December 8, 2009, 7:55 am by dc-agape.

A Vision of a New Jerusalem

The good news is that I finished the proposal for my trip to Korea!  The bad news is that I still have 2 journal articles to write and prepare 2-3 presentations for upcoming professional conferences!  Hopefully I will have time to devote to this blog again.

In attempting that I want to discuss the next Scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls entitled “A Vision of a New Jerusalem”.  But this scroll will take two posts.  This post is dedicated as an introduction, whereas the second post will be the actual reading of the scroll.  The concept of a new Temple and a New Jerusalem is the reason for this scroll and I want to cover a little history before delving into the actual Scroll.

Of course the Old Testament has a number of references to a new Temple.  But only the New Testament (Ezekiel, Isaiah, Ezra and Tobit) has a reference to the New Jerusalem (Ezekiel and Revelation).  The Dead Sea Scrolls has an additional Scroll call the Temple Scroll that only deals with the New Temple itself.  What I want to do in this post is look at the other religious documents that relate to the Vision of a New Jerusalem.  These would be the five that I mentioned at the beginning of this paragraph.

The Book of Ezekiel was written between 593 and 565 BCE.  During this time Nebuchadnezzar and his armies destroyed the original Temple in 586 BCE, which Solomon built in 960 BCE.  Interestingly, when one does physical research on this “First Temple” there is not documentation (except the Bible) of it ever existing and worse is that there is no archeological proof that it existed either!¹  To add to this, even the Jewish Talmud claims that the Temple was not destroyed until 420 BCE.²  But if we should take Ezekiel at face value…his writings were either recorded as the Temple was destroyed or after the destruction.  One must keep in mind that the war between the Babylonians and the Israelites had been in progress since 597 BCE, prior to the recording of the Book of Ezekiel.  The chapters in the Book of Ezekiel of importance to this post are chapters 40 – 48.  Here Ezekiel has a vision of a new Temple surrounded by a new territory for the Israelite community.  As recorded in Ezekiel 45:1 the Temple grounds would be 25,000 cubits by 20,000 cubits (4.73 x 3.78 miles, 7.62 x 6.096 km) and the city itself would be an additional 4.48 sq. miles.  Yes that is right the temple would 8 times the size of the city of Jerusalem.  So the Temple plus the city would be 22.4 sq. miles, as big as Dover, Delaware, USA (the capital of that state)!  But 88% of the city would be devoted to the Temple.  The Levites would live in 11% of the city and the rest of Israel (the other 11 tribes) would have the remaining 11%.  This would be a very large city to cross by horse!  It is also the oddest organization of a city ever designed.  Most likely Ezekiel was fantasying about the good old days and exaggerated the size of the city.

This New Jerusalem’s design is almost as staggering as that proposed by John of Patmos who describes a city in the Book of Revelation.  In Rev 21:9-27, John of Patmos describes a city that is 1,350 x 1,350 miles in size.  That is nearly the entire area of the planet when the oceans have been removed (1,822,500 sq miles or 4,720,000 sq km)!  For a reference to this size: the USA is 9.6 million sq km and India is only 3.3 million sq km.  Heaven will be only half the size of the present day US.  I certainly hope there are not too many souls there!  India has become over populated at the present count of 1.2 billion people.

Two more of the references describe the dreams of the Israelite people and how they long for a splendor of the old days.  In the Book of Isaiah (Isa 54:11-12) the New Jerusalem is described as having layers on layers of fine jewels.

Isaiah 54:11-12 “O afflicted city, lashed by storms and not comforted, I will build with stones turquoise, your foundations with sapphires.  I will make your battlements of rubies, and all your walls of precious stones. 

Will we can certainly say that this Zion has never been built!  Earlier in this chapter two other promises from YHWH have still not been fulfilled either (Isaiah 54:3 or 8).   Reading this chapter it is quite obvious that Isaiah was describing an earthly kingdom.  Nothing of the description of the New Zion indicates a heavenly city.  It is beautifully written, and beautifully described but these three promises have not been fulfilled.  So we can be sure that these were fantasies of a misplaced society wishing for better days.  The other Old Testament reference is only found in the Catholic Bible. 

Tobit 14:5 And that again God will have mercy on them, and bring them again into the land, where they shall build a temple, but not like to the first, until the time of that age is fulfilled; and afterward they shall return from all the places of their captivity, and build up Jerusalem gloriously, and the house of God shall be built and it forever was a glorious building, as the prophets have spoken thereof.

