Issue #128-LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ON: the Resurrect

Biblical Errancy Issue #128-LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ON: the Resurrection, Complimenting & Helping BE, Tactics to Use, Catholi- cism and Images, Reader Debates Biblicists, OT Repulsiveness, University Debate with Minister

Nov 10, '08 5:53 AM
by Loren for everyone






Issue No. 128


August 1993
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We have always had a policy of periodically devoting an entire issue of BE to letters from our readers, and in keeping with that tradition have decided to devote this month's issue to correspondence.



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



DIALOGUE AND DEBATE



Letter #537 from GM of Oulu, Finland (Part a)

Dear Mr. McKinsey.

I read with interest the sample issues of Biblical Errancy you sent me, and I would like to make a few remarks. One of the copies of Biblical Errancy I received bears the title "Sample Issue" and has no date or progressive number; therefore I assume that as a rule this copy is sent to all inquirers. I want to concentrate for this time on this sample issue. I believe that several of the arguments against Christianity contained in it are unfair, and for honesty's sake should be removed from the issue. I cannot discuss all issues in one letter, so for this time I will focus on a few of them only.

THE RESURRECTION

You ask, "Why should the Resurrection be of such significance as that ascribed to it for example by Paul in 1 Cor. 15:14?'"After all, you observe, the Bible tells of other people being raised from the dead. Since I happen to believe that what Paul says is true, I will try to show that this argument is not in line with the stated aims of your periodical, and therefore should be removed from it.

First of all, I am surprised that you apparently are not aware of the fact that according to the Bible Jesus' resurrection was unique in that it was not a mere resuscitation of a corpse. All the Biblical characters you mention were raised from the dead, but after that they grew old and died once again. Jesus, on the other hand, was raised from the dead in order to be alive forever (Rev. 1:18, Rom. 6:9, Heb. 7:25). The claim that Jesus will never die again, if nothing else, does make the resurrection of Jesus unique in the Bible, is consistent with the statement of Paul, and flies in the face of your claim that other people were raised from the dead in the same sense Jesus was.



Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part a)

Dear GM.

Apparently I am going to have to start suggesting that people read prior issues of BE before they send us critical letters. This topic was covered long ago. To begin with, Paul says it is the resurrection that matters, not the fact that Jesus never died again. What Pauline verses are you referring to when you say that Jesus' act of never dying again is what really mattered to Paul? Paul never said that. In First Corinthians he said it's the resurrection that counts, not the fact that Jesus never died again. Secondly, how do you know that Jairus' daughter, the widow at Nain's son, Lazarus, and others who rose from the dead died again? How do you know they didn't go straight to Heaven like Elijah in his chariot? How can you be sure they didn't ascend to Heaven like Enoch? You say "the others grew old and died once again." What scriptural verses are you citing to prove that they died again, or is this mere conjecture on your part? Some of your argument rests on a gratuitous assumption. Thirdly, if the resurrection of Jesus was more than just the mere revival of a corpse, then how do you know that is not applicable to the others as well? And lastly, you cite Rev. 1:18, Heb. 7:25 and Rom. 6:9 to prove that Jesus was raised from the dead to be alive forevermore. Yet, according to Christian theology, we are all going to be raised from the dead to live forevermore in either Heaven, Hell, Purgatory or elsewhere. In fact, everyone is immortal whether desired or not. So Jesus is by no means unique in this regard.



Letter #537 Continues (Part b)

In fact, Paul teaches elsewhere that Jesus' resurrection was THE FIRST of this kind to ever occur in history. Col. 1:18 says, "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence. First Cor. 15:20 says, "But now is Christ risen from the dead, [and] become the firstfruits of them that slept. And 1 Cor. 15:23 says, "But every man [will rise from the dead] in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.



Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part b)

You have misconstrued these verses, GM. In fact, you would do well to steer clear of them entirely. They say that Christ was the first to rise from the dead, period. Nowhere do they say that his resurrection was the first "of this kind." No biblical distinction is drawn between the nature of his resurrection and those of others. All three verses you cite clearly state that Christ was the first to rise from the dead, and both the Old and New Testaments clearly refute the validity of that claim. Many biblical figures rose before him. Secondly, how could Jesus have a beginning or be firstborn if he is God, the eternal? Thirdly, Paul says it's the resurrection that counts, the fact that Jesus rose from the dead, period, not the fact that his was the first in a long series of resurrections.



