The first comment worthy of note is found in Sanhedrin 43a of the Talmud, which states,
On the eve of the Passover Yeshu (The Munich manuscript adds the Nasarean) was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.... Do you suppose that he was one for whom a defence could be made? Was he not a Mesith (enticer), concerning whom Scripture says, Neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him (Deut. 13:9)? With Yeshu however it was different, for he was connected with the government (or royalty, i.e., influential). Our Rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples, Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni, and Todah.
Although difficult to imagine, this anemic passage is a reference to Jesus, according to some commentators. Reliance upon passages as weak as this can't help but dissipate respect for apologetic scholarship. Obvious inadequacies are:
Another passage relied upon is found in section 55b of the Sanhedrin in the Talmud and states, "The blasphemer is punished only if he utters [the Divine] name.... The whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name, Thus, 'May Jose smite Jose.'" This is vagueness at its worse. The suggestion is made that the first "Jose" represents God. But it is unlikely that even for illustrative purposes the rabbis would allude to Jesus as a divinity. And did God ever smite Jesus?
A footnote to Sanhedrin 67a says, "In the uncensored editions of the Talmud there follows this passage.... 'And thus they did to Ben Strada in Lydda, and they hung him on the eve of Passover." Although cited by apologetic sources, this clearly isn't much to go on either. As we all know, according to the biblical account Jesus was crucified, not hanged, and he was killed in Jerusalem, not in Lydda, near the coast. The names aren't even the same.
Another passage that is sometimes cited is found in Sanhedrin 106b and is interpreted by some apologists in such a manner as to equate Balaam with Jesus of Nazareth. It says,
Balaam also the son of Beor, the soothsayer, [did the children of Israel slay with the sword]. A soothsayer? But he was a prophet! R. Johanan said: At first he was a prophet, but subsequently a soothsayer. R. Papa observed: This is what men say, 'She who was the descendant of princes and governors, played the harlot with carpenters....! Rab said: They subjected him to four deaths, stoning, burning, decapitation and strangulation. A certain man said to R. Hanina: Hast thou heard how old Balaam was? He replied: It is not actually stated, but since it is written, Bloody and deceitful men shall not live out half their day, [it follows that] he was thirty-three or thirty-four years old. He rejoined: Thou has said correctly; I personally have seen Balaam's chronicle, in which it is stated, 'Balaam the lame was thirty years old when Phinehas the Robber killed him.
Believe it or not, that nebulous maze of disjointed monologue is used as a reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Apparently some Christian apologists just couldn't resist the temptation when they read such emotionally charged words as "prophet," "she/carpenters," "subjected/deaths," "slain by Israel," and "thirty-three." The discrepancies between the life of Balaam and Jesus are numerous.
A short little comment found in the footnotes of Sanhedrin 107b says, "In the uncensored editions there follows here, 'and not like R. Joshua b. Perahjah, who repulsed Jesus (the Nazarene) with both hands." The problem with this sentence is that only the Munich manuscript adds (the Nazarene).
Another footnote in Sanhedrin 107b says, .
..When King Jannai slew our Rabbis, R. Joshua b. Perahjah (and Jesus) fled to Alexandria of Egypt. On the resumption of peace, Simeon b. Shetach sent to him.... He arose, went, and found himself in a certain inn, where great honour was shewn him.... He (Jesus) thinking that it was to repel him, went, put up a brick, and worshipped it. 'Repent,' said R. Joshua to him. Jesus replied, 'I have thus learned from thee: He who sins and causes others to sin is not afforded the means of repentance.' And a Master has said, 'Jesus the Nazarene practised magic and led Israel astray.'
Although hard to realize, this is the more intelligible part of the entire passage. Again, one can see how desperate some apologists are to find something in the Talmud that can substantiate the alleged existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The attraction of "fled to Egypt," an "inn," "Jesus the Nazarene," "led Israel," and "sin/repentance" were more than they could resist. The problems with this are readily apparent.
Another passage of equal clarity is found in Abodah Zarah 17a which says,
I was once walking in the upper-market of Sepphoris when I came across one [of the disciples of Jesus the Nazarene] Jacob of Kefar-Sekaniah by name who said to me.... To which I made no reply. Said he to me: Thus was I taught [by Jesus the Nazarene], 'For the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return.' They came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth.
Again, the power of imagination appears to have been overwhelming.
A final passage from the Mishnah itself, as opposed to the Gemara, is found in Yebamoth 49a, which says, "I found a roll of genealogical records in Jerusalem, and therein was written, 'so-and-so is a bastard [having been born] from [a forbidden union with] a married woman,' which confirms the view of R. Joshua."
Some people actually see Jesus in this. The problems are:
In summary, the Talmud has no independent tradition about Jesus; all that it says of him is merely an echo of Christian and Pagan legends, which it reproduces according to the impressions of the second and later centuries. The Talmud has "borrowed" its knowledge of Jesus from the Gospels. When Josephus is excluded from the Jewish witnesses to the historicity of Jesus, there remains only the question of whether or not there may be some other evidence in the other Jewish literature of the time, in the Talmud, for instance. The answer is no.
Most readers should now be able to understand why this whole topic of Jesus and the Talmud was given such low priority and is only now being discussed.
Besides the fact that this passage is so vague that hundreds of people could be under consideration, allegations are included that should exclude Jesus, according to apologetic propaganda and the Gospels. For McDowell to cite as a source a passage which refers to Jesus as a beguiler is rather interesting, to say the least. I'm surprised he would admit it. Secondly, if Jesus was near to the civil authority, then McDowell is obligated to cite chapter and verse for corroboration.
McDowell cites Yeb. IV 3, 49a ("R. Shimeon ben Azzai said [concerning Jesus]: 'I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress'") for his own purposes. He is uncomfortable with the word "bastard." So, he quotes Klausner who redefines bastard by saying,..."What is a bastard? Everyone whose parents are liable to death by the Beth Din." Now McDowell feels that he can comfortably quote Klausner's final conclusion, "That Jesus is here referred to seems to be beyond doubt." After disassociating Jesus from the word bastard, McDowell feels he can now claim that "beyond doubt" his passage is referring to Jesus. He neglects to mention the fact that the reason they are punishable by death at the hands of Beth Din is that they are participating in a forbidden union. To be specific, the passage says, "so-and-so is a bastard [having been born] from [a forbidden union with] a married woman..." A footnote to this passage says, "Such a union is punishable by death at the hands of Beth Din." The essence of McDowell's deception lies in the fact that he made it look as if a bastard was anyone who was liable to death by Beth Din, as if Beth Din were some kind of uncontrollable murderer, when they are to be killed by Beth Din because they engaged in an illicit relationship that gave rise to a bastard. So, if it were referring to Jesus, then Jesus would be a bastard, and for McDowell to say it "seems to be beyond doubt" that Jesus is being referred to speaks for itself. McDowell is calling his saviour a derogatory name.
Other Talmudic passages are available for discussion, but there is a limit beyond which imprecision, speculation, and imagination should not be allowed to go. That point has been reached..
Over the years we have repeatedly critiqued apologetic books of one sort or another on a wide variety of topics. But there are also many books and pamphlets corroborating our contentions on various issues and they deserve at least one hearing. After all, there is no sense in just reviewing books with which we disagree. And also it might be well to lighten up a bit after enduring the agony of a Talmudic excursion. Since it would be wholly impractical to quote everything available on the market, we have decided to extract from our personal portfolio some comments that are poignant, appropriate, entertaining, or amusing as the case may be.
The twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus contains a full permit to own slaves, with some interesting rules as to their cost and treatment.... In the twenty-seventh chapter there is a scale of prices that are to be paid for slaves.... In the New Testament there is no condemnation of slavery. Jesus accepted it as a settled institution.... Jesus was never at any time appealed to for help in abolishing slavery. His teaching of non-resistance, and Paul's teaching that slaves were to be obedient to their masters, whether the masters were good or bad, held out no hope for the slave. It should be remembered that the translation of the Greek word slave is given in the New Testament as 'servant.' Honesty of interpretation or translation has never been a strong feature with Christian apologists.... Our endeavor here is merely to show that there was no clear word of condemnation of slavery in either the Old Bible or the New Testament.
Quoting Renan on page 6 Cohen says, "Christianity never said
that slavery is an abuse.... The idea never came to the Christian
doctors.... No word occurs in all the ancient Christian literature
to preach revolt to the slave.... Never is the master Christian
who has Christian slaves compelled to free them."
And on page 7 Cohen quotes Professor Westermarck who says in his Origin and Development of Moral Ideas, "Christianity recognized slavery from the beginning. In the early ages martyrs possessed slaves, and so did abbots, bishops, popes, monasteries, and churches.... The Church was concerned with saving souls. Slavery of the body or mind did not matter."
Why bother about campaigns against the fundamentalists? Let them alone! Why stew and fret and work one's self up over such insignificant, stupid people? Let science, education, books, magazines, travel, more rapid means of communication, the industrial revolution, a better knowledge of comparative religions, and time do their work. And then fundamentalism will be as dead as a doornail. Such is the line of reasoning of the majority of liberals.The only trouble with this attitude is that there is a menacing possibility that the above enumerated forces have not, and are not likely to have, a chance at the fundamentalists. The fundamentalist millions might be cured of their fundamentalism if they could have a thorough exposure to the liberating forces of the modern world. It is just possible, however, that the fundamentalists may put these forces into a theological strait-jacket. The battle in behalf of liberalism has by no means been won yet. Right off, I must break down and confess that I number myself among the minority of liberals--I mean the minority that 'views with alarm' the rise of fundamentalism. I must also admit that I have actually been out campaigning against the fundamentalists.
