by Charles Kluepfel
9/13/. With Friends Like These...
Harsh critics of religion can turn off those who may otherwise be sympathetic with a skeptical view
Summary
- Critics of Christianity are sometimes overly harsh. Others are rude and use insensitive or obscene language in denouncing Christianity. This is the wrong way to go about educating the public. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Christianity that one does not need to stretch in order to twist other teachings into something that can be denounced, and one should always maintain one's dignity in presenting rational arguments against Christianity.
- I here present some of the ideas in Dennis McKinsey's Biblical Errancy, and the result of showing them to my Baptist neighbor, with his counter-arguments and my counter-counter-arguments (and sometimes my agreement with his counter-arguments).
I have mentioned Dennis McKinsey's Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, and the fact that I had handed copies his leaflets out to the preachers in Times Square. McKinsey also publishes a periodical called Biblical Errancy, which also is a treasure trove of contradictions from the Bible. However, he sometimes gets carried away with finding the smallest errors. That's why I don't recommend having Bible believers read the Encyclopedia themselves, though it is an excellent source for skeptics.
As an example of what I consider "nit picking" or worse, McKinsey points to the following passage as indicating either an inconsistency, or an erroneous value for pi:
1 Ki 7:23 Then he made the molten sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely.
In a letter to his periodical (letter #630, published in issue #153) I pointed out to him that if the exact (exact as you can be when using cubits) diameter were 9.67 cubits, correctly rounded to the nearest integer, 10, and the circumference were therefore 30.38 cubits, correctly rounded to the nearest integer, 30, there is no contradiction, and no incorrect value of pi used. There is a range of exact values for which the Biblical description can apply to the accuracy involved. Even a subsequent letter (letter #666 published in issue #159) pointing out support for my position by Innumeracy author, Prof. John Allen Paulos, would not convince McKinsey that if 30.477539822 were a truthful description, then so would be 30.478, or 30.5, or 30 as the circumference of a basin whose diameter could be accurately described as 9.7013022319 or 9.701 or 9.7 or 10 to the various degrees of precision, using an accurate value for pi. A reader's reply (letter #670, issue #161) even referred to me as having a "puny brain". If this is the way friends get treated, I'd hate to be an enemy. (By the way, I am the one who has set up Biblical Errancy's website for Dennis McKinsey.)
Also, by the way, when I quote 30.38 and 9.67, according to McKinsey's reasoning, that would be wrong also, as that would be true only if pi were about 3.141675... instead of 3.141592.... No finitely written numbers are going to have enough accuracy to delineate the transcendental number π.
Another example is in his objection to the discrepancy in the reporting of the size of the army of Judah in the following:
2 Sam 24:9 Joab reported to the king the number of those who had been recorded: in Israel there were eight hundred thousand soldiers able to draw the sword, and those of Judah were five hundred thousand.
1 Chr 21:5 Joab gave the total count of the people to David. In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who drew the sword, and in Judah four hundred seventy thousand who drew the sword.
while it is clear that 470,000 can indeed be correctly rounded to the nearest hundred thousand as 500,000. (Of course the more egregious error the Bible makes here is in the army of Israel; 800,000 cannot match 1,100,000, but this is not the one McKinsey objects to.)
Dennis McKinsey has asked that I not link to the Biblical Errancy site containing his material, so the above-mentioned correspondence, plus his objections can be seen by following this link.
My point is that the larger errors of the Bible get glossed over when you "sweat the small stuff," or in fact to be honest, make errors yourself.
Sidebar:
Even worse than nitpicking and the making of minor errors, is the way some skeptics (rationalists, non-believers, etc.) will heap invective upon Christians, who are merely following the only line of thought they have ever known. This occurs particularly in such forums as the Internet, where opposing sides "flame" each other. Aside from the horrendous manners, this detracts from the skeptical message that Christians need to hear and will fail to hear because of the language being used.
I link to one such site here for two reasons:
1. To give an example of the invective, in the very title of the website:
Why Christians Suck.
2. There are actually some well thought-out documents within the site, particularly one called just Jesus, which is invective-free.
Why Christians Suck.
2. There are actually some well thought-out documents within the site, particularly one called just Jesus, which is invective-free.
If you wish to see the one file Jesus just click on the second link above, unless the owner of the site changes the name of the file; then you'll have to go through the first link to find the pearl in the swill.
Let me make clear that Dennis McKinsey and I both deplore the language and invective of the above website.
This is intro to a description of my Baptist neighbor's replies to the points raised in McKinsey's leaflets, called "The Bible is God's Word?" and "Jesus Christ is the Answer?". In the important cases, I side with McKinsey, but as noted, his pickiness leads to some points on the side of my neighbor, Bob. The points are also covered in McKinsey's Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, each leaflet with a chapter of its own.
To see collected issues of McKinsey's monthly publication, Biblical Errancy, go to: http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld.
"The Bible is God's Word?"
1. The first problem is that John 14:6's requirement that one accept Jesus as Savior in order to be saved
John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
leaves those who die before being old enough to accept Jesus, or who are mentally deficient, or live in some remote area that civilization has not reached, condemned, contrary to Deut. 32:4 which says that God is just
Deu 32:4 The Rock, his work is perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God, without deceit, just and upright is he;
Bob says that "the answer ... is not entirely clear," but the cases of age or mental deficiency would probably be covered "under grace." He quotes 1 Sam. 12:22 making clear that David's unborn child would be in heaven, and quotes Christ as saying "Let the little children come to me ... for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."
The problem is that John 14:6 says "no one" without making these exceptions.
As for remote New Guinea natives and the like, Bob says that somehow they will know that their native beliefs are wrong, and will seek out Jesus.
2. McKinsey's item two points out the injustice of punishing us for Adam's sin, especially in the light of
Deu 24:16 Parents shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their parents; only for their own crimes may persons be put to death.
One can also mention
Ezek 18:20 The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own.
Of course God did supposedly say
Exo 34:6 The LORD passed before him, and proclaimed, "The LORD, the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
Exo 34:7 keeping steadfast love for the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, yet by no means clearing the guilty, but visiting the iniquity of the parents upon the children and the children's children, to the third and the fourth generation."
and
Exo 20:5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,
Exo 20:6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.
giving us examples of biblical contradiction even within the Old Testament.
