Picking and Choosing

Prior to a trial, each side has to present to the other an Exhibit List—a pleading detailing what documents and items they intend to introduce at trial. It is no surprise the lists between opposing parties disagree. Why? Because each side is picking (out of ALL possible Exhibits) those which support their case.

When looking for support for our position, we look for those with similarities. We even overlook great dissimilarities to focus on minute agreement. How many times have we seen a creationist quote one little line from a scientist, thinking it supports creationism, yet ignore the plethora of other works and quotes from the same author that would strongly disagree with the creationist position?

One of the areas in which I watch this happening is the attempt to reconcile the resurrection appearances of Jesus among the canonical books. Similarities are trumpeted; inconsistencies are down-played. And in this search, we look for the earliest record of the appearances. 1 Corinthians 15 enters stage right.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,
5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve.
6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep.
7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

The date of this writing would be 55 C.E. and only the second letter of Paul’s that we have. (1 Thessalonians being the first.) Which places this account within 25 years of the resurrection. Pretty good; but many Christian scholars believe it can be dated even earlier. The claim is made this section, or at least verses 3b-5 are part of a Christian credo which Paul learned long before writing 1 Corinthians. How long before is a question.

The argument Paul was quoting something else is based upon:

1) The term “I delivered to you what I received…” is a rabbinical term for the transmission of sacred traditions;

2) Non-Pauline words such as “for our sins,” “according to the scriptures,” “he has been raised,” and “on the third day.”

3) Semitic transliteration of “Peter” to “Cephas,” and the threefold use of “and that.”

Article here.

However, this ends up being a double-edged sword. Due to the non-Pauline nature of the writing, other scholars have argued this is a latter interpolation (insertion) in the text. Further, the three arguments are not as strong on their face:

1) Paul also uses the term “deliver what I received” when referring to the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:23) which he claims to have received directly from God;

2) Paul uses “for our sin” in Gal. 1:4, “according to the scripture” could only be referring to the Tanakh (since the Gospels were not written yet) and what scripture this is referring to is problematic…Hosea 6:2 is generally suggested. Paul has an interesting use of the word “third” particularly in 2 Cor. 13:1. (When the Torah requires “two or three witnesses;” Paul uses that to say his appearing three (3) times is equivalent.)

3) Paul uses the term “Cephas” throughout 1 Corinthians (1:12; 3:22; 9:5) and never “Peter.” When writing Galatians, Paul uses “Peter” at 2:7 & 8, but favors “Cephas” at 1:18; 2:9, 11 & 14

If we are claiming this is a non-Pauline credo, it retains some very Pauline characteristics! Be that as it may, assuming this was a credo of some sort, passed from Christian to Christian eventually falling on Paul’s ears—what does it say about the Gospel stories which have very different accounts? How is it the Gospel of Matthew, if written by one of the Disciples, does not align with the credo? Nor the Gospel of John—also an alleged eyewitness according to Christian tradition?

Many Christian apologists attempt to place this credo early; unwittingly forfeiting the reliability of the Gospel accounts. They want us to look at the similarities, and ignore the differences. Let’s look at the order of appearances:

1 Corinthians
1. Cephas (presumably Peter)
2. “The Twelve” (title of the Disciples)
3. Over 500 brethren at once
4. James, the brother of Jesus
5. All the apostles
6. Paul.

Mark
Has no appearances.

Matthew
1. Mary Magdalene and the Other Mary
2. Eleven Disciples

Luke
1. Simon? (24:34)
2. Cleopas and ____ on the Road to Emmaus
3. Eleven and those who were with them.
4. Apostles. (Acts 1:2)

John
1. Mary Magdalene
2. Ten Disciples (No Thomas)
3. Eleven Disciples.
4. Peter, Thomas, Nathanial, sons of Zebedee and two other disciples

[And it should be noted, this is a straightforward reading. Inerrantists who attempt to align the Gospel accounts fiddle with these accounts. For example, some remove Mary Magdalene in the first appearance of Matthew, and add other followers in the last appearance of the same Gospel.]

What is striking is not only the differences in order, but the actual persons involved. The credo does not include the women—who are in both Matthew and John. The credo specifically lists James—again unmentioned in the Gospels. And finally lists “all the apostles” which is an unknown group comprised of unknown individuals, and unaccounted for in the gospels as well, although possibly included in Luke’s second book of Acts.

The credo includes this count of “over 500 brethren” which are not mentioned in any of the gospels. (Although the Gospel of Nicodemus mentions such an appearance.) Oddly, Acts 1:15 records the total number of “brethren” as being only 120. This is the same word used by Paul—how could it drop from 500 to 120?

Of the four Gospels—Luke would be the closest to this credo. Luke seems to have no knowledge of any appearance to Peter prior to the disciples (note the words are placed in other people’s quotes, with no indication of any event occurring) and does not include any appearance to James. While one may imply such an appearance occurred, due to James staying with the disciples in the room (Acts 1:14), it also includes the other brothers; not even the credo includes any appearance to them.

If this was an early creed, it lacks continuity with the later writings.

It finally should be noted, assuming Paul heard this from someone else, we have no knowledge as to how “early” it could be. Although apologists like to state Paul heard it from Peter on his first trip to Jerusalem (Gal 1:18), there is no reason Paul could have not heard it until his second trip. (Gal. 2:1) Or at his conversion experience. Or anytime between. Again, if this was a creed, it may have transmitted through other Christians. If it was only a one-time statement from Peter, one questions how reliable either it, or the Gospel accounts, are.

Questions on Morality

Over at rob’s rants the pastor has written a meandering and difficult to follow entry in which apparently he believes atheists say “truth is relative.” I will leave it to the reader to make heads-or-tails of what he is claiming.

At the end he asked a few questions. I’m a little surprised this individual would reach the level of a senior pastorate in a church and never encounter these very basic questions, or contemplate them from an alternative perspective. Giving him the benefit of the doubt—that this is a genuine inquiry, I will go ahead and answer them:

Does it exist (moral absolutes)?

The short answer: no.

Is it the same for everyone? Absolute?

Here is where I develop some confusion. What does he mean by “it”? Presuming he means “absolute morality,” then, by definition it would have to be the same for everyone. (And that would include any gods, too!)

The problem within the absolute vs. relative morality is that two people very often talk past each other, because (and I cannot emphasize this enough)--they define “moral” differently. We often see the conversation:

Skeptic: What God did in the Tanakh was immoral.
Christian: Do you believe in Absolute morality?
Skeptic: No.
Christian: Then you can’t say what God did was immoral, because that is just your opinion.

The misunderstanding which is occurring here is in the definition. The Christian defines “morals” as something which is absolute. Therefore, if the skeptic applies something (whatever that “something” may be) to god, if that “something” is not absolute, in the Christian’s mind, the skeptic cannot be talking about “moral” because contained within the definition of moral is absolute.

Imagine I defined swans as “white birds.” By definition—it is impossible to have a black (or red or blue) swan. Why? Because once it is no longer white—it is no longer a swan. In the same way, we understand an Absolute Moralist mandates morals to be absolute. We understand if we apply a non-absolute standard, they think it can’t be a system of morality. Because our system of morality is different.

A relativist considers morals to be a breach of an accepted code of behavior. We do NOT require the word “absolute” to be contained within the definition of immorality. The question we ask to determine “is it moral?” is the search for the accepted code. NOT whether there is some absolute contained within the system.

More and more I see Christians who just don’t get it. Ask us both to define morality—you will see the difference. Now, there may be an argument as to which is the more accurate definition—THAT is an interesting discussion. But until the difference is seen, the conversation will not get off the ground.

Is it different for everyone? Relative?

Here I assume “it” means “system of morality? In the end—yes. It is different for everyone. As humans we reach consensus through interaction. We may even have vast groups who all agree on a moral code. But we recognize this is a consensus which can change. Think of the stigma of divorce in our moral system. That has changed within our lifetimes.

The danger here is that the person holding to absolutes often believes this renders morals to be simply a matter of individual taste. Everyone can do what they want. Nonsense—we all mutually succumb to authorities in which we voluntarily inhibit our desires for the good of the society, other individuals and ourselves.

Think of it as a four-way stop sign. We don’t “do what we want” at the intersection, because we recognize by doing so—others will as well. We voluntarily give up a few seconds of time in order to better society, others and ourselves.

If moral absolutes do exist, what are they?

Good question. Ask someone who holds to absolutes. Start with polygamy. Move to slavery. Then ask when is it acceptable to kill a baby for the father’s sin which was absolved. That one is a tricky absolute, let me tell ya!

If they [moral absolutes] do not exist, what are the standards we live by?

I think the author meant a different question. I think the question was supposed to be “What are the standards we should live by?”

I would argue we should live by the Platinum rule: treat others as they would like to be treated. Clearly as a society we see that will raise conflicts and we have passed laws to balance the desires as compared to the greater benefit of the society. But in an individual capacity, living with other individuals—this is a good basic rule.

The reason why would be based upon aversion and social contract theory.

If they [moral absolutes] do not exist, but there are undeniable standards by which we all live, why listen to them?

I don’t think there are undeniable standards by which we all live. A glance through any newspaper of a foreign country should dispel that idea.

Now that’s original

When an inerrantist is pressed, we often hear the battle cry, “Well, I only believe the originals were inerrant.”

Curiously, the Chicago Statement of Inerrancy does not quite arrive at this conclusion. The Statement brushes it by claiming the autographs (originals) are inspired, and “copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.” (Not having the original, it doesn’t do us much good to say “where they agree with what we don’t have, they are the same as the original.”)

Humorously though, the long-winded statement designed to persuade toward inerrency, loses its entire argument by conceding: “the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.”

That’s a fancy way of saying “We see errors in what we have.”

And I have always wondered, when the statement says

Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

What “apparent inconsistencies with no convincing solution” these esteemed authors were referring to. If they couldn’t find a “convincing solution”—why should I believe there is one?