On page 32 Birkhead says, "The great majority of the liberals do not appreciate the temper and tactics of the fundamentalists. The fundamentalists mean business. They propose to capture the reins of government and make modernists, liberals, atheists, Unitarians, etc. bow down and put their necks in the yoke of medieval theology."
Later on page 43 Birkhead proves BE is by no means alone in its thrust toward rationality by saying,
The one thing on which the hand of modernists, atheists, agnostics, liberals, etc. must not be laid, is the Bible. Fundamentalists rave, storm, shout, and denounce when the Bible is criticized. When I was speaking on 'The Truth About the Bible,' in Oklahoma City, I mentioned particularly the historical inaccuracies in the Bible, the contradictions, the unworthy ideas of God, and then came to a discussion of the inadequacy of the teachings of Jesus. When I began to point out the contradictions in the teachings of Jesus, the belief of Jesus in devils as the cause of disease, and the fact that Jesus cursed a fig tree because it did not bear fruit out of season, a lady with her ten-year old son, became very restless, squirmed about in the seat, mumbled some words, and suddenly jumping up, shouted, 'I protest,' and, grabbing her son, left the church. As she walked hurriedly down the aisle, she made a most peculiar, 'sput, sput' sort of noise. It sounded something like the sputtering of a small motor boat out on a lake. As she went sputtering out the door, someone said, 'That's fundamentalist language.'One can't help but note the similarity between Birkhead's situation and ours, even though everything he said was written in 1929.In that same address on the Bible, I pointed out some of the unfulfilled promises in the Bible, among others the warning to Adam by Yahweh that in the day that he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he would die. I mentioned the fact that according to the Bible, Adam lived several hundred years after eating of the forbidden fruit, and the promise that he was to die on the day that he ate the fruit didn't come true. A very belligerent looking fundamentalist gentleman stood up, pointed his finger at me, and shouted, 'But he died, didn't he?'
Much of the morality taught by Jesus is impractical to the point of the absurd: Turn the other cheek, pay double damages, judge no one's behavior, go farther than forced to go, don't use your mind but be as children, sell all and give the proceeds to the poor (thus becoming poor yourself), have no thought for the morrow, make no plans, don't worry about food and clothing, be passive and meek, let everybody walk all over you, love people who persecute you as much as those who are kind to you and have regard for your feelings, be mournful, be smug and self-righteous and goad others into mistreating you, forsake everything of this world in preparation for the next, agree with everyone, deny sexual urges, mutilate yourself, have no deep love for your family and seriously consider deserting them, if robbed give the thief the same amount again, don't resist attackers but let them abuse you once more, avoid coarse people not on your level, accept every misfortune gratefully, don't share your culture with dolts, and behave as you please as long as you finally repent.Anyone well acquainted with the Gospels knows the high degree to which Green's observations are applicable to Jesus.
In so far as scriptural information on the life of Jesus is concerned, John Jackson said the following on page 8 in Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth,
The paucity of our information concerning the Christian savior is concisely expressed by Mr. Robert Keable, in his work, The Great Galilean: 'No man knows sufficient of the early life of Jesus to write a biography of him. For that matter, no one knows enough for the normal New York Times obituary notice of a great man. If regard were had to what we should call, in correct speech, definitely historical facts, scarcely three lines could be filled. Moreover, if newspapers had been in existence, and if that obituary notice had had to be written in the year of his death, no editor could have found in the literature of his day so much as his name. Yet few periods of the ancient world were so well documented as the period of Augustus and Tiberius. But no contemporary knew of his existence.... His first mention in any surviving document, secular or religious, is twenty years after.
The great bulk of the Bible is made up of stories, poetry, and parables which are ambiguous enough to enable anyone to read anything he pleases into them.... no one can believe all the Bible; if one is to believe any of it, it is necessary to select a few passages which agree with each other on some point that one already believes anyway and ignore all the rest. However, any group of passages is just as valid (or as invalid) as any other, and the result is the thousands of Protestant sects, or denominations.... The very reason there are different sects is that they cannot agree on which parts are literal and which metaphor.
Later on page 68 he says, "It should be apparent to all by now that the Bible is so ambiguous, and says so many different things, that anyone can take a passage out of context here, and another there, and piece them together to form any kind of doctrine he pleases, then claim the Scriptures prove him right."
Until the advent of modern psychiatry, the deranged have always been considered holy men. In fact, according to historian Vardis Fisher, the Hebrew word for 'prophet,' and 'lunatic' was one and the same. Epileptics were thought to be seized by God--catatonics to have left their bodies--hebephrenics to be speaking in angelic tongues. Psychotics have always been the shamen, seers, prophets, witch-doctors, wizards, and oracles--up until now. Today, a potential Jeremiah, or John the Baptist is simply kept under sedation. But since we cannot reach the ones of the past to examine their blood chemistry..., many assume they must have been the real article.
On the next page he states, "In point of fact, much sociological data is now available which indicates that the more devoutly 'religious' a person, the more likely he is to be mentally disturbed." And he concludes his powerful assault by saying on page 66,
Any psychologist, social worker, and prison warden can easily explain the simplest way to make a criminal. Take one otherwise normal child, or adult, and repeatedly humiliate him until he has no pride, dignity, or self-respect left. We then have an ideal Christian. We also have a criminal. A person who no longer respects himself can no longer respect anything. One who does not love himself, cannot love anything. If he hates himself, he hates the world.
Editor's Response to Letter #595
Dear TD.
With all due respect, you are repeating yourself.
All you are doing is adding additional examples to the same
point you made with your "make he were he if" illustration.
So all I can do is ask you to reread the answer I gave earlier.
You say I "have not comprehended the issue" and tended to flounder
when I think the floundering lies elsewhere. You say words need
to describe actions and "express something intelligible" but
immediately reinterpret that to mean "express something possible."
Sentences don't have to express something intelligible. All
they have to do is "be intelligible." When I ask if God can
create a square circle or a two-sided triangle that is clearly
referring to an action. Your first, second, third, and fourth
examples are unintelligible because the sentence (assuming an
omnipotent being is the subject) in which they are contained
is itself unintelligible. The problem lies not with the concept
being conveyed, because we never get that far. The problem lies
with the sentence itself. That's the problem with your "make
he were he if" example as well. On the other hand, your seventh,
eighth, and ninth examples are intelligible sentences but convey
unintelligible concepts. They are like asking God to create
a square circle or a two-sided triangle. The sentence is intelligible
but the idea conveyed is not. As I said in the 140th issue, you
are confusing an unintelligible sentence with an unintelligible
concept. The biblical ideas of someone being both God and man
simultaneously (the Trinity), predestination directing a free-willed
human being, and the emergence of evil in a world created by
a perfectly good being are excellent examples of unintelligible
Christian concepts that can be put into intelligible sentences.
Christians constantly say, for example, "Jesus was God and man
simultaneously." According to you that is an unintelligible
sentence, on a par with "make he were he if." I disagree. The
sentence is intelligible but the concept it is attempting to
convey is not. According to you, the sentence "Can God count
to infinity?" is unintelligible. Again, I disagree. The sentence
is intelligible, while the act or concept is not.
Letter #596 from DM of Pasadena, California
Dear Mr. McKinsey.
I have to agree with TD's final conclusion
(Letter #591). Since all triangles have three sides by definition,
there can never be such a thing as a two-sided triangle. When
we use the word "triangle" in the mathematical sense we are
referring to a three-sided figure. Whatever two-sided figure
God might create, whether we could comprehend it or not, would
not fit our idea of a "triangle."
I would go one step further and say that an all-powerful god
could not create a three-sided triangle or a round circle! When
we draw a triangle we are not creating a triangle. Rather, we
are creating an approximation in graphite or ink of an abstract
concept. Being an idealized concept, a triangle is not an object
which can be created or destroyed. It has neither substance
nor beginning nor end in time or space. Therefore, it makes
no sense to speak of a triangle as being created or destroyed....
I enjoyed your handling of Johnson's attempt to explain away
a number of Bible contradictions. The contradictions you selected
were excellent. You really nailed his hide to the ground!
Editor's Response to Letter #596
Dear DM.
You may agree with TD's conclusion, but your reasoning
is different. In simple terms, all you are saying is that God
can't do it because it can't be done. I couldn't agree more.
You say that "whatever two-sided figure God might create, whether
we could comprehend it or not, would not fit our idea of a 'triangle'."
Precisely! In other words, God can't make a two-sided triangle.
It can't be done, even by a being with alleged unlimited powers.
So how could he have totally unlimited powers? How could he
be omnipotent, when there are feats even he can't accomplish?
I appreciate your compliments regarding Johnson.
Letter #597 from Mickey Jako of 4 Chickering Court, Andover,
Mass. 01810
(Mickey is a believer in the philosophy of Thomas Paine (deism)
and specializes in making audio tape recordings of his meetings
with Christian fundamentalists. What follows are some of his
conclusions, based upon numerous encounters--Ed.).
(a name="libxtian">STRAWMANISH STUFF I think the liberal Christian, in fact I would
say, the average Christian, views things like disputing the
Noah's ark story as a "strawmanish" endeavor, as somehow a bit
spiritually immature or retarded, or foolishly literalist. They
would say that surely there are many valuable, instructive myths
in the Bible that do not have to be taken as literally true.
I tended to think this way myself for many years. But not any
more; and here's why.
Christianity, whether fundamentalist or liberal, rests on
the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus...believed in the literal
truth of the OT accounts! He does not refer to them as mere
stories; he refers to them as actual happenings. The flood,
in Matt. 24:37-41. Lot's wife turning into salt, in Luke 17:32-33.
Jonah and the whale, in Matt. 12:40. I just recently spoke to
an astute minister who agreed with me, that Jesus regarded these
stories as literally true, because he does not refer to them
as "the story of" or "the parable of" but simply straightforwardly
as actual occurrences.
