A Study Of The Four Gospels

[Overcame Faith]

I am starting this thread for those who are questioning the Christian religion and are interested in looking at the four Gospels from a different perspective than they have heard in Church or from other Christians, including apologists.  As already suggested, the focus will be on the four Gospels because, when all is said and done, the Gospels are the cornerstone of the religion and the rest of the New Testament is the structure built upon this cornerstone.

 

The way I plan to approach this thread is to provide some of my thoughts in what I hope will be a systematic fashion and do my best to explain those thoughts using the four Gospels as my primary source.  Out of necessity, I will have to bring in some discussion of Old Testament scriptures and even some from other parts of the New Testament.  But the focus will always be the four Gospels.

 

Anyone is welcome to make comments, ask questions, or provide their own thoughts even if they disagree with me.  I will do my best to answer questions and to address disagreements.  However, I do not intend to get bogged down into debating for the sake of debating because that can have the effect of moving this thread completely off track and will not serve the best interests of my intended audience.  If someone disagrees with me, then, fine, disagree.  If I haven’t already, I will make my position as clear as possible but I will not go on with endless rehashing of points just so I can claim to have “won” a debate or so someone who disagrees with me can claim to have bested me.  Once positions are laid out, then I’m moving on.

 

I also want to explain that this is a long-term project.  I simply do not have time to post everyday nor will I address every single issue raised by the Gospels.  However, I will do my best to keep moving forward as time permits.

 

I will begin by telling you my general position on the four Gospels.  The four Gospels were written by unknown authors.  The earliest Gospel is Mark, followed by Matthew, then Luke and, finally, John.  The first three Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they have very similar structures.  John, the last Gospel, is somewhat similar to the Synoptic Gospels, but is different in important ways.

 

If one were to begin by reading Mark, one would see the basic framework upon which both Matthew and Luke were built.  A comparison of these three Gospels reveals that changes were made in Mark to form Matthew and further changes were made to form Luke, with some things added in Matthew and Luke that were not in Mark.  I think of the Synoptic Gospels as something of a novel in the sense that Mark was the first draft, Matthew was the second draft, and Luke was the third draft.  However, I am not saying that it was the same author, because they were undoubtedly written by three different authors.  So think of what I just said as an imperfect analogy (as all analogies are imperfect).

 

I will give you a simple example of what I am talking about.  Look at the passages which discuss the soldiers who took Jesus’ clothing for themselves during the crucifixion.  Here are the relevant verses:

 

²⁴ And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.

 

Mark 15:24

 

In Mark’s version of these events, they crucified Jesus and cast lots to see what each would get.  Very simple and straightforward.

 

³⁵ When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

 

Matthew 27:35

 

Matthew’s version is not all that different from Mark’s version with the difference primarily being in sentence structure.

 

³⁴ Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”^[c] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

 

Luke 23:34

 

Again, not a lot of difference, except the author of Luke has Jesus making a statement before his clothes are divided by casting lots.

 

Then there’s the Gospel of John.

 

²³ When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.

²⁴ “Let’s not tear it,” they said to one another. “Let’s decide by lot who will get it.”

This happened that the scripture might be fulfilled that said,

“They divided my clothes among them
    and cast lots for my garment.”^[a]

So this is what the soldiers did.

 

John 19:23-24

 

As one might expect, John’s version is quite different and this difference is quite significant.  In John’s version, they took Jesus’ outer garments and simply divided them into four shares with no squabbling among themselves.  But then they came to a very nice undergarment and began fighting over it.  Rather than tearing it into four parts, they decided to cast lots to see who would get it.  Where in the Synoptic Gospels the lots were cast for what seems to be all of Jesus’ clothes, in John the lots were cast only for this one fine and expensive piece of clothing.

 

But John does something else that is not done outright in the Synoptic Gospels.  This author explains why the soldiers cast lots for Jesus’ clothing.  And that reason lies with Psalm 22:18 which the author of John quotes.

 

What we will learn as we progress in this study is that all four Gospel writers viewed Psalm 22 as a template for Jesus’ crucifixion and they fashioned their crucifixion stories, in large part, around that template.  Christians of today view Psalm 22 as a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion because the Gospel writers wanted to convince people that it was and many modern Christians marvel at just how accurate Psalm 22’s “prophecy” was and declare that it, along with other so-called prophecies, proves that Jesus was who he claimed to be – the Messiah.

 

Psalm 22, however, is no prophecy at all.  Rather, as I said, it was taken by the Gospel writers as a template around which they fashioned their crucifixion stories.  This goes a long way towards explaining why Jews, as a group, never accepted Jesus as their Messiah.  And that reason is that they saw through the charade of the Gospel writers and knew that Psalm 22, and other Old Testament verses relied upon by the Gospel writers, were not prophetic and had nothing whatsoever to do with the Messiah.  In other words, they saw through the lies of the Gospel writers.  Because of their insights and refusal to accept the lies of the Gospel writers is why, at least when it comes to Christianity, I admire Jewish scholars so much.

