The four completely different versions of Jesus’ resurrection at the tomb.
The women found the stone rolled away, assumed Jesus’ body had been stolen and ran away.
Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!”
John 20:1-2
The women found the stone rolled away and found one man inside the tomb who informed them Jesus had risen.
As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed. ”Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here.
Mark 16:5-6
The women found the stone rolled away and found two men inside the tomb who informed them Jesus had risen.
They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; he has risen!
Luke 24:2-6
The women found the stone still over the entrance of the tomb and witnessed an angel roll it away. The angel then informed them Jesus had risen.
After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. He is not here; he has risen.
Matthew 28:1-6
Christians believe these highly inconsistent testimonies were written by eyewitnesses … and/or inspired by God himself? If these testimonies were used in a court of law today, they would be thrown out as worthless. Yet Christians are asked to have faith that they are true. Faith shouldn’t require you to ignore the obvious.
Tags: Atheist, Bible, Conflicting, False, Flawed, God, Inconsistent, Jesus, resurrection, Testimony, tomb
September 3, 2009 at 2:45 am |
The common thing I have heard to explain these verses is that not everyone that was there was mentioned by the writer of all of these. I have never understood how they could be so different if they used the same source.
September 3, 2009 at 8:10 am |
That is an impossible explanation.
John-
Obviously no one at the tomb had explained he had risen from the dead.
Mark–
One unnamed dude at the tomb explained Jesus had risen.
Luke–
Two unnamed dudes at the tomb explained Jesus had risen.
Matthew–
An identified “angel” dramatically rolls back the stone. All other stories say it was discovered already rolled away. Then this identified “angel” explained Jesus had risen.
The pastor at my church compared this to news reporting. Different perspectives of the same event. These aren’t different perspectives. These accounts are different on virtually every “fact” of the story. That isn’t reporting, it’s fabricating events that didn’t happen. Either one of the stories is true, or none of them are.
September 3, 2009 at 10:15 am |
Precisely. I’ve seen soldiers and survivors from the Holocaust that’s World War II. Excluding the centuries old difference between the two events – I observe that:
- the survivors of World War II remember the trauma
BETTER THAN
- the witnesses to Jesus’s resurrection can remember who told them why Jesus isn’t in his tomb.
September 3, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Seems like those are of pretty equal significance to the person experiencing them.
It’s to be expected that the people who survived World War II can speak about it in relative detail and consistency. We know that the war actually happened. You would expect the same from any significant event.
September 3, 2009 at 6:10 am |
The one thing I notice about these accounts were that the writers themselves were not there.
Mary Magdalene was according to the first. Whatever happened to her book, I wonder? Or was her work specifically excluded because of gender bias during that age?
September 3, 2009 at 8:37 am |
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene
September 3, 2009 at 8:40 am |
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene is believed to be apocryphal – i.e. it was not really written by Mary Magdalene, but by someone else at a much later time. This sort of thing was common. Someone else wrote a text called The Apocalypse of Adam
September 14, 2009 at 1:56 am
Were any of the books of the bible written by anyone who supposedly knew Jesus?
September 3, 2009 at 9:38 am |
Well and good, but the main point is I don’t recall reading that particular chapter in the New Book….
For that reason I’m not entirely sure we can take that as accepted evidence, since belief in a “third party” book like that isn’t necessarily universal amongst the servants of God.
Thanks for the link and info.
September 3, 2009 at 8:26 am |
i just wonder… if all accounts were the same, would that actually put a stop to your whining????
then it begs the question “did they all meet up and agree on a story and hire some people who could write to write it down?”
it only makes it more credible in court – 4 different people, 4 slightly different accounts of the same incident. imagine if they were all exactly the same, several years after the event happened?! a bit sus, right??
how about you try remember something big that happened from even 10 years ago, and then ask someone else who was also there about it. Would you both recall the exact same details in exactly the same way?
oh, and a note for “a chicken passeth by”…
that kind of shows how spoilt we are. Have you actually done research? Why do you assume everyone could read and write? Look at the context! Very few could!! Even today, there are many many people in the world who can’t!