Bob says that "no one is punished for Adam's sin, or any sin today — although we are all liable to judgment for sin because 'all have sinned' and 'the wages of sin is death' (Rom. 3:24, 6:23)," based on Christ's atonement for us. However, judgment does imply punishment; what does it mean to be judged if it does not mean that if we are found wanting, we will be set to where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth"? That sounds like punishment (and the phrase occurs six times in Matthew alone — so much for the New Testament's emphasis on "loving," so there goes Bob's notion that no sin today is punished. Maybe Bob believes the only sin today is not believing in Jesus; but such belief is presumably necessary only because Adam sinned. So those unbelievers are certainly being punished for Adam's sin. In any case it is punishment.
3. Bob admits that McKinsey's third item is a "tough question." Why did God make such an imperfect creation with such imperfect creatures as us? Bob quotes
Rom 11:32 For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
and says that "if no one could sin, there would be no such thing as obedience, mercy or grace, because we would all be robots." However, God has free will and cannot sin; ergo these attributes are not mutually contradictory — sinlessness does not imply being a robot. Lest we think this applies only to God, what about the state it is said we will have in the afterlife: is it not said that we will no longer sin? Does that mean we will be robots? What does that say about our personal survival and redemption?
Bob says that God is sovereign and can do whatever he desires. However, we are told that the way we know God for who he is is by our recognizing Goodness in Him. It brings to mind the question of how Abraham, as he was poised to sacrifice his son Isaac, knew that it was God that told him to go through with this deed, rather than an impostor, or how the mother who baked her infant in the oven to drive the devil out of him knew where she was getting her instructions, or Yigal Amir, the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin, knew it was God telling him to do this deed. You might say the latter two are crazy, but if we cannot understand God's ways, how are we to know what's crazy? In Matthew's chapter 7 we are told that we will know false prophets by their fruits. To say that God's ways are not our ways, and that we have no right to judge, is to say that we are incapable of recognizing good fruit from bad fruit.
If God's ways are not our ways, as evidenced in the punishment of another for our sins, or the visiting of Adam's sin on us, then how can we recognize God? And don't say by following the Bible, because one would have to have faith in that peculiar collection first. Certainly Son of Sam and David Koresh knew that what they saw as God's ways differed from the World's view of God's ways, but if even mainstream Christianity teaches that, then who are we to argue against God, as he "spoke" to these recipients of personal revelation?
4. McKinsey contrasts
Num 23:19 God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal, that he should change his mind. Has he promised, and will he not do it? Has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?
with
Exo 32:14 And the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.
The translation used by McKinsey had "repent[ed]" for "change[d] his mind," but the contradiction is the same in this NRSV version. Bob's reply is:
The answer is that God doesn't repent in the sense we do. He is truly sovereign and can do anything He desires; in Exodus 32:14 He is not truly repenting (in the sense of changing his mind [the translators of the NRSV apparently feel differently]) but acting according to His actual plan in reaction to the desired response from His people. It's much the same as if you were to say to your child — if you keep running into the street, I'm going to spank you — and the child promises not to run into the street anymore and keeps that promise. You will "repent" from your stated intention to punish the child, which was never your actual desire in the first place.
But let's look at the verses that lead up to the one in question, to see how well the analogy fits:
Exo 32:7 The LORD said to Moses, "Go down at once! Your people, whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have acted perversely;
Exo 32:8 they have been quick to turn aside from the way that I commanded them; they have cast for themselves an image of a calf, and have worshipped it and sacrificed to it, and said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!'"
Exo 32:9 The LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, how stiff-necked they are.
Exo 32:10 Now let me alone, so that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them; and of you I will make a great nation."
Exo 32:11 But Moses implored the LORD his God, and said, "O LORD, why does your wrath burn hot against your people, whom you brought out of the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?
Exo 32:12 Why should the Egyptians say, 'It was with evil intent that he brought them out to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth'? Turn from your fierce wrath; change your mind and do not bring disaster on your people.
Exo 32:13 Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, your servants, how you swore to them by your own self, saying to them, 'I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have promised I will give to your descendants, and they shall inherit it forever.'"
Exo 32:14 And the LORD changed his mind about the disaster that he planned to bring on his people.
The people had already done the act which the Lord promised to punish. He did not say "If you do that again, I will punish you." He said, "That's it! You're going to get it!" It is the mere mortal, Moses, who then convinces God almighty that he should change his mind, or repent, if the Bible is to be believed.
5. McKinsey merely points out the discrepancy between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron. 22:2 regarding the age at which Ahaziah began to rule. Bob attributes this to copyists' errors. I know that in my Catholic catechism class I was told that God wouldn't allow "his word" to be corrupted, but this is indeed a minor point, or "relatively trivial," as Bob says, certainly from a liberal-religion point of view which is the main focus of the present work.
6. Ex. 33:20 says that no man can see God's face and live, but Gen. 32:30 says Jacob saw God's face and lived.
Bob attributes this to, on the one hand "many men and women [seeing] God in His 'veiled' form in the person of Jesus Christ," and what Bob hypothesizes as the same "veiled" form as a "theophany" or "Christophany" in any such instance in the Old Testament, and on the other hand, an actual face-to-face encounter with "His manifestation in His full glory." But this merely says that the Bible cannot be understood on its plain text. It is especially disturbing because Gen. 32:30 even makes pointed reference to the fact that Jacob did not die, specifically referring to, and denying, the theory held by other Bible writers that such death would in fact follow from Jacob's supposed experience. It is more in the nature of the same type of debate that is going on now; only at that time the topic of discussion was whether one could or could not live after seeing God's face. Also, it shows that there were indeed two authors, who disagreed on this matter, and therefore Moses could not have written both (this ties in with item 8 below).
7. McKinsey contrasts Rom 3:23 saying "all have sinned" with Gen. 6:9 claiming Noah was perfect and Job 1:1 and 1:8 claiming Job to be perfect.
Bob says
Noah obviously was not perfect in deed; we know that he got drunk, for example. However, almost every mention of Noah mentions his obedience to God; the Bible also states that he "walked with God" and "received God's grace." Heb. 11:7 points out that Noah "moved by faith" and therefore entered into the righteousness of God. Noah achieved perfection and righteousness the only way anyone can: through faith, demonstrated through obedience.
