Not long ago, fellow blogger John Zande wrote an excellent post titled “Jesus Christ: Just Not Worth a Sheet of Paper.” It’s actually not as derogatory as the title suggests. Some apologists have suggested that the reason we have no contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life is that paper was so expensive. That’s the argument John deals with in his post.
His post is great — you should read it. But what I actually want to write about is one of the comments that someone left on it. Diana of NarrowWayApologetics.com left a lengthy comment that I decided to include here in its entirety. I identified with it a bit. It reminded me of some of the thoughts I used to have as a Christian:
One of the main reasons people believed Paul was because he explained the reason for Jesus coming into the world. His teachings were amazing. They explained how Jesus “fulfilled the law and the prophets.” I wrote this comment in response to John Zande’s comment on my blog last night. Forgive me for posting it here. Just ignore if you don’t want to read it.
“This passage about Jesus fulfilling the law and the prophets (Matthew 5:17-20) is one of the main reasons I believe the Gospel message. The incredible ways that Jesus did this are beyond human ability to create. I don’t think any mystery writer could have weaved together the incredible ways Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets.
I know this post is long, so if you want to skip the parts between the dotted lines, I understand. I just wrote it for anyone who might be interested.
———
First of all, there are many ways Jesus fulfilled the law. In fact, believers are constantly astounded by how intricately Jesus fulfilled the law.One way he fulfilled the law was by fulfilling the Sabbath. The Sabbath was the seventh day of rest that the Jews were commanded to obey. Jesus fulfilled the law of the Sabbath by becoming our rest for us. (Hebrews 4:9-11) He said his burden was light and his yoke was easy. Christians no longer practice the Sabbath. They worship on Sunday, rather than Saturday. They enter into his rest and no longer do religious works for salvation. (They are saved by grace through faith.)
Jesus fulfilled the law when he became the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. His death on the cross was similar to the Exodus story, which described the lamb, whose blood would be placed on the doorposts of the home, causing the death angel to pass over that home. (Hebrews 9)
Jesus fulfilled the law when he became the unleavened bread of the Exodus story. Leaven is a symbol of sin and false teaching (1 Cor. 5:6-8, Matt. 16:12). Jesus fulfilled this feast by being sinless and being the TRUTH.
Another way that Jesus fulfilled the law was by becoming a tithe (firstfruits) for us. (Leviticus 23:10) He fulfilled the tithe by becoming the firstfruits from the dead when he was resurrected. (1 Cor. 15:20) Christians are no longer bound by a tithe, instead we are told to be cheerful givers. We are also promised that there will be a resurrection for us because of what Christ did for us.
Jesus fulfilled the law when he became a light to the Gentiles. In the law of Moses, the people were commanded to leave behind the gleanings (or leftovers) of the harvest for the poor and aliens. (Lev. 23:22) This would be fulfilled at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down and the gospel was preached in all languages, offering salvation to all, not just the Jews. (Acts 10:34-35)
These fulfillments of the law were actually the first 4 feasts that would be celebrated every year by the Jews. They would be celebrated according to the seasons. The feasts celebrated during the early rains were the fulfilled at the time of the early church. Three more feasts are waiting to be fulfilled at the end of the age (or at the time of the latter rains). These three feasts are the feast of trumpets (representing the return of Jesus), the feast day of atonement (representing the salvation of the Jews), and the feast of tabernacles (representing the time when we will all be with the Lord).
There are so many other ways in which Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets. And none of it has to do with Jesus expecting or commanding Christians to obey the law to perfection. It has to do with how it’s impossible for anyone to keep the law. That is why Jesus came. How could any human conceive of a way to have even a made-up, fictional character fulfill all these things? And I’ve barely scratched the surface of the way Jesus accomplished these things.
The greatest concern I feel burdened about is how to convey the magnificence of what I’m trying to explain. He was the manna from heaven. He was the living water. He was the high priest in the order of Melchizedek. He is the “I AM.” He is the Word become flesh. He became a slave for us. (Philippians 2:7) He became a curse for us. He became sin for us, so we could become righteous before God. He offers us mercy because his blood was sprinkled on the mercy seat. All of this is explained in the scriptures.