And why do you assume texts could last all those years, even if they were priveleged enough to be educated?! we’re lucky the texts we have from the time are still readable!
And regarding gender bias, again look at the context – note that women were not educated. But Jesus shows how much he values women. Note who Jesus revealed Himself to first after the resurrection… it was women! An event that changes the whole of history, and he shows himself to these women first! The testimony that changes the world came from a woman – and only after that, he reveals himself to many more.
September 3, 2009 at 9:58 am |
[QUOTE]that kind of shows how spoilt we are. Have you actually done research? Why do you assume everyone could read and write? Look at the context! Very few could!! Even today, there are many many people in the world who can’t!
[/QUOTE]
Well, if I were to use your logic, then the Bible, something to READ, was written despite an age where few were literate enough to comprehend it… which doesn’t make sense.
Anyway, here’s the problem with “friend of friend” accounts, as I call it.
That’s not Jesus or God passing the message. That’s a human, through a second or third hand witness account.
Humans fall short of the glory of Jesus and God, and can EXAGGERATE, FORGET, REMEMBER INCORRECTLY… or worse, LIE and CHEAT – why do you assume humans, in this particular case cannot do so?
The chances get higher with each “friend” you add into the mix.
September 3, 2009 at 10:11 am |
You can call it whining. I call it asking honest questions.
Your rationalization of the stories doesn’t explain how texts (inspired by a perfect god) could be so inconsistent and conflicting on major events in the story. These same authors authoritatively quoted Jesus like they were there to hear him say the words. If these texts are just best recollections or second hand stories, they are not credible and little more than here-say. Certainly not considered absolute “Truth” and the “Word of God”.
Jesus supposedly revealed himself to a woman that nobody believed. Then men wrote their own version of the story since she was unworthy of writing her own testimony. Yes the Bible really empowers women.
September 3, 2009 at 12:15 pm |
Exactly. If you’re going to shrug off the inerrancy of the Bible, especially in regards to something as important as the Resurrection, then what else could be wrong?
There’s a term used to describe documents that are obviously wrong in some places and then make unverifiable claims: unreliable.
September 3, 2009 at 2:14 pm |
i just wonder… if all accounts were the same, would that actually put a stop to your whining????
Depends on what the accounts actually say. If all four accounts claim to witness the Earth split apart and a Flying Spaghetti Monster rose forth, then no, it won’t put an end to Beattitude’s “whining”.
————————————————————————————
then it begs the question “did they all meet up and agree on a story and hire some people who could write to write it down?”
Why are there so many books and writings about the existance and lives of the Romans? Cause its true.
————————————————————————————
it only makes it more credible in court – 4 different people, 4 slightly different accounts of the same incident. imagine if they were all exactly the same, several years after the event happened?! a bit sus, right??
But this is the “inspired word of God” that we’re talking about, remember? Its not some cheap Marvel comic down at your local store. This book is supposed to possess answers to some of the greatest mysteries of the universe. By which Pi = 3 is among them. If such a book can’t even get the events of their “Savior’s” resurrection right, then forget about the universe. Learn how to count first.
Certainly, if all four accounts have the exact same wording, punctuations and style, then it would be “a bit sus”. But as we can clearly see in this case, a lot more is different between each account.
————————————————————————————
how about you try remember something big that happened from even 10 years ago, and then ask someone else who was also there about it. Would you both recall the exact same details in exactly the same way?
With a touch of “inspiration” from God, yes, I think I will.
If you can’t even remember the number of angel dudes at the resurrection of the person who’s supposedly gonna send you to Heaven for eternal bliss, then you’re really hopeless.
————————————————————————————
that kind of shows how spoilt we are. Have you actually done research? Why do you assume everyone could read and write? Look at the context! Very few could!! Even today, there are many many people in the world who can’t!
And why do you assume texts could last all those years, even if they were priveleged enough to be educated?! we’re lucky the texts we have from the time are still readable!
Let me ask you something: just how many people in this word who couldn’t read or write have received the “inspiration” of God? And how many of these people have been chosen to record down the details of the resurrection of his son?
