Part 9 (2/2)
Jesus also seems very violent not only when he attacks the moneychangers in the temple but also when he curses the fig tree. If Jesus is G.o.d, and G.o.d created the fig tree, why would Jesus/G.o.d make it barren of fruit in the first place, such that he would have to curse and destroy the poor tree later? If Christ is the omnipotent Lord, could he not just snap his fingers and make the fruit materialize? Is the angry and violent attack on the tree really a sign of a G.o.dly character? Also, why does Jesus-the Almighty G.o.d Himself-need food in the first place? Can't Christ just blink his eyes and make the food appear or his hunger disappear?
Dr. Geisler's apology for this difficult pa.s.sage includes the reasoning that Christ knew the fig tree was supposed to have fruit, but he needed to approach it in order to see that it really did (Mk 11:13) and, seeing that it had foliage, he a.s.sumed it would bear fruit as well: ”It was the foliage that drew Jesus to the tree in hope of finding fruit.”1 This excuse begs the question as to why the omniscient Lord of the cosmos needed to draw near physically to the fig tree to discover whether or not it had fruit. Moreover, Geisler's argument that, being the omnipotent Lord, Jesus ”can curse a fig tree for reasons unknown to us” could be deemed a flimsy ”copout,” with other interpretations appearing equally weak.
Furthermore, it seems to be highly arrogant and presumptuous of Jesus to a.s.sume that he could just take someone's a.s.s and foal, simply by declaring that he is the Lord of the universe! Why would Jesus not manifest his own a.s.s, rather than borrowing someone else's, without even telling them? Wouldn't this act ordinarily const.i.tute theft? What kind of example does Jesus set here?
At a number of points (Mt 3:7, 12:34, 23:33), Jesus calls Jews ”vipers,” and at John 8:44 he attacks the Jewish authorities, saying they are of their father ”the devil.” These remarks seem very harsh, essentially stating that the Jewish authorities are evil and the sp.a.w.n of Satan. Christ is thus abusive of pious Jews, calling them all sorts of names, and then he threatens to destroy the temple. Is this proper behavior? How would we react to this behavior if someone threatened to destroy a temple today? Unfortunately, the anti-Jewish sentiment in John has been utilized over the centuries for nefarious ends. As the omnipotent Lord, shouldn't Jesus have seen these violent confrontations coming and presented himself more temperately in order to avoid them?
In addition, Jesus predicts that Judea will be destroyed, which many people logically believe is simply reportage after the fact by the biblical scribes. Nevertheless, even if Christ did predict this occurrence, since he is omnipotent, why didn't he stop it? Since he is G.o.d, he must have caused it in the first place. Where is Christ's compa.s.sion and understanding?
If G.o.d/Jesus is compa.s.sionate, why does he have a planned tribulation for the entire world, during which millions of people, including innocent men, women and children, are going to suffer and die horribly?
As we have already seen, Jesus also shows a lack of character when he discusses the poor, evidently not at all wis.h.i.+ng to help them but simply accepting that they exist-and declaring that they will always exist, despite the fact that, as the all-powerful G.o.d, he could snap his fingers and end poverty immediately. In consideration of what huge problems poverty and slavery represented within the Roman Empire-with an estimated 1 to 1.5 million slaves in Italy alone-the failure to address and condemn these major social ills becomes all the more egregious. Adding insult to injury is the fact that Jesus Christ is purported to be the all-powerful Lord of the cosmos, who, presumably, could end slavery, poverty and all suffering instantly. Instead, one of Christ's most important followers and arguably the major establisher of Christian doctrine besides Christ, Paul, actually encourages slavery in his letters to the Ephesians, Colossians and t.i.tus: Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ... (Eph 6:5) Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. (Col 3:22) Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory... (Tts 2:9) The word for ”slaves” in the Greek is douloi, from the singular , which is often rendered ”servant” in the various versions of the Bible, in order to soften the impression. The fact will remain, however, that slavery and poverty were rampant in the Roman Empire and beyond, and, despite claiming to be the savior of the world, Christ made no condemnation of, or attempt to end, either problem. Indeed, Rome was full of suffering people; yet, the omniscient and omnipotent Lord of the universe who came to Earth to alleviate people of their sins oddly felt fit to make his appearance in a tiny backwater section of the Roman Empire far away from this suffering!