The Book of Tobit was canonized in 397 AD.  So if it existed as an Old Testament book written by the Jewish people we have no proof of that.  So here we have a catholic writer pretending to be a Jewish writer wishing for the better Jerusalem.  Is it just me, being an Atheist that this sounds wrong?

One verse in the Old Testament does describe how the people of Israel were disappointed by the New Temple.  This would be from the Book of Ezra.  In verse 12 of that book it describes how the older members of the community wept bitterly for they knew that the New Temple was not what the prophets had described.  So here the bible explicitly indicates that the Second Temple was not the prophesied Temple of YHWH.  So even though an earthly temple was described by the prophets, as of this date no such temple has been built.  As an Atheist this would seem to be an unfulfilled prophecy, making it a false prophecy.  Yet to get around this problem, Christian apologist claim that the prophecy is related to a heavenly Jerusalem instead of an earthly one.  What a load a crap!

¹ D. Langmead and C. Garnaut (2001). Encyclopedia of architectural and engineering feats (3rd, illustrated ed.). ABC-CLIO, Inc. pp 314-319.

² Seder Olam Rabbah; An Ancient Post-exilic Judaic document written in the Hebrew language.

Posted in Contradictions, Vision of a New Jerusalem, Dead Sea Scroll, Inerrancy - My Ass, Tall Tales, Readings | Print | 1 Comment »

October 8, 2009, 8:14 am by dc-agape.

John Chapter 19

This post will describe some of the issues with John’s account verse the Synoptic Gospels and the Traditions of Men.  Since only four Gospels have been canonized since 320 AD, we have four “eye-witnesses” to the events leading up to Jesus’ crucifixion. But as it turns out some issues do crop up with this Traditional view of events.  Events before the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Herod, his death, and burial are a jumble of different “points-of-view”.  Some add things that the other “reports” leave out, others suggest unforgettable events that are eliminated from all the other reports. 

Let’s start with the Sanhedrin. The Synoptic Gospels tell us that Peter followed Jesus into the Sanhedrin.  Only the Gospel of John tells us that John was the one who got Peter in!  The Synoptic Gospels forget that John was even there.  If the Gospel of John did not exist, we would believe that Peter (by himself) just strolled right on in behind Jesus…but this is not what happened.  Why would all three of the Synoptic Gospels leave out such a detail?  We are told in the Gospel of John that Peter need special permission to enter!  We know that only Peter (and John) followed Jesus to the Sanhedrin:

Matt 26:56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.  Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

So from the beginning of the Sanhedrin trial the Synoptic Gospels of Matthew and Luke are just hearsay.  At least the Gospel of Mark is recorded by a close friend of Peter, while the Gospel of John is as close as we can get to a first-person eyewitness account (recorded 20 -50 years after the events).  That would certainly explain why John is suspiciously left out of the Synoptic Gospel.  The Synoptic Gospels were not written by men who were actually at the scene of the events.

On the topic of recording these Gospels, one must remember the life expectancy of citizens of the Roman Empire was less than 40 years and may have been as low as 25 years!  Even for John (or Peter to transcribe to John Mark) to have written this Gospel the date of the 50 is pushing the limits of sanitary conditions.  For John (or Peter) to still be alive in the 50’s he would have had to be between 15 – 18 years of age when he began to follow Jesus.  For John to have written his Gospel in the 80’s and to have died 68 years after the crucifixion John would have lived twice as long (possibly up to 4 times as long) as the average citizen of Roman and he was not even a Citizen!  A modern example of this is not someone living to be 120 years old, no it would be living to the age of between 140 – 280 years of age. 

Well it doesn’t look like I will reach the other questions about these events in this post.  But just bringing these two perspectives up I think initial the reason that most non-believers have difficulty believing the written word of the only source material we have about the life and times of Jesus.  It certainly leads to a suspicion of the trial, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. Now of course the True Believer, will say that there was nothing wrong with a 15 year old following Jesus, and becoming the most important man in the early Church (Peter or John).  But claiming that these men lived into their 60’s is pushing the limits of credibility.  And as to my first point, about eyewitnesses, the True Believer would only say that they were told how the events occurred by Peter and John.  But if that were the case, why record hearsay as authoritative documentation?  Should not the Gospels explain that only two of the Apostles actually witness the events leading up to the crucifixion (and the crucifixion itself)? 