So according to you, the “Unerring word of God” is written by illiterate men prone to mistakes with short term memory? That’s completely not an outright contradiction right there.
Oh, and I’m sure God made these men write these texts for fun and leave it out at the mercy of the elements. There’s no way he’s gonna do some of his hocus pocus to protect these texts. Not a chance. Especially not how its supposedly the most important book in the world. Nope.
————————————————————————————
And regarding gender bias, again look at the context – note that women were not educated. But Jesus shows how much he values women. Note who Jesus revealed Himself to first after the resurrection… it was women! An event that changes the whole of history, and he shows himself to these women first! The testimony that changes the world came from a woman – and only after that, he reveals himself to many more.
Allow me to introduce you to this page:
http://thebeattitude.com/2009/08/29/the-god-of-the-bible-is-pro-abortion/
http://thebeattitude.com/2009/06/08/raise-your-daughter-the-biblical-way-slavery-rape-murder-and-prostitution-all-good-things/
Awesome.
————————————————————————————
Hey, anyone wanna bet on how long it’ll take for our dear fundie here to reply?
A) A day….Not bad, shows some sincerity in your responses.
B) A week…I doubt if anyone’s gonna be checking anymore…
C) Never…I’m not surprised. You’re not the first one. Or the last.
September 3, 2009 at 8:44 am |
i just wonder… if all accounts were the same, would that actually put a stop to your whining????
That depends. If all the accounts were the same, verbatim, that would raise a different problem.
how about you try remember something big that happened from even 10 years ago, and then ask someone else who was also there about it. Would you both recall the exact same details in exactly the same way?
All of which is consistent with these texts being a human product, not with the authors being guided by God to write and preserve their accounts accurately. As Bart Ehrman asks, what would be the point of God putting on such a great show if He wasn’t going to go to any effort to preserve the story? Was it an event in one place for a small group of people? Christians would have us believe that these events are meaningful for all peoples of all times.
September 3, 2009 at 9:47 am |
“how about you try remember something big that happened from even 10 years ago, and then ask someone else who was also there about it. Would you both recall the exact same details in exactly the same way?”
The greatest event not just in my life but in the history of the world? Yeah, I’d expect the two or three people who were there to remember whether or not they saw the stone being rolled away, or whether they walked up and saw an opened tomb.
September 3, 2009 at 9:54 am |
raider:
Do you pay any attention at all to what anyone but yourself is saying/writing?
God was supposed to inspire these writers. The holy spirit was supposed to bring all things to their remembrance.
And this is supposed to be the most important event in the history of all the world. People can usually give a pretty damn good recital of exactly what happened at their graduation, wedding, etc. You think maybe folks could remember, with fairly sharp detail and event like the resurrection of the Lord, God incarnate? The pivotal point of their entire lives? The message that was to ring through the ages to all humanity? ….. And don’t forget they were supposed to even have help with those memories.
Oh, BTW, take the four gospel accounts and try them with a lawyer or judge. See whether they be credible. …………….. Hint: the answer is _____
September 3, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
Let me see if I understand this.
Jesus arose on the third day after he had been crucified and went away somewhere, maybe up to heaven to talk with his dad. He just disappeared without telling his relatives and friends where he was going. OK, some say he sent an angel with a message. Others say some mysterious guy appeared in the tomb and Jesus’s friends believed what this stranger said about Jesus (maybe they thought he was an angel in human disguise); or two mysterious guys (angels).
But apparently there was still quite a bit of doubt about the matter. So in the next few days Jesus took a few minutes each day to show up somewhere and be seen briefly by one or two of his friends. Sometimes only one person in a group saw him. Do I understand this correctly?
Reginald Selkirk Says: As Bart Ehrman asks, what would be the point of God putting on such a great show if He wasn’t going to go to any effort to preserve the story? I ask, why did he go to so little effort to make the event newsworthy at the time it happened? We are discussing the credibility of delayed hearsay accounts of the experiences of a few of Jesus’s close friends and relatives when he could have given a lot of disinterested and even antagonistic individuals reason to make contemporaneous records.
