…stuff. I’m being nice here. Actually, it’s full of shit. Bullshit.
I’ve been listening to Bart Ehrman’s lecture on the the History of the Bible, produced by the Teaching Company, and a few things struck me. Professor Ehrman is clearly a good historian, because he analyzes the Bible from a historian’s point of view, discounting as irrelevant the theological point of view. He’s also a skeptic (although anyone familiar with his books would already know that), which is a quality necessary to good historical research.
Ehrman was talking about the discrepancies between the various gospels, and as an example was comparing the stories of the birth of Christ in Matthew and Luke. In one of the stories, I think it was Luke who tells that Herod found out that the Jewish Messiah was born, so he sent his army to slay all of the male children under the age of 2, because he didn’t want a rival to his power.
My reaction to this story was one of incredulity. If God is omniscient, he must have known that his birth would cause Herod to react like that. No, I don’t believe the story for a minute, but if it’s true, it indicates a truly callous god who would allow hundreds, maybe thousands of innocent male children to be killed, for no reason, other than to make a good story in the later retelling.
As a young Catholic, I had heard that story told many times, primarily at Christmas, and I never questioned it. Worse yet, I never heard a single priest, nun or other religious person question the pure horror of such an atrocity. The emphasis was on the birth of one baby, Jesus, but not a single statement of indignation about the horrible death of thousands of other babies at the same time.
The other story he told was about Christ’s death, again pointing out the clear discrepancies between how two of the Gospels treat that aspect of the life of Christ. In one, while on the cross, he doesn’t speak to the two criminals who are executed with him, while they heap scorn on him. (Mark 15:27-32) In the other, one of the criminals chastises the other, asking Jesus to remember him, in response to which Jesus then turns to him and tells him that he will be in heaven (paradise) that very day with him. (Luke 23:40-43).
Doesn’t it seem that based on that evidence, the Catholic Church could immediately canonize that criminal as a saint? Isn’t sainthood simply an acknowledgment by the church that a person who has died went to heaven? If so, isn’t the word of Jesus (Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise. ) good enough to declare him a saint? Perhaps some good Catholic with more knowledge of the Saints could point me to Saint {criminal – I don’t know his name}. Is he the patron saint of criminals?
Never mind, I found it. It’s Saint Dismas. And Dismas is just a name assigned to him by later tradition. The church never canonized him, but by my definition, most Catholics refer to him as a saint. So why didn’t the Church canonize him? The Bible is considered the authority for all things Christian, but when Jesus says a specific man will join him in heaven, that’s not good enough? Maybe it’s because the Church felt he was just lucky, his number came up and he just happened to be executed at the same time as the son of god. You don’t get to be a saint on pure luck, being in the right place at the right time, I guess. He must have lived a life of crime, not deserving of sainthood, though Christian tradition and dogma says that if you repent on your deathbed, then you’ll go to heaven, so why not poor old Dismas?
My theory is that it’s because the Bible is full of shit. C’mon. Talking snakes, virgin births, parting seas, world-wide floods. Pure storytelling at it’s finest. What we call bull shit.
Feel free to refute me.
del.icio.us 
reddit 
SPANISH INQUISITOR 
The most important thing about this post is – YOU ARE BACK! We love you, SI.
Since there are two stories about the criminals on the crosses with HeyZues, how come only ONE of the stories ever gets repeated ad nauseum?
Hey. Thanks, Evo. Yeah, it has been awhile since I posted something. Sorry about that. Need to keep up.
One of the points that Ehrman makes in this lecture series is that most Christians read the Gospels and sort of smush the facts all together, to make it more palatable. They take one story from one Gospel, another from another, and before you know it, they have a singular concept of the Life of Jesus (Actually, not his whole life, more like three years). But the Gospels are 4 distinct narratives that, while they agree on many points (thanks to sheer plagiarism), disagree on many more. For instance, try to reconcile the Gospel that says Christ was executed the day after Passover with the one that claims he died the day before Passover.
So all we hear from the people who teach us the Gospels is the story that is most congruent with the lesson they want to teach. In the example of the two criminals, the story where Jesus forgives the criminal, who recognizes his divinity is a much more palatable story than the one where Christ says nothing to anyone (in Mark) before he dies.
As far as the robbers, I disagree that there are “clear discrepancies.” I actually think that’s a horribly unpersuasive example, and that you’ve not proven your case. But first off, do you know what version of scripture the citations were pulled from?
To add a little more: the massacre of the Holy Innocents is in Matthew alone. (As it appears in no historical records and no other biblical texts it’s viewed as ahistorical).
For what it’s worth, Luke has the census, birth in Bethlehem, shepherds, then a return to Nazareth.
The discrepancies between the nativity stories in Luke vs. Matthew are so intractable that most historians regard the whole lot as complete fiction.
Ehrman’s principle thesis on the Gospels (that we should treat them as seperate accounts, each with their own particular axe to grind) is, I reckon, pretty much the only honest approach one can take to their inconsistent reporting. Once we accept that Mark was interested in Jesus humanity, Matthew in his fulfillment of OT scripture, Luke in the universality of Jesus’ teaching and John in Jesus’ divinity, the disparate accounts begin to make more sense. Trying to mash all four of them into one account, as so many Christians try to do, is like attempting to combine the ingredients for a three-course meal of salmon terrine, chicken chasseur and tiramisu into one inedible puree. You can force them all in, but the result, unsurprisingly, is deeply unpalatable.
Of course, once you accept this, you have to waive the idea that they were reporting factual history, and that leads to questions about how much of the Gospel accounts can be relied upon as historical testimony and how much is “metaphorical”…
And there’s the rub. I think that’s even less palatable than the salmon-chicken-tiramisu puree for them.
Indeed!
