "disprove it" and rescue my sister from their cult. Instead, I came to believe in it. But, today I am fully convinced that this religion is not "the truth" they claim it to be. So, what does that prove? People are human and they make mistakes. Sometimes they write books about it.
I don't see how anyone who has done any real research on the subject can refer to "overwhelming evidence"! There is an overwhelming LACK of evidence! Some of the greatest historians who ever lived were around at or shortly after the time Jesus supposedly lived. Yet not a word did they write about this miracle-worker. The court records of Pilate have been searched: not a word about Jesus. There was one ancient historian (sorry; I'm writing this on the bus, and can't look up his name just now) who delighted in pointing out all of Herod's crimes. Yet he wrote not one word about the slaughter of the children! The only place this horrendous crime is written about is in one of the Gospels (evidently even the other Gospel writers didn't find it credible).
True, there is a mention made of Jesus in Josephus. I read his Antiquities of the Jews while I was still a believer, and even then I could tell that the passage about Jesus was an interpolation by some other hand. The passage doesn't fit within the context, and the style is completely different. It is an obvious forgery, and again, there is no honest dispute about this by Christian scholars. The fact that someone felt that such a forgery was necessary emphasizes the fact that had Jesus lived, Josephus would surely have written something about him.
Based on what I've seen of McDowell's level of reasoning and ability as a researcher, I will decline your kind offer. I feel I've read more than my share of pro-Christian writings in my life.
I am still not sure why people would make up the story of Jesus 50 -100 years later and then die for it. I think there is enough evidence to show it was not easy to be a Christian in the time frame you stated. It was not like they were treated like kings and prospered for it. Most died very horrible deaths. Jehovah's Witnesses are convinced that Jehovah forbids blood transfusions. I truly believe that Judge Rutherford, who led the Watchtower after Charles Russell died, would have had a blood transfusion if he needed it. Also if other Witnesses believed it was untrue then they would stop this practice or even the Watchtower altogether. They would not let loved ones die just to keep the Watchtower happy. Would they?
There is no evidence that the people who made up the Jesus story died for it. We don't know who wrote the Gospels, much less how they died.
But people who later came to believe one or more of the Gospels were persecuted for their refusal to worship the emperor, and some of them did die horrible deaths. But, does that make their belief true?
Christians also died horrible deaths for their beliefs at the hands of other Christians. These were called "heretics". Does that make their "heresies" true?
Jehovah's Witnesses are prepared to die, and to let their loved ones die because they believe the words in the Watchtower magazine. Does that make those words true?
I agree that Rutherford would have had a transfusion if he needed one (and then either covered it up, or added amendments to his rules). But we're not talking about the perpetrators of the lies; we're talking about their dupes. If they come to see that the Watchtower lies, then they usually leave (though some do stay, feeling that the "basic truths" are still there. This is an illogical stance, but that's how some people are.)
And sometimes even the perpetrators are willing to suffer and die for their lies! Joseph Smith is an example of this.
Another, more recent, example of this phenomenon is the "White Supremacist" movement. They have written a book entitled "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which they attempt to pass off as a secret document of the Jews. Everyone except the rank-and-file White Supremacists knows that it is a forgery. Yet, these people are prepared to die for their belief (based on -- or at least largely bolstered by -- this book).
So, there is a lot of evidence that people will die for lies, and there is even evidence that some people will die for lies they themselves made up! I doubt that I can give a clear answer as to why in the latter case (possibly a "power trip") but the reason in the former case would largely be a sense of belonging, which leads to a willingness to die for the group (much like patriotism).
But the motivation of these people is not important to our discussion. The important point is that many people are willing to die for beliefs which both of us would agree are untrue. Therefore, we can't use the fact that ancient Christians died for their beliefs as an indicator of the truthfulness of their beliefs.
The term "cultural-centric" is interesting. Are not all faiths cultural-centric? Some try to hide it by being tolerant but when you push you will find they are tolerant only to a point. Atheist's tend to dismiss all supernatural beliefs but put their faith in time and chance. Jesus' teachings are very inclusive. This is not popular in our culture but is no less true.