Why not walk around town for a week openly talking to everyone who knew him: friends, enemies, priests, money-changers, the Romans who had arrested and crucified him? This would have been a sensation. The news would have spread throughout the Mediterranean and east to Persia with every ship and caravan. Roman officials would have written reports and letters to their friends back home. Merchants in Judea on business would have written letters. Etc. “A guy in Judea was crucified for preaching new religious ideas and on the third day after he died he came alive again and told everyone he is the son of the unique god. Extra! Extra! Read all about it!” He put on a big dramatic show of being arrested and crucified, then did not bother to make an equally dramatic demonstration of the most important information: that the crucifixion did not permanently kill him. Isn’t that the essential point?
And raider is impressed with Jesus’s gender sensibilities: An event that changes the whole of history, and he shows himself to these women first! He could have done that right in the tomb. When the two Marys went to check on his body on the morning of that third day, he could have been there himself and could have told them the good news himself. After some hugging and rejoicing, all three of them could have gone to tell the good news to Simon the Rock. More hugging. More rejoicing. Then the week-long whirl of public appearances and press conferences as outlined above.
What am I missing?
September 3, 2009 at 2:44 pm |
For a crucifixion that was supposedly accompanied by a mid-afternoon blotting of the sun and the raising of the dead, none of that would certainly be too showy.
Walking around Jerusalem was apparently something he did all the time. It wouldn’t have been too over-the-top or vainglorious. Further, it would have actually given us some hard evidence.
And before anyone claims that our free will would be forfeit or that it would be too easy, we’re talking about a person who literally healed people by touching them so much that people thronged him just to have their loved ones healed. What was the point of these miracles if not to prove his divine authority? Why don’t we get the same respect and consideration?
September 3, 2009 at 5:44 pm |
Hey, is there some sort of censorship going on around here?
I can’t seem to find the comment that I posted…
September 3, 2009 at 7:26 pm |
If there are more than two links in a comment my settings requires me to approve it before it is visible. This prevents people from comment spamming. You’d be amazed how many comments end up in my spam filter.
Your comment is now visible.
September 4, 2009 at 5:33 am |
Wow…Seriously?
And I thought the people who visits this site would all be relatively intelligent…
September 4, 2009 at 11:23 am
Just as email spam is junk from people who are not your friends, trying to sell or advocate things that do not interest you; so comment spam consists of “comments” submitted (often automatically) in an attempt to insert spam material into the comments of a blog, and especially in an attempt to spread about links to their own sites so as to improve their Google ratings (they hope). Comment spam usually contains many links; normal comments rarely contain more than one. The spam filter is directed toward thwarting these pseudo-comments, not the comments of legitimate visitors, although occasionally a legitimate comment meets the criteria and gets caught in the filter.
September 4, 2009 at 12:38 am |
The last book of the New Testament was written about 95 or 100 AD.
So you think you have made some sort of discovery by noting that the gospel accounts of the resurrection differ? This has been known – obvious even – since the gospels were collected into one book.
A more difficult question for you then: why haven’t these inconsistencies cause Christianity to collapse hundreds of years ago? Gonna tell me that people have been ignorant and brainwashed all that time? That you are the only smart ones to come along in 2000 years?
Your gonna have to do better than that.
And you missed the really inconsistent part – check out the accounts of the ascension of Jesus.
September 4, 2009 at 1:13 am |
Paul: The inconsistencies may not have caused Christianity to collapse, but I can certainly see signs of wear and tear. God’s servants today are a fragmented bunch.
There are at least 5 officially recognized branches of Christianity, each of whom claim they are right and everyone else is wrong, and each of whom claim that the Lord God is their savior.
Nobody can completely eliminate a belief that cannot be proven or disproven. Much less one that has a lot of influence, what with backing from the latter age Romans and all. And even more less one that relies on psychological weapons such as accusations, condemnations and threats.