This is a bit like saying, “I bought a lottery ticket, and while I don’t have it anymore, I am certain the numbers on it match last night’s multi-million dollar drawing.” Funny how they don’t give out money on such a claim!

But when the topic switches to Textual Criticism, I am assured by astounding percentages, we have narrowed the field to 99.5% of the original. The last bastion is that persnickety .5% we can’t quite cover.

Er…hello? If our copies are 99.5% accurate to the originals (a completely speculative face-flop in the mud, in my opinion) and these copies we have include errors—doesn’t that mean the originals have errors too?

When it comes to errors, the poor copies are blamed. When it comes to integrity, the copies are lauded. Why is it I feel someone wants to have their cake and eat it too?

What if You’re Wrong?

What if You’re Wrong?

Recently Jake & Elwood Blues asked the question What if you are Wrong? The Barefoot Bum responded with an excellent blog on the subject.

Here’s my .02…

I am wrong all the time. Just yesterday I made the perennial mistake of choosing the wrong grocery line. In one was a woman with what looked like 15-20 items and in the other was a woman with only a few. I chose to stand behind the woman with a few. Who needed a price check. On the last item in the store, apparently. I watched the other woman complete her purchases and walk out while still waiting.

What happened when I was wrong? I had to wait a little longer and exert some patience.

In my professional life, I am faced with clients who have significant problems. The worst thing I could do is not file their suit in time. To miss the Statute of Limitations. (We typically call this “Blowing the Statute.”) It is malpractice, and will cost my client the value of their case. In some situations, literally millions of dollars. And I am very likely to be sued for malpractice.

What happens if I am wrong? I will potentially harm lives, and suffer financial lose.

See, inherent in the question “What if You’re Wrong?” is a fear of the consequences. The lesser the fear; the lesser the worry if you are wrong. If being wrong means you have to turn your car around because you missed the turn—this is of little consequence. If being wrong means your child is severely harmed or killed, this has far, far greater consequences.

We all know what this question means when posed in the theist/non-theist debate. It is a question about an after-life that divides people between eternal reward and eternal damnation. I have never seen a Universalist ask this question. I don’t recall a non-believer asking this question. Why? Because the consequences are not as great as to a theist thinking a person could either miss out on heaven, or be damned to hell.

They aren’t asking me, “What if you’re wrong?” when I question the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. Or if I am a Calvinist as compared to a partial Calvinist. The fear here is “What if you are wrong about hell?”

But here is the problem—in order for us to consider the consequences significant enough to contemplate the question we would have to believe the consequences actually exist. First you have to convince us hell exists before we worry about the question, “What if you’re wrong?”

Imagine tomorrow a man in a sandwich board boldly claiming, “The End is Near” accosts you, proclaiming a nuclear war will happen within 30 days, and you must prepare a bomb shelter. As you pass by, thinking this fellow is a nut; he shouts out, “What if You’re Wrong?” Good question. If you are then you will seriously regret not barricading yourself in a bomb shelter.

The obvious problem is that you probably don’t believe it. You are not concerned about “What if You’re Wrong?” because you don’t believe the consequences.

We see this all the time. A person who has been hurt in a relationship will advise caution to others. Why? Because they have greater empathy to the question, “What if You’re Wrong?” The consequences are more poignant to them. Or a person who has had bad sushi. They will recommend you avoid a particular restaurant.

To the theist; we don’t care about being “wrong” because we are persuaded we have a snowball’s chance in hell of there being a hell for a snowball to be in.

To the non-believer: this is actually a genuine question out of concern for us. Believe it or not.

I was once a firm believer in hell. The eternal torment, darkness, screaming pain of being burned with no comfort. It was as real to me as the fact I was losing my hair. An unavoidable reality.

Obviously I did not want anyone going there. And I could not imagine jeopardizing one’s eternal future by daring to believe anything but.

It was as if we had a time machine that could take us back to September 10, 2001. And we were running around, telling the U.S. government to restrict air travel because of the terrible tragedy that was about to occur. And being mostly ignored. Telling people in New York to NOT go to work tomorrow. And being mostly ignored.

Telegramming airlines with no success. Taking out T.V. ads, and radio spots trying to warn the world of what was about to happen. And being treated like a man in a sandwich board with the sign, “The End is Near.” And fully expecting (because we know the future) that on the evening of September 11, 2001 to have the world lamenting, “Oh, if only we had listened.”

In the exact way, I expected people I knew to, in 100 years or so, saying “Oh, if only we had listened.” To realize the full consequences of being wrong.

When, as a Christian, I asked, “What if You’re wrong?” It was because I was scared of hell and thought you should be too. The fact you did not believe in hell was both incomprehensible to me, and compelled me to even more firmly convince you of the existence, so you too could be as afraid as I am. (There is the threat The Barefoot Bum is talking about.)
The person who asks, “What if You’re Wrong?” is more scared of the consequences than the person being asked.

At one time I looked forward to the Judgment seat. While I would regret all the things I did incorrectly—I was entering an eternal reward. As a new deconvert, I figured if there was a judgment, I would tell God exactly all the things I did in my search for him (to satisfy myself, if no other reason) and ask why he failed to respond.

Now? If (and it is only a momentary passing fantasy) there could possibly be a judgment before a god or gods, I would merely shrug and say, “Commend me or condemn me; it makes no difference. Either way I did the best I could with what knowledge I had.”
“What if I am Wrong?” I have to fear the consequences before I fear the question.

Pastor Blogs

A month ago I wrote on a situation in which Vinny caused a Pastor to shut down all comments on his blog. Vinny managed to do it with just one comment!

Recently I have been observing another Pastor Vs atheist discussion that is equally amusing. Hold on to your seat…

Pastor Rob Singleton wrote a blog entry entitled Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby! and our friend, The Barefoot Bum posted a few comments. The Barefoot Bum then posted a blog entry Evolution and Chance responding to some of the comments in Rob Singleton’s blog. Rob Singleton also posted a few comments in The Barefoot Bum’s blog.

Rob Singleton then published We’ve Brought Sexy About Halfway Back! in which I posted a few comments. Rob Singleton suggested this particular blog was “also for discipleship, pastoring, shepherding, church chat etc.” and asked we retire to his new blog, rob’s rants in which to have believer/non-believer discussions.

rob’s rants is now posting new blog entries which consist of comments submitted to The Barefoot Bum’s blog called A Response to ‘Evolution and Chance,’ Let’s Just Give it Time, and Do as I say, not as I do.

If you ever watched the Television series SOAP--the show always started off with a rapid-fire cacophonic history between the numerous individuals and ended with “Confused? You won’t be after this episode of SOAP!” That is what I feel in trying to follow and recount the interaction occurring here.

However, these two instances have raised a question for me—what is the moral thing to do when it comes to Pastor Blogs?

Years ago, if you were looking for a new church, you had four sources. Word-of-Mouth, the newspaper, the Yellow pages, or driving by one. The problem with the last three is you never really knew what the church was like until you attended. Oh, titles like, “Our Lady of ___” gave away the Catholicism and “First ____ of Local Town” usually designated Baptist or Methodist. And years ago the various denominations were demarked both within the title and within the service. But there has been a blurring. Now “Baptist” may no longer mean conservative. And we have titles like “Grace Fellowship” or “Local Town Community” or even more non-descript like “Riverside Church.”

Luckily churches have discovered the internet, and we now have a fifth and far more valuable tool in which to find a church—its website. The church website has directions, and service times, and pastor names, and core beliefs, and programs offered and history and interesting tidbits. And many Pastors, in utilizing the new technology of the web, have started up…a blog.

Blogs are peculiar things. (You know this; you are reading one.) They can contain nude pictures, or pictures of one’s grandchildren. Recipes for guacamole or spell incantations. Some blogs are replete with expletives, and if I look hard enough, I imagine I could find a blog written in Olde English. Some moderate comments, some allow comments to fly free.

Anyone who has read me knows I respect a blog-creator’s desire to limit or expand their blog to whatever their little heart desires. If you want to start a blog in which you only talk about Salsa, and no comment can contain the letter “e”—you go right ahead.

But of course, one should think about the purpose of having a blog. Despite their differences, all blogs have a purpose. It may be to vent. It may be one line in order to post comments elsewhere. It may be to share family secrets. But it is something. Because a person has to actively take the time to create it at one point.

I wonder if many Pastors think through the purpose of their blog. Is it something to keep up with technology? Is it to continue their speaking/writing craving in a different forum? Who is it designed to reach? Who do they want to read it?

And if I come across a Pastor’s Blog, are they expecting or dreading my input? Look, I am not completely stupid—I get a blog which informs me is a place for parishioners to share prayer requests is most certainly not a place for me to come blazing in with some long comment about Textual Criticism. Or a daily devotional blog is not looking for an evolution/creation debate.

Yet what about a blog in which a pastor writes how they have studied science, and then displays the most uninformed or out-of-date position? Can I respond? Should I respond? How can I tell whether they want to just read themselves write as compared to actually interacting with non-believers?

Or when I read a Pastor’s Blog which says, “their hearts are malfunctioning” or “they insisted on being the boss over God” or “they are irrational and unthinking” or “they think they know better than God” and I realize the “they” the Pastor is talking about is ME!—is it moral for me to respond? Can I post a comment and say, “perhaps you might like to look at this from a different point of view.”

How can I tell if the Pastor is looking to preach to the choir? Or talk with the world?

So the question I ask you (and this is up for grabs): If you are a non-believer, when do you think it is appropriate to enter a Pastor’s Blog and say, “Wait a minute…”?

I think, if the comments are open, and the Pastor is discussing what non-believers say, do or think, it is appropriate for me to post a comment. One thing about truth—it can withstand the scrutiny. It may not persuade; it may not even prevail. But it is not afraid of discussing with the other side.