Other translations say that Job was "blameless" as opposed to perfect, and explains why: he feared God and shunned evil. It is also apparent that Job prepared animal sacrifices as an atonement, probably for himself as well as his children. He also believed that his "redeemer lives," recognizing that he was in need of a redeemer. (Job 19:25) Again, Job's commendation was a reaction not to his works, but his faith.
Other translations say that Job was "blameless" as opposed to perfect, and explains why: he feared God and shunned evil. It is also apparent that Job prepared animal sacrifices as an atonement, probably for himself as well as his children. He also believed that his "redeemer lives," recognizing that he was in need of a redeemer. (Job 19:25) Again, Job's commendation was a reaction not to his works, but his faith.
We are back to the old argument about faith vs. good works. But to me "perfect" means perfect. There can be no more perfect or less perfect once one is perfect. But this is a minor point compared to all the other commentary that is widely available about faith vs. good works.
8. Deut 34:5-6 reports on Moses' death and burial, so how could Moses have written the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Bible)?
Bob says this was merely an add-on postscript to the book. However, this particular problem is only one argument against Mosaic authorship. In item 6 we have already mentioned the disagreement over whether one can see the face of God and live.
Within a few verses of one another, two traditions (two versions of a story) are interwoven in the following:
Gen 7:2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and its mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and its mate;
Gen 7:3 and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive on the face of all the earth.
versus
Gen 7:8 Of clean animals, and of animals that are not clean, and of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground,
Gen 7:9 two and two, male and female, went into the ark with Noah, as God had commanded Noah.
The tradition of seven pairs of the clean animals and the tradition of only one pair are both presented, interwoven as if they did not disagree. But Moses couldn't have had both beliefs.
The differences are so deep throughout the Pentateuch that Bible scholars have assigned different names to the different threads: the Jahwistic author, the Priestly author, the Elohistic author, all had parts in the writing of Genesis and the rest of the Pentateuch.
9. McKinsey lists 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chron. 9:25 as discrepant on the number of horses in Solomon's stables. Biblicists attribute this to copyists' errors, which we have covered in item 5.
10. McKinsey contrasts Paul's assertion of the crucial nature of Jesus's Resurrection in 1 Cor. 15:14,17, to other raisings of the dead, such as the son of the Widow at Nain, Jairus's daughter, Lazarus, etc. Bob rightly sees a distinction here, as Christianity does indeed claim that the others eventually died anyway, but that Jesus lives. However, Christians also like to point out that Jesus rose of his own power, despite
Acts 2:24 But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.
Acts 2:32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses.
Acts 3:15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.
Acts 3:26 When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."
Acts 4:10 let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that this man is standing before you in good health by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead.
Acts 5:30 The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
Acts 10:40 but God raised him on the third day and allowed him to appear,
Acts 13:29 When they had carried out everything that was written about him, they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb.
Acts 13:30 But God raised him from the dead;
Rom 10:9 because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
1 Cor 6:14 And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power.
1 Cor 15:15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ--whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
Gal 1:1 Paul an apostle--sent neither by human commission nor from human authorities, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead--
Eph 1:20 God put this power to work in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places,
and there are a few more. Note that the "God the Father" in Gal. 1:1 does not necessarily imply the Trinity, only that God is the Father.
Bob goes on to say that "Only Christ left behind an 'empty tomb' (unlike Mohammed, Buddha, etc.)," but I would presume to say that he would be hard pressed to find any references to Mohammed's body having been found.
11. McKinsey again gets sidetracked on a discrepancy between 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chron. 36:9 on Jehoiachin's age at accession to his reign, and the length of that reign, and between 2 Kings 25:8 and Jer. 52:12 on the month of Nebuzaradan's entrance into Jerusalem. Bob correctly points out that one of these, a reign of 3 months vs. 3 months and 10 days, is also only a difference in degree of rounding. The others can be of interest in countering strict inerrantists, but those accustomed to a more liberal tradition have bigger fish to fry.
12. Thou Shalt Not Kill vs. Thou Shalt Not Murder: the latter makes more sense, but one can easily argue that the former means the same thing. Again, a point only of interest against strict inerrantists.
13. Scientific Errors: Lev. 11:13,19 call a bat a bird; Lev. 11:20-21 attribute four legs to fowl; Lev. 11:22-23 attribute four legs to insects. Bob rightly presents a linguistic analysis: the word translated as "bird" could certainly have meant (and obviously did, as it was being used this way) a warm-blooded flying animal. How can that be said in one word today? Here I must go along with the liberal theologians and say that the Bible is not intended as a science text but uses ordinary parlance to get its points across.
Bob does say that "no one is called upon to be 'kosher' any more," but does not give a biblical reason why this should be the case while the making of idols (such as fundamentalists call the statues of saints in Catholic churches) is still wrong.
14. Matt. 27:9-10 misattributes a prophecy of Zechariah to Jeremiah: "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord commanded me."
Zec 11:12 I then said to them, "If it seems right to you, give me my wages; but if not, keep them." So they weighed out as my wages thirty shekels of silver.
Zec 11:13 Then the LORD said to me, "Throw it into the treasury"--this lordly price at which I was valued by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them into the treasury in the house of the LORD.
Bob refers to a "parallel" passage in the 19th chapter of Jeremiah, but the analogy is not there. The alternative biblicist explanation he offers is that Jeremiah, being a major prophet, represents all the prophets. A simpler explanation is that the writers of the New Testament were not as up on the Old as they should have been.
15. Heaven, supposedly perfect, experiences a war in Rev. 12:7. Bob says it wasn't [actually will not be, if this is in the future] a war, but a rout. But hasn't Jesus been battling the devil for 2000 years now? How much longer will it be until Michael et al. rout him à la Rev. 12:7?
16. Mark 16:17-18 says that a believer in Jesus can drink poison without harm. In fact it also says the one who believes and is baptized can handle snakes with his bare hands. Bob says it refers only to the "apostles, in the apostolic period before the completion of God's word." So now, not only have Old Testament laws been superseded by the New, but some New Testament promises are no longer valid. How are we to know which claims still apply. Maybe the Lord's Supper was just for apostolic times. Maybe fornication is now OK. Bob's information about the snakes and poison must also be news to some bible-belt believers who actually do take up snakes and drink poisons. Sometimes they are lucky, but other times we hear of unfortunate Christians who took the Gospel truth too much to heart, and died of snakebite or the ingested poison, taken for the purpose of demonstrating the Gospel.