The Church of Scientology, despite all the flak its been getting and despite the atrocities some of its members have resorted to, and despite using a Bible that’s an obvious crock based on someone’s fanfiction, is still around. Does that make Scientology just as believable as Roman Catholicism?
September 4, 2009 at 2:33 am |
You also have to take into count most people who read these verses aren’t reading them side by side comparing them. When someone believes something they tend to ignore those things that might cause problems in their beliefs.
September 4, 2009 at 7:54 am |
A more difficult question for you then: why haven’t these inconsistencies cause Christianity to collapse hundreds of years ago?
Because Christians are stupid enough and gullible enough not to care about the gaping holes. They actually think it is sinful to express doubt.
Gonna tell me that people have been ignorant and brainwashed all that time?
Sure. Now, what are you going to tell me about Hindus for the last 3000 years?
That you are the only smart ones to come along in 2000 years?
Of course not. There have been other skeptics. We are fortunate though, to live in an age where our expressed doubts do not result in our execution.
September 4, 2009 at 8:43 am |
Christianity has survived for hundreds of years for the same reason I believed it for the first 33 years of my life. And for the same reasons other religions have survived for hundreds of years.
People are indoctrinated at birth and are taught to feel guilty for having doubt in whatever god they believe in. The core teaching of Christianity is faith in the unseen and unprovable. Without faith in Jesus, you burn in hell.
Fear is a powerful thing. Fear of eternal punishment makes people accept crazy things and ignore the most obviously flawed teachings.
The other reason people continue to believe is it gives them hope. They are terrified of death and want to believe in an afterlife. Their life sucks, so they want to believe there is something better waiting for them in heaven.
Fear + Desperation = The Perpetuation of Religion
September 4, 2009 at 8:50 am |
So you think you have made some sort of discovery by noting that the gospel accounts of the resurrection differ?
Nope.
why haven’t these inconsistencies cause Christianity to collapse hundreds of years ago?
The same reason it took many of us years to finally acknowledge them for what they are. I spent great efforts either trying to reconcile these accounts, or trying to ignore them. Finally I came to a point where I was willing to be honest. The overwhelming majority of people are not interested in truth or honesty. They want comfort.
Gonna tell me that people have been ignorant and brainwashed all that time?
Exactly.
That you are the only smart ones to come along in 2000 years?
As someone pointed out, there have been skeptics and unbelievers all along.
And you missed the really inconsistent part – check out the accounts of the ascension of Jesus.
Didn’t miss it. Maybe TB will do a post on that sometime.
BTW, Paul M: You’re claiming to be a Christian right? Gotta love your gracious ways and scrupulousness with which you observe direct commands from your god to always answer with gentleness, not return evil for evil, and so on.
Yep. That’s right. I’m saying that if you are calling yourself a Christian, you’re a hypocrite. ………. Go ahead now, spew your graceless, loveless, hatred in response child.
September 4, 2009 at 10:54 am |
HUH?! Paul M, at his most vile, sometimes resorts to mild sarcasm; as here. He states his beliefs and points out things he regards as inconsistent or non-logical in atheist thinking just as theBEattitude and others here point out the same kinds of problems in his view. I have read nearly all the comments on this site and I do not recall any “graceless, loveless, hatred” ever from Paul M; neither in the extended exchanges I have had with him, nor elsewhere. Are you trying to goad him into losing his temper?
September 4, 2009 at 11:48 am
I’ll back this up.
Paul M tempers himself well. While I often don’t agree with his points or his logic, I can’t say I’ve ever seen a vitriolic post from him.
Let’s keep this above the belt.
September 4, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Wow. Thanks for coming to the defense of civility. I do admit that my comment had a bit more emotion in it than usual. If Christians are accused of cherry-picking Bible verses – and then I read a post here that does exactly the same thing – I get frustrated.
Call me a hypocrite – fine – the church is full of them. And a good thing, too. Jesus came to heal the sick, not the well.
September 4, 2009 at 11:09 pm
@paul: Believe me, it’s even more frustrating to see double standard examples, of which the servants of God are notorious for.
