Issue #164- Letters on: Reader Attacks Pamphlet JC

Biblical Errancy Issue #164- Letters on: Reader Attacks Pamphlet JC is the Answer? on Points 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 12, 14, 17, 18, 20, & 22, Prisoner Seeks Help, Reader Compliments my Book and Suggests Some

Nov 10, '08 12:45 PM
by ¢¾ Denise for everyone





Issue #164 Editor: Dennis McKinsey


Aug. 1996

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A national periodical focusing on Biblical errors, contradictions, and fallacies, while providing a hearing for apologists
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


COMMENTARY


This issue will continue our on-going policy of devoting an entire issue to letters from our readers.

DIALOGUE AND DEBATE
Letter #684 from JB of Fort Lauderdale, Florida (Part a)
(About a year ago JB read our pamphlet entitled JESUS CHRIST IS THE ANSWER?. Like several individuals before him, he decided to write an itemized critique which is preceded by the following introduction--Ed.)
Dear Mr. MacKenzie (sic)
Just a quick note to say hello and let you know that I enjoyed our brief chat last week on the phone. I really appreciate your taking the time to make sure that I received the material concerning your "ministry."
I must say that it has helped me to "dig deeper into many areas of scripture that I have taken for granted or never knew that anyone had a problem with. I will confess that there are some very difficult passages and apparent contradictions. On the other hand, I think many of them can be reasonably explained. Others will remain "in the dark" but I don't think that means there isn't an explanation. Then there are others that only God knows and has not revealed.... I have enclosed my responses to your material....

(Question #1 on the pamphlet is: While on the cross, Jesus said, "My God, My God, why has thou forsaken Me" (Mark 15:34). How could Jesus be our savior when he couldn't even save himself? Those aren't the words of a man voluntarily dying for our sins, those are the words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be. JB's response is--Ed.),
Jesus never intended to save Himself. Could he not have summoned legions of angels to save Him? (Matt 26:53). Christ's mission was clear: "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:28). Atheists don't understand that, as a human being, Christ was subjected to all the pain and anguish that we mortals are subjected to. No doubt, there was much anguish in Christ's soul over what He knew He had to do. Yet, He did it all...because He knew that was God's plan of salvation for the billions of people who would accept it.

Editor's Response to Letter #684 (Part a)
Rather than answering the question, JB, you gave me a Sunday School lesson. If Jesus never intended to save himself, then why is he yelling, "Let me out of here. Why have you forsaken me?" (paraphrasing). That sounds exactly like a man who is trying to save his own skin rather than donate it to others. You quote Matt. 20:28 to prove that he came to give his life for many, while completely discounting what he is saying in Mark 15:34. Let's be reasonable. Would he have used those words if that were his intent.
You say "Atheists don't understand that, as a human being, Christ was subjected to all the pain and anguish that we mortals are subjected to." But that's extraneous to the issue. We aren't concerned with the degree of pain involved; we are concerned with his intent, his willingness to undergo what is occurring. You have furtively changed the issue. He isn't complaining
Page 164-2

about the amount of anguish involved; he's protesting about being required to die at all. He's objecting to being on the cross to begin with
You say "He did it all...because He knew that was God's plan of salvation." I know the text says he did it; that's of no concern. Nor is why he did it of any import.. That's not the issue either. The question is: Did he do it voluntarily; that's the bone of contention. And you haven't yet provided a good explanation of why he would have said what he did if he were doing it voluntarily, indeed gladly.
Incidentally, please don't refer to what I am doing as a "ministry." You probably meant no harm, but that word carries definite religious baggage and implies we are somehow serving religion/superstition, an allegation I find utterly anathema.

Letter #684 Continues (Part b)
(Question #3 on the pamphlet is: Except for those of biased Christian writers, there isn't one writing outside the Bible in all of ancient history that refers to Jesus of Nazareth . JB's response is--Ed.),
The most widely read and appreciated book ever written is all you need. It is called the Word of God. What more do you want? The scarcity of books that refer to Christ is not a test of the reality of His existence. Biased Christian writers? You mean like those biased historical revisionists who want no vestige of Christ to remain?

