A Familiar Game

From the Errancyn Discussion group, 8-1-99:

TILL
No, we will not know if you Christians are right or not when we die,

because if there is no consciousness after death, and there is no 
evidence to prove that there is, then we will be dead. Even your 
inspired word of God says the same: "The living know that they 
will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no more reward, 
and even the memory of them is lost" (Ecc. 9:5).

Eric:
Yes, the passage you cite (Ecc. 9:5) states "The living know
that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no
more reward, and even the memory of them is lost". The word
"know" as used in regard to the living and the dead is
"yada" which means 'to know'. 

TILL
That's really profound, Eric. You're saying that know meant know.

ERIC

Since it is applied to both the living and the dead, it must mean

the same thing. So, your point is well made with -this- verse.

However, there are other verses speaking of the life beyond
the grave. Let's take a look at them:

1). "But God will redeem my life from the grave, he will
surely take me to himself."-Ps. 49:15.
One cannot escape the conclusion that the writer expects to
be given life again by God and will live in the presence of
God after he dies.
2). "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will
awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and
everlasting contempt."-Dan. 12:2.

TILL
We see that Eric is playing a familiar game. "Yes, yes," he says, 
"the Bible does say that the dead know nothing, but over here in 
another passage, it indicates that the dead have awareness." All 
he has done is prove that the Bible is inconsistent. 

ERIC

So, what do we see. On the one hand we see that the grave
is the end of existence, but on the other hand we see that
life goes on after the grave.

It is possible that the Daniel 12:2 passage is a further
amplification of the Ecclesiastes 9:5 passage you cited. If
taken by itself, Ecc. 9:5 would indicate that you are
correct and that after we die, we cease to exist. But,
other passages indicate more information about the state of
the soul after death.

And this indicates something which -must- be understood by
believers and critics alike: The bible reveals spiritual
information gradually over time. The bible took some 1,500
years to compile. During that time more and more knowledge
was revealed. One cannot expect to cite one verse in
'proof' of some doctrine. One needs to (as the bible puts
it) "take the whole council of God" on a given issue, and
see what -all- the scriptures are saying on a given subject.

TILL
So what Eric seems to be saying is that God "inspired" writers 
to  record incorrect information, but "gradually over time," God amplified his prior revelations through inspiration and corrected 
the false impressions that his earlier inspirations had revealed.

Who can believe such gibberish as this? What was to prevent 
God at the time he "inspired" the writing of Ecclesiastes to reveal 
to the writer that when a person dies, his/her awareness or consciousness continues on into another life? Furthermore, Eric 
is playing the let-scripture-interpret-scripture game. We will see inerrantists quoting what the apostle Paul said in orderto interpret what Moses really meant in a passage in the Pentateuch. This
line of argumentation attempts to prove inerrancy by assuming inerrancy. It is arguing that Moses couldn't have meant what he obviously said, because if he meant this, then what he said contradicts what Paul said. This irrational argument fails to take into consideration that "Moses" was an entirely different person from the apostle Paul. They were separated in time by several centuries, so it is entirely possible that they had conflicting views. The writer of Ecclesiastes could easily have thought that death 
was the end of human awareness, whereas the person writing 
Daniel thought that human consciousness continued into another life. No one can prove by quoting what "Daniel" said that the 
writer of Ecclesiastes didn't mean that human awareness ended at death. To so argue is to assume the question that is being debated.

Farrell Till

How Did The Apostles Die? (2)

From Alt.Bible.Errancy discussion group, 6-5-99:

The Apostle Matthew 

TILL
So Goodguy knows that Matthew died by the sword? That's interesting, because of all the traditions about the deaths of the apostles, Matthew's are so varied and contradictory that even staunch Bible believers admit that there is no way to determine which legend is true. Clement of Alexandria indicated that Matthew died a natural death (*Miscellanies, 4.9). If this is true, then it couldn't very well be said that Matthew died for what he knew to be truth. If that were the case, then all people who die of natural causes would be martyrs for what they know to be true. 