Before the process was formalized, only those who died for the faith, or those who were believed to be holy during their lives were acknowledged as saints. In this case, he didn’t die for the faith, and nothing was known about his life (probably because he was a character in a work of fiction), so he didn’t qualify for sainthood.
cl
Read the post. The cites from Matthew and Luke are in there. Or are you referring to whether it’s the King James Version, versus some other version? I read both, but I’m not sure which version Ehrman reads. I know he reads Greek, so I assume it’s probably the original that he’s referring to, because that’s the language the Gospels were originally written in.
And you don’t see a “clear discrepancy” between this:
and this:
As Philly says, there’s the rub.
Unfortunately, all Christians will tell you that they believe in a historical Jesus, not a metaphorical Jesus. If there is no historical Jesus, or if the historical Jesus that we are asked to believe in was significantly metaphorical (i.e. fictional) then why believe in him?
You’re absolutely right, the Bible is bullshit, there’s no way around it. It’s funny that the people who are most knowledgeable about the Bible, the scholars and historians who examine it linguistically and historically, are also the people least likely to be fundamentalist Christians. They know how ridiculous the Bible is, they know how false it’s claims are. The more you know about the Bible, the more laughable it becomes.
Too bad more theists don’t know more about the object of their faith.
SI,
I read the post. That’s fine if you don’t know what translation Ehrman was pulling from. Can you at least tell me what translation you cited from? I would like to read the entire passages in their full context, in the same translation as you cited them, to ensure that we are both analyzing identical source material.
Welcome back, SI!
Cognitive dissonance was what turned me away from religion, but I never realized how many inconsistencies there were until I was able to see the stories from the outside. It is amazing how much is unquestioned within faith.
Welcome Back (cue Welcome Back Kotter theme music)!
Having just come through yet another Easter season, this statement resonated with me: The emphasis was on the birth of one baby, Jesus, but not a single statement of indignation about the horrible death of thousands of other babies at the same time.
That’s a classic Christian application of misdirection. There’s so much attention heaped on the cute, vulnerable baby that the massacre of the other anonymous kids is pretty much unnoticed. Readers are led to be concerned only about the fate of the one baby. After all, He was the object of the death threat – the other kids were collateral damage.
The same misdirection applies to Jesus’ sacrificial death. Sinners are so busy thanking God that he found a way to forgive their sins that they fail to realize that YHWH could only be appeased by a human sacrifice. You know, the same kind of sacrifice that Christians rail against in other, primitive, religions. Or, they refer to Jesus’ death as deicide, the killing of a god, rather than a homicide; this removes empathy for the murder of a fellow human (let’s face it, only the delusional can identify in any way with a deity.) The effect is still the same – Christians don’t grasp that YHWH’s demand for human sacrifice is no different than a similar demand from any of the other deities that they despise and reject.
SI,
Nevermind the previous questions about translations, I did the work myself, and more thoroughly than I would expect from most skeptics anyways. In the KJV, NAS, NIV and Amplified translations of Mark, we unanimously find “those that passed by,” the “chief priests,” and the “scribes” or “teachers” all insulting Jesus; and in the KJV and NAS, we also find both robbers insulting Jesus. In all 4 translations of Luke, we unanimously find one of the two rebuking the other, noting the irony that all three of them were presumably in the same position – about to face God – and asking Jesus to remember him, with Jesus obliging.
Nothing in the statements of both robbers insulting Jesus and one robber coming to belief is mutually exclusive. It is perfectly within reason that both robbers initially insulted Jesus, and that at some point within the time it takes to die by crucifixion, Jesus witnessed to them, and one of them believed. It’s also perfectly reasonable that Mark might not have been present to hear the statement Luke records, or that perhaps Mark simply omitted that particular statement for some reason. Regardless, whether intentional or not, Mark’s hypothetical omission here would not damage the integrity of the gospel accounts in any way, as taken together they would tell the complete story.
Since these hypotheses are all within reason, and since we cannot comfortably say that all hypotheses have been exhausted, in a spirit of rational rigueur, it seems a bit premature to conclude a “clear discrepancy” regarding the accounts of the two criminals.
Chaplain,
I realize the comparison you’re attempting to draw – that God sending Jesus to die on the cross was “the same kind of sacrifice that Christians rail against in other, primitive, religions.” I disagree.
Where does YHWH issue a “demand for human sacrifice”? I think your comparison was more rhetorically successful than historically or scripturally accurate. There are virtually zero points of similarity between Jesus’ crucifixion and the primitive human sacrifices of the Aztecs, or Maya, or any of Israel’s neighbors in the Old Testament, for example. First of all, Roman crucifixion was punishment for crime against the empire, not religious ceremony. Second, Jesus’ crucifixion was a one-time event, not something employed ritualistically to gain favor with warring tribes or to bless crops and livestock. Further, nobody that was present for Jesus’ crucifixion was offering Jesus up to the supernatural realm, nor did anyone present imagine that Jesus’ death was an atonement for their sin. At Golgotha, the disciples still had no clue. Their conclusions and their final realizations of Christ’s nature as the Messiah purportedly came from the resurrection, after Pentecost, and not during or before the crucifixion.
Hence, we cannot accurately say that Christ’s crucifixion was “the same kind of sacrifice that Christians rail against in other, primitive, religions.”
I’m curious, is this how you maintain your belief? Does redirecting your analytical mind to lengthy diatribes about specific usages of speech and intent serve to distract it from focusing on the belief itself? Or is it that somehow you tell yourself that if you can win these little points, then your belief is justified?
Where does YHWH issue a “demand for human sacrifice”?
Here you go.
But I offer that up only in the name of an interesting discussion. Much more pertinent, in my humble opinion, is the question Philly asks you.
On a side note, I find it annoying that you continually enter these discussions without, at some point, announcing just what the fuck it is that you actually do in fact believe, rather than your habit of attempting to “raise doubt to doubt”. Is that the point you want to make? That there really might, somehow, someway, be a way to believe in a Christian savior? Do you believe in the Christian god? Do you think there is an afterlife that awaits you for your belief?