Moreover, some of Jesus's words and deeds were so absurd and repulsive to the locals that they claimed he was possessed by demons and ”mad.” (Mk 3:21-22; Jn 10:20) The issue of Christ's seeming megalomania and arrogance-exhibiting ”delusional psychosis” and ”grandiose beliefs”-has been profound enough for apologists to craft arguments in defense of Jesus's sanity. Jesus's megalomaniacal and arrogant jargon includes: ”I am the Alpha and Omega” (Rev 1:18, 1:11, 21:6, 22:13); and, ”I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (Jn 14:6) These numerous examples const.i.tute objections regarding the character displayed by Jesus throughout the gospels. There are people who, even if they believe there was a man called Jesus who did some of the things in the gospel, do not think he was a particularly good man, much less a G.o.d. Christ often comes across as arrogant, as well as angry, and he continually speaks down to people in a very haughty and conceited manner. He is self-absorbed and obsessed with issues that are seemingly not very important, such as whether a fig tree bears fruit for him or his head will be anointed, whereas real problems, such as slavery and poverty, remain unexamined and unchallenged by him.
Repellant Deeds, Sayings and Doctrines.
In addition to the abundant character flaws are a number of peculiar and repugnant teachings by Christ and within Christianity as a whole. For instance, at Matthew 5:40-42, Jesus tells us that, should anyone sue us for our coat, we should just give him our ”cloak” as well! Should we really follow that command? How many Christians have done so? And what happens to those who do not? Christ also exhorts that ”if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” Are we supposed to surrender ourselves to people who would force us to do things, essentially const.i.tuting slavery? Jesus further instructs us to give to anyone who begs or borrows from us. Can we really do that and live a decent life? What about our children-should we not save and prepare for them? In his apology for the scripture encouraging Christ's followers to give to anyone who asks of them, Geisler proffers a highly speculative justification, saying that ”Jesus no more expected His listeners to take, without qualification, the command to 'give to him who asks you' than He intended them to literally cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes if they offended them...!”1 There is, in reality, no substantiation for this conjecture of what Christ expected or intended as concerns these particular verses, and this apology leaves us with the impression that Jesus's remarks are meaningless and pointless. If Christ did not intend for us to understand these comments literally, why even say them, as there is no sensible figurative way in which to comprehend them?
Furthermore, at Matthew 6:25, Jesus advises us not to worry about the future, not even about what we will eat and drink-is this a practical teaching? Why, then, if G.o.d knows we need food and drink, do people die from thirst and starvation every day? And if G.o.d knows our needs, why must we pray to him for bread on a daily basis, as in the Lord's Prayer?
At Matthew 7:11, Jesus tells his followers that they are ”evil.” Who exactly is evil-all of us? Why would G.o.d make us evil? If we are made in G.o.d's image, how can we be evil, unless G.o.d is evil?
Christ's p.r.o.nouncements regarding marriage, divorce and adultery appear to be very harsh and uncompa.s.sionate. Does it sound like a good idea to consider an ”adulteress” a woman divorced for reasons other than unchast.i.ty, including, perhaps, domestic violence and abuse? Is not a woman who has been ”unchaste” or committed infidelity an adulteress anyway? Doesn't this declaration mean that all divorced women would be considered adulteresses, regardless of whether or not they were faithful? Should we also deem a man who marries such a woman an ”adulterer?” The penalty for adultery in Old Testament times often was death, by stoning or otherwise (Deut 22:22; Lev 20:10). Christ said he did not come to abolish the Mosaic Law but to fulfill it-should we therefore stone adulterers, as defined by Jesus?
