christian@topaz.UUCP (02/23/87)
Hello everyone.
Thanks so much for the responses
in answer to my questions. I really do appreciate them. Some of
them were actually quite rational. Nonetheless, I am still un-
satisfied by the basis for many of the arguments.
Some argued, for example, that although the four gospel accounts
of the Resurrection contradict each other, this isn't important. The
important thing is to understand that Jesus actually did rise from the
dead...all other details are trivial. The only problem with this line
of reasoning is that all our knowledge of the Resurrection comes entirely
from the gospel accounts; if they are contradictory, how do we know they
are to be believed?
I think it was John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who wrote
that "if there be one mistake in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand.
If any part of it is contradictory, it did not come from the God of truth."
Contradictions concerning the Resurrection account cannot, therefore, be
easily dismissed.
Others asserted that the four gospel accounts DO differ, and are
indeed contradictory if read as a single historical document of what happened,
but that they are meant to be read individually as theological portraits of
Jesus...They are not meant to be taken literally. I must admit, this is a
good defense. However, even the Synoptics (Matt.,Mark,Luke) contradict
each other in the most blatant fashion. In Luke, the disciples think the
risen Jesus is an apparition, and he is at great pains to show them he
has a physical body by eating something. He tells them to remain in
Jerusalem until "ye be endued with the power on high." This contradicts
the versions of Matthew and Mark in which he commands the disciples to go
to Galilee. According to Luke, the Assumption into Heaven takes place in
Bethany; according to Mark, from a room, presumably in Jerusalem. In
Matthew, on a mountainside in Galilee. According to John, it was on the
shores of Lake Tiberias. The Assumption itself is dismissed in a mere
half dozen words! Such cursory treatment and fantastic contradictions
suggest that the whole story was a garbled invention. I'm willing to
consider the possibility that the gospel accounts are theological portraits
if everyone else is equally willing to consider the possibility that the
story of the Resurrection might be a fabrication.
Asserting that Jesus stood out from the prophets before him because
he was born from a virgin doesn't tell me much, either. In many places in
the gospels, Jesus is called Joseph's son! (John 1:45,6:42; Luke 2:22,41,
4:22; Matt. 13:55; Luuke 3:23). Even Mary said Joseph was the father of
Jesus (Luke 2:48). Paul spoke of Jesus as having a natural birth according
to the flesh (Romans 1:3,9:5). Also, according to the genealogies,
(Matt. 1:1-16, Luke 3:23-31...they, too, contradict each other!) Joseph was
descended from David, and therefore Jesus was descended from David, which
was required of anyone claiming Messianship (Jeremiah 23:5, 2 Samuel 7:12-13,
Psalm 89:3-4, 132:11). But Jesus couldn't be of David's seed (2 Timothy
2:8, Acts 13:22-23, Revelations 22:16) if he emerged from a virgin birth!
The Messianship of Jesus is incompatible with a virgin birth. Christians
must abandon one of the two concepts for a consistent story. How could he
be of Davidic descent "according to the flesh", if Joseph was not his
physical father?
Another problem occurs in the actual wording of Isaiah 7:14.
Hebrew scholars maintain that the word "almah" does not actually mean
"virgin", but "lady", and is thus translated in Genesis 24:43, and Exodus
2:8. They also point out that the words "shall conceive" should more properly
read "has conceived" (from the Hebrew "harah"). In the context of the entire
passage, this "prophecy" actually refers to a child born to King Ahaz, some
500 years before Jesus. (Many of the so-called "prophecies" that refer to
Jesus in the Old Testament have been examined at length by Jewish scholars,
in books aimed at deprogramming Jewish converts to Christianity. One of the
best on the subject is "A Guide to the Misled" by Rabbi Shmuel Golding.)
Finally, a virgin birth is just as miraculous as some of the events
in the Old Testament. Isaac, for example, was born to an aged woman
(Sarah) who no longer menstruated (Genesis 18:10-11). Samuel was born to
a woman, Hannah, whose womb had been closed by the Lord (I Samuel 1:5,2:21).
It really doesn't help matters to assert that "Jesus is God",
especially in light of the fact that he called himself the "son of man"
(as Ezekiel did!). And in the gospel of Mark, when he was addressed as
"good teacher", he replied, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good
but One, that is, God." Even in the gospel of John, where Jesus claims
"oneness" with God (John 10:31), he also claims it is something that can
be achieved by others (John 17:21..."as You and I are one, let them also be
one in us."). He also admitted, "I do nothing of myself, my Father is
greater than I." (John 14:1-2), and was called a servant of God (Acts 3:13).