Yes, I agree: all religions are cultural-centric. That's why, when I look back on my days as a believer, I am astonished at how narrow-minded I was! To think that this one odd collection of books, held as sacred in the culture I happened to be born into, was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!
As a Christian I can not believe in a pagan belief that is inconstant with the Bible. That would make me a hypocrite.
But the central idea of Christianity (a dying and reviving god) is totally compatible with pagan beliefs (and my contention is that it was this very pagan belief which gave rise to Christianity in the first place).
If you're going to reject things that are inconsistent, then you would have to reject the Bible, since it is very inconsistent (too much to go into here -- please see my online book Can the Bible be God's Word?)
Either the Bible is true or it is not. I would not buy a history book that stated that George Washington was the greatest General in World War II. Would you?
If people were being misled by such a book, then I would buy the book and research its statements in order to help out those who had been duped into believing it.
The Bible does, in fact, make such historically impossible claims. I present this evidence in my on-line book, so I'll just touch on one example here.
In Genesis, God told Noah to gather 2 of every animal. Noah did so. But then, with only 7 days left until the flood, God told Noah to gather 7 of every bird and every "clean" animal! (Gen. 6:19; 7:2-4) But the designation of animals as clean and unclean did not come until the time of Moses, centuries later. This is further proven by the fact that after the flood, God told Noah that he was free to eat every sort of animal (except for their blood).
In the above instance, the writer imposed the ideas of his own time period back into a past which would not have known about them. It is the very same type of mistake as writing about George Washington being a general in WW II.
If you state that "the Bible is either true or it isn't," it tells me that it is an all-or-nothing proposition to you: you don't allow for some of the statements in the Bible to be true, while others are false, or even for some of its books to be true while others are false. Given that understanding of what it means to call the Bible "true", I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to state my firm conviction that the Bible CANNOT POSSIBLY be true.
--Steve
Hi Steve,
You have a great website. It looks like you have been working on it a lot for the last three years. Debi sounds like a wonderful wife...You are fortunate to have found her. Please say Hi for me. You and I seem to have a lot in common. I was raised catholic and work in IT. My wife writes poems. You can read one at www.stonetablets.org/poem.htm
What do you think about the bone box that has been on the news. It seems to be good evidence that Jesus was real. Although I heard one skeptic on the news that stated that here was too much information written it. Having all three names on it seemed to him that it was a setup. Of course if the father's name was missing he would have said that all of those boxes have the name of the farther on it and this one does not so it must not be real. You just have to wonder what it will take. One archeologist said the truest statement which was...In my line of work we can never be absolutely sure but this has a great deal of probability. I did read in one artical...I think on CNet (Non-Christian) that had the line... "Most scholars agree that Jesus did exist." I wish I still had the URL so I could have included it here.
Sorry; I haven't heard of this, so I don't know what you're taking about. [See our link to an article on this by S. Acharya] I can only say that it reminds me that Christians are taught to "walk by faith, and not by sight", yet they are always anxious to find some visual corroboration to their story. Such things are interesting, of course, but no "find" by any archeologist could ever remove the contradictions in the Bible and render it believable.
What does it mean, exactly, to say "Jesus did exist"? I believe there have been many individuals throughout history named Jesus. There were probably some alive at the beginning of the first century, and -- who knows -- one of them might have even fancied himself a prophet (the region was rife with all manner of prophets in those days). I guess I wouldn't have a problem going that far (which is probably about as far as "most scholars" would go).
But I doubt that's what most Christians mean when they say they "believe in" Jesus. Such a Jesus (if he existed) would have had very little resemblance to the Jesus of the Gospels (since the bulk of their contents was obviously adapted from existing myths and legends which predated the supposed time of Jesus). And so, even if there had been such an individual, I would still say the Jesus of the Gospels (i.e. the Christ of Christianity) is a fabrication, and so I continue to state that I don't believe he ever existed.