If the Pastor thinks they hold truth, there is no reason to fear postings by non-believers. I know the rhetoric—“Protect the flock,” “Many Christians are not mature enough to debate these issues,” “We focus on discipleship.” Hornswoggle. If you are leading these people, it is partly your responsibility to lead them in the right direction. It is up to YOU to research, study, discover and present your position to explain why the non-believer is incorrect. It is not very persuasive to avoid the topic. (And coincidentally, the very people who are mostly likely reading you are prone to believe you anyway! You have a ready, willing and able choir happy to sing out how right you are with but minimal response! And still you are worried?)

As for pastors, the question I wonder is this: Do they want to about us; or do they want to talk with us?

Today is Not a Good Day

Did you ever have a great pet? One that fulfilled every family member’s expectations of what a great pet is?

We have one—Alix. A chocolate lab. She’s the type of dog that the kids could pull her ears, or try to ride her, or take her on walks, and she would look at you with those chocolate eyes shining with love. The kids would fight over who got to sleep with Alix each night.

Being a lab she loved the water. We took her up north and she would hardly get out of the lake. At night she would splay out in the middle of the living room, snoring loudly. Exhausted from swimming, splashing and fishing. (Since she refused to put her nose in the water, she wasn’t very good at fishing.)

But Alix is 14 years old. (My oldest child is 15, so you can see all three kids have never known life without her.) And she has not been doing well for the last few months. She has had a few episodes showing her age.

This morning was the worst. Today it is time. So we called the vet at about 11 a.m. and scheduled an appointment for 4:45 p.m. As I type this, we prepare to take Alix in to be put to sleep.

Needless to say, this has not been a good day for the kids. There has been many a tear-filled eye in my house. Nothing will break your heart more than see your 8-year-old drawing a picture of her and “laxe” (my daughter is dyslexic) with great big wet marks on the paper where the tears have dripped off her nose.

Little hard to get excited about the theistic/non-theistic debate right now. Because today has not been a good day…

Why I don’t trust Acts of the Apostles

At least not for history. On a number of occasions, I have made reference to historical errors within the book of Acts as they pertained to the discussion at hand. For a handy reference (at least for me) I thought I would compile them.

First—a note of caution. At times people categorize Acts as “history” whereas the question of which Dewey Decimal to assign to the book is not resolved. Simply because one happened to find “Gone with the Wind” in the historical section of the Library, and it even includes historical events, does not mean the author intended the book to be taken as actual history.

I often see the argument (made out of hyperbole), “If you don’t accept Acts as history, then you can’t accept any ancient writing as history ‘cause that would be a double standard.” Posh and nonsense. First of all, we don’t know Acts was considered history. Second, we treat various historical books with varying degrees of skepticism. There is a difference between “Gone with the Wind” and an 8th Grade History book’s account of the American Civil War and General Sherman’s personal diary. In the same way, we don’t treat ancient documents with an all-or-nothing approach, either.

We don’t know what the author intended the book to be. Was it a Greek Novel? It shares many of the same elements as such. Was it an argument for Christianity? Was it solely intended for the in-group of Christianity? Was it an argument against the Jewish roots of Christianity for a Roman audience?

We don’t know where the author obtained his information. We don’t know when it was written. We are not certain it was this fellow “Luke.” It is not until 180 C.E. Irenaeus attributes the Book to to Luke (and due to the similarities, I presume the author of the Gospel of Luke and Acts to be the same author).

The famous “we” passages do intonate the author to be a one-time traveling companion of Paul, and perhaps it was the Luke of Philemon 1:24. The fact the pseudo-Pauline writers of Colossians (4:14) and 2 Timothy (4:11) both mention Luke only bolster the connection between the two. (Although the author of 1 Timothy demonstrates knowledge of the Gospel of Luke when s/he quotes Luke 10:7 in 1 Tim. 5:18.)

However, the author’s record of Paul’s speeches is unlike the doctrine we find in Paul’s letters. The author has Paul portrayed as a great orator in such passages as Acts 17:22-31, yet Paul indicates his presence is weak, and his speech contemptible. 2 Cor. 10:8-10. Further, the speeches contain little of Paul’s doctrine of Justification. (Once in Acts. 13:39)

So here’s a list--a few will have a link or two for further study (I will not address the additional errors in the Gospel of Luke.)

1) Acts has Jesus telling the disciples to stay in Jerusalem (1:4) whereas Mark (16:7), Matthew (28:16) and John (21:1) all have Jesus telling and meeting his disciples in Galilee. I wrote on the fictional nature of this mass move here.

2) Acts does not know who the High Priest was at the first Jewish accusation of the Disciples. Acts 4:6. This makes chronology of the claim of persecution difficult. I touch on the issue here.

3) Acts 5:36-37, has Gamaliel putting Theudas and Judas of Galilee in the wrong order which appears to be a misunderstanding of Josephus’ account.

4) Acts has a mob stoning Stephen (7:58) whereas the Gospel of John (18:31) claims it is unlawful for the Jews to put anyone to death.

5) Acts contradicts Paul’s account of visiting Jerusalem three and 17 years after Damascus in Galatians 1:17-2:1. The most common resolution of this contradiction is to ridiculously place a three (3) year interval between 9:19 and 9:20. For example. I wrote on this problem here.

6) On a related note, Acts has Paul persecuting the Church in Jerusalem (8:1, 9:1) yet Paul says he was not known by face in Judea. Gal. 1:23. Only by reputation.

7) Acts chronologically places a famine (11:27-28) followed by the death of Herod (12:1-23) The order is actually reversed: Herod died in 44 C.E. whereas the famine was in 46-47 C.E.

8) Acts has Ananias the Priest talking to Felix the procurator. (24:1-3). Since Ananias was High Priest from 46-52 CE. and Felix was the Ruler from 52-60 C.E., the only year in which this could occur was 52 C.E. Yet Acts says Festus replaced Felix “two years later.” (24:27) Festus replaced Felix in 60 C.E., not 54 C.E.

(Edited to Add: I am wrong on this one as demonstrated in the Comments.)

9) There are differing portrayals of the people with whom Paul deals (in 15:2-21 James is the mediator between conservative Pharisees on one side and Peter, Paul and Barnabas on the other. However Paul records in Gal. 2:9 to be sided with Barnabas against Peter, James and John.)

10) The decision of the apostolic conference differs between 15:22-29 and Gal. 2:10

11) Why did Paul have to defend his Gentile mission against the “three pillars” (Gal. 2:1-10) if Peter (one of the pillars) had already been given such a mission in 10:1-11:18?

12) One of the intriguing aspects of Acts is how it incorporates common Greek themes regarding gods. For instance, one theme was that the opening of prison doors or the magical releasing of prisoners, (such as that found in 5:17-20, 12:6-11, and 16:23-30) was a sign of divine intervention.

Or the fact the phrase “kick against the goads” (26:14) was used for more than 500 years previously as a saying about a person arguing against a god. Peter Kirby has written an outstanding article outlining these themes. (And it should be noted the author of Acts demonstrates at least a passing knowledge of Euripides when he quotes him at 17:28)

Acts demonstrates a propensity to be anti-Jewish. It is almost exclusively used as a claim the Jews (not the Romans) persecuted the early church—yet when one reads it as a whole it is demonstrated the Jews are perpetually portrayed as the “bad guy” and the Romans are portrayed as the “good guy.”

In Acts 9:23 it is the “Jews” who plotted to kill Paul in Damascus. Yet in 2 Cor. 11:32 Paul records it was the local authorities; not the Jews who were attempting to arrest him.

 Sadducees imprison Peter and John. (4:1) No Roman authorities involved.
 Sadducees imprison Apostles. (5:17-18) No Roman authorities involved.
 Jews flog apostles. (5:40)
 Jews seize Stephen (6:9) and stone him (7:58). No Romans involved.
 Jews persecute all Christians (8:1-3) including in foreign countries (9:1-2)
 Jews in Damascus seek to kill Saul/Paul, not non-Jewish government. (9:23)
 Herod (Jew) arrests Christians, kills James, imprisons Peter. (12:1-2)
 Roman leader wants to learn about Christianity, but Jewish sorcerer opposes Paul and Barnabas. (13:6-8)
 Jews oppose Paul and Barnabas. (13:45) whereas Gentiles welcome them. (13:48) Jews stir up local governments against Paul and Barnabas (13:50)
 Jews stir up Gentiles against Paul. (14:2)
 Jews go from Antioch and Iconium to Lystra to stir up crowd against Paul. (14:19)
 Local governments beat and imprison Paul and Silas. (16:22-24) Curiously, the Magistrates then order them to be released (16:35) and then attempted to appease them (16:38)
 Jews harass Paul and Silas in Thessalonica. (17:5) Then travel to Berea to pursue them. (17:13)
 Jews oppose Paul in Corinth (18:6) accusing him before the local Government. (18:12) However the Roman Government supports Paul. (18:14-16)
 A non-Jew, Demetrius stirs up trouble against Paul. (19:23-26). A Jew, Alexander, is unsuccessful in calming the crowd. (19:33-34). The Roman City Clerk, however succeeds quite easily. (19:41)
 Jews plot against Paul. (20:3)
 Jews stir up crowd against Paul in Jerusalem. (21:27) Roman authority saves Paul. (12:30-32)
 We enter a familiar, repetitive scene. The Jews seek to kill Paul (23:10, 12; 24:1; 25:7) while the Roman Authority wishes to free Paul (23:23; 24:23, 26; 26:32)


Over and over the designation between Jew and Gentile is stated, with the chief instigators and problem-makers being Jews. I encourage the reader to spend the time reading Acts straight through, comparing how many times “Jew” and “Gentile” is contrasted. The author apparently intended the comparison to be emphasized.

Finally, a few links if any of this has whetted your appetite. Those interested in textual criticism are aware the Western Text of Acts is 9% longer than the version we have. Here is another article on Acts’ Reliability. And if you prefer a Christian perspective on the book, please read Chris Price’s article on Acts. (This is a download of a Word Document.)

