The New Testament's Problems
We will begin this section by simply looking at some of the problems in the gospels themselves. Now, I could have
went through the entire old testament also and came up with massive contridictions starting from page one but one - I don't
have tons of space on a free web page and two- since we are mainly discussing Christians it seems prudent to address those
issues which would be the utmost importance to them first. If room and time allow, I'll try to come back with at least
some starting points for those interested in such work.
Who's Family is This Anyway?
As I type the first example which stretches all the way from Genesis to Luke I'm trying to remember the reason given
as to why some of these contridictions exsisted in the first place. I know that we talked a lot about oral histories and that
the sisters, fathers and lay teachers talked about some small problems in this tradition.
The first example of one of these 'small errors' so to speak, is in reality an almost unimportant one. If
it hadn't been made by the author of Luke, (the gospel is alleged to be written by Luke himself who was a doctor at the time
and a higher education level then the others), I wouldn't have evern bothered. But since one would assume that Luke
would be highly educated due to his job and place in society, one would think that he could get the following correct:
". . .son of Shelah, son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad. . ." (Lk 3:36 JB)
Compare this with:
"Arphaxaed became the father of Shelah. . ." (Gen 10:24 JB)
For those familar with Luke, he suddenly decides to go through Jesus' ancestory and spends a solid paragraph naming all
these people. It shows that he has a working knowledge of his people's history and that he should have gotten this correct.
It also begs the question of why was this never corrected? Surely someone, somewhere must have known the error, unless, perhaps
Gensis wasn't readily available at the time. Just a thought.
An even more important question is why does this matter? Christians believe that he was born of a virgin that was
given a child direct from God. So Jesus actually wouldn't share any of this lineage of his human father Joesph, now
would he? His lineage would be - Jesus son of Yahweh. End of story. And we know this lineage is connected
to Joesph because the Hebrews regarded the blood line as passing through males only. (Something I will never understand
since the baby is feed by the mother's blood for nine months. Yet again an issue for another day, alas).
If these gospels were directly written after the apostles saw Jesus rise from the dead, wander around and ascend into
heaven, then why is this flawed Genealogy in there in the first place? Wouldn't they have known at this time that Jesus
was God incarnate? Unless of course the orignal gospels were written without the knowledge of Jesus' asscension into
heaven and were later doctored into revealing as such. This is a theory that will be discussed in depth a little later
on.
Joesphs Mysterious Father
Let's see if we can tell which one of these two names in the following two passages was really Joesph's father:
"When he started to teach, Jesus was about thirty yearsold, being the son, as it was thought, of Joseph son of Heli.
. ." (Lk 3:23-24 JB)
". . .and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary; of her was born Jesus who is called Christ." (Mt 1:16
JB)
This one is of particular interest to me, and I beleive it deserves a few minutes discussion.
First, who should we trust? It's already been proven that Luke's had some problems in the family history already.
But Mathew, as show in the previous page, had some extraneous information about Jesus' family, including his blood brothers!
So who is to believed?
I really don't know the answer, but what I do know is that there is more going on here then just the mistake in names.
First off, look at Luke's passage. It does not say that Joseph is Jesus' father. What it does say that it assumed
at the time that this man was. We have so little reference to Joseph to begin with, both in and out of the bible.
For the most part it seems he was just tossed in so that Mary would be able to have a husband and not look like she was an
slut (excuse my langauge, but I do believe this was a looked down upon attribute unlike today's times) A woman wandering
around with no husband and with child would have been in some serious trouble, if not killed. Joseph is not mentioned,
to the best of my knowledge, outside of the verses of Jesus' youth. Even when Christ's brothers and mother show up to
discourage his ministry, Joseph is not around.
Did Joseph actually exist? Was Mary actually married to him in the first place?
Another interesting difference is looking at the text of the two family histories. In Luke's we find that everyone
is mentioned as being the 'son of' some one, and no mothers or wives listed. Then in Mathew's, everyone is listed as
'father of' some one and there are a few notes about certain mothers. Usually, such as in the case of Ruth, they are
well know and/or important to the countries history themselves. I do find the mention of so and so's mother a bit odd
here, especially since the line is traced back through the fathers only and it wouldn't have mattered on bit who the mother
was.