Posted in Gospel of John, Contradictions, Traditions of Men, Inerrancy - My Ass, Readings | Print | 3 Comments »

September 23, 2009, 8:14 am by dc-agape.

John Chapter 12:20 – 50

This section has three interesting concepts that I believe most (if not all) Christians overlook, ignore, or rationalize.  The first one is who Jesus is speaking to about his death.  Unless there has been some heavy editing he is speaking to the Greeks who came up to worship at the Feast.  The second interesting thing about this section is that Jesus promises that the prince of the world would be driven out…now!  Of course, that was over 1,900 years ago and still has not happened.  Finally, we have another proof of how YHWH keeps some (if not most) people from turning to him.  This of course, is where the rationalization occurs.

The opening of this section goes like this:

John 12:20-23 Now there were some Greeks among those who went up to worship at the Feast.   They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, with a request, “Sir,” they said, “we would like to see Jesus.” Philip went to tell Andrew; Andrew and Philip in turn told Jesus.  Jesus replied, “This hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.

The word “replied” in this sentence indicates that Jesus was talking to the Greeks.  These Greeks were Jewish and there may have been some actual Israelites in the crowd.  But whenever the Greeks want to talk to Jesus about obviously started this conversation.  I bring this topic up because the NIV it claims that these Greeks were not actual believers.   So what we have here is a Tradition of Man superseding the Word of God.  I will continue to point out where it is obvious to the non-believer that the traditional interpretation of the Bible is not what the Word of God actually says.  For this everything written in this book is truly Word secondary translations and interpretations based on other humans are the basis for Traditions of Men.   

One more place that Christians like to ignore or rationalize is this verse:

John 12:30-31 Jesus said, “This voice was for your benefit, not mine now is the time the judgment of this world; now the prince of this world will be driven out.

Jesus mentions two things in this verse that are supposed to happen “Now!”. One is and the judgment of the world began almost 2000 years ago.  And secondly, that the devil would be true that helped almost 2000 years ago.  Obviously neither of these two things occurred then or is occurring now.  This is just one of the places in the Word of God that Christians must rationalize to make it fit their Traditions of Men.   The other option, is that heavy editing of what Jesus actually said has occurred.  In either case, the validity  of this passage (and possibly the Bible itself) is brought to view.  Basically, either Jesus did not know what he was talking about or men have changed what was said.

Finally we reach another quote used by Jesus that indicates YHWH chooses who will hear his message and who will not.  The passage quoted comes from Isaiah 6:10 and says this:

John 12:40 “He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn – and I would heal them.”

Christian rationalization and the traditions of men claim that sin comes first and then YHWH fulfills this verse.  But when you look at Isaiah this is not the case.  The full passage that is quoted is actually this:

Isaiah 6:9-12  He said, “Go until the people this: Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be  ever seeing, but never perceiving, make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes.  Otherwise they might see with the eyes, understand what their hearts, and turn and be healed.  Then I said, “For how long, O Lord?” “Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the Lord has sent everyone far away and the land is utterly forsaken.

Sorry for the long quote, but it is important to show that either Jesus twisted the old testament, man has twisted Jesus’ words, or humankind is a play rag doll for YHWH’s pleasure.  In the book of Isaiah the people they have sinned, but it is YHWH who has chosen to punish without reprieve.  In both the gospel of john and in the book of Isaiah it is clear that it is YHWH who controls whether humankind sees, hears, and understands the message.

To the non-believer these three things indicate that the Word of God is questionable at best.  It is becoming clear to me that reading the Word of God does not build faith, instead it shows how Traditions of Men have twisted the bible to say what they wanted to say.  This is taken place either by mistranslation, twisting of the verses, or rationalization.  For whatever reason, the original intent of Jesus’ message has been garbled.  One of the most obvious signs Is That the Kingdom of God is divided.  And we all know what Jesus says about that:

Luke 11:17 Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them: “Any kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and a house divided against itself will fall. 

Posted in Contradictions, Gospel of John, Traditions of Men, Inerrancy - My Ass, Freewill, Readings | Print | 6 Comments »

August 22, 2009, 7:47 am by dc-agape.

I was going to post on the topic of how the teachings of Jesus and Pauline Christianity have enough differences that it is a source of why some people turn away from modern Christianity.  But from recent posts from BJ Olson I have determined that I am missing a crucial step between that post and the present.  Confidence is another reason that needs to be discussed.  I mean in the mathematical definition of percent confidence and the margin of error.