Letter #537 Continues (Part c)

In addition, Jesus' resurrection was unique in that He raised Himself from the dead (or, if you don't believe it, He claimed He would - John 10:17-18). No other character in the Bible raised himself from the dead, nor did anyone else claim to be able to do so. Far from being similar to other "resurrections," Jesus' resurrection was something that had never happened before, and that has not happened ever since.



Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part c)

The more you talk, GM, the further your quaggy descent. The Bible repeatedly states in no uncertain terms that Jesus was raised from the dead by God; he did not raise himself. Verses which clearly prove as much are: Acts 3:15 ("And killed the Prince of life, whom God has raised from the dead...."), Acts 13:30 ("But God raised him from the dead"), Gal. 1:1 ("...but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead...."), Acts. 4:10, 2:32, 5:30, and many others. Also note that verses like Gal. 1:1 draw a clear distinction between Jesus and God the Father. So don't try the old trinitarian shell-game of equating the two and saying that Jesus is God and therefore raised himself. Either he is God or he isn't. He can't be both simultaneously. If he is God, he couldn't have died to begin with, since God can't die. If he isn't, then these verses clearly show that he did not raise himself.

On top of everything else, you claim Jesus' predicted in John 10:17-18 that he would raise himself, which many verses show to be an erroneous prognostication. In essence, you've inadvertently exposed Jesus as a false prophet. You'd do well to avoid these verses as well.



Letter #537 Continues (Part d)

Furthermore, the body with which Jesus was raised, although the same body he had before the resurrection (the scars were still there), was according to Paul a spiritual body, which he says is radically different from a physical body (1 Cor. 15:35-53). (Here as elsewhere, you can believe what Paul says or disbelieve it, but you cannot say it is a fallacy or an error or a contradiction.)

This fact too is consistent with the idea that Jesus' resurrection was completely different from, say, that of Lazarus, and it is inconsistent with your opinion that what started Christianity was just another resuscitation like many others.

Incidentally, there is a serious mistake in your list of biblical resuscitations. What happened to Samuel (1 Sam. 28) and to Moses and Elijah (Luke 9) is neither a resurrection nor a resuscitation. Rather, their disembodied spirits were made visible to people; their bodies will be raised only when Jesus comes back.

Editor's Response to Letter #537 (Part d)

In the 15th chapter of first Corinthians to which you refer, Paul is talking about a spiritual body which all will have when they rise from the dead. He is not referring to the body of Jesus alone. The very first verse of 1 Cor. 15:35-53 says, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they (Notice it says "they") come?," and is clearly referring to people in general, not Jesus in particular, as the other verses demonstrate as well. You can't use these verses to prove that the resurrection of Jesus was different from that of Lazarus, for example. The bodies which Jesus and Lazarus had after their resurrections were the same physical bodies they had before their demise and, according to Paul, any spiritual quality attached to one will accompany the other also.

Where did I ever use the word "resuscitation" or even imply that "what started Christianity was just another resusitation." Can you show one instance in all of our prior issues where I ever used the word "resuscitation"? Biblicists throw that word around freely, and I've never used it. You've created a straw-man.

And can you provide any biblical testimony to the effect that Samuel, Moses, and Elijah appeared only as disembodied spirits? Samuel says to Saul in 1 Sam. 28:15, "Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?" Luke 9:30 says, "Behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah! They were splendid in appearance, glorious to see...." Where do these or related verses state that the appearances of Samuel, Moses, and Elijah were in something other than a physical body? You have inserted into the text a conjecture that is not only unwarranted but, even more important, unprovable. (TO BE CONTINUED)




LETTERS TO THE EDITOR



Letter #538 from VC of Hood River, Oregon

In response to letter #528 (May 1993) from BF of Tallahassee:

My sentiments exactly and he says it so well. I have all the BE issues. I reread them occasionally. I've underlined my favorite parts and made notations in the margins. My heirs have been instructed to save these and pass them on down through our progeny.



Letter #539 from JT of Hughesville, Penn.

Dear Dennis.

I don't know whether an elephant ever forgets, but I've forgotten to write you lately to tell you what a superb job I think you're doing with "Biblical Errancy." It took BF's letter (#528) in Issue 125 to bring me to my senses. Mea culpa!