17. Salvation is by faith alone according to John 3:18,36, but one must follow the Commandments according to Matt. 19:16-18.
Bob says
Christ was in fact illustrating the impossibility of salvation through works. Clearly, the rich young man did not keep the commandments perfectly because no man could or did ["no man" — does that include Jesus? -CK]. Christ was showing him, in fact, that he was violating the first commandment by having another god before Him (Christ) — his wealth.
But if the man did in fact seek Jesus, he believed in Jesus. Why did he have to do something to gain treasure in heaven?
18.
Josh 15:21 The towns belonging to the tribe of the people of Judah in the extreme South, toward the boundary of Edom, were Kabzeel, Eder, Jagur,
Josh 15:22 Kinah, Dimonah, Adadah,
Josh 15:23 Kedesh, Hazor, Ithnan,
Josh 15:24 Ziph, Telem, Bealoth,
Josh 15:25 Hazor-hadattah, Kerioth-hezron (that is, Hazor),
Josh 15:26 Amam, Shema, Moladah,
Josh 15:27 Hazar-gaddah, Heshmon, Beth-pelet,
Josh 15:28 Hazar-shual, Beer-sheba, Biziothiah,
Josh 15:29 Baalah, Iim, Ezem,
Josh 15:30 Eltolad, Chesil, Hormah,
Josh 15:31 Ziklag, Madmannah, Sansannah,
Josh 15:32 Lebaoth, Shilhim, Ain, and Rimmon: in all, twenty-nine towns, with their villages.
If you add them up they total to 36. Bob says that "the explanation in commentaries is that 7 of the towns listed as belonging to Judah were later given over from Judah to Simeon (Joshua 19:7). But listed, here it just doesn't count right. And, if one looks up Joshua 19, one finds
Josh 19:1 The second lot came out for Simeon, for the tribe of Simeon, according to its families; its inheritance lay within the inheritance of the tribe of Judah.
Josh 19:2 It had for its inheritance Beer-sheba, Sheba, Moladah,
Josh 19:3 Hazar-shual, Balah, Ezem,
Josh 19:4 Eltolad, Bethul, Hormah,
Josh 19:5 Ziklag, Beth-marcaboth, Hazar-susah,
Josh 19:6 Beth-lebaoth, and Sharuhen--thirteen towns with their villages;
Josh 19:7 Ain, Rimmon, Ether, and Ashan--four towns with their villages;
Josh 19:8 together with all the villages all around these towns as far as Baalath-beer, Ramah of the Negeb. This was the inheritance of the tribe of Simeon according to its families.
Note that it is nine towns that repeat from what was "given" to Judah: Hazar-shual, Beer-sheba, Baalah, Ezem, Eltolad, Hormah, Ziklag, Ain, and Rimmon. That would reduce the total from 36 to 27, not 29.
19. "There is nothing new under the sun." — Eccl. 1:9
I'll go along with Bob's metaphorical interpretation that the phrase does not refer to specific new inventions and the like, but to general philosophies. But I don't know if every philosophical thought of today was around at the time Ecclesiastes was written. While I myself have not thought up the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" of quantum mechanics, I also do not think that this existed at the time of Ecclesiastes. Also, Bob's comment on philosophical thought that "man's efforts to find a way to peace and fulfillment separate of the way provided by God are bound to futility," leaves open the question of what the way provided by God is. Bob would say the Bible; I would say observation, reason and empathy; but even religious believers have disagreements, that can even lead to wars, over what God's way is.
20. McKinsey objects to the words piss and dung in the King James version of 2 Kings 18:27, claiming it thereby forfeits its role as a moral guide. Bob rightly points out that the translation is dependent on the culture of the time and modern translations have less offensive terms. (The NRSV has "urine" and "dung.")
I myself do not understand the objections that obviously do exist in "polite company" against certain words. The sounds in the words "Tisch," "sip," and "cuff" are not found objectionable together, and polite company allows the use of "feces," "urine," and "sexual intercourse," when the context is appropriate; but when the same sounds as are in the former group are rearranged to represent the latter meanings, no context seems to make them acceptable. It's odd that a "free-thinker" would be the one objecting to these. More apropos is the contrast between the sometimes scrupulous sensitivity of Bible believers, who can object to these words in popular literature, and the content of the book they revere.
21. God created everything, as is well attested in various biblical verses, including evil, according to
Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe; I the LORD do all these things.
and
Lam 3:38 Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and bad come?
Bob says:
The Bible says that "God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5). Evil came into the world because of the rebellion of Satan, joined by Adam, and of our perversion of knowledge and creation. In a fallen world, God allows calamities to come upon us because of our sin. God created us with the capacity for evil; its practice originated with man and is repeated by each man.
First, this is a complete 180º reversal of the emphasis of the Isaiah and Lamentations quotes given. These quotations support more the skeptical side of item 3: Why did God make such an imperfect creation with such imperfect creatures as us? To say that 1 John 1:5 contradicts this view is to say that indeed the Bible contradicts itself.
22. God is everywhere:
Psa 139:7 Where can I go from your spirit? Or where can I flee from your presence?
Psa 139:8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there.
Psa 139:9 If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea,
Psa 139:10 even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast.
but
Gen 11:5 The LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which mortals had built.
and
Job 1:12 The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, all that he has is in your power; only do not stretch out your hand against him!" So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD.
and
Job 2:7 So Satan went out from the presence of the LORD, and inflicted loathsome sores on Job from the sole of his foot to the crown of his head.
Bob may have a point in terms of a local physical manifestation of God being made in Genesis, but the Job instances are more pertinent, as Satan is presumably a spiritual being, and physical presence is not part of the question.
23. McKinsey points out that "for justice to exist, punishment must fit the crime. No matter how many bad deeds one commits in this world, there is a limit. Yet, hell's punishment is infinitely greater."