It’d be nice if you guys would keep this stuff on track, but…
Philly,
Your comment doesn’t contribute anything to the questions at hand, but since you asked, No^3.
It serves to ensure I’m thinking critically instead of typing knee-jerk responses that don’t contribute anything to the questions at hand, and I find your concern about “specific usages of speech” quite ironic after badgering me about the use of a definite article on Chappie’s blog – which, just like your comment here – doesn’t contribute anything to the questions at hand.
Is that a concession that I’ve won “little points”? If not, can you formulate an intelligent, non-personal response indicating precisely where and why my argument fails? If not, can you return to whatever else it is you do on Thursdays when not making personal comments that don’t contribute anything to the questions at hand?
Evo,
Well, unlike Philly, at least part of your comment is relevant. As for your 8.5 minute YouTube video, I don’t have the time. Let’s cut to the chase, which would consist of you telling me where YHWH demands humans sacrifice – and not just any human sacrifice – but “the same kind of sacrifice that Christians rail against in other, primitive, religions.”
Ask me if I care what annoys you, then explain how it’s not special pleading for you to describe yourself by what you don’t believe in, but not me. I’ve stated before that I’m not an atheist, and if that annoys you, maybe you should quit stating that you’re not a theist? Are you butthurt because I don’t show up in some silly little clown suit of Mormon, Catholic, Christian, Hindu, New Ager or Buddhist, thus discouraging the use of pre-canned responses and arguments based on generalizations that may or may not be accurate? Do you like it when “creationists” argue against what they think evolution entails, versus what evolution actually entails? I make plenty of positive claims, friend, but I wouldn’t expect you to know that in the minimal time you’ve spent actually communicating with me. It is not my fault that you’re either unwilling to communicate genuinely with me, or not paying close attention to what I say. As for your questions, I’ve answered them before: I’m no atheist, nor do I believe consciousness terminates eternally upon death.
Now, let’s drop the distractions and debate SI’s claims. Otherwise, go back to whatever it is you do on Thursdays when not complaining about being annoyed online.
cl
Only if you’ve deluded your self into believing something for which the common usage of the English language (in this case) indicates the opposite. Good luck with that.
Why even get into this. I told you, Ehrman reads the Bible in the original Greek, so it doesn’t really matter what translation you and I read. Go find the Greek version, analyze it for me, and tell me there’s no discrepancy.
Mark and Luke didn’t write the Gospels attributed to them. Some anonymous author who wasn’t there, wrote those versions after years of oral transmission had gotten the stories to those authors, according to Ehrman.
Nice rationalization. We could also hypothesize that an alien from the Planet Xenon stopped by in his trusty X-Wing, whispered to one of the criminals “Pssst. That’s the Son of God there next to you. Show a little respect.” After which he changed his tone from one of derision to one of obsequiousness. That would explain the discrepancy too, and I like that one better. You’ve convinced me, there is no real discrepancy.
Now, excuse me while I put on my tin foil cap.
cl:
Your comment brings up some interesting problems for Christian interpretations of Jesus’ execution. You noted that
…Roman crucifixion was punishment for crime against the empire, not religious ceremony…a one-time event, not something employed ritualistically…Their conclusions and their final realizations of Christ’s nature as the Messiah purportedly came from the resurrection, after Pentecost, and not during or before the crucifixion.
It’s no news flash that crucifixion was a Roman punishment for crimes against Rome, not a Jewish atonement ritual. Therefore, Jewish rejection of Christian claims was warranted because
a) the Jews did not offer Jesus to fulfill a sacrificial ritual, and
b) Jesus didn’t fit the criteria for the Messiah figure.
Given those premises, how the hell did the early Christians get the wild idea that the execution of a Roman political criminal could somehow be linked to the Jewish sacrificial system and – wonder of all wonders – serve as the perfect, final sacrifice that would end all sacrifices under that system?
Orthodox Christian doctrine for the past two millenia has been that Jesus’ sacrificial death was always part of God’s Perfect Plan of Salvation. In other words, YHWH ordained Jesus’ death from the beginning. You asked, “Where does YHWH issue a “demand for human sacrifice”?” Sticking with Jesus’ death, I’ll direct you to that well-known and well-worn Bible verse – and I’ll even quote it from the King James Version, since you seem to have an affinity for that wretched translation – John 3:16:
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
The traditional Christian understanding of this verse is that God took the matter of offering a (human) sacrifice – to himself – upon himself. Well, sort of. He wanted the sacrifice, but he wouldn’t do the dirty work himself. He left that to the Romans and Jews who had no clue that they were mere playing pieces in his grand game, simply making the moves that he had plotted for them, or – if you want to insist on Free Will – that he had foreseen – all along. It didn’t matter to YHWH whether people were aware of the deeper meaning of Jesus’ death at the time it happened. All that mattered to YHWH was that his plan was carried out, i.e., the sacrifice was completed and YHWH’s bloodlust satiated, and the Atonement Mission was accomplished.
You also said,
we cannot accurately say that Christ’s crucifixion was “the same kind of sacrifice that Christians rail against in other, primitive, religions.”
You’re right. I’ll retract that statement and replace it with the following. The fact that people played unwitting roles in YHWH’s monstrous drama actually makes the Christian atonement more heinous than other religious rituals. At least the participants in other rituals knew what they were doing. In the Christian scheme of things, most of the people fulfilling YHWH’s plan didn’t have a clue what they were doing. YHWH is nothing more than a Grand Puppetmaster who uses people, including his own flesh and blood, as means to his own ends.
SI,
Your response is veridically worthless. As you are the one making the positive claim of “clear discrepancy,” the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. I have demonstrated reasonable scenarios that potentially harmonize the accounts, and the best you’ve done is to deny each of them, and tell me to read the Greek. Have you? What in the Greek do you allege changes anything? Do you have an intelligent argument that can only be supported by the original Greek which explains why it is unreasonable that a robber repented?