The beef about cherry picking is that Christianity accuses non-believers of doing so, all the while doing the same things themselves.
The accusation of cherry-picking comes from the fact that, when asked a question, a Christian would instead use a quote from the Bible as an answer – and actually get away with it, despite not actually answering anything (See: “I know the bible is true, the Bible tells me so”). Non-believers usually can’t get away with circular arguments like that.
I agree, Jesus and God should leave THE WELL ALONE. Sometimes I wish I never learnt of them – because the end result is me asking questions that their servants will NEVER answer, and the growing realization that I’d have to LIE to myself in order to believe a single shred of the Book.
September 4, 2009 at 1:03 pm |
“That you are the only smart ones to come along in 2000 years?
As someone pointed out, there have been skeptics and unbelievers all along.”
OK. To return to a higher tone…
I would assert that you are making my point. If God chooses to speak to us through a series of folk-tales, stories, history, poems, letters, etc – instead of dictating a scientific or philophical textbook – then this collection of literature (our Bible) is bound to have inconsistencies, conflicting statements and errors. They are easy to spot.
But the thing is, people believe anyway – and that is God’s intention. 2000 years of sceptics and a few hundred years of enlightenment yet Christianity still endures. Why? You are in the position of having to claim that most of the people since, say 100 AD, can’t think logically and are too scared of life and just want comfort.
How many people died martyr to their faith? Compare that with how many died for the principle of thermodynamic equalibrium or calculus.
Faith is stronger than reason – that is why God wants us to believe.
September 4, 2009 at 10:45 pm
I’m sorry to Godwin, but the faith of Adolf Hitler ran his expansionist policy, and the faith of the Nazi party on the Aryan concept caused them to persecute the Jews.
Just because many, many people believe in something out of faith – doesn’t make it ethical, moral, or (most importantly) correct in the eyes of God.
There are humans in the world who believe, with great faith, that WAR, FIGHTING and CONFLICT are still the only ways to settle things politically. Faith is indeed stronger than reason these days – which is why, I’m sorry, this world isn’t perfect, and God gave us a raw deal.
September 4, 2009 at 4:13 pm |
Paul M:
OK. I’ll retract. Others who read here more often vouch for you, and you admitted your post was more emotional than usual. Apologies.
If God chooses to speak to us through a series of folk-tales, stories, history, poems, letters, etc
Then don’t blame us for being utterly convinced that he isn’t speaking to us. Pardon us for taking folk-tales, stories, and poems for, well, for folk-tales, stories and poems, rather then for divine revelations.
(our Bible) is bound to have inconsistencies, conflicting statements and errors. They are easy to spot.
Really? Then why can’t people spot them rather than to latch on to them as absolutely infallible truths?
But the thing is, people believe anyway – and that is God’s intention. 2000 years of sceptics and a few hundred years of enlightenment yet Christianity still endures. Why?
I dunno. Maybe for the same reasons that the very same sort of things can be said of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and other religions? They can’t all be true (though they could all be false) but still they endure, some of them for <2000 years.
You are in the position of having to claim that most of the people since, say 100 AD, can’t think logically and are too scared of life and just want comfort.
Ummmm, no. I’m saying the overwhelming majority of people since 50,000 BC won’t think logically and just want comfort. Hell, just look at people discussing politics, morality, religion, sports, art, etc. Do you see/hear logic???? Yeah sure you do, in about 1% of the discussions.
Humans are not rational beings. They have the capability of being so, but overwhelmingly they don’t avail themselves of the option.
How many people died martyr to their faith?
1000’s of christians; 1000’s of muslims’ 1000’s of Hindus; 1000’s of buddhists; 1000’s of ______________ and maybe those 1000’s could be millions …….. Your point?? People die for sincerely held delusions?? That fits well with humans being not-very-rational.
Faith is stronger than reason
Once again demonstrating what I’ve been saying. Humans are NOT rational beings.
September 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm |
Thanks for your reply – actually none of the comments seemed really over the top and a Christian has to realize that posting here is gonna draw some flack. I wasn’t actually offended… In any case, ad hominem attacks are usually a sign that the other sides’ bullets are gone – it never adds anything useful to one’s argument.