Let me just say that "BE" is one of the few publications I can't wait to get in the mail. I wish each issue were a hundred pages long! I look forward to many more numbers to come. You've got the fundies on the run, Dennis! Now, let's close in for the kill!



Letter #540 from HLM of Bellbrook, Ohio

Dear Dennis....

You should be pleased to learn that I personally answer just about every religious editorial that appears in the Dayton Daily News, including an occasional one by David E. Kepple who is allowed far too much religious influence in that paper. Along with my personal remarks to these people, I include a copy of your pamphlets. I am yet to receive a reply from anyone!

Allow me to make a few suggestions, if you will, Dennis, regarding the format of B.E. I enjoy reading contradictions in the Bible, but somehow your heavy reliance on contradictions alone doesn't appear to affect theists in the way I hoped it would. That's why I like the philosophical approach better. Your sample copy dealing with the flood and the resurrection is the best type of ammunition you've ever presented, because you point out the ridiculous aspects of the stories. This isn't so easy to combat.

But contradictions, particularly those dealing with numbers are simply passed off by theists as translation errors. They don't appear to shake a person's faith in the least. Your flood account is a pure gem.... Please consider more newsletters in that vein. I've enclosed with this letter a page of questions that you might like to sift through for possible use in future editions of BE. Thank you for your time and keep spreading the word. Jehovah's Witnesses aren't the only ones who can command attention.

(Some of the questions you might use are--Ed.). Do you not agree that the Catholic Church is being terribly hypocritical by bowing to statues of worship when Lev. 26:1 clearly states: "You shall not erect an idol or a sacred pillar for yourselves, nor shall you set up a stone figure for worship in your land." This verse is found in both the King James version and Saint Joseph's New Catholic Edition. I have a former Catholic friend who left the church when she saw the hypocrisy of that verse....

Christians love the song "He's Got the Whole World in His Hands." Yet, in 1 John 5:19 we learn that "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one." I've always suspected that God and Satan were one and the same. I think this proves it.



Editor's Response to Letter #540

Dear HLM.

As we have mentioned before, BE is by no means confined to contradictions alone. It focuses on any and all problems having to do with the validity of the Bible, and that would involve a wide assortment of failings, including problems, errors, fallacies, contradictions, inaccuracies, immoralities, pseudo-science, etc. Contradictions are not the only avenue of assault. They should be viewed as crucial but by no means exhaustive.



Letter #541 from Anonymous of Virginia

Dear Dennis.

This morning when I talked to you by phone, I had "spread" 42 of the last 100 BE pamphlets that I recently ordered. It's 6:32 PM and ALL of the BE pamphlets have been distributed.... it's a privilege to distribute your stuff. I hope you get some subscribers out of this distribution, but even if you don't, a lot of people have seen THE TRUTH that they would not have seen otherwise. So it gives me a good feeling to know that maybe I have helped rescue some people from a life of mental illness. And I feel I have struck 100 more winning blows for the precious little girl in Letter #527 of May 1993 BE. Dennis, it's slow, but we can even help the chronically mentally ill. You may be the greatest force for sanity that the world has ever seen or will ever see. You are certainly a great champion--maybe the greatest ever--for the defenseless. I'm starting to rank you with Charles Dickens (after your reply to letter 527 which showed your tenderness toward that precious little girl with the grateful smile. Dennis, if she knew what you are doing for her, she would wish to hug you till it hurt and cover your cheek with sweet little kisses). I send my everlasting thanks to the writer of letter 527. Please send me 100 more pamphlets.



Editor's Response to Letter #541

Dear Anonymous. What can I say. You leave me speechless. Letters 527 and 528 in the May issue generated great interest and correspondence as your letter and those of others clearly show.



Letter #542 from AH of Sonoma, California

Dear Dennis. I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper where I used items from your pamphlet entitled THE BIBLE IS GOD'S WORD?, and this guy, Michael, wrote in with jokes and lies. When I responded, the editor refused to print my rebuttal. Actually I was amazed that he printed my first letter where I said there are over 300 contradictions in the bible. ....JK, a local pastor, wrote an article asking if the Bible was reliable. Of course, he answered his own letter by saying yes. I am writing him telling him to expect a copy of BE. Since the local editor won't print but one side of Christianity, I will ask him to debate you in your magazine. Best Wishes.