Also, nowhere did I state that Mark and Luke wrote the gospels attributed to them, and I’m not sure, but it appears you’ve assumed otherwise and it’s always interesting to note the assumptions people make without evidence. My original comment included some theories about possible errors on behalf of Mark’s scribe(s).
Lastly, your “Planet Xenon” thing was a non-sequitur which suggests the possibility you don’t have an argument that refutes mine.
Chaplain,
It seems to me you’ve missed my entire argument. You originally equated Christ’s crucifixion with “the same kind of sacrifice that Christians rail against in other, primitive, religions.” Now you rhetorically recant and ignore my arguments claiming differences. By no means does John 3:16 qualify as “demand for human sacrifice,” and by no means was the one-time event of Christ’s crucifixion “the same kind of sacrifice that Christians rail against in other, primitive, religions.” That was the claim you originally made, and you have not substantiated it. You have substantiated the fact that you perceive Christ’s crucifixion with the same distaste many orthodox Christians usually reserve for things like SRA. How is your assumption that God was motivated by “bloodlust” and more reliable than the Bible’s assumption that God was motivated by love?
Now, you’ve retracted (superficially, I believe) to,
So, is relative awareness of the penultimate finality the arbiter of heinousness? Also, the crucifixion is not a ritual. Lastly, that the crucifixion is “more heinous” than ritual human sacrifice is just your own unsubstantiated opinion. You should know by now that I won’t accept subjective opinions as cogent arguments.
In the evolutionary scheme of things, most of the people fulfilling natural selection’s plan didn’t have a clue either. Does that make evolution heinous?
See above. Since when does subjective opinion count as cogent argument? Lastly, your claim that I have “an affinity” for the KJV is also unsubstantiated.
cl:
I’m sorry that you can’t see how my previous comment addressed, rather than missed, your “entire argument.” I can’t do anything about your lack of comprehension. Your belief that my retraction of a previous statement was superficial is simply that – your unsubstantiated opinion. To paraphrase your earlier comment to John Evo, ask me if I care what you believe. You may not like dealing with what you perceive as unsubstantiated opinions from others, but the evidence I’ve seen on many blogs suggests that you enjoy dishing them out.
Much of what you label as “unsubstantiated opinion” on the part of your interlocutors is far more substantive than you want to acknowledge. Again, I can’t help it if you can’t follow and comprehend arguments. Nor do I care what you will accept as cogent arguments. Perhaps the real issue is that you can’t answer them – which is why you never do so. If that’s the case, maybe you should take the advice you dished out to Philly and Evo and return to whatever it is you usually do on Thursdays.
cl
Actually, no. It was Ehrman who made that claim. I just reported it. If you have a problem with the claim, take it up with him. I’d love to see the debate.
Mm Hm. So, when you say “Mark might not have been present to hear the statement Luke records,” you were referring to someone else? Who, pray tell?
So you would also agree that:
is also a non-sequitur?
Chaplain,
You and I disagree that Christ’s crucifixion is (whatever you recanted to). Big deal? You can keep repeating yourself and others by saying that I don’t answer arguments, but in reality, the fact that we’re still going proves otherwise and it is my argument that has not been answered here – only denied. You say I have difficulty comprehending you, but I think you mistake reasoned disagreement for incompetence. As far as your claim that my belief about your recanting was unsubstantiated, well, you tell me – was it? Your recanting seemed sarcastic, but I don’t know, because I’m not you, and that’s why I said I believe. I’m not going to act like Philly, and say that I know what someone else meant, when I cannot possibly know the contents of their subjective mind. So, was your recanting genuine? Did you really think about it and say to yourself, “You know, cl’s right. Christ’s crucifixion isn’t the same kind of sacrifice that Christians rail against in other, primitive, religions?”
On Thursdays I rebut loose atheist arguments, and there’s at least one here that has not been successfully countered. Nobody has provided an argument that explains why one of the robbers repenting is unreasonable. Instead, people prefer to offer subjective opinions about God and flank me on a host of side issues anywhere from poopy-pants personal complaints to KJV comments that don’t relate to the main argument, then claim I’m not answering. In reality, I enjoy answering everyone’s side issues in great detail, and I often do. But don’t get me wrong. I’d much rather stay on topic and resolve arguments one way or the other than allow my patience for red herrings to let arguments go unresolved. That you compare the crucifixion to ritual sacrifice is really of little concern to me in the long run. I spoke my mind, and exactly as I expected, you resisted. If we can’t agree, why not move on? If I’m so incompetent and you’re so on point, then please, by all means let’s drop the personal angles, the side-arguments, and all the name-calling games. If you can, let’s intelligently, rationally discuss the situation with the robbers. The ball is in the atheists’ court here.
SI,
Presumably, Mark and Luke (the disciples) were both physically present at Golgotha. When I said, “Mark might not have been present to hear the statement Luke records,” it should be read, “Mark (the disciple) might not have been present to hear the statement Luke (the gospel) records.” If that’s the case, it’s reasonable he never would have passed it along, either in writing – if Mark did write his own gospel – or verbally, if a scribe wrote Mark’s gospel at a later date. It is true that I could’ve wrote with more exacting detail, but if all you’re going to do is flank me over your assumption I was unaware of evidence suggesting Mark & Luke (the disciples) didn’t write Mark & Luke (the gospels), all while refusing to defend the claim you report, I’m not worried that you might have a better argument than me. If you can’t see how the explanation I offered is more reasonable than your Planet Xenon retort, I don’t know what to tell you, other than, “No, I don’t agree.” Simply saying “non-sequitur” back doesn’t mean you’ve provided an intelligent argument explaining how one of the robbers repenting is beyond reason, and that’s all I’m asking for. One would think the requested argument would have been provided comments ago, if anyone had it.