Bob replies
Again, no one is punished for his sin but for unbelief, which is the ultimate sin [so it is sin that is punished — this particular sin --CK] against an eternal God. Every one has the opportunity to know God and believe in Him, but men suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-19).
This is what the latter says:
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
This reply however does not address the original objection, that any sin by man is not infinite, and therefore is not deserving of infinite punishment.
24. McKinsey says rightly that "in Acts 20:35 Paul told people 'to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said "It is more blessed to give than to receive."'" McKinsey then goes on to say that Jesus never made such a statement. How can McKinsey know this? Bob rightly points out that "Jesus surely made statements that were not recorded elsewhere in the Bible but known to early believers. For it to be 'biblical,' it need only be quoted in the Bible, which it is, in this passage, by Paul."
Again, it is criticism like this that gives critics a bad name, and worse, psychologically, in the minds of curious observers, weakens the strength of the valid arguments.
"Jesus Christ is the Answer?"
1. Mark 15:34 reports Jesus's saying on the cross "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me." This does not sound like the omnipotent ruler of the Universe talking, voluntarily giving up his earthly life for sinners.
Bob claims that this is a rhetorical question ... that Jesus actually knew the answer: that "God had to forsake Jesus so that He could pay the penalty for our sin, as prophesied in Isaiah 53 ('it pleased [satisfied] the Lord to bruise him ...'). Christ's atoning death on the cross satisfied God's wrath and reconciled us to God."
Again, this brings up the injustice of a God to punish one for the sins of others. To say that the question is rhetorical is only based on one's prior beliefs.
While this quotation of Psalm 22:1, placed on Jesus's mouth, heightens the drama of Mark's narrative, focusing on the anguish of dying on the cross, it does nothing for indicating a divine nature of Jesus. On the contrary, it leads us to doubt that nature... leads us to believe there were more natural tales of the "Messiah" Jesus, a Jesus who truly sought to be a Messiah in the Jewish sense, to overthrow Roman rule, but failed, with the tragic human consequences dramatized in stories that were Gospel predecessors. See Joel Carmichael's The Unriddling of Christian Origins: A Secular Account, for more details of the likely origin of part of the Jesus story. The other evangelists focused on different sayings attributed to Jesus's death on the cross. It's all a part of a 2000-year-old game of telephone, trying to decipher truth from a maze of storytelling.
2.
Mat 5:22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire.
but
Mat 23:17 [quoting Jesus] You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred?
Also
Luke 11:40 You fools! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?
An example of "Do as I say, not as I do," contrary to our notion that we should live our lives "in imitation of Christ."
Bob says that "Christ, being God, knew men's minds and could make those statements in perfect judgment. We, being imperfect creatures, have no right to judge anyone."
But if we do not judge anyone, then on what basis to we accept God and reject Satan? Accepting the Bible's word for it would be judging the Bible's author(s) as worthy of belief. Dennis McKinsey, Bob Maistros, and myself are all making claims, and one must judge whose are the best. Certainly many preachers make no bones about calling non-believers fools.
3. The lack of clear attestation to a "Jesus of Nazareth" among the ancient historians.
Bob says that "Josephus, a contemporary Jewish historian, refers to Jesus," and "other contemporary historical works are said to refer to Christians as the followers of Christ."
As quoted in Jesus Outside the Gospels, by R. Joseph Hoffman, Josephus, in his Antiquities, says:
There was about this time [about the time of an uprising against Pilate] a wise man named Jesus if it is permissible to call him a man. He was in fact a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth gladly. He drew over to him both many Jews and not a few Gentiles. He was the Messiah.
And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him from the first continued to do so, for he appeared to them alive again the third day as the divine Prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the race of Christians, named for him, is not extinct even now.
And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him from the first continued to do so, for he appeared to them alive again the third day as the divine Prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the race of Christians, named for him, is not extinct even now.
The italicization is Hoffman's, indicating "passages which a majority of New Testament scholars regard as certainly or probably spurious," as Josephus was a pious Jew. If he had written these things he would have had to have been a Christian, and in fact, the italicized passages at the very least are later Christian interpolations; more likely, the whole thing is a Christian interpolation. Remember, they did not copy documents with Xerox machines. The manual copyist has a mind of his own ... a Christian mind in the monastery, at that.
The other Josephus reference is also in the Antiquities:
... lost no time in bringing before the Sanhedrin one named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Messiah, and others he regarded as breakers of the law and condemned them to be stoned.
Other, similarly suspicious, passages occur in the Slavonic version of Josephus's Wars of the Jews.
Both Tacitus (55 - 120 C.E.) and Suetonius (75 - 150) refer to Christians, and of course we have no quarrel with saying that Christians existed in their times, or the times of Nero (37 - 68, Emperor from 54 to 68), on which they report. Suetonius actually refers to "Chrestians" and may be reporting on followers of someone named Chrestus ... Or, an actual Christos, which is Messiah, a title that several Jews of the general time-frame claimed. A fuller exposition can be found in Hoffmann's book.
Other than this, we have the Jewish Tol'doth Jeshu, which claims that Jesus was the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier, Pandera, and Miriam (Mary). Joseph left Mary, as a result, which accounts for his absence in the Gospels. Jesus learned some magic tricks. There is a fanciful story of how Jesus was condemned to death, a gardener hid the body, making the disciples believe he rose, but later the body was found and dragged about town to assure all he did not rise. This is probably a piece written in reaction against the Gospel stories.
There are also non-canonical Gospels, such as the infancy narrative of Thomas, which makes Jesus as a child a petulant brat who uses his magical abilities to strike playmates dead, and their parents blind.
4. Jesus is a false prophet for predicting he would be buried "three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights" (Matt. 12:40).
Bob says "Jewish custom was to refer to part of a day as a day." But Bob, where are there even parts of three nights? You say "The point is that Christ's death and resurrection are foreshadowed by Jonah's experience and miraculous return to life." I say the Gospel writers wanted to create any Old-Testament parallels that they could, and in some cases played fast and loose with logic in their combination of various Jesus traditions, and though they couldn't avoid the tradition of a Friday-to-Sunday period, still tried to sneak this analogy in, hoping someone wouldn't notice.
5. John 13:38 quotes Jesus as prophesying that "The cock shall not crow, till thou [Peter] hast denied me three times," while Mark 14:66-68 has the cock crow after the first denial.