 

I will continue with this study as time permits.  I hope at least someone finds it helpful and I look forward to your participation.

[BendyLine]

Interesting stuff. Looking forward to reading more. 

[SquareOne]

Thank you.  I look forward to more.

This is a relatively new area of insight for me.  Evid3nc3 was the first one to bring to my attention the great problem of gospel contradiction.  He showed the differences between the accounts of the nativity in Matthew and Luke; showing that the two distinct stories had been merged in popular Christian understanding into one larger story.  And, the amazing thing is, that because of some sort of cognitive dissonance, as a Christian, I never spotted this.  So too with the conflicting resurrection stories.  I expect so too with other parts of the gospels, as I am sure you will go on to explain.

 

It is hardly surprising that Christian teachers never point this stuff out.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I hadn't thought about that John verse before.  Good one, OF.  I notice that "John" takes the parallelism typical of psalms and treats it literally.  That is, "and cast lots for my garment" is the psalmist's doublet of the previous verse, "divided my clothes among them".  It's another way of expressing the same thing.  But John takes it literally, as though it denotes a second action, about a second set of clothes.  His treatment reminds me of Matthew's treatment of the verse, "on an ass, on the foal of an ass."  This is just doubling typical of Hebrew poetry, but Matthew takes it literally and has Jesus riding simultaneously on a donkey AND on the donkey's foal - bwa ha ha!  I think the gospel treatment of Hebrew poetry shows the tin ears of those writers when they dealt with much earlier poetry.

[Overcame Faith]

Interesting stuff. Looking forward to reading more. 

 

Thanks, BendyLine.

[Overcame Faith]

Thank you.  I look forward to more.

 

This is a relatively new area of insight for me.  Evid3nc3 was the first one to bring to my attention the great problem of gospel contradiction.  He showed the differences between the accounts of the nativity in Matthew and Luke; showing that the two distinct stories had been merged in popular Christian understanding into one larger story.  And, the amazing thing is, that because of some sort of cognitive dissonance, as a Christian, I never spotted this.  So too with the conflicting resurrection stories.  I expect so too with other parts of the gospels, as I am sure you will go on to explain.

 

It is hardly surprising that Christian teachers never point this stuff out.

 

I find the accounts of the nativity to be extremely interesting and I plan to share some of my thoughts on those two accounts in future posts.  And you are right, it is not at all surprising that Christian teachers avoid these issues like the plague!

[BendyLine]

And, the amazing thing is, that because of some sort of cognitive dissonance, as a Christian, I never spotted this.  So too with the conflicting resurrection stories.  

I've been having the same experience recently. It's like I remember seeing differences, but it's like there was some kind of mental block. The Bible was infallible and that was that. It really makes it that much harder and more painful when you start losing your faith. 

 

Now that I'm past the deconversion hurdle, it's interesting to see the gospels through new eyes. 

[Overcame Faith]

I hadn't thought about that John verse before.  Good one, OF.  I notice that "John" takes the parallelism typical of psalms and treats it literally.  That is, "and cast lots for my garment" is the psalmist's doublet of the previous verse, "divided my clothes among them".  It's another way of expressing the same thing.  But John takes it literally, as though it denotes a second action, about a second set of clothes.  His treatment reminds me of Matthew's treatment of the verse, "on an ass, on the foal of an ass."  This is just doubling typical of Hebrew poetry, but Matthew takes it literally and has Jesus riding simultaneously on a donkey AND on the donkey's foal - bwa ha ha!  I think the gospel treatment of Hebrew poetry shows the tin ears of those writers when they dealt with much earlier poetry.

 

And I hadn't noticed what you say about Psalm 22:18 and how John seemed to follow it thinking it required two separate acts, one of dividing his clothes and another of casting lots for his garment.  Nice catch on your part.

[HymenaeusAlexander]

A great resource for a critical evaluation of the gospels is DF Strauss' The Life of Jesus: Critically Examined. Some of his observations will be dated and there is much better recent scholarship, but if anything Strauss shows just how unreliable the gospels are as sources of accurate historical information. I’d love to get a decent copy for my home library, but I don’t want to throw coin around for crappy reprints of books I can read online.

[Overcame Faith]

King David and the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke (Part 1)

 

The question I will attempt to answer in this discussion is, was Jesus a descendant of King David and why does it matter?  This important question has two parts.  The first part asks whether or not, according to the four Gospels, Jesus was a descendant of King David.  The second part asks why it matters.

 

It matters greatly for the Christian religion whether or not Jesus was a descendant of King David because one of the central tenants of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied about in Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament, but I will refer to as the Hebrew Scriptures).  Being a descendant of King David in the precise manner I will describe below is one of the primary qualifications for the Messiah.  Therefore, if Jesus was not a direct descendant of King David, he could not be the Messiah and Christianity tumbles down into heaps of theological meaninglessness.

 

While I will demonstrate in future posts that certain alleged prophecies relied upon by the authors of the four Gospels were, in fact, not prophetical in nature and, therefore, have no bearing on the question of whether Jesus was the Messiah, there are parts of the Hebrew Scriptures which do, by their own terms, purport to be prophecies.  Many of these purported prophecies have to do with the Messiah.