Christ tells his followers that they should cut off their hands and feet, and pluck out their eyes, but should anyone really do that? Should we cut off people's hands if they steal? Amputations of this kind have been common in various cultures since ancient times, so it was already a custom and understood as literal, not something ”figurative” that Jesus was exhorting. Are these gruesome concepts something ”good” to which we should expose the innocent and impressionable minds of children?
What about becoming an eunuch for heaven by being castrated? Apologists may say that it is better to be castrated than to forfeit heaven, but some people might respond that heaven is not a proven place, so castration is quite a risk to take. Apologists also claim that the phrase ”receive this” in the ”eunuchs for the kingdom” scripture refers not to the castration but to acquiring an understanding of Jesus's purported ”parable” here. In the original Greek of the verse there is no way to determine whether the word for ”receive it”- or kh.o.r.eito-refers to actual castration or the statement itself. This fact has not prevented translators of recent Bible editions from rendering the phrase ”accept this statement.” (New Living Translation) This rendering remains an interpretation of what the editors thought Jesus may have meant. If the New Testament represents the literal Word of G.o.d, it is puzzling why G.o.d/Jesus would go to the trouble of putting forth such remarks and then not make them clear, such that they constantly require interpretation.
Moreover, even if the ”it” does refer to the statement, what is Jesus trying to impart here? If he is speaking in a parable, in effect winking at his listeners, is Christ not likely conveying nevertheless that he condones or encourages men to become eunuchs for heaven? The fact will remain that early Christians such as Church father Origen and others perceived Jesus's words as meaning that they should become castrated-and they followed through with what they considered a commandment from their Master. Indeed, this verse has traditionally been interpreted to mean that Jesus's disciples should abstain from s.e.xuality, such that it is clear that Christians from the earliest times onward believed Christ was encouraging them to be ”eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven.” As a later example, in 1871 biblical commentators Jamieson, Fausset and Brown rendered the word ”eunuch” thus: ”persons const.i.tutionally either incapable of or indisposed to marriage.” As concerns the last phrase regarding ”receiving it,” JF and B comment, ”He who feels this to be his proper vocation, let him embrace it.” Regardless of any other possible interpretation of this scripture, segments of Christendom over the centuries, including various sects such as the Russian ”Skoptsi,” have viewed this scripture as an inducement to castration at worst and abstinence at best.
When Christ says that families will be handing over their members to be killed, including children having their parents put to death, as at Matthew 10:21-23, he is in effect creating a blueprint for his disciples to follow. Why would the G.o.d of the universe bring about such a horrible creation, when, being all-powerful, he could manifest anything he wants?
Another strange teaching appears at Matthew 18:21-22, where Jesus tells Peter that the latter must forgive his brother's sins against him not seven but ”seventy times seven.” Is that really wise? Is it possible? Should we really just forgive people over and over again, no matter what they do?
Even if they are murderers or rapists? How are we to forgive them? Should we not punish them and not let them do it again?
In pressing his point, at Matthew 18:34-35, Jesus tells Peter that everyone who does not forgive his brother ”from his heart” will be tortured in prison by the Lord G.o.d. In this pericope, Jesus relates the story of a slaveholder who delivers one of his unforgiving slaves to torturers, and then says that G.o.d will do the same to all of us for not forgiving our brothers' sins.
It should be noted that many translations of this Matthaean verse cloak the term ”slave”-doulos in the Greek-behind the word ”servant,” while the term for those who tortured the slave-basanistes in the singular-is translated as ”jailers” and ”tormentors.” Strong's defines this word basanistes (G930) as: 1) one who elicits the truth by the use of the rack a) an inquisitor, torturer also used of a jailer doubtless because the business of torturing was also a.s.signed to him Hence, the term is more appropriately translated as ”torturer.” What happens to those of us who do not follow these exhortations to forgive our brother? Will we all forfeit the Kingdom of Heaven and be cast into h.e.l.l to be tortured by G.o.d? If it's not G.o.d who is to torture us, then who-Satan? If the torture is G.o.d's punishment for not forgiving our brother's sins, then is Satan G.o.d's instrument? Is all of this logical and sensible? Should an all-good and merciful G.o.d be torturing people?