Editor's Response to Letter #542

Dear AH.

We appreciate your assistance, and please let everyone know that we stand ready to debate all biblicists at any time.



Letter #543 from BY of Seminole, Florida

Dear Dennis.

I am happily renewing my subscription to BE. I find it enlightening and a delightful source of arguments for debating those fervent Christians who cannot see beyond their precious "Book." I have also put said arguments to use in more public forums; the Atheists of Florida, Inc., produces a public-access show that has been broadcast in the Miami and Tampa areas, and will soon be in Wisconsin as well.

I also found the arguments useful when discoursing with "non-Biblical Christians" such as CH who wrote the letter in issue 126. One such liberal non-fundamentalist priest "Father" Leo Booth, has gained a measure of fame through talk show appearances promoting his book, When God Becomes a Drug: Breaking the Chains of Religious Addiction. Other local skeptics and I faced off with the "father" on a Tampa talk-show broadcast on a local CBS affiliate. Using your publication as a source for many of our questions, we placed Booth in positions for which he had no sensible answers, and no doubt did our part to hamper sales of his book locally. Additionally, several in the studio audience admitted that they were questioning the basis of their preacher's claims at face value. I doubt we've started a revolution, but every seed of doubt planted may someday bloom!

At any rate, I too have gone beyond the point of being "apologetic" for my atheism and skepticism; I think the Christians owe us all an apology for the horrendous deeds done (by humans, not through any supernatural means) in the name of their God over the last two or three thousand years. My favorite response to those who hit me with the "God bless you [you poor misguided soul], I'll pray for you" bit as a parting shot or offhand response is: Jesus Kills, are you still an accessory?"



Editor's Response to Letter #543

Dear BY.

Like so many others who have written to us, you are using BE in the manner intended. Keep up the good work!



Letter #544 from BF of Tallahassee, Florida

Dear Dennis.

Enclosed please find my check for a 2-year renewal of my subscription. I three-hole punched all of my BE's and put them in a big ring binder and started from Vol. 1 reading them all over again. This time more scholarly; taking notes and putting the more salient points on 3 X 5 cards to study while waiting in traffic, the dentist's office, etc. I figure in 18 months to two years I'll be ready to take some embryonic steps in debating fundies on their own turf. I do not wish to start before I am ready.

I sure wish we could form national and regional clinics or workshops to study debating strategy; role playing etc. to bring back to local areas and teach others of a like mind. Other than BE and Till's periodical are there any other publications you could recommend?



Editor's Response to Letter #544

Your strategy resembles that which I outlined in my speech contained in Issues 58, 59, and 60. You might want to reread them and see what you think. As far as other publications are concerned, I can't think of any that operate like Biblical Errancy except possibly Golding's Biblical Polemics, which is published in Israel, and F. Till's Skeptical Review. If you learn of any, please let me know.



Letter #545 from DS of Tiffin, Ohio

Dear Dennis....

I fully agree with your contention that to not battle the Biblicists in their own court is foolish. The only way one can confront them with reality is on their own front porch. One problem: once they seem to realize that you just might be right they stay away. It's hard to get a second shot at them. Also, no sports team can be called a winner if it can't win on the road. We rationalists had better hit the road and win a few.



Letter #546 from DM of Pasadena, California

Dear Mr. McKinsey....

BE has put out a lot of good information, especially in its major themes of recent editions, and I hope that you will keep up the good work. One bit of advice: Devote half the usual space to commenting on how stupid, incoherently rambling, idiotic, spaced-out, ridiculous, ignorant, or out-of-the-ballpark some of the letters are. Such comments have a way of multiplying until they occupy an inappropriately large space, whereupon they cast more bad light on you than your opponents.



Editor's Response to Letter #546

Dear DM.

Although your observation is to be taken in a spirit of camaraderie, I do think you have over-stated the point. Perhaps my memory is inadequate, but I don't remember ever having referred to my opponents as stupid, idiotic, ignorant, or spaced out. Terms of opprobrium have never been my stock and trade, even though they have crossed my mind on different occasions. Words such as rambling and ridiculous, however, have been employed in several instances and were directed toward the arguments of others as opposed to individuals per se. If you had been subjected to as many denunciatory comments over the last 10 years as I, you would probably have a greater appreciation for the amount of composure and forbearance we have managed to display. Be that as it may, you correctly concluded that mutual vilifications have a way of multiplying when allowed to continue unchecked. I hope we never have, and never will, cross into the arena of castigation and backbiting. My apologies to any who may feel the wall has been breached.