 

One can look at it this way.  Anyone can claim to be the Messiah but the Hebrew Scriptures purport to provide a method for identifying the real thing, the genuine article.  For a person to be the Messiah according to Hebrew Scriptures, that person must meet all of the qualifications set forth therein.  Even if that person meets every qualification but one, the failure to meet that one qualification means he cannot be the Messiah.

 

Set forth below are a few of the many Hebrew Scriptures which point out the qualification for the Messiah of which I am speaking:

 

¹⁴ “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will fulfill the good promise I made to the people of Israel and Judah.

¹⁵ “‘In those days and at that time
    I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David’s line;
    he will do what is just and right in the land.
¹⁶ In those days Judah will be saved
    and Jerusalem will live in safety.
This is the name by which it^[c] will be called:
    The Lord Our Righteous Savior.’

 

Jeremiah 33:14-16

 

According to these and other similar verses found in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Messiah must be a descendant of King David.

 

¹⁷ For this is what the Lord says: ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel,

 

Jeremiah 33:17

 

This verse stands for the proposition that the lineage from David that qualifies the person for the title of Messiah, must be through direct father to son (not mother to son) descendancy from King David.  If this verse, which I admit is somewhat vague, fails to convince you of the father to son requirement, then consider that even the genealogies found in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-32 accept this notion.  Notice how they are carefully constructed to demonstrate the father to son ancestry of Joseph and purport to connect him, and thus Jesus, in this manner to King David.

 

⁵ Of all my sons—and the Lord has given me many—he has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. ⁶ He said to me: ‘Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. ⁷ I will establish his kingdom forever if he is unswerving in carrying out my commands and laws, as is being done at this time.

 

1 Chronicles 28:5-7

 

These verses and others further define the requirement of descendancy from King David by also requiring descendancy from King Solomon, David’s son.

 

Putting it all together, for a person to be the Messiah, among many other requirements:    (1) He must be a direct descendant of King David; (2) His descendancy must also be traced through King Solomon; and, (3) He must be able to trace his ancestry from King David and King Solomon through his father and his father’s father and so on.  Nothing less than strictly meeting these requirements will do – nothing.

 

The authors of Matthew and Luke create their own problem for Jesus to be the Messiah and that problem is with their claim of the virgin birth.  It is obvious that, according to these Gospel writers, Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father since Jesus was said to have been born to a virgin.  Therefore, even if Joseph could trace his ancestry as required by the Hebrew Scriptures for his son to be qualified to be the Messiah, Jesus was not his biological son and so Jesus did not inherit that primary qualification.

 

I will give credit to some Christians for recognizing this major problem.  They deal with it in several ways, but the most common is by claiming that Joseph adopted Jesus and thus Jesus legally inherited Joseph’s ancestry and Jesus was thus qualified on this ground to be the Messiah.  The challenge for Christians who make this claim is finding scriptural support for the alleged fact that Joseph legally adopted Jesus and that, even if Joseph did legally adopt Jesus, that a person can meet the qualification of descendancy from King David and King Solomon through adoption. 

 

I know of no such scriptural support and am personally confident that this discussion alone proves that Jesus could not have been the Messiah.  However, understanding that there is disagreement on this issue as I mentioned above, I will not stop here.

 

In my next post, I shall carry on with this discussion.  In that post, I will address the question of whether, even if we accept that Joseph did legally adopt Jesus and that Jesus’ adoption entitled him to whatever qualifications he allegedly legally inherited from Joseph, would Jesus be qualified to be the Messiah based on Joseph’s ancestry?  That discussion will focus on something that the vast majority of Christians ignore completely - the genealogies found in both Matthew and Luke.  If you have never focused any attention on them, you may be in for a surprise at what you will discover.

[Geezer]

I’d like to recommend Bart Ehrman’s book Jesus Interrupted. This book is what convinced me the Bible isn’t true in any literal, historic, or factual sense. Dr. Ehrman basically lays out the four gospels side by side and then dissects them revealing their contradictions and inconsistencies.

 

I would classify this book as a must read for anyone who is questioning their faith or their belief that the bible is in any way inerrant. It is most definitely what this thread is about and gives a scholars perspective of the topic.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Interrupted-Revealing-Hidden-Contradictions/dp/0061173940

 

 

Bart Ehrman is the scholar to read for anything having to do with the authenticity of the bible.

[srd]

Here's one for you (sorry for the length):

What sort of evidence does the NT exhibit concerning the resurrection of Jesus? Is it convincing?

 

It is widely accepted that Paul is the earliest of the NT writers and his account of the resurrection is also the earliest.

“For I handed over to you foremost that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried and raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he was seen by Cephas, and then the twelve; then he was seen by more than five-hundred brethren at one time (many of whom remain until now, and some of whom have died); then he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all, like a child untimely born, he was seen also by me.” (1 Cor 15:3-8, my translation)

 

This is the earliest resurrection tradition in the NT. But what does it say, and perhaps more importantly, what does it not say.