After Socrates' noble death, they made up a story about how wise men visited him at his birth, bearing gifts of frankincense, gold, and myrrh. That was 600 years before Jesus was supposedly born, and of course it is a myth that was tacked onto the biography of a real person. (Just as it had been tacked onto others prior to Socrates). You don't hear much about this particular myth relating to Socrates anymore, of course, because it was later appropriated to another figure. But Socrates has value apart from the myths which surround him (they don't make up the bulk of what we know about him). I don't think the same can be said about Jesus.
Some of the overwhelming evidence: Have you ever read about Croneius Tacitus (Born A.D. 52-54) who was a Roman historian that alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians at Rome? How about Lucian of Samosata who was a second century satirist that spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians? The letter of Mara Bar-Serapion which was written sometime after A.D. 73 that talks about the Jews executing their wise King. These are just a few.
Sorry; this "evidence" is under whelming. Tacitus was born 2 decades after the supposed death of Jesus. He was hardly an eyewitness. What if no historian wrote a word about Hitler until someone who was born in 1965 finally made passing mention of him 40 years after his death? I would say that it would make the existence of Hitler highly suspect!
I used to think that such lack of evidence was simply due to having very few documents that dated back so far. I was wrong. Even Christian apologists admit that this period of time is one of the best documented in history.
Would these historians have known about Jesus, and if so, would they have written about him? According to the "church father" Eusebius:
"Because of His power to work miracles the divinity of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ became in every land the subject of excited talk and attracted a vast number of people in foreign lands very remote from Judaea." -- Eusebius, History of the Church
This is what one would expect if a man had truly fed thousands of people from a few loaves and fish, or had resurrected himself and others, and whose death caused the darkness to fall over all the land, caused an earthquake, and brought many dead people to life who "went into the holy city and appeared to many".
Such things could not have gone unnoticed and could not have been ignored. So, one would further expect that the people whose business it was to write down the events of this time and place would have written a great deal about him. But they did not. They didn't even mention him.
Philo, for instance, was a philosopher and historian of the Jews. He lived 20 BCE - 50 CE, so his life spanned the purported time of Jesus. He wrote some 50 works that still survive on: history, philosophy, and religion. He wrote a lot about Pontius Pilate, yet he was totally silent about this wonder-worker Jesus who supposedly appeared before Pilate!
Here are the other historians of that period whom we could safely assume would have written about a miracle-worker in Judea at the time Jesus supposedly lived:
Apollunius
Appian
Arrian
Aulus Gellius
Columella
Damis
Dio Chrysotom
Dion Pruseus
Favorinus
Florus Lucius
Hermogeones
Juvenal
Lucanus
Lysias
Martial
Pausanias
Petronius
Pliny the Elder
Plutarch
Ptolemy
Quintilian
Seneca
Silius Italicus
Statius
Theon of Smyrna
Valerius Flaccus
Valerius Maximus
According to Mclintock and Strong's Cyclopedia of Theological Literature:
"Enough of the writings of [these] authors remain to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ."
If even one or two of these men had failed to write reams regarding this incredible god-man and the wondrous events surrounding his life, death, and after-life, we would expect to find a good excuse for their lack of interest in such a phenomenal being. But how far from this is the actual case! Not one of them wrote one word about him.
Their silence is deafening.
It would be as if all of our modern-day historians, in writing about the events of the 20th century failed to mention Adolph Hitler. It is inconceivable.
When you combine their silence with the fact that the actions and sayings of Jesus in the Gospels were all pretty much said and done before by other god-men, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to put two and two together and deduce what happened.