It get's stranger. I believe the mother thing was setting up for the inclusion of Mary into this family tree.
This rings a bell for me tht this is not authentic, and was later added. Mary is not, however, listed as being the mother
of Jesus. She is listed as being married to Joesph. No where else is the wife mentioned.
Nor would she have been considered important. And to top it off, this passage does not say that Joseph was the father
of Jesus. Rather it gives Mary all the credit, thus breaking the centuries long tradition! Because of this fact,
and the fact that Jesus is refered to as Christ in this passage, it leaves me to wonder if this passage as a whole is authentic.
Why is the word Christ important here? In the first part of Mathew, which discusses the nativity (which is another
addition) and such, the word Christ does seem to pop up here and there. Then when the writing turns to Jesus' ministry
the usage of the word stops. Cold turkey so to speak. Even when Jesus is raised from dead, he is not called the
Christ! This glaring problem ques the reader to the fact that the whole first part, was an addition later on by the Church.
Especially since by the time the Church really got underway Mary was seen as a influential character, and was written in as
such.
(There are books out there that discus who Mary was and how much of her written life is true in the gospels.
If one was to just look back over the Church history involving Mary, especially in the Catholic Church, it is obivious
that her story has grown into a quasi-legend at the least).
In the end, if I was forced to choose which one I would trust, I would go with Luke's account. It follows tradition,
stays consistent and doesn't seem to add anything extra, although as we've seen there are mistakes in this account to.
What Was Up With Judas?
One of the most interesting and quirky parts of the story of Jesus is that of Judas. Who was Judas really?
And why was running around betraying Jesus anyway? If Jesus really was running around crying out about how he was the
son of God and such, one would think that you wouldn't want to double-cross the man if your one of his followers. I
believe that in order of the whole rising from the dead thing to work, the needed to be a betrayer and one that would fulfill
the 'prophecy' of Jesus at their passover as well as another 'prophecy' in the old testament. I do not believe that
this was ever part of the real story, and that Jesus didn't see his death as part of the plan. That in all actuality
he thought the end of the world was coming and expected it before his physical death. Later on it was Paul that brought
the story back to life.
But anyway, here's a real booboo in Mathew that shows the extent of this problem with Judas:
"And they took the thirty silver pieces, the sum of which the precious One was priced by children of Israel, and they
gave him for the potter's field just as the Lord directed me." (Mt 27:10 JB)
- Number one: if Jesus was really this big of a problem to the Sanhedrin, why was his ransom so little to begin with?
- Number two: pieces of silver were no longer used as actually money at the time of Jesus! It was silver and gold
dinarii. One would think, that living during this time, the author would know this, and would instead make a paralell
in his attempt to fulfull prophecy.
- Number three: this so called prophecy is not anywhere in Jeremiah. Just a littler problem. (It's quoted below
from the correct source)
- Number four: The passage referred to is not a prophecy whatsoever. It is instead what we talked about before, about
forcing prophecy on to passages that fulfill one's need. The actual passage is below:
" I then said to them: 'If you think it right, give me my wages; if not never mind.' And they weighed out my wages, thrity
shekels (peices) of silver. But Yahweh told me, 'Throw it into the treasury. . .'" (Zach 11:13-14 JB)
Does anyone see a prophecy at all in the above passage? Because if so let me know. This passage in reality
has to do with events happening at this in the writer's life. Although the sum is being referred to as the price of
Yahweh in the rest of passage, it does not say anywhere that this sum would be paid again for the 'One' as Mathew put it.
Once again this is an example of a prophecy that didn't really exist what so ever. Even the monetary units are glaring
incorrect!
But we are not done with poor Judas yet!
The Death of Judas
If you're like me, then you probably heard the story of Judas hanging himself after realizing that he had betrayed an innocent
man. As an adult, this story makes a lot less sense then it did as a child. When one of my classmates asked why
Judas had turned Jesus in, in the first place, we were told that that was just the way God planned it so that Jesus would
be able to save us from our sins. She told us the Judas would be cursed and would end up in eternal punishment.
I struggled with this for a long time. I didn't understand why God would set someone up to do something for Him and
then punish him forever because of something out of that person's control!
What's even weirder, as I found out later on, is that there isn't even a consenus on how Judas died in the first place!
