Dear Kathy,
Since you graciously agreed (in our recent conversation) to let me present you with some examples of the Bible’s problems, I decided to do it in this way so it would have its own comment thread. As I’ve said, when I was a Christian, one strike against the Bible was not enough to shake my faith — maybe it only seemed problematic, maybe there was an explanation we hadn’t uncovered yet, maybe the historical accounts were wrong, etc. But as the problems began to mount up, I reached a point where I could no longer deny the fact that the Bible had actual errors.
A couple of suggestions before we begin. Try to be as open-minded about this as possible. As you go through these examples, ask yourself if God would allow such problems to exist in a message that he wanted all people to accept and believe? According to the Bible, whenever God sent someone a message, whether it was Pharaoh or Gideon or Nebuchadnezzar or Paul, they had no question whom it was from. They didn’t always follow it, as we see with people like Pharaoh and Solomon, but they didn’t question the source of the message or what it stated. So why would God operate differently today? Why would he want us to be so confused about his message that we’re able to question whether or not it’s really from him?
Another thing to keep in mind is that even if you come to the conclusion that the Bible has actual problems, that doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. There are a number of Christians who don’t believe in inerrancy. And even if you lose faith in the Christian god, that still doesn’t mean you have to stop believing in God. A number of people, including several of our founding fathers, were deists. I have a lot of sympathy for that view and plan to do a post on it soon.
Some of the items listed here will have links that provide additional information, especially when the issue is too detailed to list here. I hope that you’ll check out those links, since some of them are quite significant points. And regardless of how this article strikes you, I hope it will help serve as a great springboard to launch you into your own research.
Some of the Problems
Creation
The creation accounts in Genesis do not match what we’ve learned through science. This isn’t shocking news, but it bears looking into. Evolution and the Big Bang Theory had nothing to do with my deconversion, but I’ve learned more about both since leaving Christianity. It’s shocking how much misinformation I had been operating under. Not to say that all Christians are that way — that was simply my experience. But the evidence for both evolution and the Big Bang are far more substantial than I had ever realized. Two good resources for learning more about these issues are the following (though I’d also recommend checking out the recent Cosmos series, as well as some of the PBS NOVA specials):
Another problem with the creation accounts is that Genesis 1 says that plants and trees were made on the 3rd day, while man was made on the 6th. But Genesis 2:5-9 says that man was created before there were any plants or trees in the land. Also, the 1st chapter says that man was created after all the animals, but the 2nd chapter implies that it was the other way around. It seems strange that such discrepancies would exist only a chapter apart, but there are a number of textual clues that suggest the first 5 books of the Bible were assembled over a long period of time from various writings written by a number of different people. Many scholars believe that Genesis 1 and 2 represent two separate versions of the creation story that were both included because the compilers didn’t know which was more accurate. Whatever the reason, there’s no question that the differences exist and are hard to explain.
10 Plagues
During the 10 plagues, God afflicts all of Egypt’s livestock with a disease (Ex 9:1-7), and it specifies that it would affect the “horses, the donkeys, the camels, the herds, and the flocks.” We’re told that all of Egypt’s livestock died. But the later plague of boils was said to affect both man and beast (verse 10 of chapter 9). Maybe it meant non-livestock animals. But Ex 11:5 says that the death of the firstborn would also affect Egypt’s cattle, and in Exodus 14, Pharaoh pursues the Israelites with horses.
Hares Chew the Cud
Leviticus 11:6 tells us that hares chew the cud. They do not. Animals that chew the cud are called ruminants. When they eat plant matter, it goes to their first stomach to soften, and then it’s regurgitated to their mouth. They spend time re-chewing it, and then it is swallowed and fully digested. Ruminants (cows, sheep, goats, etc.) are recognizable because their chewing of the cud is very obvious. Hares (rabbits) don’t chew the cud; however, their mouths do move frequently, so it’s possible to see why some people may have assumed that they do chew the cud. Of course, God would know they didn’t, and this is why the passage is problematic. You can read more about this here.
Arphaxad
In the genealogy given in Genesis 11:10-12, we see that Noah fathered Shem and Shem fathered Arphaxad. At the age of 35, Arphaxad fathered Shelah. This information is confirmed in 1 Chron 1:18. But Luke 3:35-36 tells us that Arphaxad’s son was Cainan, and he was the father of Shelah.
