Issue #143-SCRIPTURE MIXTURE (Part 2), Sisson's An

Biblical Errancy Issue #143-SCRIPTURE MIXTURE (Part 2), Sisson's Answering Christianity's... Questions, Ryrie's Basic Theology, Bowman's Why...Believe in Trinity, Blaiklock's Jesus, Man or Myth, Little's Know Why You Believe

Nov 10, '08 6:59 AM
by Loren for everyone






Issue No. 143

November 1994

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This edition will continue our potpourri of invalid and dubious biblical observations found in a variety of apologetic sources that was begun several months ago in the May 1994 issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCRIPTURE MIXTURE (Part 2)
SISSON'S ANSWERING CHRISTIANITY'S MOST PUZZLING QUESTIONS, Vol. 2--On page 4 Sisson defends one of Christianity's most absurd concepts, the Trinity. He begins by admitting, "It is not an easy doctrine" which is not only an understatement, but nothing more than a backhanded attempt to make it appear as if some rationality were involved. He later states, "The doctrine of the Trinity, however, is of vital importance to us all--not just theologians. It helps us to understand truths about God and salvation...." No. It's real purpose is to provide a backdoor, an escape hatch, for all those contradictions that are obvious to anyone reading Scripture with a reasonable degree of objectivity. He states the concept of the Trinity "may irritate your sense of logic," as if logic came in varieties. It doesn't irritate a particular sense of logic; it conflicts with logic, period. Logic has no gradations or degrees. Logic is logic, and no one has a corner on the market or a variety superior to that of others.
On page 6 Sisson defends Jesus' claim to be God incarnate by saying, "Ultimately, we must let the Savior speak for Himself. In 7 ways He defended His claim to be God incarnate. First, He gave evidence by His works as stated in John 5:36 ('...for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me') and John 14:11 ('Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father in me; or else believe me for the sake of the works themselves')." How this helps establish his credentials is baffling, to say the least, in light of the fact that Jesus performed no work that was not performed by other biblical figures. He rose from the dead, but so did others. He performed miracles, but so did others. He healed, but so did others.
Sisson continues by saying, "Second, He had authority only God could claim--authority to give life. John 5:21 says, 'For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will." Merely because a man claims to have a power makes it true? Many people have claimed to give life throughout history. Does that mean it's automatically true? Merely because somebody alleges something is sufficient to establish its validity? Hardly! Just because he claimed it, doesn't mean he had it. Peter raised Tabitha, and Paul raised Eutychus from the dead. Does that mean they can justifiably claim to be God incarnate? Sisson's argument is pathetic!
He expands on his second point by saying, "He had authority to exercise final judgment over men (John 5:22-23); authority over heaven's host (Matt. 26:53); authority over nature (Mark 4:39-41); authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:5, 10); and authority to expound the truth of the Scriptures (Matt. 5:27-28)." Again, mere assertions prove nothing. Proof going beyond mere words must be forthcoming. Anyone could claim to have comparable powers, and we would be obligated to believe them as well, if they weren't required to substantiate their assertions. Words are cheap. Saying something doesn't make it true.
Sisson continues, "Third, He fulfilled OT prophecies, which indicated an incarnate deity as shown by Isa. 7:14 ('Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel') and Isa. 9:6 ("For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace')." Issues 76 through 80 of BE clearly showed that no OT prophecies pertain to Jesus. They proved that the child mentioned in Isa. 7:14 could not be Jesus; nor could the one in Isa. 9:6, because it says he shall be called 'The everlasting Father,' when Jesus was the everlasting 'son'.
Sisson continues by saying, "Fourth, His character and relationship with God the Father were unique. Jesus never spoke of 'our Father' when he was with the disciples. It was always 'My Father' or 'your Father,' because the two kinds of relationships were distinct." Millions of people say "my Father" and "your Father" when referring to God. Does this mean they have the same relationship to God as Jesus alledgedly did? By offering this argument, Sisson appears to have been merely trying to extend his list in order to make it appear more impressive. Apparently desperation was setting in.
