Although fundamentalist Christians often proclaim that they
are God's authorized representatives on earth, and that the Bible
represents the only perfect guide to understanding history, these
types of claims should not be taken as anything more than a form
of self-serving advertising.
Rather than representing some sort of universal absolute truth,
it represents subjective human reasoning.
This type of advertising can often be found in the
"Statement of Beliefs" or "Core Beliefs"
section of fundamentalist church information centers.
Here are some examples of how the evangelical advertising is
often worded:
Note the extreme level of certainty and absolute nature of
these assertions.
The thirst for power over others is often directly proportional
to the intensity of the claims.
It's not worded that the Bible might contain some elements
of universal absolute truth and historical fact, but every
word and described event is exactly what God intended to
write, using human instruments to take dictation.
[Particularly noteworthy for the purpose of this essay is
the claim by fundamentalist Christianity that Bible history
is factual and completely accurate.]
Having laid the groundwork for all "truth", the next
step in the fundamentalist agenda is to foist it on others.
This aim can usually be found in church mission statements.
An example follows:
There has been a great deal of fundamentalist Christian
outrage and indignation over the popular book, and movie called "The
Da Vinci Code".
A common complaint is that both the book and movie distort the
truth about Jesus and contradict established history.
Fundamentalist evangelicals, along with the Catholic Church, have
denounced the work as fiction and offensive.
Many zealous preachers are now on a crusade to "educate
the public" about the historical facts surrounding
Jesus.
Of course, they want the New Testament to be used as the standard
by which all "truth" is measured.
This is understandable because there is very little else to rely
on and there are no details given about the character called
"Jesus of Nazareth" to be found outside the confines of
Christian related writing.
This in turn brings up the issue of what historical facts really
are.
If distortion of facts and the certainty of history are really
important to preachers that want to educate the public about the
events surrounding the life of "Jesus of Nazareth",
then New Testament history should also be examined for signs of
distortion.
Contrary to Christian advertising that proclaims "if the
Bible says it, God said it", the New Testament should not be
automatically accepted as factual if it exhibits internal
inconsistencies that render it questionable or if it contains
unverifiable elements.
There is an event described in the New Testament that is so
monumental and so amazing, that one has to wonder why it gets
virtually no attention from preachers when they instruct their
flocks about the historical facts surrounding Jesus.
If the resurrection of Jesus was a huge event, as Christians
constantly claim, then this event is equally huge and important.
Yet, preachers and pastors say nothing about it unless they are
pressed to address it.
That event was the resurrection and appearance of many dead
people after Jesus had died.
This tale is written in the Gospel of Matthew, which many
Christians claim was written by "Matthew", one of the
twelve apostles. However, the actual author is unknown and the
text doesn't identify a specific author.
The incredible event happens late in the story line, when Jesus
was crucified.
Matt 27:50-53
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
There was not only an earthquake and the tearing of a large
Temple curtain, but graves were opened and dead bodies came to
life. Then these formerly dead people waited for Jesus to be
resurrected, after which they walked into Jerusalem and appeared
to many townspeople.
This is an amazing event to be sure, and a very impressive
testimony of how important the death of Jesus was in the timeline
of history. The problem is that this incredible story appears only
in the Gospel of Matthew.
It appears nowhere else in the Bible, nor does it appear in any
historical writing outside of the New Testament Bible.
The ramifications of dead people coming back to life could have
created some interesting situations for the Roman and Jewish
authorities to deal with.
Being dead and coming to life would create at least some sort of
stir as the formerly dead people tried to assimilate back into
the prevailing society. On a legal basis alone, if dead people
asked for their former property to be restored or marriages to be
reinstated, that would have posed quite a dilemma for the legal
system.
One would think there would be something written in history about
not only the amazing event, but also the ripple effects that
would have emanated from it.
However, there doesn't seem to be anything written regarding it
and even the rest of the New Testament is completely silent about
it.
But according to popular Christian advertising, because the Bible
represents 100% accuracy regarding history, this event must
have actually happened.
Skeptics and all other non-believers are supposed to accept this
story as factual history.
Because it's written in the Bible, it cannot be questioned or
denied as "truth".
This is the funky world that fundamentalist Christianity resides
in, and wants all others to reside in also.
Remember the Great Commission mandate from Jesus, which commands
Christians to make Bible obeying meat puppets out of all nations.
Their version of reality is to be your version of reality because
they say so.
