Liberal Christians only believe some "fundamentalism?

[AlAyeti]

There are now political Christians wanting to "re-claim" Christianity from whatever the "Right" is, or has done to it. Claiming that their way of Christianity is more like what Jesus would want.

But many of these Liberal positions hold to funadamentalism on the poor, the needy and anti-war and violence, but oppose Biblical truth on many other issues.

Why do Liberal Christians deny the truths of the New Testament on marriage and children as defined by Jesus himself?

Liberals will teach about condom usage but decry the Biblical truth about abstaining from sex until marriage as something ignorant or intolerant?

Why are not Liberal Christians funding missionaries to go to Muslim and other countries to spread the Gospel exactly the way Jesus described and exactly the way it is presented in the Gospels?

How can Liberal Christians support a womans right to kill her unborn child and encourage a woman to go and do it, while at the same time, denying the same rights of choice on the matter be given equal recognition to the father of the child?

How and why can Liberal Christians call themselves Christians while only preaching and teaching some immutable Christian positions and not all?

[bernee51]

How are you privy to god's plan. Why do you believe this to be so?

It's in the Bible.

Some liberal christians may believe much of the bible to be metaphor. On who's authority do you believe it is god's plan? God's? On what basis can the bible be claimed to be the word of god?

Considering that God has infinite foreknowledge and inspite of that he still chose to banished Satan to Earth which resulted in all of creation being cursed with sin.

I see no evidence of all creation being cursed with sin.

redstang281 wrote:
Sure in a 100% Christian society.

Is this possible?

Not until Satan is bound. (Revelation 20)

Then it is not possible.

To kill someone may not be a desirable thing but sometimes it is necessary only because of the world we live in.

I disagree - no wilful taking of human life is justified.

It is not sin for God to kill because he has perfect judgement. Man can not unless instructed to by God because our judgement is limited.

So it is a defence to say - God told me to kill?

You determine what is correct and incorrect based upon comparing it to the rest of the Bible. Also you should not attempt to force the Bible to say something you should let it speak for itself. Read the Bible plainly for what it says and if something does not make sense then use simpler verse to shed light on it.

Interpretation must still come into it. If not I would be in trouble for wearing clothes of mixed cloth.

Why is your interpretation superior to mine?

Use prayer as well.

Meditation is more effectve and, unlike prayer, there are easily measurable results.

I contend that a true Christian is one who possesses genuine faith. It is not about if you are good, or what church you belong to or any other group. It is about your relationship with God.

I have an excellent relationship with god and I am far from having a christian belief.

If you are able to believe and accept that Jesus was the son of God and he died for you then that is true faith.

But I do not believe this. Why should I?

[melikio]

But I do not believe this. Why should I?

bernee,

I'm not an atheist, and I realize that human beings have valid reasons to NOT see things as Christians do.

A large part of the problem comes in when people who are of one mindset, believe or imagine they have "authority" or "precedence" over those with a different mindset. It is that assumed power over others, which gets human beings into trouble...over and over and over and...

-Mel-

[trencacloscas]

A large part of the problem comes in when people who are of one mindset, believe or imagine they have "authority" or "precedence" over those with a different mindset. It is that assumed power over others, which gets human beings into trouble...over and over and over and...

Great observation, Mel!
But when confronted with practical problems, ain't religious mindsets dangerous for applying an entire and diverse society?

[melikio]

But when confronted with practical problems, ain't religious mindsets dangerous for applying an entire and diverse society?

Of course, religious mindsets or mandatory doctrines typically DO have a negative effect, when applied upon people against their wills (especially by force of rulers/governments).

And based upon my education and logic applied to common sense (life experience), I say that America's Founding Fathers were very astute in pushing through the Constitution as they did.

Sure, "religion" bucks up against it, and the Constitution often seems to nudge at religion (where necessary), but it provides the necessary checks/balances required where we have the workings of mankind involved. The document seeks primarily to hold individuals responsible for who they are and what they do, while ensuring that those who seek to and/or operate under a religious view of reality are allowed to do so.

Those who go to the extremes, should be comforted knowing that in America, our Supreme Law gives them an avenue to redress any issue (or perceived issues) related to freedoms and privileges. Within a "theocracy" (which some foolishly seek, IMO), we know well-enough, that (liberty) would not be the case; limits imposed by intepreted doctrines and dogma of the dominant religious-belief or philosophy, would indeed take precedence over the individual's right to even question things. It would be terrible.

I believe that such absolute LAW (in heaven) based completely upon LOVE would work. However even amongst the "religious" (in this world), we have human flaws and inherent corruption sufficient enough, to turn most truly "good" relgious ideas such as that into a grab for ABSOLUTE POWER. And this has also been made evident where vehement secularists have sought to oppress religion or the religious. And mankind has seen the effects of that enough (by now) to know that religion or anti-religion inextricably associated with GOVERNMENT is basically a very bad idea.

-Mel-

[trencacloscas]

Amen!
I guess Constitutions are alike everywhere, just mimicking some concepts all the time, because it is still a great formula. Disasters and failures in democracy always can be even bigger when these concepts are overlooked. Now the big enemy is corporations and multinational economic groups. I wonder how much time would administrations would keep the public diverted with issues about religion and nationalism...

[redstang281]

redstang281 wrote:
How are you privy to god's plan. Why do you believe this to be so?

It's in the Bible.

Some liberal christians may believe much of the bible to be metaphor. On who's authority do you believe it is god's plan? God's?

Yes, on God's authority, on Jesus's authority. Jesus spoke of the old testament many times from a literal perspective. Liberals view the Bible as a metaphor out of convenience not our of scholarship.

On what basis can the bible be claimed to be the word of god?

By faith, that is to say the same faith that someone obtained salvation from also convicts them of other truth's God has revealed.

Not to mention the Bible's verifiability with history, it's scientific accuracy's, it's prophetic proofs, and it's continuity inspite of being written by over 40 people over 1500 years all testify to it's divine origins. But then, if it's not in your heart to believe it you just won't believe it.

redstang281 wrote:
Sure in a 100% Christian society.

Is this possible?


Not until Satan is bound. (Revelation 20)


Then it is not possible.

Not yet, no.

redstang281 wrote:
To kill someone may not be a desirable thing but sometimes it is necessary only because of the world we live in.

I disagree - no wilful taking of human life is justified.

You may disagree. However, I decide to trust God with his judgements. I think a mass murderer should be taken out of society permanently and not kept alive in a prison cell to kill and rape other people while tax payers support him the rest of his life.

redstang281 wrote:
It is not sin for God to kill because he has perfect judgement. Man can not unless instructed to by God because our judgement is limited.

So it is a defence to say - God told me to kill?

If it's really God and not the devil. The only way to know is to test what someone says based on scripture.

redstang281 wrote:
You determine what is correct and incorrect based upon comparing it to the rest of the Bible. Also you should not attempt to force the Bible to say something you should let it speak for itself. Read the Bible plainly for what it says and if something does not make sense then use simpler verse to shed light on it.

Interpretation must still come into it. If not I would be in trouble for wearing clothes of mixed cloth.

Why is your interpretation superior to mine?

This whole play on interpretation is just an effort to reduce the Bible to be meaningless. It's obvious that every verse in the Bible is intended to mean a certain thing. If you want to know the true interpretation of a certain verse then exercise some scholarship, careful study and some prayer. I'm not saying I know the correct interpretation of every verse in the Bible but if someone says a certain verse means something that obviously contradicts a lot of other scriptures and there is a much clearer interpretation available then I think it's easy to decide which one is correct.


2 Peter 1:20-21 - First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

redstang281 wrote:
Use prayer as well.

Meditation is more effectve...

For Bible study? Can meditation share your concerns or problems with the creator of the universe who can then use his will to help you in the best way possible?

and, unlike prayer, there are easily measurable results.

Well I think that's a little unscientific. There's too many variables to make a statement like that. For one, God sometimes chooses not to answer prayers because we don't always know what is for our own good anyway. Not to mention someone who does not have faith can't really talk to God to start with.

John 9:31 - We know that God does not listen to sinners, but if any one is a worshiper of God and does his will, God listens to him.

redstang281 wrote:
I contend that a true Christian is one who possesses genuine faith. It is not about if you are good, or what church you belong to or any other group. It is about your relationship with God.