Editor's Response to Letter #684 (Part b)
So "the most widely read and appreciated book ever written" is all I need?" I am not really sure I need to respond, since you appear to have opted for verbal hari-kari. I didn't know that degree of accuracy is directly proportional to degree of popularity. A lot of novels, magazines and other religious books must be fountains of truth in your eyes. If accuracy is proportional to popularity, then the Koran and other religious writings must have a significant degree of credibility from your perspective. All you are saying is that you don't really care how accurate a writing is as long as it's the most popular. You have allowed emotion, feeling, and desire to supplant logic, reason, and evidence.
When you say "It is called the Word of God. What more do you want?" the obvious reply is: I'd like some proof. Is that asking too much? That may be what it's called, but that doesn't make it so.
Your scenario seems to imply that if sacred books in other religions throughout the world relate ancient stories of their divine heroes and no other records exist of these heroes, they are authentic as long as they have a mass following.
You say, "The scarcity of books that refer to Christ is not a test of the reality of His existence." Nobody said it was. But it is certainly a giant stride in that direction. The conclusion may not be an air-tight cinch, but it's a close approximation.
And then you say, "Biased Christian writers? You mean like those biased historical revisionists who want no vestige of Christ to remain?" I am not sure whom you are referring to, although I assume it's members of the Jesus Seminar. I am in no position to speak for them but only for myself. However, I do think I can safely say that your assertion that they want "no vestige of Christ to remain" is a gross distortion. From what I have heard, the Seminar is essentially a body of liberal Christians, some of whom are ministers. But that's immaterial since we are off the topic anyway.

Letter #684 Continues (Part c)
(Question #4 on the pamphlet is: Isn't Jesus a false prophet since he wrongly predicted in Matt. 12:40 that he would be buried 3 days and 3 nights as Jonah was in the whale 3 days and 3 nights? Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is only one and a half days. JB's response is--Ed.),
No Jesus isn't a false prophet. Any part of a day in those times was considered as "a day" (Ester 4:16, 5:1). The day, or any part of it, was more like a time unit, or diurnal period. When you were born, you weren't born in a full day, but only a small portion of that day. Yet, that small portion is called your birthDAY. The portion of Friday to Saturday, was considered one day. Saturday was another day. And the portion of Sunday that He was raised was the third day. Friday, Saturday and Sunday all have a "night and day." Therefore, Jesus was in the grave "3 days and 3 nights."

Editor's Response to Letter #684 (Part c)
Unfortunately you did not heed the advice I offered a long time ago. I suggested that potential critics read our back issues before submitting a resolution to any problem, because more often than not they will be saved time, effort and embarrassment.. We addressed this response long ago and you appear to have been absent.
Jesus was a false prophet because 2 or 3 hours would hardly comprise a day as you are implying. If Jesus had said he would be in the grave for one day, would you contend that the prophecy had been fulfilled after he had been in the grave for only 2 or 3 hours or maybe 10 minutes? I think not. Yet, that is the essence of your argument. It said 3 days.
But even more important is the fact that the prophecy said three days and 3 NIGHTS. Three nights do not lie between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.
You say,"Friday, Saturday and Sunday all have a "night and day." I see nothing in Scripture about him being in the grave Sunday night. If you insist on using the Jewish calendar in which a new day begins a 6 in
Page 164-3
the evening and assert Sunday evening comprises the
period from 6 pm Saturday to Sunday morning, then that eliminates Friday night which begins as 6 pm on Thursday and ends Friday morning. The crucifixion and internment of Jesus did not occur until Friday after
noon. Either way you are trapped. You should have read our back issues or at least my book

Letter #684 Continues (Part d)
(Question #6 on the pamphlet is: How could Jesus be our model of sinless perfection when He denies moral perfection in Matt. 19:17: "And Jesus said unto him, 'Why callest thou me good? There is none good
but one, that is God." JB's response is--Ed.),
He was not denying moral perfection, rather affirming His Deity. In Mark 10:17 the man refers to Jesus as "Good Master." Christ responds that there is only One who is good, and that is God alone. So Christ is either God, or not good. Indeed, He is both.

Editor's Response to Letter #684 (Part d)
How's that! Run that by me again! You say he is not denying moral perfection and yet he says, "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God." I have probably read that verse 30 times and I keep reaching the same conclusion. He is saying he is not good, at least he does not measure up to the perfection of God.
And you top this off with a real jaw dropper by saying, "So Christ is either God, or not good. Indeed, He is both." So he is God but he is not good. How could something be god and not good? How can god not be good and still be god? That goes a long way toward destroying the very definition of god. You might want to think this one through some more.

Letter #684 Continues (Part e)
(Question #7 on the pamphlet is: In 1 Cor. 1:17 ["For Christ sent me [Paul] not to baptize but to preach the gospel"] Paul said Jesus was wrong when he said in Matt. 28:19, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them...." So how could Jesus be the fountain of wisdom?. JB's response is--Ed.),
The command of Matt. 28:19 was given to the twelve but not limited to them. The NT clearly teaches that the Church is made up of individuals who perform different functions. Baptism is an ordination that can be performed by any Christian. Paul's ministry did not include baptisms, probably because he was too busy.