He also identified himself with the prophets beforehand ("no prophet is
honored in his home town") and in Luke, he compared his ministry to that of
Jonah, as one of calling people to repentance.
As a final note, in Matthew 28:17 we're told that some of Jesus'
disciples, even seeing him face to face after the Resurrection, still
doubted. If they, back then, had reason to doubt, shouldn't we...some 2000
years later...be even more suspicious?
I look forward to answers!
Vasu Murty
UC San Diego
"To believe in immortality, one
needs something more than the
gloomy doctrine of resurrection."
---Thomas Paine
christian@topaz.UUCP (02/27/87)
It has come to my attention that there can viewed an entirely different story relating to the resurection. It is well known fact that Jesus, and Judas were in fact the only educated members of their crew. The rest were fisherman. Both Judas, and Jesus were scholars in the old testament. Now consider this: Jesus, and Judas plotted together knowing what events were to transpire because of theire OT knowledge, and fabricated the coming of the "saviour". Everything was done in such a way as to cause influence. Remember that the people they were trying to convert, are uneducated peasants, who will fall very easily to slight of hand tricks, and staged "Miracles". The point here is that the two of them know that that they have to follow the prophesies. The people start to realize after awhile "Hey, Once or twice, and I say coincidence. Three or four, and I sya he is lucky, but my eyes are my evidence, and this man has repeatedly fit the description has foretold by our forefathers, therefore maybe he is the real thing" that maybe this guy is the saviour. The word begins to spread, and Jesus is growing more popular. He and Judas can be sure to keep fullfilling the prophesies as best they can, but they are stuck on a major one. Unfortunately I do not know what the exact wording of the prophesy is, but it deals with the resurection. This was a tough one, and I believe they mis-understood it. They put together this plan of Judas turning in Jesus, and Jesus going through the last supper etc. etc. and acknowledging that he would be betrayed. So they go through with it, but I do not believe they thought that Jesus would be persecuted, and that is where their plan failed. When Judas realized this, it was too late, the wheel had been set in motion and could not be stopped. Jesus would die, and that would end their plans. He obviously would not be permitted to live out his life with his friends, because of his betrayal, so he committed suicide. Now comes the interesting part. Jesus is put up on the cross to die. Let's talk about death. The term dead has changed quite a bit through time. What was considered dead 20 years ago, is considered alive today. Today we talk about brain dead. We also know that the body can go into comas where the vital signs are virtually non-existant. It is also know that today people can slow down their vital signs through intense meditation. So here's Jesus on the cross. Is he dead? or does he just look dead. Religious people say he was dead, others can argue that he was not really dead, but certainly probably looked dead. An argument here is that dead people do not bleed, and it is written that Jesus was poked in the leg (To see nerve reaction) with a spear, and a trikle of blood oozed out of the puncture. They concluded he was dead, but in this case he really is not. Now put your self in the shoes of the guards. They think he is dead, but they know someone is going to try to steal the body. What would you do if you saw someone you knew was dead, was standing up, and TALKING to you, what would you do? I might faint, this is possible, I certainly would be scared. Jesus certainly had enough time to rest before he made his appearance. This is all possible. If I was Jesus, I would say to myself " Well this is not he way we planned it, but nonetheless, I can still finish what I started, by making an appearance to my friends, and then leave before anyone is the wiser. I am not going back up on the cross." So he splits and heads east to lands where he will never be heard from again. Meanwhile his appearance has certainly shocked his diciples. They are back fishing, and then Jesus pops up. Whoa! How is this? He really must be the son of god. I better write this down sometime. etc. etc. etc. Hey this is all conjecture, and can not be proved, but the point is that all versions/stories are an interpretation of what is written. You interpret/see what you want to see, or what others want you to see. It is known fact that the Vatican contains editions of the bible which contain material that was felt would not be in the public interest to be known, so is therefore edited out. Therefore you do not have the full story. Just remember that a mass of ignorant people with the fear-of-god in them is easier to controll than those who are aware that god is just a figmant of one's imagination and wishes. Eric Hallander Open minded individual who somehow by some miracle managed to acquire good values without being religiously brainwashed. [Have you read "The Passover Plot"? You might want to. --clh]
christian@topaz.UUCP (03/02/87)