 

Let me start by making a linguistic observation. The verb Paul uses in all these appearances is the passive form of the verb to see—- yielding Christ “was seen by.” How so we might be inclined to ask Paul. Well, Paul at least tells us how he himself saw—- opps, Let’s stick more closely to the text—- how Christ was seen by Paul: “For you have heard of my former manner of life in Judaism: that I was utterly persecuting the assembly of God and was destroying it. And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of the contemporaries in my generation, being all the more zealous for the traditions of our forefathers. But when God, who appointed me from my mother’s womb and called me through his grace, was well pleased, he revealed his son to me so that I might proclaim him to the nations.” (Gal 2:14-16, my trans.). The Greek for “revealed” comes from the verb apokalypsai—unveiled, revealed, and this usually means a vision of some sort. If we include Luke’s accounts in Acts, this aspect of a vision is made clearer, but Luke (he wrote Acts) has a penchant for dramatization. So Paul speaks of his own experience as an ‘apocalypse’ (a revelation) wherein Jesus appears to him. The event does not seem to support the idea of Paul encountering the flesh and bones resurrected Jesus (which is an idea foreign to Paul himself—- 1 Cor 15, see below), but rather a vision of some sort. It must be in this same sense then that all the sightings above are to be understood, as a vision of some sort: “Christ was seen by…” This is particularly supported by the tradition that Paul quotes above where Jesus ‘was seen’ by 500 all at once.

 

It is interesting to compare this early tradition, Paul’s, with those found in the gospels, all of which are vastly different from one another.

 

First, Paul’s order— 1) Cephas (i.e., Peter), 2) the 12 disciples, 3) ‘the 500,’ 4) Jesus’ brother James, 5) then all the apostles (?), and 6) lastly Paul himself—is not attested in any of the later traditions preserved in the gospel narratives. For starters, all four gospels depict Mary Magdalene (and other women) as the first to spot what commentators have traditionally understood as the resurrected Christ—- again contradictorily portrayed: 1) in Mk 16:1-5 the women see a young man dressed in a white rob; 2) in Matt 28:1-4 it is an angel which descends from heaven; 3) in Lk 24:1-4 its two men in dazzling apparel; and 4) in Jn 20:11-13 it is two angels in white. Regardless of who this individual(s) was in this initial encounter with the empty tomb, the gospel traditions depict either Mary as the first to see the resurrected Christ (Matt 28:9; Jn 20:14-18), or Cleopas and Simon (?) on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-35). But curiously, what they saw is reported with some divergence.

There are other differences as well. But we should first mention that nearly all NT scholars accept that the gospel of Mark, i.e., the first of the gospels to be written, originally ended at 16:8—- the women go to the tomb, it is empty, and they flee fearfully, and the gospel ends. Thus are first 2 earliest accounts, Paul and Mark, do not speak of a flesh and bones resurrection. I’m not interested in whether there was or was not a flesh and bones resurrection in the ontological world; rather are earliest 2 sources speak of: 1) a vision of the risen Jesus as Christ (Paul); and 2) no mention of a resurrection at all (Mark). This needs to be ruminated on a bit….

 

More discrepancies:

 

Matthew has the resurrected Christ meet the disciples in Galilee, while for Luke they happen in Jerusalem and for an extended period of time. Moreover, there are only 11 disciples in the gospel narratives who see the resurrected Christ, thus accounting for Judas’ demise. It is therefore apparent that the empty tomb tradition, the tradition of the women first seeing the resurrected Christ, AND the story of Judas’ betrayal and death were unknown to Paul and/or the tradition that he claims to have received!

 

Noteworthy also is that the tradition preserved in Luke is quite adamant about displaying a resurrected Jesus in “flesh and bones” (24:39), and one who on repeated occasions eats with the disciples—- and Luke has his reasons for “creating” this narrative. Although the large majority of scholars feel that Paul too is speaking of a bodily resurrection, albeit as a raised ‘spiritual body’ (1 Cor 15:44), it is nonetheless quite different from Luke’s portrayal of a flesh and blood Christ. Paul adamantly denies such a thing (see 1 Cor 15:42-50).

 

So, avoiding ontological or metaphysical arguments and questions for the moment. What conclusion, if any, does the literary evidence point toward? Obviously we have a tradition that evolved, and it seems to have evolved from vision appearances to flesh and bones Christ at the dinner table appearances. Speculatively we may even ask if Paul would have thought Luke’s tradition scandalous.