Where does Luke get this information? It disagrees with the Old Testament, so who should we believe? Some have suggested that Genesis and 1 Chronicles simply left out Cainan for some reason. But why would they do that? To further complicate it, how could Cainan have fit in there? Genesis tells us that Arphaxad was 35 when he fathered Shelah. Does it really seem likely that Arphaxad became a grandfather by 35, especially when you consider the extreme old ages that people lived to at that time?
Another explanation is that some copyist messed up when copying Luke and Cainan is just a mistake. But this is not much better. First of all, the error would have needed to occur early for it to be in all our copies of Luke. Secondly, are we really comfortable saying that we have the inspired word of our creator, but it got messed up by some guy who wasn’t paying close attention? To me, that doesn’t lend a lot of credence to the idea of inspiration or inerrancy.
Instead, the most likely explanation is that Luke made a mistake. This, of course, would indicate that he was not inspired.
Problems in the Book of Daniel
In Daniel 5, the writer refers to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar 7 different times. Yet we know from multiple contemporary sources that Belshazzar’s father was Nabonidus, who was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. The same chapter says that Darius the Mede took over Babylon, but this person does not seem to have ever existed. Daniel says that he was the son of Ahaseurus, and in mentioning this, the author of Daniel indicates that he was thinking of a later ruler — the persian emperor Darius the Great, whose son was Ahaseurus. This post in particular goes into the problems surrounding the 5th chapter, but if you’d like to learn about the problems in the rest of the book, you can access each article in the series here.
Jairus’s Daughter
In Mark 5:23, Jairus finds Jesus and says that his daughter is at the point of death. While they’re on their way to the house, some of his servants find them on the way and say that she has died and there’s no point in troubling Jesus further.
However, in Matthew 9:18, Jairus already knows that his daughter has died, but tells Jesus that if he’ll lay his hands on her, she’ll live. This may seem like a minor difference, but honestly, there’s only one scenario that could be true. Either the girl was already dead, or she wasn’t. And if Jairus already knew she was dead, then there was no point in his servants coming to tell him that (so of course, they don’t appear in Matthew’s account).
The Centurion
This is similar to the previous issue. Matthew and Luke both record a centurion who asks Jesus to heal his sick servant. Matthew 8:5-13 says that the centurion himself comes before Jesus to ask for help. Luke 7:1-10 says that the Jewish elders went on his behalf, and then he sent servants to follow up. In Luke, Jesus never speaks to, or even sees, the centurion at all.
Hight Priest
In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus talks about the occasion from the Old Testament when David ate the showbread, which Jesus said was in the days of Abiathar the high priest. However, in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, it appears that Ahimelech was the high priest. Some have tried to answer this problem by saying that Abiathar was alive during that particular episode, so Jesus’ statement is still true. But that’s obviously not the intent of the passage. After all, we would correct anyone who said that the tragedy of 9/11 occurred during the days of President Barack Obama. He may have been alive at the time, but that event did not happen while he was President.
430 Years
Galatians 3:16-17 says this:
The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.
Here, Paul says that the law came 430 years after the promises were made to Abraham. But in Exodus 12:40-41, we see:
Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the LORD’s divisions left Egypt.
If the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, then there could not have been 430 years between Abraham’s promises and the law. God made the promises to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3, and as we read on through Genesis, we see that Abraham had no children at this time. Later, he had a son named Isaac. When Isaac was 60 years old, he had Jacob (Gen 25:24-26), and Jacob had 12 sons that produced the 12 tribes of Israel. Already, we can see that some time has passed since Abraham received the promise. Once Jacob’s sons were all grown with families of their own, they finally settled in Egypt. Jacob was 130 years old at this time (Gen 47:9), and this marks the beginning of that 430 year period that the Israelites spent in Egypt.
That means that the time between the promise to Abraham and the giving of the law was actually over 600 years. So why did Paul say 430 years? I think it’s obvious that this was a simple mistake. He remembered the 430 year figure because that’s how much time the Israelites spent in Egypt, and so he simply misspoke. It’s not a big deal… except that he’s supposed to be inspired by God.
Jesus’ Birth
There are a number of issues surrounding Jesus’ birth. First, Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts contradict one another on virtually all the details, which you can read about here. Secondly, Matthew seems to invent an episode where Herod kills all the children in Bethlehem who are 2 and under, causing Mary, Joseph, and Jesus to flee to Egypt (instead of just returning home to Nazareth, because only Luke says that they started in Nazareth). Matthew does this in order to “fulfill” some Old Testament passages that actually have nothing to do with Jesus or killing babies. You can read about Matthew’s misuse of the Old Testament here — it’s quite blatant.