I have an excellent relationship with god and I am far from having a christian belief.

Which god? I guess one not even deserving a capital letter. Many people refer to another deity as God, but my belief is there is only one God, the God of the Bible.

redstang281 wrote:
If you are able to believe and accept that Jesus was the son of God and he died for you then that is true faith.

But I do not believe this. Why should I?

Because he is the only way and because I care about you and don't want you to go to hell. He changed my life and gave me hope of salvation. That's why Christians like myself come to these forums. We don't do it because we like being ridiculed for our "ridiculous" beliefs. We do it because of what God has done for us because of our faith and we want to help others too. Jesus is our only hope. There's no other way to get right with God and deserve to go to heaven then to take part vicariously in Christ's victory.

Acts 4:12 - And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."

[McCulloch]

On what basis can the bible be claimed to be the word of god?

Not to mention the Bible's verifiability with history, it's scientific accuracy's, it's prophetic proofs, and it's continuity inspite of being written by over 40 people over 1500 years all testify to it's divine origins.

The Bible's

• verifiability with history -- this one is a bit of a negative proof. There are many books, not inspired by God, which are consistent with known history. So, the Bible's alleged verifiability with history does not prove anything. However, one single historical error would disprove its literal divine inspiration.
  • When was Jesus born? Before 4 BCE. Matthew 2, "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king." Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. OR After 6 CE. Luke 2, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6 CE, ten years after king Herod's death.
• scientific accuracy It would be really great if someone could point out where God revealed some scientific truth in the Bible that could be explained in no other way but divine revelation. Meanwhile, this proof, like the historical one, is a negative one. A single scientific error would again disprove the Bible's literal divine inspiration.
  • Ostriches are not cruel and inattentive parents, as this verse implies.

    Even the sea monsters draw out the breast, they give suck to their young ones: the daughter of my people is become cruel, like the ostriches in the wilderness.

    They are, in fact, careful and attentive parents. The male scoops out a hollow for the eggs, which are incubated by the female during the day and the male at night. After the eggs are hatched, they are cared for by the mother for over a month, at which time the chicks can keep up with running adults.
  • Is a bat a bird?

    Of all clean birds ye shall eat. But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, and every raven after his kind, and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, the little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant, and the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

  • Isaiah, with a little help from God, makes the sun move backwards ten degrees. Now that's quite a trick. All at once, the earth stopped spinning and then reversed its direction of rotation. Or maybe the sun traveled around the earth in those days!

    And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz.

• prophetic proofs See my definition of Fulfilled Prophecy and show me a Biblical prophetic proof that measures up.
  • Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Unfulfilled prophesy
  • But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; (1 Corinthians 7) There must be a special Biblical meaning to the time is short.
  • But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer. (1 Peter 4) and a special biblical meaning to at hand.
  • Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (1 John 2) So we've been in the last time for some 2000 years or so.
  • The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John (Revelation 1) Yet many Christians hold that the events described in Revelation are yet to come.
  • Ezekiel 26 and 27 prophesied that Tyre would be completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar, never to be built again. Yet it wasn't destroyed, as is evident from Acts 12.
  • Genesis 49 says that all of Israel's kings will be from the tribe of Judah, yet Israel's first king was from the tribe of Benjamin.
  • So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. (Romans 10) Paul says that everyone, even in his day, had the gospel preached to them. Even the Native Americans, Asians, Pacific Islanders? In any case, if Paul is right about that, then Jesus is a false prophet, since he said he would return before the gospel was preached to everyone. Augustine reasoned from this verse that there could be no antipodes (humans that lived in the southern hemisphere) since they could not have had the gospel preached to them.
• continuity the evident truth is that the vengeful tribal god of the early Hebrews is not all that consistent with the loving Father god of Jesus or the cosmic sacrificial Christ of Paul.

[melikio]

Because he is the only way and because I care about you and don't want you to go to hell.

redstang, I can see your point of view and much of it is valid enough for me.

But I have to tell you, that what propels your faith is not something that transfers very well through words alone. God gives each person a "spiritual" view of reality, and I used to believe that it was the same for everyone, I later found that it was NOT. (Just read the Bible, pray for understanding and everything should line up. Right? No so.) People need more than just being told what is “right”, they need to SEE it represented in or by your life (and the “Christians” you speak of).

I was once a born-again, hope-to-be-straight, conservative, Bible literalist Christian. I only describe myself THAT way, because I want to emphasize the reality that people certainly DO NOT ALL see God, the Bible and Christianity in the exact same way/s (they never will).

Your faith is reasonably supportable and I'm sure in certain ways commendable, but it remains a reality that not all will accept or believe in what you've graciously shared (and likely for a lot of reasons only the Creator would fully understand). There is a LOT more to this life that what just "Christians" are relating; that's not a put-down, merely a single perspective garnered through over 40 short years of observing life in all the usual ways. I may be human and have a lot in common with most Christians, but the journey I took to get to where/what I believe, is obviously different from yours (unless we happen to live in perfectly parallel realities, across from one another).

I know atheists who have BECOME Christians, and I know devout and serious Christians who have become atheists. And if we are on one side or the other looking in, it really is easy to think/believe we have understood how their lives may be mapped. We think we know what they NEED, and we believe that what works for us (or told should work for them) is the way to go.

I have learned in certain painful ways, that love often wears many different hats. And ultimately, one needs to consider what those who seek God MUST believe (accept). Also, it must be considered that who and what you garner your answers from, will indeed differ. The DIVERSITY of thought (as it pertains to "faith" itself) and the specific parameters of such thoughts are truly unfathomable.

Here, you will find what I'm certain is NOT a complete list of various belief/faith systems: http://adherents.com/

I didn't know how important certain teachings of Jesus would be, until my faith seemed to fall apart later in life; that concepts such as faith, hope and love would be like spiritual flotation devices for my soul. The standard "Christianity" at various points became MEANINGLESS to me. And while I still adhere to most concepts of the Christian worldview, I NO LONGER avoid or ignore all of the sincere and good questions many atheists have to ask.

Some of us seek those answers as children, and faith alone satisfies us for much or all of our lives; that isn't true for everyone. If I believe what I read from the Bible, I realize that my soul accepts and understands the importance of a particular aspect BY "FAITH". Honestly, I cannot relate to all of the intellectual and historical data surrounding that which supposedly "proves" the Bible (as we know of it) to be true. There are real questions in many a person's heart, that research, debate and prayer either cannot or do not answer.

I've argued for years with atheists, who wanted no more than to see the END of religion. But through all of that, I realized that a faith stronger than what I possessed before I began to question things, was required. My prayers changed from asking for a tiny detail here or there, to "God, please show me something I can LIVE BY."

One morning, as I awoke, I heard a question: "What gives my life meaning?" My heart did more searching on that one than my mind did. In real-time the answer came very fast, but in my heart it seemed to take longer. Here was the answer:

"...the people I love, and the opportunities I'm blessed with to show the same..."

It was like prayer in reverse; I didn't ask for such a deep spiritual encounter, but there it was first thing in the morning. Words cannot describe it as fully as I experienced it.

My faith before all of that, had certainly changed, but I was no less spiritual than before; I still sought real answers to big questions. And yeah, it was fairly shocking/disturbing when I realized that the words of the "Bible" for whatever reason/s, did not resonate within my heart and mind as they once did.

That (painfully) allowed me to ask more questions about what I thought was true (or believed) than I once could/would have. And while I don't ascribe to any/every belief, I DO UNDERSTAND (more than I ever could) why some people aren't or have decided to NOT be "Christian" or literal adherents of the Bible.

The whole losing my faith thing was so humbling, that I have learned to NOT point my fingers at people in judgment, anger or disappointment at what they do or do not "believe". My standard for assessing people has become "LOVE" (the 1Cor13 type). I recognize it, and I honor it; I believe it originates with God, and that Jesus was paving the way to God with the same.

I have learned that arguing religion is not nearly as fruitful as living in LOVE the "religion" one is committed to. That is, if selflessness stems from or is encouraged by the religion and type of love pursued, I know that is helpful and good for mankind.