Their traditions are reality because they say so, and their facts
cannot be disputed.
If their facts are openly disputed on any mainstream media forum,
they'll often let loose from their mouths the self-serving cry of
"Christian persecution!", along with "God
is being attacked!".
The New Testament is the fundamentalist's favorite tool, an
ultimate appeal to authority that backs up all their pious
sounding theological mumbo-jumbo.
However, the Gospel stories, along with all the other writings
found in the Bible, were not placed in a binder and dropped from
heaven as many Christians like to imply.
The so-called Holy Bible and church doctrine evolved into a
collection of writings and regulations through the process of
voting at various councils over many centuries.
Even the early councils weren't convened until hundreds of years
after Jesus was supposed to have ascended to heaven.
The council of Laodicea(~364 C.E.) was one of the major events in
that process, which not only defined which writings were
"inspired", but redefined the Sabbath day and the
proper way to observe it.
Also of note is that this council did not include the Book
of Revelation in the list of approved writings.
There were 60 Canons created at this meeting, which served to
codify Church doctrine.
In other words, these 60 clerical decrees made Church doctrine
official and binding on all believers.
Canon #29 is particularly interesting because Christians were not
to be like Jews, but were to observe a different day as the
Sabbath and day of rest.
Canon #29 states:
Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath(Saturday), but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord's Day(Sunday); and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema(set aside,cursed) from Christ.
Ironically, while Canon 29 dictates that Christians must not
be like Jews, the New Testament claims Jesus was a Jew that
observed the Sabbath, and he commanded that all his followers do
likewise (Matt 5:18-20).
Zealous and pompous evangelicals ignore what Jesus commanded,
they ignore what God said about keeping the Sabbath in the Ten
Commandments(Exo 20:8-10), and instead kiss the feet of
ancient Catholic Church clerics that redefined the observance of
the Sabbath.
Apparently the word of men is more authoritative than the
so-called Word of God.
The Bible gives a warning about those who pretend to obey God but
then follow the doctrines of men.
Isa 29:13
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me
with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but
have removed their heart far from me, and their fear
toward me is taught by the precept of men:
In an orgy of unabashed hypocrisy, these evangelical holy men go
forth and proclaim that the Ten Commandments must be posted in
publicly funded locations because they represent the infallible
and authoritative word of an all-powerful ancient tribal deity
that rules the universe.
God will not be mocked, they loudly declare.
We are here to do God's will, they proudly boast.
The wrath of God will consume those that fail to comply,
they sternly preach.
But these evangelicals are frauds, exhibiting the type of
behavior sometimes seen in dominant male gorillas, belching forth
pious grunts, casting menacing looks, and beating their chests
with the Bible.
They are intensely territorial creatures, striving to expand
their "kingdom" into every nook and cranny of the
planet.
The councils were functions of the Church, attended by church
officials that had advanced to a level of importance within the
Church hierarchy.
There is no mention or evidence of God actually attending any of
these meetings or casting any votes.
The Bible is advertised as being the absolute and infallible Word
of God.
If the Bible is infallible, then the clerical men that voted its
contents into canon must also have been infallible and fully
God-inspired when they decided which writings were the Word of
God and which were not.
If the votes were not all unanimous, how does one know if the
majority was correct?
What if a cleric voted to reject a particular writing that the
majority accepted?
Does this make the cleric wrong about this writing?
How exactly is right or wrong established in this area?
Does right and wrong boil down to a majority or popular opinion
poll?
Is it possible that the councils may have exhibited the symptoms
of political conventions, where deals may have been made between
clerics for them to vote a certain way in exchange for future
favors?
Let's face it, the so-called Holy Bible is predicated not only on
the contents of the writings, but also rests firmly on the
infallibility of the male clerics that cast their votes.
Because it can't be established that these clerics were actually
God-inspired, believers can only assume and assert that they
were. Special pleading is the order of the day.
The man-made decrees of clerical councils or synods also extended
their subjective influence into defining the composition of God
himself.
The first Council of Nicaea(325 C.E.) established that Jesus was
part of God, the very substance of God, and therefore was divine.
The Council of Chalcedon(451 C.E.) evolved God a bit further in
the Chalcedonian Creed by declaring that Jesus was fully God and
fully man at the same time, apparently the ultimate god-man.