At Matthew 23:8, Jesus tells us to ”call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” Does this mean we can't call our own fathers ”father?” If so, doesn't that seem harsh? What about priests? Is the Catholic practice of calling priests ”father” against G.o.d? Why does no one literally follow this command of Jesus? If we can overlook this scripture, can we not ignore others as well, including those that tell us to believe the incredible claims regarding Jesus in the first place? In the next breath, Christ tells us that he is our Master-should we ignore that scripture as well? Jesus follows this overbearing declaration of his dominion over us with a lecture on humility-doesn't that seem hypocritical?
In the pericope of the ”widow's mite” at Luke 21:1-4, Jesus seems to be encouraging poor people to give away all their belongings to the temple/church. Is this a good policy? Why does the omnipotent Lord need the money of poor people or any people at all? Doesn't this sort of behavior set a dangerous precedent for people to prey on the poor, old and gullible?
In Matthew 24, Jesus tells two long parables about ”wise and foolish maidens” and about money, so that he can impart the following lesson: ”For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”
Does this teaching sound right? Doesn't it seem to be lacking in compa.s.sion?
At John 12:25, Jesus says, ”He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.” This scripture has been repeated many times and is fairly well known, but does it sound very good? Isn't Christ encouraging people to be miserable and even suicidal about being alive? Isn't Jesus essentially saying, ”If you love life, you have to die. But if you hate life, you have to stay alive forever.” Could such a remark not be construed as very cruel? If G.o.d gave us this life, why should we ”hate” it? Did G.o.d give us very bad lives? Why would an all-good, all-powerful and merciful G.o.d do such a thing?
At the Last Supper/eucharist, when Jesus tells his disciples that they should eat the bread and drink the wine because these are Christ's body and blood, doesn't that sound like barbaric cannibalism and vampirism? When you first heard about the eucharist, perhaps as a child, how did you feel about it? Were you not repulsed by the notion of drinking some guy's blood and eating his body? Are these barbaric, cannibalistic concepts really something we should be exposing our children to?
The bloodiness continues, as at Matthew 27:25 the Jews are depicted as saying, ”His blood be upon us and our children.” Why would the Jews make such a statement? If it is because they want to be washed in the ”blood of the lamb,” wouldn't that absolve them of their sins? If Christ gave his life in atonement for sins, why would being bathed in his blood be a bad thing? Why were the Jews labeled ”Christ-killers” and persecuted repeatedly over many centuries, when they were evidently asking for the salvific baptism in the blood of the Lamb? In any event, the whole concept of blood atonement in the first place ranks as repulsive and barbaric-and unnecessary for an all-powerful and loving G.o.d.
Is it logical to vilify Jews as committers of deicide, when it was by all pious accounts G.o.d's own plan to take birth as a human and sacrifice himself on the cross? Jesus himself is depicted as saying he will be crucified, long before he is found guilty of anything remotely meriting capital punishment-and that in itself is another issue, because Jesus's alleged misdeeds did not warrant the death penalty. Christ's sacrifice was salvific, not expiatory, meaning it was for our salvation, rather than as a punishment for any crimes he committed. Indeed, it is a matter of Christian doctrine that G.o.d so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. (Jn 3:16) In such a case, it would appear to be blasphemy to demonize the people who served as crucial partic.i.p.ants in G.o.d's highest plan for the salvation of mankind!