Now all of this may certainly not be as solid as what I once pulled from the Bible, but it does minimize much of the emotional and cognitive dissonance and controversy in my own heart and mind. In short, a lot less confusion and conflict within, and a better focus upon what really mattered to me in the first place; that was love. And that's what pulled me toward Jesus in the first place.

-Mel-

[AlAyeti]

It is good to be alive.

Skeptics abound and even skeptics have skeptics.

Quote:
On what basis can the bible be claimed to be the word of god?
redstang281 wrote:
Not to mention the Bible's verifiability with history, it's scientific accuracy's, it's prophetic proofs, and it's continuity inspite of being written by over 40 people over 1500 years all testify to it's divine origins.
The Bible's

http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sab.html)

Connect the Dots With Us!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary on the Skeptics' Annotated Bible
James Patrick Holding

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Do you know a person who writes in their Bible? Some Bibles today even come with space for such scribblers. I do write in my books, though not in my Bible, since that's a little hard with one on CD-ROM. But after numerous requests we have decided to offer some comments on one of the leading skeptical scribble-sites on the Net, the Skeptics' Annotated Bible.

By appearance this site is about the same as Ken's Guide to the Bible and even uses some of the same categories. But Ken offers even more details than these guys. As most will know, SAB is an online version of the Bible with little pictures placed by verses editorializing on the comment: stuff like sex, blood and guts, injustice, etc.

Why have we not bothered with these guys before? Because they aren't actually arguing anything. Editorial commentary in the form of pictures and one-sentence comments are not arguments. SAB is the Internet equivalent to a brick wall scribbled with graffiti, or arguing by saying, "nanny nanny boo boo." It performs (of course!) no analysis of the social background, the literary data, or context. It is merely "instant reaction" from angry Skeptics. And that sort of arguing isn't arguing at all. We feel no more obliged to offer a response than they would feel obliged to respond to a preacher whose only argument was, "You're a sinner bound for hell!"

That said, such implied arguments as SAB uses are indeed thoroughly answered on this site and others we link to, but as our time has opened up a bit it is time to get more specific. We have now run through the single-sentence commentaries in SAB and added such response as we deemed necessary. By estimate perhaps 40-50% of SAB's comments are either "argument by outrage" or places where SAB takes moral offense, usually against a cultural norm. Most of the rest are easily answered by links. Overall almost none of SAB deserves detailed response and many cases require no more than a "So, what's the big deal?" as a response. We now consider our dealings with SAB otherwise closed. Though SAB updates nearly every day (1-2 verses) we see no need to address each new objection as they have in principles been almost all the same.

The Bible books in alfie order:

Acts, Amos, Chronicles -- First and Second, Colossians, Corinthian letters, Daniel, Deuteronomy, Ecclesiastes, Ephesians, Esther, Exodus, Ezekiel, Ezra, Galatians, Genesis, Habakkuk, Haggai, Hebrews, Hosea, Isaiah, James, Jeremiah, Job, Joel, John (letters), John (gospel), Jonah, Joshua, Jude, Judges, Kings -- First and Second, Lamentations, Leviticus, Luke, Malachi, Mark, Matthew, Micah, Nahum, Nehemiah, Numbers, Obadiah, Petrine epistles, Philemon, Philippians, Proverbs, Psalms, Revelation, Romans, Ruth, Samuel -- First amd Second, Song of Songs, Thessalonians, Timothy and Titus, Zechariah, Zephaniah


Responses to the Skeptics' Overrated Bible on Matthew
James Patrick Holding

http://www.tektonics.org/sab/sabmatt.html

SAB original comments in black; ours in green.