Good old Mathew starts off this controversy:
"When he found that Jesus had been condemned, Judas his betrayer was filled with remorse and took the thirty silver peices
back to the chief priest and elsder. 'I have sinned'; he said, 'I have betrayed innocent blood'. 'What is that to us?'
they replied. 'That is your concern.' And flinging down the silver pieces in the sanctuary he made off and went
and hanged himself." (Mat 27:3-6 JB)
To give Mathew the benefit of the doubt here for a moment, in both Zach. and his account the money did go to a potter's
field. But that does not make Zach. any more of a prophecy! It casts doubt onto this whole account. Why
did Judas betrayer of Jesus, do all this in first place? It seems like a story where all the loose ends are tied up,
and Judas got what he deserved.
Another interesting question is why wouldn't the Sanhedrin just take the money back? They termed it blood money later
on in the passage. Why? Judas had told them this, and claimed that it had been used to kill an innocent man.
The Sanhedrin certainly didn't agree with this. They had helped kill Jesus in the first place. So why just not
take the money back and do something else with it? Once again, this passage seems to contridict the tradition and the
surrounding events that it was written into.
To makes matters even worse, there is a second account of Judas' death. I remember finding it by accident years ago.
I didn't like to read Acts very much and was simply doing some prep work for a class when I came across the passage.
I couldn't believe that this man was the same Judas of the gospels, but with a little research I found that it was.
I'll start a little before the actual passage, to help give context to this unbelievable problem:
"Brothers, the passage of scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit, speaking through David, fortells the
fate of Judas, who offered himself as a guide to the men who arrested Jesus - after having been one of our number actually
sharing this ministry of ours. As you know he bought a field with the money he was paid for his crime. He
fell headlong and burst open, his entrail poured out. Everybody in Jerusalem heard about it and the field came to be
called the Bloody Acre. . ." (Acts 1: 16-19 JB)
For a little background, the Acts were writen by Luke, and in this passage Peter is speaking to a somewhat large crowd
of followers. In this writing, Luke shows that Judas was disembowled! That's very very different then being hanged.
In fact, Luke really gets into detail about the entrails and the opened skull. Not only is this completely different
then what the gospels had to say, but in this writing, a prophecy is hinted at. That Judas had to do what he did in
order for everything to work out okay for the rest of the world. This would mean that Judas probably was being directed
by the hand of God or fate, and didn't have any control over his own actions, and shouldn't be judged for them. (It also negates
the idea of free will, but what are you going to do?) But judged he is, and is seen as an enemy of the Lord to boot.
Another interesting thing about this passage is that a Psalm is quoted:
"May their camp be reduced to ruin, and their tents be left unoccupied." (Ps 69:25 JB)
I've never been able to figure out a direct correlation between this verse and Judas' death, even considering that he is
an enemy of the Lord. Interestingly enough, there are more suitable verses directly underneath this one, that actually
seem more connected to the subject matter! I don't know if this verse from Ps. was the prophecy that Luke is hinting
at here in these writings. If it was, I don't see it. If someone else has a line on this, drop me a note.
All that aside though, it is clearly obvious that the accounts of Judas are clearly in conflict.
Why is this important you ask? I see this as one of the MOST important problems because of the person it involves.
The betrayer of the Son of God. Wouldn't his death by a memorable thing? Something that all would know about?
I believe that if one was going to take one over the other, it would have to be the account in Acts. Mathew has two
times the problems - inconsistent death, AND inconsistent prophecy proclaimation.
In fact, for those that are interested or have too much spare time, email me with the way you think
Judas actually died. I'll post the results at a future date.
Women, Easter and a Tomb
There are many problems in the modren world surrounding the holiday of Easter itself. The very fact that it is chosen
on moon cycles is disconcerting. Although it seems many Christians are not aware of this. For those of us in the
know, this is why Ash Wednesday and the actual date of Easter move from year to year. Also the whole forty day period
that lies between these dates doens't include Sundays. (I believe it also leaves out Saturday, but I haven't gotten around
to counting yet, so I'll let you know) A good trick to keep in mind when you've given up something and you just
can't live without it. You only really have to go a few days at a time.
