Issue #176-The Case of Jesus the

Biblical Errancy Issue #176-The Case of Jesus the Messiah by Ankerberg, Weldon, and Kaiser (16 pts.), Was Jesus Poor, Am I Ascerbic, the spiritual/natural man, Chaplain Censors Prisoners

Nov 10, '08 3:01 PM
by Loren for everyone





Issue #176 August 1997, Editor: Dennis McKinsey


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



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



COMMENTARY

This months issue will begin with a review of an apologetic work produced by the collaborative work of three apologists followed by several pieces of correspondence from some of our readers.


REVIEW

In 1989 the televangelist, John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, and Dr. Walter Kaiser, Professor of OT and Semitic languages at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, teamed up to publish a book entitled The Case of Jesus the Messiah. in which they sought to prove that Jesus fulfilled the OT messianic requirements. Although most of the work is the standard apologetic fare, some of the more egregious comments contained therein are worthy of comment and one would be remiss were they allowed to pass unchallenged.

First, on page 22 they quote Gen. 3:14-15 ("So the Lord God said to the serpent, Because you have done this... will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will bruise your head, and you will bruise his head") and then say, "The context of this passage is the temptation and Fall of Adam and Eve by the deception of the 'serpent.' Who is the serpent? Revelation 12:9 ('And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast with him') and Rev. 20:2 ('And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years') identify him as the serpent of old, who is the devil or Satan. Yes, it says he is the serpent of old but nowhere does Revelation say it was the serpent who tempted Eve in Genesis. Our illustrious authors are engaged in one of the most subtle sleight-of-thought maneuvers endemic to Christian theology. Where does the Bible say that Eve was tempted by the Devil or Satan? It says she was tempted by a serpent; but nowhere does it say that serpent was the Devil or Satan. The words Devil and Satan never even appear in the Book of Genesis. In order to circumvent this major roadblock to Christian exegesis, these apologists latched onto the two passages just quoted from Revelation. But where does scripture equate the serpent in Gen. 3 with the serpent in Rev. 12 and 20? In order to keep the minds of critics off this major stumbling stone, the authors focus on a secondary issue by saying, "For those who accept only the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative, the serpent in Genesis 3:14 cannot be just an animal. The serpent must be a person. The word 'enmity' in the Hebrew Scriptures always refers to hatred between persons. It is never used between an animal and a person." But whether the serpent in Gen. 3 is an animal or a person is of far less importance than whether or not the serpent in Revelation is the one who acted in Genesis. Just because the Bible talks about a serpent in Genesis and a serpent in Revelation and the latter is called the Devil, that old serpent, and Satan, does not mean they are identical. That leap in logic is textually unsupportable. It has always been assumed by apologists that they are the same, but nowhere does the Bible clearly and unmistakably equate the two. That is a concession biblical critics would do well to abandon.

Second, on page 30 they contend that the messiah must come "from Bethlehem" according to Micah 5:2. But as we showed in our issues on prophecy, 1 Chron. 4:4 shows there is a far greater possibility of Bethlehem referring to an individual than a town because it says 'Bethlehem Ephratah.' Not only is Bethlehem the name of a man whose father is Ephratah but Micah 5:6 shows Micah is referring to someone who delivered people from the Assyrians, a group of people whose empire disappeared 600 years before Jesus was even born.

Third, in their pronounced attempt to set Moses and Jesus off from the crowd they state on page 32, "Until Jesus came, no one was superior to Moses, for it was only said of Moses and Jesus that they knew the Lord and spoke to Him 'face to face.'" (Deut. 34:10, Matt. 3:17, Mark 9:7, and others). If it was said, then it was said erroneously, because other biblical figures saw God as well.

It is interesting to note that our authors are only making this claim indirectly through the alleged claims of others because they are probably aware of the fact that Moses and Jesus are by no means the only ones who spoke to God face to face. In Job 42:5 Job said, "I have heard thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee." In Gen. 32:30 Jacob says, "I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved." Num. 14:14 says, "...they have heard that thou Lord art among this people, that thou Lord art seen face to face...." Isaiah 6:1 says, "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up...." Psalm 63:2 says, "To see thy power and thy glory, so as I have seen thee in the sanctuary." And in Amos 7:7-8 Amos says, "...the Lord stood upon a wall made by a plumb line, with a plumb line in his hand. And the Lord said unto me, Amos, what seest thou? And I said, A plumb line...." So obviously Moses and Jesus were not the only biblical figures to have seen God face to face.