Who Does God Cheer For?

My best friend is originally from New York and has always been a Giants fan. Our 20+ years of association (has it been that long?) causes me to equally support the Giants when they play anybody except my poor Detroit Lions. He was at our house for the Superbowl, each of us on the edge of our seats hoping the underdogs could pull through.

When the Giants gained the lead with only seconds left to play our entire house erupted with shouts and screams of joy. We were ecstatic.

The next day, I was talking with a co-worker who was at a party with predominantly Patriot fans. At the same moment we were whooping and hollering, they were swearing and punching fists in the air. They were enraged.

So what was your God doing at that precise second in time? Cheering? Jeering? Or ambivalent…it is just football.

See, we are social creatures. We react to both positive and negative reinforcement. If a crowd roars approval, or our spouses give support or our employers give a word of encouragement, we get a boost of confidence; a shot of adrenaline. We think we can take on the world.

As humans we react to those social signals. We also react to negative signs. All my parents had to give was a slight pursing of the lips, and I knew whatever I was doing needed to stop. A sigh from a spouse. A lack of laughter from an off-color joke. When we are in our social settings we are constantly interacting and reacting to the signals relayed back to us from other humans.

What reinforcement do you get from your God? As a Christian, I would have to honestly say I received silence. Sure, there were times I would talk to God, and as I was talking a solution would present itself in my mind, or I would feel better about a decision—thinking somehow God had given me an emotional pat on the back, or messed with the synapses in my brain to present the resolution. And I thanked him for it. But I never heard words. I never heard, “Good Job!” or “Bad job!” or “I don’t care!” What I heard was my own brain working.

At best all humans get is some type of feeling that somehow their God is saying something. I do not need to point out how humans vastly disagree with each other on these feelings.

And a second issue comes into play. As humans, when attempting to figure out other humans, we use ourselves as a baseline. We start with the premise what motivates us would motivate others. What we like; others like. Sure, we quickly realize other humans are different, but to start off, we presume they are like us.

I prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla. It makes no sense to me as to how anyone could like the blandest flavor in the word as compared to the rich, semi-bitter sweet wonderfulness that is chocolate. Yet I have heard such people exist. If you came to my house, and I offered ice cream, I will presume you would want chocolate. Because I would at your house. If you said, “No, I would like vanilla” I attempt to suppress my shock. If you said nothing, you would get chocolate.

In the same way, it always intrigues me what people think motivates others. I often think it says quite a bit about the person. Husbands who come to me claiming their wives are having an affair are often the ones guilty of it. Mothers fear the man will want custody of the children; that is the mother’s prime concern. And we all know the adage of people who don’t trust others are generally untrustworthy themselves.

We all start with the basic presumption other humans are like us, and then look for variances from there. We like chocolate; they probably like chocolate. We would have an affair given the opportunity; they would probably as well. What happens when we couple this with the lack of reinforcement from any God? I see many theists naturally veer towards a god who is similar to themselves. They don’t receive any positive or negative reinforcement to believe otherwise!

The way we are raised, and our social setting creates a conscience within us which many then equate to God’s approval or disapproval.

“God, I felt pretty good about giving to charity.”
Silence.

“God, I feel guilty about seeing pornography.”
Silence.

The lack of any response causes the theist to believe their God just supported their own internal feelings. Because they felt good about charitable giving and their God didn’t say anything otherwise—it must be moral. Because they felt bad about seeing pornography and their God didn’t say anything—it must be immoral.

We see it in history. Long hair “seemed” wrong. Felt wrong. So it must be wrong. Rock ‘n Roll felt wrong. In the southern United States, mixed bathing felt wrong. Alcohol feels wrong. Smoking feels wrong. Without any God giving yeah, nay or indifferent, people elevate their own feelings to claiming God must be against it. ‘Cause he isn’t saying he is for it.

I am seeing it in doctrinal shifts. People don’t like to be against homosexuals. Feels discriminatory in some way. So they claim, “I interpret the Bible to say…” and lo and behold the Bible no longer teaches against homosexuality. And the person knows its right, ‘cause it feels right. And their God doesn’t provide any negative reinforcement to claim it is wrong.

I am watching more and more god(s) being created in the Christian community as this person goes with their gut, eliminating Hell, but keeping homosexuality prohibited. Or that one eliminates both. Or this one eliminates inspiration. Or that one is pre-millennium. Or preterist. Or some faction of some faction of some faction. And it all “feels good” and it all must be true, because their God isn’t providing any negative reinforcement.

The answer to the question posed is quite simple. If you are a Giants fan, when Plaxico Burress drew that football in, and the numbers on the scoreboard changed, your God jumped up and knocked over the popcorn bowl.

Because that is what you did

Odd Tradition

Last night I was listening to Dr. Albert Mohler (“Ask Anything” Wednesday) and a caller questioned whether it was acceptable to use leavened bread in Communion.

Dr. Mohler indicated it was not necessary, but felt we should simulate the Last Supper as closely as possible, and since Jesus ate unleavened bread—we should too. He remembered eating leavened bread at communion only twice in his life.

We always had little squares of dry, unleavened bread at communion. If you want some, you can buy them here.

Yet if we are trying to simulate it as closely to Jesus’ supper as we can—shouldn’t we use wine as well? Instead of grape juice? Why is it felt to be necessary to be accurate in the bread-department, with an equally necessary slight modification in the wine-department? Is this consistent?

If we are trying to be as close to the Last Supper as possible, we should have unleavened bread, wine, and wash each other’s feet. Or at least have the leader of the congregation do so. (Wouldn’t that be a switch?) But, of course, Baptists don’t drink alcohol (nor do we wash each other’s feet), so we substitute grape juice.

Not orange juice. Not water. Not red juice. Not lime, lemon, pop, root beer, coffee, tea, or apple juice. Always grape juice. Clearly we are not emulating exactly what Jesus drank; is it so important we emulate what he ate?

Imagine offering Girl Scout cookies instead of the wafers--Sacrilege!

Isn’t it funny we have become so immersed in tradition we use unleavened bread to copy Jesus, but symbolic grape juice to not.

Why I question God

There is a trick in this title. I will explain.

How many times have we observed conversations along these lines?

Theist: God is a Rock.
Non-theist: Ah—so you mean God is a mineral matter variously composed, formed in masses or large quantities by the action of heat and water?
Theist: No—He is not that type of Rock.

Non-theist: Oh….then you must mean it metaphorically, as in God being solid, firm, steady. Right?
Theist: Partially. But not completely.

Non-theist: Then do you mean it in the form of being sweet and attached to a stick, like ‘rock candy’?
Theist: At times; but not all the time.

Non-theist: Or are you saying He is slang for a chunk of cocaine?
Theist: Absolutely not!

Non-theist: Well, if he is a rock, can he sit in my rock garden?
Theist: What?!! Who are YOU to question God?

Non-theist: As a rock, can he block a flood that will destroy homes and kill people?
Theist: What?!! Who are YOU to question God?

Non-theist: As a rock can smash down on some terribly evil people, and reduce or eliminate the harm they cause?
Theist: What?!! Who are YOU to question God?

Non-theist: I am not questioning God—I am questioning you. You are the one who said God was a rock. I am simply testing that premise. Yet everything “rocklike” I ask about, rather than defend your own premise of God being a rock, you avoid by claiming I am questioning God.

At times we see non-theists raise questions about God. We see, “Why did God allow 9/11?” or “Why did God allow the Holocaust?” or “Why didn’t God answer this prayer?” To which the single most common theistic response is, “Who are you to question God?” I will make this as clear as possible by bolding it:

We do not believe an actual God exists. When we ask these questions, we are attempting to reconcile what humans claim about God with what we observe. We aren’t questioning God; we are questioning YOUR premise YOU assert about the being.

Yesterday I encountered a frustrating problem. Every solution I attempted did…nothing. Nothing positive; nothing negative. I tried this; I tried that. After 2 hours, I had gained no new information, was exactly as I started, and the problem was neither larger nor smaller nor any different. Nuts.

Throughout that endeavor I never once asked a god for help. I never talked to a god. I didn’t figure any god was giving me a lesson in patience. I didn’t thank god once the solution presented itself. God simply wasn’t part of the equation in any way (in complete contrast to my life as a Christian.) Because he doesn’t exist.

In the same way, when I ask, “Why doesn’t God ____?” it is not as if I am thinking there is an actual God which actually did or did not do something. I am asking the human who is making a statement, how that statement fits with my observation. True, it is more proper to say, “If you claim God is X; can you explain this event in light of the properties we humans associate with X?” Perhaps from now one I will phrase my questions in this laborious manner.

For example, one commonly hears God exhibits the properties of “Love.” In my human experience, “love” includes communication. More importantly, it requires (at times) a person to communicate in a way in which the recipient understands. I love my children. It does me no good to communicate to my 8-year old on my terms, if those terms are insufficient for her to grow and learn. It is useless for me to use an example of driving a car—she’s never driven a car. It is completely useless for me to use the word “nuance.” She doesn’t understand what “nuance” means.

I understand “love” to include bending and molding my communication to suit the needs of the person receiving my love. This certainly raises the question of “Why doesn’t God communicate to people in a way in which the individual person can understand?” The theist may reply, “Oh, but he does, through God moments or the Bible, or the Book of Mormon or the Qur’an or…” Yet this is clearly insufficient, because we have a number of people (including other theists) quite confused as to the attributes of God.

Now the theist retreats to God’s love being different than our love. ‘Cause our love includes communication God’s love does not. But if God’s love is different—what can we mean by saying God has “love.” The whole POINT of the statement is to communicate a property of God at least similar to a human concept!

When I tell you a person is “mean” or a person is “stingy” or that fellow “loves” that gal, or she “hates” him—those words, “mean,” “stingy,” “love” and “hate” are portraying concepts we use to relate to each other. It is ridiculous to claim “God is Love” and then immediately claim “but when I say that I don’t mean ‘love’ like you define ‘love’—I mean it some completely indefinable way.”