He continues by saying, "Fifth, He was eternal as shown by John 8:57-58 ('The Jews then said to him, You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am')." How John 8:57-58 proves Jesus is eternal is enigmatic. Jesus merely asserted that he lived before Abraham. Why would that automatically mean that he existed for all eternity prior to Abraham? And how does that prove Jesus will live for an eternity? Jesus alluded to time gone by, but that says nothing about time to come. Even more importantly, from a biblical perspective we are all eternal. Whether you go to heaven or hell, immortality is unavoidable, according to the Christian interpretation of Scripture. You are immortal, whether you like it or not. Jesus is no more eternal than the rest of us. The biblical annihilationist who says his destiny is nowhere and the rest of mankind will follow suit is one of the few to deny eternal life.
Sisson proceeds to dig his hole even deeper by saying, "Sixth, He demonstrated His power over death and hell by His resurrection (Matt. 12:38-40). That is the ultimate proof of His deity (Rom. 1:4--'And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead')." As was shown in prior issues of BE, biblical resurrections from the dead were a dime a dozen. If rising from the dead proved one were God incarnate, then Lazarus, Jairus' daughter, the Widow of Nain's son, and many others were God incarnate as well.
Sisson concludes by saying, "Finally, He appealed to people to believe in Him the same way they believed in God as shown by John 6:29 ('Jesus answered them, 'This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent') and John 11:25 ('Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live')." Again, words; nothing but words. Mere acclamation does not make something true. Throughout history others have said the same. How can we be sure their claims weren't valid?
On pages 18 and 19 Sisson reveals the lengths to which apologists will go to close the minds of their followers, by saying, "Jesus Christ must be fully God and fully man. If He is not, we are still in our sins.... Our task is not to explain the unexplainable, but to expound on the essential. May such antinomies (a euphemism for contradictions--Ed.) give us a great appreciation for God's wisdom and knowledge. As we discover such antinomies in Scripture, may they serve as constant reminders that God expects us to put His revelation ahead of our comfortable logic." In other words, don't think and critique; just listen and believe. Advice of this kind exposes religion in general, and the Bible in particular, to be among the most dangerous opponents of mental health and rational thought.
On page 23 Sisson tackles the free will versus determinism problem, under the heading of God's sovereignty versus man's responsibility. He states, "Twenty years ago, as a college student, I first became aware of the paramount theological controversy of all time: 'Is salvation the result of man's choice or God's choice?' I remember twin reactions. I was intellectually confused, and I suffered great emotional frustration over the issue. Two decades later I am still intellectually mystified.... I entertain no thoughts of resolving the difficulty.... the Scriptures teach both that God is sovereign and that man is responsible. It is commendable to try to harmonize both side of an antinomy (there's that euphemism again--Ed.) into one rational system, but it is not always possible...." Sisson is wrestling with the problem of how man can have free will if everything is determined by God. He tries to reconcile the conflict by saying, "The doctrine of God's sovereignty as taught in Scripture never negates human significance. God is working out His sovereign plan. But He truly depends on His people to accomplish that plan." But how can people be free to accomplish what God has already pre-ordained? Not only does God's sovereignty negate man's free will, but scores of biblical verses buttress predestination. On page 26 Sisson says, "Perhaps we never will be able to satisfy our human intellects with an answer." That's true! At least not until man also finds a square circle. While attempting to submit some sort of plausible defense, Sisson says on page 27, "In God's mercy He has chosen to save those who believe." But that can't be! The reverse is true. They chose to believe because they had already been selected. Sisson has it backwards. In concluding this topic, he tells Christians, "Don't be afraid to acknowledge what you perhaps do not understand completely." His modifiers are disarming. There is no "perhaps" to it, since no one can understand a blatant contradiction. Understand "completely"! Most Christians would be happy to understand it even minutely. Sisson concludes his sales pitch by saying, "God is sovereign. Salvation is His work. He chooses whom He wills to be objects of His mercy. But it is also true that men are responsible for their choices. No one will go to heaven without trusting Christ. Your choice determines your destiny." How could your choice determine your destiny when Sisson admits "God chooses whom he wills to be objects of his mercy"? God and God alone determines who will be saved. Sisson concludes by saying, "Is your mind troubled by the antinomy (again read this as contradiction--Ed.)? You are not alone. Be willing to live with unresolved questions. Accept the inevitable--that you will go to your grave with questions unresolved." In other words, you'll just have to trust me on this one. Square circles are possible. Sisson's explanation is understandable, considering the fact that it's based on a book that says people can rise from the dead, sticks can turn into serpents, people can mutate into pillars of salt, and donkeys can talk. Is one any more incredible than the other?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RYRIE'S BASIC THEOLOGY--Having discussed Sisson's defense of the Trinity, we might note the following admission found on page 79 of a book entitled Basic Theology by Dallas Theological Seminary professor Charles Ryrie, "It is fair to say that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity, if by clearly one means there are proof texts for the doctrine. In fact, there is not even one proof text, if by proof text we mean a verse or passage that 'clearly' states that there is one God who exists in three Persons."