It may be we actually agree on this point: Humans are not rational beings. For this reason, then, God choose to speak to us in a way that gives us the best chance of understanding and acting on what he wants us to know.
I have posted in the past that fundamental Christians made a critical mistake when they decided to play the game on the rationalist’s field: by making the Bible “literally true” they are now in a position where they must defend all the inconsistencies, conflicts and errors. That is not productive and doesn’t really matter in the end. They should know better, but there you are.
Even so, that Christianity has survived these 2000 years is precisely because it does not depend on rationalism. We Christians smile inside each time we hear about the humble birth of Jesus, his insignificant social position, his bumbling group of disciples, his ministry on the margins of society, his eventual rejection and his bloody execution by his contemporaries – his mission could rationally be judged a failure. And of course the records of his life and actions were sloppy and inconsistent. But so what?
God creates strength out of weakness, not facts and reason.
September 4, 2009 at 11:23 pm |
“a Christian has to realize that posting here is gonna draw some flack. ”
Actually, here’s an interesting observation.
I’m an agnostic. I do believe God exists. (Yes, you can fight me on this, and I expect you to. But let’s leave it at that. It’s full of philosophical idiocy that I don’t want to resort to.)
I haven’t been dinged by the Atheists on this board, despite my belief in something that cannot be proven.
In contrast, members of Christianity have actively questioned my point of view. I count at least 3.
All on this board alone.
There must certainly be something I didn’t do. What could it be? ….ah, it’s the fact that I don’t come into threads, thinking “my cadre is 100% right, and God is on our side. Anyone who disagrees is 100% wrong”.
September 4, 2009 at 9:44 pm |
[This thread has become a little twisty and disjointed, but I think this belongs here.]
Paul M Says: How many people died martyr to their faith? Compare that with how many died for the principle of thermodynamic equalibrium or calculus.
Faith is stronger than reason – that is why God wants us to believe.
It is not clear to me that martyrdom is really a measure of the validity of religion generally or of a particular religion. For one thing, the individuals who kill a martyr usually belong to another religion and would equally be called martyrs if the roles were reversed, which is often a possibility.
In order to have a martyr it is necessary to have a government which claims the right of ordering its citizens to believe some particular set of tenets and of punishing with death a refusal to believe those tenets. Or possibly a government which allows one set of citizens to treat other citizens in such a manner. Either way, this is a form of tyranny. We have many stories of citizens standing up to tyranny and it seems to me that martyrs should be numbered among them. And another point of similarity: some political rebels become tyrants themselves when they manage to come into power.
It is just silly to compare dying for faith with the idea of dying for thermodynamics or calculus. Not even physicists or mathematicians use these as the foundation of their philosophies of life. But since you did make such a comparison, it is worth noting that there was a close call along those lines. I do not want to reopen the recent discussion of Galileo so I will be very careful about how I say this. Galileo was not a martyr in the sense of being killed. And he did not intend anything of the sort. But it must be acknowledged that, as a result of putting forth a new, empirical approach to determining the truth about the physical universe, he did suffer at the hands of an established authority. We might put John Scopes in a similar category.
I think that the churches (Catholic and Protestant) backed off from attempting to suppress scientific knowledge on the basis of Biblical passages for a reason, to wit: Reason. People believe their eyes before they believe religion. Columbus, Magellan, Da Gama, et al. unequivocally demonstrated that the world is a sphere. The genie would not go back in the bottle. It would have been silly indeed to say to one of these “You are a heretic because, by going to [a place that was not previously known to exist] and coming back alive, you showed that the Bible [or Aristotle or whatever] has a flaw.” The Galileo incident was a stumble. But that cat was out of the bag, too: telescopes were already pointed at the moons of Jupiter and anyone could see the truth for himself.
Faith is not stronger than reason; it retreats wherever knowledge and reason advance. It is really good at formalizing wishful thinking wherever there is a gap in actual knowledge or something that cannot be known, i.e., where reason cannot challenge it directly. We all know how strong wishful thinking can be.