Great.

I don’t question god—there isn’t one. I question a person who makes an adamant statement about what this thing…this “god”…is like, and then claims their statement fails to conform to anything I recognize.

Headache

Read in the past week:

“It's impossible to convince an atheist that God isn't the problem, however, that perhaps it is their view of God that is at fault.

“Atheists are basically saying that our own free will is a mistake.”

“Of course, atheistic reasoning is always of this shallow variety. They choose not to believe and any argument is just a thin veil over that choice.”

“…I have not seriously attempted a collegiate level study of evolution. That is probably more than the evolutionists have ventured into the bible however.”

“Those who claim the Bible is dated and therefore irrelevant and of no value today often go unchallenged. Their assertion is that just because a text was written many years ago, it must therefore be outdated, of little to no use, and incapable of speaking to, addressing, or affecting things in the present.”

“They have merely assumed ahead of time that God does not exist, and therefore the Bible is just like any other book.”

“Nearly every atheist I've encountered who professed to have a deep knowledge and understanding of Christian theology had nothing of the sort, but instead seemed to have stopped studying once they felt their own suspicions were confirmed.”

No. Nope. Wrong. Not from what I’ve read.

It’s like getting the pain from a brain-freeze without the pleasure of the ice cream.

Getting Lost

Sorry ‘bout that. Elsewhere I happened to touch on the topic of Textual Criticism, and since it had been a bit, decided to “refresh” my memory on the subject. And, just like the times before, I find myself totally immersed, only to emerge back to daylight, discovering a week has gone by with nothing else productively made.

And my inbox informing me Amazon.com has auto-confirmed my order. I swear I don’t remember ordering more books!

It’s funny how we blithely toss out the term: “the Bible” as if it was one cohesive book. I suspect 99% of my readers (a completely made up statistic, and therefore as accurate as any other) when they hear the term “Bible” think of the 66 Books of the Protestant Bible, bound in one flexible cover of semi-synthetic leather. You know—Genesis to Revelation, demarcated by “Old Testament” and “New Testament.”

As Christians we thought of it as “one book” because it had one ultimate moving force behind it—God. Oh, we understood it was written by different authors, with different perspectives, at different times—but in the end it was a cohesive whole. So when we said the Bible self-declared to be “inspired,” even though this term is found in only one sub-book, (2 Timothy), we considered applicable to the entire book. Page 1 to 1120. (Not including the Color Maps in the back, of course.)

As a non-believer, I have lost that concept of an entirety. Each book (and in some books like Isaiah, each portion of a book) rises and falls on its own. As a Christian, I worked to align the doctrines of James and Romans. ‘Cause this was all “one book.” I worked to align the stories of 2 Samuel with 1 Chronicles, or John with Matthew. ‘Cause this was all “one book.” Now, such differences are not even note-worthy. They are shrugged off as anticipated.

It is the difference between an Isaac Asimov anthology and Star Trek. I enjoyed reading Asimov’s collection of short stories from various science fiction writers. But as I read them, I did not expect them to align. I realized one author may have robots with artificial intelligence, and another may write a story about robots never being able to obtain such intelligence. Why? Because it was two different authors.

While Star Trek’s episodes may have different writers, we expected a cohesive “wholeness” about the story. The Prime Directive was not something new each week. The ship did not change shape or designation from show to show. There was “oneness” about Star Trek. In fact, this gives rise to the stereotype of Trekkies arguing over incongruities between certain episodes because of that expected uniformity.

Exactly like the arguments attempting to align the incongruities of doctrines between the Epistles, or the historical claims of the Gospels. In Trekkies is it amusing; in Christians it is in dead seriousness.

When looking at the individual books, I enjoy studying the interplay between the books utilizing each other (Matthew and Luke using Mark; 2 Peter using Jude), I enjoy studying the development of the canon itself, and…obviously…I enjoy studying the variances which crept in when the copies were made. Textual Criticism.

Luckily, we have numerous copies (of copies of copies). Unfortunately, we don’t have much close to the time of the initial writing. And all these copies, when compared, show us the changes, some subtle, some not so subtle over time. What they hint at are the changes which may have entered during the first 100 years copies were made.

We often hear the term, “This is the original” or “We are 99% certain as to the original” but this is really a misnomer. We really are only reaching back to the first copy (of a copy of a copy) from which all other copies sprung. Whether it is “the original” or a mis-handled copy of the original is unknown.

Here is an interesting example. Mark 1:9 is the first Gospel reference to Jesus, referring to him as “Jesus of Nazareth of Galilee.” The early manuscripts have Nazarei while the later manuscripts modify the iota at the end to a theta making it Nazareth. Nothing shocking or surprising here.

However, what becomes more perplexing is the fact Mark refers to Jesus of Nazareth four (4) other times, yet in Mark 1:24, 14:67 and 16:6 it is Nazarenos and in Mark 10:47 is it Nazoraios. (Note, Nazoraios is the same word used in Acts 24:5 when it says “sect of the Nazarenes.”) In other words, all of the other times Mark refers to Jesus, in the Greek it is actually saying, “Jesus the Nazarene.” (I’ll bet your Bible, though, translates it to “Jesus of Nazareth,” doesn’t it?)

Further, Mark never uses a double identification, like “Nathanal of Cana in Galilee” (John 21:2). Mark also implies Jesus was from Capernaum (note the term “the house” in Mark 2:1). And, a person from Nazareth would be a Nazarethite or a Nazarethene. Not a Nazarene. That would be a person from Nazara.

Finally, Matthew, when copying Mark, comes across the term nazoraios, presumes it means Jesus was from Nazareth, creates a prophecy, and introduces Jesus’ home town of Nazareth. Matt. 2:23.

In my opinion, it is more likely Mark referred to Jesus as “Jesus the Nazarene” four times. When Matthew was drawing the story from Mark, uncertain as to the term Nazoraios, and being aware of the town of Nazareth in Galilee, Matthew eagerly creates a prophecy, “He shall be called Nazarene” and just as eagerly creates a fulfillment: “Because he was from Nazareth.”

And later, as some scribe was copying Mark, they came to Mark 1:9 and inserted “of Nazarei” for clarification. Voila—we have “Jesus of Nazareth of Galilee” in our modern English Translations.

Now, that was more an exercise in Higher Criticism than Textual Criticism, but I did it to demonstrate we cannot utilize Textual Criticism to get to the “original.” It would appear “of Nazareth” was not in the original Mark 1:9, yet all our copies of Mark included it.

Simply put, Mark was modified due to interplay with Matthew before numerous copies were made. Yet Textual Criticism only takes us back to this modification—not to the original.

And this is one word in one verse in one book of the entire Bible. Ay Caramba!

Stereotype

You only have to watch television for about 27 seconds before you see a stereotype. The husband who is incompetent in the kitchen. The female who knows nothing about sports. The dumb blonde. The over-bearing boss.

I must confess one of the reasons I do not publicly label myself as an atheist is the stereotype that atheists have loose morals. We live in a smaller community. Everyone goes to church. Sure, some are Catholic, some are Lutheran, and some are Baptist. And we attend each other’s Vacation Bible Schools (to entertain our children as much as possible in the summer) so that’s O.K. It’s fine if you attend St. Mary’s or First Baptist Church, or the Methodist Church—as long as you attend.

But I have heard the lowering of the voices—the pause, before the word “atheist” is spoken. As in: “He’s an…an atheist, ya know.” It is a designation that is not considered positive. Might as well say, “He’s a…a convicted felon, ya know.”

I know exactly what my children’s friends’ parents think. ‘Cause I have heard it. If Bill, down the street, goes to ___ church, then it is just fine for Hank to spend the night with Bill’s son. Because it is safe—Bill goes to church—nothing can happen. But if Bill was an atheist; why, what keeps him from being a child molester? Nothing—that’s what!

We all know stereotypes are wrong. We know fellows who are brilliant in the kitchen. My wife knows basketball far better than I ever could. We have seen smart blondes, and nice bosses. Unfortunately we treat the non-stereotypes as exceptions; different than the norm.

How many times have I read how some atheists can live moral lives? As if we are straining to keep what few morals we have left with But the rest of those atheists are wallowing in ethical voids.

So—am I wrong? Is it only me that sees this? If not—how do I change it?

I am too easily amused

This is a tale of something happening every day on the Internet. Any person who has blogged or participated in forums or chats could recount similar situations. It is a pretty typical example of what I have seen in real life as well.

Pastor Russ of the Aurora Church of the Nazarene writes a blog. In fact, if you view the menu on the Church’s website, you can see a direct link. Not surprising, considering how many pastors enjoy writing, and how many others do as well. This Tuesday last, Pastor Russ published a blog entry entitled Science and the Bible. Nothing earth-shattering or surprising here either. Within the blog he wrote:

I know that many people are skeptical of the Bible and I have no problem with that, it is a good trait of an intelligent person to consider evidence before deciding whether or not something can be trusted. All I ask is that you really do look at the evidence and not make up your mind before you even take a look. Most people who say they don't believe the Bible, have never read it for themselves, they are simply repeating what someone else has told them. That is not a trait of intelligence.

While I might wonder who he means by the “most people” who say they don’t believe the Bible (and what does “believe the Bible” mean?) have never read it, I get his general drift. If you are going to question something, inspect it first.

The only reason I stumbled upon this blog was Vinny’s posting a response (accurate in my opinion) ”You Call that Evidence?” Even a bit humorous. Again, so far extremely standard fair in internet-world. Vinny also posted a comment to Pastor Russ’ original blog on Wednesday, essentially questioning what scientific degree Kirk Cameron held, and pointing out how apologists often do the same thing—fail to investigate by actually reading what the opposing side writes. I was thinking of writing a similar comment, questioning Pastor Russ what books written by scientists defending evolution against creationism he had read.

Basically asking Pastor Russ if he was guilty of what he accused “most people” of doing—not reading it themselves, but believing what other Christians had told him.