 

A more interesting and certainly more provoking question: does the literary evidence lend more support to seeing the resurrection as a piece of fiction or subjective experience—- I’m short on terms here .... perception? And I’m willing to accept the fact, for me, that fictions and perceptions ARE real, albeit we might want to qualify that. There is another piece of literary, and perhaps even historical, evidence as well. In Jewish traditions preserved in Enoch, Daniel, Dead Sea Scrolls, and Paul, the resurrection and/or the resurrection of the messiah was a sign signaling the inauguration of God’s reign ON EARTH—- I cannot stress this last bit strongly enough, although granted this is somewhat lacking or unstated in Paul. My point: since this did not historically happen (although Luke has an interesting spin on this) AND the earliest literary evidence of the accounts of the resurrection that has come down to us as surveyed above seem to be more supportive of arguing that Christ’s resurrection was not flesh and bones…. but a tradition that grew and unfolded, must likely shaped by specific needs and concerns of the historical circumstances of these authors, etc.

 

Where, or where not, does the literary evidence lead you? And indeed, the literary evidence tells us nothing about any ontological event, one way or another. My position is that the literary evidence, is lacking, therefore even less supportive of an ontological argument of sorts.

There are other literary and historical things to ponder too, like the martyrological literature of the time period.

[Geezer]

Here's one for you (sorry for the length):

What sort of evidence does the NT exhibit concerning the resurrection of Jesus? Is it convincing?

 

It is widely accepted that Paul is the earliest of the NT writers and his account of the resurrection is also the earliest.

“For I handed over to you foremost that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried and raised on the third day according to the scriptures, and that he was seen by Cephas, and then the twelve; then he was seen by more than five-hundred brethren at one time (many of whom remain until now, and some of whom have died); then he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. And last of all, like a child untimely born, he was seen also by me.” (1 Cor 15:3-8, my translation)

 

This is the earliest resurrection tradition in the NT. But what does it say, and perhaps more importantly, what does it not say.

 

 

 

Good points.

 

The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty goes into detail about the various ways Paul’s writing can be interpreted. Paul is generally understood and interpreted through the fog of indoctrination. The meaning of Paul’s words has already been determined by the believer before the first word has been read. It then just becomes a matter of decoding Paul’s words to mean what their particular groups traditions say they mean.

[Ouroboros]

As one might expect, John’s version is quite different and this difference is quite significant.  In John’s version, they took Jesus’ outer garments and simply divided them into four shares with no squabbling among themselves.  But then they came to a very nice undergarment and began fighting over it.  Rather than tearing it into four parts, they decided to cast lots to see who would get it.

 

 

I couldn't help but think about the trolls in the Hobbit, how they fought over how to cook the dwarfs.

 

[Guest Pixie]

King David and the Genealogies of Matthew and Luke (Part 1)

 

The question I will attempt to answer in this discussion is, was Jesus a descendant of King David and why does it matter?  This important question has two parts.  The first part asks whether or not, according to the four Gospels, Jesus was a descendant of King David.  The second part asks why it matters.

 

It matters greatly for the Christian religion whether or not Jesus was a descendant of King David because one of the central tenants of Christianity is that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied about in Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament, but I will refer to as the Hebrew Scriptures).  Being a descendant of King David in the precise manner I will describe below is one of the primary qualifications for the Messiah.  Therefore, if Jesus was not a direct descendant of King David, he could not be the Messiah and Christianity tumbles down into heaps of theological meaninglessness.

 

While I will demonstrate in future posts that certain alleged prophecies relied upon by the authors of the four Gospels were, in fact, not prophetical in nature and, therefore, have no bearing on the question of whether Jesus was the Messiah, there are parts of the Hebrew Scriptures which do, by their own terms, purport to be prophecies.  Many of these purported prophecies have to do with the Messiah.

 

One can look at it this way.  Anyone can claim to be the Messiah but the Hebrew Scriptures purport to provide a method for identifying the real thing, the genuine article.  For a person to be the Messiah according to Hebrew Scriptures, that person must meet all of the qualifications set forth therein.  Even if that person meets every qualification but one, the failure to meet that one qualification means he cannot be the Messiah.

 

Set forth below are a few of the many Hebrew Scriptures which point out the qualification for the Messiah of which I am speaking:

 

 

¹⁴ “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will fulfill the good promise I made to the people of Israel and Judah.

¹⁵ “‘In those days and at that time

    I will make a righteous Branch sprout from David’s line;

    he will do what is just and right in the land.

¹⁶ In those days Judah will be saved

    and Jerusalem will live in safety.

This is the name by which it^[c] will be called:

    The Lord Our Righteous Savior.’

 

Jeremiah 33:14-16

 

 

According to these and other similar verses found in the Hebrew Scriptures, the Messiah must be a descendant of King David.

 

 

¹⁷ For this is what the Lord says: ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of Israel,

 

Jeremiah 33:17

 

 

This verse stands for the proposition that the lineage from David that qualifies the person for the title of Messiah, must be through direct father to son (not mother to son) descendancy from King David.  If this verse, which I admit is somewhat vague, fails to convince you of the father to son requirement, then consider that even the genealogies found in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-32 accept this notion.  Notice how they are carefully constructed to demonstrate the father to son ancestry of Joseph and purport to connect him, and thus Jesus, in this manner to King David.

 

 

⁵ Of all my sons—and the Lord has given me many—he has chosen my son Solomon to sit on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord over Israel. ⁶ He said to me: ‘Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father. ⁷ I will establish his kingdom forever if he is unswerving in carrying out my commands and laws, as is being done at this time.