1:1-17 The gospel of Matthew begins with a boring genealogy Boring! This is bigoted commentary from people raised on TV. The ancients were just glad to be able to read -- literacy was never higher than 10% -- and to them, genealogies were of extreme importance as they established one's identity and purpose. See comments here. like that we are told to avoid in 1 Tim.1:4 ("Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies") and Tit.3:9 ("Avoid foolish questions and genealogies"). Answered here.
1:3 Judah "went in unto" his daughter-in-law, Tamar, who was disguised as a prostitute. She conceived and bore Pharez, an ancestor of Jesus. (Gen.38:2-29) This is an example of where SAB highlights "sex" in the Bible for whatever reason. Maybe to give the Skeptics something to fantasize about, or to tweak supposed Christian Victorianism. Related comments here.
1:6-16 There are 29 generations listed from David to Jesus in Matthew's genealogy, while Luke's (3:23-31) has 43. Except for David at one end and Jesus at the other, there are only three names in the two lists that are the same.
1:9 1 Chr.3:11-12 lists three generations between Osiah and Jotham (Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah), but Matthew omits all three. In these last two SAB is ignorant of how ancient genealogies were structured. Omission of names and telescoping was normal. See here, and see here and here for the variation in names, and for issues in the next several cites.
1:11 Was Josias the father or grandfather of Jechonias? See here.
1:12 God prophesied in Jeremieah (22:28-30) that Jeconiah would be childless, but this verse says Jeconiah's son was Salathiel. See here.
1:16 The genealogies of Matthew and Luke do not even agree on the identity of Joseph's father (the grandfather of Jesus). Matthew says Joseph's father was Jacob; Luke (3:23) says his name was Heli. See here.
1:17 This verse says there were 14 generations from David to the Babylonian captivity, but 1 Chr.3:9-15 says there were 18. Matthew dropped four generations to preserve the magical number fourteen. Despite SAB's bigotry, a normal genealogical recording procedure and nothing "magical" about it. Again see here. Other societies dropped generations to get a "magic number" of ten, for example.
1:18 After listing the genealogy of Jesus, Matthew tells us that Joseph was not Jesus' father after all, which of course makes the entire genealogy meaningless. The Holy Ghost, not Joseph, was the one who impregnated Mary, contradicting many scriptures which clearly state that Joseph was the father of Jesus. "Meaningless" according to who? Legally the genealogy remains quite useful as the legal rights were passed down through sons by adoption or natural birth. As noted in the link above, ant any rate, genealogies had great significance in the ancient world and SAB doesn't even know about those purposes for those "boring" genealogies, so how can he have the knowledge to proclaim them "useless"? As for "many scriptures": they amount to a tiny number of places where, i.e., Mary calls Joseph Jesus' "father" in a crowd -- as though we would expect Mary to say, "I and this man, who for convenience we call your father, though he was not, biologically...!"
1:18, 25 Many Christians believe that Mary was always a virgin, We don't, so we reserve the right to skip this one and of course others. but these verses say that she and Joseph "came together" after the birth of Jesus, their "firstborn son."
1:23 The prophecy given in Is.7:14 referred not to a virgin but to a young woman, living at the time of the prophecy. And Jesus, of course, was called Jesus -- and is not called Emmanuel in any verse in the New Testament. See here on Emmanuel and here on Is. 7:14, plus here on general principles of the time of the prophecy.
2:5-6 Matthew claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils the prophecy in Micah 5:2. But this is unlikely for two reasons. "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:18, 2:50-52, 4:4). See here. The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan. False, as noted above. See also here on general principles of Jewish exegetical methods, and why the "defeat the Assyrians" bit is irrelevant.
2:14 Matthew tells us that Joseph, Mary, and the baby Jesus left for Egypt soon after Jesus' birth, yet Luke (2:39) says they went directly to Nazareth after his birth. See here.
2:15 "Out of Egypt I have called my son," Matthew claims that the flight of Jesus' family to Egypt is a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all, as is clear when the entire verse is quoted ("When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."). It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse. SAB cannot hide his ignorance of Jewish exegetical methods of the first century; see here.
2:16 Herod kills all boys in and around Bethlehem that are two years old and under. Such a massacre would certainly have been noted by contemporary historians. Yet not even Josephus, who documented Herod's life in detail, mentioned this event. Wrong. See here. SAB picks up this junk uncritically from other Skeptical sources.
2:17-18 Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod's alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this verse refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod's massacre. SAB still cannot hide his ignorance of Jewish exegetical methods of the first century; see here.
2:23 "He shall be called a Nazarene." Matthew claims this was a fulfillment of prophecy, yet such a prophecy is not found anywhere in the Old Testament. See here.
3:10, 12 Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." This is one of those areas where SAB just yells, "argument by outrage" assuming all punishment is undeserved.
3:15 John has a darned good point in v.14. If Jesus is the sinless Son of God and all that, then shouldn't Jesus be baptizing John instead of the reverse? Isn't baptism supposed to forgive sins and be a sign of repentance? If so, then why would Jesus need to be baptized? And what the heck is "it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness" supposed to mean? Ask SAB to do homework? Nah. See here, article on baptism. "Righteousness" here means an equitable act, and in line with this, Jesus is showing that he is not unwilling to do what he orders his followers to do, as is expected of an ancient group-leader.
3:17 In Matthew's gospel, God addresses those witnessing Jesus' baptism saying, "This is my beloved son ...." But Mark (1:11) and Luke (3:22) have God speak to Jesus directly" "Thou art my beloved son ...." But whatever the exact wording, it seems strange that after witnessing this event, John the Baptist is still unsure about Jesus (see Mt.11:2-3). Only if you are vastly ignorant of Jewish messianic expectations; as we noted elsewhere, since John was merely human, he, too, may well have fallen to the improper misconception held by the Jewish peasantry that the Messiah would come and overthrow the Romans before, or at the same time, as His spiritual mission; or that he followed the Qumranites in thinking there were two Messiahs, and Jesus was only one of them, and he was asking after the other one. Indeed, John's fiery oration describing Jesus (Luke 3:17) supports this idea that he "anticipated a Messianic figure who would bring freedom from the political oppression of Rome." [Young, Jesus the Jewish Theologian, 50] John had evidently had his disciples watch Jesus after he went to prison (Luke 7:18; Matt. 9:14). When he heard that Jesus was not kicking the Romans around, but performing miracles and teaching, he sent his disciples to ask, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?" No doubt hearing that his expectations of a political Messiah were not being fulfilled - added to the dreary condition of imprisonment he suffered under an unjust political system! - combined to either shake his confidence in his identification of Jesus as the Messiah (Indeed, he probably hoped that Jesus, before kicking the Romans around a bit, would come and break him out of jail!), or else, he was asking after the manner of the Qumranites for Messiah #2, having figured that Jesus was Messiah #1. Like his fellow Jews, John may not have conceived of a two separately-defined and widely-separated (in time) roles for the one Messiah. As for the "exact wording" jive see here and here. SAB picks this sort of junk up uncritically from Western hyperliteralists like Remsberg.
4:1 The Son of God is led by the Spirit of God to be tempted by the devil. To which we say, "So what?"
4:5-8 The devil kidnaps Jesus and takes him up to the top of the temple, and then to the top of "an exceedingly high mountain," high enough to see "all the kingdoms of the world." I guess the earth was flat in those days. Not quite. See here.
4:6, 10 The devil correctly quotes scripture (Ps.91:11-12), while Jesus misquotes Deuteronomy by adding "only" to Dt.6:13. Nothing any other rabbinic exegete of the day would not properly be able to do. See here (again) and also here.
4:7 Jesus quotes Dt.6:16 saying, "Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." Yet James (1:13) says that "God cannot be tempted." Is it necessary to prohibit an impossible act? Like most critics, SAB needs to read the whole of James 1:13: God cannot be tempted with evil. The word behind "evil" means sickness or depravity. Satan made some offers, all right, but none of them were depraved or perverse. And again, the word used here has varying shades of meaning that must be determined by context and subject; see here. Moreover, this objection fails to differentiate between offering of temptation and receipt of it! Obviously anyone can "tempt" God right now ["Give me this and I'll give you worship!"] but temptation is a two-way street! James' "by evil" comment indicates the two-way version; the Gospels, only one way!
4:10 If Jesus is correct when he says "him only shalt thou serve," then it is wrong for slaves to serve their masters as they are told to do elsewhere in the Bible. Sorry, but the word "serve" here means to worship or render religious homage to. Not the same thing.
5:16 Should we let others see our good works? See here.
5:17 Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn't the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. So? Mere "argument by outrage".
5:18 In this verse, Jesus says that the Old Testament laws are binding on everyone forever. But in Luke (16:16) he says they were binding only until the time of John the Baptist. And Paul (Rom.7:4, 6; Eph.2:15) insists that Christians are free to completely disregard the Old Testament laws. Notice also that Jesus says here that the earth will not last forever, but elsewhere the bible says it will. Wow, what a confused mess. First of all, Luke 16:16 says nothing about "binding"; it only contrasts the offering of the two covenant. Second, on the applicability of the law, see here. On the earth see here.
5:22 Jesus says that "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Yet he often calls his critics and disciples fools. Paul is also in danger of going to hell since he liked to call people fools. See here.
5:29-30 Jesus recommends that to avoid sin we cut off our hands and pluck out our eyes. This advice is given immediately after he says that anyone who looks with lust at any women commits adultery. See here.
5:32 In Mark (10:11) and Luke (16:18), Jesus condemns all divorces without exception. But in this verse, Jesus says that divorce is permissible when the wife is guilty of fornication. But what if the husband is unfaithful? Jesus doesn't seem to care about that. See here. As for the husband issue, one may as well say that the law doesn't care of women, i.e., stole ox or sheep (Ex. 22:1). Not that it matters, since Jesus' audience here was composed entirely of men.
5:34-37 Jesus forbids the taking of any kind of oath. Yet such oaths are approved in many places in the Bible. See here.
5:44 "Love your enemies." Well, it's a nice thought. But it seems strange coming from someone who damns his enemies to hell. (Mk.16:16) Other than that Mark 16:16 is not valid to use (see here) SAB misdefines "love" as mushy sentimentality without justice -- see here.
6:1 In this verse Jesus says not to let others see your good works, but in Mt.5:16 he says that your should let others see them. See here.
6:1-3 Don't brag about the good things that you do. SAB seems to like this one.