The Catholic Athanasian Creed elaborated the Trinity concept
further by declaring that:
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all eternal God,
yet they are not three Gods, but one.
And it went on to say that unless this was believed, salvation
was denied.
It's all very official and authoritative sounding, blessed by the
highest official of the Church, the Pope.
Yet, all these man-made creeds and decrees don't make Jesus God
nor do they prove that God is really a three headed deity or
three "person" Trinity.
For every Bible verse that Trinitarians cite to prove the Trinity
is factual, other Bible verses can be found that deny it as being
factual.
The Old Testament God states quite clearly that there are none
except him(singular).
Isa 45:20-22(JPS 1917 Tanach)
Assemble yourselves and come, draw near together, ye that are
escaped of the nations; they have no knowledge that
carry the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that
cannot save.
Declare ye, and bring them near, yea, let them take counsel
together: Who hath announced this from ancient time, and declared
it of old? Have not I the Lord? And there is no God
else beside Me, a just God and a Saviour; there
is none beside Me.
Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I
am God, and there is none else.
Note that God, or Yahweh, repeatedly states that there are no
saviors other than him.
He is a singular being, not comprised of multiple
personalities or elements.
Also note that God warns his people that those who carry wooden
images(symbols of other gods), have no true knowledge and that
praying to false gods cannot save anyone.
The allusion can certainly apply to Christians, who carry around
and promote the wooden cross as a symbol of proper belief, and
they pray to a false god called "Jesus", that cannot
save.
Christians that promote the Trinity will rationalize this by
claiming the Trinity is just one God and that Old Testament
verses such as Isa 45:20-22 do not really deny the
Trinity.
It's all completely subjective however, and illustrates
how that Bible can mean anything a believer wants it to mean.
If a believer wants the Trinity to be valid, then it's valid. End
of story.
Further evidence that the Trinity is false, and that Jesus is not
God, can be found in the New Testament.
The freshly resurrected Jesus makes it quite clear that he has a
God.
John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to
my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend
unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God,
and your God.
According to this verse, the God or Father for Jesus is the same
God or Father for mortals.
If this evidence wasn't enough to cast serious doubt on the
validity of the claim that Jesus is God, the notion that Jesus is
God gets seriously debunked in the Book of Revelation.
Here, the resurrected and ascended Jesus states four
times in one verse that he has a God.
Count them for yourself.
There can be no apologetic excuses about Jesus still being on
earth and referring to the "God portion" of himself
that was up in heaven.
Rev 3:11-12
Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no
man take thy crown.
Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my
God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write
upon him the name of my God, and the name of
the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem,
which cometh down out of heaven from my God:
and I will write upon him my new name.
If a Bible believer still wants to claim the Trinity is a
"fact" after this, then they're being disingenuous.
There are verses that do support the Trinity and the concept of
Jesus being God, and Trinitarians cite them all the time,
claiming them as irrefutable evidence for Jesus being God.
But the point is that no matter how many verses they cite as
"proof" of the Trinity, verses with equal or greater
significance can be produced which refute the concept. Once
again, the Bible can and will mean whatever a believer wants it
to mean, but that doesn't make it "truth" for others.
There are many problems associated with using the New Testament
as 100% accurate history, and the Gospel of Matthew displays them
in abundance.
The Gospel of Matthew claims that Jesus and family fled to Egypt
because King Herod issued an infant death decree sometime after
wizards or "wise men" had visited the baby Jesus.
There is no record of King Herod ever issuing such a decree, nor
does the birth narrative in the Gospel of Luke support this story
line.
"Luke" tells a much different story and says absolutely
nothing about pagan star gazers bringing treasure, nothing
about an infant death decree, nothing about a trip to
Egypt, and provides a much different genealogy for Jesus than
what "Matthew" presented.
The Gospel of Matthew also adds the element of Roman guards at
the tomb of Jesus, something that is mentioned nowhere else in
the New Testament.
Furthermore, the Gospel of Luke, in the preamble, states that the
information in Luke was being given so that the reader would know
with certainty what the actual major events surrounding
Jesus were.
Luke 1:1-4
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a
declaration of those things which are most surely believed among
us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning
were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very first, to
write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of
those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Note that the Gospel of Luke is not an eyewitness account, but
was compiled from other sources, with accuracy as a prime goal.
Christians maintain that "Luke" the physician and
historian wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts.