Fourth, on page 32 the authors state, "The following parallels and contrasts will show that only Jesus completely fulfilled and went beyond Moses prophetic office and is the unique One God promised would come.... Moses was a great worker of miracles.... But Jesus did greater works than Moses." Then they quote Acts 2:22 which says, "Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst...." Our authors failed to remember or are apparently unaware of the fact that the ability to do miracles does not prove one is from God, is God, or represents God. In fact, the Bible specifically states in Matt. 24:23-24 and Mark 13:21-22, "Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." Second Thess. 2:9 says, "Even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders...." And Rev. 16:14 says, "For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles...." In effect, miracles are not to be used to prove one is from God because false Christs, false prophets and even the devil can work miracles. Jesus himself says as much in Matt. 24:23-24.

Fifth, on page 38 they state, "When 'blood and water' came forth from Jesus pierced side (John 19:34), this was medical proof that His heart had literally burst fulfilling David's words, 'My heart has turned to wax. It has melted away within me'" (Psalm 22:14, 33:99, 96:129-147). This would be far more indicative of someone who has been stabbed in the side after having drunk a lot of water than one who was stabbed in the heart? Why would blood and water gush forth from a heart that burst? We can all understand a profuse amount of blood, but water is another matter.

Sixth, while discussing the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 they state, "Who else but Jesus Christ ever claimed He was the Messiah?" One can only conclude that the training in religious history of our illustrious trio has been sadly neglected because anyone acquainted with messianism knows that hundreds have made this claim and many have been taken seriously.

Seventh, while trying to equate that same Suffering Servant with Jesus, the authors quote Matt. 27:12-14 ("When he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he gave no answer. Then Pilate asked him, Don't you hear the testimony they are bringing against you? but Jesus made no reply, not even to a single charge--to the great amazement of the governor") and then they allege this is a fulfillment of Isa. 53:8 ("He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before his shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth"). The obvious problem with this rendition of what occurred is that Jesus not only opened his mouth and replied to his accusers but engaged in verbal repartee. John 18:33-37 says, "Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him. Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me; what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that am a king. To this end was born, and for this cause came into the world, that should bear witness unto the truth...." So clearly Jesus was not silent at his trial by any stretch of the imagination.

Eighth, while discussing clues as to who is the true messiah they state on page 60 that "He must fit the following descriptions," the seventh one listed by them being that he will be smitten and spit upon, killed with thieves, be buried in a rich mans tomb, and come back to life after death. Unfortunately they neglected to provide chapter and verse to verify these assertions.

Ninth, while discussing Zechariah 12:10 ("And will pour on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of prayers. And they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son...") they state on page 81, "This prophecy only fits Jesus Christ. Why? Because Jesus Christ is the only One who ever claimed to be God, claimed to be the Messiah, and was crucified by the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Wrong on all three counts! Many have claimed to be God and the messiah and Jesus was not the only person executed by crucifixion in Jerusalem.

Tenth, on page 91 they state, "The messianic prophecies are minute and specific in detail." No they certainly are not, especially when it comes to any kind of direct application to Jesus Christ. Far too many are too vague and ambiguous to be clearly applied to any one individual; far too many are clearly inapplicable to Jesus, and far too much evidence proving Jesus could not be the messiah is totally ignored.

Eleventh, on page 91 they state, "The prophecies do exist, and even skeptics (whether or not they accept Him, as Messiah) admit that they remarkably fit the life of Jesus." I don't know what skeptics our notable crew is referring to but I certainly would not include myself among them. When the prophecies which apologists so freely rip out of context are restored to their proper milieu the conclusion is inescapable. They can almost never be applied to Jesus Christ in particular. Even broad and nebulous generalizations that are applicable to him can simultaneously be applied to thousands of others.

Twelfth, on pages 103-105 they make a few more observations worthy of note. They begin by saying, "The NT writers were so convinced that the Hebrew Scriptures had miraculously and clearly predicted the birth, life, and death of Jesus Christ that they preached this at the daily risk of losing their lives. History records they eventually were martyred because of their belief." Aside from the fact that the Roman Empire had hundreds of cults and sects making all kinds of challenging and potentially serious claims with impunity, one can't help but wonder why our authors failed to cite even one historical source to corroborate all this alleged martyrdom on the part of Christianity's earliest protagonists. Certainly there is nothing in the Bible to justify such assertions.

Thirteenth, they allege that "The great bulk of the NT quotations are careful reproductions or translations of the original Scripture. In most instances the historical sense is carefully preserved.... Careful examination of the evidence (comparing the NT passages quoting Hebrew passages) reveals there can be no doubt that the NT writers fairly quoted the Hebrew Scriptures." One need only read our issues on misquotations and misinterpretations to see the inaccuracy of this comment. Misinterpretations, misquotations, and manufactured quotes abound.

