This page has been visited
I copied this document from an internet site that has since
disappeared. I do not claim authorship of this, but feel that
it is important that this information be on the internet for
inquirying souls.
The "Inerrancy" of the Bible -
God creates animals and then man - Gen 1:25-26
God creates man and then the animals - Gen 2:18-19
Arpachshad's son was Shelah - Gen 11:12
Arpachshad's grandson was Shelah - Luke 3:35-36
Noah takes 7 pairs of each type of animal onto the ark - Gen 7:2-3
Noah takes one pair of animal onto the ark - Gen 6:19
Terah's lifespan.
According to Gen 11:26, Terah was 70 when Abraham was born and
Abraham was 75 when he left Haran. Therefore Terah was 145 years
old when Abraham left Haran (70 + 75). Since Gen. 11:32 states
that he lived 205 years, that is at least 60 years longer than
Acts 7:4 which states that Terah was dead when Abraham left Haran.
God promises Abraham the land of Canaan to live in - Gen 17:8
God did not allow Abraham to live in the promised land - Acts 7:5,
Heb 11:8,9,13
Jacob's offspring in Egypt totalled 70 - Gen 46:26-27, Ex 1:5
Jacob's offspring in Egypt totalled 75 - Acts 7:14
Jacob was buried in a cave in Machpelah's field that was bought
from Ephron the Hittite - Gen 50:13
Jacob was buried in a tomb at Shechem bought from the sons of
Hamor - Acts 7:15-16
The Hebrews dwelt in Egypt for 430 years - Ex 2:40
The Hebrews dwelt in Egypt for 400 years - Acts 7:6
God's plague kills 23,000 - Num 25:9
God's plague kills 24,000 - 1 Cor 10:8
The Hebrews' journeying - Mount Hor (where Aaron dies), Zalmonah,
Punon - Num 33:37,38,41,42
The Hebrews' journeying - Beeroth Benejaakan, Moserah (where
Aaron dies), Gudgodah, Jotbathah - Deut 10:6,7
Solomon's reign.
Acts 13:16-22 numbers the years from when the Hebrews left
Egypt to David beginning his reign as 40 (Wilderness) + 450
(Judges) + 40 (Saul) = 530 years. According to 1 Chron 29:27,
David reigned 40 years, so Solomon became king (when David
died) 530 + 40 years (of David's reign) = 570 years.
However, 1 Kings 6:1 states Solomon's 4th year of rule
(when he began the Temple building) was 480 years after the
Hebrews left Egypt, ie. he began his rule 476 years after
the Hebrews left. Thus, there is a contradiction of 94 years.
Saul inquired of God, but God did not answer him - 1 Samuel 28:6
Saul died because he did not seek guidance from God - 1 Chron. 10:13,14
Jesse had seven children - 1 Sam 16:10-13
Jesse had eight children - 1 Chron 2:13-15
David slays Goliath - 1 Sam 17:4,7,50
Elhanan slays Goliath - 2 Sam 21:19
Asa removes the high places - 2 Chron 14:2
Asa did not remove the high places - 1 Kings 15:11-14
Uzzah dies at the threshing-floor of Nacon - 2 Samuel 6:6
Uzzah dies at the threshing-floor of Chidon - 1 Chron 13:9
David takes 1700 horsemen - 2 Sam 8:4
David takes 7000 horsemen - 1 Chron 18:4
David destroys 700 chariots - 2 Sam 10:18
David destroys 7000 chariots - 1 Chron 19:18
Satan incites David to number the people - 1 Chron 21:1
God incites David to number the people - 2 Sam 24:1
Joab's numbering of the army. 1,100,00 soldiers in Israel;
470,000 soldiers in Judah - 1 Chron 21:5
Joab's numbering of the army. 800,000 soldiers in Israel;
500,000 in Judah - 2 Sam 24:9
David buys the land for the altar from Ornan for 600 shekels
of gold - 1 Chron 21:24-25
David buys the land for the altar from Araunah for 50 shekels
- 2 Sam 24:24
Solomon had 4,000 stalls and 12,000 horsemen - 2 Chron 9:25
Solomon had 40,000 stalls and 12,000 horsemen - 1 Kings 4:26
The Temple pillars were 18 cubits - 1 Kings 7:15
The Temple pillars were 35 cubits - 2 Chron 3:15
The molten sea held 2000 baths - 1 Kings 7:23,26
The molten sea held 3000 baths - 2 Chron 4:2,5
The importance of wisdom - Proverbs 4:7
The unimportance of wisdom - 1 Cor 1:19
The joy of wisdom - Proverbs 3:13-15
The misery of wisdom - Ecc 1:18
How the righteous suffer like the wicked - Ecc 9:2, Isaiah 57:1
How the righteous flourish - Psalm 92:12-13
No ills befall the righteous - Proverbs 12:21
How the righteous suffer - Job 12:4,6, Hebrews 11:35-37
The wicked will die prematurely and will suffer. - Psalm 55:23,
Proverbs 10:27, Job 18:5,11,18,19
The wicked lifespan is long and they enjoy life - Psalm 73:3-5,12,
Job 21:7-9
Man is to be holy - Leviticus 11:44, 19:2, 20:7
Only God is holy - Revelation 15:4
Drinking alcohol is acceptable - Deuteronomy 14:26, John 2:7-11,
1 Timothy 5:23
Drinking alcohol is not acceptable - Proverbs 20:1, 23:31-34,
Hosea 20:1
Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began his reign - 2 Chron 36:9
Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he began his reign - 2 Kings 24:8
The captain takes 5 men of the king's council - 2 Kings 25:19
The captain takes 7 men of the king's council - Jeremiah 52:25
Baasha dies, his son Ela begins to reign over Israel in the
26th year of king Asa of Judah - 1 Kings 16:6,8
In the 36th year of Asa's reign, Baasha attacks Judah 2 Chron 16:1
- Also, 2 Chron has Baasha still fighting 10 years after
1 Kings says he died!
Man judged/saved by faith - John 3:15,16,36, 5:24, 20:31,
Acts 2:21, 16:30,31, Rom 1:17, 5:1,9,11,18, 10:9, Gal 2:16,
Phil 3:9, Eph 2:8,9
Man judged/saved by works and lifestyle - Psalm 62:12,
Proverbs 24:12, Matthew 7:21, 16:27, 19:16,17, 25:31-46,
Luke 14;13-14, John 5:29, Acts 10:35, Rom. 2:6,7,9,10,
1 Cor 3:8
One of the disciples was lost - John 17:12
None of the disciple were lost - John 18:9
No man can retain the spirit after death - Eccles 8:8
Peter restores spirit of Tabitha after death - Acts 9:37,40
Believers not to worry about providing for family -
Luke 14:26,33, 18:29,30
Believers must provide for family - 1 Timothy 5:8
The law/commandments to remain for ever - Matthew 5:17-19,
Luke 16:17
The law has ended - Romans 7:4, Eph 2:15, Col 2:14
Simon and Andrew's home was in Capernaum - Mark 1:21,29
Simon and Andrew's home was in Bethsaida - John 1:44
Everyone sins - 2 Chronicles 6:36, Ecclesiastes 7:20,
Rom 3:10,12,23
Believers do not sin - 1 John 3:6,9, 5:18
Abraham was justified by faith - Rom 4:1-5
Abraham was justified by works - James 2:22-24
Man does not die for his ancestors' sin - Deut 24:16,
2 Kings 14:6, Ezek 18:20
Man does die for his ancestors' sin - Ex 20:5, 34:6-7,
2 Sam 12:13-18, Isa 14:21, Rom 5:12,19, 1 Cor 15:22
Elijah and Moses appear centuries after they died - Mark 9:2-4
Only God is immortal - 1 Tim 6:15-16
The Holy Spirit given on Easter Sunday - John 20:19,22
The Holy Spirit given at Pentecost - Acts 2:1-4
The Holy Spirit not given until Jesus' death. John 7:39
The Holy Spirit given before Jesus' birth. Luke 1:41,67
Judas dies by hanging himself - Matt 27:5-7
Judas dies by falling and bursting open - Acts 1:18
God is impartial towards people - Acts 10:34, Rom 2:11, Gal 2:8,
Eph 6:9
God is partial towards people - Rom 8:29-30, 9:11-13,
Matt 10:5-6, 15:22-25, Luke 1:30
Those without the law, will perish without it. Rom 2:12
Where there is no law, there can be no transgression - Rom 4:15
Salvation only available to a few who have been chosen
- Matt 7:14, 22:14, Luke 12:32, 13:24, John 6:37,65,
15:16,19, Rom 8:29, 9:11-23, Eph 1:4
Salvation available to those who want it - Matt 7:7,8,
11:28, John 3:16, 5:40, 7:37, Acts 2:21, Rev 3:20
Prov 16:4 states God actually made the unsaved for 'the day
of trouble' (ie. damnation). In contrast to texts that state
Jesus died for the elect/a small number, there are others
that confirm, or at least suggest that everyone will be
saved by Christ - John 1:29, 4:42, 1 Cor 15:29, Heb 2:9,
1 John 4:14.
Satan is free to act as he pleases - Job 1:6-7, 2:1-2,
Zech 3:1, Matt 4:1, 1 Pet 5:8
The rebellious angels are chained up - Jude 6
No one born of God sins - 1 John 3:9
Everyone sins - Rom 3:23, 1 John 1:8
No one is righteous - Rom 3:10
There are righteous - James 5:16
The sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is unforgiveable
- Matt 12:32, Mark 3:29
God forgives all sins - 1 John 1:7
Love your enemies - Matt 5:44
Refuse to greet your enemies - 2 John 10, enemies are cursed
by Paul - Gal 1:9, Paul asks that his enemies mutilate
themselves - Gal 5:12
Those who go into the grave will never arise - Job 7:7,9,
14:10,12
Those who go into the grave will arise - John 5:28-29,
11:24, 1 Cor 15:12-18,20-23,52, Rev 20:4
The dead are unconscious - Job 14:12, Ecc 9:5, Dan 12:2
The dead are conscious - Mark 9:4, Luke 16:22-23, Rev 6:9-10
The earth will exist for ever - Ecc 1:4
The earth will be destroyed - 2 Pet 3:10
No one has ever seen God - Ex 33:17,20, John 1:18, 1 Tim 6:15-16
People have seen God - Gen 32:30, Ex 24:9-10, 33:11,21-23,
Isa 6:5, Deut 5:24, Amos 9:1
God is not responsible for confusion - 1 Cor 14:33
God is responsible for confusion - Isa 45:7
God can do anything - Mark 10:27, Luke 1:37
God is limited in what he can do - Judges 1:19, Mark 6:5-6
God wants everyone to be saved - 1 Tim 2:3-4, 2 Pet 3:9
God does not want everyone to be saved - Prov 16:4,
Mark 4:11-12, Rom 9:18, 2 Thess 2:11
The returnees from Babylonian exile in 537/536 BCE.
42,360 in Ezra 2:64.
29,818 in Ezra 2:3-60.
31,089 in Nehemiah 7:7-65.