This morning, with coffee cup firmly in hand, I stopped by Pastor Russ’ blog with curiosity as what response, if any, to Vinny’s comment was made. What’s this? Vinny’s Comment—gone. Comments—no longer allowed. Even Pastor Russ’ profile was removed from the blog! (The only proof I can offer that comments were even allowed at one time is by Google Cache.)

I chuckled. Not out of surprise, but more out of how characteristic this “Katie-bar-the-door” mentality permeates the Christian community. This is not a “surprise” ending—this is as typical as can be.

I’ve lost count of the times I have had the conversation:

Christian associate: Have you read [a. Zacharias; b. Strobel; c. McDowell; d. Johnson]?
Me: Some. Have you read any non-believing authors on the same topics?
Christian associate: Oh, I don’t have [a. time; b. need; c. desire; d. enough problem with my faith] to read those.

Christian associate: Have you studied ____?
Me: Sure have. Here are the arguments for. Here are the arguments against. Here is why I find this set of arguments persuasive. What do you think?
Christian associate: Gee, look at that time…Gotta go!

I find it amusing we are told as skeptics we need to ask questions; but when we DO, the question is erased, ignored and forgotten. Why tell us to ask, if you don’t want us to…er…ask?

Look, Pastor Russ is free to run his blog how he chooses. He can allow comments from everybody or just Christians or even just people named “Steve.” He can erase comments at his whim, and have no comments at all.

And I am free to find it hilarious to see someone (again) say, “You need to look at the evidence” and when a skeptic attempts to do that (again), the person runs away. Again.

If you have truth, why the fear of open commentary?

As I said—I am too easily amused.

UPDATE: Pastor Russ has posted a new blog entry responding to some of the points made. However, while you may see a “comment” link on the entry, and can even try to post a comment, if you do so you will be greeted with this message:

“Comments on this blog are restricted to team members.”

Define God

It is always fascinating to watch language develop. 20 years ago, if I included “xoxox” within a letter, people would immediately recognize it as “hugs and kisses.” However, if I included “lol” I would get a puzzled response. Communication would break down. Or if I said, 15 years ago, I “googled” my sister, people would wonder whether to throw me in jail, or what that meant.

We relate with language. With the simple modification of a few letters, a completely different depiction is made between “few” or “many” or “most” or “vast predominance” or “all.” Or the placement of particular words can change the meaning. We understand the contrast between “I love my wife” and “I love chocolate ice cream” despite both being a declaration of love, dependent upon the object of my affections.

A comment has stated the term “God” is meaningless, and I have reflected on that observation with a growing resignation it is correct. When a person states, “I believe in God” this provides so little information as to, in essence, provide none at all. It could be a primal source, or a creator. An absentee landlord or an invasive pest. Good, evil, indifferent—all are possibilities. Monotheistic, polytheistic, or triune. Frankly, stating the word “God” provides no insight whatsoever on what a person means by it.

At one time, I might argue at the least we all recognize a God as something that is “more.” In some way it is larger and greater than what we perceive as humans. But then I am informed of gods who cannot commit immoral acts. We obviously can. By fiddling with the definition of “more” we are left with the puzzle of which is “more”—the inability to be immoral, or the inability to be solely morel? We can wonder about the future. A god who predetermines cannot. Which is “more”?

We are also a society which focuses on people being individuals. We demand our “rights” to believe differently than others. If I want chocolate ice cream, and others want vanilla, we think we should be offered a choice. We want the choice of being Liberal or Conservative. To like plays over movies. Blondes, brunettes, redheads or bald. Our cell phones and iPods come in various colors, just to provide the consumer with choice to be individuals. Only to be covered by individual cell phone and iPod covers, and to download individual ring tones, songs, wallpapers, etc.

This individualism couples with the indistinct definition of God to create a murky soup where anything goes. “I think God is _____.” That blank can be filled with something, anything, or nothing; yet the theist requests we respect it--no one can prove it technically wrong. Everything becomes open for acceptance, since nothing can be proven out of the question. Time and time again, I hear as a defense for some attribute of god, “It is possible…” As if the best we can say is that some attribute of God, while not provable, and not even probable, we could hope it may be possible.

When I first deconverted, I landed on a certain place of the internet, teaming with what are best described as liberal Christians. “Who ARE these people?” I thought. “How are they so easily able to dismiss the Jesus of the Judgment seat, yet embrace the Jesus of ‘Love your neighbor’? How is it they are able to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to accept as divine, and which parts to ignore as man-made?” It was only after many discussions and some enlightenment on my part that I realized anyone who uses the Bible as a basis for their theology must, to some extent, play “pick and choose.” Either they must pick what verses trump others, or what verses no longer apply because of others or what books (*cough, cough* Tanakh) must be interpreted in light of other books.

Due to the make-up of the book—every Christian or Christian group comes to the point of choosing some part to take predominance over another. Liberal Christians are no better or no worse than any other.

And broadening my scope, in relating with other theists and their descriptions of their God, it has become this cosmic salad bar. Where people take their individual plates, with tongs and spoons, going ‘round about the salad bar, choosing which attributes of God they like, which ones they would never accept, and displaying indifference toward others.

Curiously, we then sit together and each theist picks apart the other theist, as to why they chose a particular item off the salad bar! Hello!? If you didn’t like the crunchy noodle things when you are picking out your salad—why is it any surprise you wouldn’t like the salad of your fellow person when they picked out the crunchy noodle things?

In the same way, due to this individualistic ability to define one’s own god, if you didn’t pick the god of hellfire, why is it any surprise you don’t prefer someone else’s god who has it? Yet you both are basically claiming your own preference for what you like on the salad bar, with no ability to prove the other person’s god exists or not. No one can demonstrate what the God salad is supposed to actually be.

I am coming to the conclusion we are uselessly communicating by utilizing the term “God.” It has become an entity molded around each person’s own inclination, with attributes affirmed or discarded as quickly as the individual’s taste changes. We are left with the speculative guess of “I think god is ___” and a blank which can be filled in to each person’s content.

With a complete inability to verify what god is (or is not) we are left with billions of opinions generated from billions of people as to how to define a god. None considered completely correct; none considered completely incorrect.

So how is it we determine our view of God (or lack thereof) is the best we can do with the information we have? What qualifications do we put in place to avoid picking what parts we like to assimilate, and discarding parts we do not like; to instead ascertain what most likely is regardless of our own personal desires?

What it means to be A Christian…

..or not.

You are dying. As you lay in the hospital bed, with the ambient noise of the nearby nurses’ station and people passing, you can feel your body shutting down. The doctors have stopped bothering to run tests—there is no good news to be found. The staff continues to care for your body, but you can see their eyes are concentrating on other patients. Other tasks.

Death is so imminent you have lost the fear of it, due to its inevitability. The “Get Well” Cards have limply bowed their faces; knowing their words of promised health have failed.

And in this long pause between worlds, a young intern rushes in. He seems live and vibrant and vigorous.

“Look, I know they say you are dying. I know what you must be feeling. I was once dying, too. I was just like you are now. Only I took this blue pill. You won’t believe what it can do. If you take it, I promise you life will never be the same. Ever.”

What’s the harm? If it was poison, it would only shorten the delay by hours. Even pain might be relief to this calm passing. So you take the pill with little expectation. But…then…you can start to feel…different. Your stomach starts to soften. Your heart begins to pound with enthusiasm rather than exhaustion. You can feel blood pulsing through your arms and legs and face. You stop gasping for air, and gulping it instead.

“See? See? I told you this was something, eh?! These little babies really do the trick!”

The trick? In Spades!

“Now, I ask you to do a favor for me. I’m only one guy, and there are worlds and worlds of sick people out there. I’m giving you a handful of these pills. All I ask is you give out as many of these as you can by the time you walk out of this hospital.”

As many as you can? Is he kidding you? This is fantastic—a whole new life. A moment ago you were dying, and now you feel as if you could run a marathon! Only a handful? You want more—buckets and backpacks and bushels of the blue pills. You aren’t going to one hospital—oh, no! You are going to every hospital in the city. Heck, every hospital in the state! You are going to be giving out more blue pills than imaginable.

“Look, start with this handful. When you are done, I will be certain to find you and give you some more. ‘kay?”

Pishaw! He will have to find you before you have left this floor. So you bound out the door, ready to share this pill with the first person you meet…which happens to be me.

“Whoa…slow down their fellow! You sure are excited. What has you so riled up?”

You tell me about the blue pill. Seeing my hospital gown and presuming I have need of such a thing, you start to push one toward me.

“No, no thank you. Turns out I have no need for your blue pill. The funny thing is this—I, too, was not doing well. Thought I was dying. And some lady told me about this clever breathing exercise and…well…next thing ya know, I am on my way to dress and leave.”

“The queer part is she told me the same thing—to show everyone on my way out this breathing exercise so they could be well, too.”

You think joining forces would be a swell idea.

“Well…I did think about it for a minute or two. But I look at it this way—I have a whole new lease on life. If I start to stop and give this breathing exercise out…that’s gonna take time. Time I now realize I have precious little of.”

You look at those blue pills…

“Think about it. This is no easy task. I am going to stop and show every one of those people how to do this breathing. That could take hours.”

You are going to have to explain these blue pills to every person, too.

“Some of them are not going to believe it, so I will go through my medical history, explaining how sick I was, explaining how I didn’t believe it at first, and how it has helped me.”

You may have to give some medical history…

“And some of ‘em are going to reject me, regardless of what I say. I am not so sure I can handle that type of rejection.”

Rejection always hurt you more than most.

“So do I want to spend the next 8, maybe 10 hours of my life, working my way out of this hospital, room by room by room, when I could be out appreciating the gift of life this lady gave me? Besides, I think she was moving on to the next room. When she saves that patient, they will go room by room giving out the breathing exercise. Heck, my doing it too is a waste of good resources…way I figure it!”

