Three-In-One Again

From the Errancy Discussion List, 9-29-95:

nth
I am the father to my children, Brother to my siblings, child of my parents, lover to my spouse. How's that! Four in one.

Regards, nth

Till

But you are still just ONE person. In your capacity as father to your children, you know everything that you know in your capacity as brother to your siblings, and in this capacity you know everything that you know as child of your parents and lover of your spouse. It would be absurd to say that as father to your children, you know X , but as brother to your siblings you don't know X.

So what's my point? In Matthew 24:36, Jesus presumably said of his second coming, "But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the son,* but the Father only" (ASV). If Jesus and the Father are the same God but just different "persons" in the sense that you are father to your children, brother to your siblings, etc., how could it possibly be that God as the Father would know something that God as the son would not know?

This problem was obviously recognized fairly early in the church, because a footnote by this passage will say that "some ancient authorities omit the expression 'neither the son,'" and some translations (including even the KJV) leave it out too. More and more, that's becoming the way to solve textual and doctrinal problems in the Bible--just translate them out of existence. However, since the oldest manuscripts have the expression "neither the son" in them, a principle of lower criticism states that this is more likely to be a statement that was in the original. The RSV, NRSV, NASV, NIV, REB, NEB, NAB, JB, and others have retained the statement in apparent recognition of this principle. Besides, the parallel passage in Mark 13:32 contains the expression "neither the son" and was also retained in other "ancient manuscripts" of Mark, so nothing has been gained by trying to eliminate the statement from Matthew. Furthermore, most critics recognize that Matthew used Mark as his source, so the fact that the expression "neither the son" is generally found in the manuscripts of Mark and was in the earliest copies of Matthew is a pretty sound indication that it was very likely in the original text too.

So now trinity believers must explain how it would have been possible for the Father to know something that the son did not know if they were both one and the same God. I must also ask if inerrantists ever get tired and frustrated from trying to defend untenable positions.

Farrell Till

10 Characteristics Of Truth

1.  Truth is always narrow.

2.  Truth is always consistent.

3.  There is no safe substitute for truth.

4.  Truth is sometimes offensive.

5.  Truth is still the truth even when you stop believing it.

6.  Truth is not determined by who believes it.

7.  Truth is not determined by how many believe it.

8.  Truth is not determined by how much you want to believe something.

9.  Truth is not determined by how long you've believed something.

10.Truth is not determined by where you live.

When?

"...when does one's religious beliefs reach a point that they deserve scorn and contempt rather than 'respect'?" Clearly such a time is when Christians defend their god's command in Numbers 31:17-18, to kill all of the Midianite male little  ones, and kill all of the nonvirgin women, "But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." To any Christians reading this, how can you possibly defend this order from your god?

From the Yahoo group, Alt.Bible.Errancy, 8-3-99:

Berne
Helpu, a woman taken as a war prize to be a wife is in reality a concubine. She is forced to marry that man against her will. I am sure that more than one would have preferred death rather than live like that. You are being real offensive in trying to defend that situation and call it just. I  would not want you to live next door to me, if you call things like that just.

TILL
Helpu is in my e-mail filter, so I didn't see the posting in which he apparently tried to defend the Israelite rape of the Midianite virgin girls. I have to agree with what Berne said about the offensiveness of someone who would even try to defend the killing and rape of children, and when I read this, I had to wonder what Holman thinks about this familiar biblicist tactic of arguing that if God did it or commanded it, then it had to have been right no matter how morally offensive it may be when just ordinary humans do the same thing. In this case, Helpu is defending the murder and rape of children. Do you understand what I am saying? Helpu is defending the murder and rape of children.

Number 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

I find attempts to defend such as this repugnant and see no reason why those who would defend such should not receive the scorn and ridicule of all rational people. Would this be a case, Holman, where one would be justified in calling Helpu ignorant? If not, what if he were defending the murder and rape of children in Kosovo? In other words, just when does one's religious beliefs reach a point that they deserve scorn and contempt rather than "respect"?

I say that Helpu is ignorant for defending such as this and see no reason why I should apologize for saying so.