God is not angry for long - Psa 30:5, 103:9, Micah 7:18
God is angry for a long time - Num 32:13, Rev. 14:11, 20:10
God never lies and hates lying - Ex 23:1, Num 23:19, Prov 12:22,
Titus 1:2
God himself lies - 1 Kings 22:23, 2 Chron 18:22, 2 Thess 2:11
God does not repent (ie. regret an action/change his mind) -
Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29, Mal 3:6
God does repent (ie. regret an action/change his mind)
- Gen 6:6-7, Ex 32:14, 1 Sam 15:35, 2 Sam 24:16, 1 Chron 21:15,
Jer 18:8,10, 26:3,13,19, 42:10, Ezek 24:14, Joel 2:13, Amos 7:3,
Jonah 3:10
The earth has no foundation - Job 26:7
The earth does have foundations - 1 Sam 2:8, Psa 104:5
God feeds and cares for all life - Psa 145:15-16
God does not feed and care for all life - Deut 28:48,
Isa 5:13, 8:21, 50:2
God is warlike - Ex 15:3, Psa 24:8, Rev 19:11,13
Man should be peaceful - as God is - Matt 5:9, John 14:27,
Rom 15:33, 2 Thess 3:16
Graven images not to be made - Ex 20:4
Graven images are to be made - Ex 25:18
The earth is God/Jesus' - Psa 24:1, 1 Cor 10:26, Rev 1:5
The earth is the devil's - John 12:31, 2 Cor 4:4
God dwells in light - Psa 104:1,2, 1 Tim 6:15-16, 1 John 1:5
God dwells in darkness - 1 Kings 8:12, 2 Chron 6:1, Psa 18:11,
Psa 97:1-2
God is gracious, loving, merciful, good, forgiving, and perfect
- Ex 34:6, Deut 32:4, 2 Sam 22:31, Psa 86:5, 100:5, 106:1,
111:4,7, 136:1, 145:8-9, Lam 3:33, Joel 2:13, Hab 1:12-13,
Mark 10:18, 1 John 4:8,16
God slaughters, is vengeful, does evil, defiles, destroys and
creates woes - Ex 32:14, Num 31:1-18, Deut 2:30,34, 7:2,16,
20:10-20, 1 Sam 6:19, Job 42:11, Isa 45:7, Jer 18:5,8,11,
26:3,13,19, 42:10-11, Lam 3:38, Ezek 6:12-13, 20:25-26,
Amos 3:6, Nahum 1:2, Jonah 3:10
God sees everything and is omnipresent - Psa 11:4, Prov 15:3,
Job 34:21, Jer 16:17, 23:24, Heb 4:13
God does not see everything and is not omnipresent -
Gen 3:9-10, 11:5, 18:20-21, Ex 3:8, 19:11, 18,20, Micah 1:3
God did not dwell in the house (Temple) Solomon built - Acts 7:48
God did dwell in the house (Temple) that Solomon built - 1 Kings 8:13
God is always near - Psa 46:1, 145:14, 18-19, James 4:8
God is not always near - 1 Sam 28:6, Psa 10:1, 22:1,2, Matt 27:46
God creates all life out of the waters - Gen 1:20-21
God creates all life out of the earth - Gen 2:19
The doers of the law will be justified - Rom 2:13
No one is justified by the law - Rom 3:20
Disciples will be persecuted and martyred. Luke 21:16,
Acts 7:59-60, 8:1, Rev 6:9
Disciples will not be harmed - Luke 21:18
Christians to obey authorities - Rom 13;1, 1 Pet 2:13-14
Christians to obey God rather than authorities - Acts 5:29
Disciples given power to cure all ills - Matt 10:1, Luke 9:1
Disciples could not cure all ills - Matt 17:18-20
God's word and law abides for ever - Matt 5:18, 1 Pet 1:25
God's word and law has been cancelled - Eph 2:15, Col 2:14
Governors are God's ministers for the good and protect the
innocent - Rom 13:1,3, 1 Pet 2:13-14
The Governor Pontius Pilate has Jesus crucified - Mark 15:15,
Luke 23:11,24,25, John 19:1,6
The coming kingdom of God will be visible - Daniel 2:44
The coming kingdom of God will not be visible - Luke 17:20-21
God is spirit - John 4:24God has feet - Psa 18:9, arms - Jer 27:5,
wings - Psa 36:7, eyes - Deut 11:12, Psa 34:15, a mouth - Isa 1:20,
Deut 8:3, ears - 2 Chron 6:40, a nose - Ex 15:8, a heart - Gen 6:6,
legs - Gen 3:8
The Bible teaches forgiveness. Matt 6:14-15, Rom 12:17-19,
Eph 4:32, Col 3:13
The Bible teaches punishment and vengeance - Gen 9:6,
Ex 21:23-25,29, Lev 24;16,23
God is one - Deut 6:4
God is plural - Gen 1:26, 11:6,7, Isa 6:8
The (Incomplete) Flood.
Gen 6:4 refers to a race called the Nephilim. Later in Gen 7:11-24
there is the account of the Flood in which "every living thing"
was killed (7:23) except Noah and his family; however, in Num 13:33
the Nephilim are still around!
The families of Japheth, Ham, and Shem all have their own
languages - Gen 10:5,20,31
There is only one language over the whole earth. Gen 11:1
Midianites who sell Joseph to Potiphar - Gen 37:36
Ishmaelites who sell Joseph to Potiphar - Gen 39:1
Levites to serve from age 30 to 50 - Num 3:3,23,30,35,39,43,47
Levites to serve from age 25 to 50 - Num 8:23
Sisera killed whilst asleep - Jud 4:20-21
Sisera killed whilst standing and drinking milk - Jud 5:25-27
God's attributes are unknowable - Job 11:7-9
God's attributes are knowable - Rom 1:20
Beersheba given its name by Abraham - Gen 21:31-33
Beersheba given its name by Isaac - Gen 26:32-33
Saul killed by an Amalekite - 2 Sam 1:5-10
Saul killed by Philistines - 2 Sam 21:22
There were 3300 chief officers on Temple building - 1 Kings 5:16
There were 3600 chief officers on Temple building - 2 Chron 2:18
There were 550 who had charge of the people - 1 Kings 9:23
There were 250 who had charge of the people - 2 Chron 8:10
Jehoshaphat removed the high places - 2 Chron 17:1,6
Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places - 2 Chron 20:31,33
Zedekiah was Jehoiachin's brother - 2 Chron 36:9-10
Zedekiah was Jehoiachin's uncle - 2 Kings 24:17
The sundial to go back 10 degrees as a sign that God would
heal Hezekiah's boil - 2 Kings 20:7-11
The sundial to go back 10 degrees as a sign God would defend
the city against the Assyrians -Isa 38:4-8
The rich cannot enter heaven; the kingdom of God is for the poor
- Luke 6:20, Matt 19:24, James 5:1
God rewards by bestowing wealth and disciples can be rich -
Job 42:10, Matt 27:57
Satan entered Judas at the last supper - John 13:27
Satan entered Judas before the last supper - Luke 22:1-3
Food offered to idols should be avoided - Acts 15:29
It is of no importance if food offered to idols is eaten -
1 Cor 8:1,4,7,8
Christ is the only master - Matt 23:10
Employers are masters - Eph 6:5,9
There were six generations inclusive between Joram and Jotham -
1 Chron 3:11-12
There were three generations inclusive between Joram and Jotham -
Matt 1:8-9
Believers will be deceived into leaving the faith - 1 Tim 4:1,
Heb 6:4-6, Gal 3:1, Rev 2:5
God will protect believers from being led astray - Psa 31:23,
37:28,32,33, John 10:27-29
Moses was inarticulate - Ex 4:10
Moses was not inarticulate - Acts 7:22
Only God is to be called 'father' - Matt 23:9
Various people can be called 'father' - 1 Cor 10:1, Eph 6:1-4,
1 John 2:13-14, Matt 15:4
Prepare your defence if challenged for your faith. 1 Pet 3:15
Don't bother beforehand about what is to be said if
challenged for your faith - Mark 13:11
God instructs man to live on vegetarian diet - Gen 1:29-30
Any food can be eaten - Gen 9:3, Acts 10:12-13, Rom 14:2
Martyred believers cry out for vengeance - Rev 6:9-10
Believers should love/forgive their enemies - Matt 5:44, 6:15,
18:32-35, Luke 6:27-28
Mary and Martha's home.
In Luke 10:38-42, Mary and Martha's home is between Samaria
(mentioned in 9:57) and Jericho (mentioned in 18:35). It is
after leaving Jericho (that was AFTER where they lived) that
Jesus reaches Bethany (19:29). However, according to John
(11:18-20, 12:1-3), their home was in Bethany.
It is wrong to judge others - Matt 7:1, Luke 6:37, Rom 2:1, 14:10
Others can be judged - Matt 23:13-33, John 8:44, Rom 1:27,29-32
At the feeding of the 5000, 200 denarii would have fed the crowd -
Mark 6:37
At the feeding of the 5000, 200 denarii would not have fed the
crowd - John 6:7
God tells Zedekiah he will be captured but die peacefully - Jer 34:2-5
Zedekiah is capture, has his eyes taken out and is imprisoned to
the day he dies - Jer 52:10-11
The Gospel not to be taken to the Samaritans - Matt 10:5-6
The Gospel taken to the Samaritans - John 4:4-41, Acts 8:5,14,15,25
Abraham had only two sons, Ishmael and Isaac - Gal. 4:22
Abraham had six other sons by Keturah - Gen. 25:1-3
Women are to be obedient and submissive to men - 1 Cor 11:3,7-9,
14:33-35, Eph 5:22-24, 1 Tim 2:11-15, Titus 2:4-5, 1 Pet 3:21
There are no sexes in Christ as both are "one" - Gal 3:28
Stephen says the Jews persecuted the prophets and killed those
who foretold Christ's coming - Acts 7:52
Moses was a prophet who foretold Christ's coming (eg. Acts 7:37)
but was not killed - Deut 34:5,8; David was also a prophet
(Acts 2:25,30), but he also died naturally
The BIBLICAL TEXT.
There was actually a long dark tunnel period between the
writings of the New Testament writings and them being treated as
Holy Writ. The first earliest papyri is Rylands P52 dated ca.
l40 CE but this only has just six verses of John. In fact the
first complete MSS of the NT are 4th century (Sinaiticus and
Vaticanus). All NT writings were apparently written in Greek -
not the language that Palestinian Jews would have used. There
was clearly tampering with the text in this tunnel period -
Eusebius admits this was so - H.E. 29.6-7. The differences
between the Byzantine, Alexandrian and Caesarean text show
copyists changed the text (eg. Acts 2:l7 in the Western text).
The 3rd century Christian writer Origen condemned such Christians
for "their depraved audacity" in changing the text. Jerome told
Pope Damascus of the "numerous errors" that had arisen in the
texts through attempted harmonising. In 1707 John Mill of Oxford
listed 30,000 variants in the different N.T texts and at the
beginning of this century with further discoveries of manuscripts,
the scholar Herman von Soden listed some 45,000 variants in the NT
texts illustating how they were altered. Even in the one 4th
century Codex Sinaiticus containing all the NT, Prof. Tishendorf
the discoverer, noted that it had been altered by at least three
different scribes. Therefore this shows the present-day Bible
is not a "inerrant copy" of the original writings, and secondly
cannot be "God's inspired word" as presumably if this were so,
God would have ensured such alteration could not have been made.
NT WRITINGS. There is also the question of the writings in the
New Testament canon which were not accepted by the early
Christians (James, Hebrews, Revelation), but are now accepted,
and that Christians reject the writings the early Christians did
accept and used (eg. Hermas, Barnabas, the Didache). This in
itself shows the church is not interested in sustaining the
'original faith' and has chosen the writings that suits its own
teachings. This is all apart from the fact that the church did
not even agree to the 27 writings now in the N.T. until
Athanasius' Easter Letter of 367 AD, but even then, he STILL
recommended the reading of non-canonical writings (eg. The
Didache), and furthermore, the dispute continued right on to the
9th century, as is seen by the church lists of accepted writings.
The Biblical picture of God can hardly be reconciled with
Christian teaching that "God is love", eg.
All forms of life destroyed because of one imperfect species -
Gen 6:5,7, 7:23
Human sacrifice commanded by God - Leviticus 27:28,29.
Under inspiration of God's Spirit, Jephthah agrees to sacrifice
his daughter as a thanksgiving - Judges 11;29-40.
God sends ten plagues on Egypt because Pharaoh won't release the
Hebrews, but he deliberately hardens Pharaoh's heart so he
refuses to release the Hebrews in the first place, making these
plagues necessary - God admits this is so he can perform 'his
wonders' (Exodus 11:9), ie. wholesale mass slaughter of life in
Egypt - Exodus 7:3-4,13-14, 10:1,20.
God sanctions slavery and a man selling his daughter - Ex. 21:2-6,7.
Death demanded for heresy - Deuteronomy 13:1,2,5,14,15.
God says that if a man strikes 'his slave', male or female, and
they do not die immediately, the man shall not be punished because
'the slave is his money (ie. property)' - Exodus 21:20-21.
God orders people to slaughter their own relatives because they
rejected Moses' religion (3000 killed). Moses tells the killers
that God would bless them for doing this by making them ordained
for his service - Exodus 32:27-29.
A person to kill their own family for a difference of religion -
Deuteronomy 13:6-10.
God demands death for anyone not circumcised - Genesis 17:9-14.
God demands the sick are to be driven out of the community -
Numbers 5:1-4.
God burns people to death for complaining- Numbers 11:1
God kills 24,000 people by a plague because one person brought a
Midianite woman to his tent - Numbers 25:6-9.
The curses of God upon the Hebrews (eg. eating their own children) -
Leviticus 26:14-39, Deuteronomy 28:15-68.
God arranges the Midianite slaughter - Judges 7:2,9,22. (Note:
Numbers 31:l-l8 states that God instructed the mass slaughter of
Midianites, and the Lord "slew every male", alongwith their rulers
(31:7), and the Midianite women and children and animals were
captured; Moses then demanded all the males, including babies and
the women were to be slaughtered, but the young girls could be
"kept alive for yourselves" (31:18). This story records the
extermination of the Midianites, but later on, God AGAIN instructs
the slaugher of the Midianites (Judges 6:16), It is the same with
the Amalekites - they are "ALL destroyed" in 1 Samuel 15:8, but
they are destroyed yet again in 1 Samuel 27:8-9 and everyone (men
and women) are killed; however, they are killed (for the 3rd time!)
in 1 Samuel 30:1,l6ff except for 400 young men. At long last, they
are are finally killed off in 1 Chronicles 4:43 when the 'remnant'
were destroyed.
NASTY STUFF YOU MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN WAS IN YOUR FAMILY BIBLE
The Spirit of God comes upon Samson and he murders over a thousand
people - Judges 14:19, 15:14-15.
The Psalmist praises God for his 'steadfast love' but then
details his slaughtering in the past - Psalm 136:10-21.
God deliberately deludes people so they will not be saved -
2 Thess 2:11-12.
A girl not found to be a virgin was to be killed - Deut. 22:13-21
(Note the same did not apply to men!).