Letter #547 from JC of Birmingham, Alabama

Mr. McKinsey....

Received the material--most informative, especially the WSB audio tape. You have truly undertaken the more important work of our age.... You really should charge more for your excellent material.



Editor's Response to Letter #547

Your compliments are appreciated and you are probably correct. Our rates should be higher, but our primary emphasis has always been on getting the message out. In that same vein, many people have told me that with my knowledge of the Bible I could make a fortune as a preacher. Of course, my heart would not be in an undertaking of that kind, and monetary considerations would be the only motivation. That hardly sounds enjoyable, and I'd have a hard time looking in mirrors. Several years ago a Seventh-Day Adventist minister said his church would be willing to finance me in any manner deemed necessary should I decide to become a minister (Read: propagandist) for his denomination.



Letter #548 from SM of Torrance, California

Dear Dennis.

Wow! This stuff's dynamite! A friend passed along copies of your issues #125 and #126 to me, and I am impressed by your no-nonsense approach.... I debated a Creationist last week, and I found that the audience of Baptist fundamentalists were particularly attentive as I used your style to shred the Genesis account of Creation and Noah's Flood (or as I call it, the Jehovah Genocide).... Keep up the good work!



Letter #549 from GN of Scottsdale, Arizona

Dear Dennis.

I notice in this month's BE that you are having a debate about pornography in the Bible. I've found one. Perhaps you already know about it. At Genesis 24:2 Abraham is having his servant swear an oath to him about finding a wife for his son Isaac. It says, "Please place you hand under my thigh." In the footnote of my Bible it says, "procreative organ." Even the translators were reluctant to use the right word, "penis." Can't you just picture this repulsive scene? I imagine that the Bible has been cleaned up considerably over the years. I'm sure that "piss" will eventually be taken out of it in future translations.

What about all those men having concubines (women they lived with, had sex with, but were not married to)? I don't see how anyone can deny that the Bible is pornographic. If they do, then I believe that they don't really know what it says, especially when it comes to Lot offering his virgin daughters to the wicked men of Sodom to rape and brutalize, and then having an incestous relationship with them in a drunken stupor. Wonder how JM cleans up this story to tell to his children. Another story that would shock the socks off a little kid is that of Abraham and Isaac. It seems to me that Christian kids would have a hard time sleeping at night, never knowing when their Daddy might hear the voice of God demanding them as a human sacrifice. There's also the matter of stories about the pregnant bellies of women's bodies being ripped open. The Bible certainly is not a book for children. Talk about violence on TV; nothing matches the violence in unholy scripture.



EDITOR'S NOTE: On Saturday June 26, 1993 Church of Christ Minister Don Boyer and I debated in Richmond, Indiana for 2 and one half hours. Don has his own column in the local conservative newspaper, the Richmond PALLADIUM-ITEM, and virtually challenged anyone to contest the Bible's validity. One of our subscribers contacted me and I called Boyer to arrange a discussion. He and one of our subscribers was kind enough to send me the following "Letter to the Editor" written by someone whom we do not know named John Kowalec, which appeared in the paper.

"I attended the debate held at Indiana University East auditorium Saturday, June 26. The performance by Don Boyer in my opinion was deplorable. The use of devious diversions and subtlety to prove his argument flopped, and helped to bolster his opponent's claims. I guess the above is the stock in trade used by Christian clergy to befuddle all unwary superstitious people; then they can lead them like sheep to slaughter.

On the other hand, Dennis McKinsey laid out his agenda, put forth his argument and affirmed all his assertions, and won the debate by a land-slide. Yes, the Bible in the hands of Christian zealots is a dangerous tool. By it, more crime has been committed, more people murdered, tortured and tormented than anything else used since the beginning of time. Witness the crusades, the pogroms, the Holocaust; today it's ethnic cleansing, all done in the name of Christianity, which is derived from the mythical book called the Bible. And let us not forget Jonestown and Waco, Texas.

Christianity is one of the greatest scams perpetrated on a nation of people. It has caused people to debase and mutilate themselves through its techniques. As it is written, "the blind leading the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."