I haven’t even begun to explain the way Jesus fulfilled the prophets.
——–
The story of Jewish history and the giving of the law is actually a way to PROVE the reality of God’s plan for the salvation of humanity through Jesus Christ. One random fact doesn’t prove anything, but the cumulative effect of ALL the fulfillments makes the Bible a miraculous book. This is why some of the brightest and best minds in the history of the world have loved and received Jesus. It isn’t a decision based on emotion alone, but a decision based on knowledge. And the more I learn, the more I am in awe of what God did and how he accomplished it.”
To say that the story of Jesus was just created by pasting together myths, fictional narratives, sayings, and borrowed phrases (as Ken Humphreys does) is a ridiculous claim because only a Christ could have conceived of a Christ. Who could have created the amazing Jesus portrayed in the Gospels and explained further by Paul?
Of course, I now see that there are several problems with this line of thinking. In 2015, Star Wars Episode 7 is supposed to hit theaters. Will it shock anyone if the movie syncs up perfectly with the previous 6? The thing is, when there is already an established back story, it’s not impossible to construct a narrative that builds upon it. The fact that we as readers see the parallels between the stories of Jesus and events in the Old Testament is not an accident. The authors intended for us to see those parallels, and there’s no reason why they couldn’t have invented them — even if Jesus was a real person.
Matthew is one of the best books to look to for evidence of this. Matthew is the only book that tells of Jesus’ family fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod’s infanticide. Both events, fleeing to Egypt and the infanticide, seem to be inspired by Matthew’s reading of the Old Testament. Hosea 11:1 says, “out of Egypt, I called my son.” Matthew says that this prophecy was fulfilled when Jesus’ family returned after fleeing to Egypt. But when you read the entire chapter of Hosea 11, it’s very evident that the passage has nothing to do with the Messiah, but is simply talking about Israel’s period of captivity in Egypt.
Matthew also claims that Herod’s slaughter of infants in Bethlehem was to fulfill this prophecy:
A voice is heard in Ramah,
lamentation and bitter weeping.
Rachel is weeping for her children;
she refuses to be comforted for her children,
because they are no more.
But once again, when we read all of Jeremiah 31, this was no prophecy at all. The chapter is talking about Israel’s captivity in Assyria. Nothing else.
The author of Matthew took these passages and used them to add parallels to the story about Jesus’ birth. It didn’t require magic or divine inspiration to do that — it only took knowledge of these passages. Just like the people working on Star Wars 7 don’t need divine intervention to let them know about Darth Vader.
Diana ends her comment by asking who could have created such a compelling story. Who could have created Christ? But why couldn’t we ask this about anyone? Who could have created Darth Vader? He’s quite a compelling character himself. Who could have created someone as magnificent as Santa Claus? Or Paul Bunyan? Or Achilles? Or King Arthur? Just asking this question doesn’t really mean anything. If Jesus never existed, then someone did just create his story. Or if he was a real person, but not divine, then his story was embellished. We have to draw our conclusions about Jesus based on the evidence, including the fact that Matthew seemed to feel the need to create “prophecies” to give Jesus credibility.
Finding Truth 
Laurie, you simply can’t say that you believe in all of those things and still maintain, as you have, that you’re not a theist – the two concepts are as mutually repellent as poles on a magnet.
Could you clarify please:
And which canonization? The Jewish canonization that took place between 400 BCE and 400 CE, that decided which of the zillion “books” floating around the Levant, would be included in the Tanakh? The Catholic canonization, deciding which books would be included in the Bible? Or the Protestant decision to leave out parts of the Catholic Bible when compiling the KJV, such as the books of the Maccabees?
You say,
I won’t pursue this issue further (the proof thing), because I have offered you proof that the Torah was not written at the time the events occurred, but hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of years later, which you have denied, but not shown proof otherwise – proof that Noah’s flood never happened, which you have not refuted – proof from a respected biblical archaeologist that Abe, Ike and Jake never existed, which you have not refuted – the same archaeologist’s assertion, along with many others, that no evidence of Moses or a 40-year camping trip in the Sinai ever happened, and you have offered no proof to the contrary, so while asking you for proof makes for pleasant conversation, it does nothing in terms of getting to the root of the issue. Expecting actual proof from you has turned into an exercise in futility.