I have chosen the NIV Translation to read from for numerous reasons, but % confidence is one of them.  More of my reasons for this decision can be read here (my second post).  But maybe I should discuss what % confidence means.  Four levels of confidence occur.  I will briefly cover each one.

At the highest level of confidence is the 99.9% level.  This one is that almost on evidence is supported that disagrees with the hypothesis.  Gravity, the speed of light, the existence of sub-atomic particles, and other Theories of Science are at this level of confidence.  You now see that 100% confidence does not exist, it cannot exist.  If it existed humans would have tested every possible condition for the theory/hypothesis not to exist!  To say the least, religion (in all forms) does not reach this level of confidence.

The next highest level of confidence is the 99% level.  There would seem to be little difference between these two levels.  But in actuality there is a very large difference.  In fact, it is a ten-fold difference in confidence.  Many drugs on the market today use this level of confidence before the FDA allows the drug to be sold to the public.  To say the least, 99% confidence level is rigorously tested before anyone accepts it.  And, as with pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer is not the one that calculates the results…their own bias would influence the result (the desire to sell the product).  But this same level of confidence allows errors to occur 10 times as often. 

The next level of confidence is the 95% level.  This is the acceptable “gold standard” of most statistical data.  Pharmaceuticals need to prove that they are less than this level is reached in the effectiveness and safety of a new drug.  The state of Utah even explains this concept with great detail.  Robert Niles explains this quite well:

“Don’t overlook the fact that the margin of error is a 95 percent confidence interval, either.  That means that for every 20 times you repeat the poll, statistics say that one time you’ll get an answer that is completely off the wall.”

Anything below the 95% confidence level is what remains.  It is also considered to have a lot of uncertainty.  Just as the change from 99.9% to 99% increases the odds by a factor of 10 of error occurring, at the 90% level that increase is again 10 fold.  This means that at 90% confidence the chance of an error occurring is one in 10 tries. 

How does this relate to Atheism and religions?  It’s simple actually.  And an example is the Synoptic Problem.   Is there any reason to believe that one hypothesis is more likely to be correct than another?  No, each has strong reasoning and weak reasoning.  If you have up to nine different competing theories that means that only 1 in 9 is correct.  One out of the nine correlates to 61% confidence.  True you can weight a specific hypothesis, but will your criteria be for that weight?  Will you use your personal feelings?  That’s not good enough!  And “YHWH told me” indicates that you need to be on medication, because he did not tell everyone that.  In fact, “YHWH told me” is no better than a “gut feeling”.  Many people believe that the War in Iraq was a “YHWH told us to” scenario.  Was it?  Is war ever a “Christian” thing to do? 

I choose the NIV because of the larger a population the higher the percent confidence.  The NIV Committee on the Translation of the Bible held over 100 people from at least 13 denomination and five countries.  As a result this is the largest body to evaluate the translation of the Bible ever used.  It eliminates (or at least minimizes) the likely hood of personal bias.  One bias out of 100 people makes a confidence level of 98%.  Too say the least that is an acceptable risk that bias has taken place.  Of course, other bias can occur but this is off-set by the fact that more than 100 people were actually involved in the translation of the NIV.  Can any other Bible give that level of confidence?  The King James certainly cannot. 

Personal experience can also not be used for the reasons of confidence levels.  How confident are you that someone has told you the full truth?  That they have not left out even one iota of their own doubt, their own misgivings?  Sure they have remembered the events “clearly”, but does that mean that their memory is perfect?  Or was their memory influenced by the events prior to and after the event?  This of course, is why a single testimony is insufficient in the court of law!  Why should it be enough in religion?  Everyone seeing the same miracle works, if there is no natural explanation…but then we would have records of this happening.  Instead, when a miracle is investigated we find scams, miss-directions, and hopeful thinking.  That does not mean that miracles don’t happen (confident levels, remember) but it does limit the chance and the source!  How confident is the source of a “said” miracle?  Can we be certain that it is YHWH?  How certain? 

When you add that every religion believes in miracles and personal experiences, the confidence level drops even lower.  Which one is right?  Are any of them right?  How do we know, with any confidence which supernatural being is responsible?  There hinges the Atheist argument.   How confident are you and how can you prove your confidence level?  Atheism is the lack of belief (actual definition).  If certainty cannot be provided to a level of confidence that minimizes mistakes, then trust has not been developed, or worse trust is lost.

PS – One must prove the existence of their claim, for one cannot prove a non-existence.  Those making the claim that supernatural forces exist must not only prove the existence but must make the percent confidence level high enough that error does not exist.

