{"id":8638,"date":"2018-12-08T17:48:17","date_gmt":"2018-12-08T22:48:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=8638"},"modified":"2019-01-09T07:00:56","modified_gmt":"2019-01-09T12:00:56","slug":"1901-1950","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=8638","title":{"rendered":"1901-1950"},"content":{"rendered":"

(1901) Differing baptism stories<\/strong><\/p>\n

Each of the synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) contains a story related to Jesus\u2019s baptism. What is striking is that each one is a variation from the others, as it appears that each author exercised his artistic license to push a particular agenda.\u00a0 The author of John opted out of this debate and simply did not mention any baptism. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.notsodeepthoughts.org\/60-Reasons-Why-the-Bible-is-Not-a-Perfect-Text.php<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0All three accounts of the Baptism of Jesus differ, and do so likely to reflect the different theological interests of each evangelist.\u00a0 In Mark 1:9-11, John does not object to Jesus seeking to be baptized by him, Jesus alone sees the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove, and the voice speaks to Jesus alone (\u201cYou are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased).\u00a0 In Matthew, John protests to Jesus, and the voice speaks to everyone, \u201cThis is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.\u201d\u00a0 In Luke, John does not even baptize Jesus, he has already been imprisoned by Herod, and the Spirit descends on Jesus not while he is coming out of the water, but after he has been baptized and while he is praying.<\/p>\n

It is virtually certain that the baptism of Jesus, if it ever really occurred, was a one-time event that happened in only one way, so it can be certain that at least two of the three biblical accounts of this occasion represent a distortion of the truth. This once again indicates that the gospel writers either worked with erroneous source material or were not reluctant to make up scenarios that fit their <\/a>purposes.<\/p>\n

(1902) Dietary law discrepancy<\/strong><\/p>\n

One would expect that a scriptural message from God would clearly delineate his expectations for mankind. There are numerous examples where this expectation is not met, including whether the dietary food laws of the Old Testament should still be followed. The following is taken from:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.notsodeepthoughts.org\/60-Reasons-Why-the-Bible-is-Not-a-Perfect-Text.php<\/a><\/p>\n

In Mark 7:19 Jesus \u201cdeclared all foods clean,\u201d thus overturning Kashrut, the Jewish dietary laws.\u00a0 However, Matthew 15:1-20 gives the same account as Mark 7:1-23 but leaves out this declaration about food laws.\u00a0 Most scholars assume that Matthew was writing with Mark\u2019s gospel in hand, and so he can be said to have deliberately left out this text, thus directly disagreeing with Mark.\u00a0 Even if one does not accept that Matthew had Mark in hand, the fact that the text is not found in Matthew is not surprising since in Matthew Jesus declares complete commitment to the law (Matthew 5:17-18).<\/p>\n

Mark 7:18-19<\/p>\n

\u201cAre you so dull?\u201d\u00a0he asked.\u00a0\u201cDon\u2019t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them?\u00a0 For it doesn\u2019t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.\u201d\u00a0(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)<\/p>\n

Matthew 5:17-18<\/p>\n

\u201cAre you still so dull?\u201d\u00a0Jesus asked them.\u00a0\u201cDon\u2019t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?\u00a0But the things that come out of a person\u2019s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.<\/p>\n

It can be assumed that Matthew deliberately changed the sayings of Jesus as documented by Mark to comply with his own view that the dietary food laws remain in effect. It is unlikely that such a confusing conflict would exist in scriptures that are alleged to be inerrant and the inspired work of the Holy <\/a>Spirit.<\/p>\n

(1903) Matthew covers for Mary\u2019s indiscretion<\/strong><\/p>\n

A careful read of Matthew Chapter 1 reveals a probable effort on the part of the author to hedge his bet against what was most likely conventional knowledge about the birth of Jesus. Although Matthew describes Mary\u2019s pregnancy as a consequence of the Holy Spirit impregnating her instead of her fianc\u00e9e Joseph, he strategically placed the names of four \u2018loose\u2019 women in Jesus\u2019 genealogy to defuse the objections of those who considered Mary to have had illicit sex before she became married. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/infidels.org\/library\/modern\/paul_carlson\/nt_contradictions.html<\/a><\/p>\n