6:5-6 Jesus tells his disciples not to pray in public. Those who favor school prayer, National Day of Prayer, etc. should take his advice. But Paul (1 Tim.2:8) disagrees with Jesus by telling his followers to "pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands." I don't favor organized school prayer necessarily, but as for Paul: Jesus' words are an instruction against public prayer, done for the purpose of being noticed ("that they may be seen of men"). This has nothing to do with modes or positions of prayer.
6:9-13 Jesus teaches his disciples how to pray. Yet Paul in Rom.8:26 says that Christians don't know how to pray. SAB misses the same word Doherty did: Paul is talking about what(tis) we are to pray for. Jesus is talking about how (houto) we should pray. As even the context of each remark shows, Paul is talking about content; Jesus is talking about method!
6:13 In the "Lord's Prayer," Jesus says, "Lead us not into temptation." But according to James (1:13), God never tempts anyone. If so, then why should we ask him not to tempt us? See here.
6:23 "But if thine eye be evil ...." How can an eye be evil? In the figurative language of the day a "good eye" was an "eye that looked on others generously (Sirach 32:8) while an "evil eye" was one that was jealous or stingy -- Keener, Matthew commentary, 232. This is the kind of relevant cultural/idiomatic study Skeptics like SAB will never do.
6:26 "Behold the fowls of the air...." Jesus says that God feeds them. But, if so, he does one hell of a lousy job at it. Most birds die before leaving the nest, and the few who manage to fly soon die painful deaths of starvation, predation, or disease. If God is caring for them, pray that he stays away from you. Where SAB gets that biological data I can only guess. We'd like to know more about the causes of bird mortality and where SAB gets his avian data. Meanwhile see here. Speaking of the birds, Jesus asks: "Are ye not much better than they?" This is meant as a rhetorical question, but the answer is far from obvious to me. I guess to Jesus, though, birds are not worth much compared to humans. So you can do whatever the hell you want with (and to) them. Wherever SAB gets that conclusion. Probably from the same place he collected data on avian mortality.
6:28 "Consider the lilies of the field...." A nice analogy, good advice (unless you live in cold climates), and a great movie. SAB apparently likes this one. Thanks to him for the Peanut Gallery comment.
6:31, 34 Jesus says that we should not concern ourselves with material things, But Paul (1 Tim.5:8) says that anyone who behaves that way has "denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." Huh? 1 Tim. 5:8 says, "But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house," he is worse than an infidel. Jesus meanwhile is counseling against anxiety (merimnao) over needs, not mere "concern" as in routine care.
7:1 Jesus says, "Judge not, that ye be not judged." But in John (7:24) he says we should "judge righteous judgment." And Paul (1 Cor.2:15, 1 Cor.5:12-13, 1 Cor.6:2-3) tells Christians to judge everyone -- believers, non-believers, even the angels are to be judged by "the saints." Wrong answer. See here.
7:3-4 Avoid hypocrisy. Consider your own faults rather than criticizing others. SAB apparently likes this one.
7:7-8 Jesus says that "he who seeketh findeth." But in Luke (13:24) he says that "many ... will seek to enter in, and shall not be able." And Proverbs (1:28) quotes God as saying that they "shall call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me." Which is it? On Proverbs see here. As for the rest it is a simplistic comparison: The former is spoken in the concept of satisfaction of requests while the latter, refers to the context of an opportunity sought too late (13:25-6).
7:12 The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated. Too bad God doesn't follow this rule. Too bad SAB can only "argue by outrage" as an argument -- and can't show an example of God actually treating people differently that He would if He had done the same thing.
7:13-14 Jesus says that most people will go to hell. Not necessarily -- see here -- but even if so, so what, other than "argument by outrage"?
7:21 According to Jesus, calling on his name is not enough to get you into heaven. Both Peter and Paul disagree saying, "Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Acts 2:21, Rom.10:13). More simplistic word-matching. See here.
8:5-9 Jesus is approached by a centurion who asks him to heal his servant. But when the same story is told in Luke (7:1-7), the centurion doesn't come himself but sends some "elders of the Jews See here.
8:12 Jesus says "the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." But Paul (Rom.11:27) says that "all Israel shall be saved." Too bad SAB misses this defining verse: Rom. 9:6b-8, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
8:14 Peter, who Catholics consider the first pope, was married. That's nice.
8:21 Jesus shows no compassion for the bereaved, saying to a man who had just lost his father: "Let the dead bury the dead." Yep. Burying the dead is a lot more important than spreading a message of eternal life. SAB sure does have those begged-question priorities straight.
8:28-32 Jesus meets two men (both Mk.5:2 and Lk.8:27 say there was only one See here) possessed by devils. The devils ask Jesus to cast them into a herd of pigs. He does, and the poor pigs run off into the sea and drown. Bertrand Russell in Why I am not a Christian considered this story to be evidence of the defective moral character of Jesus. He pointed out that if, as most Christians believe, Jesus was omnipotent, he could have could have found a kinder way to dispense with the devils -- like just making them go away, for instance. Poor pigs! See here. Did Russell ever eat bacon?
8:29 The devils confess that Jesus is the Son of God. According to 1 Jn.4:15 ("Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God"), then, God dwells in the devils and the devils in God. Not quite. 1 John 4:15 uses the word homologeo which is not merely identification, but an assent or agreement to a reality. One may recognize that a man is our President, but still rebel against his authority.
8:34 After Jesus kills the herd of pigs by sending devils into them, the "whole city" asks him to leave. I don't blame them. Nothing here but a smart-aleck argument by outrage.
9:18 Matthew says that the ruler's daughter was already dead when Jesus was asked to help, but both Mark (5:23) and Luke (8:42) say that she was still alive. See here.
9:24-25 Was Jesus the first to rise from the dead? Will anyone rise from the dead? As with other Skeptics, SAB doesn't know the difference between a resuscitation and a resurrection.
9:32-33 According to Matthew, people who cannot speak are possessed by the devil. Really? He says that of ALL people who cannot speak? Or just this one? Just the usual screed against the supernatural otherwise.
10:1 Jesus gives his disciples "power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness." Ditto.
10:2-4 The New Testament writers don't even agree on the names of the apostles. Matthew (10:2-4) and Mark (3:18) include Thaddeus and exclude Judas the brother of James, while Luke (6:16) and Acts (1:13) include Judas the brother of James and exclude Thaddeus. See here.
10:5-6 Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites. But this command is disobeyed in and contradicted by many New Testament passages. See here.
10:8 Jesus tells his disciples to perform all the usual tricks: "heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, and cast out devils." SAB offers the usual screed against the miraculous.
10:10 In Matthew's gospel, Jesus tells his disciples to go barefoot and take no staff. But the Jesus in Mark's gospel (6:8-9) tells them to wear sandals and carry a staff. See here.
10:14-15 Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). Yes, those poor innocent sinners who never did a thing wrong. Except "argue by outrage"....
10:21 Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. Yep, and as shown here it's not the Christians that will do the tearing.
10:23 Jesus tells his disciples that he will return before they can "go over the cities of Israel." Later (24:14) he says he will not come until the gospel is preached throughout the world. Well, his disciples went over the cities of Israel and then died waiting for the "return of the Lord." Now, nearly 2000 years later, and long after the gospel had been preached throughout the world, his followers still wait. Wrong as usual. See here -- the parousia happened in 70 AD.
10:28 Jesus says that we should fear God who is willing and "able to destroy both soul and body in hell." SAB criticizes a JW doctrine we don't stump for. Notice that Jesus makes a clear distinction between the soul and the body in this verse. Why would he do that if, as the Governing Body teaches, the soul is the body? He has it right to some extent -- see here.
10:29, 31 God is involved in the death of every sparrow. He sees to it that they each die painful deaths of starvation, predation, or disease. But don't worry. God will do the same for you. (He thinks that humans are worth much more than sparrows.) Not a surprising attitude from someone who assumes death is a miserable fate, of course. Not a surprising begged question.
10:33 "Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." According to the gospels (Mt.26:69-75, Mk.14:66-72, Lk.22:55-62, Jn.15:18-27), Peter denied Jesus three times before men. Therefore Jesus must have denied Peter before God. Nice try. But what Peter denied was that he knew Jesus personally -- not that Jesus was the Messiah. Not that it matters. The typical extreme language here (see here) does not forbid or exclude mercy for the repentant.
10:34-36 Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." Yet elsewhere in the New Testament Jesus is said to bring peace. See here plus remember again (above) who it will be that will do the hating.
10:37 Jesus warns us not to love our parents or children too much. No, actually, it's "more than him" which is not the same thing. We have to make sure that we always love him (who we don't even know existed) more than our family. If SAB wants to endorse the Christ-myth he knows where to go.
11:3 John the Baptist is still not sure about Jesus (he's in prison and is soon to die). He sends his disciples to ask, "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?" Well, if he isn't sure after seeing and hearing the events at Jesus' baptism, then how can anyone else be? See above.
11:11 John the Baptist was the greatest man ever to live (even greater than Jesus), but "he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." Yeah...so? SAB doesn't explain the problem. But as Keener notes [338-9] this sort of objection "rests on inadequate understanding of Jewish speech patterns." Such hyperbolic and superlative praise was typical for the period. Rabbis called Johannan ben Zakkai "the least" of Hillel's eighty disciples as a means of praising him as a teacher.
11:12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now ..." Until when? John the Baptist was still alive when this verse was supposedly uttered. Uh, gosh. From when John started his ministry (as many as 2-3 years before) until then... Jesus continues to bewilder his poor disciples by saying, "The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." SAB continues to bewilder himself with his own exegetical ignorance. See here.
11:13-14 Was John the Baptist Elijah? Jesus says that he was (see also Mt.17:12 and Mk.9:13), but in Jn.1:21 John the Baptist clearly says that he is not Elijah. See here.
11:20-24 Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. SAB trivializes the relevance of Jesus' message for eternal life based on nothing but "argument by outrage".
12:2-5 When Jesus and his disciples are accused of breaking the sabbath, he excuses himself by referring to a scripture in which priests who "profaned the sabbath" were blameless. But there is no such passage in the Old Testament. Yep, there is -- see here.
12:3-4 Was David alone when he asked for the holy bread at Nob? See here.
12:22 Jesus casts out a devil from a man who was blind and dumb (blind and dumb people are possessed by devils). All of them? Does it say that? Is a screed against the miraculous a sufficient answer?
12:30 Jesus says, "He that is not with me is against me." But Mark (9:40) and Luke (9:50) confuse the issue by having Jesus say, "He that is not against me is for me." Poor confused SAB -- see here.
12:31-32 Those who speak "against the Holy Ghost" will never be forgiven. But Acts (13:39) claims that "all that believe are justified from all things." See here.
12:34 Jesus often called people vile names. One of his favorites was to call his adversaries a "generation of vipers." So? Is SAB afraid vipers will be offended? See here and here.