Therefore, if Jesus considers these things as actual happenings,
and if such accounts can be shown to be literally impossible,
then Jesus is not the son of God, and Christianity is not valid.
I believe one cannot judge the validity of Xity by selecting
parts of only certain teachings of Jesus and probing them for
their deep spiritual insight. Instead, you must examine all
of what Jesus said, taught, claimed, and supported, and if specific
passages do not hold up, in their wisdom, in their morality,
in their scientific credibility, or if they are irreconcilable
with other passages, then Jesus was not divine, and was not
the representative of God as claimed.
I agree with Dennis's approach here. To resolve whether or
not Xity is valid, you don't go off meditating on the wonders
of love and the brotherhood of man apart from the actual words
of the Bible; instead, you examine what the book says, you get
down to the verses, you study the specifics of key passages,
like examining a crime scene, to determine the truth. I do not
think it's strawmanish. I do not think it's letter-of-the-law
quibbling. I think it's examining clues to determine the truth.
A 450 foot wooden boat (Noah's Ark) puts the lie to Jesus,
because such a vessel could not be seaworthy, according to modern
shipbuilding experts, and a divine person would have known that.
A divine person would have known the difference between a mythical
story and reality, and surely would have taken care to make that
distinction clear to his followers.
If Jesus believed in the OT, which he did, the liberal Christian
is not justified in overlooking serious contradictions in it,
or labeling those issues "strawmanish."
LIBERAL CHRISTIANITY I find the liberal Christian's position
to be untenable on other points of principle, also. The liberal
will believe there are many paths to God. But Jesus says he
is the only way - John 14:6 "No man comes to the Father except
through me." Acts 4:12 "Nor is there salvation in any other."
The liberal is tolerant, views intolerance as a definition
of evil, and tends to respect the sincere beliefs of other faiths;
but Jesus supports, if not identifies with, the nobleman in
Luke 19:27, who says, "Bring here those enemies of mine, who
did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me."
The liberal regards errors in the Bible as largely irrelevant,
but Jesus said in John 10:35 "Scripture cannot be broken." I
say you cannot, as a liberal Christian, consider Jesus to be
the essential source of divine wisdom, and simultaneously disagree
with what he says.
THE SPIRITUAL SCAM Christians approach Biblical passages with
the PRESUMPTION that divine wisdom underlies them, and then
proceed to play fast and loose with what the passage actually
says, so that they get something positive out of it, regardless.
For example, Jesus can get away with saying you can move mountains
(Mark 11:23-24) and Christians marvel at his wisdom and "advanced
spirituality," instead of saying, "Man, that's simply not true,
that's utopian, that's just rhetoric, you're feeding people's
fantasies, you're just selling dreams!"
Of course, if you make that criticism, Christians respond
by firing their all-purpose bazooka...their master mental trick:
Jesus was speaking figuratively! not literally! FIGURATIVELY!
Oh, I beg to differ. HE MOST CERTAINLY WAS NOT!! Read the
passage. If he meant figuratively, he would have given some indication
that that's what he meant, saying something like "If there is
a mountain IN YOUR HEART, you can move it." The moving mountains
comment immediately follows Peter's astonishment at the PHYSICAL,
repeat PHYSICAL, miracle of the withered fig tree.
No, I think Jesus and the NT writers were just prone to overblown
rhetoric, overstatements, telling people what's exciting to
hear. It's promiscuous spirituality, in my opinion. Jesus taught
the greatest spiritual idea, regardless of reality--which is
not the greatest spiritual idea, only the most temporarily exciting.
The greatest spiritual ideas must be rooted in reality.
I'm reminded of one of the Who's songs, a song called "It's
Hard." The lyric goes, "any kid can fly, but only a few can
land." If you fly with the idea that you can move a mountain
by just commanding it to move, you're going to crash. That's
not wisdom, that's dumb.
It's so dishonest, all this making excuses for the Bible and
Jesus. All this forced figurative interpretation. I'm not the
literal-minded dummy that can't grasp the spiritual aspects
of passages. I'm very spiritual. I see spiritual aspects, if
they're there. The Christian is the dummy who won't read it
for what it says. He has a vested psychological interest in
positive spin, and in drawing sense out of nonsensical passages.
Not me. Not any more. I've studied it long enough and hard enough.
There's too much indisputable evidence that Christianity is
flawed at its very core.
I think it's one of the most extraordinary intellectual scams
of human history, how everyone gives Jesus all this extra credit!
Even atheists tend to think of Jesus as at least a good moral
teacher. But read the book! Read the passages objectively. Step
outside your cultural conditioning. Stop distorting many of
his dubious teachings into presumed pearls of wisdom.
Stop making excuses for Jesus, simply because you want or
need to believe in an ideal man. Believe in some of the ideals
you've seen in Jesus, yes, believe in those ideals, but don't
believe in Jesus as that ideal man, because I don't think he was.
Jesus as a whole doesn't cut it; only parts of him do.
You can believe, for example, in the spirit of generosity,
without believing in Santa Claus. You can believe in love and
compassion, without believing in Jesus. Don't tie the reality
of a spiritual quality to the reality of a myth describing it.
That's immature.
Rejecting Jesus as the Son of God does not mean rejecting
some of the good values he espoused, although that is exactly
the box Christianity tries to lock you into. Christianity does
NOT have a monopoly on good spiritual values, nor is it the
source of them.
I say follow the dictates of compassion and common sense.
Can anybody who taught and supported the things Jesus did, the
things Dennis points out month after month in Biblical Errancy,
be a representative of God? I think not. Myself, I take the
Thomas Paine position. I believe in a different God, a tolerant
God, who is deeply dishonored by those who claim Jesus and the
Bible represent him.
Editor's Response to Letter #597
Dear MJ.
I think the conclusions you have drawn based upon
many encounters with biblicists are well considered, and for
that you are to be complimented. Keep up the good work, and I
look forward to the distribution of your audio tapes.
However, I do have a few reservations. First, you say, "I'm
very spiritual. I see spiritual aspects, if they're there."
The word "spiritual" is a metaphysical term that should be replaced
by a more accurate word such as "ideological" or "philosophical."
Belief in the spiritual realm is equivalent to saying one believes
in spirits, ghosts, devils, demons, and other disembodied entities.
I think it would have been wiser to have said you have high
ideals or aspirations or ethics or morality. Secondly, you say,
"The greatest spiritual ideas must be rooted in reality," "Don't
tie the reality of a spiritual quality to the reality of a myth
describing it," and "I see spiritual aspects if they're there."
The spiritual realm has no reality and, therefore, could not
be rooted in anything, especially reality. Third, you say, "...follow
the dictates of compassion and common sense." The problem with
this advice is that far too many people are doing exactly that.
They are following the dictates of compassion, and unfortunately
in all too many cases that represents anything but common sense.
They need to think critically more and operate by emotion less.
Fourth, you refer to the "good values he espoused" and say,
"Jesus as a whole doesn't cut it; only parts of him do." I would
go even farther by saying that those parts which cut it are
far outweighed by those that don't. As our quote from Ruth Green's
book showed in last month's issue, the ideals of Jesus are by
no means as admirable as is commonly believed. Jesus is not
only unqualified to be God incarnate, but doesn't even past muster
as an advocate of a proper Weltanschauung. A few platitudes
about brotherly love and forgiveness are by no means sufficient
to overcome a plethora of escapist, submissive, unrealistic
teachings. The negative aspect of Jesus far outweighs the positive.
And lastly, by saying Christianity does not have a monopoly
on good spiritual values, you are exposing the degree to which
you have been subtlely influenced by Christian propaganda. As
is true with Jesus, the so-called "good spiritual values" are
far outweighed by negative Christian teachings. Christianity
not only doesn't have a monopoly on "good spiritual teachings,"
but the latter aren't even its central thrust.
Letter #598 from JL [
Editor's Response to Letter #598
Letter #599 from DR of La Mesa, California
Editor's Response to Letter #599
Letter #600 from HM of Bellbrook, Ohio
Editor's Response to Letter #600
SISSON'S ANSWERING CHRISTIANITY'S MOST PUZZLING QUESTIONS, Vol.
2--On page 4 Sisson defends one of Christianity's most absurd
concepts, the Trinity. He begins by admitting, "It is not an
easy doctrine" which is not only an understatement, but nothing
more than a backhanded attempt to make it appear as if some
rationality were involved. He later states, "The doctrine of
the Trinity, however, is of vital importance to us all--not
just theologians. It helps us to understand truths about God
and salvation...." No. It's real purpose is to provide a backdoor,
an escape hatch, for all those contradictions that are obvious
to anyone reading Scripture with a reasonable degree of objectivity.
He states the concept of the Trinity "may irritate your sense
of logic," as if logic came in varieties. It doesn't irritate
a particular sense of logic; it conflicts with logic, period.
Logic has no gradations or degrees. Logic is logic, and no one
has a corner on the market or a variety superior to that of
others.
Editor's Response to Letter #601
Letter #603 from KF of Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Letter #604 from Greg Erwin, ai815@ Freenet. Carlton.CA 100
Terrasse Eardley, Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5
Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part a)
Letter #605 Continues (Part b)
Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part b)
Letter #605 Continues (Part c)
Editor's Response to Letter #605 (Part c)
As a result of about 2,600 years of brainwashing, most Jews
and Christians believe that the Bible is: a) "The Good Book"
and b) "The Word of God." However, those people who read the
Bible carefully, and with their reasoning switch in the on position
while doing so, will eventually come to the conclusion that
it is neither. This is easily confirmed by referring to statements
made by the two most famous "Doubting Thomases" and "Princes
of Reason," Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine.
Dear Dennis.
I wanted to share with you and all of your readers
some resources that are available on the Internet computer network.