Fourteenth, on page 107 they correctly state that "For Jewish scholars the idea of the resurrection was not connected with the Messianic expectations of salvation." But in an attempt to prove the OT predicted a future resurrection of the messiah they state, Isaiah 53:10--11, without specifically using the word resurrection, certainly calls for it. It does? Where? The verses in question state verbatim, "Yet, it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." These verses not only don't refer directly to a resurrection; it is not even implied, unless one stretches his imagination beyond the limits of reasonable interpretation in order to gain the meaning desired. At best they merely relate to a sacrifice for others but that by no means necessarily entails a resurrection.

Fifteenth, on page 112 they state, "It is true that not all of the Jews during Jesus time accepted Him as the Messiah. Because of this, there are some today who claim there is no reason why anyone ought to believe Jesus was the Messiah. But such persons have a hard time explaining why literally thousands of Jews did accept Jesus as their Messiah." What kind of comment is that! Literally scores of alleged messiahs had thousands of followers during that day and age. Does that, therefore, substantiate their claims? Jesus was only one among many. Since when did the number of followers correlate with the truthfulness of the message. Thousands of people have ardently accepted all kinds of fallacious and ephemeral concepts and beliefs throughout history. Hitler had millions of devoted followers and Santa Claus has millions of believers, but that hardly eradicates the lies of one and the fictitious nature of the other. This constant appeal to numbers by apologists as a justification for accuracy and truthfulness is no more valid now than when first submitted centuries ago.

Sixteenth and lastly, on page 120 they state, "If Jesus Christ did, in fact, rise from the dead, then one must accept the claims about Himself as being true--that He was in fact God Incarnate. No one else of an estimated 100 billion persons who have ever lived in human history has ever risen from the dead." If there is any instance in which these authors failed to do their homework it lies in the inaccuracy exposed by this poorly-researched comment. One does not need to study history to refute this assertion because their own book provides numerous examples of people rising from the dead prior to Jesus. Lazarus, the Widow at Nain's son, Elisha, Samuel, Jairus's daughter, and some saints all rose before Jesus. As have said on several occasions: By the time Jesus rose from the dead this was actually a rather common occurrence. would think it would have been met by a resounding yawn followed by, so what else can you do, rather than astonishment.

The most reasonable conclusion to be garnered from a careful analysis of this book is that it is not only tendentious and biased in its portrayal of scripture but not to be viewed as a valid depiction of messianic prophecies and fulfillments.


DIALOGUE AND DEBATE

Letter #735 from FA of Santa Rosa, California.

Dear Dennis. In your response to GN in letter #726 you said Jesus birth in a manger would imply to some that he was born into poverty. But Luke 2:7 gives the impression that Joseph and Mary intended to stay at the inn, and since it was full, they had no choice but to stay in the stable.

Since Jesus was born as Christ and King of the Jews, Matthew 2:2-4, I believe his family was well-to-do. The wise men merely added to the family wealth, when they opened their treasures and gave him gold, frankincense and myrrh, Matthew 2:11.

It is my understanding that Jesus was King of the Jews by virtue of his birth into the Hasmonean Royal Family. This would make him pretender to the throne of Israel. Rome killed Jesus because he was King of the Jews as is clear by the writing on the cross.

Jesus was not born into poverty and at no time in his life did he ever miss a meal--except by his own choice. Jesus fared more sumptuously than even the rich man in the parable. The gospels tell us Jesus attended feasts and banquets one after another. The only thing Jesus missed was the opportunity to sit on the throne of Israel and wear the crown as King, as his forebears the Hasmoneans did.

Editors Response to Letter #735

Dear FA. You began rather well. I can understand your assumption that since they only stayed in the manger because they were denied lodging in the inn they would appear to have been reasonably well off. But you went downhill from there.

You say, "Since Jesus was born as Christ and King of the Jews, Matthew 2:2-4, I believe his family was well-to-do." But that is merely a belief. Do you have any textual support for it. And what leads you to believe he was the expected savior predicted by the Jews, especially in light of the fact that nearly all Jews rejected him as their Messiah and their King. Just because people make claims does not mean they are valid. He certainly did not fulfill the OT messianic prophecies as we showed in several issues.

You say, "It is my understanding that Jesus was King of the Jews by virtue of his birth into the Hasmonean Royal Family." And later you state, "The only thing Jesus missed was the opportunity to sit on the throne of Israel and wear the crown as King as his forebears the Hasmoneans did." Do you have any support for your belief that he was of Hasmonean descent? From whence comes that belief, since there is nothing of a scriptural nature to buttress your contention. In fact, the word "Hasmonean" doesn't even appear in the Bible.

