Josh McDowell’s book, More Than A Carpenter, is the most-cited script by Southern (American) Baptists whenever questions regarding the authenticity of the historical character called Jesus Christ pops up. I was fortunate enough to get a copy from a white Mississippian Southern Baptist, who claimed to have been born again, after I brought to his attention the pagan origins of the resolution, in the form of an imperial decree, of the still-controversial doctrine of the trinity. He did not want to hear anything about Arius, Athanasius or Emperor Constantine but, after quoting a few Biblical verses that contradicted his stated belief in the dogma, he angrily thrust the little book into my hands. “Read it,” he commanded as he shoved McDowell's book into my hand, “it will answer your darned questions!”
Suffice it to say it is a nice little book but woefully inadequate in terms of addressing or clarifying the historicity of Jesus Christ. All practicing Christian and many practicing Moslems take the scriptural evidence of the existence of Jesus prima facie. If only this was true.
The scriptural narrations are testimonies of individuals so that they are, fortunately, subject to the Biblically mandatory evidence-validation edicts. Pursuant to said edicts, a person who makes a claim must put forth witnesses to verify the validity of his or her claim, viz.; Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Exodus 4:1-9.) and Deut. 18:18-22). In fact, Jesus himself, or a character by that name says in John 5:31, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." In Matthew 18:16 – 17; he says, "[T]ake with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." Similarly, the character called Paul, in 2 Corinthians 13-2 says; “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”
****************************************
I have collated Bible texts of witnesses that seem to prove that the witnesses who testify about Jesus abysmally fail the evidence-validation test. It has been a worthy errand. Every time a group of Mormon missionaries or Jehovah's Witnesses knock at my door, I invite them in and pull out the essay I have written but not published. They cannot rebut the points in the essay and so they leave and promise to return with answers. Unfortunately, they never come back.
I will be posting the essay, as a pdf, in due course. Alternatively, I could offer it to Emmanuel or Ivor, if they do not mind posting rouble-rousing tracts.
Suffice it to say it is a nice little book but woefully inadequate in terms of addressing or clarifying the historicity of Jesus Christ. All practicing Christian and many practicing Moslems take the scriptural evidence of the existence of Jesus prima facie. If only this was true.
The scriptural narrations are testimonies of individuals so that they are, fortunately, subject to the Biblically mandatory evidence-validation edicts. Pursuant to said edicts, a person who makes a claim must put forth witnesses to verify the validity of his or her claim, viz.; Deuteronomy 13:1-5, Exodus 4:1-9.) and Deut. 18:18-22). In fact, Jesus himself, or a character by that name says in John 5:31, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." In Matthew 18:16 – 17; he says, "[T]ake with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." Similarly, the character called Paul, in 2 Corinthians 13-2 says; “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”
****************************************
I have collated Bible texts of witnesses that seem to prove that the witnesses who testify about Jesus abysmally fail the evidence-validation test. It has been a worthy errand. Every time a group of Mormon missionaries or Jehovah's Witnesses knock at my door, I invite them in and pull out the essay I have written but not published. They cannot rebut the points in the essay and so they leave and promise to return with answers. Unfortunately, they never come back.
I will be posting the essay, as a pdf, in due course. Alternatively, I could offer it to Emmanuel or Ivor, if they do not mind posting rouble-rousing tracts.
7 comments:
I'd like to see this essay.
One of Jehovah's Witnesses
Hi Jonathan
I think it would be nice if you publish this interesting article on your blog. It can form a very interesting and thought-provoking debate/thread. I too,have a lot of unanswered questions about some chapters in the bible. I tend to read the Kebra Negast a lot. You may know about it,or you may never have heard about it. It is the book of Kings and I wonder why Julius Caesar or the Romans, whoever came up with this new modern Bible, opted to leave the scriptures that talk about King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba having a son together, which resulted in the arch of the covenant going to Ethiopia.
Danny, I have posted the essay and I hope you can access it without problems.
Saru, I would have loved to post the entire essay on this blog but, my goodness, it is ten pages long. I can post sections at a time or replace most references with active links.
On the issue of King Solomon, I really doubt he really existed as written in the Bible. I would like to read the Kebra Negast and find out more. I have books by Garry Greenberg and Moustafa Gadallah which question the authenticity of the Biblical narrative of most of the material in the Torah. Another interesting book is a translation of the Papyrus of Ani by EA Wallis Budge. I have a copy but you can find an electronic copy here.
Hi Jonathan, Thank you. I was able to access the essay. Jesus' half brother James said, "Know this, my beloved brothers. Every man must be swift about hearing, slow about speaking,” Jam.1:19. This cannot be more true, especially when it comes to being critical of The Bible.
The Bible was written in a way that weeds out undesirables. A good example of this was when Jesus said, “You must eat of my flesh and drink my blood to gain salvation. (I’m paraphrasing) The account goes on to say that many no longer followed Jesus because of this, but did Jesus really mean that one should eat his flesh and blood? At Jesus’ last Passover He explains; “Take, eat. This MEANS my body.” and “Take, drink. This MEANS my blood” Those who stuck around got an answer.
Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon, as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father. Also, it wasn’t necessary to include every name in the genealogies, they just had to show that Jesus descended from David. I’ll post more as I read more.
Firstly, Danny, I would like to accept your explanation regarding the different genealogies but you make it very tough for me. Both genealogies are chronological and yet you say that some names were omitted. What names are missing and where did you get that information? I have never heard of the incomplete list. I would like to remind you that putting or removing tracts from the Bible is strictly forbidden according to Revelation Chapter 22 verse 19.
Secondly, you say Heli was Joseph’s father-in-law instead of Joseph’s father. Luke Chapter 3 say; Joseph son of Heli. If your contention is valid, why can we not say that David was the son-in-law of Jesse, Jesse was the son-in-law of Obed and so on and so forth? Please read Luke 3 verses 23 to 38. Calling David the son-in-law of Jesse or Adam the son-in-law of God doesn’t make any sense to me. Does it make sense to you?
I am still eagerly waiting for your responses.
Hi again Jonathan.
I’m sorry it took so long to get back to you. The first thing we need to realize is that the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are the inspired record of Jesus lineage, so the names given are the ones The Almighty wanted in there. Again maybe to weed out undesirables. Calling Hedi Joseph's father had something to do with the attitude toward woman in those days. The information came from our reference work, Insight On The Scriptures.
Hi again Jonathan.
I’m sorry it took so long to get back to you. The first thing we need to realize is that the genealogies given in Matthew and Luke are the inspired record of Jesus lineage, so the names given are the ones The Almighty wanted in there. Again maybe to weed out undesirables. Calling Hedi Joseph father had something to do with the attitude toward woman in those days. The information came from our reference work, Insight On The Scriptures.
Post a Comment