The Bible-believer's reply is that different texts of each vary in their predictions, and in the number of times the cock actually crew, and that the point is the denial rather than the cock crowing. Still, this harks back to the way Christianity is inculcated into children — in this case the miracle of prophesy. How many Christians think that there is actual eyewitness testimony to the coming true of prophesies, including this, when in fact there is not even consistency in the reporting?
6. When someone calls Jesus "Good Teacher," Jesus replies "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19, McKinsey quotes Matt. 19:17, which is not quite the same in the NRSV)
The implication in Jesus's reply is that he is not God, nor even good. Bob says that Jesus is merely challenging the rich questioner to accept Jesus as God. Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation!
Again, the thread of early Christian thought denying (or rather, out of its sheer preposterousness, not having even given any thought to) Jesus's divinity is further backed up by
John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I am coming to you.' If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I.
despite the Trinitarian view of Jesus's equality with the Father as God.
7. McKinsey contrasts 1 Cor 1:17 "Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel" with Matt. 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them ... ."
This is a weak argument, and I will accept Bob's arguments, amounting to a delegation of roles within the framework of apostles.
8. To quote McKinsey:
How could Jesus, whom the New Testament repeatedly refers to as the son of man, be our savior when this is clearly forestalled by Psalm 146:3 ("Put not your trust in princes, not in the son of man in whom there is no help"), and Job 25:6 ("How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm")? [my emphasis]
Bob differentiates the uses of the terminology "son of man," saying they refer to different personages. Again: interpretation, interpretation, interpretation.
9. We are back to quotations like John 14:28 ("my Father is greater than I"), John 20:17 ("I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God, and your God"), and John 7:16 ("My doctrine is not mine but his that sent me").
To this I might add: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Luke 2:52 (KJV). God, being omniscient, cannot increase in wisdom.
Bob replies:
When Jesus came to earth He engaged in what is called the "kenosis" — a Greek term that means a "self-emptying." (Philippians 2:6-8). Although equal with God, He willingly emptied Himself of His attributes as God and submitted to God the Father's will. However, eternally He maintains the attributes of God. God was "His God" in the sense that Christ willingly took a submissive position. In the same way, wives, servants and children, although equal in the sight of God, are called upon to submit to their husbands, masters and parents.
In the instance of Jesus, however, we are talking about identity, and not equality. Giving a concept a name, "kenosis," doesn't make that concept any the more logically tenable. For example, Christian theologians say that even God cannot perform a contradiction, such as making a square circle. Suppose some religion then claims that its God can create a square circle, by means of a process called equirectilinearity. Does that mean that his God really can do it? Getting back to Jesus's "kenosis": as we have been made in the image and likeness of God, isn't it true then that we are also God that has undergone kenosis? The point then is that Jesus is just like us. The terminology for someone just like us is "man" or "woman". The term "God" refers to the unkenosized being.
There is a great deal of parallelism between us ordinary people and Jesus in John 20:17. The other point, Luke 2:52, while not in McKinsey's leaflet, and therefore actually part of my reply to Bob rather than the item that Bob was responding to, is more telling: While Jesus, the Son, may practice obeisance to the Father (if one can possibly understand the mystical concept of the Trinity) as a slave submits to a master or a wife to a husband or children to parents (Bob, are all these submissions to be active today?), in order actually to be God he must be omniscient. To have undergone "kenosis" to such an extent as no longer to be omniscient, is in fact no longer to be God in the sense that we say that we ourselves are not God. To say otherwise is to make a mockery of language — if our understanding of God's ways and words is so lacking, then it does not pay even to discuss religion. Rather than to accept Jesus as Lord, one would be obliged to throw up one's hands and say "Let God understand what it's all about — I can't, even so much as to accept or reject any religion in preference to any other." If a non-omniscient being can be God, then we are all God in that sense, exhibiting God's rational attributes, despite our lack of all the divine attributes. But in that sense, Jesus is no different from any of us in terms of divinity.
10. To whom was Jesus speaking when he said "Forgive them Father they know not what they do," as he hung from the cross, if Jesus is in fact God?
Bob cites John 1:1, John 20:28 and Acts 5:3-4 as attestations to all three persons of the Trinity being God. The first two indeed represent the Jesus-as-divine thread of early Christianity ("... the Word was God" and "My Lord and my God!" [Thomas to Jesus upon gaining physical evidence of Jesus's resurrected identity]), though as mentioned earlier (items 6 and 9), there are other, non-divine, threads to the story. Acts 5:3-4, reporting a "lying" to the Holy Spirit, equates that with a lying to God. But the actual deceit was toward the Church, as the report is on the fate of a man who sold his house and did not give all the proceeds to the Church. He claimed to the Church that the amount he gave was all he had gotten. One could then say that a lie to the Church is a lie to God, and equate the Church with God. By the way, Ananias and his wife got what Christians "deserve" to get when they don't give everything to the Church — they died on the spot.
11. While Jesus said "honor thy father and mother" (Matt. 15:4), he also said "If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother... he cannot be my disciple"(Luke 14:26).
Bob says that the word "miseo", translated as "hate" also (apparently, as Bob says) has an aspect of "disregarding" to it. But is this what the Christian right means by "family values," even disregarding one's family. Bob analogizes the situation in which he moved to Austria against his parents' wishes, but this overlooks that the actual biblical quotation also refers to wife and children. Does he disregard both his birth family and his marriage family in deciding where to live? ... in all things?
The leaflet, having a limited size (it could be a book; in fact it is: the Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, but that's a bit big, and expensive, to hand to a sidewalk preacher), does not list instances where Jesus acts in a surly manner to his own family:
John 2:3 When the wine gave out, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no wine."
John 2:4 And Jesus said to her, "Woman, what concern is that to you and to me? My hour has not yet come."
He does what she says, but could have been more polite about it.
Then:
Mat 12:46 While he was still speaking to the crowds, his mother and his brothers were standing outside, wanting to speak to him.
Mat 12:47 Someone told him, "Look, your mother and your brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."
Mat 12:48 But to the one who had told him this, Jesus replied, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?"
Mat 12:49 And pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers!
Mat 12:50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother."