As we have seen, various factions attempted to place the onus of Christ's death on either the Romans or the Jews, for political reasons. Whether Romans or Jews, they were evidently under divine guidance in sacrificing Jesus; therefore, they could not be found culpable of ”deicide,” unless G.o.d-whose plan it was in the first place-himself is guilty of deicide. How can anyone be guilty of ”deicide” since it is impossible to kill the immortal G.o.d? What all this rumination means is that an atrocious amount of people have been hideously tortured and murdered for no good reason whatsoever.
Moreover, it is beyond shameful that anyone would destroy others centuries later for the supposed ”sins of their fathers.” Also, why would the all-powerful and loving G.o.d the Father allow his children-i.e., Christians-to go on rampages and kill millions of G.o.d's other children, including Christians, as well as G.o.d's chosen people, the Jews?
Moreover, if Jesus is G.o.d, and G.o.d's plan is good, why does he ask himself to stop the coming torment and suffering of his Pa.s.sion? Why is this G.o.d's plan to fix his own creation? Indeed, according to Christian doctrine, Jesus the man is created specifically for the reason of coming to Earth and dying for our sins-again, isn't this a bizarre way for G.o.d to mend things? Does an architect whose building turns out badly jump off the edifice in order to fix it?
Furthermore, many people believe that teaching young, innocent and impressionable children that they are ”born in sin” is abusive and harmful. There are numerous other repellant and scary sentiments expressed in the Bible, which includes many depictions of extreme violence and bloodshed on a ma.s.sive scale.
All in all, the numerous instances of questionable sayings, deeds and actions in the gospels and New Testament as a whole are quite distinct and noticeable. This issue const.i.tutes a very important one that should not be taken lightly and dismissed with a variety of trivial and unsophisticated excuses. It is further perplexing that so many intelligent and erudite individuals have engaged themselves in the study of biblical texts without these questions and objections being raised in their minds. Such a scenario is reflective not of the all-encompa.s.sing ”truth” of the New Testament but of the intoxicating power of religious conditioning.
Apology Accepted?
”Men often run into gross mistakes by understanding that literally which the scripture speaks figuratively.”
Rev. Matthew Henry, ”Commentary on John 2”
”Early Christians certainly read scripture allegorically, understanding it to refer to some kind of so-called higher realities that weren't really present in the text itself.”
Dr. Harold W. Attridge, ”From Jesus to Christ”
The field of Christian apologetics provides responses for any number of the quandaries and objections concerning the difficulties and problems of the gospels, as ill.u.s.trated by several examples already provided. To some people, however, many of these answers appear to be illogical and contrived, leaving us to continue wondering about any solid data upon which to base or judge anything concretely about the New Testament. Several of these responses and excuses also seem dishonest and lacking in integrity, such as the ”principle of harmonization” that essentially const.i.tutes a waving away of the hand indicating the gospel writers were not interested in accuracy. Other apologies come across as desperate and sophistic attempts to rationalize and harmonize issues that do not make sense and that do not follow natural laws or even appear realistic.
In addition to the apologies already explored are a number of other themes within the field of apologetics. For example, one more justification for the many discrepancies and difficulties in the gospel texts points out that the biographies of other people also reveal differences in what supposedly happened in the subjects' lives. However, here we are not discussing the biographies of ”any old people” but the inerrant portrayal of the Lord G.o.d himself, allegedly infallibly recorded by scribes inspired by the Holy Spirit! The standard for judging the gospels needs to be much higher, since G.o.d himself is purported to have written them. Additionally, these texts were not composed by four unrelated individuals as is the case with the biographies of other people: The canonical gospels are the result of a concerted effort purportedly to depict accurately the life of the most important person ever to walk the face of the earth. The gospels simply cannot be so casually and carelessly handled as to justify various apologies, such as: The times were different; people saw things differently; the evangelists didn't care about accurate representation, etc. Surely, the Lord G.o.d Almighty-the purported true author of the gospels-is not just ”one of the people” who abides by the sloppy and disinterested rules of the day!
<script>