Moving to an analysis of the sabbath, Ryrie states on page 268, "What caused the day of worship to change? All the first Christians were Jewish accustomed to worshiping on the Sabbath. Yet suddenly and uniformly they began to worship on Sunday though it was an ordinary workday (Acts 20:7). Why? Because they wanted to commemorate the resurrection of their Lord which took place on Sunday, they changed their day of worship. Christ's resurrection, the cause; Sunday worship the effect." Whether or not this correctly explains why the day of worship was changed, the fact remains that the alteration cannot be supported biblically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOWMAN'S WHY YOU SHOULD BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY-- In 1990 Robert Bowman, a staff member of the Christian Research Institute, issued a book entitled Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, which was created to refute the misconceptions of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the Trinity. Although the Jehovah's Witnesses are as lost as any other fundamentalist group, they at least have enough intelligence to realize that the Trinity is a concept without substance. Jesus couldn't possibly be God. While attacking the JW's, Bowman made several noteworthy observations. On page 10 he stated, "It is true that many trinitarians--Catholics especially, but also Protestants and Orthodox--state flatly that the Trinity cannot be understood and that it is in this sense a 'mystery.' ...Trinitarian theologians do not mean to imply that the Trinity is unintelligible nonsense. Rather, the point they are making is that the Trinity cannot be fully fathomed, or comprehended, by the finite mind of man.... the Trinity can be understood, or 'apprehended,' but not 'comprehended'." The only appropriate adjective for Bowman's convoluted explanation is "doubletalk." He says the Trinity is not "unintelligible nonsense" and immediately turns 180 degrees by exuding some unintelligible nonsense about its being understood and apprehended but not comprehended. If it is understood and apprehended, then it is comprehended and vice versa. How could it be understood but not comprehended?
In regard to the Canon's formation, Bowman says on page 22, "No verse in the Bible explicitly states that a certain collection of books is the only inspired writing to be recognized as God's Word. There is no list in the Bible of books that belong there--no inspired 'table of contents.' Yet the belief that these books, and only these books, belong in the Bible is itself based on the Bible's teaching,...." What on earth is he talking about? Where does Scripture teach the specific books that are to be in the Bible? Where does it enumerate the specific writings that are to be deemed inspired? Where does it say "only" these books are to be included? And where are other writings specifically excluded?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLAIKLOCK'S JESUS CHRIST, MAN OR MYTH?--One of the most ridiculous arguments on the market for the existence of a real Jesus was made by E. M. Blaiklock in his book entitled Jesus Christ, Man or Myth? On page 86 he states, "Consider how impossible it would have been for the writers of the gospels, whoever they might have been and whenever they might have written, to create out of aspiration and imagination the character which confronts the reader of the gospels. Consider how equally impossible it would have been, after close association and fellowship, to imagine and graft into their story details not obviously known and observed." Blaiklock stated earlier on page 77, "And then read the story of the conversation at Sychar's well, with the Samaritan fighting her losing battle of words with the strangest Jew she had ever met. Read on to the poignant account of the Passion Week with its climax in the vivid resurrection stories, paralleled for simple reality only by the narrative in Luke. Simply read. These men were not writing fiction. This is not what myth sounds like." And Blaiklock concludes his vapid argument by saying, "It is as Rousseau said, men who could invent such a story would be greater and more astonishing than its central figure." To all of this one can only say, Surely he isn't serious? He says "this is not what myth sounds like" when precisely the opposite is true. The events surrounding the passion, the resurrection, etc. are directly comparable to numerous myths in other religions. They are precisely what mythology does sound like, and Christianity reeks with stories of this kind. In effect, Blaiklock is contending that stories become more credible as they become more incredible. Almost any child's imagination could concoct stories as fantastic than those found in the gospels, and for Blaiklock to say that "men who could invent such a story would be greater and more astonishing than its central figure" is almost too absurd to discuss. This is one of the weakest arguments imaginable for the existence of a real Jesus and gospel truthfulness.