In *A Traveler's Guide to Saints in Europe* (Trinity Press: London, 1964), Mary Sharp said that Matthew traveled to Ethiopia after the ascension, "where he was entertained by the eunuch whom St. Philip had baptised." He allegedly performed various miracles, "including the healing of the King of Egypt's daughter of leprosy." Sharp noted that "accounts differ" regarding the death of Matthew. "Some say that he was beheaded, others that he died a peaceful death" (p. 152). In *Sacred and Legendary Art* (Houghton Mifflin, 1957, third edition), Anna Jameson also put Matthew in Ethiopia in the company of the eunuch, but in addition to the legend about the daughter of the king of Egypt, her account had Matthew also resurrecting the king's son from the dead. After her cure, Matthew made the princess the head of a company of virgins, who were, dedicated to the service of God. When a "wicked heathen king" threatened to take the princess from her asylum, he was struck with leprosy and his palace destroyed by fire. Jameson noted that this legend had Matthew spending 23 years in Egypt, where he died in is 90th year under the reign of Domitian, but the legend did not state the manner of his death. Jameson then added the details of a Greek legend about Matthew, which claimed that he "died in peace," but a conflicting "tradition of the Western Church" claimed that "he suffered Martyrdom either by the sword or the spear" (pp. 142-143). 

How Did The Apostles Die? (1)

From Alt.Bible.Errancy discussion group, 6-5-99:
TILL

To begin my response to Goodguy's position that how the apostles' died constitutes evidence of the resurrection, I'm going to post my article "How Did the Apostles Die?" that I published in the July/August 1997 issue of *The Skeptical Review.* It will present general principles that will show the unsoundness of this often-repeated claim. Afterwards, I will address specific points in Goodguy's postings. If he cares to respond, I will, of course, post his responses to the list, but I predict that we won't hear much from him.

************************* 

How Did the Apostles Die? 

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. 

The "Testimony" of Mara Bar-Serapion

From *The Skeptical Review*, July-August 1995:

by Farrell Till
The absence of extrabiblical evidence of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth has long been an embarrassment to Christian apologists. In their defense of Christianity, early church fathers like Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria cited from both Jewish and pagan sources evidences that they thought were supportive of Christianity, but they were unable to produce any secular testimony of the actual existence of Jesus. The frustrating truth was (and is) that secular records contemporary to the time that Jesus allegedly lived were completely silent about this man who presumably was so famous that great multitudes followed him during his personal ministry Mt 4:24-25, 8:1, 18, 13:2, 15:30, 19:2, 21:9; Luke 5:15, Luke 14:25). Inasmuch as word of Jesus's works spread at least as far as Syria (according to the New Testament record) and attracted people from there to be cured of "divers diseases and torments" (Mt 4:24), one would think that historians of the time would have heard about the man and recorded at least some of this part of his life. But it didn't happen. Contemporary secular records don't even mention the man Jesus. It is as if historians would examine all records of the 4th century B. C. and find no references to Alexander the Great.

The Origin Of God And Heaven, Of The Devil And Hell

by Robert Ingersoll

In the estimation of good orthodox Christians I am a criminal, because I am trying to take from loving mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives, and lovers the consolations naturally arising from a belief in an eternity of grief and pain. I want to tear, break, and scatter to the winds the God that priests erected in the fields of innocent pleasure -- a God made of sticks called creeds, and of old clothes called myths. I shall endeavor to take from the coffin its horror, from the cradle its curse, and put out the fires of revenge kindled by an infinite fiend.

Is it necessary that Heaven should borrow its light from the glare of Hell?

Infinite punishment is infinite cruelty, endless injustice, immortal meanness. To worship an eternal gaoler [jailer] hardens, debases, and pollutes even the vilest soul. While there is one sad and breaking heart in the universe, no good being can be perfectly happy.