All this aside there are some serious problems going on with the whole finding the tomb empty story. I feel that
these are very self explaniatory, and show that these accounts were most likely added at a later date. The elements of each
gospel's account and the corresponding verses for easy access will be listed. I see the problems between all these accounts
as damning evidence to any Christian experience.
Mathew (28)
- Guards at the tomb
- Mary Magdala and the other Mary (many assume that this is the mother of Jesus, but it is strange that the text just doesn't
say that)
- Earthquake
- Angel who rolls back the stone and informs them that the tomb is empty
- Meet Jesus at the tomb
- Jesus visits with the rest of them and teaches the sign of the cross
- And we are supposed to swallow that the guards that saw the angel come down and declare the son of God had risen and saw
the empty tomb, took a payment from the Sanhedrin to say that the body had been stolen. Really. If I saw something
like that, I would at least talk about to someone close. This is a weak excuse as to why we do not have the guards testimony
or why they did not convert.
Mark (16)
- No guards
- Mary of Magdala, Mary the mother of James and Salome (one could argue that this second Mary was really Jesus' mother because
James was his brother, but that full argument is for a different day).
- Stone already rolled back
- Young man in tomb in white robe declaring that Christ was alive. Women flee from tomb.
- Jesus appears to Mary of Magdala later on, and casts out seven demons
- Appears to the 11
- Teaches how to cast out demons, heal etc.
- Ascends into heaven
Luke (24)
- Unnamed women wander to the tomb (later named as Mary of Magdala, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women)
- No guards
- Stone already rolled away
- The tomb is empty
- A man in dazzaling cloths appears at their SIDE
- Announces that Jesus is alive
- Apostles don't believe the women
- Peter wanders over to the tomb, finds only the binding clothes
- Jesus appears on the road Emmaus
- Jesus appears to the eleven
- Proclaims that the prophecies have been fulfilled.
- Full description of the ascension (he apparently just lifts off outside of Bethany. You would think that someone
else in the area would have noticed a man floating in the sky since he was carried bodily)
John (20-21)
- No guards
- Mary of Magdala by herself.
- Finds stone alreayd rolled back (how was she going to roll the stone back by herself anyhow?) and runs to tell Peter
- So Peter and John (this is the assumption concering this passage) go.
- Found the linen clothes, the head binding was rolled up in a place by itself and they believed that he had risen based
on this.
- Mary of Magdala was for some reason hanging around outside the tomb crying, with Peter and John. Two angels sitting
where Jesus's boday had been and has a full conversation with them in which they inform her that Jesus is not dead.
- Jesus appears to the disciples except Thomas
- Thomas does not believe and demands to feel the nail holes (why the risen Lord still has the nail holes in his now perfectly
healthy body is another mystery all together).
- Jesus makes a nice statment about believing without seeing that is to haunt a lot of us.
- Holy Spirit descends upon them eighty days later.
- Jesus again appeared, this time on the shore of Tiberias
- Jesus gives Peter the keys to the keydom etc and tells him to "Feed my sheep." (the feeding of the sheep part reminds
me of The Little Prince but that's probably just me)
- Prophecy of how Peter would die (remember the fable goes that he died upside down. Historians are having difficulty
finding evidence that confirms Peter's exsistence, let alone his death in this manner!)
- No bodily ascension
- And finally, as a side note, check into the fact that John's gospel seems to end two different times. (In mine, I have
two different sections called 'conclusion', following chapters 20 and 21. Many have argued that these are add ons, each
at a different time and by a different person.)
I thought, since we were comparing a lot of information, that these types of short lists that hightlight main events would
be easier to follow along. As you can see, these events don't match at all! I didn't leave things out nor does
the translation much matter. The wording will be mildly different (well sometimes amazingly different depending on the
version being used) but the events themselves will not change.
This, to me, is the single most damaging argument to Christianity. The resurrection is supposed to be the crux of
the whole faith, yet no one even agrees on what happened. Later on Paul claims that Jesus appears to a whole mass of
people (although names, dates and places are not directly mentioned throughing this into serious question) which is not mentioned
in the gospels. An even more damaging question to ask is - were these accounts of the risen Lord really written at the
same time as the rest of the gospel? Were they actually part of the Lord's life in any way shape or form? Sadly,
probably not.