The Virgin Birth is one of the most famous aspects of Jesus’ story, and it was supposedly done in fulfillment of a prophecy from Isaiah. But it turns out that Isaiah was prophesying no such thing — he was talking about an event that was happening in his own time, and Matthew (once again) just appropriated the “prophecy” for his own devices. You can read all the details here.
Another problem concerning Jesus’ birth narratives is that Matthew and Luke both offer genealogies for Jesus, but they are completely different from one another. Worse, they don’t match the genealogies listed in the Old Testament, either. And Matthew claims that there was a pattern in the number of generations between Abraham and David, between David and the Babylonian captivity, and between the Babylonian captivity and Christ. But to get this neat division, he is forced to leave out some names. In other words, that pattern didn’t happen. You can read more about that here.
The Triumphal Entry
While not as blatant as most of these other issues, when Matthew recounts Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, he once again borrows from the Old Testament, but seems to make a mistake in his implementation. See here for more info.
Judas’ Death
Judas is well known for being the disciple that betrayed Jesus, but what’s not as well known is there are two different accounts of his death, and it’s very hard to reconcile them. According to Matthew, Judas threw his money down at the chief priests’ feet and went out and hanged himself. We’re not told where he did this. The priests then take the money, and instead of putting it back in the treasury (since it’s blood money), they buy a field to use for burying strangers. Because they bought the field with this money, it’s called the “Field of Blood.”
According to Acts, Judas bought a field with his money (we’re not told that he was remorseful), and he somehow fell down, bursting open in the middle and bleeding to death. The field was called “Field of Blood” after that because of the manner in which Judas died.
To make things more complicated, Matthew (of course) says that this happened in accordance with Jeremiah’s prophecy, but there’s nothing in Jeremiah that matches up. The closest reference comes from Zechariah, not Jeremiah.
These issues really complicate the notion of divine inspiration, and you can read more about them here.
The Crucifixion
There are several big problems with the way the gospels record the events of Jesus’ death, including the fact that different times of day are given for it, and even different days altogether. You can read more about this here.
The Resurrection
There are also a number of problems concerning the resurrection, some minor, some major. They’re too involved to get into here, but you can read all about them here and here.
The Problem of Hell
The notion of Hell is fraught with problems. It might even surprise you to learn that the Bible’s teachings on the afterlife change dramatically between the Old and New Testaments. I go into detail about Hell’s problems here, here, and here.
The Problem of Evil
Another huge problem for Christianity is the problem of evil, which I talk about here. This post also addresses the “problem of Heaven.”
The Bible’s Morality
While a number of people believe that the Christian god is the source of all morality, the Bible is actually filled with some monstrous acts that are either commanded by God, done with his consent, or carried out by him directly. I talk about some specific examples here, and I address some of the common responses to them here.
Conclusion
Kathy, there are a number of other examples that could be given, including the prophecy of Tyre that we’ve been discussing. But to me, these are some of the most significant and clear-cut problems. We could try to manufacture explanations for every one of these — some might be more believable than others. But why should we have to? If a perfect God inspired this book, why should it contain so many discrepancies? And honestly, some of these issues can’t be explained. They’re just wrong. The problems go well beyond internal contradictions and unfulfilled prophecies. There are problems of authorship, problems with the doctrines, and problems with the way the texts were written, transcribed, and compiled.
I’m sure you’ve spent your time as a Christian trying to reach those who are lost. You’ve always believed that Christianity is truth, and it’s the one thing that everyone needs. But could it be that Christianity is just as false as every other religion in the world? And if that’s the case, wouldn’t you want to leave it behind? When one is dedicated to finding truth, they have to be prepared to follow it wherever it leads. It’s not always easy or popular. It’s not even a guarantee that you’re right. All it means is that you follow the evidence where it leads to the best of your ability. If you find out that you’re wrong about something, you adjust course when the evidence dictates. If God exists, and if he’s righteous, what more could he ask for than that? I’ll close with my favorite quote:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
— Marcus Aurelius
Finding Truth 
“And we have courts that constantly have to discuss them to decide what they really mean.”
and that makes no point against having them. take a nap Nate.
LikeLike
“Lol…hey champ, you reading ‘Made for Tots’ bible or is your version a ‘Made for Tits ?’ with all the polysyllables removed?
If I say there are 661 verses in Mark then there are, and the source is verifiable.
Why don’t you spent your weekend counting them, champ?”