There is a wealth of freethought material available to anyone
who has Internet access. Some of these resources include: The
Usenet newsgroups alt atheism and alt atheism moderated. These
newsgroups are sometimes my only escape from the religious mindset
so prominent at the Christian university I attend. These newsgroups
have prepared documents called FAQs (answers to Frequently Asked
Questions) which answer some of the most common arguments used
by Christian apologists. There is even a 200+K file devoted
just to Josh McDowell's book Evidence That Demands a Verdict.
They have also scanned many freethought books, including many
that are out of print. All of the newsgroup resources are available
via FTP and WWW. The alt atheism web can be accessed via http://mantis.co.uk/atheism.
The alt atheism FTP site can be accessed via ftp.mantis.co.uk.
I strongly encourage everyone with Internet access to check
out the sites I just mentioned.
A second, and just as impressive, freethought web is also available
on the net. It can be accessed via http.//freethought.tamu.edu/freethought/.
There are many freethought books available here (including some
by Robert Ingersoll), and there isn't too much overlap with
the other web mentioned above.
On a different note, those readers who are interested in the
subject of evolution can contact the National Center for Science
Education at ncse@crl.com.
I have been researching the alleged resurrection of Jesus
of Nazareth, and have found many valuable documents on-line.
These have been very helpful in my research. They have also
saved me a lot of money, because I was able to download them
for free. Clearly this is a resource that many of your readers
will want to take advantage of, if they haven't already. Perhaps
other readers know of some other freethought resources available
on the Internet? Like Biblical Errancy for example? When is
Biblical Errancy going to get on the Internet?
Dear JL,
Your letter was included within BE because many people
use Internet. Personally I haven't gotten around to using this
vital means of communication, but hope to do so someday. I'm
juggling so many balls now that one more could put me under.
But we intend to enter this arena eventually.
Dear Dennis.
I appreciate the information you publish in Biblical
Errancy, and have found it to be quite useful and informative.
I would be interested in obtaining all of the back issues of
your publication.... I find it easiest to read and utilize materials
when they are stored electronically, as I can do rapid searches
for key words rather than flip through hundreds of pages looking
for the example. Do you offer the back issues of Biblical Errancy
on disk, perhaps in ASCII format? If so, what is the cost involved?
I also operate a computer bulletin board here in La Mesa, entitled
Dante's Inferno, and host several discussion echoes on religion
and biblical errancy. What is your position on my quoting from
Biblical Errancy articles to support my positions? When I have
quoted from other publications in the past, credit is always
given, as are references listed in the article or book. However,
different publishers have differing preferences on how this
is handled. The Skeptical Review, for instance, permits posting
of entire articles and distribution of their publication via
the electronic media, as long as their address is always listed
at the bottom of the article. Thanks again for publishing Biblical
Errancy, and I look forward to receiving your response to this
letter.
Dear DR.
The publisher of Skeptical Review and I have similar
policies. Please feel free to quote from BE at will, as long
as the source is properly identified. We don't offer anything
on disc, although we may do so later.
...in case you have not yet been informed, your latest newsletter
was stamped by the post office with two PRAY FOR PEACE messages.
It's up to you, but this is something that should be looked
into. You might demand that you be permitted to watch the postal
clerk stamp the copies. What's more, the religious message was
stamped twice, right across the printing on the back page.
This nation "under God" is becoming increasingly intolerant
and belligerent toward non-Christians....
Dear HM.
Other people sent letters mentioning the postal stamp
as well. As far as I am aware, the post office is a governmental agency, which
has no business promoting a religious concept. In no way did
I authorize or approve my literature being used to carry a message
with which I am in complete disagreement. We are again faced
with a blatant violation of the separation of state and church.
If the message had said WORK FOR PEACE I would not object. But
prayer is a debilitating mental exercise in which no one should
ever be asked to participate. It makes one vulnerable to outside
forces which are often inimical to one's interests, promotes
sloth and laziness, advances a negative self-image, creates
low self-esteem, fosters a belief in gaining something for nothing,
generates escape rather than involvement, and activates reliance
upon miraculous rather than this-worldly solutions to one's problems.
Realistically, putting this message on our periodical is like
putting IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins. It's completely unconstitutional,
although little can be done. I can think of many slogans Christians
would not like to see placed on churches or Bibles; yet they
have no hesitation about slapping propaganda on our property.
EDITOR'S NOTE: FINALLY IT'S HERE, IT MADE IT, IT HAS ARRIVED.
Mark JANUARY 1995 on your calendar. The latest catalogue issued
by PROMETHEUS BOOKS has the following ad on page 17. We encourage
everyone to purchase a copy of our encyclopedia and interest
others in doing the same. We need the money. No, seriously.
It should be an excellent reference book, providing a wealth
of readily-accessible anti-biblical information and documentation.
It should also be of great assistance in furthering our cause,
and could very well act as an incentive for the publication
of additional writings. The essence of 12 years of BE commentaries
has been compressed into 24 poignant chapters, crammed with citations
and potent polemics. In order to purchase the book be sure to
contact Prometheus rather than us. You might want to contact
them at their 800 phone number in order to obtain their latest
catalogue.
Issue No. 143
November 1994
This edition will continue our potpourri of invalid and dubious
biblical observations found in a variety of apologetic sources
that was begun several months ago in the May 1994 issue.
SCRIPTURE MIXTURE
(Part 2)
On page 6 Sisson defends Jesus' claim to be God incarnate
by saying, "Ultimately, we must let the Savior speak for Himself.
In 7 ways He defended His claim to be God incarnate. First,
He gave evidence by His works as stated in John 5:36 ('...for
the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same
works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent
me') and John 14:11 ('Believe me that I am in the Father and
the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works
themselves')." How this helps establish his credentials is baffling,
to say the least, in light of the fact that Jesus performed no
work that was not performed by other biblical figures. He rose
from the dead, but so did others. He performed miracles, but so
did others. He healed, but so did others.
Sisson continues by saying, "Second, He had authority only
God could claim--authority to give life. John 5:21 says, 'For
as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the
Son gives life to whom he will." Merely because a man claims
to have a power makes it true? Many people have claimed to give
life throughout history. Does that mean it's automatically true?
Merely because somebody alleges something is sufficient to establish
its validity? Hardly! Just because he claimed it, doesn't mean
he had it. Peter raised Tabitha, and Paul raised Eutychus from
the dead. Does that mean they can justifiably claim to be God
incarnate? Sisson's argument is pathetic!
He expands on his second point by saying, "He had authority
to exercise final judgment over men (John 5:22-23); authority
over heaven's host (Matt. 26:53); authority over nature (Mark
4:39-41); authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5, 10); and authority
to expound the truth of the Scriptures (Matt. 5:27-28)." Again,
mere assertions prove nothing. Proof going beyond mere words
must be forthcoming. Anyone could claim to have comparable powers,
and we would be obligated to believe them as well, if they weren't
required to substantiate their assertions. Words are cheap.
Saying something doesn't make it true.
Sisson continues, "Third, He fulfilled OT prophecies, which
indicated an incarnate deity as shown by Isa. 7:14 ('Therefore
the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel')
and Isa. 9:6 ("For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is
given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his
name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God,
The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace')." Issues 76 through
80 of BE clearly showed that no OT prophecies pertain to Jesus.
They proved that the child mentioned in Isa. 7:14 could not
be Jesus; nor could the one in Isa. 9:6, because it says he shall
be called 'The everlasting Father,' when Jesus was the everlasting
'son'.
Sisson continues by saying, "Fourth, His character and relationship
with God the Father were unique. Jesus never spoke of 'our Father'
when he was with the disciples. It was always 'My Father' or
'your Father,' because the two kinds of relationships were distinct."
Millions of people say "my Father" and "your Father" when referring
to God. Does this mean they have the same relationship to God
as Jesus alledgedly did? By offering this argument, Sisson appears
to have been merely trying to extend his list in order to make
it appear more impressive. Apparently desperation was setting
in.
He continues by saying, "Fifth, He was eternal as shown by
John 8:57-58 ('The Jews then said to him, You are not yet fifty
years old, and have you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly,
truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am')." How John 8:57-58
proves Jesus is eternal is enigmatic. Jesus merely asserted
that he lived before Abraham. Why would that automatically mean
that he existed for all eternity prior to Abraham? And how does
that prove Jesus will live for an eternity? Jesus alluded to
time gone by, but that says nothing about time to come. Even
more importantly, from a biblical perspective we are all eternal.
Whether you go to heaven or hell, immortality is unavoidable,
according to the Christian interpretation of Scripture. You
are immortal, whether you like it or not. Jesus is no more eternal
than the rest of us. The biblical annihilationist who says his
destiny is nowhere and the rest of mankind will follow suit
is one of the few to deny eternal life.
Sisson proceeds to dig his hole even deeper by saying, "Sixth,
He demonstrated His power over death and hell by His resurrection
(Matt. 12:38-40). That is the ultimate proof of His deity (Rom.
1:4--'And declared to be the Son of God with power, according
to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead')."
As was shown in prior issues of BE, biblical resurrections from
the dead were a dime a dozen. If rising from the dead proved
one were God incarnate, then Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, the
Widow of Nain's son, and many others were God incarnate as well.
Sisson concludes by saying, "Finally, He appealed to people
to believe in Him the same way they believed in God as shown
by John 6:29 ('Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God,
that you believe in him whom he has sent') and John 11:25 ('Jesus
said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes
in me, though he die, yet shall he live')." Again, words; nothing
but words. Mere acclamation does not make something true. Throughout
history others have said the same. How can we be sure their
claims weren't valid?