God kills an innocent baby for its father's wrong doing -
ignoring the father's pleas - 2 Samuel 12:15-20
God kills 70,000 men - 2 Samuel 24:15
NB. most of the Pentateuchal battles were ordered by Moses -
however he was only God's mouthpiece (Numbers 12:6-8). He also
has an important role in the New Testament - Matthew 17:1-4,
Hebrews 3:2,5, 11:23-29, Rev 15:3).
God has a friendly meeting with his arch enemy Satan (whom he
doesn't even recognise) Job 1:6-7, and they have a wager
(Job 1:8-12) over how much suffering it would take before
righteous Job will reject God. Job then has his whole family
killed and livelihood ruined (1:13-19) and then is afflicted by a
loathsome plague (2:7-8).
The Christian god (1).
The Bible presents an interesting picture of God, ie. a god who
never changes (Malachi 3:6) but actually does frequently change
his mind and even regrets what he's done ("repents") -
Gen 6:6,7, Ex 32:l4, l Sam l5:35, 2 Sam 24:l6, l Chron 21:l5, Jer
l8:8,l0, 26:3,l3,l9, 42:l0, Ezek 24:l4, Joel 2:l3, Amos 7:3.
Although it is to be noted that Numbers 23:l9 and l Samuel 15:2
say that God never repents...
It states God is "spirit", ie. non-physical (John 4:24) and yet
he is always called 'him' or 'he' as if he had a male body,
but it also says that although spirit, he has feet (Psalm l8:9),
arms (Jer 27:5), wings (Psa 36:7), hands (Job 27:ll), eyes
(Deut 8:3), a mouth (Isa l:20), ears (2 Chron 6:40), nostrils
(Ex l5:8) and legs (Gen 3:8). He also uses a razor - Isa 7:20.
He also occasionally roars (Joel 3:l6) and sometimes he even
whistles (Isa 5:26)! Although he has never been seen (John l:l8),
he has actually been seen (Isa 6:l), and he even revealed his
backside to Moses (Exodus 33:21-22).
If the God of the Bible is truly God, then there is a dilemma;
for God to be God, he has to be omnipotent, responsible for the
creation of everything; this includes evil; if he did not
create evil, then he was not wholly creative, and therefore
cannot be God. In fact the Bible does actually say God commits
evil, eg. Exodus 32:l4, 2 Sam 24:l6, 1 Chron 21:l5, Jer l8:8,
26:3,l3,l9, Jonah 3:l0. Furthermore he sends lying spirits
(l Kings 22:23, 2 Chronicles l8:22) and deliberately deceives
people (2 Thessalonians 2:ll). And not only this, he admits to
being responsible for the creation of evil and misery -
Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6 - and that he has deliberately made people
so he can destroy them - Proverbs l6:4.
Christians blame the devil for evil, but the devil and his desire
for power (that supposedly resulted in his fall) must have come
from God in the first place if he created everything; there is
also the "awkward" point that he is hardly mentioned in the Old
Testament - just Job 1:6-12, 2:1-7 where he is called "a son of
God" (!), in 1 Chron 21:1 where he incites the census (although
2 Sam 24:1 says God did this!), and Zechariah where he is only a
prosecuting attorney (3:1-3).
It is also argued that man has free will to choose; firstly,
what about those who have never heard the Christian gospel (and
some might feel they are fortunate!), or are incapable (ie. the
mentally-ill/retarded) or die in infancy; secondly, considering
man's eternal destiny depends upon this, one would have thought
God would have made as better job of it it, ie. a less
contradictory and a clearer Bible (that doesn't even mention God
is a Trinity!), and not literally thousands of sects (all
saying different things) making up the Christian church;
thirdly, if man chooses through this supposed free will to
reject the gospel, but then spends eternity in hell for this,
where is the free will here?
The Christian god (2)
God is hardly consistent - he encourages wisdom (Proverbs 4:7) but
condemns it (l Corinthians l:l9); he protects the righteous
(Proverbs 12:21) but does not (Hebrews ll:36-37); he cuts off the
wicked (Proverbs l0:27) but does not (Job 21:7-9); he commands
respect for parents (Exodus 20:l2) but encourages hatred for them
(Luke 16:9); he blesses peace (Matthew 5:9) but brings war
(Matthew l0:34, Revelation l9:ll).
It continues by saying God will keep the Earth (Ecclesiastes l:4),
but will destroy it (2 Peter 3:l0); is invisible and unseen
(John l:l8, l Timothy 6:l5-l6) but has been seen (Amos 9:l,
Deuteronomy 5:24); he lives in dazzling light (l Timothy
6:l5-l6), but lives in darkness (l Kings 8:l2)...
Christians maintain that God cares for the world, he is
personally involved in it, he has sent his prophets, he has even
taken on human form himself and lived and died as a human
being, he has sent his Holy Spirit, his Word (the Bible) and
manifests himself through his church; however, how is it that so
much suffering prevails in the world?
The Bible has Jesus comparing humans' compassion with God's; he
supposedly pointed out that even a human being 'evil as they are'
would not let their child starve or suffer (Matthew 7:9-13)
therefore we should expect much more from God. This is the real
nonsense; no human being would allow the suffering that goes on in
the world today to continue if they could stop it, but a
supposedly caring, loving, omnipotent god does nothing...
What is one supposed to make of a deity that allows so much
suffering to go on which even a mere frail feeble
inconsistent 'evil' human would stop if they could?
THE ACCURACY OF THE GOSPELS (1).
On examination of passages arising in the four Gospels, it can be
seen that the narrative is composed to suit the theological
viewpoint of the evangelist. When comparing a narrative with its
parallel in another Gospel, or when a narrative only appears in
one Gospel, it becomes obvious that the evangelists had their own
beliefs and attitudes, and these sometimes become obvious. It is
clear that the authors of the Gospels shaped, remoulded, selected
and adapted the material available to them to suit their purpose.
From this it can be seen that the evangelists selected and adapted
the material available to them, so they could write with a special
purpose and objective in mind.
Matt's author, using Mark as a source, wanted to show Jesus'
mission was to the Jews, as their own messiah, but the author of
Luke, also using Mark as a source, wanted to picture Jesus in a
way that his Hellenistic readers would understand and relate to.
The author of John, possibly using Mark or a Ur-Markus, as a
source, or the source of Mark for some of his information, wrote
from a highly individual viewpoint and in this Gospel, the writer's
personal interpretation and authorship becomes most apparent.
Before the resurrection in Matt however, Jesus is shown as being
solely for the Jews; Jesus is pictured as the Jewish messiah, the
descendent of Abraham and the Son of David; his life fulfilled the
OT prophesies and expectations. On occasions the OT texts are
wrestled from their context and used very artificially in Matt.
Whilst pro-Jewish, the author writes against certain Jewish groups
which he felt particular hostility towards. In Luke, Jesus is the
saviour of the world - to Jew, Samaritan and Gentile. Luke's
author makes it clear that from the very beginning, not only
Israel, but the world was blessed by Jesus' appearance on earth.
(2:l4,32). In Luke, Jesus' coming was vital in world history and
history, both past and present had to be shaped around the years
of Jesus' life on earth. Jesus' coming in Luke influences history
as is shown by Jesus' comment in Luke l6:l6 that the law and
prophets were only 'until John'. From this point a new phase in
history begins.
Luke's author was clearly sympathetic to the poor and outcast; he
includes material that teaches this and which is only found in
Luke, eg. the woes against the wealthy (6:24,25), the story of
Lazarus and the Rich man (Luke l6); there is one case where Luke
is detailing the same material as Matt, but a clear change is made
to uphold his view towards the poor - "Blessed are the poor in
spirit...Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness
..." (Matt 5:3,6) but in Luke this is "Blessed are you poor...
Blessed are you that hunger now..." (6:20,21).
Here, as can be clearly seen, the evangelist has deliberately
changed the wording to suit either his spiritual theology (Matt)
or his social theology (Luke). In Luke there is the call by
Jesus to care for the outcast with the promise of reward for doing
this (l4:12-l4), and there is also Jesus' teaching that the
despised classes (in this case a tax collector) were more sincere
and pleasing to God than the so-called religious teachers
(l8:l0-l4).
It has been argued that the Gospels contain 'pillar passages', ie.
statements that conflicted with early church theology and belief
which created problems for the early church, but despite this, the
fact that these were included shows that the evangelists
faithfully recorded these and that they wrote a reliable account
of Jesus' life. One such passage is Mark 3:21 where it is stated
that Jesus' family went out to 'seize him' because of the
accusations of insanity. At first sight this does appear that the
author has included something that puts Jesus' family in a bad
light and it certainly clashes with the church's belief that
Jesus' family later became members of the church (eg. Acts l:l4)
and were later held in high esteem.
However, some commentators believe this is not necessarily
connected with mental instability, and furthermore, the author may
have had in mind the 'prophesy' of Isa 53:3 that the servant would
be despised and rejected of men; indeed Jesus does remind the
disciples that he would suffer contempt (9:l2).
In Mark there is the statement that Jesus could not work miracles
because of unbelief (6:5) and indeed Matt (l3:58) modifies this,
and Luke omits it altogether, but this is not necessarily a
passage that reduces Jesus' stature; Mark repeatedly emphasises
the need to believe in Jesus for his power to be able to manifest
itself - eg. Mark 5:34, l0:52.
Because some passages were included in the Gospels and these may
have embarrassed the church does not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that the evangelists recorded an accurate historical
account of Jesus' life; this is particularly so in view of the
situation in the early church which was not uniform and was very
fluid.
The principal motive of each evangelist in producing a 'Gospel'
was for the preaching of the early church; the Gospels were not
intended to be for general and public circulation and reading.
It is clear that they did write as theologians and not historians
and therefore they cannot be viewed as trustworthy (ie. reliable
and accurate) historians.
In John, hostility against Judaism reaches a peak; by the end of
the first century, Christianity was no longer deemed to be just a
schism in Judaism.
By this time there was an official cursing of the Christians
('Minim') in the synagogues. The Gospel of John therefore
coincides with the mutual feeling between the Jews and early
Christians at the time of being written. In John, the Jews are
pictured as slow, dull-witted, aggressive and hypocritical,
deviating from the original faith. They are prepared to murder
(l2:l0-ll) and are pictured as ignorant of God's word (5:38-40),
without God's love (5:42), accused by Moses (5:45), potential
murderers (8:40), children of the devil who was a murderer and
liar (8:44) and they are even reported as making several attempts
to kill Jesus (8:59, l0:31). The author puts words into their
mouths which could not have been spoken; the statement of 'We have
no king but Caesar' by the chief priests (l9:l5) would have been
a denial of all Jewish theology and history apart from the fact
that a Jewish leader making this statement would soon encounter
the fury of the nationalist Zealots. The author comes very close
to preventing Jesus from being a Jew himself when he writes of
Jesus speaking to the Jews of 'your father Abraham' (8:56),
'your law' (l0:34). He continues his polemic in having the Jews
even asking for leg-breaking after Jesus had died (l9:31) which
results in Pilate instructing this even though it conflicts with
Mark which describes Pilate as being unaware of Jesus' death
(l5:44-45).
John also writes about the expulsion of Christians from the
synagogues and the possibility of executions (9:22, l6:2), which
did not exist in the time that Jesus supposedly lived, but did
exist in the closing years of the first century when the Gospel
was written (ie. the official cursing of the 'Minim' inserted
into the synagogue service under Rabbi Gamaliel, ca. 85 CE).
Another indication that the evangelists have composed stories
about Jesus without historical foundation is their interpretation
of what they considered to be Old Testament 'prophesies'. Because
the author of John understood the Hebrew parallelism of Psa 22:l8
as two completely separate actions, he has the soldiers carrying
out two separate actions (l9:23-24). The other evangelists who
did not misunderstand this, only have one action in the disposal
of Jesus' clothes (Matt 27:35, Mark l5:24, Luke 23:34). In the
same way, the author of Matt misunderstood the parallelism of
Zech 9:9 and had two animals involved in Jesus' entry into
Jerusalem (21:2-7) when in fact there is only one animal being
spoken about. The other evangelists do not make this mistake and
therefore only have one animal - Mark l:2-7, Luke l9:30-35, John
l2:l4-l6.
These examples show that the evangelists, rather than being
historians, were only interested in the theology of what they were
writing about. In these two cases they have deliberately
introduced details to 'agree' what they felt to be an OT prophecy.
One commentator admits that the whole of Jesus' trial is based on
O.T. prophesy; therefore rather than the Christian statement that
the life of Jesus 'fulfilled' O.T. prophesies (although in reality
few are actual 'prophesies'), the very reverse is true - Jesus'
earthly life was built up on these 'prophesies'.
John gives the picture of the Logos in full control of every
situation with his power being considerably greater than the
Synoptics, eg. whilst the Synoptics record resurrections of people
who had only just died (eg. Matt 9:l8), Jesus resurrects a man who
had been dead for four days (ll:l7), the blind man healed was not
like the man who had once seen in the Synoptics (Mark 8:24), but
had been blind from birth (9:l), Jesus carries his own cross
(l9:l7) and does need not this to be carried for him as in the
Synoptics (eg. Matt 27:32). Again, the theological view of John's
author completely overshadows any desire to present a historical
account; his account is to show that Jesus was the Son of God and
historical facts are not relevant. In the same way, the author of
Matt is keen to show that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, while the
authors of Luke and Mark are more concerned with portraying a
Jesus who would be acceptable to Gentiles.