I realize you’re busy, I really do, but if you have time to make statements, I would think you would have time to add evidence to support them. I think you don’t provide sources, because you know that the validity of those sources will be scrutinized and discredited.
I’ve said it before – atheists think, theists believe.
LikeLike
I neglected to address that, sorry —
No, the scriptures don’t give dates for much of anything, and when they do, they’re usually wrong. For example, we assume the year of Yeshua’s birth to be year zero in the Christian calendar, yet Matthew 2 tells us he was born “in the days of Herod, the king,” and we know from ACTUAL history, that Herod died in 4 BCE, which means that if the verse in Matthew were true, and not fabricated by some anonymous author 45-50 years later, Yeshua was 4 in year zero, which would mean that we now live in the year 2009 – does that mean I’m four years younger than I thought I was? Yay!
The primary method the scriptures use for dating events, was to link them to other things, people, places, events, etc. Apparently those old tent-dwelling nomads didn’t have the greatest of calendars – ever try to hang a calendar on a goat-skin tent wall? Not all the fun it’s cracked up to be.
Abe, for example, left “Ur of the Chaldees,” yet it’s known historically that the Chaldeans didn’t move into Mesopotamia until sometime after 700 BCE. Whoever wrote that part of Genesis had no clue of the area’s history – he knew the Chaldeans lived there when he was writing, so he assumed they had been there a millennium and a half earlier, when Abe left home.
I notice that you don’t seem to give a date for the Exodus either, although you’ve hinted that it happened a lot earlier than we think. Care to elaborate? Knowing you, as I’ve come to, probably not.
It’s an historical fact that at some point in its past, Egypt kicked a band of Canaanites out of their country (no green cards), and there are those who believe that this expulsion provided the idea for the Hebrew exodus. The Bible tells us there were 600,000 men in the march out of Egypt – when you guestimate the quantity of those men’s property – the number of women and children – you come up with a figure of around a million and a half Hebrews, all leaving Egypt, most on foot. How long do you suppose it would take a million and a half people, a large number of them children, many carrying Egyptian loot, to walk across the bed of the Red Sea?
And what happened to Egypt after this? The population at the time was only about 2 1/2 million people, so the Bible is saying that nearly 2/3 of the entire population of the country disappeared overnight! What happened to the Egyptian economy? I know you’ve said that Egypt covered it up out of embarrassment, but how do you cover up an event that resulted in 2/3 of your country’s population walking out? Nosy neighbors are going to figure it out, and SOMEbody’s going to write about it, sadly, no one did.
Laurie, you’re simply too intelligent, not to see how illogical it all is!
LikeLike
I am now fully convinced that you are either
A) a cheater who didn’t really pass the mensa test, and are not really in the top two percent.
Or
B) have in fact not been reading my posts or your own for that matter
You are really starting to make my blood boil. I am not saying this to be mean, but you smart people can be really dumb sometimes. Your “proof” is nothing more than pure speculation, and opinion.
LikeLike
That sounded a lot worse than I intended. I am sorry, I was just teasing. 😉
I am going to a computer though, so I can help you see the light
LikeLike
hey, it’s alright. we all get riled up sometimes. since you brought it up, do you offer any “proof” for the inspiration (god given-ness) of the bible, or do you take it merely on faith?
LikeLike
Laurie, Love, you can say THAT, after saying THIS?!!!
Those beliefs make “speculation” sound like established fact! And yes, I’ve read all of your comments, in fact, I hang on your every word.
Oh, and BTW, speaking of proofs, I’m still waiting for yours —
LikeLike
Mark Twain
LikeLike
You never offend me, not even the kicking part – I know flirting when I see it —
LikeLike
Now that I have a computer for a moment, things will be a lot easier for me. I hardly think you have been fair in your assessment of me (arch) since you know I have been typing on a phone, and cannot copy, paste, or use links! You have a computer! Use it will ya! I live off grid, so buying a computer when winter is rapidly approaching, is not on the high priority list. I need to conserve power!