It is the very same conclusion that Albert Schweitzer reached:
"There is nothing more negative than the results of the critical study of the life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth, and died to give his work its final consecration, never had any existence. This image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another." -- Albert Schweitzer,
If the passage in Tacitus (which refers to Christians being persecuted under Nero) were genuine, it would still be under whelming, but in fact it is a known interpolation: a forgery. To quote the experts:
"This passage, which would have served the purposes of Christian quotation better than any other in all the writings of Tacitus, or any Pagan writer whatever, is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers… It is not quoted by Tertullian, though he had read and largely quotes the works of Tacitus… There is no vestige or trace of its existence anywhere in the world before the 15th century." -- Rev. Robert Taylor, The Diegesis, 1977
The Middle Ages, in fact, have been justifiably referred to as the time of the Christian "forgery mill" as the Catholic Church churned out its relics, shrouds, "apostolic" creeds, and other assorted forgeries.
I am not familiar with the other two names you mentioned, but their time period is so much later than the purported time of Jesus, that they are irrelevant to our discussion.
Getting back to your time in a cult. I can see now why you can not trust the Bible or anyone who simply states that it is 100% correct. You have been hurt by people like that. I can also see how you set out to disprove Christianity just like you set out to disprove the cult but there is a big difference. Many of the things that prove Christianity is real has been twisted by the detractors, and you may be having trouble seeing beyond that. I have heard of people leaving cults and giving up on God altogether. I always thought of it as "throwing the baby out with the bath water" but after reading your story I can see that these people need to process through it. Please try to understand that cults and Catholicism are religions. Religions are made by man and therefore will sooner or later let you down.
I did not set out to disprove the cult or Christianity. I set out to gather the facts and learn the truth on my own (without anyone telling me what they wanted me to believe). So, I read the publications, and I compared them to reality, common sense, and each other. I found them sorely wanting. After leaving that mind-controlling cult, I continued my search, and I read the Bible on my own using the same "baloney-detection kit" (to borrow Carl Sagan's useful phrase). I found it sorely wanting as well.
After reading the Bible on my own I am amazed that I could have ever thought that it was a "holy" book of ""moral conduct" or that the supreme being had somehow inspired its writing. How could I have been so stupid? It could only have been due to life-long indoctrination accompanied by an induced fear of questioning and thinking for myself.
After hearing about how I was brainwashed by the cult and then left, many people assume that it was this experience that drove me to atheism. The implication is that it was an emotional decision, and thus poorly thought out. I can understand how believers would draw such a conclusion (since it allows them to think that they are right without having to examine my findings further).
But the assumption is incorrect. I could have easily gone into Christianity after leaving the cult if Christianity had appeared true to me. It would not have been as emotionally devastating to do so than it was to lose my belief in the Bible and its god (a belief that had preceded my association with the cult, after all).
No, I have not rejected Christianity just because I had a bad experience with one or two religions. I rejected Christianity because I have thought about it, and it does not appear to me to be in any sense a rational belief. To me it is plainly inconsistent, unjust, and absurd. It is an obvious conglomeration of pagan myths, legends, symbols and rituals from ancient "mystery cults", along with plagiarism of writings from other cultures… everything but the kitchen sink. So how could I believe in it even if I wanted to?
Let's say you found yourself living back in Socrates' time, and they wanted you to burn incense to Zeus, or one of the other gods of the Greeks. Well, maybe you'd make a show of doing it to save your neck, but could you really ever believe that the gods of Greek Mythology were real? Could you believe in something you were sure was false?
The way my mind works, it's impossible for me to believe in something I think is false. If you tell me the world is flat, I may want to believe you (to join your circle, for instance) but I cannot: it's not possible for me. Does your mind work that way too? If so, please read my online Biblical commentary and then tell me how I could ever possibly believe in the Bible (cult experience aside).
When something is self-contradictory it is impossible to believe. The Bible is self-contradictory. Therefore the Bible is impossible to believe in. So, how is it that people do, in fact, believe in it? I can only answer with my own experience: I didn't know what it really said; only what people told me it said (with their infamous quote: "It doesn't mean what it says"). Once I read it for myself and saw the contradictions and all of its offenses to common sense, justice, and moral decency, I had no logical choice (or honest response) but to stop believing in it as "God's Word".