12:37 Jesus says that "by words" people are either justified or condemned. But this contradicts Mark (16:16) and John (3:18, 36) which say that people are justified by believing the right things. And, of course, it also contradicts the many New Testament verses claiming that salvation is by faith alone. For the latter see here and here. SAB does not know better than to use Mark 16:16. Beyond that 12:37 refers back to 12:36, specific instances of idle words -- not justification as a whole.
12:39 Jesus says that only evil people ask for signs from God. Yet in other verses, God encourages belief by showing signs. See here.
12:40 Jesus believed in the literal truth of the fish story in Jonah. SAB bellows the begged-question screed against the miraculous. However, he claims that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, while Jonah (1:17) says it was a "big fish." See here. Jesus predicts that he will be "in the heart of the earth" for three days and three nights. If by this he meant that he would be in the tomb for three days and three nights, then either he was mistaken or the gospels are in error. Because according to the gospels (this is one of the few things they all seem to agree on), Jesus was in the tomb for only one day and two nights. See here.
12:42 Who was greater: Jesus or Solomon? See here.
12:43-45 When an unclean spirit (whatever that may be) See here for education in ancient conceptions of purity. leaves a person's body, he goes out to find another. Not finding any, he comes back with seven other spirits more wicked than himself and repossesses the person. And so what?
12:47-49 When Jesus' mother and brothers want to see him, Jesus rudely asks, "Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?" So much for Jesus' family values. So much for SAB's education about ancient society. See here. The fact that Jesus had brothers, though, shows that Mary, contrary to Catholic teaching, was not always a virgin. That's nice, dear. Now go wash behind the ears.
13:10-15 Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, "lest ... they ... should understand ... and should be converted, and I should heal them." SAB doesn't get the sarcasm here, which is as much as saying, "He wouldn't want that job, because then he'd have more responsibility." See here.
13:12 "For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath." Isn't this from the Republican Party platform? Not unless the Republicans lived in 30 AD and cared about rewards in heaven. See here.
13:31-32 Jesus is incorrect when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed. And since there are no trees in the mustard family, mustard seeds do not grow into "the greatest of all trees." See here.
13:35 Misquote of Ps.78:2-3 Sorry. Keener notes [389] that this is translated just fine from the Hebrew. Is SAB comparing in English?
13:41-42, 50 Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." So? What's the point beyond "argument by outrage"?
13:55-57 Jesus is rejected by those who know him the best -- the people of his home town of Nazareth. As they would indeed, if he made an exceptional claim to honor as he did. SAB is clueless on matters of honor and shame and limited good. Because honor was seen as a limited good, Jesus' peers rejected his claim to special honor, which was seen as taking honor from them. His brothers and sisters are mentioned, so apparently, contrary to Catholic belief, Mary was not always a virgin. That's nice again. Finished washing behind the ears?
14:2 Herod thought Jesus was a resurrected John the Baptist. Apparently, it was a common opinion at the time (See Mt.16.13-14, Mk.6:14-15, 8:27-28, Lk.9:7-8, 18-19). If so many of Jesus' contemporaries could be so easily fooled regarding John the Baptist, what does this do to the credibility of Jesus' resurrection? "Easily fooled"? By what? This was popular speculation, not someone claiming that an actual resurrection had been taking place. The source was not exterior; John's disciples were not the source, and they did not preach it in coordination with a message. SAB can bang his head here>
15:4-7 Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21) So Jesus thinks that children who curse their parents should be killed. I can't even guess how SAB gets this out of the passage in question.
15:21 Jesus visits Tyre which according to Ezekiel (26:14, 21; 27:36, 28:19) was not supposed to exist. See here.
15:22-26 Jesus refuses to heal the Canaanite (Mk.7:26 says she was Greek) woman's possessed daughter, saying "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." See here.
15:24 Jesus says that his mission is only for the Israelites, contrary to many verses that say it is for everyone. See here.
15:33 The disciples wonder where they will get the bread to feed four thousand. But they should know by now, since Jesus just did the same trick in 14:14-21. Sure, Like SAB is Mr. "I Never Make a Mistake Twice". Let's elect SAB President and solve the world's problems. These stories are probably the result of two oral versions of the same fictitious story. That's from SAB, the expert in oral tradition. Never mind the explanation.
16:3-4 The ever-so-kind Jesus calls the Pharisees "hypocrites, wicked, and adulterous." The ever-so-anachronistic SAB is too politically correct.
16:4 Jesus says that no signs will be given except for the Sign of Jonah." But other verses say that many signs were given to justify belief in Jesus. See here.
16:13-14 Opinions were divided regarding the identity of Jesus, but many thought that he was the risen John the Baptist. The fact that people could be so easily fooled regarding the Baptist's "resurrection" casts doubt on the resurrection of Jesus. See above -- same objection.
16:23 When Peter expressed his dismay when Jesus announced his coming death, Jesus said to him "Get thee behind me, Satan" -- a fine way to address his holiness, the first pope! That's nice. See again here and here.
16:27 Jesus says here that people will be judged by their works. But Paul insists that people are saved not by their works, but by their faith alone (Rom.3:28, Eph.2:8-9, Gal.2:16). See (yet again) here and here and also here.
16:28 Jesus mistakenly tells his followers that he will return and establish his kingdom within their lifetime. Which he did. See here.
17:1 Matthew says the transfiguration occurred six days after Jesus foretells his death, but Luke (9:27-28) says it was eight days. See here.
17:11 Jesus says that Elijah, whom he believes is John the Baptist, will come and "restore all things." But what things did John the Baptist restore? SAB picked this one up uncritically from McKinsey. As there we say: John restored that which was predicted in Malachi 4:5-6, as a forerunner to the new covenant. Elijah's role as a restorer is testified in rabbinic works of the day [Keener, 440].
17:12-13 Was John the Baptist Elijah?" See here.
17:15-18 Jesus cures an epileptic "lunatic" by "rebuking the devil." (Epilepsy is caused by devils.) Jesus speaks harshly of his disciples when they fail to cast out the devil, saying "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you?" Yes and, so what? Same screed against miracles, same political correctness and hypersensitivity.
17:20 If your faith is great enough, you can move mountains around. Screwy definition of faith and understanding of prayer.
17:27 Jesus tells Peter to pay his taxes with a coin that he'll find in the mouth of the first fish that he catches from the sea. So? What's the problem? Miracles again?
18:3, 19:14 Jesus says that only childish people can enter heaven. But Paul says that we should "put away childish things." I guess poor Paul didn't make it to heaven. See here.
18:7 Jesus condemns the whole world, saying "Woe unto the world because of offenses." And naturally, SAB can prove to us that the world doesn't deserve it. But the verse actually says that the offenses cause woe to the world.
18:8-9 Jesus advises his followers to mutilate themselves by cutting off their hands and plucking out their eyes. He says it's better to be "maimed" than to suffer "everlasting fire." See here as well as here. We take it SAB likes eternal fire better.
18:14 Jesus says that God does not want any child to die. Actually, it is not God's will is what it says. But this is contradicted throughout the Old Testament, where God often killed, or commanded others to kill, children. See here.
18:16-17 Jehovah's Witnesses use this verse (along with Dt.19:15 and 1 Tim.5:19) That's nice. We'll pass.
18:25 In the parable of the unforgiving servant, the king threatens to enslave a man and his entire family to pay for a debt. This practice, which was common at the time, seems not to have bothered Jesus very much. What's he want? Political commentary? No one liked this process and the ancients were not into restating the obvious for politically-correct nitpickers like SAB.
19:9 In Mark (10:11) and Luke (16:18), Jesus categorically condemns all divorces. But Matthew's Jesus (see also Mt.5:31) makes an exception when the wife is guilty of fornication. See here.
19:10-12 After Jesus denounces divorce, his disciples say that if divorce isn't allowed, then "it is good not to marry." Jesus agrees by saying that it is better to make yourself a eunuch "for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Many have castrated themselves attempting to follow Jesus' advice in this verse. That's their problem. See here.
19:12 Dangerous words from a guy who recommends cutting of body parts if they cause you to sin (Mt.5:29-30, Mt.18:8-9, Mk.9:43-48). It might make someone castrate himself so that he could be one of the 144,000 male virgins, who alone will make it to heaven (Rev.14:3-4). Still their problem.
19:17 Jesus denies being either good or God. "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." See here.
19:17 Is salvation by faith alone? Well, not according to Jesus. He clearly says here that salvation depends only on "keeping the commandments." See here.
19:18-19 Jesus lists the "ten commandments," but his list has only six, and the sixth is not one of the ten. The commandments given by Jesus are secular, not religious, in nature. See here. If the man was a Jew then the religious commandments could be taken for granted.
19:24 Rich people don't go to heaven. For as Jesus says, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Oh. "Easier" is the same as "don't go"? How about a lesson in ancient hyperbole? Or this.
19:26 Jesus says that God can do anything, but elsewhere the Bible says that some things are impossible for God. See here.
19:28 Jesus tells his apostles, "ye shall sit upon the twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." I wonder which tribe Judas is judging? Sure, as if SAB expected Jesus to go laying out exception clauses in this offer to satisfy his nitpick. See above on hyperbole and check the bit on prophetic hyperbole.
19:29 Abandon your wife and children for Jesus and he'll give you a big reward. See here -- and actually, the family would be the one doing the initial rejection in this social setting.
20:18-19 Jesus tells his disciples about his impending death and resurrection. But John (20:8-9) says that the disciples had never heard any of this before Jesus' death. See here.
20:23 Jesus says that he does not have the power to assign the positions of power in heaven, but later in Matthew (28:18) Jesus says "all power is given to me in heaven." See here.
20:30 Matthew says that two blind men were healed by Jesus near Jericho, but both Mark (10:46) and Luke (18:35) say that only one was healed. See principles here plus here.
21:4 This verse claims that Jesus fulfils the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9. But this cannot be since the person referred to in Zechariah (see verses 10-13) was both a military leader and the king of an earthly kingdom. See here yet again. Jews of the day recognized this as a prophecy of a future leader.
21:5-7 Matthew has Jesus ride into Jerusalem sitting on both an ass and a colt (must have taken some practice!). But Mark (11:7) and Luke (19:35) say that he rode on a colt only, and John (12:14) says he rode on a young ass. See here.
21:19-20 Jesus curses a fig tree and the tree dies immediately. But in Mark's gospel (11:14, 20-21) the cursed fig tree doesn't die until the next morning. See here and here.
21:21-22 If your faith is great enough, then you can move mountains around. And whatever you ask for your will receive. (O Lord, won't ya buy me a Mercedes-Benz?) Nope. See here, and recite a selfish mantra instead.