Farrell Till

Did They Or Didn't They? (4)

This is the fourth in a series of four articles from *The Skeptical Review* designed to show inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts of the four gospels:

By Farrell Till 

In the Autumn 1991 issue, we began a series of articles designed to show inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts of the four gospels. Gallons of ink have been used in attempts to explain away these inconsistencies, but some of the variations in the accounts are so discrepant that only the very gullible could possibly believe the far-fetched scenarios that bibliolaters have resorted to in trying to harmonize them. Of these discrepancies, none is more obvious than the variations in what the gospel writers said that the women did to spread word of the empty tomb after hearing from the angel(s) that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Matthew and Luke both said that the women hurried from the tomb to tell the disciples what the angel(s) had told them (Matt. 28:8; Luke 24:9). Even John, whose version of the story differs significantly from the synoptic accounts, said that Mary Magdalene ran to find Peter and "the other disciple" to tell them that the body of Jesus had been taken away (20:2). Three of the gospel writers, then, clearly depicted the eagerness of the women to report to the disciples what they had found at the empty tomb.

Mark, however, recorded this part of the story in an entirely different way. After telling of their encounter with an angel, who told them that Jesus was risen and that they should go tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee (16:6-7), Mark said that the women were too frightened to tell others what they had seen:

And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid (v:8).

The discrepancy is obvious, but it is even more obvious if Matthew's and Luke's accounts are juxtaposed with Mark's:

And they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring his disciples word (Matt. 28:8).And they remembered his (Jesus's) words and returned from the tomb, and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest (Luke 24:8-9).

Luke's account even recorded an alleged conversation between Jesus and two disciples (on resurrection day) in which one of the disciples said that the women had reported finding the tomb empty:

Moreover, certain women of our company amazed us, having been early at the tomb; and when they found not his body, they came, saying, that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive (24:22-23).

So the facts in this matter are apparent enough: three gospel writers said that the women ran to report the empty tomb; one said that they were so frightened by what they had seen that "they said nothing to anyone." A rule of evidence noted in an earlier article in this series ("The Resurrection Maze," Spring 1992, p. 12) states that two or more contradictory statements cannot all be right. So who was right in the way this part of the resurrection story was told? Were Matthew, Luke, and John right in saying that the women ran to report the empty tomb to the other disciples? Or was Mark right when he said that they were so frightened that they said "nothing to anyone"? Did they tell anyone what they had seen or didn't they? That's the problem that inerrantists must resolve.

The Resurrection Maze (3)

This is the third of a series of four articles from *The Skeptical Review* designed to show inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts of the four gospels:

By Farrell Till 

When two or more statements contradict one another, they cannot all be right. If we apply this rule of evidence to the testimony of the "eyewitnesses" to the resurrection, we have to conclude that at least some of the testimony was erroneous. If some of it was erroneous, then the Bible inerrancy doctrine itself must be erroneous.

Inconsistencies in the four gospel accounts of the resurrection are too numerous to discuss in a single article, so I will limit discussion at this time to just a few. Matthew began his narrative of the events of that day by telling us that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the sepulcher "as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week" (28:1). The time factor that he identified contrasts sharply with the testimony of Mark, Luke, and John, who said, respectively, that the time was "very early on the first day of the week... when the sun was risen" (16:1) or "on the first day of the week, at early dawn" (24:1) or "on the first day of the week... while it was yet dark" (20:1). By stretching imagination, perhaps we could reconcile the testimony of Matthew and Luke. If it was "beginning to dawn toward the first day of the week," we could maybe grant that this could be called "early dawn," but how could the sun already be risen if it was only beginning to dawn? And if the sun had already risen, as Mark claimed, how could it have been "yet dark," as John said? For that matter, how could it have been "yet dark" if the morning had reached any stage that could be correctly described as "dawn"? I grew up on a farm, so I can remember getting up many times as it was "beginning to dawn" or while it was still "early dawn," but it certainly wasn't "yet dark." By looking outside, I could see clearly enough to recognize objects. Certainly by the time the sun had risen, it was never "yet dark" outside. So how could it possibly be that John was right in the time factor that he specified but the other three were also right in their time factors? This is a chronological discrepancy that bibliolaters have never satisfactorily explained.