The gospel of John tells us that there were several appearances that Jesus made after His Resurection. I believe that what is perceived as conflicts in the four gospels (in the details of His appearances and the location of His ascension) is a result of accounts of seperate appearances. Accounts of the Ascension (in the gospels) are found only in Mark and Luke. Luke is quite specific in saying where Jesus led the apostles before the Ascension (Bethany). Mark, however, starts a new paragraph after describing an encounter with the risen Christ, saying, "So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." I believe the phrase "after the Lord had spoken to them" means after all the appearances that Jesus made to them. This could easily mean some time other than the appearance described in the preceeding paragraph. Dave Bilitch California Institute of Technology dhb@bek-mc.caltech.edu, ...!cit-vax!bek-mc!dhb
stever@videovax.uucp (Steven E. Rice, P.E.) (03/09/87)
In article <9530@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>, Vasu Murty (ln63wmp@sdcc7.UUCP) writes: > ... > Some argued, for example, that although the four gospel accounts > of the Resurrection contradict each other, this isn't important. The > important thing is to understand that Jesus actually did rise from the > dead...all other details are trivial. The only problem with this line > of reasoning is that all our knowledge of the Resurrection comes entirely > from the gospel accounts; if they are contradictory, how do we know they > are to be believed? Here, Vasu asks a very perceptive question! However, we must be careful about statements such as, "all our knowledge of the Resurrection comes entirely from the gospel accounts." There is in fact a wealth of supporting information that comes from other sources. These sources range from the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (men who were taught by the Apostles) to such non-Christian sources as Josephus and the writings of Pliny the Elder. We also must be careful when we look at the Bible to avoid creating "contradictions" where none exist. There are several principles that must be observed when studying any literary work. If these principles are ignored, the analysis is worthless. 1. The author must be given the benefit of the doubt in situations where there appear to be contradictions in his work. This does not mean that obvious contradictions should be ignored -- just that where two or more interpretations are possible, it is necessary to choose the one that is most favorable to the author's work. As an example of the violence that can be done if this principle is ignored, look with me at my college physics textbook (Halliday and Resnick, _Physics_, Parts I and II, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1966). On page 142, the authors say that the kinetic energy of a moving body is: K = (1/2) * m * (v^2) But on page 172, they say that a moving body's kinetic energy is: K = (m - mzero) * (c^2) In the first equation, the kinetic energy is dependent upon the velocity of the body in question, while in the second, it is dependent upon the speed of light! And where did the constant 1/2 go? A clear case of contradiction! Hang 'em! Hang 'em! But, in actual fact the first equation (the classical formulation) is simply a special case of the second (the relativistic formulation). Substituting the equation for relativistic mass into the second form and applying the binomial theorem (with the assumption that velocity, v, is small compared to the speed of light, c) produces the first result. Since God is the overall Author of Scripture, it is necessary to choose interpretations of Biblical passages that do not contain within them assumptions that create contradictions. Where two or more interpretations are possible, we must choose the one that does *not* cause Scripture to contradict itself. 2. Works of literature are written in the style of their era and reflect the customs of the era. It is necessary to understand, for example, that the idea of a quotation being an exact, word-for-word copy of what someone wrote or said, set off by funny little marks (") is *not* universal! Before printing presses, copies of books were extremely expensive. Only the wealthy could own a single book, let alone a shelf full. In such a setting, quotations usually presented a distillation of the meaning of that which was quoted, rather than the exact words of the original source. 3. Unless there is clear reason to treat them otherwise, passages of a work should be treated as they are presented in the work. If a passage is historical in form, it should be treated as historical unless there are very good reasons to view it as allegorical. Unfortunately, too many Christians attempt to eliminate their own concerns about Scripture by "spiritualizing" anything they find difficult to accept. > I think it was John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who wrote > that "if there be one mistake in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. > If any part of it is contradictory, it did not come from the God of truth." > Contradictions concerning the Resurrection account cannot, therefore, be > easily dismissed. Again, very true! However, it is necessary to distinguish between real contradictions and those induced by ignoring the principles enumerated above. The fourth paragraph of Vasu's article contains a number of different points. I have broken it up to address the points separately. > Others asserted that the four gospel accounts DO differ, and are > indeed contradictory if read as a single historical document of what > happened, but that they are meant to be read individually as theological > portraits of Jesus...They are not meant to be taken literally. I must > admit, this is a good defense. A good defense? Yes and no. It allows