22:10-14 In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Nothing like cultural ignorance to assure outrage. As Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science Commentary on the Synoptics notes, in this social context the king would have provided the clothes and the person addressed had refused them, thus shaming the king and essentially saying he didn't care about what the king was offering. It's an analogy for a person who refuses salvation.
22:39 Jesus quotes Lev.19:18: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." This is by far the best verse in Leviticus, and one of the best in the entire bible. But in the next chapter of Leviticus, God orders us to kill wizards (20:6), children who are disrespectful toward their parents (20:9), adulterers (20:10), and homosexuals (20:13). And SAB only can respond with "argument by outrage". And throughout the Old Testament, God encourages the Israelites to kill their neighbors every chance they get. (See Numbers 31 and 1 Samuel 15 for just two of many examples.) See here and here, plus here to get the point that "love" is not mushy sentimentality but concern for the greatest good.
22:45 Jesus denies being a descendent of David. But many New Testament passages claim that he was descended from David. I have no idea where SAB gets "denial" out of this.
23:9 Jesus tells us to "call no man your father upon the earth." Not even dear old dad? [Can we] cry out "father, father" as Elijah ascended into heaven? (2 Kg.2:12) And how can we "honor our father" if we refuse to call him our father? (Ex.20:12, Dt.5:16) Try reading in cultural context.
23:10 Jesus tells us to call no one "master," because he want us to serve him alone. But elsewhere slaves are told to faithfully serve their masters, and women are told to serve and obey their husbands. Answered here.
23:17, 19 Jesus calls his critics fools (among other things like hypocrites and vipers), thus making himself eligible for "hell fire." (Mt.5:22) Answered here.
23:31 Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them which killed the prophets." And SAB is still pathologically politically correct.
23:35 Jesus says that Zecharaiah was the son of Barachias, but 2 Chr.24:20 says that he was the son of Jehoiada. See here.
23:36 Jesus predicts the end of the world within the lifetime of his listeners. Jesus predicts the end of the age, not world, in 70 AD.
24:14 Jesus says the gospel will be preached to all nations "and then shall the end come." But in Mt.10:23, he said the end would come before the gospel was preached to all the cities of Israel. In any case, this is a false prophecy since the gospel has been preached throughout the world (as Paul says in Rom.10:18) yet the world hasn't ended. Nice try. See the same link.
24:16 "Let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains." Why? Can't God find and kill them there, too? Not if Jerusalem is the target. See links above.
24:19 "Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days." Why? Does God especially hate pregnant and nursing women? No, but war sure does, as it did in 70 AD.
24:24 Jesus says there will be "false Christs" that will "show great signs and wonders." Well, Jesus himself according to Acts 2:22 fits this description. As a false Christ? Can we say "begged question"? As showing signs and wonders? SAB has that McKinsey problem of thinking that "signs and wonders" must be exclusive of the bad guys.
24:29 "The moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven." Apparently, Jesus believed that the moon produces its own light, and that the stars are lights held in place by a firmament only a few miles above our heads. Apparently SAB is ignorant of Jewish apocalytpic imagery; see link above.
24:30 Will Jesus' second coming be visible to all? Well, not according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, anyway. We do not care of course what the JWs say and will skip this.
24:34 Jesus is a false prophet, since he predicts that the end of the world will come within the lifetimes of his disciples. The world of course didn't end then, and according to Ec.1:4 it never will end. SAB is a poor student, since again it's not the end of the world but the end of the age. See above. 24:36 Col.2:2-3 implies that Jesus knows everything. But Jesus in this verse says that only his father knows when the end of the world will come. Col. 2:2-3 is said of the ascended and resurrected Christ, and anyway, does not say "knows everything" but says, "In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." How SAB gets "knows everything" out of that is a Scooby Doo mystery.
24:45 "Who then is a faithful and wise servant?" For JWs, we don't care.
24:48 Another JW cite.
24:50-51 God will come when people least expect him and then he'll "cut them asunder." And "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." And SAB can prove they don't deserve their fate. See BTW here, part 2.
25:1 Jesus apparently approves of polygamy since he tells, without comment, a parable involving ten virgins and one bridegroom. And says they all married him. Um, hello? In traditional ANE weddings, the bridesmaids are virgins.
25:29 Jesus will give to those who already have and take from those who have nothing. He must've been a republican. See here.
25:30 The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." I.e, the servant who was lazy and slothful. SAB wants to get to heaven on the Easy Money plan.
25:34 In this verse, Jesus tells us that heaven was prepared "from the foundation of the world," but in Jn.14:2-3 he contradicts himself by saying that heaven will not be prepared until after his ascension. See here.
25:41 Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. Dislikes = those who refuse to repent of their sins and recognize his Lordship. Yep, it's just a matter of like vs. dislike. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." And SAB can prove it's not just. See again here, part 2.
25:46 Jesus says the damned will be tormented forever. But Ec.9:5 says that the dead simply cease to exist and are no longer subject to punishment, See here plus here. and Micah (7:18) says that since God's anger doesn't last forever, neither will his punishment. See here.
26:11 Jesus says he will not be with his disciples always, but later (28:20) he says he will always be with them. See here.
26:26, 28 Jesus tells his disciples to eat his body and drink his blood. Sure, and that's what the bread mentioned was made of, and what was in the cup. And SAB is a pathological literalist with a modernist aversion to blood. See here.
26:34 Jesus says, "before the cock crow, thou [Peter] shall deny me thrice." But according to Mark (14:66-72) the cock crowed after Peter's first denial. See here.
26:52 Jesus gives some good advice here. Unfortunately, he gives contradictory advice in Mt.10:34 and Lk.22:36. See here. And, of course, it is also contradicted in innumerable places elsewhere in the bible. As would be most proverbial, non-abolsute statements like this.
26:54-56 "But all this was done, that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." What scriptures? What prophets? There is no such propecy in the Old Testament. In direct context, Ps. 41:9. We could say more but SAB still needs the lesson taught here.
26:63-64 When the high priest asks Jesus if he is "the Christ, the Son of God," Jesus hedges by saying, "Thou hast said." In Mark (14:62), Jesus answered directly by saying, "I am." Hedges, bologna. In both gospels he falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. If he lived to 70, which is not improbable for a member of the upper class, he sure did.
26:69-75 To whom did Peter deny knowing Jesus? See principles here.
27:5 Matthew says that Judas committed suicide by hanging, but Acts (1:18) says that Judas died by falling down and "all his bowels gushed out." See here.
27:6-7 Here we are told that the chief priests bought the potter's field. But Acts 1:18 says that the field was bought by Judas. Ditto.
27:8 The phrase "unto this day" shows that the gospel of Matthew was written long after the events it describes. Like heck it does. See here.
27:9 This is not a quote from Jeremiah, but a misquote of Zechariah (11:12-13). See here and here.
27:12-14 Matthew says that Jesus was silent during his trial before Pilate. But in John (33-38), Jesus makes lengthy speeches during his trial. During his trial? No, he makes those "speeches" before Pilate when he is alone with him -- not during the trial phase, when the accusers were present.
27:25 This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries. As perpetuated by contextually clueless folks like SAB. See here.
27:28 What color was Jesus' robe? scarlet as Matthew says, or purple as in Mark (15:17) and John (19:2)? "Purple" was the generic name for a type of dye used to make robes that varied in shade from scarlet to what we call purple (Acts 16:14).
27:32 Matthew says Simon the Cyrene carried Jesus' cross, but according to John (19:17), Jesus carried his cross himself. See here.
27:32 Matthew says "they gave him vinegar to drink mixed with gall," but Mark (15:23) says that they gave him "wine" and "myrrh." See here.
27:37 None of the gospels agree on the wording of the sign placed over Jesus' head. (Mk.15:26, Lk.23:38, Jn.19:19) They do? The writing was done in three languages. At best SAB is nitpicking over differences like "This is the King of the Jews" and "The King of the Jews". Definitely a sign of non-witness testimony and fabrication.
27:46 Matthew disagrees with Luke (23:46) and John (19:30) on the last words of Jesus. See here.
27:52-53 "And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints" arose and walked around, appearing to meany in Jerusalem shortly after Jesus died. Yet elsewhere the bible says that no one will ever rise from the dead. See here.
27:53 This verse is put in parentheses in the NWT simply because the governing body doesn't like what it says. That's nice. We'll skip it.
27:54 What did the centurion call Jesus when he died? Why does SAB think inerrancy requires exact verbal correspondence and think that the centurion said only a few words?
27:55 Matthew says that the women who followed Jesus to his crucifixion watched from "afar off." But John (19:25) says that they "stood by the cross." See here.
28:1 Matthew says that two women went to the sepulchre on Easter morning; all of the other gospels disagree. Mark (16:1) says there were three, Luke (24:10) says there were five or more, and John (20:1) says there was only one. See here.
28:1 John (Jn.20:1) says that the women arrived at the sepulchre "early, when it was yet dark." But in this verse Matthew says they arrived "as it began to dawn." See here.
28:2 None of the gospels agree on just whom the women saw at the tomb. Matthew says they saw an angel; Mark (16:5) says they saw a young man; Luke (24:4) says that two men were seen; and John (20:12) says there were two angels. See here.
28:2 Was the tomb open or closed when the women arrived? See here.
28:2 Were the men or angels inside or outside the tomb when first seen? See here.
28:8 Matthew says the women immediately ran to tell the disciples what they had seen. But Mark (16:8) denies this saying they were too frightened to tell anyone. See here.
24:9 To whom did Jesus first appear? and did Mary Magdalene recognize Jesus? See here.
28:10 Jesus instructs his disciples to go to Galilee immediately after his resurrection. But in Luke (24:49) and Acts (Acts 1:4) Jesus tells them to tarry in Jerusalem and wait for them to be "empowered with power from on high." See here.
28:15 Once again (see also 27:8), Matthew's phrase "until this day" implies that the gospel of Matthew was not written until long after the reported events supposedly occurred. See here.
28:16-17 Where did Jesus first appear to the eleven (Paul [1 Cor.15:5] says he appeared to "the twelve")? Matthew says it was on a mountain in Galilee, but both Luke (24:33-37) and John (20:19) say it was in a room in Jerusalem. See here.
28:17 Even some of Jesus' apostles doubted that the allegedly risen Christ was really Jesus. Well if they weren't sure, how could we ever be? We might try homework. See here, relevant portion.
28:18 Jesus says, "All power is given unto me." But this is disputed elsewhere in the New Testament. See here.
28:19 Jesus tell his apostles to preach the gospel to "all nations," but elsewhere he said otherwise. See here.
28:19 Jesus tells his apostles to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," but this formula is not used anywhere else in the New Testament. In Acts (2:38, 8:16, 19:5), baptisms are done only in the name of Jesus. See here.
28:20 Jesus says he will be with his disciples always, but elsewhere he denies this. See here.