While there is a Luke mentioned in Col 4:14 and 2 Tim
4:11, there isn't any way to know for sure who wrote The
Gospel of Luke or Acts.
However, if the author was supposed to be concerned with
historical accuracy, then it would certainly have been
appropriate for them to mention key items presented as history in
the Gospel of Matthew.
As mentioned earlier, Luke and Matthew often do not support each
other and conflict on key events.
Luke has the resurrected Jesus first appearing to his disciples
in Jerusalem while Matthew has that meeting happening in Galilee,
which is well over 50 miles to the north.
If "Luke" intended on giving his reader confirmation of
what the proper facts were, and if the reader had heard about
dead people being raised to life when Jesus died, the Gospel of
Luke would not be able to confirm any of this.
The reader would be left with no confirmation of the facts.
The author of Luke doesn't tell his audience to refer to other
writings for more details or to learn about events that he didn't
deem important enough to mention.
Certainly, many dead people being raised together as a group and
then appearing to many townspeople would qualify as an important
event.
There is no support from Luke for the story in Matthew and it
cannot be regarded as a historical fact.
The author of Matthew was fond of specifically pointing out
prophecy fulfillment, and would even cite small parts of the Old
Testament in that regard.
For example:
Matthew used a portion of Isaiah 7 in order to validate
Jesus as someone of importance, the product of a virgin being
pregnant with child.
Matt 1:22-23
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a
son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being
interpreted is, God with us.
The Old Testament verse states:
Isa 7:14(JPS 1917 Tanach)
Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the
young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his
name Immanuel.
Note that there is no miraculous "virgin birth" or
conception implied in the Old Testament scripture.
A young woman(almah) is involved, and there is no specific
designation for her being a virgin(betulah).
An examination of the context of Isaiah 7 reveals that the
chapter has nothing to do with Jesus.
Another example of a manufactured prophecy fulfillment follows:
Matt 2:14-15
When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night,
and departed into Egypt:
And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be
fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,
Out of Egypt have I called my son.
The Old Testament scripture states:
Hosea 11:1(JPS 1917 Tanach)
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and out of Egypt I
called My son.
The alleged prophecy fulfillment in this case wasn't a
prophecy at all. It's all past tense, predicting nothing.
The author of Matthew pulled a small section out of Hosea 11:1
and created a fulfillment out of thin air.
Once again, Jesus was made to appear as the centerpiece of the
Old Testament scripture.
However, the actual context of the verse has nothing to do with
Jesus, the child being referred to is the nation of Israel.
It appears that the author of Matthew had few qualms about using
pieces of the Old Testament to manufacture certain elements for
his story. The author of Matthew then strongly implied that these
created elements were proof or validation that Jesus was the
fulfillment of prophecy.
In other words, the author of Matthew liberally created elements
that added to the credibility of the main character of his story,
which was Jesus.
Embellish:
to increase attractiveness by adding ornamental elements or
details
The art of embellishing a story is one that can create a very
interesting and convincing theme.
But the drawback with embellishment is that it can completely
obscure the line between fact and fiction.
There is no way to know what parts of a story represent fact and
what parts may be fiction.
Given the tendency for the author of Matthew to manufacture
validity for Jesus by employing Old Testament scripture that says
nothing about him, the door of creative license swings wide open.
Further acts of embellishment can easily glide through this
opening and take up residence in the "historical" event
of dead people coming to life and being resurrected, as portrayed
in Matt 27:50-53.
Does the Old Testament say anything about dead people coming to
life at some time?
The answer to this question is yes.
In the expected messianic era, many dead people would be raised.
Isa 26:19(JPS 1917 Tanach)
Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise--awake and sing,
ye that dwell in the dust--for Thy dew is as the dew of light,
and the earth shall bring to life the shades.
Dan 12:2(JPS 1917 Tanach)
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and everlasting
abhorrence.
If the author of Matthew wanted to enhance credibility to his
story about Jesus being an expected King Messiah, adding the
element of some dead people coming to life would implicitly
convince people and support the theme that Jesus really was this
expected Messiah.
However, embellishment does not advance the case for 100%
historic accuracy, it detracts from it.
The tale in Matthew, about dead people being raised to life, also
creates internal problems for the New Testament.
According to "Matthew", the dead people came alive
prior to Jesus being resurrected.
However, the allegedly inspired author called Paul said that
Jesus was the first of the dead to be risen.
Acts 26:23
That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the
first that should rise from the dead, and should shew
light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.