Mark, almost certainly the first Gospel, includes a number of
errors which not only show that the author was not an eyewitness
to the events he so vividly describes (and also, was not based
on anyone else's account who was an eyewitness), but also that
details such as features of the Jewish religion, geography and
chronology were only secondary to his purposes. Mark (1:2) has a
quotation from Malachi 3:l and Isaiah 40:3, but he attributes both
to Isaiah (furthermore he interfered with the poetry by changing
the location of the wilderness), there is a chronological error in
naming Abiathar as the high priest (2:26), Herod is called a king
when he was in fact a tetrach and this is followed by an error
about Philip's wife (6:l4,l7), he attributed a custom of the
strict Pharisees to all the Jews (7:3), his mention of Dalmanutha
in 8:10 indicates he was not very familiar with Palestine, there
is a reference by Jesus to women divorcing their husbands, a
custom not possible in Palestine (l0:12), together with an error
over the timing of the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread
(l4:l,12). On occasions, the author seems to be confused about
Palestinian life.
The errors contained within Mark were 'corrected' by the authors
of Matthew and Luke, and sometimes by later copyists, particularly
when they involved important theological points. It was the same
situation with each of the four evangelists; each one had a
particular motive, each one had a specific theological belief and
each one had a certain group of people in mind for whom their
Gospel was intended.
On occasions, the reason for relating a story not found in the
other three Gospels, or for making a drastic change in it is not
altogether clear. All four Gospels have the story of Jesus being
anointed by a woman; Matt (26:6-l3) and Mark (l4:2-ll) have this
after the entry into Jerusalem, but John has this before, while
Luke has it long before the arrival in Jerusalem during the early
ministry (Luke 7:36-50).
Whilst Luke has the woman anointing Jesus' feet as does John
(l2:3), Matt and Mark have the woman anointing Jesus' head.
Other minor differences occur, eg. Jesus tells Peter of his
denials after leaving the room where the last supper was eaten,
on the way to Gethsemane in Matt (26:30-35) and Mark (l4:26-31),
but in Luke (22:33-34/39) and John (l3:37-38/l8:l), Jesus tells
him before leaving.
In Luke, Jesus is assaulted before the questioning by the
Sanhedrin and the questioning takes place the following morning
(22:63-71), but in Matt (26:57-68/27:l) and Mark (l4:53-65/l5:l)
the assault is immediately after the questioning and this all
takes place before the morning. Presumably there was a reason
for the differences which occur in all four Gospels, but they
have been lost in time.
Differences such as these may arise because of the evangelist
wishing to convey a particular point which is not obvious, or they
may simply arise because of the way the material/tradition was
transmitted and reached the evangelist.
When certain passages are examined, it can be seen what the
evangelist had in mind and furthermore, what he personally viewed
as important. The author of Matt wanted to show that Jesus'
mission was to the Jews. In l5:21-28, Jesus' objection to healing
the Gentile woman's daughter is much more obvious than in Mark
(in Mark, the only time Jesus is called 'Lord' is by this woman -
7:28; here Mark has used the story, which in Matt is anti-Gentile,
to show that it was a Gentile who recognised who Jesus was). Matt
also adds that Jesus said that he had only come 'to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel'. The author of Luke, not only pro-Gentile,
but endeavouring to portray Jesus as humane, omits the whole story.
Jesus instructed his disciples not to go anywhere near Gentiles
or Samaritans, but to go to 'the lost sheep of the house of Israel'
in Matt l0:5-6, but Mark does not include this (6:7ff) and nor
does Luke (9:lff). Luke contradicts this by saying that Jesus
wanted to enter Samaria, but was prevented from doing so by the
inhabitants (9:52-53); also in Luke, Jesus heals a Samaritan
(l7:ll-l6), and Jesus' mission to the Samaritans, which is
precluded in Matt, goes even further in John when Jesus goes into
Samaria and many are converted there (4:4,5,39-42).
It is generally accepted that the seventy disciples sent out in
Luke l0:l was a Gentile mission. Not only did the authors of Matt
and Luke correct the errors in Mark, and the author of John
reinterpret the oral and written material that was the basis for
the Synoptic Gospel account, they also clearly made considerable
changes to Mark. Although some corrections and changes are to
make the account more authentic, the principal cause for the
changes is clearly theological. This can be traced in all four
Gospels, from beginning to end.
Matt begins with a genealogy tracing Jesus back to Abraham through
David (l:l-16) - to show Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, but Luke has
this going back to Adam (3:23-38) to show Jesus' coming was to
save all mankind and not just Israel. This fact is announced just
after the birth in Luke also - 2:28,32. The author of Mark begins
his Gospel very abruptly, whilst the author of John begins his
Gospel by stating that Jesus was the pre-existent Logos, and it is
this portrayal that runs throughout John.
To the end of the Gospels, the personal theological belief,
manner and motivation of each author still manifests itself; in
Mark the resurrection narrative ends as abruptly as the Gospel
begins; the resurrection appearances are not detailed possibly
because the whole message of Mark is faith (Mark 16:9-20 is
generally accepted to be a later addition to avoid the abrupt
ending).
In Matt, the last appearance by Jesus to the disciples is on a
mountain; this may be an attempt to connect Jesus' departure with
Moses' (NB. In Matt, Jesus teaches about the law on a mountain -
5:l,l7-42, which recalls Moses receiving the law on the mountain;
in the Lukan parallel, Jesus did not teach on a mountain, but
rather 'he came down and stood on a level place' and this did not
relate to the law - 6:l7-49; this in itself is an example of how
the evangelists adapted material to illustate a theological point).
The author of Matt endeavoured to show that Jesus did not come to
'end' Judaism, but was a fulfilment of it. In Luke, Jesus'
departure is in the area of Jerusalem where the disciples are to
remain, ie. where it all began.
In John the emphasis was to instil faith in those who already
believed but felt distanced from Jesus by being second or
third-generation Christians (20:29,31).
What has to be borne in mind is the fact that the evangelists
were not only producing their narratives from isolated
disconnected sayings and stories, many of which had survived down
to their time only through oral tradition, their narratives were
also related to the Jesus they believed in, pictured through their
own personal experience; their account was also shaped for the
people for whom it was intended. The Gospels would also reflect
the evangelists' own culture and background. They also had to
deal with factors which had only emerged during their time, eg.
why Jesus had not returned, why Judaism had rejected its Messiah,
how Christianity could be related to Judaism, how Christianity
could show that Jesus was the one foretold in the Old Testament,
and as the church became distanced from the time that Jesus
supposedly lived, the rising importance of the disciples/apostles.
The evangelists cannot therefore be viewed as trustworthy
historians as they saw historical information only as a basis for
the 'Good News' they were attempting to declare. This information
only served as a background for the story they wanted to tell.
As the Gospels are not biographies of Jesus' life, but rather,
compositions for preaching and/or to satisfy the need of a
particular Christian community, their value as "historical"
documents is 'nil'.
The source of Matthew and Luke, although there is still
disagreement over this, appears to have been a mixture of,
(a)the Q document; in fact the authors of Matthew and Luke may not
have used the same document, ie. due to difference in time and
area, one evangelist may have seen a different (eg. expanded) Q
document; the term 'Q' is also used to denote oral as well as
written tradition, and,
(b)Mark; it appears they most probably used the canonical Mark,
and not an earlier edition, and,
(c)their own sources. Both Gospels mainly follow the order in
Mark.
In the case of Luke, more than one-third is material not found
in Mark, but almost one-third of Mark is not found in Luke. The
non-Markan material is principally inserted into two places in
Luke, ie. 6:20-8:3 (the small insertion) and 9:51-l8:l4 (the large
insertion) although there is non-Markan material found in the
sections that do repeat Mark (eg. Luke 3:23-4:l3, 4:l6-30).
In the case of Matthew, half of Matthew is not found in Mark,
whilst over a half of this material is found in Luke; the
remainder appears to be Matthew's author's own material.
This leads to numerous questions, eg. did the authors write,
but then expand on them when coming across Mark (Kummel considers
this unlikely with Luke due to the Markan omissions), or whether
their special material was actually found in Q, but because the
other evangelist chose not to use it, this results in it
appearing to be material only available to them.
It is also argued that the special material in some cases was
not written, but oral tradition; some have gone as far as
suggesting that the material found in only one Gospel, without
parallel in another could even be the author's own thoughts, ie.
they composed stories that they believed would teach the readers
about a subject they considered important, eg. Luke's story of
Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke l6).
A brief examination of both Matt and Luke will show that the
authors were sympathetic to certain ideas, and introduced these
into their Gospels, either by simply rephrasing or rearranging
the material, or by using stories that supported their particular
ideas. Matthew's author clearly wished to show that Jesus'
mission was only to the Jews (l0:5,6,l5:24); in the case of the
Canaanite woman (l5:22-28), Jesus' hostility is far greater in
Matt, than in Mark (7:24-30), but Luke's author chose to omit
this altogether. In Matt the Gentile mission was really only
authorised after the resurrection (28:l9); it is at this point
where the pro-Jewish line is concluded; after the crucifixion the
Jews are pictured as being particularly hostile - eg. approaching
Pilate to authorise a guard on the tomb (27:62-66) and the Jews
bribing guards to say the disciples had stolen the body (28:ll-l5);
the historicity of both incidents has been questioned.
On occasions it is inevitable there would be a clash between
the two evangelists; whilst it would be possible to argue a
certain point that is also argued in the other Gospel, or perhaps
omitted altogether, on occasions the beliefs of the evangelists
do conflict.
Whilst Matt has Jesus telling the disciples to avoid Gentiles
and Samaritan towns, but to go only to the 'lost house of Israel'
(l0:5,6), Luke has Jesus attempting to enter a Samaritan town,
but not doing this only because of Samaritan hostlity due to his
intention to reach Jerusalem (Luke 9:51-53). He also heals a
Samaritan, and Luke's author elevates the Samaritan by pointing
out that he was the only one who expressed gratitude (Luke
l7:ll-l9); there is also the story, only found in Luke, about the
'good Samaritan' who is also elevated above the priest and the
Levite (l0:30-37).
In contrast to the Jewish-only mission of Matt l0, not only
does Luke omit mention of the exclusiveness of this mission
(9:l-6), but it also has a second mission which is usually
understood as a mission specifically for the Gentiles in l0:l-l7
(ie. the number of seventy (or seventy two - as some MSS have)
disciples is significant; the Jews believed this was the number of
Gentile nations). Luke's author stresses the success of the
Gentile mission by having Jesus say that he had seen Satan cast
down when the seventy/seventy-two returned (l0:l8).
Luke's author also amended the Passion narrative; the assault
upon Jesus is made by the prison guards and before his appearance
before the Sanhedrin which takes place the next morning (22:63-7)
unlike Matt's account of Jesus being beaten at the Sanhedrin
hearing which took place at night.
Luke's author rearranged the materal as he saw fit - eg.,
Jesus' anointing occurs at in the early stage (7:36-50) unlike
Matt (with whom Mark and John agree) who detail this in the last
days in Jerusalem (Matt 26:6-l3).
The trial/death of Jesus in the Gospels looks suspect as
although his crime of blasphemy could be punished on a Feastday,
there was no permit to execute theives on a Feast day, but the
Gospels say thieves were executed with him. Yet more evidence of
the ficticious character of the Gospels. Luke's author also makes
other changes, eg. the statement by Jesus to the high priest which
in Matt 26:64 has Jesus saying that the high priest would see his
return is amended to remove any likelihood of this in Luke 22:69.
The cryptic "abomination of desolation" in Matt 24:l5 is made into
Jerusalem's fall in 70 CE, but as Jesus' return was supposed to be
"immediately" after this (Matt 24:29), Luke introduces a
unspecified time-period between the Fall and the Parousia ("the
times of the Gentiles" - 2l:20,24).
Luke takes on the appearance of a travel narrative (9:51-l9:27),
and in this Gospel, the author has the material in a different
order (when compared with Matt), and he presumably did this where
it would have the most impact and be more appropriate. Here is an
example of redaction where the author has consciously adapted his
material to suit his theological motive, ie. Jerusalem is the
starting point for not only Jesus, but also the church, ie. Jesus'
presentation in Jerusalem, his boyhood visit there, his journey
there as part of his ministry, concluding with his crucifixion,
resurrection and ascension in the area with the disciples being
instructed to wait there for the Spirit. It is because of such
endeavours, a conflict is inevitable between Luke and Matt, ie.
the infancy and the resurrection narratives; where both
evangelists had a free hand (ie. before Jesus' ministry began -
Mark 1:1 - and after the visit to the tomb - Mark l6:8 - the
evangelists were no longer obliged to follow Mark, and at these
points the difference becomes the most noticeable.
There are other factors which arise in Matt and Luke that show
rather than being "historical documents", ie. authentic reliable
accounts of historical events, they are compositions where the
theological purpose took priority. Matt in not explaining
references to Jewish customs indicates it was written for a
Jewish audience not requiring explanations; he stresses the
importance and validity of the Law and also uses Jewish
expressions alongwith rabbinic colouring. Luke however is
presenting a Gospel to deal with problems peculiar to his
situation; for his Gentile readers, he improves Mark's Greek.