Posted in My Beliefs, Inerrancy - My Ass, Becoming an atheist | Print | 7 Comments »

August 19, 2009, 7:26 am by dc-agape.

John Chapter 3:22 – 35

It is interesting that the segue into John the Baptist’s sermon on Jesus starts due to an argument about ceremonial washing.  Their question is about Jesus’ baptism verse John’s baptism.  Yet ceremonial washing, from the Jewish context, is not about redemption.  Ceremonial washing was a Tradition of Man (Mark 7:3, John 2:6) that it would seem John was teaching his disciples as baptism!  If he was not teaching this concept the argument would not have come up.  So even though John was teaching repentance baptism, he was still only considering it a Tradition of Man designed as a ceremonial washing. 

Their bigger gripe seemed to be that they were losing followers to Jesus!  This would indicate that John the Baptist expected this and accepted the outcome.  I find one of his apologies quite interesting:

John 3:31 “The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth.  The one who comes from heaven is above all.

Now other than John’s repetition the central line is quite telling.  Those of us from earth can only talk about what is here on earth!  This would mean that no one here on earth can speak about heaven or YHWH.  Yet many of our religious leaders do exactly that.  Yet they are not qualified to do so, not even the Apostles (especially Paul) are included in this realization.  Yet for some reason Pauline Christianity has superseded Jesus’ teachings!  I will be posting on this concept further this Saturday.

John the Baptist does continue the same line of teaching that Jesus used in the earlier part of the same chapter.  With very little variation.  The one question that arises is whether John (the author) is now with Jesus or with John the Baptist.  This, of course, is not important to the TrueBeliever™.  Their argument would be something along the lines that John was either still with John the Baptist, or that John returned to John the Baptist.  Isn’t funny how often the same name is used for different people, kinda like the author of the Gospel of Matthew and the Apostle Matthew?  It can also be quite confusing since surnames were not used, and only titles such as “the Baptist” or “Apostle” differentiate the different people with the same name. 

One other interesting topic is introduced in this section.  The location of John the Baptist’s ministry is actually documented.  This is the only Gospel that give a direct location, the Synoptic Gospel give a vague “Desert of Judea”.  Yet the Tradition of Man places John’s ministry closer to the Dead Sea!  Now it is possible that John the Baptist wondered up and down the Jordan, so that both are correct, yet John’s (the Apostle) account is much more accurate than that of the Synoptic writers.  And using John’s account makes the stories that he gives about Jesus’ initial ministry much more stream-line.  Especially when you look at the following chapter where Jesus is in Samaria (which is left out of the Synoptic Gospels).  Of course, John would focus on different things within the three to four years of Jesus’ ministry, but reading these from the perspective of a non-believer John’s seems to be a much better eyewitness than the Synoptic Gospels!  Which would make sense, since we know that neither the Gospel of Mark nor Luke were written by the actually followers of Jesus.  Instead, the Gospel of Mark was written by a disciple of Peter and Paul.  Whereas the Gospel of Luke was written by a disciple of Paul.  What this tells the Atheist is that the Tradition of Man that the Gospels were eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ life is a lie!  With how confusing the naming of people were in this period of time and the fact that certain names were used repeatedly, we cannot be certain that the author of the Gospel of Matthew was truly Levi the tax collector!  As a result, only the Gospel of John stands as an unbiased (everyone agrees) eyewitness of Jesus’ ministry.  Yet it is neither the focus nor the first book in the NT!  And as the issue of John the Baptist’s location of his ministry points out, the Tradition of Men has corrupted even this obvious source of data.

I, myself, had grown up with the idea that Jesus was baptized closer to the Dead Sea.  Yet John clearly indicates that this was not the case.  All because of the fallacy documented in the Synoptic Gospels that became a Tradition of Man!  No wonder Jesus despises the Traditions of Men and warns about false teachings so often…Yet would seem that even the Word of God has allowed many Traditions of Men to creep in (I have posted on the section in Mark that was added later and can be easily seen to be an addition).

Posted in Gospel of John, Inerrancy - My Ass, Readings | Print | 6 Comments »

August 16, 2009, 10:09 am by dc-agape.

John 1:35 – 50

In the later part of the first chapter John describes how Jesus called his first disciples.  Notice that they are not called the Apostles they are his disciples.  One should also notice that the calling of Andrew and Simon are not the same as in the Gospel of Mark.  This is a direct contradiction, which one can say was two different perspective…but that would be a lie.  These are two distinct events that happened in two separate locations and at different times.  Let me explain more closely.