A) There are 666 in my KJV (not counting the end of mark).
B) there are no verse counts in manuscripts
C) A and B prove that though its neither for tots or tits you are a twit 🙂
LikeLike
Oh, I am so sorry. I did not realise you were using a manuscript.
Which one do you have?
LikeLike
KC, RE: “I have never seen anyone spin like he can. – the word, ‘dervish’ leaps to mind —
LikeLike
KC – that Bishop John Shelby Spong quotation – is it online somewhere? I’d love to bookmark it!
LikeLike
Ark – RE, the King of Obfuscation Nation’s comment: “CNN Reports – the Original gospel of Matthew has been found dating AD 72” – The final draft of Matthew’s Gospel (still unnamed) didn’t emerge until sometime after the war of 135 AD.
LikeLike
@Kathy, RE: “So true about the RCC, Mike!” – who do you think had complete control of them,as well as the Bible in any language except Latin, from 600 CE to 1600 CE – a thousand years – in a culture where even of the few who COULD read, only an even smaller percentage could read Latin? Organized religion, which until Luther, was Mother Church.
LikeLike
RE: “He borrowed from Mark because he didn’t have independent details of his own for those things.. SO WHAT?” – but Kathy, don’t you know enough about the writing of the Bible to know that the name, “Matthew,” was the Greek version of the Hebrew name, “Levi” (just as “Jesus” is the Greek name for the Hebrew name, “Yeshua – his mama never called him “Jesus” – if he ever existed, she called him Yeshua, as in, “Hey, Yeshua, shut the door! You born in a barn? Oh…yeah –“), as in Levi, the tax collector, who really WAS a disciple, and so, if “Mathew” was the REAL Matthew, and we KNOW “Mark” was never a disciple, doesn’t it stand to reason that it would be “Mark” copying from Matthew, and not the other way around? The fact that pseudo-Matthew copied from pseudo-Mark is a dead giveaway that pseudo-Matthew wasn’t there and didn’t witness ANYthing!
LikeLike
@William/Kathy, and anyone else interested, RE: “how else would god reveal himself?” – Why would he need to? What deep-seated need does he have for recognition and adulation, worship and praise? I sit and watch tropical fish in my acquarium, yet I never feel the need to yell, “Hey, look at me! You wouldn’t eat if I didn’t, feed you! WORSHIP me!!!” – I just watch them going about their fishy business, and enjoy my little slice of voyeurism. Your god could easily have done the same thing, and left us to figure things out on our own – yet you (Kathy) believe he didn’t – how are we any better off now?
LikeLike
@Kathy/Nate, et al, RE: “What is the best if not Christianity? I really want to know what it is..” – my answer would be, we don’t know. It’s a natural Human tendency to want all of the answers tied up with a pretty little bow, to be able to turn to page 453, and find the answer to whatever problem we have at the moment, but that’s just not how it works.
It’s a process, and we’ve been involved in it ever since we came down out of the trees of Africa millions of years ago, and began putting one foot in front of another. When we find something that works, we try to remember to do it again under similar circumstances, and when we find something that doesn’t, we try to remember that too.
We operate under two, often conflicting mandates – that we personally survive, which necessitates a degree of selfishness, and that those we care about survive, which necessitates a degree of selflessness, and thus the conflict. Over the millennia, we’ve killed a lot of each other, but along the way, we’ve learned that there has to be a limit to our destructive behavior, that if we use bombs that can destroy whole civilizations, someone is just as likely to use one on ours.
It may be millennia more before we finally figure it out, but it won’t involve a god – as cartoonist Walt Kelley once had his comic strip’s hero, “Pogo ‘Possum,” say, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.” Maybe one day, we won’t be our own worst enemy, but we have to find the way ourselves.
LikeLike
Arch, that may be one of the best comments that’s ever been left here. For what it’s worth, I think you’re right
LikeLike
Nate..
me: What is the best if not Christianity? I really want to know what it is..
You: “Personally, I’d say Buddhism. It advocates peace and contentment — and best of all, its teachings don’t have to be given by divine insight, nor do they depend upon whether or not certain historical events took place. Instead, they are precepts that can be discovered independent of one’s culture or place in time. They’re just good principles to live by.”
So, it seems that your criteria for a true faith is that it advocates peace and contentment and does not require a Supreme Being. What does this have to do with it’s truth? How do these things give you the answers? Isn’t that what we are debating? Who is God or is there a God? How does Buddhism answer this? It doesn’t.