He also makes changes where necessary, eg. the attitude of
Jesus' family to Jesus, the non-fulfilment of the promise of an
imminent parousia. The author of Luke and Acts also developed a
picture in his writings that showed Christianity presented no
threat to the Romans.
Therefore they are not accurate accounts, but are purely
personal interpretations and presentations of a new faith.
The historicity of Jesus (1)
The church has failed to show any proof that the Gospels were in
existence before 125 CE. This is demonstrated if one looks at the
second century Christian writings:
The author of 1 Clement, an anonymous letter, usually dated as
ca. 96 CE, and attributed to Clement writing from Rome to the
church at Corinth, does not appear to be aware of any written
Gospels. On two occasions he refers to what Jesus had said; in
chap. l3, he repeats the words of Jesus, very similiar to those
in the Gospels, although they are not quotations. In chap 46 he
brings together two unconnected Markan statements (9:21 and l4:21)
and he appears to be quoting loose sayings that were circulating,
but not in a fixed form; this view is strengthened by the fact
that he never refers to Gospel stories, or sayings, when it would
be very appropriate, applicable and would support the argument he
is making; instead he quotes or refers to the OT. Ignatius, ca.
ll0 CE, mentions the Gospel although it again appears he is
referring to the Gospel message, rather than written documents.
He gives much more information about Jesus' life, but as he refers
to things not found in any of the four canonical Gospels, eg. the
story of Jesus speaking after the resurrection, (Smyrn. 3) which
is apparently from the apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews
and not from the canonical Gospels, and he describes the
Bethlehem star in a way that is not found in Matthew (the only
canonical Gospel to mention this), it is not clear what written
Gospel was available to him.
He refers to other N.T. writings, but there is no clear
indication he knew of any written Gospels. In his letter to the
Philippians he uses terms found in Matt and Luke although it is
noteworthy that the author of l John, facing the same Docetic
problem as Ignatius, but at an earlier time, clearly did not have
the biographical information about Jesus, which was available to
Ignatius.
The Epistle of Barnabas ca. l30 CE, uses OT references to
support its contents when NT ones would have been far more
appropriate. It refers to a passage in Matt 20:l6b and 22:l4 and
surprisingly for this early date calls it 'Scripture'; this is
quite unique. However, 20:l6b appears to have been an
interpolation and if it was a loose saying, it is more likely the
author is using Matthew's source, rather than Matthew itself. The
author chose to use the apocryphal Enoch when writing about the
end (instead of Mark l3), and in referring to the crucifixion he
refers to the Psalms, not the Gospels. The Epistle (chap. 7) has
a saying attributed to Jesus not found in the Gospels.
Polycarp, ca. l30 CE, apparently knew Matt and/or Luke and
improves upon Clement's "quotations", but apparently didn't know
of John's Gospel.
Papias, ca. l40 CE, mentions Matthew and Mark in written form,
but not Luke or John and he also made use of non-canonical
apocryphal literature indicating that Matt and Mark were not seen
a sole source of the gospel message.
Justin Martyr, in the middle of the second century, refers to
written Gospels which were deemed as authoritative as the O.T, but
he does not name them, nor state their number so it is not known
what he was referring to. He too, used non-canonical material.
It was only by ca. l70 CE that Tatian was using all four
Gospels for his Diatessaron harmony and about a decade later
Irenaeus was arguing for acceptance of the four canonical Gospels,
and only those.
Therefore it appears that the writings that give Jesus a
historical place only appeared in the closing years of the first
century and even these took quite some time to be established and
accepted. Therefore with regard to Jesus of Nazareth being some
kind of historical person, surely one is justified in asking why
there appears to be so little said by this figure that is
original; for example, a good deal of the Sermon of the Mount
goes back to the OT or lst cent BCE apocryphal writings, eg. the
Book of the Secrets of Enoch. Secondly, why there is the
astounding silence over biographical or chronological details
about Jesus' life until ca. 90 CE. Paul, in the period before
this time, never invokes his words when they would be invaluable
in supporting his argument, and this is not only with Paul, but
elsewhere, eg. l Peter. The authors of Romans l3:l-3 and l Peter
2:l3-l4 certainly couldn't have been aware of the story of Jesus
appearing before Pilate in view of what they say. This silence
continued over into the end of the lst century; in fact when the
author of 1 Clement wrote, he seems to suffer from the same
problem as Paul and others - total ignorance about Jesus and the
Gospels; obviously as is so clearly demonstrated, Christians
always used scripture or suchlike to support any argument they
were making, so is it somewhat bizarre that Clement does not do
this. In chap. 3-6 he lists Abel, Joseph, Moses and David as
examples of people who suffered through jealousy - but surely
Jesus would have been the ideal example of this - Matt 27:l8/
Mark 15:l0? When he speaks about people preaching repentence in
7-8, he uses Ezekiel and Isaiah as examples - but again surely
Jesus would have been the ideal example to use - Luke 13:3,
Matt l8:3? In 9-l2 he lists examples of faith - but yet again
they're all OT and fails to give any Gospel example that would be
more fitting. In l6 he refers to Jesus' humility and one would
expect a reference to his humble birth in a stable, but instead
he quotes from the Old Test again (Isa 53). In chap l7 he speaks
about those dressed in animal skins who announce the coming of
Christ. Surely John the Baptist (Matt3:4)? however he lists the
Old Test prophets Elijah and Ezekiel. And so it goes on...
It is very clear that although the Gospels emerged in the last
decade of the lst century AD, they took a long long time to be
circulated and/or accepted which is strange if they are accurate
reports of Jesus' life. With regard to the eyewitness testimony
for Jesus' existence, there is certainly a problem. It is amazing
that anything up to 70(100?),000 people saw Jesus, but no one made
an eye-witness record of it. Mark was obviously not an eyewitness
due to his host of errors concerning chronological, historical,
geographical and theological matters in lst. century Palestine;
Matt and Luke have to use Mark as their base (which they obviously
wouldn't have needed to do if they were eye witnesses) and in John
(Which even the church only hesitantly accepted into the canon)
reports things that couldn't have happened eg. Jesus' speech about
drinking blood to a Jewish audience in John 6; it has to be
rejected if the Synoptics are accepted as it conflicts with them,
eg. his dating of the Temple-clearing and the last supper etc. in
relation to the Passover. He also reports situations eg.
expulsions from the synagogue (l6:2) that didn't occur until after
90 CE (ie. Rabbi Gamaliel II's official cursing prayer of the
'Minim' in ca. 90 CE). In the case of Paul, he gives virtually no
detail about Jesus' earthly life, other than he was a descendent
of David, was crucified and was raised by God. If Romans, a
genuinely Pauline letter, and the longest, is examined to discern
Paul's reference to Jesus' earthly life, the silence becomes
most apparent:
(l)Jesus was a Jew/descended from David (l:3, l5:8,12);
(2)Jesus was human (8:3);
(3)His blood was shed (3:25, 5:9);
(4)Jesus suffered/died/was crucified (5:6,8,10,l5, 6:3,4,5,6,8,
8:l7, l4:l5);
(5)Jesus rose from the dead (l:4, 4:24,25, 6:4,5,9,l0, 8:ll,34,
l0:7,9, l4:9);
As can be seen, the same few details are repeated over and over
again; in the letters that are genuinely accepted as being written
by Paul there is no specific reference to the parents of Jesus,
and certainly not a virgin birth; his place of birth or the area
in which his ministry took place is not mentioned either; 'Of
Nazareth' is never used; the details Paul supplies give no
indication whatsoever of the time or place of Jesus' earthly
existence.
Paul never refers to Jesus' Roman trial, and in fact he does
not appear to even know who crucified Jesus - in l Cor 2:8 he
refers to the death of Christ by 'rulers of the age' - this
hardly fits a tinpot prefect called Pilate; this term really
denotes supernatural spirits - 2 Cor 4:4, Col 2:l5*. Paul never
refers to Jerusalem as the place of Jesus' execution and never
mentions John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denials (This
would have been quite pertinent in combatting Cephas/Peter at
Antioch - Gal 2:ll-l7. Paul's position was apparently being
threatened by Peter and despite calling him a hypocrite, he does
not allude to his three denials of Jesus, as recorded in the
Gospels, eg. Mark l4:30). The only chronological reference to
Jesus in the Pauline corpus is in l Tim 6:13 and this letter is
widely accepted as post-Pauline. Furthermore it appears to be a
non-Pauline insertion from a baptismal creed.
(* Although some argue that Paul's reference in l Thess 2:l4-l5
shows he knew that the Jews crucified Christ (this of course is
incorrect - the Romans did it), this reference is clearly to God's
vengeance on the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE -
therefore it has to be an interpolation as l Thess was written
ca. 55 CE; however insistence that Paul wrote this statement
originally would preclude Paul being the author as it would have
to be after 70CE, but Paul died before this date. Paul also fails
to mention any of the miracles Jesus is reported to have
accomplished in the Gospels; Paul suggests that miracles might
be expected wherever a Christian mission went, for he includes the
working of them among 'the gifts of the Spirit' (l Cor 12:l0,28)
and himself claimed to have won converts by 'the power of signs
and wonders' (Rom l5:l9). Among the signs of a true apostle, he
lists 'signs and wonders and mighty works' (2 Cor 12:12); the
striking feature is that he fails to mention that Jesus is
reported as having done on an extensive scale in his earthly life.
Another striking feature is that whilst the Synoptic Gospels
portray Jesus as an ethical teacher, there is no suggestion of
this in Paul's letters; Paul is certainly not indifferent to
ethical problems and on several occasions his letters contain a
sizeable amount of ethical instruction. On only one occasion
does he represent Jesus as having made an ethical injunction and
this is in l Cor 7:l0 when Paul discusses the subject of divorce.
The Gospel 'parallel' to this is Mark l0:ll-l2 (Matt is simply
following Mark), but there is a difficulty even here as some
reject this is authentic as Jesus refers to women divorcing their
husbands - something that was not possible in Palestine. Some
say the statement was assigned to Jesus through Paul quoting a
Christian prophet (himself ?) through whom the risen Lord was
speaking and it was then utilised by the author of Mark who placed
it in the mouth of Jesus whilst on earth, but was careless in
not realising that its context was Gentile rather than
Palestinian. It is clear from such early Christian writings as the
Didache that as late as the end of the first century Christian
prophets were viewed as being channels of communication for the
risen Lord.
Paul was content to suffer weakness, insults, humiliation,
persecution and hardship (2 Cor l2:l0) adding that he entreated
the readers by the 'meekness and gentleness of Christ' (2 Cor
l0:l). He stated that he imitated Christ (l Cor ll:l) and that
his whole existence was 'to know nothing...except Jesus Christ
and him crucified' (l Cor 2:2) and then goes on to say he was
with his readers in 'weakness, much fear and trembling' (l Cor
2:3). If this is Paul's 'imitation' of Christ, then it is a far
cry from the Jesus of the Gospels and particularly the picture
of Jesus portrayed in John. It appears Paul thought Jesus led a
humble inconspicuous life that went completely unnoticed by the
world.
Other situations arise in Paul's writing that suggest he knew
very little about Jesus' supposed earthly life. He clearly was
unaware of Jesus' command not to go to the Gentiles (Matt l0:5) in
Rom ll:l3, and in Rom 8:26 he states 'for we do not know how to
pray as we ought' suggesting he knew nothing of Jesus instructions
on how to pray in Matt 5:7-l3, Luke ll:l4; the instructions
regarding baptism by Jesus in Matt 28:l9 were also apparently
unknown to Paul (l Cor l:l7).
The person of Paul was that of someone who believed that God
was now revealing secrets or mysteries; these term arise
frequently in Paul's letters, eg. l Cor 2:7, l3:2, l4:2, l5:51,
with 'revealed' or similiar arising frequently also, eg. Rom
l:l7,l8, 8:l8, l6:25, l Cor 2:l0,l3, 3:l3, 2 Cor 12:l. Paul
believed that he had seen the risen Jesus (l Cor l5:8) and he had
spoken directly to him (2 Cor l2:8-9); he had experienced ecstatic
states (2 Cor l2:l-4, l Cor l4:l8) and God was now revealing
previously-hidden information (1 Cor 2:l0,12-13, 7:40).
A question therefore arises, did Paul's rather scant
knowledge about Jesus arise through his belief that the risen Lord
was now communicating with and through him, along with other
Christian prophets, or from information gleaned from earthly
companions and eyewitnesses of the earthly Jesus. One passage in
which Paul clearly refers to a historical event in Jesus' earthly
life, ie. the last supper, is 1 Cor 11:23-26. However even this
passage begins "For I received from the Lord..." and again,
suggests this information was transmitted directly from the risen
Christ, rather than from the apostles.