As noted, Matthew said that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary" went to the tomb. Mark identified the women as "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome" (16:1). Luke said that the women who went to the tomb were "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the other women with them" (24:10), and John mentioned only Mary Magdalene (20:1). We have all heard the Gleason Archer-John Haley type of explanation for the "variances" in these names. Matthew chose to identify only two of the women, John chose to identify only one, but their failure to mention the presence of Salome or Joanna or "the other women" would not mean that they were not there. The same line of reasoning is usually applied to the variations in the number of angels reported at the scene. Matthew said that "an angel" (one) descended from heaven (28:2). Mark spoke of "a young man... arrayed in a white robe" (16:5), who was presumably an angel, but Luke (24:4) and John (20:12) wrote of two angels. If there were two, then there had to be one, inerrantists will say, but in a matter as vitally important as the testimony to a resurrection, inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, this kind of "explanation" has dubious merit at best. However, it is the stock explanation of inerrancy defenders in matters like these, so I will simply mention it, leave it to the readers to judge its merit, and go on to other discrepancies that no stretch of imagination can satisfactorily resolve.

Did They Tarry In The City? (2)

This is the second of a series of four articles from *The Skeptical Review* designed to show inconsistencies in the resurrection accounts of the four gospels:

By Farrell Till 
So much depends on the resurrection of Jesus. Without it, the whole superstructure of Christianity would collapse. To this, agreed even the Apostle Paul, whom some New Testament scholars consider to be the real architect of Christianity:

(I)f Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable (1 Cor. 15:17-19, KJV).

As vital to Christianity as the resurrection is, it rests upon the flimsiest of evidence: four contradictory "gospel" accounts and some scattered references in the New Testament epistles to a risen Messiah. And that's it. As far as scholars have been able to determine, none of the gospel accounts of the resurrection were written by anyone who could have been an eyewitness to the event, and most of the epistolary references to it were made by the Apostle Paul, who by his own admission did not witness it either. He claimed that he had seen the resurrected Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus.

The contradictory nature of the hearsay accounts of the resurrection constitute the most damaging evidence against it. If alleged eyewitnesses to an event as extraordinary as the revivification of a dead man should contradict themselves in a court of law as patently as did the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in their telling of the resurrection story, no intelligent jurors would give a speck of credence to their testimony, yet millions of Christians have accepted a resurrection story that is riddled with discrepancies.

In future issues of TSR, we will look at several points of discrepancy in the four resurrection accounts, but for now I will focus on just one: an alleged post-resurrection appearance of Jesus on a mountain in Galilee. If one were to ask a Christian versed in the scriptures if the disciples of Jesus met him in Galilee after his resurrection, the answer would surely be, "Yes, they did." After all, Matthew, writing about postresurrection events, clearly said, "But the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him; but some doubted" (28:16-27).

That seems clear enough, and if Matthew had been the only one to write about postresurrection events, this meeting in Galilee would certainly be believable to anyone who could accept the premise that a dead man had been resurrected. Considered in the context of all four gospel accounts of the resurrection, however, this meeting in Galilee poses tremendous credibility problems, because Luke said in his gospel that Jesus told his disciples on the night of his resurrection that they were to stay in Jerusalem until they were "clothed with power from on high" (24:49). According to the same writer (Luke), this power came to them about fifty days later when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:3-5; 2:1-4), but by then Jesus had already ascended back to heaven, because he had remained on earth only forty days after his resurrection (Acts 1:3). So if Luke was right and Jesus did tell his disciples on the night of his resurrection not to leave Jerusalem until they received "power from on high" and if this power from on high did not come to them until fifty days later and if Jesus remained on earth for only forty days after his resurrection and if the disciples obeyed Jesus's command not to leave Jerusalem until they had received power from on high, how could they have possibly met him on a mountain in Galilee as Matthew claimed?

How Did The Apostles Die?

The following article is from *The Skeptical Review*, 1997/July-August:

By Farrell Till 

Christian apologists, both real and would-be, argue that the willingness of the apostles to die for their faith is proof that the resurrection of Jesus was a real experience in their lives. People will die for what they believe to be true, the argument goes, but they would not die for what they know is not true. In this issue (pp. 10-11), Dave Matson has rebutted this argument by showing how that the postresurrection appearances of Jesus could well have been only imaginary or psychological experiences of those who allegedly claimed that they saw Jesus alive after his death. If so, then the apostles who were martyred (if indeed any were) would have died not for what they knew to be true but only for what they thought they knew was true. There's a big difference.