In the Gospel of John, the calling of Andrew and an unnamed disciple (John?) occurred the day after Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist at the site of the lower Jordan.  In fact, both Andrew and Simon were listening to John the Baptist (John 1:35-42).  And Simon (Peter) was brought to Jesus by Simon directly.  This is in conflict with the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke:

Mark 1:16-18 As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fisherman.  “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”  At once they left their nets and followed him.

The two stories of Simon and Andrew are not the same and cannot be explained by different perspectives.  In the Gospel of John, Andrew told Peter after meeting Jesus.  In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus met both men at the same time.  In the Gospel of John, Simon was not fishing he was listening to (and possibly a disciple of) John the Baptist and Peter was not even there.  Now it is true that within a day Jesus could have walked from the lower Jordan to the Sea of Galilee, it is only about 65 miles.  Even the elevation change would make this an easy stroll: the Dead Sea (near where John was baptizing) is below sea level (at 1,349ft) and the Sea of Galilee is still below sea level (but at between 600-700 ft) elevation.  But the question is whether Jesus followed the river north (more like 200 miles for the river is not a straight line) or did he take the shortest route (as the crow flies).  Most people only walk at about 4 miles an hour; to make the direct trip would have taken Jesus 16 hours.  He most likely did not take the direct route and most likely stopped (or at least was slowed) by the people following him.  So the two stories do not match up.  I am sure a good apologist can explain this seeming gape in the Word of God.

Unfortunately, it is not that easy.  Before Jesus leaves for Galilee he meets Philip!  So as it turns out Jesus stayed in the region of the lower Jordan for at least two days.  Philip goes and finds Nathanael.  This is the only account of how Philip and Nathanael become disciples.  The Synoptic Gospels are silent on this passage and instead describe how James and John are called to follow Jesus.  This passage is left out of the Gospel of John, so no comparison can be made. 

Now as I pointed out earlier, a good apology is required to explain the different stories.  I am sure that I will receive one, but it cannot be the different perspective line.  It should also not be the “they remembered it differently”, because that would mean that only the Gospel of John is correct, since we are to assume that it is he that is the first disciple called!  Otherwise, one must assume that Peter was the first disciple called (from the Synoptic Gospels).  A third apology that I have heard is “the disciples all wanted to be the first, so they lied about who was called first”.  In this line of thinking, it is OK that they lie in the Word of God, because they were not saved yet!  But of course, Jesus had already completed his existence here on earth by the time these Gospels were written.  So the now called Apostles did lie, if one takes this apology.  In the end, one of the twelve had to be called first!  If the Gospels cannot determine who was first with clarity…the human fallibility at recalling the events of Jesus’ life are called into question.

And that is the crux of the Atheist’s view of the Gospels.  If they are eyewitness accounts the events should be similar both in time and location.  Slight variations can be accepted, gross errors (like the events at the end of John 1) are imperfections in what Christians claim is the “perfect” Word of God.  This then brings another apology: man wrote the Bible from the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.  In this apology, it is man’s fallacy that makes the errors and not YHWH.  But if we are to accept this apology, how do we know which parts of the Bible are true and which are “mistakes”.  Worse, we must interpret the Bible for ourselves…meaning that our own human “sinfulness” will corrupt the meaning of “true” parts of the Word of God.  The only acceptable outcome is to believe the entire Bible, with only literal interpretation.  Yet there are horrific inconsistencies, such as the end of Gospel of John chapter 1.  Many more exist that cannot allow the literal interpretation of the Word of God to be accurate.  So we are stuck with the Word of God is fallible (due to the writers and editors through time), we cannot determine which verses are “true” (due to our own “sinful” nature), and trusting another human to interpret for us only introduces the “sinful” nature of a different person.  Yet in the end, the only apology that can be used is “the Holy Spirit will guide the willing”!  This too has problems, for I have already posted on the subject of freewill and the Calvinist argument is a valid possibility.

Posted in Gospel of John, Contradictions, Inerrancy - My Ass, Freewill, Readings | Print | 3 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 »

August 5, 2009, 5:37 pm by dc-agape.

Once again the Usual Suspects have made an appearance.  This time, I must admit, my Christian commenter has at least read more than one post!  It is obvious that he has not read all the pertinent posts, but at least he tried.  Unfortunately, he has used the same old arguments that have little meaning or effect.