An inevitable question arises, ie. why this should be as Paul
had met the apostles (Acts 9:27, Gal 1:18-19, 2:2,9) and would
have been given this information by them - that is of course if
these "apostles" had in fact accompanied the earthly Jesus rather
than being as Paul, ie. Christians receiving information direct
from the risen Lord, but that is what the situation appears to
have been. Reference to Jesus' resurrection, rather than his
earthly life appears in l Cor l5:3-8, when Paul lists the
resurrection appearances (apparently in chronological order);
these bear no resemblance to the Gospels and reference to an
appearance to 'all the 12' whilst Matt report Judas' suicide again
suggests lack of information; his mention of an appearance to five
hundred brethren at one time (l5:6) is quite extraordinary as it
would be inexplicable for the Gospel writers to have omitted this
event if they had known of it. The empty tomb, nor Jerusalem
itself is ever mentioned by Paul; his several visits to Jerusalem,
recorded in both Acts and Gal. surely would have brought him into
contact with the empty tomb; the failure to mention the empty tomb,
which surely would have had great significance for Paul due to his
preoccupation with Jesus' death and resurrection, may have been
due, unlike the Gospels reporting a physical resurrection, to a
belief in Jesus being raised as a spirit (l Cor l5:44,45,50).
The l Cor l5:3-8 passage does not link Jesus to any specific
historical time; it simply reports that he died, was buried, was
raised, and had appeared to a number of people alive in Paul's
time. There is no suggestion whatsoever that these appearances
occurred immediately after his death/resurrection.
Whilst the Gospels have Jesus appearing as a resurrected
physical human being to his apostles and Acts having Jesus
appearing in a totally different form to Paul (ie. after his
ascension), there is no such suggestion here; Paul does not
differenciate in any way between the earlier appearances in
l Cor l5:3-7 and the one to him (l5:8). It appears from this that
he believed all those listed in l5:3-7 had experienced the same
vision as he had done - they are certainly not made to be
companions of Jesus in his earthly life and Paul appears to think
of the others who are listed as experiencing a supernatural vision
as he had done. The reason for Jesus now appearing was apparently
because of the approaching end which was imminent (l Cor 7:29,
l5:23-24, l Thess 4:14-17, etc).
Examples of Paul's failure to invoke Jesus' words are:
Rom 2:l,l4:l3/Matt 7:l, Luke 6:37
Rom l2:l4,l7/Matt 5:44, Luke 6:38
Rom l3:9,Gal 5:l4/Matt 22:39-40, Mark l2:31, Luke l0:27
Rom l3:6/Mark l2:l7
Rom l4:l4/Mark 7:l8-l9
Cor 6:7/Matt 5:39-40
l Cor l5:35-55*/Mark l2:25
l Thess 4:9/John l5:l7
(* In l Cor l5, Paul uses the O.T. rather than Jesus' statements
in the Gospels ie. l5:45 (Gen 2:7), l5:54 (Isa 25:8) and l5:55
(Hos l3:l4).
Paul argues that the 'spirits of this age' will be put down at
Christ's second coming (l Cor l5:24-25) - he appears to be
ignorant of the fact that spirits were overcome by Jesus in his
earthly life (eg. Mark 3:ll) and furthermore this was when Satan
himself was judged and cast out (John 12:31).
Furthermore there seems to be no pagan evidence for Jesus'
existence either. Reference to his existence doesn't occur until
well into the second century and even then the writers seem to be
merely repeating Christian statements about Jesus (eg. Tacitus in
120 CE). What is really striking is that the same ignorance about
Jesus' earthly life is found in most other N.T writings, eg. in
l Pet, readers are told to love one another, have unswerving faith
and put away malice - but the writer never quotes Jesus' words in
the Sermon on the Mount - instead he quotes the Old Testament.
With regard to Paul and the origins for Jesus, it does seem
that Jesus' 'teachings' overall were borrowed from the OT and
occasionally elsewhere. It does also seem that messages received
'from the risen Lord' by Christian prophets in trance were fed
back into Jesus' earthly life. The Didache, a Christian writing
of ca. lst century (probably from Syria) writes of Christian
prophets; "Welcome them as the Lord...Every missioner who comes to
you should be welcomed as the Lord...While a prophet is uttering
words in a trance, you are on no account to subject him to any
tests or verifications - this is the sin that shall never be
forgiven...They exhibit the manner and conduct of the Lord...".
Here it can be seen these prophets were treated with the same
respect as Jesus himself; what they said was treated as coming
direct from Jesus and was not to be questioned. Furthermore this
feature is found elsewhere, eg. B.E.Beck (Senior Tutor and
Methodist minister, New Testament Studies, Wesley House, Cambridge),
in his Reading the New Testament Today, "...Sayings attributed to
Jesus in the gospels were used by Christians without
acknowledgement, but the possibility cannot be ruled out that the
reverse process has occurred - maxims in general use, from
whatever source, have been mistakenly attributed to Jesus, eg.
Matt 6:34, 7:6. Apparently Christian prophets spoke in the name
of the risen Lord, that is, on his behalf. Were such sayings
treasured as those of the earthly Jesus? Was any real distinction
made between them when both were felt to express the mind of the
Lord who had now risen and was still acting through his church.
If the distinction was not sharply drawn, what was to prevent a
saying of the Lord, delivered through a prophet, being attributed
to the Lord in his earthly ministry?...". Much the same thing is
said by Ernest Best (Professor of Divinity and Biblical criticism,
University of Glasgow) in his book, 1 and 2 Thessalonians.
As Paul and indeed other N.T. writers say little or nothing
about Jesus' earthly life and Paul's knowledge of him appears to
have come directly through revelations and ecstatic states (See
2 Cor ll:1, Gal l:12); at the end of the day it appears that Paul
and a few others* believed there were getting messages from the
crucified and now-risen Christ who had lived on earth 'sometime in
the past' and was now revealing himself as the close of the age
dawned (See l Cor 7:29, l0:11). * Note how the post-resurrection
appearances listed in l Cor l5:5-8 (which flatly contradicts the
Gospels) does not differentiate between the appearances to those
listed in l5:5-7 and the one to Paul, but in fact the Gospels and
Acts have Jesus' appearances to some of those in l5:5-7 in a
physical body and before his ascension, but to Paul it was a
wholly different experience, ie. a blinding vision (eg. Acts
9:3-5), but the way in which the l Cor l5 list is worded certainly
suggests that Paul believed the others who had seen the risen Lord
experienced it in the same way he did - ie. by direct revelation.
He seems to know nothing of any idea that they had ever seen the
earthly Jesus.
It is necessary to comment on the argument that proposes that
as Josephus and Tacitus, both non-Christians, refer to Jesus, this
surely proves he was a historical personage. These references are
very brief fleeting statements concerning a Jesus by (1)Josephus
(XVIII, 3.3), ca. 95 CE and (2)Tacitus (anals. xv, 44) ca. 120 CE.
However with regard to these, it must be asked,
(1)Josephus.
(i)Why do no Christians up to the 4th cent. refer to Josephus'
priceless remark that 'Jesus was the Christ'?
(ii)Why does the Christian apologist Origen (l85-254 CE) state
categorically that Josephus did NOT believe that Jesus was the
Christ in view of the statement that calls Jesus by this very
title?
(iii)How could a strict Pharasaic Jew make such a statement?
(iv)Why is it written in the same style as Luke? Surely this
suggests rather than being written by Josephus it was taken from
this Gospel?
(v)Why does it look like an insertion in the narrative and appears
to interrupt the flow, not following on from what is said before
and not leading into what is said afterwards?
vi)Why doesn't Josephus say more about Jesus if he did really
believe 'he was the Christ'?
(vii)How is it that a whole host of eminent Christian theologians/
scholars who firmly believe in Jesus' historicity reject the
passage ?
(viii)Why should this be genuine when other copies of Josephus'
Antiquities have been discovered that are heavily interpolated
with Christian references?
(ix)The very fact that it does appear to be a Christian
interpolation surely suggests there was a problem, as why should
Christians feel there was a need to even do this?
(2)Tacitus. It is never clear why this is even referred to; this
was written nearly a century after Jesus' supposed existence - it
is hardly 'contemporary'. If he is quoting a historical fact,
then why does he make the same error that Christians also made
about Pilate, ie. calling him a procurator when really he was a
prefect. Trilling, an orthodox Christian, comments that Tacitus
was saying what 'could have reached him from any educated
contemporary' and 'is no more than what could be learned anywhere
in Rome.' In fact when Pliny wrote to Trajan (ca. 117 AD) he
admits that his information about Christians came through actually
questioning Christians - not by using any historical record or
common knowledge.
Tacitus is undoubtedly doing the same. Tacitus does not refer
to Jesus as 'Jesus' but 'Christ' - ie. the title ('Anointed/
Messiah') that Christians gave Jesus. He could have hardly found
this reference in any records he consulted (which would have
therefore read:- 'We executed the Christ today!'). Again it is
obvious he is only repeating what he had heard Christians
believed.
The situation is adequately summed up by Professor Fuller,
Professor of New Testament, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
(A Critical Introduction to the New Testament):
"Of the 27 books of the New Testament only the authentic Pauline
epistles are, strictly speaking, the testimony of an apostolic
witness. And even Paul...was not a witness of the historical
Jesus.
Since the earliest witnesses wrote nothing...there is not a
single book in the New Testament which is the direct work of an
eyewitness of the historical Jesus..." (page 197).
As Christians go on about this Jesus character, it is
interesting to see rather than what Christians say about
him, what the Bible says. And this is it, the Jesus of the
Gospels is hardly the character that Christians like to present,
eg. he used violence - John 2:15 (and apparently encouraged it;
before his arrest he told his disciples to buy a sword; this was
used immediately afterwards - Luke 23:36,49-50; if he was the
omniscient Son of God, he would have known this was to happen).
His purpose was to break up families - Matthew 10:34-35,
Luke 12:51-53. He taught the gospel was not available for
certain races - Matthew 10:5-8, 15:24. He was ignorant of the
Scriptures he quoted - Mark 2:26 (In fact the priest was
Ahimelech, not Abiathar - see 1 Samuel 21:1,6). He was cruel to
animals - Matthew 8:1-4 ('the offering' Jesus commanded was a
bird being sacrificed - Leviticus 14:2-5), 8:28-34. He treated
his mother with contempt - John 2:4. He suffered fits of temper,
not justified by the situation - Matt 21:18-19, 23:13-33 (In the
outburst in John 7:37, the Greek is 'to screech like a raven'). He
was hypocritical - Matthew 5:22 (Compare his action in Matthew
23:17); Matthew 6:14 (Compare Matthew 10:14-15); Matthew 7:1
(Compare John 5:30, 8:26). He lacked sympathy for other people's
suffering - Matthew 8:21-22. He rejected his own family -
Matthew 12:46-50, Mark 3:32-35. He had contempt for other
religions and their adherents - Matthew 12:30, 23:2-33, John
8:44,55. He deliberately taught in a way so people would not
understand him (and therefore be saved from going to eternal
hellfire) - Mark 4:9-12. He encouraged people to desert their
families - Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29. He taught people to hate*
their families - Luke 14:26 (*The Greek here means 'active
ill-will' or 'persecuting spirit'). He taught that suffering was
to show God's glory - John 9:1-3. He ignored a woman pleading for
his help; only after she asked him three times did he condescend
to help - Matthew 15:22-28. He taught that ill-health and human
suffering was the result of sin, or for the purpose of glorifying
God - Mark 2:5,11,12, John 5:8-14. And furthermore, he clearly
seemed to have thought that his second coming/the end of the
world, ie. the final judgement, etc. was only a short time away,
eg. he told the high priest that he would see his return - Mark
14:61-62, he told three disciples that they would see his return -
Matt 16;28, he told the disciples he would return before they had
preached throughout Palestine - Matt 10:23. Furthermore, when
Jesus told his disciples about the end of the world (Mark 13:3-27),
he told them that the generation living at that very time (ca. 30
CE) would still be alive when "all these things", (ie. the Second
Coming, the Final Judgement, the end of the world, etc) took place
(Mark 13:30). Despite saying all this, only seconds later he then
told the disciples that no one - including himself - knew when the
end would come (13:32). Also, he foretold that he would be buried
for 3 days and 3 nights in Matthew 12:40 - but Friday evening
(Mark 15:42-46) to before Sunday daybreak (John 20:1-2) is NOT 3
days and 3 nights! Mark 15:42 states he was buried AFTER sundown
on the Friday, ie. this in Jewish reckoning was in fact now
Saturday - the sabbath (also burial on the sabbath was something
quite impossible to have happened!).
The Gospels repeately say how Jesus' death etc 'fulfilled' the
OT scriptures (eg. Luke 24:27), but nowhere in the OT does it say
the messiah is to be killed, buried and resurrected after 3 days.
With regard to the end of the world etc, Jesus stated that
there would be an "abominating sacrilege" (Matthew 24:15, Mark
13:14) which would cause a tribulation (Matt 24:16-28, Mark
13:15-23) and IMMEDIATELY after this (Matthew 24:29), he would
return to usher in the Final Judgement (Matthew 24:29-31). Now
Luke has in the parallel passage, the "abominating sacrilege" as
the Fall of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20); as can be seen by Luke
21:21-23, the author of Luke does equate "the abominating
sacrilege" of Matthew and Mark as Jerusalem's destruction).