On pages 18 and 19 Sisson reveals the lengths to which apologists
will go to close the minds of their followers, by saying, "Jesus
Christ must be fully God and fully man. If He is not, we are
still in our sins.... Our task is not to explain the unexplainable,
but to expound on the essential. May such antinomies (a euphemism
for contradictions--Ed.) give us a great appreciation for God's
wisdom and knowledge. As we discover such antinomies in Scripture,
may they serve as constant reminders that God expects us to
put His revelation ahead of our comfortable logic." In other
words, don't think and critique; just listen and believe. Advice
of this kind exposes religion in general, and the Bible in particular,
to be among the most dangerous opponents of mental health and
rational thought.
On page 23 Sisson tackles the free will versus determinism
problem, under the heading of God's sovereignty versus man's
responsibility. He states, "Twenty years ago, as a college student,
I first became aware of the paramount theological controversy
of all time: 'Is salvation the result of man's choice or God's
choice?' I remember twin reactions. I was intellectually confused,
and I suffered great emotional frustration over the issue. Two
decades later I am still intellectually mystified.... I entertain
no thoughts of resolving the difficulty.... the Scriptures teach
both that God is sovereign and that man is responsible. It is
commendable to try to harmonize both side of an antinomy (there's
that euphemism again--Ed.) into one rational system, but it
is not always possible...." Sisson is wrestling with the problem
of how man can have free will if everything is determined by
God. He tries to reconcile the conflict by saying, "The doctrine
of God's sovereignty as taught in Scripture never negates human
significance. God is working out His sovereign plan. But He
truly depends on His people to accomplish that plan." But how
can people be free to accomplish what God has already pre-ordained?
Not only does God's sovereignty negate man's free will, but scores
of biblical verses buttress predestination. On page 26 Sisson
says, "Perhaps we never will be able to satisfy our human intellects
with an answer." That's true! At least not until man also finds
a square circle. While attempting to submit some sort of plausible
defense, Sisson says on page 27, "In God's mercy He has chosen
to save those who believe." But that can't be! The reverse is
true. They chose to believe because they had already been selected.
Sisson has it backwards. In concluding this topic, he tells Christians,
"Don't be afraid to acknowledge what you perhaps do not understand
completely." His modifiers are disarming. There is no "perhaps"
to it, since no one can understand a blatant contradiction.
Understand "completely"! Most Christians would be happy to understand
it even minutely. Sisson concludes his sales pitch by saying,
"God is sovereign. Salvation is His work. He chooses whom He
wills to be objects of His mercy. But it is also true that men
are responsible for their choices. No one will go to heaven
without trusting Christ. Your choice determines your destiny."
How could your choice determine your destiny when Sisson admits
"God chooses whom he wills to be objects of his mercy"? God
and God alone determines who will be saved. Sisson concludes
by saying, "Is your mind troubled by the antinomy (again read
this as contradiction--Ed.)? You are not alone. Be willing to
live with unresolved questions. Accept the inevitable--that
you will go to your grave with questions unresolved." In other
words, you'll just have to trust me on this one. Square circles
are possible. Sisson's explanation is understandable, considering
the fact that it's based on a book that says people can rise
from the dead, sticks can turn into serpents, people can mutate
into pillars of salt, and donkeys can talk. Is one any more
incredible than the other?
RYRIE'S BASIC THEOLOGY--Having discussed Sisson's defense of
the Trinity, we might note the following admission found on
page 79 of a book entitled Basic Theology by Dallas Theological
Seminary professor Charles Ryrie, "It is fair to say that the
Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, if by clearly
one means there are proof texts for the doctrine. In fact, there
is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse
or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists
in three Persons."
Moving to an analysis of the sabbath, Ryrie states on page
268, "What caused the day of worship to change? All the first
Christians were Jewish accustomed to worshiping on the Sabbath.
Yet suddenly and uniformly they began to worship on Sunday though
it was an ordinary workday (Acts 20:7). Why? Because they wanted
to commemorate the resurrection of their Lord which took place
on Sunday, they changed their day of worship. Christ's resurrection,
the cause; Sunday worship the effect." Whether or not this correctly
explains why the day of worship was changed, the fact remains
that the alteration cannot be supported biblically.
BOWMAN'S WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY-- In 1990 Robert
Bowman, a staff member of the Christian Research Institute,
issued a book entitled Why You Should Believe in the Trinity,
which was created to refute the misconceptions of Jehovah's
Witnesses regarding the Trinity. Although the Jehovah's Witnesses
are as lost as any other fundamentalist group, they at least
have enough intelligence to realize that the Trinity is a concept
without substance. Jesus couldn't possibly be God. While attacking
the JW's, Bowman made several noteworthy observations. On page
10 he stated, "It is true that many trinitarians--Catholics
especially, but also Protestants and Orthodox--state flatly
that the Trinity cannot be understood and that it is in this
sense a 'mystery.' ...Trinitarian theologians do not mean to
imply that the Trinity is unintelligible nonsense. Rather, the
point they are making is that the Trinity cannot be fully fathomed,
or comprehended, by the finite mind of man.... the Trinity can
be understood, or 'apprehended,' but not 'comprehended'." The
only appropriate adjective for Bowman's convoluted explanation
is "doubletalk." He says the Trinity is not "unintelligible
nonsense" and immediately turns 180 degrees by exuding some
unintelligible nonsense about its being understood and apprehended
but not comprehended. If it is understood and apprehended, then
it is comprehended and vice versa. How could it be understood
but not comprehended?
In regard to the Canon's formation, Bowman says on page 22,
"No verse in the Bible explicitly states that a certain collection
of books is the only inspired writing to be recognized as God's
Word. There is no list in the Bible of books that belong there--no
inspired 'table of contents.' Yet the belief that these books,
and only these books, belong in the Bible is itself based on
the Bible's teaching,...." What on earth is he talking about?
Where does Scripture teach the specific books that are to be
in the Bible? Where does it enumerate the specific writings
that are to be deemed inspired? Where does it say "only" these
books are to be included? And where are other writings specifically
excluded?
BLAIKLOCK'S JESUS CHRIST, MAN OR MYTH?--One of the most ridiculous
arguments on the market for the existence of a real Jesus was
made by E. M. Blaiklock in his book entitled Jesus Christ, Man
or Myth? On page 86 he states, "Consider how impossible it would
have been for the writers of the gospels, whoever they might
have been and whenever they might have written, to create out
of aspiration and imagination the character which confronts
the reader of the gospels. Consider how equally impossible it
would have been, after close association and fellowship, to
imagine and graft into their story details not obviously known
and observed." Blaiklock stated earlier on page 77, "And then
read the story of the conversation at Sychar's well, with the
Samaritan fighting her losing battle of words with the strangest
Jew she had ever met. Read on to the poignant account of the
Passion Week with its climax in the vivid resurrection stories,
paralleled for simple reality only by the narrative in Luke.
Simply read. These men were not writing fiction. This is not
what myth sounds like." And Blaiklock concludes his vapid argument
by saying, "It is as Rousseau said, men who could invent such
a story would be greater and more astonishing than its central
figure." To all of this one can only say, Surely he isn't serious?
He says "this is not what myth sounds like" when precisely the
opposite is true. The events surrounding the passion, the resurrection,
etc. are directly comparable to numerous myths in other religions.
They are precisely what mythology does sound like, and Christianity
reeks with stories of this kind. In effect, Blaiklock is contending
that stories become more credible as they become more incredible.
Almost any child's imagination could concoct stories as fantastic
than those found in the gospels, and for Blaiklock to say that
"men who could invent such a story would be greater and more
astonishing than its central figure" is almost too absurd to
discuss. This is one of the weakest arguments imaginable for
the existence of a real Jesus and gospel truthfulness.
With respect to the character of Jesus, Blaiklock says on
page 107, "There was no violence, no lashing in anger, only
the tremendous power of His presence." Again, his allegiance
superseded his prudence. Or maybe Blaiklock has never read John
2:15 ("And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the
sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins
of the money-changers and overturned their tables"), Matt. 10:34
("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not
to send peace, but a sword"), Luke 22:36 ("...and he that hath
no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"), Luke 12:51
("Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you,
Nay; but rather division...."), and Luke 12:49 ("I am come to
send fire on the earth...."). Obviously Jesus is not the paragon
of quietude his followers have pictured in their minds. In fact,
Jesus even downgraded his own character by saying in Matt. 19:17,
"Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that
is, God...." What Jesus would have to say or do in order for
biblicists to radically alter their image of his character is
anyone's guess. Christians have a specific concept of his personality,
and nothing anyone says or demonstrates to the contrary, including
Jesus himself, is going to modify their mindset.
LITTLE'S KNOW WHY YOU BELIEVE--One of the most widely distributed
apologetic books of recent decades is Paul Little's work entitled
Know Why You Believe. It's essentially a wide ranging theological
defense of Christianity in general, rather than the Bible in
particular. But some comments contained therein cry out for
analysis. While discussing whether or not God exists, Little
says on page 15, "...Suppose we knew he existed, but that he
was like Adolph Hitler--capricious, vicious, prejudiced, and
cruel. What a horrible realization that would be!" Apparently
Little is unacquainted with the God of the OT. Issues 115 through
120 of BE clearly revealed a disreputable being of the highest
order. If Little reread the OT ,or read it more thoroughly, he
might experience his "horrible realization." Then, again, perhaps,
like most apologists, he would turn a blind eye to whatever
clashes with his preconceptions.
On page 17 Little correctly uttered something which many liberal
Christians would do well to note. He stated that many of, "those
who deny the deity of Jesus affirm that they think Jesus was
a great moral teacher. They fail to realize those two statements
are a contradiction. Jesus could hardly be a great moral teacher
if, on the most crucial point of his teaching, i.e., his identity,
he was a deliberate liar." In other words, if he said he was
God and wasn't, he certainly couldn't be considered a great
moral teacher or a man of integrity.
While answering the question of why God allows suffering and
evil, Little inadvertently dug himself into a deep, deep hole.