To begin with he does claim that my linking petty vandalism to Christianity is weak.  In this comment:

What does someone breaking into your car have to do with the Christian faith? You are missing a few steps in your argument. Like were the people who broke into your car born again? I think not.

Of course he uses the “born again” distinction.  He uses to imply that a “Real” Christian would not do such a thing.  To the non-Christian point of view, this is a red herring.  What is the difference between calling yourself a Christian and being a Christian?  When 82% of US citizens claim to be Christian, the vandalism I reported was most likely done by a Christian!  When you consider that Tennessee is in the Bible Belt and is a religiously conservative state, the likelihood of the criminal being a Christian becomes nearly 100%.  Two questions become apparent at this point.  First, why does YHWH do nothing about the “false” Christians?  In the OT he killed those you angered him.  Now days he is much more forgiving.  How can you not say that YHWH has changed?  Second, why are TrueChristians^TM attempting to force their perceived religion on the US?  This will only create more “false” Christians.  Shouldn’t the TrueChristians^TM be more active in removing the “false” Christians?  That is what Paul tells Timothy in 1^st Timothy 1:3-11.

My Usual Suspect continues with the Atheism is a faith argument:

You conclusions are received by faith and therefore your atheism is based on faith not reason.

Many Atheists have refuted this non-sense.  Notice also that even though I respectfully capitalize Christianity, Atheism is not given the same respect!  Even though my commenter wants Atheism to be a faith, he cannot bring himself to show the respect that a religion is given.  But that is beside the point, can you have faith in nothing?  Do adults have faith that Santa Claus does not exist?  Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist?  Of course not!  Yet for some reason these TrueChristians^TM believe that knowing that YHWH is a human creation must be based on faith.  This is similar to claiming that believing that little green men do not live on Mars is based on faith, instead of the knowledge that no proof of life has been discovered on Mars.

My Usual Suspect’s latest argument is that I was never a TrueChristian^TM and so could not fall away. 

You cannot have a de-conversion You either are or you are not. You either receive or do not receive. I respectfully disagree with your thought that Atheism is not a faith. If is was not then (on emotional level) you would not be offended when someone does not capitalize it out of respect. It is most certainly a belief system and belief systems are based in faith.

This of course is easily refuted by referring to the Word of God:

Heb 6:4-6 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

The author of this Book (either Barnabas or Apollos) makes it quite clear that if Christianity is true, followers can be lost.  The author also makes it clear that once this occurs there is no turning back.  Jesus also makes it clear that one “sin” cannot be forgiven:

Matt 12:31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.  Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age of in the age to come.

So the Word of God makes it quite clear that even those who did believe at one time can “fall away”.  This of course brings up a very good question.  Why does one “fall away”?  The Christian apologist will claim the “sinful heart of man”.  But is this the only reason?  Of course not!  When YHWH fails to provide the promises that he has made in the Word of God, it becomes clear that the cornerstone of the entire religion is false.  When the Word of God, itself, contradicts either itself or the observable world, can the Bible be taken seriously?  Would an all-powerful, all-knowing supernatural being lie about himself and the world he created just to test how gullible we puny humans are?

Posted in Contradictions, The Usual Suspects, Inerrancy - My Ass, Becoming an atheist | Print | 39 Comments »

August 5, 2009, 3:58 pm by dc-agape.

Exodus 29

This entire chapter is about preparing Aaron and his sons to be the high priests of the Israelite people forever.  And I do mean forever…

Exodus 29:9 …The priesthood is theirs by a lasting ordinance. …

Yet YHWH has obviously changed his mind since this was written.  As a result, this means that YHWH is not consistent, he is not unchangeable, and he is influenced by the Traditions of Men.  This chapter, more than any I have read yet, proves that YHWH is a fabrication of Man and not the “Supreme Being” that for some bizarre reason the Traditions of Man have made him.

Most of the chapter is about the sacrifices that must be made to sanctify and ordain Aaron and his sons.  But it clearly indicates that every generation after Aaron will be treated in the exact same manner:

Exodus 29:29-30 Aaron’s sacred garments will belong to his descendants so that they can be anointed and ordained in them.  The son who succeeds him as priest and comes to the Tent of Meeting to minister in the Holy Place is to wear those seven days.