So, to you, Chaplain, Evo, Philly, or anyone: Feel free to cut to the chase by providing the requested argument. If it’s cogent, I’ll concede you’ve met my claim head-on, and I’ll either be out of here, or have something else to say. It’s that easy.
cl:
I agree that you and I have nothing further to discuss here. In your opinion, I didn’t answer your argument. In my opinion, I did. I have no intention of explaining the steps I took to do so; you either get it or you don’t. Obviously, neither of us is going to sway the other on that point and, like you, I have no interest in pursuing any of the other issues we raised along the way.
I want to apologize for saying that you “never” answer arguments. That was an inaccurate remark. I should have said, more accurately (in my view, which I know you don’t share), that you “often” don’t answer arguments.
Do you like it when “creationists” argue against what they think evolution entails, versus what evolution actually entails?
Nope. I and don’t like when “non-atheists” argue against atheism without saying what they specifically DO believe. You don’t want a label? Don’t use it, but don’t presuppose how it may cloud the discussion. Further, you can say what you believe without a label (I assume?). But I can go with what you’ve already said – you believe that consciousness doesn’t end at death even though there is no evidence for this and a lot of evidence for its infinitesimal unlikeliness.
Ahhhh, forget it. I’ll go back to what I do that doesn’t annoy me – the best suggestion I’ve yet to hear from you.
Now that we’ve skipped down cl’s little obfuscation lane, let’s go back to the OP. The Bible is bullshit. I used the term in the common, modern vernacular of describing storytelling of the highest order meant to snow the readers into believing something that’s not true. The Bible does a good job of it, cl’s efforts to rationalize it notwithstanding. If two books of the Bible say polar opposite things, then one of them is bullshit. Whoever the author of Luke was used Mark as a source, yet didn’t bother to explain why his story contradicted the author of Mark.
Cl can come up with all sorts of hypotheses that fill in the gaps of non-explanation, but wasn’t that Luke’s job?
You’re assuming the authors of the gospels wanted their readers to believe the gospels as history, which may not have been the case. Perhaps they intended the gospels as parables, in which case it is the modern Christian interpretation of the gospels as history that’s bullshit, and not the gospels themselves.
Chaplain,
You’re still getting parts wrong. In my opinion, you did answer my objection. I disagreed. It’s not a matter of me not understanding your reply. Also, I didn’t say I didn’t have interest in pursuing the side issues. Contrary, I said I enjoyed answering the side issues, but would prefer to focus on the main issues. I’m not surprised you don’t want to discuss the robber situation. You still contend I “often” don’t answer arguments, yet elsewhere you complain I’m a troll who answers too much. Let’s get consistent or clear, because right now, you’re neither. At best, you can accurately say you don’t think I adequately answer arguments, or something like that. But don’t try to make it look like I evade questions. That’s untrue.
Evo,
You say, “I and don’t like when ‘non-atheists’ argue against atheism without saying what they specifically DO believe,” (sic) yet you and every other “non-theist” argues against theism without saying what you specifically DO believe. Evo, when you enter into these or similar arguments, do you tell everyone what you do believe in? No. If anything, you state what you don’t believe in, and that’s God. Similarly, I state what I don’t believe in, and that’s atheism. Besides, why the hell do I need to identify with any silly denomination to discuss SI’s reporting of Ehrman’s claims of discrepancies in Mark or Luke? The one has nothing to do with the other. So, do you want to address the issues intelligently? Or continue to go the polemical route? If the latter, I’ll pass – in case someone else actually wants to address the issues instead of listening to me respond to your systematic complaining.
SI,
You’re hilarious. Sure, blame me for the obfuscation, when it is your buddies Evo, Chaplain, and PhillyChief who have now left a total of 6 comments to me, all lacking even a single word relating to my original claim! Now that that’s all cleared up, by all means, let’s get back to the OP…
Your first three sentences are (again) veridically worthless. Then,
I’d have to agree, but,
Luke’s story doesn’t contradict Mark’s. A contradiction occurs when we two statements X and ~X. Mark did not explicitly say that neither robber repented. I’d say you and Ehrman might have a case if, for example, Mark had said both robbers were unrepentant and insulting all the way to their deaths, or something similar. Problem is, that two robbers insulted Christ and one later repented are not “polar opposite things,” and you still have not offered an intelligent argument explaining why one of the robbers repenting in the multiple hours it takes to die by crucifixion is unreasonable.
Evo, when you enter into these or similar arguments, do you tell everyone what you do believe in? No. If anything, you state what you don’t believe in, and that’s God.
But that in itself is a belief. I believe there is no god. I make it clear on my blog and anytime anyone asks. The equilency argument (between your position and mine) would be if I went to various Christian blogs and continually dropped in doubts without being willing to clarify if I was an atheist, agnostic, pagan or Hindu. You think it’s fine. I think it’s weak.
Besides, why the hell do I need to identify with any silly denomination to discuss SI’s reporting of Ehrman’s claims of discrepancies in Mark or Luke?
Wow. A DOUBLE straw man! I didn’t ask you your denomination, I asked you to explain your beliefs. I didn’t say you should do it on SI’s post, I said I was annoyed by you never being willing to do so.
I’ll pass – in case someone else actually wants to address the issues instead of listening to me respond to your systematic complaining.
Sounds like now you are annoyed. If so, wanna guess how much I care?
cl:
Excuse me? Sure, blame me for the obfuscation, when it is your buddies Evo, Chaplain, and PhillyChief who have now left a total of 6 comments to me, all lacking even a single word relating to my original claim!
You didn’t ask me about your claim regarding SI’s post. You asked SI about his post. You asked me about my initial comment. And, you’ve admitted that I did answer your objection. You found my answer unsatisfactory, but I could care less about your satisfaction.