Before I really get into this, we need to be clear on a few things. I am sure you already realize this, but it hasn’t stopped you so far, so we need to clarify. Just because a famous scientist, archaeologist, or theologian says something, DOES NOT make it true. There are tons of debates, from all sides. That’s why using the year zero, or dates for Abraham, or anything else that man deduced or fabricated is off limits. Here is one small example…
Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, a more honest evolutionist, says the following in his book, “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” The Structure of Evolutionary Theory
p. 749 “…the tale itself illustrates the central fact of the fossil record so well–geologically ABRUPT ORIGIN and subsequent extended stasis of most species. Anatomy may fluctuate through time, but the last remnants of a species usually look pretty much like the first representatives. Paleontologists have always recognized the long-term stability of most species, we had become more than a bit ashamed by this strong and literal signal, for the dominant theory or our scientific culture told us to look for the opposite result of gradualism as the primary empirical expression of every biologists favorite subject–evolution itself.”
p. 750 in 1903 H.F. Cleland wrote the following: “In a section such as that of the Hamilton formation at Cayaga Lake… if the statement natura non facit saltum (=Nature makes no leaps) is granted, one should, with some confidence expect to find many–at least some–evidences of evolution. A careful examination of the fossils of all zones, from the lowest to the highest, failed to reveal any evolutional changes, with the possible exception of Ambocoelia praeumbona (a brachiopod). The species are as distinct or as variable in one portion of the section as in another. Species varied in shape, in size and in surface markings, but the changes were not progressive. The conclusion must be that… the evolution of brachiopods, gastropods and pelecypods either does not take place at all or takes place very seldom, and that it makes little difference how much time elapses so long as the conditions of environment remain unchanged.”
p. 751 “Evolutionary theory may be a wonderful intellectual frill, but workaday paleontology, until recently used fossils primarily in the immensely useful activity (in mining, mapping, finding oil, etc.) of dating rocks and determining their stratigraphic sequence. These practical paleontologists dared not be wrong in setting their criteria for designating ages and environments. They had to develop the most precise system that empirical recognition could supply for specifying the age of a stratum; they could not let theory dictate a fancy expectation unsupported by observation. If most fossil species changed gradually during their geological lifetimes, biostratigraphers would have codified “stage of evolution” as the primary criterion for dating by fossils. But in fact biostratigraphers treat species as stable entities throughout their documented ranges–because the vast majority so appear in the empirical record.”
p. 752 “We (Eldrege and Gould) wondered why evolutionary paleontologists have continued to seek, for over a century and almost always in vain, the “insensibly graded series” that Darwin told us to find. Biostratigraphers have known for years that morphological stability, particularly in characters that allow us to recognized species-level taxa, is the rule, not the exception. It is time for evolutionary theory to catch up with empirical paleontology, to confront the phenomenon of evolutionary non-change, and to incorporate it into our theory, rather than simply explain it away.”
p. 759 “So if stasis could not be explained away as missing information, how could gradualism face this most prominent signal from the fossil record? The most negative of all strategies–a quite unconscious conspiracy of silence–dictated the canonical response of paleontologists to their observation of stasis. Paleontology therefore came to view stasis as just another failure to document evolution. Stasis existed in overwhelming abundance, as every paleontologist always knew. But this primary signal of the fossil record, defined as an absence of data for evolution, only highlighted our frustration–and certainly did not represent anything worth publishing. Paleontology therefore fell into a literally absurd vicious cycle.”
There are a lot of great minds that people would think of as an authority on this subject or that. They are not all in agreement. A good scientist, archaeologist, or scholar of any type will try to disprove their findings before determining a level of accuracy. Nate, you said “One of the fallacies that people fall into is they think most non-religious scholars and scientists are trying to disprove Christianity and will alter their findings to fit their agenda. I just don’t think that’s the case. When people don’t already believe in something, they don’t tend to put forth tons of energy trying to disprove it. Most of us don’t believe in unicorns, but we don’t waste a lot of time trying to prove they don’t exist.”. When I read this I kind of chuckled to my self. While it sounds good in theory, it is obviously not true. There are plenty of people here that spend a good amount of time trying to talk some sense into Christians or disprove the bible. Why do they care? Why do you?
