Jesus lied. In fact, he told demonstrable lies time and time again. And he didn’t tell little white lies but big black lies that cast dark shadows over countless people’s lives whose unanswered prayers leave them to wonder if perhaps they are being punished for a sin, are not righteous enough, or lack enough faith adding the burden of unwarranted guilt and fear to their suffering. And not only is the Jesus character an habitual liar, his statements are irresponsible and dangerous. What if all Christians took their prayers to Jesus instead of their children to the doctor? Imagine if all Christians actually believed what Jesus said about handling snakes and drinking poison. Sadly, thousands of people have and have suffered countless bites, deformities and death due directly to his ridiculous lies. Glass of poison anyone?
Mt 7:7-8, 18:19, 21:21-2, Mk 11:24, 16:18, Lk 10:19,11:9-13, Jn 14:13-14, 15:7, 15:16, 16:23-24...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Let's address first the handling of snakes and the drinking of poison.
The passage is Mark 16:9-23. Here is what is says:
"Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it.
After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them.
Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And a these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs."
Textual criticism has confirmed that this ending of Mark was more than likely not a part of the original gospel. It was more than likely added at a later date. Any educated Christian will tell you the same. Here are comments from The ESV Study Bible on this passage:
Some ancient manuscripts of Mark's Gospel contain these verses and others do not, which presents a puzzle for scholars who specialize in the history of such manuscripts. This longer ending is missing from various old and reliable Greek manuscripts (esp. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus), as well as numerous early Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian manuscripts. Early church fathers (e.g., Origen and Clement of Alexandria) did not appear to know of these verses. Eusebius and Jerome state that this section is missing in most manuscripts available at their time. And some manuscripts that contain vv. 9–20 indicate that older manuscripts lack the section. On the other hand, some early and many later manuscripts (such as the manuscripts known as A, C, and D) contain vv. 9–20, and many church fathers (such as Irenaeus) evidently knew of these verses. As for the verses themselves, they contain various Greek words and expressions uncommon to Mark, and there are stylistic differences as well. Many think this shows vv. 9–20 to be a later addition. In summary, vv. 9–20 should be read with caution. As in many translations, the editors of the esv have placed the section within brackets, showing their doubts as to whether it was originally part of what Mark wrote, but also recognizing its long history of acceptance by many in the church. The content of vv. 9–20 is best explained by reference to other passages in the Gospels and the rest of the NT. (Most of its content is found elsewhere, and no point of doctrine is affected by the absence or presence of vv. 9–20.) With particular reference to v. 18, there is no command to pick up serpents or to drink deadly poison; there is merely a promise of protection as found in other parts of the NT."
I would say the explanation of this passage from The ESV Study Bible is the most commonly held view by educated Christians.
There are some Pentecostal sects of Christianity that misunderstand this passage by actually passing around snakes during worship services. Practicing snake handling is clearly not taught in this passage. It is a gross misunderstanding to say that is being taught in Mark 16:9-23. Those who practice such things are in the minority of Christians and certainly not the majority. Can Jesus and Christianity be reasonably discredited because a small sect misunderstands something in the Bible?
If Christianity or Jesus for that matter can be discredited based on a small group's misunderstanding of the Bible then can't we also discredit naturalism on the same grounds?
One example is Hitler and the Nazis. They took Darwin’s theory to its logical conclusion. They tried to rid the world of an entire race and justified it by using Darwin’s understanding of evolution. Read Mein Kampf and count the number of times Hitler uses the word “entwicklung” which is the German word for evolution. Genocide anyone?
Yes, I am aware that this was likely added at a later time. But that is evidence that the bible as we have it is certainly tampered with and therefore not trustworthy as being the Word of God.
What is your response to the dozen or so other demonstrable lies Jesus told? Are these any less troublesome, any less dangerous?
You ask “If Christianity or Jesus for that matter can be discredited based on a small group's misunderstanding of the Bible then can't we also discredit naturalism on the same grounds?”
Jesus is not discredited by the acts of others but by his own acts. His multitude of fantastic and dangerous lies, failure to condemn slavery, demonizing of others, dehumanizing of a mother and child, cursing to death of life in anger, promise to torture people for ever with fires he won’t put out and flesh-eating worms that never die to name a few. Of course if he was indeed God then he also drowned every child on earth, commanded murder and genocide etc, etc.
You also say “[the Nazis] took Darwin’s theory to its logical conclusion.”
Hmmm. Do you really mean that? You think that simply because life evolved means it is “logical” to slaughter millions of people? For me, the fact that I was born of the materials from exploding stars means I am not only your brother but every animal, every plant is a cousin. Asian, African, Jew, German, human, plant, insect, animal, star, moon, dinosaur—all the universe is one. We are the universe grown conscious of itself. To me, the “logical conclusion’ of evolution is that we should be absolutely amazed that we are here, that if the dice were rolled again, we would not be. We should rejoice in that and embrace all life as our selves.
But for argument sake let us say that Hitler did take evolution to it’s logical conclusion. This does not make evolution any less true. This gets back to my little rant about Jesus and his lies. I was not arguing in that particular case that the fact he lied made christianity untrue. I simply was showing that he lied.