However, Jerusalem's destruction (particularly as described in
Luke) occurred in 70 AD - therefore isn't Jesus' return (which
remember, was supposed to occur "Immediately" afterwards),
somewhat overdue? In light of that, it should be remembered that
the VERY last promise by God/Jesus in the whole Bible was Jesus'
promise in 96 CE "SURELY, I AM COMING SOON." So 1900 years later -
where is he then?!
VIRGIN BIRTH (1).
Christians have always argued for Jesus' virgin birth, but also
argue he was descended from David. This overlooks that if virgin
born, Jesus' 'father' Joseph, albeit descended from David, would
have had no connection with his conception, and his only human
connection would have been through/by/with Mary; however she was
of the Priestly Aaronic line (ie. she was related to Elizabeth who
was of this descent - Luke l:6, l:36). As Aaron was of the tribe
of Levi, but David was of Judah, then Jesus, if virgin born, could
not therefore be of Davidic descent and could not be the messiah
which demanded Davidic descent. Furthermore, this would
contradict all the N.T statements that Jesus was a descendent of
David - Matt 1:1, 12:23, 15:22, Mark 10:47, Rom 1:3, Rev 5:5. NB.
Jesus didn't take on 'David's line' through Joseph being his
'adoptive father' as Rom 1:3 makes it quite clear that Jesus was
of David's 'seed' (semen). So there is a problem; Jesus was
either of David's line - but that means he wasn't virgin born
(ie. Joseph having to have been responsible for his conception),
or he was virgin born, but that precludes him being of the Davidic
line (because only Mary was involved in his humanity and she was
not of the Davidic line) - so he couldn't have been the Messiah/
Christ as the N.T teaches. NB. The virgin-birth story is only
found in 2 of the 27 N.T writings, and in Luke, the style of
writing indicates the part that relates the infancy was written
quite separately, and added to the main story that begins in 3:1
(Note how 3:1 opens as a commencement here). Even the Catholic
Jerusalem Bible admits that Matt most likely had its virgin birth
story added to it also. In fact Luke conflicts sharply with
Matthew, eg.
(i) Luke has the birth in the time of the governor Quirinius
(2:2,3-7), whilst Matt has it in the time of Herod, but the rule
of these two never coincided or overlapped. There is no substance
in the argument that the Ramsay Inscription regarding Quirinius as
dummvir 'proves' he was governor in Herod's time,
(ii) Matthew states that the family fled from Judea immediately to
Egypt (2:4-14) and stayed there; Luke has the family calmly going
to Jerusalem in Judea after the birth and then up to Galilee
(2:21-22,39).
The only reason that Matt's author seems to have the story is
because he misunderstood Isa 7:14 that he read as messianic
(which it isn't) and referring to a virgin birth (which it
doesn't). This is simply the story of Isaiah saying to king Ahaz
that by the time that a young girl had conceived and her baby was
born, the present threat from Syria would be over (7:14-17).
There is NOTHING messianic about it at all. In this, the child
was to be called Emmanuel meaning 'God with us', but the name
'Jesus' (in fact the Greek for the Hebrew Yehoshua) means
'Yahweh is salvation', so Jesus was therefore not called by the
name Emmanuel and therefore did not fulfil this 'prophesy';
however Matt's author misunderstood this and therefore couldn't
have been the apostle of that name as he was not a Palestinian Jew
(nor an eyewitness as he had to use Mark to write his Gospel).
Isa 8:3-4 says how Isaiah went and then impregnated his wife and
the prophesy is again made saying that before the child could even
talk, Syria would by smashed by Assyria.
Therefore it appears Isa 7:14 relates to Isaiah's own wife/
child and does not have any messianic connotations. In fact there
is nothing miraculous in Isaiah's saying; he is only saying a
woman would conceive. He does NOT say that a girl who would give
birth would still be a virgin at/after the conception. The author
of Matthew was using the Septuagint 'LXX' - a Greek translation of
the Bible compiled in the 2nd century BCE for the Greek-speaking
Jews of the Diaspora. However, it is not a good translation in
some parts, eg. in the case of Daniel, the Jews would not use it.
The Hebrew word in Isa 7:14 for the woman/'virgin' is "almah" and
means NOT a virgin, but a young woman; it is in the LXX that it is
rendered 'virgin' and there is the additional fact that in the
Greek the root doesn't even necessarily mean a girl who has not
had sex, but "denotes fullness or the like - fully developed".
The word actually used here has nothing to do with the virgin
state. As the Gospel writers used the LXX, they could not have
been Palestinian Jews or they would have obviously used the Hebrew
text and not made such errors. Matt makes other errors, eg. in
27:9-10 he says he is quoting Jeremiah, but in fact he's quoting
Zechariah 11:12-13. There are other examples of this. It is very
apparent that the Gospel writers were NOT Palestinian Jews and in
the case of Mark's author there has to be doubt whether he had
even set foot in Palestine in view of the historical,
chronological, geographical and theological errors he makes about
first century Palestine. But this is where it continues to be
manifestly absurd. Jesus was supposedly a true Jew - a direct
descendent of Abraham through David (Matthew 1), the Jewish
Messiah, the Son of David (Matt 21:9), the 'lion of the tribe
of Judah' (Rev 5:5) and yet whenever he quoted the Old Testament,
he quoted the GREEK LXX version! Furthermore, in some cases the
Hebrew original of the LXX text he is quoting would not support
the argument he is making, ie. because of the LXX's inaccuracies.
In Mark 7:1-23 Jesus does this, but although it seems the LXX
would support the point Jesus is making to the Pharisees, the
Hebrew original would not. So we are asked to believe that Jesus
- a true Hebrew speaking Jew - chose to use the Greek translation
of the Old Testament, and furthermore, was unaware of the fact
that he was using a passage that in reality was defective and the
original would say something completely different, and be quite
inappropriate for his argument, but also, according to the
Gospels, he floored his orthodox Jewish opponents with this - a
mistranslation of their own scriptures - and they didn't challenge
this!!! The fact is, therefore, Jesus could not have spoken what
the Gospels reports, and such sayings are put into his mouth by
the Gospel writers who being ignorant of Hebrew made their
handiwork obvious.
The same applies with James (supposedly Jesus' brother) in
Acts 15 - he uses the LXX to support his argument, although
again, the Hebrew original says something quite different and
would not support his argument, and yet all the Jews in the
audience didn't comment on this! Who could believe any of this?
WILL THE REAL JESUS PLEASE STAND UP?!
Let others see your good works - Matt 5:16
Do not let others see your good works - Matt 6:1,4
Jesus refuses to disclose who he is, or allow others to do this -
Matt 12:15-16, 16:16-17,20, Mark 3:11-12, 8:29-30, Luke 9:20-21.
Jesus tells the Samarians (John 4:25-26), the Jews (John 5:39,
8:42,58, 10:24-25,30), the crowds (John 6:40), others
(John 9:35-38), who he is.
Jesus prayed to God to be saved from death, and he was heard -
Heb 5:7
Jesus prayed to God to be saved from death and was not heard (ie.
he was executed the next day) - Luke 22:41,42,44,47,54, 23:33
Jesus never changes - Heb 13:8
Jesus does change - he dwelt with the Father (John 17:5), was born
an infant with human weaknesses (Luke 2:7,52), became separated
from God (Matt 27:46), then died (Matt 27:50), was then in Hades
(Acts 2:31), was then raised from the dead in a glorified body
(1 Cor 15:45) and ascended into heaven where he mediates (1 John
2:1, 1 Tim 2:5)
Jesus' home was at Capernaum - Mark 1:9,24, 2:1
Jesus' home was in Judea - John 4:43-45
NB. In John, Jesus leaves Jerusalem in Judea and goes to Galilee
because "a prophet has no honour in his own country" - therefore
Judea must have been his home country - contradicting Mark.
Centurion goes to Jesus for his servant to be healed - Matt 8:5-13
Centurion sends elders to Jesus to ask for his servant to be
healed - Luke 7:1-10
Christ was raised a spirit being - 1 Cor 15:44-45, 1 Pet 3:18
Christ was physically raised in the body - Luke 24:39,42-43,
John 20:26-27
It was those who accused Jesus and were responsible for his death
who buried him - Acts 13:27-29
It was Joseph of Arimathea, a disciple, who buried Jesus - Matt
27:59-60
All will swear to God - Isa 45:22-23
Jesus forbids swearing - Matt 5:34
Jesus is God - John 1:1, John 20:288
Jesus is inferior/subordinate to God - John 14:28, 1Cor 11:3,
15:28
The Synoptics have Jesus clearing the Temple at the end of his
ministry (Mark 11:15-17 & par) but John has this at the very
beginning (2:13-16). Also, John has Jesus travelling back and
forth between Galilee and Jerusalem but the synoptics have him
starting in Galilee & making the one journey south to Jerusalem
ending in his death.
James and John ask Jesus for special places in the kingdom -
Mark 10:35-37
It is the mother of James and John who asks Jesus for special
places for them - Matt 20:21-22
Jesus did not bear witness to himself - John 5:31
Jesus did bear witness to himself - John 8:14,18
God has given all things into Jesus' hands - John 3:35
God has not given all things into Jesus' hands - Matt 20:23, John
5:19
Jesus was physically descended from David - Romans 1:1-3.
The genealogy in Matt 1:1-16 only relates to Joseph who had
nothing to do with the conception. The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38
again only mentions Joseph and therefore physical Davidic descent
must be shown through Mary - Jesus' only contact with humanity if
virgin born. However, Luke 1:36 says Mary was related to
Elizabeth who was of the Aaronic line (Luke 1:5) and therefore
not the Davidic line, so with virgin birth, Davidic descent, a
strict prerequisite for messiahship is prevented. In sum, Jesus
couldn't be the Christ.
Jesus refers to David eating the consecrated bread in the time of
Abithar - Mark 2:25,26
In fact David ate the consecrated bread in the time of Ahimelech -
1 Sam 21:1-6
Disciples being sent out not to wear sandals - Matthew 10:9,10
Disciples being sent out to wear sandals - Mark 6:8,9
The infancy narratives.
According to Luke 2:21-39, Jesus is taken to the Jerusalem Temple
eight days after he is born; the family then go up to Nazareth.
In Matthew 2:14-23, after being born the family flee to Egypt and
stay there until Herod dies; even on returning, they avoid Judea
and go up to Nazareth.
Jesus began ministry after John the Baptist is imprisoned - Mark
1:14,15,17.
Jesus's began ministry whilst John was free and before imprisoned -
John 1:28-29, 3:25-30
Jesus baptised - John 3:22
Jesus did not baptise - John 4:2
The exorcism of Legion - being 2 men - Matt 8:28
The exorcism of Legion - being 1 man - Mark 5:1,2
The healing on leaving Jericho was 1 blind man - Mark 10:46,47
The healing on leaving Jericho was 2 blind men - Matt 20:29,30
No one has ascended into heaven before Jesus - John 3:13
Elijah ascended into heaven - 2 Kings 2:11
Respect for parents taught - Exodus 20:12, Leviticus 19:3,
Deuteronomy 5:16, Ephesians 6:1-2
Disrespect and rejection of parents taught - Matt 8:21-22, 10:37,
19:29, 23:9, Luke 12:51,53, 14:26
People choose not to come to Jesus - John 5:40
People can only come to Jesus if God wills it - John 6:44
Jesus judges - John 5:22,27, 9:39, 2 Corinthians 5:10
Jesus does not judge - John 8:15, 12:47
Christians to hate their brothers - Luke 14:26
Whoever hates their brother cannot have eternal life - 1 John 3:15
Jesus refuses to give signs - Matt 12:38,39, Mark 8:12, Luke 11:29
Jesus did give signs - John 3:2, 20:30, Acts 2:22
Jesus warns disciples he is to leave them - John 16:5,7,28
Jesus assures disciples he will always be with them - Matt 28:20
The anointing and entry into Jerusalem.
Matthew and Mark detail how Jesus rode into Jerusalem in Matt
20:1-13, Mark 11:1-11. It was after this that he was anointed at
Bethany - Matt 26:6-16, Mark 14:3-11. But in John he is anointed
(12:1-8) and it is after this that he rides into Jerusalem
(12:12-15).
The Last Supper.
The Synoptics make it clear this was the Passover meal - Matt
26:19, Mark 14:16, Luke 22:13. However in John, the meal was held
on the day before the Passover - 13:29, and after the meal the
Passover had still not begun - 18:28, and after the trial, it was
the day ("Preparation") for the Passover. The Passover was on the
day after Jesus was crucified (ie. because the Passover fell on
the Sabbath (Saturday), it is therefore called a 'high day') -
John 19:31.
Peter denies Jesus before the cock crows - Luke 22:34, John 12:38
Peter denies Jesus before the cock crows twice - Mark 14:30, 14:72
Peter is warned he will deny Jesus after the last supper and
having left the upper room - Matt 26:20-34, Mark 14:17-30
Peter is warned he will deny Jesus during the last supper before
leaving the upper room - Luke 22:33-39, John 13:37-38/18:1
Jesus' trial before the sanhedrin was at night and in morning he
was taken to Pilate - Matthew 26:57-68, 27:1-2
Jesus' trial before the sanhedrin and being taken to Pilate was
in the morning - Luke 22:66-71, 23:1
Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus' cross - Matthew 27:32
Jesus carries his cross - John 19:17,18
Both robbers revile Jesus - Matt 27:44
Only one robber reviles Jesus and the other believes - Luke
23:41-43
Jesus tells the believing robber he will be with him in paradise
that day - Luke 23:43
Jesus was in the grave following his death and did not ascend to
heaven that day - Acts 2:24,31, John 20:17
God forsakes Jesus - Mark 15:34
Jesus is inseparable from God - John 10:30, 14:10, 16:32
The confirmation Jesus is dead.