 

1 Chronicles 28:5-7

 

 

These verses and others further define the requirement of descendancy from King David by also requiring descendancy from King Solomon, David’s son.

 

Putting it all together, for a person to be the Messiah, among many other requirements:    (1) He must be a direct descendant of King David; (2) His descendancy must also be traced through King Solomon; and, (3) He must be able to trace his ancestry from King David and King Solomon through his father and his father’s father and so on.  Nothing less than strictly meeting these requirements will do – nothing.

 

The authors of Matthew and Luke create their own problem for Jesus to be the Messiah and that problem is with their claim of the virgin birth.  It is obvious that, according to these Gospel writers, Joseph was not Jesus’ biological father since Jesus was said to have been born to a virgin.  Therefore, even if Joseph could trace his ancestry as required by the Hebrew Scriptures for his son to be qualified to be the Messiah, Jesus was not his biological son and so Jesus did not inherit that primary qualification.

 

I will give credit to some Christians for recognizing this major problem.  They deal with it in several ways, but the most common is by claiming that Joseph adopted Jesus and thus Jesus legally inherited Joseph’s ancestry and Jesus was thus qualified on this ground to be the Messiah.  The challenge for Christians who make this claim is finding scriptural support for the alleged fact that Joseph legally adopted Jesus and that, even if Joseph did legally adopt Jesus, that a person can meet the qualification of descendancy from King David and King Solomon through adoption. 

 

I know of no such scriptural support and am personally confident that this discussion alone proves that Jesus could not have been the Messiah.  However, understanding that there is disagreement on this issue as I mentioned above, I will not stop here.

 

In my next post, I shall carry on with this discussion.  In that post, I will address the question of whether, even if we accept that Joseph did legally adopt Jesus and that Jesus’ adoption entitled him to whatever qualifications he allegedly legally inherited from Joseph, would Jesus be qualified to be the Messiah based on Joseph’s ancestry?  That discussion will focus on something that the vast majority of Christians ignore completely - the genealogies found in both Matthew and Luke.  If you have never focused any attention on them, you may be in for a surprise at what you will discover.

 

I'd like to make a comment on this. I am in shock. Quite frankly, I am also very embarrassed that I knew nothing about this. I have a very hard time understanding apologetics coming from either side of the christian and non christian arguments, because I do not know the scriptures. This certainly wasn't what we studied in our bible classes. Because of the way you have laid this out, I actually understood what you are saying. And I am in shock.

 

Many thanks Overcame Faith. It is well appreciated.

[RipVanWinkle]

One thing that enhanced my deconversion is the fact that not a single pastor or Sunday School teacher ever pointed out the manifest inconsistencies in the Gospels or in any other part of the Bible. That meant two things to me: First, they did not want the congregation to know about the inconsistencies. Two, they knew that few people would notice them. So it was safer not to bring them up. They could deal with the few that did, if any, privately. Of course, this is deceitful, particularly when they claim the Bible to be god's word.  It is remarkable that I never noticed these  matters as many times as I had read the Gospels. 

                                                                                                                                                                         bill

[Overcame Faith]

Thank-you for your post, srd. Very, very well done! I am going to purchase your book as soon as you get it published. Please let us know when it is available.

 

I appreciate everything you wrote and I am glad we have a biblical scholar as a member. I hope you will stay for awhile because we can all stand to learn more. I am most certainly not a biblical scholar, and only share what thoughts and insights I have from private reading and thinking.

 

Welcome to ExC.

[Overcame Faith]

Thank-you, HymenaeusAlexander and Geezer, for the book recommendations. I definitely encourage those with questions and concerns to read what the scholars have to say.

[Overcame Faith]

 

 

As one might expect, John’s version is quite different and this difference is quite significant.  In John’s version, they took Jesus’ outer garments and simply divided them into four shares with no squabbling among themselves.  But then they came to a very nice undergarment and began fighting over it.  Rather than tearing it into four parts, they decided to cast lots to see who would get it.

 

I couldn't help but think about the trolls in the Hobbit, how they fought over how to cook the dwarfs.

 

 

That's too funny. Now I can't help but picture trolls fighting over Jesus' clothing and casting lots.

 

[Overcame Faith]

 

 

I'd like to make a comment on this. I am in shock. Quite frankly, I am also very embarrassed that I knew nothing about this. I have a very hard time understanding apologetics coming from either side of the christian and non christian arguments, because I do not know the scriptures. This certainly wasn't what we studied in our bible classes. Because of the way you have laid this out, I actually understood what you are saying. And I am in shock.

 

Many thanks Overcame Faith. It is well appreciated.

 

 

Hi, Pixie. There most certainly can be some surprises in store for us once we start reading the Bible without the blinders of faith and without the slanted interpretations foisted upon us by the Church. Remember, the Church has an agenda and that agenda is for us to read the Bible their way and to accept what they say without too many disturbing questions.

 

I am sorry you are in shock but am glad that your eyes are being opened.