My point is, that we could say he said she said all day long, and it doesn’t make that person correct. We need to give a fair look at each side, and know that in most cases they may be swaying the evidence a little, whether intentional or not. It is human nature.
LikeLike
Now that I can copy and paste, we will see who wears the omlete
“I notice that you don’t seem to give a date for the Exodus either, although you’ve hinted that it happened a lot earlier than we think. Care to elaborate? Knowing you, as I’ve come to, probably not.”
Laurie
October 19, 2013 at 1:35 pm
Thanks Howie,
Arch, do you read my posts? They are not looking in the right time period. The Exodus occurred in 2450 B.C. Back up and you will see that the data fits. Egypt was struck by a natural disaster that caused the collapse of the kingdom near the end of the 6th dynasty, both Jericho and Ai were destroyed 2400 B.C. And they have found the trail of the Israelites and the remains of the encampment
LikeLike
William,
I do not have any proof that you would likely find suitable, but I do find the scriptures to be more amazing than anything man could have created, especially before the time of computers. Let me give you an example that I gave Nate.
Here is a list of the descendants of Adam, through is son Seth
Seth
Enosh
Kenan
Mahalalel
Jared
Enoch
Methuselah
Lamech
Noah
At first glance, it seems to be just a list of names…but every name, place, number, every jot and tittle, is an integrated message system. Everything is thematically connected. It is the story of salvation over and over again, and so much more.
Seth- appointed
Enosh- mortal
Kenan- sorrow
Mahalalel- the Blessed God
Jared- came down
Enoch- teaching
Methuselah- His death shall bring
Lamech- Strenght
Noah- comfort
Appointed mortal sorrow the Blessed God came down teaching His death shall bring strenght and comfort.
This is an easy one to see, and does not require a more in-depth understanding of the scriptures, but it is not the only one. Far from it
LikeLike
First of all, Laurie, yes, I have noticed your mentioning typing on your phone, and of it’s limitations, but since you also mentioned working with your livestock, I had every reason to believe that you were referring to being outside, working, and using your phone – I had no idea you had no computer, and you didn’t mention it.
OK – you ARE aware I hope that Gould reached most of his conclusions while working with snails. I’m not sure how much they could tell him. However he campaigned against creationism and proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields (or “magisteria”) whose authorities do not overlap.
H.F. Cleland, 1903? You ARE aware that this is 2013? How much have we learned since then?
Let me explain how evolution works, Laurie – cell mutations happen all of the time, some are beneficial to a member of a species, but most are not and go by the wayside. Those that ARE beneficial, allow the member to live a longer, or better life, and thus be more likely to be able to pass on the genetic mutation to his/her offspring. Sometimes environmental changes cause creatures to change to adapt to the new environment – those that do, survive, while those that don’t, die.
Environmental and/or geological changes don’t happen every day, they occur haphazardly, as you yourself have seen in tsuanimis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions around the globe, therefore the necessity to change to adapt to a changing environment also occurs haphazardly. I don’t recall that any of us suggested, even with that example of colored letters, that evolution was continuous and ongoing, but rather on an “as needed” basis.
Rather than reading hundred-year old textbooks, written by one who never heard of a geiger counter or carbon dating, could I suggest “The Ancestor’s Tale,” by Richard Dawkins?
Careful though – you just might learn something —
LikeLike
you completely missed my entire point! I am not going to flood this post with the FACT that there are a lot of different theories in the field, and even evoultionist do not agree with one another. Come on Mensa, don’t pretend you didn’t understand my post.
LikeLike
Of course, Laurie, I read your posts – how could I not?
Perhaps – assuming that you read MY posts – you’ll recall that the first time you said that, I asked for your source, for which I’m still waiting.
LikeLike
Laurie, quick question about your list of guys – have you ever figured out where their wives came from? Just sayin’ —
LikeLike
Do I really need to help you understand the proper way to research something? Okay, first I would try and pull up all the archaeological finds relating to time and place. Its is usually easier to find the correct information if you search using terms like old kingdom, or 5th dynasty, rather than 2400 BC. You could also search by name. The Pharaoh that I believe was reigning at the time of the exodus was Unas. He died unexpectedly, and although he had a son, he left no heir for the throne. I wonder if they both died somehow?