With respect to the character of Jesus, Blaiklock says on page 107, "There was no violence, no lashing in anger, only the tremendous power of His presence." Again, his allegiance superseded his prudence. Or maybe Blaiklock has never read John 2:15 ("And making a whip of cords, he drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables"), Matt. 10:34 ("Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword"), Luke 22:36 ("...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one"), Luke 12:51 ("Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division...."), and Luke 12:49 ("I am come to send fire on the earth...."). Obviously Jesus is not the paragon of quietude his followers have pictured in their minds. In fact, Jesus even downgraded his own character by saying in Matt. 19:17, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God...." What Jesus would have to say or do in order for biblicists to radically alter their image of his character is anyone's guess. Christians have a specific concept of his personality, and nothing anyone says or demonstrates to the contrary, including Jesus himself, is going to modify their mindset.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LITTLE'S KNOW WHY YOU BELIEVE--One of the most widely distributed apologetic books of recent decades is Paul Little's work entitled Know Why You Believe. It's essentially a wide ranging theological defense of Christianity in general, rather than the Bible in particular. But some comments contained therein cry out for analysis. While discussing whether or not God exists, Little says on page 15, "...Suppose we knew he existed, but that he was like Adolph Hitler--capricious, vicious, prejudiced, and cruel. What a horrible realization that would be!" Apparently Little is unacquainted with the God of the OT. Issues 115 through 120 of BE clearly revealed a disreputable being of the highest order. If Little reread the OT ,or read it more thoroughly, he might experience his "horrible realization." Then, again, perhaps, like most apologists, he would turn a blind eye to whatever clashes with his preconceptions.
On page 17 Little correctly uttered something which many liberal Christians would do well to note. He stated that many of, "those who deny the deity of Jesus affirm that they think Jesus was a great moral teacher. They fail to realize those two statements are a contradiction. Jesus could hardly be a great moral teacher if, on the most crucial point of his teaching, i.e., his identity, he was a deliberate liar." In other words, if he said he was God and wasn't, he certainly couldn't be considered a great moral teacher or a man of integrity.
While answering the question of why God allows suffering and evil, Little inadvertently dug himself into a deep, deep hole. He stated, "Many ask, Why didn't God make man so he couldn't sin? To be sure, he could have, but let's remember that if he had done so we would no longer be human beings, we would be machines. How would you like to be married to a chatty doll? Every morning and every night you could pull the string and get the beautiful words, 'I love you,' There would never be any hot words, never any conflict, never anything said or done that would make you sad! But who would want that?" How incredible! Unbeknownst to our apologetic friend, while trying to prove mankind is not composed of automatons, he destroyed heaven's perfection. Isn't heaven supposed to be the place in which conflict, sadness, and hot words no longer exist? Yet Little says of such a condition "who would want that?" In light of his inadvertent renunciation of heaven, one can't help but wonder why he is a Christian at all. Jesus is only the means to the end. The end is heaven itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #601 from EM of Tucson, Arizona
To Whom It May Concern:
It may be in your best interest to eliminate number four in your JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER flyer/advertisement or make some minor adjustments. [It states, "Isn't Jesus a false prophet since he wrongly predicted in Matt. 12:40 that he would be buried three days and three nights as Jonah was in the whale three days and three nights? Friday afternoon to early Sunday morning is one and a half days--Ed.]. Those with a critical eye may catch an inconsistency in your flyer and perhaps become skeptical about the merits of your publication.
There's an inconsistency in the author's logic or the way in which you chose to depict a biblical error. Why in #20 ["In Luke 23:43 Jesus said to the thief on the cross, 'Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.' But how could they have been together in paradise that day if Jesus lay in the tomb three days?--Ed.] is three days used and in #4 only one and a half days? Do you feel that three is interchangeable with or equal to one and a half? If the three days in #20 was moved to #4, and the one and a half days in #4 was moved to #20 then the point you are trying to prove seems rather trivial. In #4 it may not have been three "whole" days, but it certainly was three "whole" nights. Thus the argument in #4 is rather insignificant. In #20 however, the argument is valid, but its weakened by the word choice in #4.
I think it's best to call attention to inconsistency and at the same time be consistent. Leave dishonesty and hypocrisy for fundamentalist publications.