He stated, "Many ask, Why didn't God make man so he couldn't
sin? To be sure, he could have, but let's remember that if he
had done so we would no longer be human beings, we would be
machines. How would you like to be married to a chatty doll?
Every morning and every night you could pull the string and
get the beautiful words, 'I love you,' There would never be
any hot words, never any conflict, never anything said or done
that would make you sad! But who would want that?" How incredible!
Unbeknownst to our apologetic friend, while trying to prove
mankind is not composed of automatons, he destroyed heaven's
perfection. Isn't heaven supposed to be the place in which conflict,
sadness, and hot words no longer exist? Yet Little says of such
a condition "who would want that?" In light of his inadvertent
renunciation of heaven, one can't help but wonder why he is
a Christian at all. Jesus is only the means to the end. The
end is heaven itself.
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
To Whom It May Concern:
It may be in your best interest to
eliminate number four in your JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER flyer/advertisement
or make some minor adjustments. [It states, "Isn't Jesus a false
prophet since he wrongly predicted in Matt. 12:40 that he would
be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale
three days and three nights? Friday afternoon to early Sunday
morning is one and a half days--Ed.]. Those with a critical
eye may catch an inconsistency in your flyer and perhaps become
skeptical about the merits of your publication.
There's an inconsistency in the author's logic or the way
in which you chose to depict a biblical error. Why in #20 ["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?--Ed.]
is three days used and in #4 only one and a half days? Do you
feel that three is interchangeable with or equal to one and
a half? If the three days in #20 was moved to #4, and the one
and a half days in #4 was moved to #20 then the point you are
trying to prove seems rather trivial. In #4 it may not have
been three "whole" days, but it certainly was three "whole"
nights. Thus the argument in #4 is rather insignificant. In
#20 however, the argument is valid, but its weakened by the
word choice in #4.
I think it's best to call attention to inconsistency and at
the same time be consistent. Leave dishonesty and hypocrisy
for fundamentalist publications.
If you decide to edit your flyer, please send me a copy. If
corrected, the Arizona Student Atheists, at the University of
Arizona, would be more than happy to distribute them with other
materials we have.
Dear EM.
I think you have confused me with someone else. Why
in #20 is three days used and in #4 only one and a half days?
Because that's what Scripture states. I never said "three is
interchangeable with or equal to one and a half," That's what
the text is saying indirectly. You've confused me with the Bible.
Apparently you want me to present a biblical contradiction in
a non-contradictory fashion. I certainly don't intend to rewrite
the script in order for it to be more amenable to a logical
sequence. There is no inconsistency, whatever, in my flyer/pamphlet.
It merely highlights an inconsistency in Scripture. And we certainly
don't intend to move or alter figures in order to make the text
more palatable. You say, "In #4 it may not have been three 'whole'
days, but it certainly was three 'whole' nights." What was three
whole nights? The prediction or what actually happened? Certainly
the prediction was. But what actually occurred was not. I think
you need to reread the script, and after having done so you'll
feel more comfortable distributing our pamphlets. We appreciate
your assistance..
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Dear Mr McKinsey,
I thank you for the sample issue of BIBLICAL
ERRANCY. I thought it was very good.... I spent 40 years in
the Seventh-Day Adventist church and now I am having the most
wonderful time of my life reading philosophy and reading about
people who were skeptics throughout the centuries. I feel that
those people who believe that the Bible is "inerrant" have never
really read the Bible, or else have refused to believe the things
it says. Surely the main reason people believe it is out of
fear and from having been brain-washed.
Dear Dennis.
As a long-time subscriber I have carefully read
all issues of BE and find the material well thought out and
devastating to the Christian cause. You have a great enterprise
going in your publication and I wish you the best.
I was thinking the other day, what's the biggest, most obvious
contradiction in the Bible, especially one involving Jesus,
that no one to my knowledge, even you perhaps, has managed to
bring to our attention? Jesus commands, "Love your enemy." Matt.
5:44 says, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them
that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for
them who despitefully use you, and persecute you...." Yet does
he follow his own advice? I think not. Who's one of the biggest
baddest enemies around? It's the devil, isn't it? Matt 13:39
says, "The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is
the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." Now
does Jesus love *his* enemy (and yours too)? Yes? Bzzzzt! Wrong!
Far from loving, blessing, doing good to, and praying for his
enemy the devil, Jesus has simply built a bizarre eternal fiery
hell-pyre for him, as is shown by Matt. 25:41 ("Then shall he
say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels").
If Jesus, the paragon of Christian morality, cannot bring himself
to do what he preaches, what does that say about the whole Christian
enterprise? So much for Jesus' strength of character, honesty,
and integrity. On a higher level, though, I really think that
the scriptwriters who formulated Christian theology over the
years went so far in complexity that they simply couldn't avoid
deep philosophical contradictions such as this one. Christianity
is often trapped by its own rhetoric.
Dear Dennis.
Looking forward to reviewing your new book. I
have always thought that it was a bit unfair of us atheists
to require an omnipotent god to perform acts linguistically
possible to state, but realistically impossible to perform, such as creating a square circle or a two-sided triangle. I thank
you for reminding us all that these acts are merely some of
the impossibilities that god is already claiming credit for,
such as being god and man simultaneously; looking, tasting,
and having all the qualities of bread, while being actually human
flesh; likewise for wine and blood; and being equal to three
and one at the same time. If god can perform these miracles,
it is only fair to require that he make square circles. It is
certainly no harder to make something all red and all green
simultaneously than to make it be both flesh and bread, or to
make 3=1.
The fact that god's defenders so readily give in, admitting
that god cannot make square circles, shows that they don't really
believe in the other miracles. If you intellectually and viscerally
accepted that three is the same as one, that Jesus had brothers
and sisters, and that virgins can give birth and stay virgins;
square circles and simultaneous redness and greenness would
seem to be trivial accomplishments in comparison....
Priests, politicians, and advertisers all use language to
conceal or convert, rather than to communicate. Christians, in
particular, speak and write with the sole intention of justifying
what they wish to believe, or forcing you to assent to it. It
is rare to find one that can actually be brought around to rationality,
but it is important that rational people maintain a constant
denial of the truth of Christian propaganda. Every time somebody
claims that the bible is a wonderful book, it is necessary for
someone else to state it is not.
Issue No. 144
December 1994
HALEY'S ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES OF THE BIBLE (Part I)--One of
the most famous of all apologetic works is entitled Alleged
Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley, which appeared in
1874. Because this work is quite specific and voluminous, several
issues will be devoted to an examination of its contents. In
the Preface Haley states, "I have restricted my attention to
the so-called 'discrepancies,' that is, to those cases in which
the statements or narratives of the Bible are said to conflict
with one another. I have kept within the Bible. Cases in which
the scriptures seem to be at variance with secular history or
with science have been left to other and abler hands." Surprisingly,
that mirrors the philosophy of BE. So far so good. But after
listing how biblical problems can arise, Haley begins a long
series of rationalizations, justifications, and obfuscations
of hundreds of the most prominent biblical contradictions. Since
it would not be possible to discuss every problem addressed
in his book, we are undertaking the less ambitious task of simply
exposing many of the most egregious.
Haley begins with what
are commonly known as doctrinal problems. The first is on page
55, and pits Jer. 32:27 ("Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all
flesh: is there anything too hard for me?") and Matt. 19:26
("With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible")
against Heb. 6:18 ("It was impossible for God to lie"). This
problem was discussed in some recent correspondence in BE, and
highlights one of the most intractable religious conflicts.
Haley's explanation is that, "Omnipotence does not imply the
power to do every conceivable thing, but the ability to do everything
which is the proper object of power. For example, an omnipotent
being could not cause a thing to be existent and non-existent
at the same instant. The very idea is self-contradictory and
absurd. When it is said that God can do 'all things,' the phrase
only applies to those things which involve no inconsistency
or absurdity." His explanation won't stand the strain for several
reasons. In the first place, the verse neither says nor implies
anything relative to "the proper object of power." It says nothing
is too hard for God to accomplish, and no expressed or implied
qualifications are attached. Secondly, God can't lie because
the moment he lied he would cease to be God. And God can't cease
to be God. And thirdly, Haley says,"an omnipotent being could
not cause a thing to be existent and non-existent at the same
time." He says the very idea is self-contradictory and absurd.
Precisely! And that's why God's not omnipotent. If he were all-powerful,
he could do it, and since he can't we'll rest our case.
On page 89 Haley tackles the conflict between Luke 11:10 ("For
every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth;
and to him that knocketh it shall be opened") and James 1:5
("If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God that giveth
to all men liberally, and upbraideth not: and it shall be given
him") on one side and Isa. 1:15 ("And when ye spread forth your
hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yes, when ye make many
prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood"), Micah
3:4 ("Then shall they cry unto the Lord, but he will not hear
them: he will even hide his face from them at that time, as
they have behaved themselves ill in their doings") and James
4:3 ("Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye
may consume it upon your lusts") on the other. His explanation
is, "The limiting clauses of the last three texts, 'hands full
of blood,' 'ill behavior,' and 'asking amiss,' show clearly
why God withholds his blessings in these cases. Moreover, the
connection in which the first two texts stands evinces that
these texts were not intended to be of universal application.
They contemplate those persons only who 'ask in faith.' Every
one that asketh aright, receiveth. The principle upon which
God, in answer to prayer, bestows his blessings, is thus enunciated:
"If we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us." Haley
says the first two texts "were not intended to be of universal
application" but only apply to those who "ask in faith," even
though Luke 11:10 clearly refers to "everyone who asks," period,
and no restrictions or limitations are involved. Where does
the verse say or imply that it only applies to those who ask
"in faith"? The word "faith" doesn't appear in either verse. And
where does Luke 11:10 say anything about asking in accordance
with God's will? The word "will" doesn't appear either.