You say, "Rome put Jesus to death because he was King of the Jews as is clear by the writing on the cross." One can assert that he was put to death for claiming to be King of the Jews; that is biblically sustainable. But there is nothing of substance to actually prove he was the King of the Jews. What would lead you to believe that he was put to death for being King of the Jews, in fact, rather than in mere acclamation? You are alleging he actually was King of the Jews which is not verifiable from Scripture.

Moving on, you state, "Jesus was not born into poverty and at no time in his life did he ever miss a meal--except by his own choice." I cant help but wonder where you obtained that piece of information as well. Would you cite chapter and verse to prove that Jesus never missed a meal. That could be true, but I know of nothing in scripture that will corroborate it.

You state, "Jesus fared more sumptuously than even the rich man in the parable. The gospels tell us Jesus attended feasts and banquets one after another." He attended a few that is true, but one after another? Hardly! have never been a fan, proponent, supporter, or propagandist for Jesus Christ, as you well know, but I would not go so far as to make the kinds of disparaging claims you are uttering. Again I would pose the question: Where on earth are you getting all this? With all due respect FA you are engaging in the same kind of enterprise to which apologists are so addicted and love to wander--embellishing the text--adding material that is nowhere to be found in scripture.

Letter #736 from DS of Tustin, California

Dear Dennis.... enjoy your newsletters very much, BUT you sometimes become more sarcastic than I am, and can really get heavy. And although most writers deserve it, I think you might turn them off.

Editors Response to Letter #736

Dear DS. I can understand your concern and that is the chance one takes in every exchange of that nature. But I have always operated on the premise that people will accept poignant comments as long as you are being truthful or are sincerely trying to be truthful. People are generally able to set aside their feelings if the topic is of such importance that they are motivated to put truth and accuracy above self-image. I cant help but think of the people who call radio programs for advice on a wide variety of topics knowing full well that the host of the program is probably going to be anything but sympathetic, cordial, or even civil. Then, again, maybe they are just masochists.

It might interest you to know that a few people have told me that should be more assertive. So I have people on one side urging me to be more forceful, while some on the opposite are nudging me to be more reticent. So far, I have confined most of my acerbity to the Internet where many people seem to have a strong proclivity toward sarcasm, pejoratives, and egotism.


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letter #737 from JN of Pennsylvania

(JN, a longtime supporter of BE, found himself involved in a discussion with a biblicist who said, "You say the bible is full of contradictions but I will tell you why you think the bible is full of contradictions. First Corinthians 2:14 says, 'the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of god: for they are foolishness to him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.' You can not find any contradictions in the holy bible if you are a spiritual man of GOD." JN sent the following reply to his critic--Ed.).

Paul wrote Corinthians, and he was once a "natural man"--he was not only a "natural man," but a Jew who actively persecuted Christians. Although Paul does not explicitly define the term "natural man," he alludes to it in 1 Cor 15:45-46 which says, "So it is written: 'The first man Adam became a living being', the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual." Paul suggests all men are born natural, since he says, "the spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual." If this is true, how on earth did this "natural man," Paul, ever get to be a Christian who could write his precept concerning the "natural man." In order to write this inspired scriptural precept, i.e. "divine truth," he FIRST had to be inspired by "God." But how could he EVER have been so inspired, if the "natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of god"?

Of course this applies to every person, unless it can be proven that some are born Christians from the very first minute of life. However this seems biologically unlikely or impossible and Paul himself rules this out in 1 Corinthians. It would appear that ALL PEOPLE WERE OR ARE NATURAL MEN initially, and thus, being so, could NEVER BECOME CHRISTIANS, since the natural man can not receive the things of the spirit of god, for they are foolishness unto him.

CONCLUSION: There are no Christians and never were any. Paul could not have become a Christian or written any inspired "scripture." If what Paul says is true, 'all' Biblical authors started out as natural men, and were thus prevented from discerning spiritual things. Thus, the Bible couldn't be inspired by "God."

Editors Response to Letter #737

You raise an interesting point, JN. How could the natural man, Paul, have ever converted and become a spiritual man to begin with, since the natural man understands not the things of the spirit? I see you are again operating on the premise that if apologists can repeatedly use a verse to expediently escape a dilemma you can use it to create one. Judging from your prior writings, this appears to be one of your favorite stratagems. Good approach!

Letter #738 from GH of Okemos, Michigan

Dear Dennis: Thank you for sending me your listing of materials! I am attempting to order (purchase) some audio tapes from you. Therefore, you may be contacted by the following company....