If you decide to edit your flyer, please send me a copy. If corrected, the Arizona Student Atheists, at the University of Arizona, would be more than happy to distribute them with other materials we have.
Editor's Response to Letter #601
Dear EM.
I think you have confused me with someone else. Why in #20 is three days used and in #4 only one and a half days? Because that's what Scripture states. I never said "three is interchangeable with or equal to one and a half," That's what the text is saying indirectly. You've confused me with the Bible. Apparently you want me to present a biblical contradiction in a non-contradictory fashion. I certainly don't intend to rewrite the script in order for it to be more amenable to a logical sequence. There is no inconsistency, whatever, in my flyer/pamphlet. It merely highlights an inconsistency in Scripture. And we certainly don't intend to move or alter figures in order to make the text more palatable. You say, "In #4 it may not have been three 'whole' days, but it certainly was three 'whole' nights." What was three whole nights? The prediction or what actually happened? Certainly the prediction was. But what actually occurred was not. I think you need to reread the script, and after having done so you'll feel more comfortable distributing our pamphlets. We appreciate your assistance..

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


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #602 from RR of Altamonte Springs, Florida
Dear Mr McKinsey,
I thank you for the sample issue of BIBLICAL ERRANCY. I thought it was very good.... I spent 40 years in the Seventh-Day Adventist church and now I am having the most wonderful time of my life reading philosophy and reading about people who were skeptics throughout the centuries. I feel that those people who believe that the Bible is "inerrant" have never really read the Bible, or else have refused to believe the things it says. Surely the main reason people believe it is out of fear and from having been brain-washed.
Letter #603 from KF of Lancaster, Pennsylvania
Dear Dennis.
As a long-time subscriber I have carefully read all issues of BE and find the material well thought out and devastating to the Christian cause. You have a great enterprise going in your publication and I wish you the best.
I was thinking the other day, what's the biggest, most obvious contradiction in the Bible, especially one involving Jesus, that no one to my knowledge, even you perhaps, has managed to bring to our attention? Jesus commands, "Love your enemy." Matt. 5:44 says, "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you...." Yet does he follow his own advice? I think not. Who's one of the biggest baddest enemies around? It's the devil, isn't it? Matt 13:39 says, "The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels." Now does Jesus love *his* enemy (and yours too)? Yes? Bzzzzt! Wrong! Far from loving, blessing, doing good to, and praying for his enemy the devil, Jesus has simply built a bizarre eternal fiery hell-pyre for him, as is shown by Matt. 25:41 ("Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels"). If Jesus, the paragon of Christian morality, cannot bring himself to do what he preaches, what does that say about the whole Christian enterprise? So much for Jesus' strength of character, honesty, and integrity. On a higher level, though, I really think that the scriptwriters who formulated Christian theology over the years went so far in complexity that they simply couldn't avoid deep philosophical contradictions such as this one. Christianity is often trapped by its own rhetoric.

Letter #604 from Greg Erwin, ai815@ Freenet. Carlton.CA 100 Terrasse Eardley, Aylmer, Qc J9H 6B5
Dear Dennis.
Looking forward to reviewing your new book. I have always thought that it was a bit unfair of us atheists to require an omnipotent god to perform acts linguistically possible to state, but realistically impossible to perform, such as creating a square circle or a two-sided triangle. I thank you for reminding us all that these acts are merely some of the impossibilities that god is already claiming credit for, such as being god and man simultaneously; looking, tasting, and having all the qualities of bread, while being actually human flesh; likewise for wine and blood; and being equal to three and one at the same time. If god can perform these miracles, it is only fair to require that he make square circles. It is certainly no harder to make something all red and all green simultaneously than to make it be both flesh and bread, or to make 3=1.
The fact that god's defenders so readily give in, admitting that god cannot make square circles, shows that they don't really believe in the other miracles. If you intellectually and viscerally accepted that three is the same as one, that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and that virgins can give birth and stay virgins; square circles and simultaneous redness and greenness would seem to be trivial accomplishments in comparison....
Priests, politicians, and advertisers all use language to conceal or convert, rather than to communicate. Christians, in particular, speak and write with the sole intention of justifying what they wish to believe, or forcing you to assent to it. It is rare to find one that can actually be brought around to rationality, but it is important that rational people maintain a constant denial of the truth of Christian propaganda. Every time somebody claims that the bible is a wonderful book, it is necessary for someone else to state it is not.