Matthew mentions four women in the Joseph’s genealogy.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Tamar – disguised herself as a harlot to seduce Judah, her father-in-law (Genesis 38:12-19<\/a>).<\/li>\n
  2. Rahab – was a harlot who lived in the city of Jericho in Canaan (Joshua 2:1<\/a>).<\/li>\n
  3. Ruth – at her mother-in-law Naomi’s request, she came secretly to where Boaz was sleeping and spent the night with him. Later Ruth and Boaz were married (Ruth 3:1-14<\/a>).<\/li>\n
  4. Bathsheba – became pregnant by King David while she was still married to Uriah (2 Samuel 11:2-5<\/a>).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    To have women mentioned in a genealogy is very unusual. That all four of the women mentioned are guilty of some sort of sexual impropriety cannot be a coincidence. Why would Matthew mention these, and only these, women? The only reason that makes any sense is that Joseph, rather than the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary prior to their getting married, and that this was known by others who argued that because of this Jesus could not be the Messiah. By mentioning these women in the genealogy Matthew is in effect saying, “The Messiah, who must be a descendant of King David, will have at least four “loose women” in his genealogy, so what difference does one more make?”<\/p>\n

    This shows that many Christians of the time (around 80CE) did not believe in the virgin birth and thought of Jesus as being normally conceived. It took more time for the myth of the virgin birth to become the predominant doctrine of the Christian <\/a>faith.<\/p>\n

    (1904) The disappearance of important events<\/strong><\/p>\n

    In legitimate historical accounts, descriptions of important events are always brought to some resolution or a further accounting of the subsequent consequences. In the gospels, this attribute is missing as stories of miraculous happenings are left hanging in midair. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

    https:\/\/infidels.org\/library\/modern\/matthew_ferguson\/gospel-genre.html<\/a><\/p>\n

    Prior to entry in my classics M.A. program, I wrote as a writing sample a paper about the Roman prefect\u00a0Sejanus<\/a>\u00a0and his alleged conspiracy against the emperor Tiberius in 31 CE. Both Tacitus and Dio invest extensive portions of their narratives introducing Sejanus and explaining the steps he took in gaining power under Tiberius. Whatever Sejanus was planning, it did not come to fruition, as he was executed by Tiberius in 31 CE. Part of the accusations levied against Sejanus was that he had many allies in the Roman Senate who were helping him in the conspiracy.<\/p>\n

    Now, imagine if, after Sejanus’ death, there was no aftermath or follow-up and the narrative merely moved on to another subject. This sequence of events would not at all be logical and would leave many questions unanswered. Instead, both Tacitus (book 6<\/a>) and Dio (book 58<\/a>) spend a considerable amount of narrative space discussing the senators who were accused and condemned for being co-conspirators with Sejanus. This makes logical sense, as the event and its instigator were both of a very important nature and we would not expect that they would suddenly disappear from a narrative in which they played crucial roles.<\/p>\n

    And yet in the Gospels, earth-shaking events take place that then receive no follow-up and strangely disappear once they have played their symbolic role in the narrative. Take the Gospel of Matthew, for example. While Jesus is being crucified, the sky grows dark for three hours at midday (27:45<\/a>). Next, Jesus’ death (27:51-53<\/a>) causes an earthquake that rips the curtain in the Jewish Temple in twain. The earthquake likewise opens the tombs of the saints, from which dead people resurrect and then appear throughout Jerusalem. This is an extraordinary event, indeed, and yet there is no follow-up in the Gospels or Acts of how the city was affected by this. Then, the Jewish authorities are so worried that Jesus’ tomb will be found empty, lest people believe that a miracle has occurred (as if the midday darkness and the ripping of the Temple curtain weren’t already convincing enough), that they convince Pilate to station guards at the tomb. When the guards are foiled, however, and Jesus’ body is found missing, the Jewish authorities claim (28:11-15<\/a>) that the disciples stole the body. Grave robbery was a capital offense in ancient Judea, and yet, there is no follow-up prosecution of the disciples for this charge, even when they are brought to court on other issues. Furthermore, what happened to Joseph of Arimathea? His tomb was the one that was supposed to remain occupied, and yet, when it is found empty, he is not even questioned on the matter. The Jewish authorities had gone to great lengths to ensure that Jesus’ body did not go missing, and yet, when Jesus is claimed to have risen, they do not even undergo an investigation into the circumstances.<\/p>\n

    This sequence of events does not logically make sense, if the Gospels were narrating actual historical events. Instead, the Gospels are reporting fantastical legends, where people act in bizarrely symbolic ways and do not rationally respond to what has taken place. For this reason, as I explain in my essay “Let’s Presuppose That Miracles Happen: The Gospel Resurrection Stories Are Still Unworthy Of Belief<\/a>,” the Gospels are not believable accounts, even in a universe where miracles actually happen. Actual historical writing is not so abrupt, and reasonable consequences occur after events that are important to the sequence of the narrative.<\/p>\n

    Another way in which the gospel narratives drop an obvious need for follow-up is that when Jesus is restored to life, it should be noted that he would have still have been subject to a death sentence and therefore would need to conceal himself from the authorities, but there is no hint of this caution in the gospels. In fact, it is alleged that he appeared to 500 people at once, some of whom likely would have been Roman <\/a>spies.<\/p>\n