12. Jesus said "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man. ..." (John 3:13), while 2 Kings 2:11 says "... and Elijah went up by whirlwind into heaven."
The NRSV has:
John 3:13 No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.
Due to space limitations, I assume, McKinsey did not mention Enoch:
Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death; and "he was not found, because God had taken him." For it was attested before he was taken away that "he had pleased God."
Bob's reply is that "Only Christ of those mentioned is able to give a witness of what Heaven is all about. In other words, He is the only one who has been there and back here to tell us about it."
But that's not what the John 3:13 says. It says that no one has ascended to heaven except Jesus, period. The Bible is not a unitary whole.
13. Jesus said in Matt. 16:28 "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." In fact, the Second Coming has not yet come, and all Jesus's listeners are now dead.
Bob claims that this refers to the Transfiguration rather than the Second Coming. I discuss it in my next chapter "Where Is He?".
14. To quote McKinsey:
Jesus told us to "Love your enemies; bless them that curse you" but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matt. 23:17 ("Ye fools and blind"), Matt. 12:34 ("O generation of vipers"), and Matt. 23:27 ("... hypocrites ... ye are like unto whited sepulchres. ...") are excellent examples of hypocrisy. [my emphasis]
Bob refers us back to item 2, to which this does belong. It still is an example of "do as I say, not as I do." Bob says that only Jesus (God) is capable of discerning good from bad, so that we shouldn't judge.
Even if we were to follow the "love your enemies" routine, we would have the following syllogism:
Major premise: You should love your enemies.
Minor premise: The devil is your enemy.
Conclusion: You should love the devil.
Conclusion: You should love the devil.
You may say that God, the perfect judge, has shown us that we should not love the Devil, but if we are in fact incapable of judging things for ourselves, we cannot judge who is in fact God talking to us. We are incapable of deciding when it is God and when it is the Devil who is talking (assuming that one believes in a Devil). And I can certainly agree that people can make mistakes when they hear "God's voice," and have already mentioned Son of Sam and others.
As mentioned in my chapter "But What About Morality?", we cannot escape making ethical decisions by deferring to God. By doing so, one has already made an ethical decision — one that may very well be a cop-out.
15. Jesus says in Matt. 10:34 "I came not to send peace but a sword," but in Matt. 26:52, says "all that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
Bob's reply is that the sword is a "figurative sword in that His word will cause division among men between the righteous and unrighteousness." This reply neatly sets people against evil, a fine idea, but the Jesus quoted by Matthew wants to set people against people, saying
Mat 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;
Mat 10:36 and one's foes will be members of one's own household.
Mat 10:37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;
Mat 10:38 and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.
Of course, Jesus did not have the foresight to see Serbians against Bosnians against Croats, or Northern Irish Catholics against Northern Irish Protestants, or Crusaders against practically anybody on their way to fight the Muslims. Yes, yes, Bob, you will say that Jesus, being God, did indeed have the foresight; but a lot of good that does for us here on earth.
16. Romans 1:3 ("the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh") and Acts 2:30 ("Since he [David] was a prophet, he knew that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would put one of his descendants on his throne") state that the Messiah must be a physical (according to the flesh) descendant of David. Yet the genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 showing a line back to David are through Joseph, who purportedly was not the natural father of Jesus.
Bob says "Jesus only had to be a descendant of David in the eyes of the Jewish law, which He was as Joseph's legal son." But how is that "according to the flesh"? Bob continues, "However, it is felt by some scholars that He descended from David through His mother's side, the genealogy given in Luke." But Luke's genealogy begins:
Luke 3:23 Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,
This raises the point that the two gospels don't even agree on who Jesus's grandfather was, as Matthew, going in the opposite direction, concludes:
Mat 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.
This merely points in the direction of the Gospels, like all mythology, grafting on stories intended to explain things. The need for the Messiah to be a descendant of David was not a real requirement for the Jews, but was embellished by the Christian authors, along with genealogies invented for the purpose of showing Jesus fulfilled prophesy. Unfortunately for consistency, a parallel theme was developing: the virginity of Mary, and the divine begetting of Jesus. By the time the Gospels were written down, both were part of the oral tradition, and later incorporated into the canon of scriptures. Unlike the unpopular ideas that were held in separate gospels (the non-canonical ones) these were embedded in the same gospels, the ones deemed to be "divinely inspired."
To say that one of the genealogies that purport to be through Joseph is really through Mary is just a cover-up for the disagreement on Joseph's father (plus all the other differences in the lists).
17. Jesus is quoted in Mark 8:34 as saying to his disciples and a crowd [not to just one man, as McKinsey states] "whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." At the time it was not known that Jesus was to die on the cross, and the quote lacks focus thereby.
Bob says that the form of punishment that Jesus endured, including carrying one's own cross, was well known at the time. But it was not known how this fits the Christian context as no one knew how Jesus would die. It sounds more like a later thought added by the evangelists, for Christians' edification, after Jesus's death rather than a quotation.
18. McKinsey says, "In Mark 10:19 Jesus told a man to follow the Commandments. Yet one of those listed by Jesus was "defraud not," which isn't even an Old Testament commandment."
Bob points out Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbour, neither rob him: the wages of him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the morning." (KJV).
The quotation in mark is
Mark 10:19 You know the commandments: 'You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; You shall not defraud; Honor your father and mother.'"
While "defraud not" is one of the Jews' 613 commandments, this commandment appears on Jesus's short list, which does not even stretch to include the top ten. Of course Jesus was well-known for violating the Sabbath. The Catholic Church is well-known for making graven images. And Jesus was pretty surly in speaking with his mother (see item 11 above). But it ties in with the wonderment as to what commandments from the Old Testament are said by Christians to apply still. Protestants disagree with Catholics over having statues of saints. Moslems forbid any depiction of living things.
19. Jesus says in Luke 12:4 "Be not afraid of them that kill the body." McKinsey points out that Matt. 12:14-16, John 7:1, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54 and Mark 1:45 show instances of where Jesus "hid, escaped, and slunk around often" for fear of the Jews or the Pharisees.