You know what’s annoying about “dialoging” with you, cl? The fact that you keep shifting the grounds of the discussion. The bulk of your comments to me were about my initial comment. Then, out of the blue, you criticize me for not responding to your comment to SI. WTF? I figured I’d let SI speak for himself, seeing as your question was addressed to him.
This statement is hilarious: I’m not surprised you don’t want to discuss the robber situation.
Right. Because your alternative is irrefutable. ROFLMAO.
Okay, since you’re obviously on pins and needles with the need to know what I think about your alternative explanation for the discrepancies between Mark and Luke, I’ll tell you. Your alternative is plausible, yes, but entirely speculative. There are a whole lot oaf other plausible explanations too, such as the one mentioned by Eric Haas just a few comments up from this one. So what? It’s impossible to examine every possibility before staking out a position. It’s impossible to even conceive of every possibility before staking out a position. SI settled on a position, on the basis of the information he has at hand at this time, and he has adequate grounds for doing so. Your alternative was mildly interesting but, in my opinion, not worth addressing since SI had already handled that himself.
As for your evasion of questions, here’s one you skipped entirely, from my first response to you:
How the hell did the early Christians get the wild idea that the execution of a Roman political criminal could somehow be linked to the Jewish sacrificial system and – wonder of all wonders – serve as the perfect, final sacrifice that would end all sacrifices under that system?
Remember – you’re the one who keeps insisting, appropriately, that “crucifixion is not a ritual.” My question is based on that premise. If SI doesn’t mind, I’d really like your answer for it. You know, since you don’t evade questions.
Hello, nice blog. Nice post.
If I may de-lurk to make a response to your well-taken point about God’s willingness to countenance the deaths of lots of babies in order to see His work done. I would say this does not come up to his willingness to kill the babies himself – ie the Passover. After the Passover, the Slaughter of the Innocents would hardly have registered very highly in the consciousness of the (fictional? classical Bad Guy?) Being better known as the God of the Bible. Making a further point, it is hard to see how believers faced with these two events (inerrantly narrated as they are) can conclude that the same being would get all worked up about the fate of babies who haven’t even been born yet.
Evo,
And, the equilency argument between yours and mine would be if I went to various atheist blogs and continually dropped in doubts without being willing to clarify that I believe in God. I’ve clarified that several times, here and elsewhere, so I really don’t see what the attraction is here. And, no strawmen. I was simply pointing out that one’s personal religious beliefs are irrelevant in a discussion about alleged Bible contradictions. And no, amused would better describe my state; I find it amusing and revealing that you still prefer dance over debate, but not annoying.
Chaplain,
Again, same old thing. You complaining about my style. You complaining that I “shift grounds.” You complaining that I “evade questions.” Do you answer every single one of my questions? No. Yes, I asked you about your comment, not SI’s. What happened after our second or third exchange? I expressed my opinion that we weren’t getting anywhere on the sacrifice thing, and suggested that perhaps we could discuss the original issue. Do you remember that? So no, my criticism was not out of the blue, and finally, you get to it.
I thought so too, as was Eric’s, and that plausible alternatives exist means we do not have sufficient ground to substantiate the “clear discrepancy” SI and Ehrman claim.
If you view SI’s just-so statement that the two accounts are “polar opposite things” as “handled,” then no wonder you and I butt heads so hard. Do you understand that a contradiction occurs when we have two statement both X and ~X? Such is not the case with the robber situation, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
As with most cases where personal decisions are made, different people arrive at their ideas through different means. I have no way of knowing what motivated “early Christians” to conclude Jesus was the Messiah, as individual “early Christians” might have come to their individual conclusions about Jesus through different means. Somehow I have a feeling this will not satisfy you, so feel free to clarify the question, or ask new ones, but I’m really interested in hearing your argument for contradiction in the robber situation – unless of course you agree with me that claims of contradiction are premature in the face of plausible alternatives.
cl:
“I expressed my opinion that we weren’t getting anywhere on the sacrifice thing, and suggested that perhaps we could discuss the original issue.”
So what? Is everyone who comments on SI’s blog (or anyone else’s, except yours) obligated to respond to your comment? Your attempts to coerce response when people ignore you are pathetic.
No, the question you cited was addressed specifically to you, so I have no idea why you’d take my comment grossly out of scope like that.
Well go figure. That’s exactly how I feel about personal comments, complaining, etc. from you, Philly, Evo and others. Like I said, side issues are fine, but they get old and tend to distract from the logical issues, much like the comment I’m currently replying to.
So, do you have anything else to contribute to this conversation that doesn’t focus on me personally? If not, why not just let me do my thing?
cl:
the question you cited was addressed specifically to you
Even though the question was addressed specifically to me, I was not under any obligation to accept your invitation. Instead of interpreting my silence as a discreet refusal of your invitation and politely accepting my decision, you called me out as if I had committed some breach of etiquette.
Recognizing that I’ve taken more than my fair share of comment space on this post, I’m going to bow out of this conversation. You can do whatever you wish with whomever you wish to do it with, so long as you don’t try to include me.
Hi cl. It’s a new day.
I just want to know –
Do you believe in the god of the Christians? Do you think Jesus is the son of god or an actual part of god who took human form or neither? Do you think he died for your sins? Do you think belief in him and repenting for sins is the way to go to heaven?
I think that will do for now.
Eric
I guess that’s possible. Actually, if you could get the religious leaders of the world to acknowledge this as true, we’d actually be getting somewhere, because by doing so, they’d be acknowledging that the historical Jesus didn’t exist.
A parable is, at it’s root, fiction. A story illustrating a moral or religious lesson. Or, as I claim above – bullshit.
If the “parables” of Mark and Luke are simply stories, with no historical basis, then what the hell is Christianity? A religion based on stories? Be serious. Without the belief in a historical Jesus, there would be no Christianity.
cl
So you say. But you can only say so by adding something that’s not there, and then interpreting it assuming that addition. On it’s face, the two examples I cited do, in fact contradict each other. If I add my Xenon example, I could interpret it as not be being in conflict too. I choose to compare what’s there.