Editor's Response to Letter #684 (Part e)
You begin by saying, "The command of Matt. 28:19 was given to the twelve but not limited to them." Precisely! It extended to Paul as well. Thanks for the assistance. After this gratuitous admission, you then try to reverse direction by saying Paul was not meant to be included in the Matt. 28:19 instruction. He wasn't ? Show me where that is stated in scripture. Jesus gave a command to ALL of his followers in Matt. 28:19, not just those he was addressing at that particular moment, which you readily concede. Just because "the Church is made up of individuals who perform different functions" does not mean anyone is exempt from this particular function. Where did Jesus specifically assign a particular or limited group of people to be the only baptizers? No, my friend, you have a clash between Jesus and Paul, and this is not the only time their views diverged
And what do you mean by saying he was too busy? Too busy to perform one of the most important rituals in Christianity? Indeed, for some Christians, baptism is mandatory for salvation. Yet, Paul is too busy?

Letter #684 Continues (Part f)
(Question #12 on the pamphlet is: In John 3:13 ["And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man...."] Jesus erred because 2 Kings 2:11 ["...and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven"] shows Elijah went earlier. JB's response is--Ed.),
Elijah did not 'originate' from heaven. Although he was taken up into heaven and appeared with Moses at the transfiguration of Christ, this verse deals specifically with Christ. Notice the order of Jesus' wording: Nobody has gone up into heaven who didn't come from there in the first place. Elijah went up to heaven, but he didn't come from there.

Editor's Response to Letter #684 (Part f)
Don't try to change the script. Nothing is said in regard to where Elijah originated. That isn't a consideration. Jesus is merely identifying whom he is referring to, when is says "but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man." Jesus is not saying "nobody has gone up into heaven who didn't come from there in the first place." Specifically the text says "but he" not "who didn't." Even clearer is the NIV which says, "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven".
But even more importantly, even if it did say "Nobody has gone up into heaven who didn't come from there in the first place" it would be patently false, because 2 Kings just told you that "Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." and you admitted he did not come from there in the first place.
Succinctly stated, your problem is this. You said nobody has gone into heaven who didn't come from there in the first place. You admitted Elijah went to heaven. Therefore Elijah must have come from there in the first place according to you. But then you said, "he didn't come from there." You're contradicting yourself. You might want to think this one through again also.
Letter #684 Continues (Part g)
(Question #14 on the pamphlet is: Jesus told us to "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you" but ignored his own advice by repeatedly denouncing his opposition. Matt. 23:17 ("Ye fools and blind") , Matt. 12:34 ("O generation of vipers"), and Matt. 23:17 ("...hypocrites...ye are like unto whited sepulchers....") are excellent examples of hypocrisy. JB's response is--Ed.),
Christ loved everyone, but did not withhold verbal scoldings at the religious hypocrites of His day. The very people whom He came to redeem turned against Him with threats, accusations and "crucify Him, crucify Him.".... The verbal thrashings given by Jesus were deserved, but He still loved them.

Editor's Response to Letter #684 (Part g)
Does calling people the kind of names Jesus used sound like love to you? I assume you love your children, if you have any. Would you call them "fools, " "hypocrites," and "vipers"? Those aren't the words of a caring, loving and endearing parent.
Even more decisive is the fact that Jesus said you should bless your enemies. I can't help but notice how you dodged the word "bless" and focused on the word "love," because you think you can make an argument that he loved them all the time he was scolding them. But in no way could those words be deemed any sort of blessing. Jesus is cursing his opponents; he's not blessing them. He is ignoring his own advice.

Letter #684 Continues (Part h)
(Question #17 on the pamphlet is: Jesus told a man in Mark 8:34 that "whoever will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me." What cross? He hadn't died on the cross yet. There was nothing to take up. That man would have had no idea what he was talking about. JB's response is--Ed.),
At the time, it is probably true that nobody had any idea what Christ was talking about. Following His crucifixion, and especially pentecost, it came to have special meaning. To follow Christ will mean "suffering" to varying degrees, even death on a cross as Peter experienced. Today, many Christians have paid the price of discipleship with their lives. The cross is a symbol of suffering for what you firmly believe in. In this case, it is Christ.