September 5, 2009 at 7:08 am |
The easiest way to find many of the inconsistencies in the Bible is to get a book called a concordance. Under any given topic, you can find what the different books of the Bible say about it; I think Nave’s is a popular one. As for the “news” reports of Jesus’ death, I still say the best popular reference on the age of the various books of the New Testament in Bart Ehrman’s research.
Faith is worthless. People profess ideas that they may not even really believe, such as that the Bible is the literal word of God, so that they can continue to belong to a particular social group. Look how crazy some people react when their faith in Rush Limbaugh is attacked – maybe it’s because they can’t accept that part of something they have identified with is wrong. If God is gone, what fills the void? If you have an accident, and you can’t attribute it to demonic attack, you have to accept that you’re not ’special,’ and some people can’t handle that.
September 5, 2009 at 7:31 am |
I know it’s bad form to follow one’s own comment, but I can’t resist adding-
I suspect that the difference in the treatment of women in the Old and New Testaments has much to do with the audience. In the late Hellenistic and Roman world there were plenty of women who held political and financial power, and goddesses like Isis and Artemis were popular. Preaching subjugation to relatively independant women would obviously slow down the growth of your little cult. If New Testament Jesus actually existed (and is not a conglomeration of several historical Jesuses,) then he would have been a very exceptional Jewish male to consort with women to the extent described in the gospels. I find it more logical that the ’sops’ to women were written in specifically to wind converts.
September 5, 2009 at 9:13 am |
That’s the amazing thing about Christianity. It evolves just like everything else in the world.
Slaves were acceptable, now they’re not. Women were possessions of men, now they’re not. Homosexuals were to be killed, now … not. Many historians believe (as do I) that the story of Jesus’ birth was invented to convince Jews that Jesus was the Messiah by fulfilling Old Testament prophesy.
If Christianity wants to survive, it will continue to evolve. More “mega churches”, more prosperity gospel and more politically correct teachings to align with the ever evolving views of society. Or Christianity will die, just like every other religion throughout history.
September 5, 2009 at 11:10 am |
“Preaching subjugation to relatively independant women would obviously slow down the growth of your little cult.”
I agree. But the historical circumstances are a bit more complicated. The early Christian church as it existed in Jerusalem was very much conservative Hebrew in outlook. All of the traditional Hebrew laws were observed – and this was consistent with the culture.
Out in the wider Roman/Greek world – where Paul was preaching and founding Christian congregations – women had more independence. And this is reflected in Paul’s letters – women are prominently mentioned and one was even described as a “deacon”. Lydia, the first Greek converted by Paul, was a dealer in purple cloth and thus probably a fairly wealthy individual. Her congregation – the church at Philippi was always a big booster of Paul and his missions and they contributed money and support. Paul understood Greek culture and his theology reflects this.
The church in Jerusalem ended in 70 AD when the city was sacked by the Romans. In the early 2nd century the Jews were scattered out of Roman Palestine by order of the Emperor and the Christianity that survived consisted mainly of the Greek churches that Paul had founded (and the church at Rome.) So the disconnect between the role of women in the Hebrew world and Christianity as it evolved in the 2nd century can be explained mainly by the termination of “Jewish” Christianity by Rome.
March 7, 2010 at 2:35 pm |
Fellow homosapien,
Did you know that every version of A Bible has to be changed at least 10% so that the “translators,” as some would call them, can get paid for their work? Versions have everything to do with accuracy. eg. A car is not just a car b/c cobalts aren’t in the Indy 500 but both are a version of the same thing…a vehicle. Calling A Bible “holy” is like calling McDonalds food nourishing. As far as eye witnesses go if 4 people “hear” a story and go directly to writing what they have heard do you honestly believe that you will have 4 fact-filled, factual identical accounts? Has someone used A Bible to emotionally debase or do you just see through American Christianities facade (inaccurate portrayal (eye-witness account) of knowing or being friends with Yahshua? I really would like to know what makes you tick or what gets you tickes:) Until then…