the one who so defines the Gospels to avoid facing any serious questions about the validity of Scripture. But at the same time it leaves one with no basis for belief -- why should I believe something I know to be untrue? The orthodox viewpoint (accepted for nearly 2000 years) is that the Gospels are an accurate portrayal of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. If we follow principle #1 (elucidated above), this is the most reasonable assumption. > However, even the Synoptics (Matt., Mark, > Luke) contradict each other in the most blatant fashion. In Luke, the > disciples think the risen Jesus is an apparition, and he is at great > pains to show them he has a physical body by eating something. Is this an unreasonable reaction? In the first place, the disciples had never known anyone who died and came back to life (not merely died: was crucified, stabbed with a Roman spear, certified dead by Roman soldiers, buried, and left in a sealed, guarded tomb to putrefy for three days!). You may know someone who was "clinically dead" for a few minutes and was resuscitated, but are you personally acquainted with anyone who died, was buried, and on the third day arose from his grave? In the second place, the age Jesus lived in was an extremely superstitious one. The disciples were very much the products of their age. Therefore, they were completely in character when they thought Jesus was an apparition! > He > tells them to remain in Jerusalem until "ye be endued with the power on > high." This contradicts the versions of Matthew and Mark in which he > commands the disciples to go to Galilee. By violating the first principle (above), it is possible to make it seem that the command to remain in Jerusalem violates the command to go to Galilee. But this is hardly necessary! There have been available for a very long time suggested orders of events for the time period from the Resurrection to the Ascension (Assumption). The following is from the "Harmony of the Gospels" found in The Open Bible (publisher is Thomas Nelson, Nashville): 1. The women visit the tomb (early Sunday morning) Matthew 28:1-8; Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24-1:11 2. Peter and John see the empty tomb Luke 24:12; John 20:1-10 3. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene Mark 16:9-11; John 20:11-18 4. Jesus appears to the other women Matthew 28:9-10 5. The guards report the Resurrection Matthew 28:11-15 6. Jesus appears to two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Sunday afternoon) Mark 16:12-13; Luke 24:13-35; I Corinthians 15:5 7. Jesus appears to ten of the disciples -- Thomas is not there (Sunday evening) Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-25 8. Jesus appears to all eleven disciples (Sunday, one week later) John 20:26-31 9. Jesus appears to seven disciples by the Sea of Galilee John 21:1-25 10. Jesus appears to 500 disciples at once (probably in Galilee) I Corinthians 15:6 11. Jesus gives the Great Commission (back in Jerusalem, having returned from Galilee) Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:15-18; Luke 24:44-49 12. Jesus ascends into Heaven (from the Mount of Olives, near Bethany; both are a mile or so west of Jerusalem) Mark 16:19-20; Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:4-11 Why the long time between the issuance of the command to go up into Galilee and the response? The unbelief of the disciples! The disciples refused to believe the women when they reported seeing Jesus. Although the women *and* ten of the disciples had seen Jesus, Thomas refused to believe until he had seen Jesus, touched him, and satisfied himself that Jesus was not a spirit. Again, this is completely in character with the superstitious age in which they lived. > According to Luke, the > Assumption into Heaven takes place in Bethany; according to Mark, from > a room, presumably in Jerusalem. In Matthew, on a mountainside in > Galilee. According to John, it was on the shores of Lake Tiberias. > The Assumption itself is dismissed in a mere half dozen words! Such > cursory treatment and fantastic contradictions suggest that the whole > story was a garbled invention. Eh? Neither Matthew nor John mention the Assumption (or Ascension) at all! Matthew's Gospel ends with the giving of the Great Commission. Since this Gospel was directed at Jews (most of whom were still in Jerusalem at the time of writing), it wasn't necessary to mention the Ascension -- Acts tells us that the high priest complained that the disciples had "filled Jerusalem" with their teaching (5:28). (See Acts 2-7 and non-Biblical sources such as Josephus for more information about the early days of the Church in Jerusalem.) John wrote his Gospel very late -- about 95 A.D. By this time, almost all of the other New Testament writings were in wide circulation. As with Matthew, it wasn't necessary to write about the Ascension -- the reader would have heard about it from other Christians and have read about it in the Synoptic Gospels. To assert that Mark says that Jesus ascended "from a room, presumably in Jerusalem," requires that Mark 16:19 happen immediately following the events of verses 15-18. But there is no reason to impose this requirement! One violates principle #1 by choosing an alternative that creates a contradiction, when another alternative is available. This choice also violates principle #2, by ignoring the literary style of the age -- in many writings from that era, descriptions of events that happened at different times are concatenated