Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!topaz!christian From: christian@topaz.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.religion.christian Subject: More Questions on Christianity Message-ID: <9530@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Mon, 23-Feb-87 04:51:24 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.9530 Posted: Mon Feb 23 04:51:24 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 24-Feb-87 01:39:41 EST Sender: hedrick@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU Organization: University of California, San Diego Lines: 102 Approved: christian@topaz.UUCP Hello everyone. Thanks so much for the responses in answer to my questions. I really do appreciate them. Some of them were actually quite rational. Nonetheless, I am still un- satisfied by the basis for many of the arguments. Some argued, for example, that although the four gospel accounts of the Resurrection contradict each other, this isn't important. The important thing is to understand that Jesus actually did rise from the dead...all other details are trivial. The only problem with this line of reasoning is that all our knowledge of the Resurrection comes entirely from the gospel accounts; if they are contradictory, how do we know they are to be believed? I think it was John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, who wrote that "if there be one mistake in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If any part of it is contradictory, it did not come from the God of truth." Contradictions concerning the Resurrection account cannot, therefore, be easily dismissed. Others asserted that the four gospel accounts DO differ, and are indeed contradictory if read as a single historical document of what happened, but that they are meant to be read individually as theological portraits of Jesus...They are not meant to be taken literally. I must admit, this is a good defense. However, even the Synoptics (Matt.,Mark,Luke) contradict each other in the most blatant fashion. In Luke, the disciples think the risen Jesus is an apparition, and he is at great pains to show them he has a physical body by eating something. He tells them to remain in Jerusalem until "ye be endued with the power on high." This contradicts the versions of Matthew and Mark in which he commands the disciples to go to Galilee. According to Luke, the Assumption into Heaven takes place in Bethany; according to Mark, from a room, presumably in Jerusalem. In Matthew, on a mountainside in Galilee. According to John, it was on the shores of Lake Tiberias. The Assumption itself is dismissed in a mere half dozen words! Such cursory treatment and fantastic contradictions suggest that the whole story was a garbled invention. I'm willing to consider the possibility that the gospel accounts are theological portraits if everyone else is equally willing to consider the possibility that the story of the Resurrection might be a fabrication. Asserting that Jesus stood out from the prophets before him because he was born from a virgin doesn't tell me much, either. In many places in the gospels, Jesus is called Joseph's son! (John 1:45,6:42; Luke 2:22,41, 4:22; Matt. 13:55; Luuke 3:23). Even Mary said Joseph was the father of Jesus (Luke 2:48). Paul spoke of Jesus as having a natural birth according to the flesh (Romans 1:3,9:5). Also, according to the genealogies, (Matt. 1:1-16, Luke 3:23-31...they, too, contradict each other!) Joseph was descended from David, and therefore Jesus was descended from David, which was required of anyone claiming Messianship (Jeremiah 23:5, 2 Samuel 7:12-13, Psalm 89:3-4, 132:11). But Jesus couldn't be of David's seed (2 Timothy 2:8, Acts 13:22-23, Revelations 22:16) if he emerged from a virgin birth! The Messianship of Jesus is incompatible with a virgin birth. Christians must abandon one of the two concepts for a consistent story. How could he be of Davidic descent "according to the flesh", if Joseph was not his physical father? Another problem occurs in the actual wording of Isaiah 7:14. Hebrew scholars maintain that the word "almah" does not actually mean "virgin", but "lady", and is thus translated in Genesis 24:43, and Exodus 2:8. They also point out that the words "shall conceive" should more properly read "has conceived" (from the Hebrew "harah"). In the context of the entire passage, this "prophecy" actually refers to a child born to King Ahaz, some 500 years before Jesus. (Many of the so-called "prophecies" that refer to Jesus in the Old Testament have been examined at length by Jewish scholars, in books aimed at deprogramming Jewish converts to Christianity. One of the best on the subject is "A Guide to the Misled" by Rabbi Shmuel Golding.) Finally, a virgin birth is just as miraculous as some of the events in the Old Testament. Isaac, for example, was born to an aged woman (Sarah) who no longer menstruated (Genesis 18:10-11). Samuel was born to a woman, Hannah, whose womb had been closed by the Lord (I Samuel 1:5,2:21). It really doesn't help matters to assert that "Jesus is God", especially in light of the fact that he called himself the "son of man" (as Ezekiel did!). And in the gospel of Mark, when he was addressed as "good teacher", he replied, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but One, that is, God." Even in the gospel of John, where Jesus claims "oneness" with God (John 10:31), he also claims it is something that can be achieved by others (John 17:21..."as You and I are one, let them also be one in us."). He also admitted, "I do nothing of myself, my Father is greater than I." (John 14:1-2), and was called a servant of God (Acts 3:13). He also identified himself with the prophets beforehand ("no prophet is honored in his home town") and in Luke, he compared his ministry to that of Jonah, as one of calling people to repentance. As a final note, in Matthew 28:17 we're told that some of Jesus' disciples, even seeing him face to face after the Resurrection, still doubted. If they, back then, had reason to doubt, shouldn't we...some 2000 years later...be even more suspicious? I look forward to answers! Vasu Murty UC San Diego "To believe in immortality, one needs something more than the gloomy doctrine of resurrection." ---Thomas Paine