Editor's Response to Letter #684 (Part h)
You begin by stating "At the time, it is probably true that nobody had any idea what Christ was talking about." That isn't a refutation, but a confirmation, of my point. Oh if only more apologetic replies were that painless, honest, and quick. Reminds me of a sign a supervisor I know has on her office door: "Save time; see it my way." Your reference to pentecost and the period following the Crucifixion are irrelevant to my question and need not be discussed.
But after your admission you revert to form with a digressive reference to alleged Christian martyrs. Can you prove Peter died on a cross? Do you have any biblical data to that effect? If so, by all means please come forward.
And from whence comes your extrabiblical assertion that "today, many Christians have paid the price of discipleship with their lives." Could you cite some examples of where innocent Christians have recently paid with their lives for being disciples?

Letter #684 Continues (Part i)
(Question #18 on the pamphlet is: In Mark 10:19 Jesus told a man to follow the commandments. Yet, one of those listed by Jesus was 'defraud not,' which is not even an OT commandment. JB's response is--Ed.),
"Defraud not ' is certainly not a commandment. But Christ was merely 'elaborating' by citing fraud as a sin whose roots can be associated with stealing, false testimony and covetting. Besides, why should Jesus not have the freedom to speak His mind when discussing such things as the commandments? If He wanted to use 'fraud' to help make His point, what is wrong with that?

Editor's Response to Letter #684 (Part i)
You begin by saying, "Defraud not is certainly not a commandment." and with that I am tempted to rest my case. But I'll string along. Then you say "Christ was merely 'elaborating' by citing fraud as a sin whose roots can be associated with stealing, false testimony and coveting." No he wasn't. Why? Because Mark 10:19 says, "Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill. Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honor thy father and mother." This clearly shows "defraud not" being listed as a separate commandment. It is not being used to explain or elaborate on stealing, false testimony, or coveting any more than the latter are being used to clarify it.
I have no problem with Jesus speaking his mind or making his point. But when he says "Defraud Not" is a commandment, he is engaged in prevarication to put it mildly.

Letter #684 Continues (Part j)
(Question #20 on the pamphlet is: 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 for
3 days. JB's response is--Ed.),
This is probably one of the toughest things to explain. With Christ, you're dealing with the eternal God-man. As God, Jesus could never die. As man,
Page 164-5
he did. A difficult thing to understand. As God, the thief would join Him in "paradise." This may be very simplistic, but I will dig into this one much deeper.

Editor's Response to Letter #684 (Part j)
I wouldn't say you are going to dig into this as much as be buried by it. This is the old Trinitarian double talk which is not so much difficult to understand as it is impossible. It's an excellent example of what I have always referred to as the Great Back door, an escape hatch. When the gospels' contradictions finally become unbearable, apologists will grab for that final reconciliation of all contradictions by saying it can be both simultaneously. You can have an all-black white horse. You can have an imperfect perfect being. You can even have an omnipotent being who can create another being stronger than himself. Once you start down this cul de sac any concept can be deemed valid and at that point rational discussion becomes superfluous. Jesus has taken over.

Letter #684 Concludes (Part k)
(Question #22 on the pamphlet is: In Matt. 15:21 Jesus said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel," but later told his followers to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations" (Matt. 28:19). To whom, then, are we to go? Only to the Jews or everyone? JB's response is--Ed.),
Jesus was sent only to His people, the "lost sheep of Israel." The ultimate mission for souls was global as commanded by Christ. Today, the gospel is being preached in all nations. The gospel started in Judea, Samaria and then to the world.

Editor's Concluding Response to Letter #684 (Part k)
Jesus said he was sent only to his people. He was only supposed to go to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." That was his mission as he saw it. Are you saying he was only applying that to himself? Only He was supposed to go to the Lost Sheep, while all of his followers were to go into all the world and preach to everyone? Is that your point? When he says "I am not sent" to whom does the "I" refer? Does it refer to his message? If so, then he is not telling the truth because he later said his message was to be taken unto all the world. Or does the "I" refer to him personally which would sound ridiculous because that would mean his message and all his followers are to go into all the world while he personally is going to the Israelites only.
You say, "The ultimate mission for souls was global as commanded by Christ." What ultimate mission? You mean the mission changed?
To return to the original question, you say "The gospel started in Judea, Samaria and then to the world." How could that be when Jesus said "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Why are missionaries from many churches, including your own, I would presume, traveling around the world in direct defiance of Christ's instructions?
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Letter #685 from FN of Huntsville, Texas
Dear Dennis. I am a freethinker incarcerated in the Texas penal system which doesn't pay its inmates. We are provided the basics only, except for orthodox religious literature. Then we are inundated daily with a soul-ful! All secular freethought or truth has to be purchased or donated from an outside source. I am unable to compensate you at this time.... Any issue outdated or otherwise in any condition of your "Biblical Errancy" publication will be read and shared with the few freethinkers here. Also any book like your "Encyclopedia"...would be appreciated. Please note that all packages must be clearly marked from "Biblical Errancy" and return address--no packages from individuals are allowed.
"Hands that help are far better than lips that pray"--Robert Ingersoll.