Upon reading a verse with obvious difficulties, apologists
often race off to find another verse that can somehow be twisted
in order to escape, modify, alleviate, or counteract the original
dilemma. And this conflict is a classic example. Haley has,
in effect, chosen the version of God's response to requests
that suits his purpose. He's acted as if Luke 11:10 and James
1:5 were non-existent, because they don't say what he wants to
hear.
On page 97 Haley tries to reconcile Mark 1:2-3 ("Was not Esau
Jacob's brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated
Esau") with Psalms 145:9 ("The Lord is good to all") by saying,
"The word 'hate' is used here, as often in scripture, in the
sense of to love less. If one person was preferred to another,
the former was said to be 'loved,' the latter 'hated.' As the
opposite of love is hatred, when there is only an inferior degree
of the former exhibited, the object of it is regarded as being
hated, rather than loved."
Haley is a past master at convoluted
distortions and perverted thought, as this example readily attests.
In the first place, He admits "the opposite of love is hatred,"
but then says an inferior degree of love, which remains love
nevertheless, is hatred, which is only another way of saying
love and hatred are the same. In other words, black is white
and up is down. Secondly, "hatred" either means no love at all
or it has no meaning. Haley is trying to have it both ways.
His phrase "to love less" still involves love; yet he tried
to equate it with hatred, its opposite, which is only another
way of saying love and hate can be the same. The bottom line
is that "hate" means "to not love at all"; it does not mean
to "love less," and that's why the contradiction stands. Thirdly,
he says "hate" is often used in scripture to mean "to love less."
Yet only three instances are cited.
The first is Prov. 13:24
which says, "He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who
loves him is diligent to discipline him." This verse is not
saying hate is only a diminished form of love or implying hate
means to love less. It isn't even analogous to the original
problem. Instead of equating love with hate, it is making a
rather sharp distinction between the two.
The next verse is Luke 14:26, which says, "If any man comes
to me, and hates not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,
and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
be my disciple." Apparently Haley is under the impression that
"hate" in this instance means "to love less" because Jesus wouldn't
actually tell people to hate members of their family. But what
does it say? How could Jesus have phrased his comment to prove
that is exactly what he meant? How could he have written it
more clearly or more definitively? If he had meant "love less"
or something comparable, it would have been very easy for him
to have said just that. He could have said, "You should not
love your parents more than me" or "You should not be more dedicated
to your parents than to the mission I am assigning to you" or "You
should be more dedicated to the cause than even to your closest
relative", or something comparable. Any one of these would have
been far clearer and resolved the problem. But none of them
were mentioned.
The third citation comes from Gen. 29:30-31, which says, "So
Jacob went in to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than
Leah, and served Laban for another seven years. When the Lord
saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb; but Rachel was
barren." This is the only citation which appears to lend support
to Haley's contention that "hate" means "to love less." The
problem is that even though Leah is loved less than Rachel,
she is still loved. Love is still present even though the amount
may be diminished. How then can the verse say that "Leah was
hated"? How can she be loved if she is hated? According to Webster's
Dictionary "love" is an antonym for "hate". They are opposites.
According to Haley and Gen. 29:30-31, they can mean the same,
which will be true when black can be white and up can be down
as well.
On page 99 Haley addresses the clash between Mal. 1:14 ("Cursed
be the deceiver....") on one side and 1 Sam. 16:2 ("And Samuel
said, How can I go? If Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the
Lord said, Take a heifer with thee, and say, I am come to sacrifice
to the Lord"), Jer. 20:7 ("O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and
I was deceived..."), and Ezek. 14:9 ("And if the prophet be
deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived
that prophet...") on the other.
In essence, God curses deceivers
in Malachi, while practicing deception in Samuel, Jeremiah,
and Ezekiel. Rather than manufacturing his own explanations
for this dichotomy, Haley merely recites those of famous Christian
apologists. He states that, "On the text from 1 Samuel, Calvin
says: 'There was no dissimulation or falsehood in this, since
God really wished his prophet to find safety under the pretext
of the sacrifice'." Pretext! Did he say pretext? And what is
a pretext if not a deception? Calvin is all but proving God
is promoting deception. Haley continues quoting Calvin by saying,
"A sacrifice was therefore really offered, and the prophet was
protected thereby...." Yes, but the sacrifice was merely part
of the deception.
Haley then offers an explanation from the German biblical
scholar Keil. The latter states, "There was no untruth in this;
for Samuel was really about to conduct a sacrificial festival,
and was to invite Jesse's family to it, and then anoint the
one whom Jehovah should point out to him as the chosen one.
It was simply a concealment of the principal object of his mission
from any who might make inquiry about it because they themselves
had not been invited. It is our privilege to withhold the truth
from persons who have no right to know it, and who, as we have
reason to believe, would make a bad use of it."
This explanation
is little short of drivel. To begin with, Keil doesn't even have
his facts straight. He says "Samuel was really about to conduct
a sacrificial festival" which is false. The sacrificial festival
was God's idea, dreamed up in order to deceive Saul. Secondly,
the concealment was devised to fool Saul so he would not kill
Samuel, not in order to fool those "who might make inquiry about
it because they themselves had not been invited." Thirdly, Keil
admits that a concealment is involved, and what is a concealment
but a deception, a deception instigated by God? Fourthly, like
most sophisticated apologists, Keil sought to shift the focus
by saying "It is our privilege to withhold the truth from persons
who have no right to know it," when he knows the problem does
not lie merely in the truth being withheld. The problem resides
in the fact that a deliberate lie was told. There was a positive
act, not just passive inactivity. He did not just conceal; he
actively lied. Lastly, and of great importance, Keil finessed
God's key statement, which is, "Take a heifer with you, and say,
I have come to sacrifice to the Lord." It's totally false. That's
not the real reason he came. The Lord deliberately told a man
to lie.
On page 110 Haley confronts the clash between Matt. 28:18
("Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given
unto me in heaven and earth") and John 3:35 ("The Father loveth
the Son, and hath given all things into his hand") on the one
hand and Matt. 20:23 ("To sit on my right hand, and on my left,
is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom
it is prepared of my Father") and Mark 6:5 ("And he could there
do no mighty work, save that he laid his hand upon a few sick
folk, and healed them") on the other.
Is Jesus omnipotent or
isn't he? Haley says, "Matt. 20:23 is rendered by Grotius, Chrysostom,
Clarke, Barnes, and others thus: 'is not mine to give, except
to those for whom,' etc. With this the Syriac Peshito precisely
agrees." Realizing there is no possibility of escaping this
dilemma, Haley has decided to simply rewrite the script by relying
upon one lone version of Matt. 20:23--the Syriac Peshito. None
of the 14 versions in the repertoire of BE has the word "except,"
and unless the translators of virtually every available major
version of the NT are incompetent, his explanation is worthless.
He proceeds to sink even further by saying, "The real sense
is: 'It is not fitting that I should bestow it upon others.'
The question is not one of power at all, but of fitness." Wrong!
According to the verse the real sense is that God will pick
who'll sit where. Jesus could not determine it even if he wanted
to. Thus, he is not all powerful.
After discussing the omnipotence of Jesus, Haley turned to
a problem relative to the omnipresence of Jesus. On page 114
he relates the problem created by Matt. 18:20 ("For where two
or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the
midst of them") and Matt. 28:20 ("Lo, I am with you always,
even unto the end of the world") vis a vis Matt. 26:11 ("For
ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always")
and John 11:15 ("I am glad for your sakes that I was not there,
to the intent ye may believe....").
Haley's explanation is short
and sour. He states, "The first texts refer to his spiritual
presence with his people; the second series relates to his visible
presence, in the body. Paul, in Col. 2:5 ("For though I be absent
in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit....") employs
language of a quite similar import." But Paul's situation is
not analogous, because he made a clear distinction between flesh
and spirit, whereas Jesus does not. How could "In the midst"
have a spiritual meaning? Jesus did not say he was in them spiritually;
he said he was "in the midst", which would mean he was among
them, not in them. Haley provides no evidence that Matt. 18:20
and 28:20 have a spiritual connotation while Matt. 26:11 and
John 11:15 have a physical one. That's a completely unsubstantiated,
expedient distinction, created purely for purposes of evasion--
in other words, a snow job.
On page 115 Haley sticks out his neck even further by attempting
to reconcile Psalms 72:17 ("All nations shall call him--Jesus--blesssed")
with Gal. 3:13 ("Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the
law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree"). If Christ is being referred
to in both Psalms 72 and Gal. 3, as most Christians allege,
then Jesus is being called both a blessing and a curse.
Since
that's too much for Haley to swallow, he says, "Luther and some
other commentators, taking the language in Galatians too literally,
have supposed that by some mysterious transference of human
guilt to Christ, he actually became a sinner. This interpretation
is, however, uncalled for, and repugnant to our feelings." Rarely
do I agree with Martin Luther on much of anything, but in this
instance his interpretation and that of other commentators is
far more accurate than Haley's. The problem lies not with Luther
taking the verse too literally, but with Haley refusing to take
the verse at all. It's more than he can stomach. Rather than
providing some kind of evidence to support his position, he
merely says it is "uncalled for" and "repugnant to our feelings."
If that were all the proof one needed to substantiate a position,
I could have blown away the Bible years ago. Haley has opted
for one of the most common of all apologetic subterfuges: That's
what it says, but that's not what it means.
And finally, Haley approached this problem from still another
direction by quoting the scholar Barnes, who said, "Jesus was
subjected to what was regarded as an accursed death. He was
treated in his death as if he had been a criminal." The problem
with this explanation is that it ignores the unmistakable assertion
in Gal. 3:13 that Jesus was "made a curse." It does not say
"as if" he were made a curse or criminal. It says he was a curse,
period.