[Overcame Faith]

 

One thing that enhanced my deconversion is the fact that not a single pastor or Sunday School teacher ever pointed out the manifest inconsistencies in the Gospels or in any other part of the Bible. That meant two things to me: First, they did not want the congregation to know about the inconsistencies. Two, they knew that few people would notice them. So it was safer not to bring them up. They could deal with the few that did, if any, privately. Of course, this is deceitful, particularly when they claim the Bible to be god's word.  It is remarkable that I never noticed these  matters as many times as I had read the Gospels. 

                                                                                                                                                                         bill

Bill, I agree with everything you said. It is a form of deceit and, in my mind, an educated pastor (meaning one who went through a good seminary), knows all about the problems with the Bible but they fail to share all they know with their flocks. I wonder why they don't share their knowledge? (I hope you detected the sarcasem in that last question because we all know why they don't share such things with people in their churches).

 

[srd]

I know of no such scriptural support and am personally confident that this discussion alone proves that Jesus could not have been the Messiah.  However, understanding that there is disagreement on this issue as I mentioned above, I will not stop here.

 

In my next post, I shall carry on with this discussion.  In that post, I will address the question of whether, even if we accept that Joseph did legally adopt Jesus and that Jesus’ adoption entitled him to whatever qualifications he allegedly legally inherited from Joseph, would Jesus be qualified to be the Messiah based on Joseph’s ancestry?  That discussion will focus on something that the vast majority of Christians ignore completely - the genealogies found in both Matthew and Luke.  If you have never focused any attention on them, you may be in for a surprise at what you will discover.

 

Your eagerness is praise worthy, but there are many many other factors here. As these created genaelogies do not prove that Jesus is the messiah (whatever that means), so too they can't be used to disprove it either.

 

The historical context of Luke and Matthew's genaelogy is the attempt to legitimate Jesus' messianic pedigree from the OT against the larger Jewish religion that has by now clearly come to see the claim is extremely problematic, and well, unsupported.

 

Second, these are complete literary fabrications modeled after OT genealogies. They are not, in orther words, records of history and fact. And it's safe to assume that ourwriters were well aware of this.

 

Third, the issue of whether Jesus was (claimed to be) the messiah or not is one that needs to be answered with other sources. The gospels are all late, and their use of the term christos (messiah) is already different than it would have been used and understood by 1st century Aramaic speaking Palestinian Jews. Modern Christians never get this right. ANy messianic claimants must be understood in this 1st century context. What did messiah mean in this context in other words? Were there other messianic claimants (YES!)? and how do they compare to that of Jesus?

 

Lastly, the idea of the messiah is also a literary fiction -- created as a pious expression of hope that Yahweh would restore Israel and its kings in the wake of the Babylonian exile. Additionally, messiah was a term used for the highpriest -- the one consecrated to serve Yahweh and his cult.

 

Just some further food for thought....

[Guest Pixie]

 

One thing that enhanced my deconversion is the fact that not a single pastor or Sunday School teacher ever pointed out the manifest inconsistencies in the Gospels or in any other part of the Bible. That meant two things to me: First, they did not want the congregation to know about the inconsistencies. Two, they knew that few people would notice them. So it was safer not to bring them up. They could deal with the few that did, if any, privately. Of course, this is deceitful, particularly when they claim the Bible to be god's word.  It is remarkable that I never noticed these  matters as many times as I had read the Gospels. 

                                                                                                                                                                         bill

Bill, I agree with everything you said. It is a form of deceit and, in my mind, an educated pastor (meaning one who went through a good seminary), knows all about the problems with the Bible but they fail to share all they know with their flocks. I wonder why they don't share their knowledge? (I hope you detected the sarcasem in that last question because we all know why they don't share such things with people in their churches).

 

 

 

 

Do you think that most of the pastors, ministers and clergy actually know there are this many inconsistencies in the bible? I've noticed that many of you use the word 'cherry pick' here.

 

So first we learn about the fall of man, then we learn how God, (the headmaster) sent his only begotten Son to die for our sins to rescue us from our sorry state. Beyond that, I don't know much else, except that Jesus is coming back to finally set up the new world.

 

Do you think the clergy hold back from telling us the truth and why would they do this? Do they themselves know the truth and purposely hide it from us or are they as naive as the rest of us? I have read on EXchristian that it is about control? Oh my. If this is true, is there any true freedom left for us as human beings? Have we been controlled by religion?

[Overcame Faith]

Hi, Pixie.

 

I do not think there are any easy answers to your extremely good questions.  I will share my thoughts with you:

 

Do you think that most of the pastors, ministers and clergy actually know there are this many inconsistencies in the bible? I've noticed that many of you use the word 'cherry pick' here.

 

I do not know of any surveys or other statistics which have been gathered which can answer this question accurately.  Maybe there are some answers somewhere out there showing percentages of the clergy who are aware of the problems with the Bible and, if there are and anyone knows about them, then maybe they will share that with us all. 