[bernee51]

Yes, on God's authority, on Jesus's authority.

Are you claimig that the bible is the word of god because it says so in the bible, and if is says so in the bible then it must be true because the bible is the word of god?

Not to mention the Bible's verifiability with history, it's scientific accuracy's,

OK lets start with these two...some evidence to support these claims would be appreciated.

And if I can show evidence where the bible is clearly not historically or scientifically accurate, what does that mena for the bible?

it's prophetic proofs,

Again which prophetic proofs. And what of the 'prophecies' that did not eventuate?

and it's continuity inspite of being written by over 40 people over 1500 years all testify to it's divine origins.

Que? How does that testify to its 'divine origins'?

But then, if it's not in your heart to believe it you just won't believe it.

Ah so you have to want to believe it for it to be believable. That makes sense.

redstang281 wrote:
Sure in a 100% Christian society.

Is this possible?

Not until Satan is bound. (Revelation 20)

Then it is not possible.

Not yet, no.

No - what i meant is that it will never be possible.

redstang281 wrote:
To kill someone may not be a desirable thing but sometimes it is necessary only because of the world we live in.

I disagree - no wilful taking of human life is justified.

You may disagree. However, I decide to trust God with his judgements. I think a mass murderer should be taken out of society permanently and not kept alive in a prison cell to kill and rape other people while tax payers support him the rest of his life.

You are "trusting god to his judgements"...then judgignyourself that a mass murder should be killed...to save money.

Interesting.

If it's really God and not the devil. The only way to know is to test what someone says based on scripture.

So if I quote an appropriate verse of 'scripture' then kill someone, its OK. I get it.

Meditation is more effectve...

Can meditation share your concerns or problems with the creator of the universe who can then use his will to help you in the best way possible?

Yes.

and, unlike prayer, there are easily measurable results.

Well I think that's a little unscientific. There's too many variables to make a statement like that.

Not at all. There are clear scientific studies into the efficacy of meditation. There are none, that I know to be genuine, that can do that for prayer.

I have an excellent relationship with god and I am far from having a christian belief.

Which god?

God does not have a name.

I guess one not even deserving a capital letter.

Why does acapital letter make any difference. Is you god more powerful because of an upper case 'G'

Many people refer to another deity as God, but my belief is there is only one God, the God of the Bible.

The god of the bible? He is a cruel, murdering genocidal tyrant that incited his believers to rape, kidnap and murder.

Nah, I don't believe that god exists. Not enough evidence and to many contradictions.

But I do not believe this. Why should I?

Because he is the only way and because I care about you and don't want you to go to hell.

I know he is not the only way and thank you for caring about me. Have noi fear...I am not hell bound.

He changed my life and gave me hope of salvation.

That is great. I have had many life changing revelations in my life experience. I have no 'hope' of salvation. For one I do not believe 'hope' is a sensible emotion - it is borne out of fear. And I am not in need of salvation.

We do it because of what God has done for us because of our faith and we want to help others too.

That is admirable. However, because it is right for you does not mean it is right for everyone. That sort of sociocentric belief clearly leads to division and conflict.