LikeLike
I didn’t miss your point at all! Your point was that you’re right and I’m wrong, but just because it’s YOUR point, doesn’t make it true. You chose authors that would stress your point – a process known as Confirmation Bias – no matter how long ago they wrote or that the body of their work dealt primarily with snails. I offered you a book that covers the whole enchilada, now let’s see if you read it, I have.
LikeLike
And waiting —
LikeLike
No, no, no, no, no – I gave you proof for my claims, you can hardly expect me to look up proof for your wild assertions, that’s your job – you make the claim, you back it up, that’s how it works —
I think the Bible is a crock, Laurie – no go research until you prove I’m right. Does that make sense to you?
LikeLike
Sorry, I meant, “now go research” – it’s those flying fingers that did it.
LikeLike
Laurie,
I’ve been looking up the meaning of those names and several of them don’t actually seem to match what you’ve written (especially Kenan, Mahalalel, Enoch, and Methusaleh). I’m getting this:
Red compensation man’s possessions (is) praise of God commanded. Dedicated man of the dart (gets) powerful rest.
So maybe the first sentence is a clear prophecy about communism and the second is about Phil Taylor finally retiring.
Seriously though Laurie this reminded me so much of the whole Bill Gates the 3rd thing – do you believe he is the devil because of the sum of the ascii values of his name?
How about Michael Drosnin’s bible codes – convincing?
How about the mathematical miracles in the Quran? : http://www.eholyquran.com/Quran/LinksPrime/MathematicalMiraclesOfQuran.htm
As stated on that website: “Do you think these mathematical relations are accidental? If you think so, it is very unfair, and perhaps you intend to unfairly deny the great truth that Quran is the word of God.”
There are reasons why these kinds of things are not convincing Laurie. With a bit of effort and maneuvering these kinds of messages can easily be “found” wherever you want them to and then appear magical.
LikeLike
And waiting —
Alas, it’s nearly midnight, and I’ve sat in front of the screen all evening, waiting for Laurie and her armload of Exodus evidence (and if you believe that, let’s talk about some Florida swampland –).
Maybe tomorrow, we’ll learn about the 2450 Exodus, that most biblical scholars place around 1250-1400 BCE, and hopefully, we’ll learn where all of those descendants of Seth found their wives. I’m betting on a cabbage patch —
‘Nite Laurie, sleep tight (I know I will, I just bought a bottle of vodka!) and don’t let the bedbugs – well, you know the rest —
LikeLike
Laurie said:
Fair point, Laurie. Let me clarify what I was trying to say. Granted, there are plenty of people like me who do spend time trying to argue against something that I already don’t believe in. But I was talking more about scholars and scientists. You know, people whose focus is on something else, like archaeology, biology, astronomy, etc. My focus, admittedly, is religion. But for an anthropologist who’s never really given tons of consideration to religion, there wouldn’t be much incentive to twist their findings to disprove something they already dismiss.
Now sure, there are probably some scientists who do have an agenda — on both sides: some who want to prove Christianity true, and some who want to prove it false. But I think the vast majority are more interested in simply discovering what’s true. So when you take a look at what all of them have to say, the consensus should be rather bias-free. I think that’s why even many religious people have begun to accept the Big Bang, evolution, etc.
LikeLike
One more point — this one about evolution:
The quotes you gave state that all the fossils we’ve found are in stable forms, not transitionary ones. I don’t really believe that’s true, but it makes me wonder if you could describe what a transitory fossil would look like? The truth is, we do find fossils that show a clear progression between species. We don’t have every fossil connecting the different points, but I don’t think any scientists argue that we should have every one. It’s my understanding that most scientists today believe that we have many transitory fossils. So, since you disagree, if you could explain what a transitory fossil would be, that might help get us on the same page.
LikeLike
If everyone understood what an unlikely thing it is that bones fossilize at all, they would realize how incredible it is that we have ANY fossils to study, much less a perfect, linear progression.
LikeLike