1 Cor 15:20
But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits
of them that slept.
Paul seemed to have no knowledge of the amazing multiple
resurrections that happened near Jerusalem.
It's seems rather odd that Paul, who was supposed to have been in
that area around the time Jesus existed, never says anything
about it.
If Paul was right about Jesus being the first to rise from the
dead, then maybe Matthew 27:50-53 is a false teaching, or
a work of fiction.
In an attempt to reconcile this problem, apologists will assert
that Paul meant the word "first" to mean that Jesus was
the first raised and then lived eternally. The other people
raised back to life died.
Since the text doesn't say what happened to the dead people that
were raised back to life when Jesus died, there is nothing to
support the notion that they died all over again.
In fact the Bible denies that they did.
The Bible says that it is appointed for men to die only once, not
multiple times.
Heb 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the
judgment:
The Gospel of Matthew also said that the resurrected dead people
were saints, and this is another reason to believe they did not
have to die a second time.
Paul also seemed to be unaware of another dead person coming back
to life before Jesus did, or else he dismissed the story as
fiction.
The story is found in the Old Testament:
2 Kings 13:21
And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold,
they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the
sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched
the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet.
Apologists will often attempt to dismiss this verse by claiming
that the man wasn't really dead, but in a coma.
As noted before, the Bible can mean whatever a believer wants it
to mean. But every added rationalization and scriptural qualifier
undermines the claim about the Bible being directly and perfectly
inspired by God. The text says nothing about the man only being
in a coma rather than being dead, nor does it say that he was
being buried by mistake.
The New Testament also instructs believers to give no heed to
Jewish fables or to those who promote "false"
teachings.
Titus 1:13-14
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they
may be sound in the faith;
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and
commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Since these "Jewish fables" are
not defined, one has to wonder if any Jewish fables or myths were
incorporated into the Bible!
Maybe the story about a man coming to life in 2 Kings 13:21
is really a myth, a fable.
But wait a minute, it can't be a myth because fundamentalists say
that the Bible is 100% accurate history, straight from God
himself.
How about the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve, Satan and Job,
talking donkeys, the world flood, fire from heaven, the Exodus,
the Ten Commandments, the walls of Jericho, the Temple of
Solomon, the exploits of King David, six fingered giants, along
with many other items and events?
One can only hope and pray to God that none of these stories are
the very fables and myths that the Bible tells us not to pay any
attention to!
Thankfully, the world has fundamentalist Christians that have
already settled these issues, and so unsaved wretches don't have
to be burdened with thinking about this disturbing possibility.
Having been relieved from the burden of objective thinking, these
poor souls can now concentrate on being saved so they can start
regularly tithing money to the church and its clerics.
As the popular advertising says…If it's in the Bible, then
it's absolutely factual.
Because the Bible wasn't dropped from the sky, or compiled
without human aid, the extent of holy inspiration and
infallibility does not simply stop with the direct transmission
of God's thoughts to the authors of the scriptures that appear in
the Bible today.
Another assumed layer of divine inspiration is required for the
clerics that voted on which scriptures were the valid thoughts of
God. The Pope must also be added to the list of those under the
direct control of God because the power of the clerics was
derived from the Pope, who is assumed to be the Vicar of Christ
on earth.
The Church itself is supposed to be endowed with infallible
powers with regard to the teaching of doctrine and the exercise
of doctrinal authority. Add that to the list of assumptions as
well.
Layer upon layer of assumption and assertion is what comprises
the so-called infallible Word of God.
In short, the Bible is the Word of God because male human
beings, whose livelihoods and positions in society depend on it
being so, say that it's the Word of God.
The validation of both Protestant and Catholic institutions is
based primarily on the use of argument by assertion, which relies
on the trappings of divine authority to score points with the
masses.
Without this veneer of divine authority, they are merely another
group of peddlers in the marketplace of ideas, competing for your
attention.
Simply repeating an assertion that something is factual doesn't
make it factual, and the bombastic claims of fundamentalists
about the Bible are no exception.
We must not mistake an echo for an answer.
--Vernon Howard
Seeker: There seems to be an absence of real teachers.
Sage: That is because of the absence of real students.
Seeker: It is obvious that careless people will follow almost anyone who claims to have the answers.
Sage: There was a country that had no eagles, so parrots were called eagles.
--Parable by Vernon Howard
-- BACK --