without any clear indication of when each event occurred. This occurs in verses 19 and 20 -- 19 tells of the Ascension and 20 says, "Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere. . ." without mentioning the events leading up to Pentecost, when the disciples first began to preach. Luke says the Ascension took place from the "vicinity of Bethany" (24:50), and Acts says it occurred on the Mount of Olives (1:12). This is no contradiction, as both are a mile or so west of Jerusalem. (In other words, when you are on the Mount of Olives, you are in the vicinity of Bethany!) > I'm willing to consider the possibility > that the gospel accounts are theological portraits if everyone else is > equally willing to consider the possibility that the story of the > Resurrection might be a fabrication. I hope Vasu will consider a third possibility -- that the accounts are true as they stand! It is important to beware of the tunnel vision that focuses on an apparent problem and excludes the vast areas of Scripture where no problems are found. Rather than fixating on the Hebrew word "almah" in Isaiah 7:14, skip on down to Isaiah 53. Read, in words written hundreds of years before Christ, of One who was "despised and rejected by men," who was "pierced for our transgressions," who was "assigned a grave with the wicked [crucified with two common criminals], and with the rich [Joseph of Arimathea, in whose tomb he was laid] in his death." Having said this, it is important to follow up by saying that God welcomes honest inquiry! In Acts we read, "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true" (17:11, NIV). (The Bereans were comparing what Paul was teaching with the Hebrew Scriptures, which Christians call the Old Testament.) If it was "noble" for the Bereans to "examine the Scriptures," then it is also perfectly acceptable for us to do so! However, any examination of Scripture must be honest inquiry that begins from a proper base. The writer of Hebrews declares that "anyone who comes to [God] must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him" (11:6). This is an echo of Jeremiah the prophet, who declared the word of the Lord, "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart" (29:13). If the purpose of examining Scripture is not to find God, but just an intellectual exercise, there can be no success: We have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. . . . The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. I Corinthians 2:12,14 (NIV) Finally, beware of examining Scripture in an attempt to discredit it or in order to find reasons to disbelieve! The result of dishonest use of Scripture is destruction: Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction. . . Galatians 6:7-8 (NIV) John said that the purpose of his Gospel was "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31, NIV). But there is a terrible alternative for those who refuse to believe, found in a passage that most know only partially: For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's only begotten Son. John 3:16-18 (NIV) Vasu had many more questions about apparent contradictions in subsequent paragraphs of his article, all of which are resolvable. (They are not resolvable in this article, however! This may already be too long for our moderator to swallow. . .) Steve Rice ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- {decvax | hplabs | ihnp4 | uw-beaver}!tektronix!videovax!stever
dlh@cbdkc1.UUCP (Don L. Hayes CB 1K336 x4289 KBR) (03/09/87)
[This article is a response to a posting from jeh, that hypothesized that Jesus had not really died on the cross. His theory is that Jesus and Judas arranged Jesus' ministry so as to carry out OT prophecy. The crucifixion was nothing something they intended. It also comments that the Vatican has material that it is suppressing. --clh] Diversity in views is always welcome by open minded individuals. However, let's not stray to far from the bibical facts. Luke, the physician, and Matthew, the tax collector, were a members of the "crew." So I would conclude from Luke's profession that he was a scholar. By studing the book of Matthew and examining the style in which it is written, one can conclude that Matthew was an Old Testament scholar. (N.B. the references to O.T.) Consider the chain of events up to when Judas entered into the plot. - John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus - Christ's Wilderness adventure - Christ's preaching in Samaria, Galilee and Nazareth, and the circumstances surrounding the events. - The discourse of Christ and Nicodemus, the Pharisees and ruler of the Jews. If Judas was up on prophesies then he should have realized the persecution that Christ would suffer as illustrated in the prophesies of Isaiah. I do not recall ever reading about Jesus being poked in the knee, however their is a reference about a spear in the side. Could this be what is referred to? and was this done to test his vitality? Also consider the natural environment and the changes reported when Jesus was around. Some of these things could not be staged or predicted. People sometimes interpret things the way they want them to be interpreted. But their must be a bases of interpretation and the base can not be altered to make a point at least by scholars. The Vatican collects religious materials but that does not mean that everything that is collected is biblical. I would agree that editing is dependent on the version of the Bible you read. A scholar would seek the closest to the originals.