Against the heartlessness of the Christian religion every grand and tender soul should enter solemn protest. The God of Hell should be held in loathing, contempt and scorn. A God who threatens eternal pain should be hated, not loved -- cursed, not worshiped. A heaven presided over by such a God must be below the lowest hell. I want no part in any heaven in which the saved, the ransomed and redeemed will drown with shouts of joy the cries and sobs of hell -- in which happiness will forget misery, where the tears of the lost only increase laughter and double bliss. 

The idea of hell was born of ignorance, brutality, fear, cowardice, and revenge. This idea testifies that our remote ancestors were the lowest beasts. Only from dens, lairs, and caves, only from mouths filled with cruel fangs, only from hearts of fear and hatred, only from the conscience of hunger and lust, only from the lowest and most debased could come this most cruel, heartless and bestial of all dogmas.

Luke The Historian

From the Errancy discussion list, 8-18-97:

TILL

Otsen has cited the amazing historical accuracy of Luke as an argument for biblical inerrancy, as if he somehow believes that because one biblical writer was accurate in some geographical, political, and social matters, he was therefore right in everything he wrote and that the entire Bible must, as a consequence, be inerrant. In an earlier posting, I listed over two dozen references that Luke made in the book of Acts to extraordinary events. I challenge Otsen to present to us some kind of extrabiblical evidence to prove that at least some of these events actually happened. Until he can do this, he is in effect arguing that because Luke knew the geography of the region he wrote about and the names of some public officials and such like, we can thereby know that Luke was also accurate in his reporting of the various miracle claims found in his gospel and the book of Acts. 

I'll use just one example to show how fallacious this line of reasoning is. In *The Twelve Caesars,* the Roman historian Suetonius recorded many events and named many public officials that are universally accepted as historically accurate. However, Suetonius also stated that when Roman officials were arguing over where the body of Julius Caesar should be cremated, two "divine forms" came down with torches in hand and set fire to the funeral couch (Penguin Books, 1989, p. 52). Suetonius also stated that a man who had just recently purchased the mansion that had been owned by the grandfather of Caesar Augustus went to sleep in the room that had been the nursery of Augustus, and in the night he was "hurled out of bed by a supernatural agency and found lying half-dead against the door, bedclothes and all" (p. 56). Suetonius further claimed that Emperor Vespasian healed a blind man and a lame man by just touching the lame man and spitting on the eyes of the blind man (p. 284). Tacitus made this same claim. 

Yahweh's Character Shines Through Again

The marvelous, loving god of the Bible shines

through again. I wonder how many Christians are
aware of this part of Yahweh's character. From
the Errancy II discussion list, 7/21/07:

Augat

Someone explain to me how this command from

Yahweh was objectively moral:

"But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity where not found in the young woman, then you shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones..." Deuteronomy 22:20 As a Registered Nurse, we learned in our maternity classes that a large percentage of women do not bleed or have "the tokens" of losing their virginity during their first intercourse. So, was this command from Yahweh moral or not moral, considering the number of innocent virgins that were stoned on their wedding night.

TILL

A political problem in Illinois has been the refusal of some pharmacists to fill prescriptions for drugs like Plan B (also known as the morning-after pill), which they think could possibly result in the termination of a pregnancy in its initial stages. The refusal is illegal, but some pharmacists continue to do it. Women who are raped in this area know not to go to the Catholic hospital in Peoria, because the staff will refuse to administer anything that might interfere with a pregnancy.

I wonder if any of these health officials, who no doubt base their morality on their objective Bible source, ever stop to think about the biblical command to stone those who committed adultery. If they won't administer Plan B to a woman who was raped and taken to the hospital an hour or so later because they are afraid that they might terminate a pregnancy, then surely the practice of stoning women accused of adultery in biblical times resulted at least sometimes in the killing of the "persons" who had been conceived a short while ago in their wombs.

Farrell Till