In Mark 15:43-45, Joseph of Arimathea asks Pilate for Jesus' body,
and Pilate is unaware of whether he is dead; only after sending a
centurion and receiving this confirmation does he allow Joseph to
take the body.
However in John 19:31-33,38, Pilate actually authorises the
leg-breaking to ensure they have all died and then authorises
Joseph to remove the body.
NB. Mark 15:42 states it was evening, ie. the sabbath had
already begun (the Jewish 'day' beginning at sunset), when
Joseph asks for the body. However, burial was not allowed on this
day, showing the fictitiousness of the story.
Jesus to be buried for three days and nights - Matt 12:40
Jesus buried for one day and two nights - Mark 15:42,43, John 20:1
(These texts show the burial did not take place until Friday night
and the tomb was empty before Sunday morning). Jesus is NOT dead
for "three days and three nights" whether present-day or Jewish
time-reckoning is used.
The Resurrection.
Who went to the tomb? Matthew-2 Marys; Mark-2 Marys and Salome;
Luke-at least 5 women; John-Mary Magdalene,
What was seen? Matthew-Earthquake with angel sitting outside on
the recently-moved stone; Mark-Stone already moved and a young man
sitting inside; Luke-Stone already moved with two men standing
inside; John-Stone moved. No one seen on 1st visit, but two angels
sitting inside after two earlier visits.
When did the woman/women leave to go to the tomb? Matthew-towards
dawn; Mark-very early; Luke-at early dawn; John-Still dark (NB.
John states it was still dark when Mary arrived at the tomb).
What did man/men/angel/angels say? Matthew-Jesus was risen and
disciples to go to Galilee; Mark-as Matthew; Luke-Jesus had risen;
John-asks why Mary is crying.
What do the women/woman do next? Matthew-they run away but meet
Jesus who repeats angel's instruction; Mark-they flee and SAY
NOTHING TO ANYONE. This obviously contradicts the other three in
which the women do go and tell the disciples (original Mark ended
at 16:7); Luke-They go and tell disciples; John-Mary meets Jesus
and they talk.
What is 1st conversation with the risen Jesus? Matthew-Women on
way from tomb; Luke-The two disciples on road to Emmaus;
John-Mary Magdalene.
Jesus was the first person to rise from the dead - Acts 26:23,
Rev 1:5
Jesus was not the first person to rise from the dead - 2 Kings
4:32,35, Luke 7:12-15, Matt 9:18,25, 11:5, 27:52, John 11:44
The time between the resurrection and ascension? Matthew-at
least the time to reach Galilee (approximately 100 kilometers to
the north); Luke-clearly one day only (see 24:13,33,36,50 - it is
made very clear that Jesus rose, made all his appearances and
ascended back to heaven on the same day); John-at least a week
accepting John 20 as the original end to the Gospel, but with the
John 21 appendix this means it was even longer as this has a
Galilean appearance; Acts-40 days.
An attempt to reconcile John's visit of just Mary Magdalene whilst
still dark with the Synoptics where there are several women and it
is daytime, is by saying John's was an earlier one, ie. the one in
the Synoptics was a second one. However this cannot be so as John
has Mary Magdalene seeing the empty tomb (20:1) and in the
Synoptics when the women go to the tomb they ask about who would
roll the stone away (Mark 16:3). However Mary Magdalene was with
them (Mark 16:1) and she had already seen that the stone had been
moved away and therefore they would already know this from her 1st
visit.
Furthermore, Luke makes any appearance at, or journey to
Galilee absolutely impossible as it has everything happening in
the area of Jerusalem with the disciples being told to stay there
until Pentecost, and the conclusion being Jesus' ascension from
nearby Bethany. This is made clear - in Luke the first
appearance is to the two travelling to Emmaus (15 kilometers West
of Jerusalem) and 24:13 states this was "that very day"; the two
then go "that same hour" to the eleven in Jerusalem (24:33);
Jesus then appears whilst they are still explaning what they had
seen (24:36). Jesus then tells them to STAY IN JERUSALEM UNTIL
PENTECOST (24:49). As Luke 24:51 has the ascension on the same
day as the resurrection this prevents any Galilean appearances
by Jesus to the eleven as in Matt and John. Luke's account makes
nonsense of Matt having Jesus tell the women to instruct the
disciples to go up to Galilee (Matt 28:10) if he was going to see
them himself later that day (as in Luke and John), and furthermore
see them in Jerusalem. Also, Luke makes it clear that the eleven
were told to stay in Jerusalem from the day of the resurrection to
Pentecost, but Matt has them travelling up to Galilee (28:16) as
does John (21:1ff). Important to note is Mark 16:7, ie. that the
women 'said nothing to anyone' - all three Gospels contradict
this by them telling the disciples which then leads into their
accounts. Because of Mark 16:7, this is really made impossible.
Women buy anointing spices for Jesus after the sabbath - Mark 16:1
Women buy anointing spices for Jesus before the sabbath - Luke
23:56
Luke also has Jesus appearing to "the eleven" on the same day as
the resurrection (24:33-36), but John states Thomas was missing on
this appearance and it was a week later that Jesus actually
appeared to all eleven - with Thomas then being present
(20:24,26).
PAUL OF TARSUS
Paul's vision.
Acts 9:7 states the men with Paul STOOD speechless, HEARING the
voice but NOT SEEING anyone.
Acts 22:9 states they did NOT HEAR the voice.
Acts 26:14 states they all FELL to the ground and DID HEAR the
voice.
CHRONOLOGICAL ERRORS
Acts and Gal. cannot be reconciled as to Paul's conversion. Using
Acts and Gal together, the following is arrived at:
(1)Paul's conversion (Acts 9:3ff, Gal 1:16) 31 CE.
(2)1st visit to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26,Gal 1:18).
This was 3 years after conversion (Gal 1:18) 34 CE.
(3)2nd visit to Jerusalem (Acts 15:2-4, Gal 2:1-10).
14 years after 1st Jerusalem visit 48 CE.
(4)Paul visits the churches (through Syria and Cilicia to Derbe
and Lystra, through Phrygia and Galatia to Troas and Macedonia,
through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica (3 weeks-Acts
17:2), to Beroea, then Athens and onto Corinth (Acts 15:40-18:1).
Say 1 year - 49 CE.
(NB. This is known as "Paul's second missionary journey").
(5)Paul arrives in Corinth (Acts 18:1); after 1.5 years (Acts
18:11) he then appears before Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia
(Acts 18:12-16) (NB. Paul leaves Corinth in Acts 18:18)
Summer 51 AD.
NOTES:
(N1). With regard to (5), an inscription from Delphi includes a
letter from the emperor Claudius (41-54 CE) and there is a
reference to Gallio as proconsul; the date is the 26th acclamation
of Claudius and as the 22nd, 23rd and 24th were all made in 52 CE
and the 27th was before August 52 AD - the 26th would therefore be
in Spring/Summer 52.
(N2)In 18:2, Paul meets two Jews who had been expelled from Rome;
this edict of banishment was in 49 CE and supports the date given
in (4).
Summary:
It appears from the above table that Paul's conversion took
place in the year after Jesus died and yet much was supposed to
have occurred between these events, ie. all that is included in
Acts 1:1-9:1.
Furthermore, the minimum times possible have been allowed in
the above so there cannot be any accusation that it has been
formulated in a way to presuppose anything.
For example, in (4) - it would be most unlikely all this
travelling could be done in just one year. If it was (say) two
years because there is a fixed point (ie. (5).) as 51 CE which is
known to be correct and can't be altered, the starting point has
to be moved back to fit in the extra year into the schedule and
Paul's conversion is then dated as 30 AD. However that would
mean Paul was converted by seeing the risen Christ before he even
died! The same applies with Gal 1:18 - if the 3 years begins
from Paul returning to Damascus and not the conversion, there
would have to be time also included for Paul's antics in Arabia
(Gal 1:17) and being included in the time before 51 CE would
again would push Paul's conversion back to something like 29 CE.
In fact some Christians do state Jesus' death was 33 CE and this
would mean Paul was converted by seeing the risen Christ (ie. 29
CE) before Jesus had even started his three-year ministry (30 CE)
let alone had died and risen!
Dating Paul's conversion as 31 CE and Christ's death in 30 CE
creates many problems, ie. it is known that the Jewish Passover
(8th April - the Jewish l5 Nisan) fell on a Saturday in the year
30 CE; but the Synoptics make it clear that Jesus was crucified
on the Passover and this was a Friday. The Passover began on
Thursday evening (the Jewish day begins at sunset on the previous
evening) and ended Friday evening - ie. Mark 14:12 to 15:42. In
sum, the different narratives cannot be reconciled and appear to
be divorced from historical fact.
It should also be mentioned that with regard to working out
when Paul was converted, that whilst just 1 year for Paul's 2nd
missionary journey was given, others say it was longer, eg. the
ultra-evangelical New International Version (Bible) in its
schedule of Paul's life says it was 2 years (ie. this then makes
Paul's conversion 30 CE). Furthermore they date the time between
Christ's ascension and Paul's conversion (ie. Acts l:l-9:l) as
SEVEN YEARS. If this figure was used above then it would make
Paul's conversion remain as 31 CE (this cannot be changed or made
later), but Christ's death/ascension would be 7 years EARLIER, ie.
in 23 CE. However, this cannot be so as Luke (3:1) states that
Christ's ministry began in the fifteenth year of Tiberius and
this is universally agreed to be 28-29 CE. The question that has
to be asked is why the New Testament writers have all this
difficulty in locating Jesus in a chronological setting if he
actually existed?
The chronology of Paul's life.
Acts
(1)Paul converted on the way to Damascus (9:1-8).
(2)He goes to Ananias in Damascus and stays there 'several days'
(9:20).
(3)After 'some time'*, Paul goes to Jerusalem (9:23,26) and meets
the apostles there (9:27).
(4)Paul preaches in Jerusalem, but due to threats to kill him,
he is sent to Tarsus (9:30).
(5)Relief to Jerusalem and Judea taken by Paul & Barnabas (2nd
visit) (11:30)
(6)Paul goes to Jerusalem (3rd time) (12:25)**
(7)Paul goes to Jerusalem (3rd or 4th time) (15:1ff).(vii)
Galatians.
(1)Paul is converted (1:16).
(2)He does not go to Jerusalem, but to Arabia and then Damascus
(1:17)
(3)After 3 years, Paul goes to Jerusalem, meeting only Cephas
and James there (1:18-19) staying only 15 days.
(4)He then goes to the regions of Syria and Cilicia (1:21).
(5)14 years later, Paul goes to Jerusalem with Barnabas and Titus
(2:1).
(6)Paul confronts Cephas at Antioch (2:11).
(7)No further information.
* The 'some time' in Acts 9:19 is not clear as to how long this
was; different translations render this 'some time passed'
(Jerusalem), 'after a number of days' (Moffatt); the literal
Greek is "'many' with the view of being sufficient"; however it is
rendered, it is difficult to reconcile this with the three years
of Gal 1:18.
** It is not clear whether 12:25 is a return to Jerusalem, or a
return to Antioch from Jerusalem; if the former, and the Acts 15
visit is the Gal 2:1-10 one, then in Acts it would be the fourth
visit, whilst Paul states it was only the second.
Paul's method of counting in Gal. is not absolutely clear, ie.
whether his 14 years in Gal 2:1 is 14 years after his starting
point in Gal (ie. his conversion) or 14 years after the first
Jerusalem visit 3 years after his conversion which he had
mentioned immediately beforehand (ie. a total of 17 years after
his conversion).
Numerous others problems arise when trying to reconcile the two
accounts, eg. Acts has Paul in Jerusalem and Judea in his early
life (21:17 then 22:3) and as a persecutor of the church there
(7:58, 9:1-2,13,21,26:10) which makes Paul's comment that (Gal
1:22) he was not known by sight by the churches in Judea even
after his time in Jerusalem, Syria and Cilicia (1:17-21) appear
impossible. Furthermore when Paul has a dispute with Peter at
Antioch about Gentile fellowship in Gal 2, why does he not remind
him of what was agreed at the Acts 15 conference on this very
subject?
Christians argue that it is through Adam's sin that evil exists
and furthermore it is because of his transgression that all humans
must die; this is clearly taught by Paul in Rom 5:12,17,18 and
is the central theology of Christianity.
However, this wholly contradicts 2 Kings 14:6, Ezekiel 18:20,
Jeremiah 31:30 that state a person will NOT suffer for an
ancestor's wrongdoing.
If you feel the need to tell me what an idiot I am, or to tell
me how this webpage changed your whole life, you can e-mail me at:
tonisoapostatis@yahoo.com