(To Be Continued)
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
(RH, a liberal religious supporter of BE, entered into a written
debate with a fundamentalist baptist minister named Rev. BB,
who lives in Richford, Vermont. He wrote to us and said, "I
am in the process of housecleaning and ran across the enclosed
correspondence and because it contained references to you, decided
to send it to you. You may toss it in file 13; as far as I'm
concerned it should have been ditched a few years ago.... However,
I am becoming aware that perhaps some good could come out of
dialog with fundamentalists. You are my inspiration for that
change of heart.... I just wanted to let you know of another
attack on your pamphlet." Although RH waited nearly 4 years
before sending us a copy of their dialogue, we are glad it was
sent, nevertheless. Their acerbic interplay involved such words
as irrational, overtones of hatred and self-righteousness, hermeneutical
hocus-pocus, worse than useless liberal trash, self-excusing
lies, liar, pseudo-religious doubletalk, sickening, cloud of
falsehoods, groundless, venomous attack, hateful disposition,
erroneous rhetoric, barnyard matter, liberal bunk, slanting
the truth, and insane. I think you get the idea. In one of Rev.
BB's letters he states, "As for McKinsey's awful little tract,
I will, in the second part of this lengthy tome, refute his
alleged arguments." It is his alleged refutation of our THE
BIBLE IS THE ANSWER? pamphlet to which we will now turn our
attention. It is packed with the kind of material we love to
refute, expose, and critique. Sometimes I think I'd rather debate
the Bible than eat--Ed.).
As regards McKinsey's little tract it's interesting to see
how the introduction already exposes his hypocrisy. First, the
same man who is about to debunk the Bible as being unreasonable
and inconsistent appeals to it! I know the Book of Mormon IS
an unreliable and inconsistent document. That's why I would
never quote from it to persuade anyone of anything other than
its faults.
To say Rev. BB missed this one is an understatement. He wants
me to refute the Bible's validity without citing anything other
than its faults. How can you show what is wrong with a body
of literature without first reading it and then citing every
difficulty worthy of consideration? I use the Bible against
itself and he calls that "appealing" to the Bible. How is that
"appealing" to the Book? What could be more destructive to the
Bible than the Bible itself? The Bible is its own worst enemy.
I would hardly call that "appealing" to the book. It would be
foolish to focus your attention upon something else, especially
when that something else is not inspired in the eyes of the
Bible's adherents. Hypocrisy would only be involved if I denied
the Bible's validity and then turned around and cited it as
an authoritative and reliable source. I, on the other hand,
deny the Bible's validity and cite it to prove as much. There
is no turning around whatever. Instead, I am merely fortifying
my original premise. I don't appeal to the book in the manner
he implies; I merely cite it to prove my case and because it's
a source to which he appeals.
Secondly, he says he "would never quote from the Book of Mormon
to persuade anyone of anything other than its faults." How myopic!
There are other reasons to quote from a book with which you
disagree than to cite it faults. What could be more effective
than quoting from a book in which someone believes fervently
in order to prove that it denounces something they are doing,
teaching, believing, or saying? As we have said before, BE focuses
on more than just contradictions to prove the Bible is anything
but divinely inspired. Now who is being hypocritical? Rev. BB
implicitly portrays himself as an open-minded individual, while
admitting that he would never quote from the Book of Mormon
except to accomplish a very narrow agenda.
(The pamphlet entitled THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD? begins by
saying, "I can't accept the Bible as God's Word because it contains
hundreds of problems and contradictions that can't be solved,
only rationalized." Rev. BB says the following in response--Ed.)
Second, to "rationalize" can be a positive effort as well
as a negative one. In a positive sense, to rationalize is to
employ reason to prove an assertion is rational, reasonable.
If McKinsey slurs defense of the Bible as "rationalization",
he's not necessarily charging the defender with doing anything
other than what he urges us to do - to be reasonable!
I am well aware of the fact that "rationalize" can have one
of two meanings as Rev. BB suggests. But apparently he is unable
to distinguish the one being employed, even after having read
the entire pamphlet. Is he so immature that it must be spelled
out in detail? Webster's Dictionary defines "rationalize" as
meaning "to make rational; make conform to reason; to explain
or interpret on rational grounds." That's quite true, as most
people are well aware. But it also means "to devise superficially
rational or plausible explanations or excuses for (one's acts,
beliefs, desires, etc.), usually without being aware that these
are not the real motive." If Rev. BB can't tell which of these
wholly divergent meanings BE employs, then he's either in over
his head or just doesn't know all the meanings attached to the
word "rationalize". Then again, maybe he is just banking on his
audience not knowing the widely disparate meanings attached
to the word "rationalize" and wants to make it look as if BE
is endorsing his approach, in which case he is more than a hypocrite;
he's a deceiver.
Third, it is a self-serving argument to label (and libel)
one's opponents as unreasonable (or non-reasoning) without offering
any authoritative proof of same. This is specious, and, again,
argument by "wishful thinking". "Hundreds" is a puerile exaggeration.
Sweeping exaggerations are a sure sign the individual actually
knows nothing about which he is writing, and is bluffing.
It's hard to believe the lengths to which Rev. BB will go
to prove he knows almost nothing about that of which he speaks.
Were he to read all 144 issues of BE and listen to our 24 audio
commentaries, he would more than likely retract such an injudicious
comment. If there is anything BE does not lack, it is "authoritative
proof." Indeed, some readers feel that I tend to overprove my
points and saturate them with citations and evidence. Obviously
either Rev. BB has little or no acquaintance with our publication,
or he's whistling in the dark. I would STRONGLY recommend that
he read every back issue of BE, and then come to me and say with
a straight face and a clear conscience that I'm "bluffing" and
engaged in "wishful thinking." He's the one who's wishing. He's
wishing my philosophy would vanish and he could propagandize
unhindered.
The opening sentence to the pamphlet is merely an outline
of what I'm about to prove. Would Rev. BB prefer that I just
jump into my points without any explanation of where we are
going and why? In his hatred of what I'm doing, he ignores one
of the most elementary principles of responsible writing--a
clear introductory statement of purpose and intent. If he feels
the pamphlet does not contain an adequate number of problems
and contradictions to make my case, then he obviously chose
to ignore my final sentence, which was that the pamphlet contains
"just a few of the Book's many shortcomings." Surely he is not
going to be so narrow-minded as to think I would base my entire
refutation of the Bible's validity on 24 points in a brief pamphlet.
In truth, Rev. BB is desperately looking for something to criticize,
and this is about all he could concoct.
In a real fit of hyperbole he says I failed to offer "any
authoritative proof." That isn't even true of our short pamphlet,
let alone our entire publication. All 24 points were buttressed
by biblical citations and impeccable logic.
As far as "hundreds" being a exaggeration is concerned, I
probably should have used the word "thousands" instead. "Hundreds
is more applicable to individual books within the Bible than
all of Scripture. "Puerile" is only applicable to those who
are so foolish as to think they can restrict the number of biblical
contradictions to hundreds. And if "sweeping generalizations
are a sure sign an individual actually knows nothing about which
he is writing and is bluffing," then Rev. BB qualifies unreservedly.
He hasn't hesitated to make grandiose generalizations concerning
not only my approach, but also a publication which he has never
read, and about which he knows almost nothing. It provides the
"authoritative proof" which he claims is lacking.
(To be Continued)
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Dear Dennis.
Your publication is excellent and I agree 100%
with your objectives in your critical examination of the Bible.
The Bible, just like any other book, should be subject to cross
examination and critical review. I am enclosing an item that
I put together called "The Bible--The Book of the Five B's."
Perhaps you may be able to use it in one of your issues of Biblical
Errancy. Keep up the excellent work. (What follows is his item--Ed.)
Thomas Jefferson - "I find some passages of the Bible of correct
morality, and others of so much ignorance, untruth, charlatanism
and imposture." (Letter to William Short, April 13, 1820).
In a letter to John Adams, dated October 13, 1813, Thomas Jefferson
describes how he wrote the Jefferson Bible by cutting verse
by verse from the printed book and arranging the matter that
contained morality, and wound up with 47 pages out of 615 from
the NT. He stated that good passages were as easily distinguishable
from dross as diamonds in a dunghill.
Thomas Paine, in a letter to Thomas Erskine, dated Sept. 1797,
stated that the Bible makes God to say to Moses (Deut. 7:2)
"And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee, thou
shall smite them and utterly destroy them, thou shall make not
covenant with them, nor show any mercy unto them."
He concluded the letter by stating that he could never believe
that the Creator of the Universe would give such an order to
Moses, and could therefore not believe that the Bible is the
Word of God.
As Jefferson stated, there are some moral teachings in the
Bible, but they are few and far between. The rest of the Bible,
however, can be described as a book of the five B's - Barbarism,
Bestiality, Bigotry, Bloodshed, and Brutality. If you do not
believe this then please read the following passages. (1) Barbarism:
Num. 31:1-20, Hosea 13:8, 2 Kings 2:23-24 (2) Bestiality: Num.
21:21-25, 21:3, Ex. 22:18, Isa. 45:7, Ezek. 5:10 (3) Bigotry:
Ex. 3:21, 11:1-2, 34:7, 20:5, Deut. 14:21, Matt. 13:12, 10:35-36,
Luke 14:26, John 15:6 (4) Bloodshed: Ex. 32:27-28, Num. 14:1-37,
John 15:6 (5) Brutality: Ex. 32:19-26, 34:7, Gen. 9:20-25, 2
Sam. 12:14, Isa. 14:21, Ezek. 4:12-15, Lev. 21:18, Mal. 2:3.
The above passages are but the tip of the iceberg. There are
many more. What sayest thou Brother Evangelist, Brother Rabbi,
Brother Priest, Brother Minister?
Contents