    (1905) Do not call anyone on earth \u2018father\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The absurdities of the Bible drip incessantly from its pages, and one of the most egregious is found in the following verses:<\/p>\n

    Matthew 23:8-12<\/p>\n

    But you are not to be called \u2018Rabbi,\u2019 for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers.\u00a0 And do not call anyone on earth \u2018father,\u2019 for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.<\/strong>\u00a0 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah.\u00a0The greatest among you will be your servant.\u00a0 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.<\/p>\n

    This is one of the gospel passages that you will never hear recited in a church. Here is Jesus commanding that no earthly father should be addressed\u00a0 or honored as such. There are no Christians who obey this command of Jesus. But there are plenty of Christians who assert that the Bible is inerrant and that we should do what Jesus would do. \u00a0In other words, they believe that Jesus actually said this, but they still call their father \u2018father.\u2019 The contradiction is overly <\/a>apparent.<\/p>\n

    (1906) Shut out non-believers<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Christians have boxed themselves into a corner by declaring all scripture to be god-breathed (as asserted in 2 Timothy 3:16-17). What this means is that there is no filter available to cancel out biblical passages that are distasteful or even harmful, such as the following:<\/p>\n

    2 John 1:7-11<\/p>\n

    I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.\u00a0 Watch out that you do not lose what we\u00a0have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.\u00a0 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.\u00a0 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them.\u00a0 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.<\/p>\n

    This scripture has been used to disown children who have lost their faith and to kick them out of the home and revoke their inheritance. It has been used to fuel hate and violence against non-believers.\u00a0 And it certainly\u00a0represents a fatal contradiction to the following:<\/p>\n

    Matthew 5:43-47<\/p>\n

    \u201cYou have heard that it was said, \u2018Love your neighbor\u00a0i<\/a><\/sup><\/em><\/strong>\u00a0and hate your enemy.\u2019 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,\u00a0that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.\u00a0If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?\u00a0 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?<\/p>\n

    The only way out of this conundrum is to admit that the author of 2 John was not inspired by the Holy Spirit and was simply projecting his personal bias and hate This concession necessarily injures the authenticity of the <\/a>Bible.<\/p>\n

    (1907) Bethlehem birth prophecy is false<\/strong><\/p>\n

    The authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke make a big case about the messiah being prophesized to be born in Bethlehem, and they contort their accounts of the nativity beyond plausibility to make this true. The problem is that they misinterpreted the prophecy from the Book of Micah. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

    https:\/\/rationalwiki.org\/wiki\/Biblical_prophecies#The_messiah_will_be_born_in_Bethlehem<\/a><\/p>\n

    Matthew alleges that Jesus being born in Bethlehem fulfills a prophecy. In\u00a0Matthew\u00a02:4-6<\/a>\u00a0(NIV) King Herod is concerned about the birth of the “King of the Jews.”<\/p>\n

    When he had called together all the people’s chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. “In Bethlehem in Judea,” they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'”<\/p>\n

    While the quote from the prophet, Micah, appears to predict Jesus will come from the city of Bethlehem, he was not quoted precisely.\u00a0Micah\u00a05:2<\/a>\u00a0(NIV):<\/p>\n

    But you,\u00a0Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.<\/p>\n

    Several translations make it clear that Micah was referring to a clan named Bethlehem Ephrathah, not a city.<\/p>\n

    Alternately,\u00a0Micah\u00a05:2<\/a>\u00a0(KJV) states:<\/p>\n

    But you\u00a0Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.<\/p>\n

    This translation is particularly troubling for Matthew. There\u00a0are\u00a0not thousands of towns in Israel, much less the subsection of Judah,\u00a0today. It makes more sense that\u00a0thousands\u00a0refers to the people of Judah, rather than the towns of Judah.<\/p>\n

    There is also evidence that Bethlehem Ephrathah refers to the descendants of Ephratah.\u00a01 Chronicles\u00a02:1-51<\/a>\u00a0states:<\/p>\n

    These [are] the sons of Israel; Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun, [….] These were the sons of Caleb the son of Hur,\u00a0the firstborn of Ephratah; Shobal the father of Kirjathjearim,\u00a0Salma the father of Bethlehem, Hareph the father of Bethgader.”<\/p>\n

    The Septuagint (which Matthew usually uses, but apparently did not here) is even more explicit.\u00a0Micah\u00a05:2<\/a>\u00a0(Brenton Translation):<\/p>\n

    And thou, Bethlehem, house of Ephrathah, art few in number to be reckoned among the thousands of Judah: yet out of thee shall one come forth to me, to be a ruler of Israel.<\/p>\n

    The word house was often used in Hebrew to signify a family or a clan as in “the house of Judah” or “the house of David.” It was never used in the sense of “land” as Matthew applied it here.<\/p>\n