Editor's Response to Letter #685
Dear FN. Sounds like you are having religion rammed down your throat. As I noted in our last issue, if one of the heads of the Christian Coalition has his way, we could all be headed toward the condition in which you now reside. We sympathize with your plight and for that reason have decided to give you a six month subscription gratis.

Letter #686 from LH of Sherman Oaks, California
Dear Mr. McKinsey. I am the proud owner of a recently purchased copy of your Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy. The other evening I was able to spend a very enjoyable hour perusing the volume exploring the Bibliography, Index, and got to read the first 20 pages or so. I look forward to having the leisure time to be able to digest your wonderful book in its entirety!
I am a book collector as well as a reader and have a solid collection of Freethought books. I'm also a bit of a Thomas Paine student and my academic background is in history. I'm certainly weak on what's in the Bible, but I did read about half of the OT and chapters here and there in the four Gospels...35 years ago! I also note the seemingly fair review by Bill Lindley in the Truth Seeker. My very best wishes for lots of sales!
The Inerrancy section of chapter one states the crux (of the matter--Ed.). "How do you know what is true e when you begin to admit certain parts are false." Amazing that such a "leaky boat" is still afloat! On page 18 you quote Mr. Golding's synopsis of the process by which the Bible was formed. I'd like to submit to you that the reason the synopsis is "accurate and succinct" is because the passages quoted are taken almost verbatim from Part I of Paine's Age of Reason! Unless he credits Paine later, he is probably just unaware of his source....
Lastly, because of my historical background, I'd like to ask if fellow "freethinkers" have ever read Gibbon's marvelous two chapters on Christianity (#'s 15 and 16 of The Decline and Fall)? If you've somehow missed them you're in for a treat. Once you get used to the overlong sentence structure and the devastating ironic tone it's a joy to read....
My remarks are to you. I'm sure fundamentalists wouldn't be the least bit concerned with what Gibbon had to say!
P.S. Fortunately, before sending my letter I took the time to read a good part of your chapter 25 regarding tactics and the weakness of the "historical' approach in debating religionists and fundamentalists. I completely agree. Some of your remarks in Chapter 25 bring to mind one of my favorite quotes from J.M. Robertson in The Dynamics of Religion on page 61 where he says, "It is one of the stock theorems of modern Christian scholarship that no one is entitled to reject the NT without a good knowledge of Greek, though all are entitled to believe it without knowing one Greek letter from another and all are free to reject the Koran without having so much as seen a letter of Arabic.

Editor's Response to Letter #686
I appreciate your kind comments and especially like the poignant observation by Robertson. A real backslapper, isn't it! Too bad there are so many biblicists who can't sit back and see what is so easily comprehended by outside objectivists.
Letter #687 from DR of Rock Hill, South Carolina
Dear Dennis. In the Spring Issue of the Christian Research Journal I noticed your review of Gleason Archer's review of your book. In your letter you said the April 1996 issue of BE will be a refutation of his review. I would like to obtain a copy of the April issue if you have any left. I noticed CRI Journal did not have your mailing address so their readers could order a copy!

Editor's Response to Letter #687
Dear DR. I noticed that too. Got any theories on why? I do.

Letter #688 from JK of Lynn, Indiana
Sir... I like the #160 April issue very much. You sure knocked the props out from under this con artist, so called professor emeritus, Gleason Archer. You put him in the dung pile where his kind belongs. But like all scam artists of his stripe they have to protect their con game even to stooping to deception and subterfuge, which is their stock in trade. Keep up your good work. Maybe someday, I hope soon, the ignorant, superstitious people will open their eyes and see those religious hucksters for what they really are.

Letter #689 from GF of Mt. Prospect, Illinois
Dear Dennis. I am in the process of acquiring all BE back issues. Would that they were available half a lifetime ago when I spent 8 years in a Roman Catholic seminary.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For those people still having trouble getting through to us by E-mail our correct address is:. KLO_McKinsey@K12.MEC.Ohio.gov
We are still seeking volunteers willing to play our video tapes on their local cable access channels. We now have 60 one half hour programs available.