This does not occur in our time, either for Christians or for Jews.  No one can claim direct descent from Aaron.  Yet the position of High Priest was to be hereditary.  Why has an all-powerful, all-knowing YHWH allowed his own “lasting ordinance” to decay into nothing?  Why would the Word of God say that it was to be Aaron’s bloodline that ruled Israel if YHWH knew that in the future things would change?  If Christians are right (and Jesus has replaced Aaron), why has Judaism lasted?  But even before this, why does Jesus not come from Aaron’s bloodline?  Did YHWH change or did man change YHWH?

Two burnt offerings were to be made daily for “the generations to come”.  In the morning a year old lamb with 2 quarts (1.8L) of flour, 1 quart (0.9L) of fine olive oil, and 1 quart of wine (0.9L).  This was to be repeated in the evening.  Now this brings future events into question.  Soon the Israelites will piss YHWH off and he will make them wander in the desert for 40 years (Num 14:30).  Now this would mean that Aaron would have to have 29,200 year old lambs to obey this “lasting ordinance”.  This would mean that the number of adult sheep was well in to the 1,000’s at least.  Which creates another problem, in Num 20:1-13, the Israelites had no water.  How could they keep thousands of sheep alive and breeding without water?  There would have been nothing to feed the adult sheep.  And anyone with a biology major or trained in the upkeep of livestock knows that without water and food the young die first!  There is something more difficult for the Israelites to obtain, for those forty years is the flour, oil, and wine.  Remember, they ate manna during this time (Exodus 16:35).  Why were they eating manna if they had access to 60,000 quarts of flour?  Or is this why they had to eat manna, because YHWH demanded they use their flour for sacrifices?

Even though Christians do not like to think about these questions, the questions remain.  The story of the Exodus just does not line up.  What YHWH required and the resources available are in conflict.  What is reported in the Word of God as the complaints by the Israelites and the sacrifices required to satisfy YHWH bloodlust cannot be justified.  I will continue posting on this topic as I read through the Pentateuch, since it is repeated in almost every chapter of the first five Books of the Old Testament.  I hope that someone can give me a rational explanation of how YHWH’s requirements and the documented struggles of the Israelites can be justified.  But do not expect me to believe that “YHWH just did it” explains away this problem!  It is impossible for shepherds to have livestock and not have meat to eat (Num 11:4).  It is impossible for shepherds to have livestock and no water to drink (Exodus 15:22, 17:1).  Remember that there were more than 600,000 men over the age of 20 in the Israelite assembly.  Water and food (both meat and vegetable) would be required for more than 2,000,000 people plus the food stocks for the livestock!

Posted in Contradictions, Exodus, Inerrancy - My Ass, Readings | Print | 2 Comments »

July 30, 2009, 7:22 am by dc-agape.

Exodus 28:31-43

Here is the last of the bling that the priest were to where each and every time they entered the Temple.  This post covers robe, the turban, the sash, and the undergarments.  It seems like a lot compared to my other posts but the only truly interesting one is the robe.

The robes were to full length and made from blue yarn.  YHWH is kind enough to explain that they will need holes for the head and arms, but requires them to be made of one piece so they cannot rip.  Can you imagine how many of these had to be made for each high priest during their lifetime?  We know to begin with that only Aaron need this specific robe, but one of his sons would inherit the title of high priest.  Would the robe that Aaron wore fit his son?  Would the robe fit Aaron his entire life?  Did Aaron have more than one of these robes?  I ask because blue dye is not as expensive as purple, but it is still one of the most expensive.  Indigo bushes are used to harvest this dye.  No other source, in nature, is available. Not only is the dye expensive but the workmanship of the hem is also exquisite.  Alternating pomegranates and gold bells were to surround the hem.  Can you imagine the sound of those bells as Aaron went from station to station?  And he had to where whenever he was in the Temple. 

The tunics and the turban were to be made of pure linen as were the undergarments.  Not nearly as impressive as Aaron’s garments but still linen is not the cheapest material.  The last bit of bling that Aaron was to have was the “pin” for the turban.  Across his forehead was to be a gold plate attached to the turban.  No size is defined but it was to be engraved with a seal that said “Holy to the Lord”.  So it must have been large enough to be visibly read by on-lookers.

This was to be a “lasting ordinance” for the descendents of Aaron.  So which of Aaron’s descendants is carrying out this ordinance today?  What, you mean that no one is doing today?  But it was to be a lasting ordinance, doesn’t that mean forever?  So it is true that YHWH changes!

Posted in Exodus, Inerrancy - My Ass, Readings | Print | 25 Comments »