Cl,
Do you have one of those calendars that has a new word each day, week, etc? I see your new word is “veridically”. Nice word. Personally I don’t care for such words, since I like to make sure people will know immediately what I’m saying and also, I don’t want to come off as a pretentious prick.
So yes, I did put the screws to you over language specifics on another blog, because it was relevant. What you’re doing here, however, is just silly. It all just comes off like a Defense lawyer finding any means possible to get their client off. Yes, it’s the equivalent of OJ not getting the gloves on.
When I see things like that, and the laborious effort involved, rather than jump down the rabbit hole with you, I’m far more intrigued by why. Why would one engage in such an effort? Well, something to ponder then, or perhaps not for you. After all, that’s probably what you’re avoiding by posting all these comments, right?
Well, have fun with that.
Scotlyn
So true, yet consistently ignored or glossed over by Christians.
Agreed.
I don’t consider fiction as bullshit, unless someone is trying to pass it off as truth. There are some hints within the gospels that lead me to believe that the authors did not intend them to be taken as history, so I don’t fell justified in calling them bullshit. When modern day Christians tell me the gospels are historical fact, I have no qualms on calling bullshit on them.
Aren’t all religions essentially based on stories? Stories that someone, somewhere, took to be true, even if that was not the intent of the original authors?
cl:
I now think that you’re an atheist, just having fun at other atheists’ expense. If that’s the case, kudos.
Anyway, here’s my reasoning:
1. You have a definite reluctance to make faith statements of any kind.
2. You don’t argue with personal passion; you merely play with others’ ideas and responses.
By the way, I agree with you wholeheartedly that one could twist the example of the robbers so that it does not have clear discrepancies.
However, if the words in the bible are “inspired,” why make them even seem to conflict? What’s that god character up to, anyway? If the words are not inspired, then obviously they’re wide open to challenge, since both theists and atheists will readily admit that humans are fallible. What’s your position on the amount of input that god had in his autobiography? Is the bible an as-told-to, or just an unauthorized version? Veridically speaking, of course.
ROFLMFAO!
Bart Ehrman — a good historian? Give me a break! He’s right up there with Dan Brown. After hs sloppy work is shredded in scholarly circles, he republishes it in the popular media — without change.
He was probably a YEC before becoming a “Bible Scholar”. Only in this age of intellectual lightweights could he be granted his current post after such dismal work.
No wonder you are so confused.
Mark, I don’t know much about him so I looked him up. He is at least “good enough” to be the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
For whatever that’s worth. Sounds like he is “good”, but I guess beauty is… etc.
Mark
First I ever heard that his reputation in academia was suspect. He’s got quite a bit of credentials, comes from a strict Christian background, is thought highly enough by the Teaching Company to be one of their lecturers, etc. etc. etc.
I suspect that your opinion of him is colored by the fact that he rejected his Christian upbringing, (but only after serious study in his field – Biblical scholarship) and now is an agnostic. However, feel free to back up your opinion with some facts.
Eric Haas
Bingo!
Bingo! #2
Right on the mark, Mark. I think Evo and SI overlook the fact that esteemed credentials are no guarantee of cogent scholarship.
Good to hear from you, Ex, honestly. I enjoy your arguments because many of them are often cogent, and I can admit that my stomach dropped a little bit when I saw your eagle-eye. I wish you’d come to my blog once in a while to use it! Lifeguard chills with us. Maybe he’d like to hear from you if he hasn’t lately.
However, your claim that I have a “definite reluctance” has been both repeated and addressed ad nauseum elsewhere, and here’s my formal response on the matter. Read that post, then tell me I don’t argue with personal passion. I choose not to wear clownsuits because they only serve to distract and amuse. Atheists generally define themselves by what they don’t believe, I generally do the same. I don’t believe in atheism. That means I do believe in God. If anyone wants to know something specific, they can ask, and I can answer – it’s that easy. Who knows where we’d be if my detractors would put the same amount of keystrokes into questions as they do complaints and accusations? And besides, for me, this whole thing isn’t necessarily about atheism vs. theism, but more about making progress in logic and rational discourse.
As far as your claim that I don’t argue with personal passion – that’s kinda vague, and I can even take it as a compliment. On the one hand I disagree, because I am passionate about most anything I do or believe in, and that includes any sentence ever typed online. On the other, I strive to keep my personal passion out of my analytic logic.
As far as the OP, I cannot tell whether your agreement was genuine. Use of the word ‘twist’ has me wondering.
But, I reject the presupposition that they seem to conflict. I define a contradiction as two statements X and ~X, so only when those conditions are met do I say two things seem to conflict. So, I really don’t know what you’re asking. Are you asking, “Why didn’t God eliminate as much chance of misinterpretation as unhumanly possible?”
Certainly. I’d say they’re wide open to challenge whether we claim inspiration or not.
The Greek says all scripture is theopneustos and I agree. I’m not quite sure what you were getting at with your last question, but if you care to clarify, I’ll take a stab.
cl:
You’re playing with semantics when you say that there’s no on-the-surface conflict between the two stories of the robbers. Apologeticists can reinterpret and modify/add to the revilement mentioned in Matthew, but the embellishment is nowhere to be found in the book textually. I can say that Hamlet really didn’t die of his scratch from a poisoned sword because after the play was over, he jumped up and revealed his protective clothing. But that would be bullshit.
Basically, if the books of the bible are “god-breathed” — a weaselly, multi-meaning term in both Greek and English, but let’s assume that it means “inspired by a god” — then did the big guy have asthma when he snorted out conflicting accounts? What Jesus’s neighbors did while they were hanging around at his crucifixion seems to be an important enough point for two different “reporters” to mention. Channel 1 says that they both reviled him. Channel 3 says that one reviled him but the other suggested, “Hey, let’s have a beer later.” Neither reporter ran a retraction of his or her original story. So whose weatherperson should I listen to about whether or not to take an umbrella with me on the road to hell?