The young intern WAS headed toward another room. And it sure seemed like a lot of blue pills to pass out. They feel more like little blue anchors in your hand.

“I’m sure someone else will hand out your blue pills. Maybe a doctor or nurse—you know—someone more gifted and qualified in explaining blue pills. Hey, I’ve got some tickets to the Giants/ Patriots game; want to come? Maybe we will run into some sick people there, and give ‘em the blue pill or breathing exercise. What do ya say?”

There will always be sick people. What difference really does it make if you hand out those blue pills today, this afternoon or tomorrow? Tomorrow would be a better day anyway—the Giants and Patriots aren’t playing tomorrow.

And the day passes. And the week. Every year or so, during the spring cleaning, you come across a baggie of blue pills and resolve that THIS will be the year you call the young intern ‘cause you gave all of them out. Some years you even put the baggie in the car for the next time you drive by the Hospital. By Fourth of July they have moved back to the closet to make way for the firecrackers.

And then you find yourself on the internet explaining your story, how you believed in the blue pills, and if only other people would take these blue pills, they would be well. And how, just like everyone else, you think the idea of giving out blue pills to sick people is grand and noble and good, but you are just too busy. Not enough time.

Someone else can do it; ’cause you are too occupied…just…like…everyone….else.

Inside Out

My wife is typically cold. She starts to thaw only when the temperatures reach about 90 degrees Fahrenheit. In a catalog, I discovered a hand cream which was supposed to cause your hands to warm. On a lark, I purchased it for my wife.

She tried it. Didn’t work. I brought it to my office for me to use. Doesn’t work on me, either. Last Friday, I rubbed some on my hands and about ten minutes later, without thinking about it, went to the bathroom. I started to get warm. REALLY warm. Apparently it does not work on one’s hands nearly as well as it works…elsewhere. ‘Bout like Ben-Gay in the jockstrap! Unfortunately, we only have public restrooms, and I thought it would be a mite bit inappropriate to be discovered with my pants around my ankles, splashing away at the sink so I sweated it out. Literally.

I told this tale to some family members, and one brother turned to another brother, saying, “Remember that time you were cutting wood, and you did not know you had touched poison ivy?” Nothing more needed to be said. We all got the picture immediately—recalling the incident with howls of laughter.

I’ll bet any reader who had a family gathering over the past month also had short snippets of statements which would mean little to an outsider, but bring back overwhelming memories and associations to each of the participants.

“Yeah, just like your fishing…”
“…As good as Grandma’s pie…”
“Uncle Ted was so scared, he arrived early!”

Sure, an outsider may get a flavor of the meaning, due to the context, but to the insider participants, the words and the pictures they bring to mind provide a fuller and richer portrayal the outsider could never quite completely appreciate.

I know at times people may read what I write, and bemoan I am not accurately painting Christianity. Or I use too broad a brush. Or I push it out beyond limits it was designed. Can I remind you that I was an insider? I know the catch-phrases, the histories, the nuances. I know the rituals, the steps, the backgrounds.

I also know the excuses, the justifications and the rationalizations.

“Put Christ back in Christmas.” Please. I know how much “Christ” is IN Christmas for the vast predominance of Christians.

It means performing a play or Cantata. For other Christians. It means gathering food, and perhaps sponsoring a family. But only through a Christian organization, of course, and sponsoring a “deserving” family. It means going to Church on the Sunday before Christmas, and (if one is dedicated enough) the Christmas Eve service. It means having a Nativity scene on the Television Stand, and being indignant one is not at the Courthouse. It means reading Luke 2 after watching “Nightmare Before Christmas.”

What it does not mean is doing without. It is not a holiday in which Christianity rises with one accord and demonstrates to the world the extent to which their claim of Christ’s gift of himself is appreciated by giving to the point of sacrifice.

Oh sure, a Christian gives—but to the point of doing without? How many Christians did not have desert at their meal, ‘cause they had given so much they could not afford it? How many Christians reading this blog did without presents so that others could have theirs?

I am now an outsider; looking in. And what I see is the “Christ” most Christians put in Christmas is not very much. Like us outsiders, Christians get together with families and friends, eat too well and too rich, exchange gifts we don’t need, and enjoy the festive spirit.

They may add a program—but is it that different from a tradition of seeing “A Christmas Carol”? They may add a reading—but is it different from a tradition of ‘Twas the Night Before Christmas? They may put a bit more in the plate—just like we give a bit more to Salvation Army since it is right there.

Am I too tough on Christianity? I think not. I have been inside. I know the difference. Having now celebrated three Christmases on the outside, I am fully realizing how little Christ is in Christmas. How Jesus is not the reason for the season.

Only I am seeing it is not the secularists removing Him—it is the Christians themselves.

Does the Bible apply today?

We are all aware of the language barrier inherent in discussing both the Tanakh (Hebrew) and the New Testament (Koine Greek.) While we have lexicons and dictionaries, and other contemporary works—what we don’t have is a 8th Century BCE Israelite or a 1st Century CE Judean to explain the individual words themselves within their culture. We can do an antiseptic translation, stating “yowm” means “day” or “division of time” or “period” yet the argument will rage as to whether the “yowm” of Genesis 1 are 24-hour periods, or eons of time.

Or the word ”theopneuostos” of 2 Tim. 3:16. We can see the word is a combination of “God” (theo) and “wind” or “breath” (pneuostos) but since it is not utilized in other literature, not even anywhere else in the Bible, we can only surmise as to the author’s intention of this unique, made-up word. It has been translated as “inspired by God” or “God-breathed;” the exact nuance is ultimately unknown. And yet this is a foundational claim of someone who holds to the divine nature of the Bible!

This point was forcefully made to me in my first semester of Spanish class. If you have ever taken a language class—they make you pick a Spanish name, hopefully one close to your own. For those of us who haven’t a close name to translate—we were able to pick our own. Being me, I choose “Burrito” to be funny. All semester I was called “Burrito” by my fellow classmates and the professor (who had a sense of humor, luckily.)

We learned in Spanish, you add an “-ito” to a word to make it cutesy, or childish. Similar to the English equivalent of adding “-y” to words such as “doll” to become “dolly” or “horse” to become “horsey.” “Muchacho” (young boy) would become “muchachito.” The professor turned to me and dead-panned, “And since Burro means ‘Ass’ then Burrito would mean Little…” The students laughed, getting the joke.

In order to appreciate what he was saying, one would have to understand the implementation of “-ito” in the Spanish language, what a “Burrito” normally is, and that “Ass” can mean a four-legged pack animal…or something else.

While we can sterilely translate the words, can we translate the meaning behind the words? How many times have we typed some comment on-line, and someone else takes it completely unlike we anticipated? How many times have we bemoaned that sarcasm and wryness do not translate well in the written word? The Bible was not written with smilies to provide further information. A “;-)” behind a Proverb to clue us in to whimsy involved.

Take Mark 15:39 where the centurion watches Jesus die, and says, ”Truly this man was the son of God.” Many people interpret this to be a straightforward confession of Jesus’ reality. But is that the author’s intent? What if the author wrote it mockingly? As if the centurion, seeing Jesus humiliated and killed, said, “Oh sure. This was the son of God. And I am the King of Spain. Ha ha ha ha.” (Note the priests were just calling Jesus “Christ, the King of Israel in verse 32, yet we do not consider those words a confession of faith.)

We simply don’t know. We can speculate. We can view the context and hypothesize. But in the end, it is a matter of weighing alternative speculations, in which we can only hope one theory is more persuasive than another.

Worse, the Bible was written to a culture and society we know very little about—and what we do paints a picture very unlike our own. Take Marriage. In the Tanakh, polygamy is treated cavalierly. The greatest limitation is that Kings should not have too many wives. Deut. 17:17. The stories of romance are noted for their being an exception. Wives and marriage were a means to an end, and love was not considered a necessary part of that means.

By First Century Judea, marriage was a means to gain honor or join houses in the society. “Love” had nothing to do with it—it was an arrangement made by the families for the parents’ mutual benefit. The wife was always considered a bit of an outsider; never quite part of the new family. She was expected to obtain her emotional support and relationships through other female friends and her children—not her husband!

In our culture, we look at marriage as the instituting of a new home. At that time, it was looked at as assimilating the female into the male’s family. There was no “new home” but a continuation of the old.

We occasionally hear, at weddings and such, how a couple will become “one flesh” and this means a joining of heart, spirit, mind, personhood, blah, blah, blah. Poppycock. “One flesh” to the authors who utilized the term considered it to mean sex. 1 Cor. 6:16. Oh, you can glamorize it, and extrapolate meaning out of it—but that isn’t what the authors intended when they wrote it.

Which causes me to wonder—given the language barrier, the translation difficulties, our lack of knowledge and the social differences—does the Bible apply today? How much are Christians taking a 2000+ year old book and trying to shoehorn it into a prescription for today? And how well does it fit?

We recently had a discussion regarding Jesus’ words of not worrying about what a person would eat or drink, or be clothed in. Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of itself. Matt. 6:25-34. To the audience of Matthew’s time, their sole concern as peasants would have been basic survival. They were no thoughts of slowly accumulating a fortune. There were thoughts of obtaining enough food to survive another year.

How applicable is that today? Most of us have closets of clothes. Pantries of food. Refrigerators and second freezers bulging with enough food to last for weeks. Are we worried about tomorrow’s food? Nope—we are worried about our son’s college fund. Our retirement package. Does Matt 6 still apply in the age of bank accounts and IRA’s?

Is 1 Tim. 2:9 still good law? Are Christians claiming women should not wear gold and pearls? Or is that 2000 years behind the times? Full and fair warning: If one provides some crack about not taking 1 Tim. 2:9 literally, and we should look at the principle of the thing, I will question why Rom. 1:26-27 should not likewise be taken “in principle” rather than literal.

