August 13, 2009, 9:17 pm by dc-agape.

We know that the Gospel of John was written by Apostle John, or at least we have no indication that this was not written by him.  I chose to start the New Testament with the Gospel of Mark because of the Synoptic Problem.  I did this because both the Gospel of Matthew and Luke seem to draw much of their material from the Gospel of Mark.  As a result, both of these Gospels will be very similar to my posts on the Gospel of Mark.  Choosing the Gospel of John next seems more appropriate.  This will alleviate repetitive posts and give a different perspective to my posts on the Gospels.  I will continue with both the Gospels of Matthew and Luke prior to addressing the later books and letters of the New Testament.

In some respects, the Gospel of John is possibly the only Book in the Word of God that was actually an eyewitness to the life of Jesus.  Even the Gospel of Mark was written by a student of Peter near the end of Peter’s life.  If the Synoptic Problem is correct, then neither the Gospel of Matthew nor Luke were eyewitness accounts.  In any event, the recordings of these Gospels did not occur until over 20 (and possibly 40 years) after the events.  Unfortunately, the Gospel of john is even later…dated to about 50 years after the events described.  Yes, there is the possibility that all the documents were written shortly after the events and the final versions, that we have today, were not finalized until later.  But to follow this idea would lead to agreeing with the Nag Hammadi Library…especially The Apocryphon of James.  In the Apocryphon, James admits that all the Apostles were recording their experiences when Jesus returned to them!  But since these documents are considered heretical to modern Christians most of the Gospels of the actual Apostles are ignored and Paul’s letters become the preponderant foundation of the modern Church.  Odd how that work out…because I clearly recall that:

Matt 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Yet we have not recordings of Peter’s teachings!  The Gospel of Mark is the closest we have and it was written by John Mark.  Even the authorship of the two Letters of 1^st and 2^nd Peter are questioned.  So why is Peter’s teachings not at the core of Christian doctrine?

The safest way to address this issue is to attempt to use the writings of eyewitnesses.  But since the Synoptic Gospels are questionable at best, the Gospel of John is the strongest source of the events that took place during the critical years of the formation of Christianity.   That is why I will be posting from the Gospel of John prior to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.

Posted in Gospel of John, Readings, Introduction | Print | 26 Comments »

August 13, 2009, 6:56 am by dc-agape.

Exodus 39:32 – 40:38

We have come to the end of the Book of Exodus.   This last post on the Book of Exodus is rather anti-climatic.  From the “god-bias” it is supposed to be the exciting beginning journey of YHWH and his Israelites.  But actually, the Books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are just expansions on the stories in the Book of Exodus.  The Book of Exodus covers the first 80 years of Moses’ life and the other three Books cover his last 40 years.  This, of course, is also the 40 years the Israelites spent in the desert as punishment for the Golden Calf Incident.  Not until the Book of Joshua does the conquest and butcher of Canaan begin.

In the study notes the editors have added some spiritual guidelines/meanings to these passages as well.  But to an Atheist they seem rather patronizing.  Things like “Moses was so good because he did exactly what YHWH wanted”, seems like modern humans saying that their dog is so smart because he obeys their commandments!  The editors also add some mumbo-jumbo about “just like the creation story, the creation of the Tent of Meeting ends with ‘and it was completed’”.  The editors end with “how glorious it is that YHWH tents with the Israelites and leads them to the fulfillment of promises”.  This commentary completely ignores the Book of Judges, the divided Kingdom, the Exile, and the Books of the Minor Prophets.

From the Atheist point-of-view three main points are worth mentioning from this section of the Book of Exodus.  The time it took to finish the Tent of Meeting, Aaron’s descendents place in the future, and the process of moving from one place to another.  After a three month trip to Mount Sinai and a three month stint with Moses up with YHWH at the top of the Mount (1^st and 2^nd trips) it takes an additional six months to complete the Tent of Meeting.  The Israelites are camped at the foot of Mount Sinai for an entire year (minus 14 days).  YHWH makes it quite clear that Aaron’s sons will be priests for all generations to come.  This of course is not true.  And the movement from place to place is proscribed by YHWH presence in the Tent of Meeting, which just happens to keep Moses out of the Tent!

The people have already complained about food and water just in the first three months of the trip (Exodus 15:24, 16:3, and 17:2).  Now they are camped at the foot of Mount Sinai for nine months…with only manna to eat.  Today this region is home to less than 200,000 people and that is the entire Peninsula!  2,000,000 people just at the base of the mountain seems like quite a stretch of the imagination.   Further the addition of food stocks for the animals would make this a great exaggeration.  With an annual rain fall of less than 22.4 inches (570mm) per year, even the “miracles” that Moses performed in the first three months would not be enough for the entire camp for nine additional months.

The second thing that I want to point out from this section of the Book of Exodus is a specific verse that indicates, once again, that the Word of God is not completely true.  And of course, once even one verse is in error, how do you trust any of it?

Exodus 40:15 Anoint them just as you anointed their father, so they may serve me as priests.  Their anointing will be to a priesthood that will continue for all generations to come.

This is the Word of YHWH recorded in the Word of God by Moses himself!  Yet it claims that Aaron’s descendents will be priest for ALL generations.  This would indicate that YHWH had no plans to change the priesthood!  Yet Christians claim that Jesus took this place but we know that Jesus was not a descendent of Aaron (thanks to the Gospel of Matthew).  So a contradiction like this is at the core of the Christian faith.  The Bible says one thing in Exodus and yet in the Book of Hebrews (written by Barnabas or Apollos), – chapters 5 and 7 – uses Psalms 110:4 to claim that Jesus is a new priesthood.  Which leads to a schism between the “forever” that YHWH gave David and the “all generations to come” he gave to Aaron.  Christian apologist will of course, claim that YHWH does not change, yet this is a clear example of YHWH changing three times.  The first change is to make a permanent priesthood out of Aaron’s lineage.  The second change is to give this power to David’s lineage.  And the third change is to make it permanent in Jesus.  Apologist will also claim that these changes were planned ahead waiting for the time of Jesus.  What the apologist fail to do and possible ignore is that the Word of God uses words like “all generations to come” and “forever”.  Both of these words are permanent, which either leaves the translation of the Bible in error or leaves the Word of God in error.  For the first case, all English speakers are royally screwed if we cannot trust YHWH to ensure the proper translation of “his word” into our language.  In the second case, the entire Word of God becomes suspect!  And this, of course, is where Atheists find difficultly from the literal translation of the Word of God.

The final section that is of interest to an Atheist reading of the Bible is the last four verses of the Book of Exodus.  The most puzzling verse is this one:

Exodus 40:35 Moses could not enter the Tent of Meeting because the cloud had settled upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

When YHWH left the Tent of Meeting this was the sign of at least 40 years to get moving.  But why can Moses not enter the cloud now, yet was able to for numerous other occasions previously?  Also, why mention Moses’ ability to enter the Tent?  It was Aaron that was required to maintain the Tent of Meeting on a daily basis.  Remember Aaron was to light the Lamps (Chapter 27) and fill the Incense Altar (Chapter 30).  Aaron was also required to tend to the Table (Chapter 25).  Could Aaron enter the Tent of Meeting to accomplish his required duties?  So this section seems to be slightly skewed toward unimportant information.

Posted in Exodus, Contradictions, Traditions of Men, Inerrancy - My Ass, Tall Tales, Readings | Print | 10 Comments »