--Steve
Hi Steve,
How have you and Debi been? It has been some time since I emailed you. I visited your web site to see if anything had changed. To my surprise I found that our email exchange become a major part the Christian section of your site. I must say that I am flattered. Although it would be nice if you made the links to my site hyperlinks, like yours, and added a link to my site so your visitors read the information for themselves.
Hi Rick,
I have lost the link to your site, please send it and I will include it.
Have you received any emails about our exchange? It is obvious that no one would email you unless they agree with your ideas about God but I was just curious.
Actually, at least half of the mail I receive is from people who disagree strongly with my ideas about God (as you can see from my "mailbag" section). Don't you find that true on your site as well? Or am I the first and only dissenter to have written to you?
None of my visitors have specifically mentioned our exchange, however.
I started to look over your commentaries as you asked me to in your last email. Wow...A lot of time was put into these commentaries. I must say that am always very cautious when a commentary or opinion starts out "Some Christians say...". It is very easy to breakdown weak positions that "some" people, whoever they are, may have.
Where I have stated "some Christians say" it is because I want to point out how this may differ from what the Bible actually says. I think I'm being very fair by using the word "some". I'm not saying "all Christians" believe this or that, because frankly there isn't very much that you could say that about: what with so many different denominations encompassing such a wide array of opinions.
When I use this phrase, it is because I honestly know of some Christians who believe what I'm referring to.
You are right to be cautious in believing what you read, though I think more caution is called for when you see the words "all," "always," or "every".
It seemed that some of your statements were contrary to some of your other statements. On one side you seem to state that the Gospels were made up by these men in a plan to deceive. They therefore collaborated. Then you point out differences which would seem to mean that they did not collaborate. An easy shot at this would be that they were bad at collaborating but I know that you are better than that.
No one knows exactly why the Gospels were written, or who wrote them. We do know, with a large degree of certainty that they were not written by the men whose names they bear. I learned this from Christian scholars, not skeptics.
Since they contradict one another, it would seem that they did not "collaborate", nor do I think I ever claimed or thought that they did. One theory by Christian scholars is that there was an original Gospel manuscript (referred to as "Q") which was the basis for Mark. Then the other Gospel writers based their writings on Mark and/or Q. The different writers probably belonged to different factions and/or regions ("churches"). Each of these factions/regions claimed that "their" Gospel was the correct one (and there were more than four). When it came time to vote on which books would make up the "official" Catholic Bible, four of the factions lobbied loud enough to get their Gospels into the cannon, despite the fact that they contradicted one another.
It could be that the writer of "Q" did not intend to deceive at all. It could be that he was a Gnostic who meant the story allegorically (the Gnostics did not believe in a literal Jesus). But the writer of Mark mistook the mythology for literal history, and the rest followed suit (much to the dismay of the Gnostics).
But, I make a point of staying away from such conjectures in my book. The book is meant to be strictly an examination of the Bible without reference to external sources or theories (other than what one may directly perceive from the world around them). If I had opened it up to such things, I could've built a much stronger case against the Bible being "God's Word". But, fundamentalists will simply dismiss anything external to the Bible if it sheds a negative light on its truthfulness. Plus, I did not want to get bogged down by such discussions; they have no bearing on what I set out to determine: is the Bible at least consistent within itself? I wanted to judge the Bible by the Bible, as any good fundamentalist would.
Your point about Matthew and Luke again gives the impression that these men were writing the same information at the same time. You fail to point out that Matthew was a Jew and wrote from his knowledge of being with Jesus and from a Jewish perspective. Luke was not a Jew and did not meet or have any time with Jesus that we know of. He wrote his gospel from second hand information such as a reporter and with more attention to detail. As you know there are other logical reasons, then you state, for the apparent differences in the genealogy but none are absolute.
I did not point these things out because I do not know these things, and neither do you. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself on this point, but here I go again: no one knows who wrote the Gospels.