By the way, it’s impossible to “not believe” in atheism, unless you’re a paradoxicologist. To not believe in non-belief in a god, one must believe in a god. So, back to Evo’s question. What god do you believe in.
As a further response to Mark, here’s a critique from a Christian.
Thank you, Ex, but I’d like to go a bit further.
Pingback: Of Human Sacrifices « An Apostate’s Chapel
Philly,
Just noticed your last comment. Nothing much to say about it, except that it would be interesting to actually hear a reasoned argument from you that pertains to the OP.
Exterminator,
Correct. What in the statements of both robbers insulting Jesus and one robber later coming to belief is mutually exclusive? I define a contradiction as two statements both X and ~X.
Again, I disagree with your presupposition. The Hamlet thing was a non-sequitur entirely; not a single word needs to be added or wildly reinterpreted to sustain my claim. Ironically, in order to make your claim work, one must add words to one or both accounts. As is, the accounts are not conflicting. I’d say you might have a case if, for example, Mark had said both robbers were unrepentant and insulting all the way to their deaths, or something similar. Such would undermine the repentance argument entirely, and then Luke’s account would constitute a genuine contradiction. I have not seen a reasoned argument from anybody that explains why it is beyond reason that one robber would repent within the many hours it often took to die from crucifixion. You just wrote a couple of paragraphs that essentially distill to, “cl’s playing with semantics,” which I found particularly ironic in light of your “impossible to not believe in atheism remark.”
I’m not opposed to answering Evo’s questions, but honestly, why are you guys so concerned with my religious beliefs? I don’t see how they have anything to do with whether or not there’s a contradiction in the robber accounts..
cl:
The accounts clearly conflict for anyone who reads with any sensibility to writing. While I agree that there is no mutual exclusivity in a purely logical sense, there certainly is in a literary one.
Since both stories claim to report what happened some years before they were written, surely Matthew’s account should have mentioned something about the second thief recognizing the divinity of Jesus. That’s kind of the point, isn’t it?
And I think Hamlet was an extremely apt example. Why is your selection of fiction more open to interpretation and exegesis than mine? Can you provide any evidence that Hamlet was not wearing protective clothing? Is there any mutual exclusivity between the ending of the play as it stands and the further revelation that Hamlet had a special garment that protected him from swords and poison?
Umm, Mark. Not Matthew.
I always get those boys mixed up. John is the pretentious Greek one, right?
cl – as I’ve already acknowledged, my questions have nothing to do with this particular post. And, if I engage you in 10 more posts, they will probably have nothing to do with those either… directly. Indirectly, when you have discussions over and over on the issues of atheism vs. religion, it is quite germane.
Do you believe in the god of the Christians? Do you think Jesus is the son of god or an actual part of god who took human form or neither? Do you think he died for your sins? Do you think belief in him and repenting for sins is the way to go to heaven?
This amounts to just saying I’m wrong because you don’t think I’m sensible. Needless to say, I’m not convinced.
So there’s no “clear discrepancy” in a logical sense, only a literary one because you think they would’ve or should’ve wrote the stories differently if they were true? I hope you can see why that doesn’t persuade!
Yes, the point of the gospels seems to be aiding people in recognizing Jesus’ divinity. Does that mean each gospel account must tell the exact details of each story? I would be more suspect if that were the case. It’s quite reasonable that two people retelling a story would occasionally focus on different aspects. There are many acceptable reasons Mark may have omitted the repentance part of the story. Perhaps he forgot. Perhaps his scribe forgot. Perhaps Mark was not physically privy when the robber repented. Any one of several things could explain the omission and I see no reason to assume the omission entails mutual exclusivity in a literary context.
Yes, in that case we have a genuine contradiction because two times Hamlet tells Horatio he’s dying, then we are told that Hamlet dies, and that Fortinbras ordered for Hamlet to be carried away like a soldier. Your special ending would directly contradict this and would be the equivalent of Mark saying, “Neither robber repented and both were insolent all the way to death.” Come on, Ex.
Evo,
Maybe later. As it is, religious views aren’t worth discussing if I can’t even get basic respect from you and your posse. I catch enough flack for disagreeing with logical arguments. If I were to answer your questions fully and honestly it would take longer than I’ve got right now, and honestly I just think it would provide more ammunition for everybody’s wisecracks. My views are all over my blog for those who want to know. There is no religion higher than truth.
Seen on a tombstone –
A bit tangential to this thread, but I recently ordered a bunch of courses from The Teaching Company on DVD. I didn’t get any of the ones on religion. A good one I am watching now is the History of European Art.
I’ve been evangelizing for them for some time. I love them, but I think getting audio only downloads is the way to go. Of course that probably wouldn’t work for an art history course. Also, keep an eye out for sales. They have sales about as often as Macys, and the sale prices can be pretty good.
Phillychief, ever since I got the courses I ordered a couple of months ago, I’ve been getting catalogs from them about twice a week with various courses on sale. However, it will probably take months for me to watch the ones I’ve already bought, so they’re going to have to wait a while until I buy some more.
Among the ones I bought were The Joy of Science, one about human anatomy, geology, argumentation, the immune system, and the aforementioned History of European Art.
I much enjoyed the Argumentation one.
I’ve been evangelizing for them for some time..
You misspelled “pimping”!
I much enjoyed the Argumentation one..
No shit? Huh…
SI – What a coincidence! I’m about half-way through the 24-lecture New Testament series by Prof. Ehrman, and enjoying it very much. And his History of The Bible is on-deck.
Best,
Sean
Yea. He makes religion fun, doesn’t he? 8)
Now that’s what I call a sane person. You, sir, win hard.