Bob says that "Christ obviously was not afraid to die, because He willingly went to cross although He could have chosen not to. However, He was to die at 'just the right time' (Romans 5:6, Galatians 4:4)." This assumes that the Christian notion of Jesus being God is true. If he were a Messiah in the Jewish sense of the term, he would have tried to take over the actual job of governing; in his failed attempt, he was captured and killed; a "sour grapes" story of how he willingly chose to die grew up with emerging Christianity. (See Joel Carmichael's The Unriddling Of Christian Origins: A Secular Account for more on this plausible line of reasoning.) The "be not afraid" idea was added by the evangelists well after Jesus's death.
To say Jesus "repeatedly predicted His death and resurrection (Matthew 16:21, 17:22-23, 20:12-19)" is to ignore the fact that these were written decades after Jesus's death, by Christian believers, when the 2000-year game of telephone was already decades old.
20. McKinsey says "In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, 'Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.' But how could they have been together in paradise that day if Jesus lay in the tomb three days?" (The "three days" of course taken with a grain of salt.; after all, we do dispute how late Friday to early Sunday is three days, or in fact that Jesus rose after that time at all.)
Bob says that "Jesus' spirit almost certainly spent the time between His crucifixion and His resurrection in Heaven." Maybe this is a difference between Baptist and Catholic theology. I was taught the Apostles' Creed, in which Jesus "died, was buried, descended into Hell, and on the third day arose again." Of course we were taught that the Hell was not the Hell of the damned but the Limbo of the good who had died before Jesus's death. But it wasn't Heaven. How would those Protestants born again as Catholics, who told their stories in Surprised by Truth, handle this one? Again, interpretation, interpretation, interpretation.
21. McKinsey says
For Jesus to be executed for our sins makes about as much sense as my son telling a judge that he would accept execution for my crimes. Although a nice gesture, it has nothing to do with justice. What judge would agree?
Bob correctly points out that "the analogy is wrong. In this case, it was the judge sacrificing HIS OWN SON, not the accused's son, to satisfy His wrath [a cardinal sin, if I recall right] at our sin and rebellion." This does not help the justice of the situation. Bob agrees "Christ's sacrifice has nothing to do with justice," but then goes on to say "it has everything to do with mercy" for "justice would require [us to endure] death for our sins." But surely an omnipotent God could forgive us without causing his son suffering. The saying "Two wrongs do not make a right" is usually applied in the case of hurting someone for hurt he has caused. All the more so, it really applies in the case of hurting someone for hurt that someone else has caused. Again, if God's ways are so different from our ways that we cannot comprehend them, we have no way of recognizing him as God, or accepting scripture that purports to be from God as truly divine.
22. In Matt. 15:24 Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." But Matt. 28:19 says to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations".
Bob says
Christ was sent to preach the Gospel first to the Jews, for whom He was the rightful Messiah and King. Once they rejected Him, He brought the Gospel to the world. This subject, and the ultimate repentance and national salvation of Israel, is addressed masterfully in Romans 9-11.
Of course, Paul, having the benefit of hindsight, could see that the Jews were not accepting his new religion, born in the relicts of a failed Messianic coup. But Jesus is now said to have all the foresight that God has. He should have known, if he were God.
Rom 11:12 Now if their stumbling means riches for the world, and if their defeat means riches for Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
is a nice thought, but Jesus, and God the Father or whoever sent him, ought to have known from the beginning what would be necessary (and also to love everyone, not just the Jews, from the beginning).
Summary
Bob summarizes
It strikes me that each of these objections is answerable — and each is enormously trivial. They are desperate attempts to veer discussion from the main message of the Bible: the grace, love and mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ, His offer of eternal salvation to all who believe — and equally important, His warning of eternal death to those who reject Him and seek their own way.
How can each of these questions be "enormously trivial" when Bob himself says "The answer to this question is not entirely clear from Scripture..." (question 1 under "The Bible is God's Word?"), "Tough question..." (question 3). How can they be "enormously trivial" if, like the question of where Jesus was between his death and resurrection, they point to a rift between Catholicism having Jesus in the land of the dead, while apparently Protestantism puts him in Heaven along with the good thief. Item 17 under "The Bible is God's Word?" brings up the question of salvation by faith alone, or faith and good works, a question that has wracked the churches for ages. Or are we to say that the churches argue over trivia? I might go along with that.
I myself agree, as pointed out above, that some of McKinsey's points are trivial, and I regret the fact that McKinsey leaves out some that are more important. While McKinsey points out the analogy of Jonah's three days and three nights to Jesus's three days and three nights as being force, in order to make as many fulfilled prophecies as the evangelists can invent, he neglected to include in the leaflet (although including in his book) the similar discrepancy between Matthew's and Luke's method of having the Nazarene born in Bethlehem, pointing out its invented nature.
The question of Jesus's promised quick return, deferred from item 13 in the "Jesus Christ is the Answer?" section to the next chapter, is anything but trivial. It shows the lengths to which believers will distort (interpret) what is written so that it will come out as being a possibility. There are bumper stickers that say "Jesus is coming soon," based on scriptures that have had him "coming soon" for 2000 years. Sects have come and gone based on the ambiguous "signs" given by Jesus as to when the end is near.
Mark 13:4 "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?"
Mark 13:5 Then Jesus began to say to them, "Beware that no one leads you astray.
Mark 13:6 Many will come in my name and say, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray.
Mark 13:7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come.
Mark 13:8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs.
Mark 13:9 "As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them.
Mark 13:10 And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations.
Mark 13:11 When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.
Mark 13:12 Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death;
Mark 13:13 and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
Mark 13:14 "But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains;
Mark 13:15 the one on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take anything away;
Mark 13:16 the one in the field must not turn back to get a coat.
Mark 13:17 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days!
Mark 13:18 Pray that it may not be in winter.
Mark 13:19 For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be.
Mark 13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days.
Mark 13:21 And if anyone says to you at that time, 'Look! Here is the Messiah!' or 'Look! There he is!'--do not believe it.
Mark 13:22 False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Mark 13:22 False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.
Mark 13:23 But be alert; I have already told you everything.
Mark 13:24 "But in those days, after that suffering, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,
Mark 13:25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
Mark 13:26 Then they will see 'the Son of Man coming in clouds' with great power and glory.
Mark 13:27 Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
Mark 13:28 "From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near.
Mark 13:29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates.
Mark 13:30 Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.