    Thus, the “Bethlehem” spoken of in Micah 5:2 was the “Bethlehem [of the house of] Ephratah” spoken of in Chronicles above.<\/p>\n

    The Micah quote has also been taken out of context, originally showing no indication of being a messianic prophecy, instead referring to a military leader.\u00a0Micah\u00a05:6<\/a>:<\/p>\n

    And they [the person from Bethlehem Ephrathah] shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.<\/p>\n

    Micah stated this in the context of the “many nations [that] have gathered against you [Judah]” (4:11<\/a>), especially the Assyrians. It makes sense to assume that Micah, rather than predicting a distant Messiah, was promoting a leader to help Judah against the contemporary Assyrian threat.<\/p>\n

    It is clear from this example and others that the people who wrote the gospels either didn\u2019t understand Old Testament scripture or they deliberately twisted whatever they could find to build what they thought would create a plausible link between the prophets and Jesus\u2019s life. It turns out, though, that in the end their gambit failed and their deception was laid bare to modern <\/a>scholarship.<\/p>\n

    (1908) King David was a despicable person<\/strong><\/p>\n

    David, assuming he is not a legend, which he probably is, nevertheless is an important figure in Christian doctrine because the Bible makes a big deal about the messiah having to be a descendant of him, and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke go to great lengths to assert that Jesus was as such (even though he allegedly had no human father). So, one might expect that David must have been a remarkably good man of superior moral rectitude.\u00a0 But he wasn\u2019t, not even close. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

    David Revered, Not Reviled?<\/a><\/p>\n

    If David, beloved King of the Jews, had been tried in our current\u00a0International Court of Justice<\/a>, he would have been found guilty of Crimes Against Humanity as horrific as the worst\u00a0mass murders in history\u00a0<\/a>(e.g. Hitler, Mao Ze-Dong,\u00a0<\/strong>Stalin, Pol Pot, et. al.)<\/p>\n

    Crimes Against Humanity:<\/p>\n

    particularly odious offenses that\u00a0 constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings.
    \nMurder;
    \nextermination;
    \ntorture;
    \nrape;
    \npolitical, racial, or religious persecution<\/em><\/p>\n

    Not only did David violate every modern sense of morals, he also violated\u00a0 5 of the 10 commandments. You can count em; we\u2019re about to puke.<\/p>\n

    All of his crimes were committed with the blessing of God who sometimes gleefully joined in the killings. David was so successful at killing and murder (and foreskin shucking) because he had more faith in God than anyone else. Thus God rewarded David with \u201cvictory\u201d over his enemies (some of whom lived peacefully nearby). It was only after David\u2019s faith wavered that his killing spree ended.<\/p>\n

    MORAL: Have faith in God and anything, including being able to slaughter thine enemies, is possible.<\/p>\n

    It would be hard to find anyone in the bible that God liked more than David.<\/strong><\/p>\n

    (All of the text below is borrowed from Steve Wells,
    \nthe creator of the\u00a0    SAB<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Dwindling in Unbelief<\/a>)<\/p>\n

    He was directly selected by God to be king, and \u201cthe Spirit of the Lord came
    \nupon David from that day forward.\u201d<\/p>\n

    And the LORD said, Arise, anoint him: for this is he. Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward.\u00a01 Sam.16:10-13<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

    His heart \u201cwas perfect with the Lord\u201d and \u201cthe Lord God of hosts was with him.\u201d<\/p>\n

    David \u2026 grew great, and the LORD God of hosts was with him.\u00a02 Sam.5:10<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

    His [Solomon\u2019s] heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father.\u00a01 Kg.11:4<\/a>,\u00a015:3<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

    He walked in God\u2019s ways and kept his statutes.<\/p>\n

    And if thou wilt walk in my ways, to keep my statutes and my commandments, as thy father David did walk, then I will lengthen thy days.\u00a01 Kg.3:14<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

    And (with the exception of the matter of Uriah the Hitite) he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord in his every act throughout his lifetime.<\/p>\n

    Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.\u00a01 Kg.15:5<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

    He was, according to Acts, a man after God\u2019s own heart.<\/p>\n

    And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the [son] of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will.\u00a0Acts 13:22<\/a>\u00a0(See also\u00a01 Sam.13:14<\/a>)<\/em><\/p>\n

    So if we want to know what type of person God likes, we need only look at David.<\/strong>Those who believe in the bible should try hard to imitate David, to always ask themselves \u201cWhat would David Do?\u201d in any particular situation. The two numbers following the biblical passages will be the (estimated?) body count of that passage\u2019s carnage and the cumulative body count.<\/p>\n

    Here is that which David did that\u00a0 was right in the eyes of the LORD,<\/strong><\/p>\n