Please allow me to explain the situation. We prisoners are ONLY allowed to purchase audio cassette tapes from the officially designated ("approved vendor") for tapes.... Mostly, they sell all kinds of music from major companies. As for educational and/or religious tapes,.... we must first place the order with this company and give them the full name & address of the primary vendor. Then., if this company fails to provide the tapes ordered, we can go to the Chaplain, show him the documented proof that we first attempted the order via this company without success.... THEN we are allowed to order those religious tapes directly from the primary vendor.

When I attempted to send a prepaid order directly to you, for $42.00 worth of tapes, it was NOT processed, and I was advised of the above. In compliance with Policy & Procedure, I have this day placed the tape order with the company and given them your name & address, as the primary vendor. Thus, sometime within the next couple of weeks the company may contact you in regard to obtaining the tapes from you. If they choose to not fill the order, then I'll be able to go to the Chaplain, and order them directly from you. But we are not allowed to order anything from a private party. So, if I do end-up being able to order your tapes directly from you, I'll have to address the check to "McKinsey Biblical Tapes or such, so that it sounds like I am contacting a company rather than a private party. And you shouldn't have a problem cashing a check made payable to "McKinsey Biblical Tapes." If there is or would be a problem, please advise.

Editors Response to Letter #738

Dear GH. What bothers me most about your letter is that you have to have the chaplain approve purchases of material focusing on religion and the Bible whenever this company you are required to go through fails to act. Isn't that analogous to putting the lion in charge of the sheep? Doesn't your prison have a librarian who routinely orders books, magazines, and periodicals? Why can't that person be be your go-between. Surely someone connected with the prison has to regularly order a lot of forms and other papers. Why couldn't that person be in charge of ordering this kind of material, since it is in their bailiwick, so to speak? The implication is very strong that a religious figure has intentionally been placed in charge of all religious censorship. What perks do you receive if you show up for Sunday services? I repeatedly receive letters from prisoners outlining how religion is imposed on them by one means or another while they are incarcerated. I cant help but feel that if American prisons were as concerned with teaching people trades and useful skills as they are with religious indoctrination, this country would be much better off. But one is considerably less expensive than the other, isn't it.

You might be interested in knowing that we have not yet been contacted by either the company or the Chaplain. I wonder why!

Letter #739 from DC of Evanston, Wyoming

Dear Mr. McKinsey. Please send me information on how I may begin receiving your newsletter. I am in desperate need of any information on Bible errancy. My wife and are recovering fundamentalists after suffering 30 years of indoctrination. We are new subscribers to the Skeptical Review and have found it to be wonderful medicine.

Letter #740 from TW of Springfield, Ohio

Love the TV show. Tape it as often as can, much to the dismay of various family members who don't like to rock the boat. Please send me the free list of materials as advertised at the end of each show....

Question: if valuables (such as gold, silver, gems, etc.) aren't to be envied and are the root of all evil (as God claims), then why are the streets of Heaven paved with gold? While gold is fairly flexible, cant see it as being a competent building material.

Anyway, keep up the fine work. Your last show on biblical number implausibilities was dead-on.

Letter #741 from JK of Leawood, Kansas

Dennis. First of all many thanks for all of your years of hard work debunking the Holy word. am going to start buying a collection of your works beginning with the years of 1983 in order to create a library for other nonbelievers in the Kansas City area. If you happen to know of other subscribers in the area, would appreciate knowing their names.

Editors Response to Letter #741

Dear JK. We have had a long standing policy of inserting the names, addresses, and phone numbers of anyone who wishes to be contacted by any of our readers. Just send me this information and will include it at the end of a future issue.

Letter #742 from JW of Palm Springs, Florida

Cant say enough about how much enjoy your work, so wont even try. Please send me issues 85 through 156.


EDITORS NOTE:

(a) In last months issue JN of Lancaster, Pennsylvania had a long letter in which he employed some rather acerbic language to criticize RPHL and the latter's quotations from Geislers book. JN would now like to make the following comment in that regard:

CORRECTION: I would like to retract any and all ad hominems ("idiots," "liars," etc.) in my submitted material, and apologize to all concerned.

(b) We, too, would like to make an apology. Our audio duplicating machine recently began to perform improperly without our knowledge. If you have received audio tapes from us in which the sound is too low and/or seems muffled, please return them to us and we will send you a new and improved version of the contents. The machine has been repaired. We just exhausted the poor thing. Again, we would like to apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused anyone.

(c) We would like to thank those who submitted contributions to assist our effort to buy a Super VHS recorder and all our original tapes. Now we can purchase the SVHS recorder and our original tapes and use the latter as originals when we send our supporters tapes of our programs.