 

I do know there are members of the clergy, some of whom are still leaders of churches, who are non-believers.  Here is a website you may find interesting.  It is called The Clergy Project and is dedicated to those members of the clergy who are non-believers.  The members are allowed to remain anonymous (much like we on ExC are anonymous) though some have chosen to share their identities.  On the website, they share their experiences and dilemnas of being non-believing clergy.

 

http://www.clergyproject.org/

 

One thing that reading the testimonials on The Clergy Project website demonstrates is that, at least for those who are members there, the non-believing clergy who are still in the pulpit are not still there for a nefarious purpose.  That is, they are not intentionally trying to control people by using the Christian religion for that purpose.  Rather, they feel trapped and are trying to come to terms with what to do.  They often feel torn because, on the one hand, they, like us, have slowly learned the truth about the Christian religion and are no longer believers.  However, on the other hand, they have congregations who take great comfort in the religion.  Many of them are also trained for nothing else but being church leaders and are not qualified for any other gainful employment.  So, yes, there is also the problem of how they are to make a living if they leave the only thing they have been trained to do.  We can judge them harshly if we choose, but I can understand the problems they face because, as we all know, leaving the religion has many family and social implications that can be exceedingly challenging.

 

So first we learn about the fall of man, then we learn how God, (the headmaster) sent his only begotten Son to die for our sins to rescue us from our sorry state. Beyond that, I don't know much else, except that Jesus is coming back to finally set up the new world.

 

You have pretty much summed up the Christian religion as presented from the pulpit.  And your statement that you don't know much else, is, in my experience, not so different from the vast majority of Christians so don't feel bad about that. 

 

Do you think the clergy hold back from telling us the truth and why would they do this? Do they themselves know the truth and purposely hide it from us or are they as naive as the rest of us? I have read on EXchristian that it is about control? Oh my. If this is true, is there any true freedom left for us as human beings? Have we been controlled by religion?

 

The Clergy Project website proves that some active pastors do hold back telling their congregations what they know and of their non-belief.  But bear in mind that this set of clergy are on that website because they feel torn and are trying to figure out what to do.

 

I do want to say, though, that I do not believe that all members of the clergy are non-believers.  I'm sure there are many who are "true believers" and who genuinely feel they were called by God to share what they understand to be the gospel message.  What is more, there are undoubtedly members of the clergy who do not know the problems with the Bible.  Remember, not all members of the clergy are highly educated.  I know some who have never been to even a Bible college and even a lot of the Bible colleges are hard core fundamentalist institutions who may teach some about the "problems" but do so from the perspective that those "problems" are lies from Satan.
 

Now, let's address a subset of the clergy.  Your questions get at the issue of control and using the religion as a control mechanism.  There are a number of seminaries that teach at the Masters and Doctoral levels.  I have spoken with some people who have graduated from such institutions who have told me that they learned things while in Seminary that truly challenged their faith.  They told me of some who entered the seminary as true believers with faith they thought could never be shaken.  However, once they started learning about the problems, their faith was shaken to the core.  Some dropped out of seminary because of that and some learned what they were taught, wrote their papers, took their exams but just sort of brushed it aside in favor of maintaining their faith.

 

I can only speak of my own personal experiences in churches over the many years I was a church member.  My own experience is that I never heard any sermons which adequately discussed the problems of the Bible.  I heard some problems mentioned from the pulpit but never really expounded upon.  For example, I have heard such things as, "Some people say there are contradictions in the Bible.  There are no contradictions because God's word is always consistent.  If we can't explain why what seem to be contradictions really aren't, it's because we can't know the mind of God.  We are called to have faith."  But never did I hear a true exposition of the contradictions in which they were laid out plainly for all to see.  From what I have seen from the testimonials in ExC, my experience is shared by many of our members.

 

I think the question is why do those members of the clergy who know the problems with the Bible not share what they know with their congregations.  The Clergy Project answers that question for those members of the clergy who are members there.  But how about the rest?  Why don't they share what they know?

 

I am sure there as many answers to those questions as there are members of the clergy who know these things.  But I have no doubt that there are some unknown to me number of outright frauds and hucksters who stand at the pulpit Sunday after Sunday and purposefully perpetrate an outright fraud for their own gain.  They manipulate people into giving up their hard earned money and they personally gain from their fraud.  They love the position of respect and power they gain as Pastors and they will never let on about the problems with the Bible because to do so will educate their members and they stand to lose what they have gained.  Those who are part of this unknown number are, in my view, reprehensible individuals.

[alpha centauri]

Interesting ... I had not heard of The Clergy Project, but I can understand the significant need for it. I think there are many pastors who have varying degrees of disbelief but who are afraid to voice those views. Losing one's source of income and livlihood is a very scary prospect, especially if they have families. I'm sure there are people who mean well, as well as those with more sinister motives, who stay in leadership positions when they are nonbelievers. For those with less than noble intent, not only is it an income, it's also a source of power over others -- and that power, unfortunately, is all too often abused.

 

But that power is also often abused by "true believers," who rationalize they merely have to ask god for forgiveness.