It doesn't matter if one writer was a Jew and the other was not. It doesn't change the fact that the writers contradict each other, and it doesn't excuse it. If Joseph's father was Heli (as he was, according to Luke) than Joseph's father could not have been Jacob (as he was, according to Matthew). So, one of these accounts in the Bible is false, whether Matthew was a Chinaman or Luke was an Ethiopian eunuch.
Pointing out that the writers were different does not answer the objection: it is merely misdirection.
As soon as we find one false statement in the Bible (as we just have), then it can no longer be "inerrant" as some claim it to be. What is it then? Would an all-powerful God allow such obvious mistakes to enter into his "Word"? With only the pathetic, easily-seen-through excuses dreamt up by theologians to shore them up? Did he foresee, while it was being written, that so much of it would have to be followed by the obligatory disclaimer: "that doesn't mean what it says"? I don't think so.
These men wrote so that more people may learn about Jesus and His message. Most Christians accept that we can not explain everything to non-believers and that there is a tension between the fact that these writings are inspired by God and the fact that God used men to write them. I can only speculate but your search for perfection may come from the cult teachings...They have an answer for everything. Only you would know. Do you expect the same perfection in your Atheist ideas?
I expect the truth. I will not swallow lies and meekly assent to them being called the truth. I don't think this is asking too much, or that it makes me a perfectionist.
My book is entitled, "Can the Bible be God's Word?" The introduction begins with the question: What do people mean by "God's Word"? Do they mean that every word is inspired and true? Or do they just mean that people were moved by their love for God to write what they thought about him? Or does it mean something in between those two extremes? Obviously it means different things to different people. But, where does the objective truth lie -- if we can find it? The purpose of the book is to examine these questions by taking a trip through the Bible from cover to cover and seeing if it can live up to the standards that these questions impose. The final conclusion is left up to the reader.
If God wanted a book written about himself and his plans, then I think we could have certain minimal expectations of such a book. The fact that he "used men" to write it might account for some flaws (such as misspellings, or bad grammar, or maybe even getting some of the facts wrong). (Though even this assumes that God didn't care enough about his revelation to mankind to guide the writer past such things.) But I don't see how this excuse could possibly account for the fact that the god of the Bible comes off looking like a jealous, spiteful, vengeful, hateful, child-murdering, war-mongering, vain, petty, lying, fiend. "One of the worst characters in fiction" as Thomas Jefferson called him. If there really were such a being as God, I think that believing the Bible accurately depicts him would be the biggest insult one could pay him.
I encourage you and your friends that visit your web site to read the Bible looking for Jesus' message of love and hope and not apparent problems. Like anything in life...If you look for problems you can convince yourself that they are there.
Rick, I did not put the "apparent problems" into the Bible: the Bible writers did that. So, don't blame me for pointing them out. Or, do you mean to tell me that you don't have a problem with the Bible's relating that the "god of love" ordered the murdering of babies, and the "ripping open" of pregnant women?
I have no problem with anyone's "message of love". But we both know that the Bible is far more than that. The message is tied to much mythological baggage (read "garbage") inside a book that reeks of war atrocities (usually condoned or commanded by Jesus' "loving father").
The "message of love" can be used to lure people in, and then before they know it they have swallowed this mass of lies and this giant book of hate. The Jesus character may have spoken of love, but the actions attributed to him in the Gospels often belie that sentiment. And, according to some Christians, he spoke of love while threatening to torture the majority of humankind in the fires of hell for eternity. It gives one a skewed idea of "love".
So, at best it is a mixed message which may have helped some stay on the "straight and narrow", but has led to more than its share of evil through fear, torture, bloodshed, guilt, and mind-controlling cults.
There is also another danger in teaching ethics primarily through Christianity. My concern is that once a person starts to spot the numerous logical (and ethical) flaws in the Bible, they will throw out the baby (ethics) with the bathwater (the Bible).
The good news is: love and ethical conduct were around long before the purported time of Jesus, and we don't need his story (and all the baggage tied to it) to practice love!
Just is case this email is published also...Hello everyone! You can email me directly at stm@stonetablets.org
Your friend,
Rick
|
|