Hitler is obviously a whole complex topic itself but just wanted to respond to you comment:“Read Mein Kampf and count the number of times Hitler uses the word “entwicklung” which is the German word for evolution. Genocide anyone?”
Mein Kampf also includes references to Jesus and fighting the Jew as Jesus did when he threw them out of the Temple. Hitler said he was fighting for the Lord and his soldiers wore belt buckles that said “God with us”.
Assuming the longer ending of Mark was added does not provide evidence that the Bible is not from God. It simply proves that the longer ending of Mark was not originally there.
EVERY single Bible I have ever seen makes textual remarks about this. For most Christians this is common knowledge. As I said before educated Christians are aware of this and other textual issues. To say this means that the Bible is not from God is a distortion and reach at best.
I will try and deal with the so called lies as I have time.
I think I know how you are going to answer this, but I would like the rest of your readers to see your response.
Here is Matthew 7:7-8:
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened".
How is Jesus telling lies in this passage?
Gosh, I don’t know, it seems to suggest that all we have to do is "Ask” for something and it will be “given” to us. Just to make sure things have not changed since the last time I tried, I just asked Jesus for a bigger penis. Nothing.
As to the seek and find and knock and it will be opened part. Well duh. Here he is not promising something from himself. If I seek my car keys this morning I will likely eventually find them. If I knock on a door long enough it will likely eventually be opened.
It is the “asking” and it will be “given” that is the demonstrable lie here.
The key to understanding any kind of literature must be to read it contextually. Where the author’s intent is figurative we must not take it literal.
If I read a writer who uses figurative language and interpret it literally do I really have grounds for calling the writer a liar?
What student of literature calls Robert Frost or T.S. Eliot a liar when examining what they wrote?
The Bible has to read contextually as well. Historical context, literary context, theological context all must be considered. Since the Bible claims to be inspired by God, we must use the whole of scripture in understanding the parts of scripture.
James, who was the half brother of Jesus, in his book says "You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions (James 4:3)."
It is not in accordance with reason to call Jesus a liar on the grounds that you give.
Would it be reasonable for me to call Robert Frost or T.S. Eliot a liar if I understand their figurative language literally?
I can pick a number of things out of virtually any piece of literature and twist and distort the meaning. But it would not be reasonable to do so.
Other helpful questions for interpretation (of any type of literature) are, "what did it mean to the original readers/hearers?" "How has it been understood by others throughout history?" and so forth.
If I find myself on an island, interpreting something different than others throughout history, that's generally not a good thing.
It's not reasonable, if you understand context, to develop theories that Jesus is a liar based on Matthew 7:7-8. Consider the whole when trying to understand the parts.
So that leaves you to determine “the mind of God”. How convenient.
I didn't say anything about determining the mind of God. I spoke only of how to understand the meaning of scripture.
How did I implicate that this leaves me to "determine the mind of God?" I don't understand your point.
If you are the determiner of what is to be taken figuratively and literally from the supposed “Word of God” then you are the determiner of the mind of God as it relates to the bible.
Christians themselves cannot agree and hence the thousands of different churches all claiming to be right in their particular interpretations.
You seem to suggest I took a verse out of context. I deplore when people do that and will happily revise my post if you can show me how I did that.
This is a terrific discussion, both of you!
I just want to make a couple of comments, and will try to quell my verbosity and keep it brief.
First of all, John, just because you asked for a larger penis and didn't get one does NOT mean god did not answer your prayer. He may have said "wait!" So if I were you, I'd keep checking it regularly.
Secondly, I would like to say that I absolutely love the way you described our relationship with the earth. I am still evolving in my own beliefs, but at this moment it feels to me like "god" may be the sum of all that is, or as Spong says, the "ground of all being". When you say that humans are the earth becoming conscious of itself (I may be paraphrasing here), and that we should revel in the unlikely fact that we exist, I relate completely!!!! Beautifully said, John!!!! And I further agree that it makes me even more grateful for my own existence, knowing that the odds against me being here are astronomical. It makes me want to not waste a moment of life.
Thanks for the encouragement, Janet. Will definitely keep checking...
I was just reading through this again and noticed the phrase "we are the earth becoming conscious of itself". This is beautiful, and very much in line with my evolving beliefs about the universe. In a sense, 'god' could be the sum of all that is, all the energy of the universe combine. Which means god is evolving too. To me, this is an incredible and wonderful way of looking at it. It's like an awakening; and we humans, as the highest level of consciousness on the planet, have the greatest responsibility to this incredible universe. It makes me grateful all over again that the United States no longer has a dim-witted cowboy as president, but rather you have one who also seems to believe in the sanctity of life. This is apparent in his lack of support for capital punishment, wanting to pull out of unnecessary wars, and even talking about Muslims' children as precious beings also (from his interview this past weekend).
Indeed, Obama seems to be a truly good and wise man. So very happy he is at the helm. And love your thoughts on the universe. Wish I could take credit for the idea that we were the earth becoming conscious of itself, but I got that idea from some reading along the way and am sure the author worded it far better.
Post a Comment