When is the last time any of us went to the butcher to get some meat sacrificed to idols? 1 Cor. 8:4. Or worried about women having their head covered when they pray? 1 Cor. 11:5. Who goes to church to be cured of an illness? James 5:14

Not long ago, in many conservative circles drinking alcohol was a sin. In the Bible Belt of America, there are “dry” counties—no sale of alcohol, which is still reminiscent of the general feeling of prohibition. Yet in the society of the New Testament, alcohol was a common drink. Most Jews drank about 1 liter a day. Is the Bible out-dated?

Slavery existed both in Canaan and First Century Judea. The Bible tacitly endorses slavery by providing instructions both for the masters of slaves and slaves themselves. Eph. 6:5-9. 1 Peter 2:18-20. Should the Biblical principle of slavery be re-introduced? Or have we grown wiser than the Bible?

And what I see is instead of following the precepts laid out; Christians allegorize what is contained therein to some modern application. Slavery? Oh, no—we will give a sermon on employers/employees using these passages. Meat for idols? Oh, no—we will give a talk on how one can’t listen to Christian rock-n-roll ‘cause it will lead others to listen to actual rock-n-roll (Which leads to dancing and orgasmic sex. All bad.)

Women can wear gold and pearls—that’s just fine! The principle of the thing is that they need to be “modest” about it.

They are already doing it! They already understand what was fine and good 2000 years ago just doesn’t fly today. “Sell what you have and give to the poor” (Matt. 19:21-22) 2000 years over its expiration date; doesn’t apply today! “Give to anyone who asks” (Luke 6:30) Well! This is the 21st Century—they didn’t have homeless people crowding the streets like we do today. That verse doesn’t apply, either!

Even Christians are proclaiming what the Bible actually says is not what it actually means in our day and age. ‘Cause things are different. At what point do we realize applying a book compiled of other books written from 800 BCE to 130 CE in 2007 CE is not going to work?

Why do Churches have locks?

Recently we were informed of another incident in which a person shot a number of people in a public location—in this instance a Church camp and a Church. It is a sad commentary on our times--we have become so acclimated to this on the news, we refer to it as “another” shooting, and before the media has completed their frenzy on one situation, we have heard of a new one.

This recent situation ended differently than most in that an armed security guard shot and killed the assailant during his assault. Although the details are sketchy, the media reports this guard was in place because of concern over security issues, both from past embarrassments (Ted Haggard) and possibly being forewarned of the shooting at the camp.

For full disclosure, I should note I own handguns myself, I strongly support the concept of qualified citizens privately owning guns, and I have had a concealed weapons permit in the past. I am genuinely glad this guard was armed, used her weapon, and was successful in stopping this murderer. I am thankful the church had the foresight to instill this program.

However, it does bring in to sharp focus the fact of how little Christians act as if there is a God. Every church I have ever attended had locks on the door. Every church I attended in the past two decades also has an alarm system.

If God was in control—why would there need to be locks? Oh, we can claim God doesn’t want us to be stupid, and we should use common sense and wisdom, yet this flies in the face of 1 Cor. 1:20-21 which says the wisdom of the world is foolishness. Banks put locks on doors. Stores and business put locks on doors. We would say that is wise of them to do so. But is a Christian demonstrating a lack of faith by doing the same thing the world does?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said to not worry about what you will eat, or drink, not even to worry about your life! Matt. 6:25-34. Why, then, should Churches have to lock their doors to worry about robbers?

Ever attend a church which has a building project? Perhaps needs a new roof? The same thing—a chart is put up in the lobby in the form of a thermometer, with each “goal” of contribution being a mark, and as the money comes in from the members, it is slowly filled in with red. Does the church say, “We need a new roof—don’t worry—God will provide”? Nope. The church says, “We need a new roof. Let us pray, and pass the plate.”

Part of the line items in a church budge is “insurance.” Including fire insurance. The author and finisher of the universe is unable to stop a fire? Of course not! The church just does not quite have enough faith to think it would for them!

And in this situation a church recognized a viable problem, and instituted a safety precaution. Just like any business would. The church felt God might not stop an assailant, but the bullets propelled from a gun fired by a person would. And they were right.

Although I am informed by many theists there is a God, what I observe is they don’t act like there is one. The church says there is a God watching over them; but has a lock on the door. There is a God who will provide; but has insurance. Here, the Church said, “There is a God; but just in case we better get a gun.”

For the sake of the people who were not harmed, I am glad the theists didn’t believe in their God on that day.

Before you put those Magi in the Nativity Play

I am currently reading “Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels” by Malina & Rohrbaugh and highly recommend it. Amazon Link It provides insights into the Social setting of First Century Judea, and its impact on how we understand the Gospels.

Since we are entering Christmas season, thought I would share some of what they say regarding Matthew’s record of Jesus’ Birth.

Greek handbooks called progymnasmata provided exercises in which students were taught to organize their remarks praising a subject around a series of conventional topics. It is amazing the degree to which Matthew’s birth story follows these school instructions.

For example, Hermogenes instructs his students to being with the subject’s origin and birth. They are to speak of “race, as the Greek, a city, as Athens, a family as the Alcmaeonidae.” Matthew did that with his genealogy.

Next, they are told to describe “what marvelous things befall at birth, as dreams or signs of the like.” Matthew does this too. There are dreams (1:20; 2:12, 13, 19), astronomical phenomena (2:2, 10), angelic appearances (1:20) and even attending astrologers with wonderful gifts (2:1, 11). Quintilian also tells rhetorical students to note things that happened prior to the birth such as prophecies “foretelling future greatness.” Matthew provides these as well (1:23; 2:6)
…

According to the progymnasmata of Menander Rhetor, one of the first things the writer of a piece in praise of someone should do is praise the city from which the subject comes because honor is ascribed to those born in an honorable city. To pull this one off, however, Matthew had to resort to some deft literary gymnastics. When he quotes the prophet Micah regarding Bethlehem, he turns Micah’s meaning around completely. Micah had called Bethlehem “one of the little clans of Judah.” (5:1). [sic – it should be 5.2 ed.] In Matthew that becomes:

And You, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
Are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
For from you shall come a ruler
Who will govern my people Israel.

In this way Matthew tells of a Jesus who comes from a royal city, has royal ancestors, and is to be a ruler of Israel. (some citations omitted) pg. 27-28

This explains a great deal to one of the problems I have always struggled with regarding the Synoptic Problem. As we know, the Gospel of Mark does not record the birth or childhood of Jesus. He appears on the scene at the very beginning of his ministry, and we are given one year in the life of Jesus, ending with his apparent resurrection.

Along comes Matthew who uses Mark, but introduces a lengthy birth narrative. Luke, also using Mark, also provides a lengthy birth narrative. The problem is how much they contradict, yet where they strangely agree. They contradict as to the year of Jesus birth, the reason for being in Bethlehem, the Magi compared to the shepherds, the angles appearing to Joseph as compared to Mary, the genealogies, the trip to Egypt, and the yearly sojourns to Jerusalem. Those contradictions have been discussed at length in numerous accounts.

The interesting aspect (to me) though is where Matthew and Luke agree. They both agree on a virgin birth, on a birth in Bethlehem but a childhood in Nazareth, on angelic appearances, and both feel a genealogy is necessary. How is it, if each was completely independently making up the birth narrative, they happened to agree on these factors? If they were each using a common source, was it only a bare-bones account that included virgin birth, angels, Bethlehem and Nazareth? But why the divergent genealogy?

And if Luke was using Matthew, why would he modify Matthew’s story so much?

This has always puzzled me, and up ‘till now I listed as one of those things I didn’t know, and if pressed would have speculated as to a bare-bones account they each used.

However, if Matthew was using a Greek method of introducing an individual, and Luke recognized it as being fictional history within that Greek method, he easily could choose to disregard it. Luke could have had Matthew in front of him, and been rejecting Matthew’s use of Greek form!

Simply put, Luke was correcting Matthew’s embellishment of Jesus’ birth by providing a different form of establishing honor.

Fun thoughts to puzzle upon during this Christmas Season….

Wipe out Christianity?

The popular non-believing writers of Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris propose we would have a better world if Christianity as a belief went the way of the belief of child sacrifice to make crops grow.

Should I, as an atheist, be actively attempting to wipe out Christianity?

I struggle with this. I do see good in Christianity. I see a moral system that makes many people act better than they would without it. How many (million) times have we heard, “If I was an atheist, I would murder, rape, rob, pillage and steal”? Please, if you believe this way, Stay A Theist!

I see the chance to provide charity (regardless of the motive) and the convenience of weekly opportunity literally being passed before one’s wallet. I see a social camaraderie, a oneness of purpose, a desire to be better humans, all hanging on a person’s Christianity.

And really, there are many, many beliefs I think are “wrong” that I am not actively petitioning against. So what if a group of people want to believe some guy who died 2000 years ago is still alive and looking down on them when they masturbate.

But on the other hand…

I also see the hate. I see the division. I see the claim of superiority because “God choose them” and not me. I see the justification for harm, particularly towards minorities. (Women, African Americans in the past, and homosexuals now.)

And…let’s face it…I am firmly convinced they are wrong. Jesus didn’t resurrect. The Bible is not any more divine than the list of ingredients on my potato chip bag. There is no “Father, Son and Holy Ghost.”

But on the other hand…

Can we really rip Christianity from people’s lives and expect them to be “just fine.” I had Christianity ripped from mine, and I cannot claim it as a pleasant experience. I do not recall a single deconvert referring to it as a “breeze.” It hurts. It is painful. And while it made me a better person…would it everybody? Are there people who are barely holding on to the threads of morality by fear of hell? If we could absolutely prove Christianity 100% wrong and did so—would the world be better 20 years from now? 50 years from now? (Or would we all be speaking Arabic?!)

I swing back and forth on this. Some days I wish Christianity were eliminated by the harm it has caused. Some days I am glad it still exists for the little good it provides.

Does the harm outweigh the benefit? What do you think—should Christianity be wiped out?