It makes no sense that you’re claiming that Buddhism is more credentialed.. that it makes more sense than Christianity. What are the credentials for Buddhism? You do realize that it’s based on one man’s thoughts that are based on.. nothing.. but his own thoughts.. that he put forth as “truth”. I’m flabbergasted that you so readily accept this as “truth” with it’s incredibly weak credentials.. over Christianity with it’s wealth of credentials. Again, I’m sorry but I see bias.. this makes no sense to me.
This blog is dedicated to finding truth.. where is the truth in Buddhism? And how do you know it’s the truth? Sure, it promotes peace.. but that’s not exclusive to Buddhism, Christianity is more so. To equate peace with permanent death is sad and bleak. It disrespects the gift of life.. where’s the gratitude? It’s a very strange teaching and it’s anti God. It’s yet another “religion” that’s true goal is to lead people away from God.
So, Nate, can you please tell me.. what truth is Buddhism based on?
LikeLike
“Nate said:
““Afraid” might not have been the best term to use. I’m not sure about that point. However, it’s well known that they did throw out any gospels that didn’t meet the narrative standards they were looking for, which is why it’s no great surprise that there aren’t massive contradictions in message, like the ones you were asking about before.”
What were the “narrative standards” they were looking for? And what is your reference for this claim? The general understanding is that they wanted to keep out any writings that were not inspired. There was no “narrative”. There was a desire for God’s true word.. not the words of false prophets and witnesses, who were not in short supply. From the very beginning people were trying to corrupt the truth and add their own teachings/ “truth”… something that continues to this day re: Mormonism as one great example.. or.. sorry but I have to include.. atheists/ liberals.. like Arch who keeps thinking that he can put forth his false beliefs that support his NARRATIVE.. as the supposed truth.
“Just like a Beatles anthology won’t contain any Led Zeppelin songs, it’s not shocking that the NT fits together reasonably well in its large points.”
But, then, it WOULD be “shocking” that they allowed those “contradictions” of the four.. they didn’t have to include all four.. if they were following a “narrative”.. they would have chosen just one.. and then NO contradictions! Either they had a narrative or they were searching for the TRUTH. Only if they desired the truth.. God’s word and ONLY His, would they include all four Gospels. You’ve give a 2 sided answer. It can’t be both. Either they had a sincere honest motive for truth or they had a “narrative”.
So, I’m still left wondering what your answer is.. why would all four Gospels be included if there were obvious contradictions? If they were concerned about the truth, that would be the only reason to include all four. If they wanted it to be “THEIR” “story”.. they would have edited it to perfection.
LikeLike
Arch, you said:
“@Kathy/Nate, et al, RE: “What is the best if not Christianity? I really want to know what it is..” – my answer would be, we don’t know. It’s a natural Human tendency to want all of the answers tied up with a pretty little bow, to be able to turn to page 453, and find the answer to whatever problem we have at the moment, but that’s just not how it works.
It’s a process, and we’ve been involved in it ever since we came down out of the trees of Africa millions of years ago, and began putting one foot in front of another. When we find something that works, we try to remember to do it again under similar circumstances, and when we find something that doesn’t, we try to remember that too.
We operate under two, often conflicting mandates – that we personally survive, which necessitates a degree of selfishness, and that those we care about survive, which necessitates a degree of selflessness, and thus the conflict.
Your whole comment was very well written.. but you’re wrong Arch. Nothing in your comment supports the idea that God doesn’t exist. You’ve merely described characteristics that humans have as God’s creation. Yes, He created us to survive.. to put one foot in front of the other.. to care about ourselves and others.. to learn from our mistakes. You’ve said nothing that disproves a Creator. And conveniently, you mention nothing about our origins. A subject avoided by atheists as much as possible. You have nothing to base this on except the same thing that the Buddha guy did.. your own thoughts/ theories. No truth to be found.. no supportive evidence.. anywhere in site. It’s pure speculation. It sounds great.. but that’s what every philosopher thinks about their philosophy… so much so that they sometimes go ego crazing and start their own religion.. it happens quite frequently actually. And see how Nate thinks it’s the best thing ever? It’s not very hard to sell a philosophy if it sounds good.. and it especially sounds good if you don’t have to be accountable for your choices and actions.
LikeLike
I didn’t set out to disprove a Creator Kathy, your question, if I still recall it, was, if not Christianity, then what is the best way to live. Nate offered Buddhism, I offered my point of view. We answered your querie, yet now you’re upset because no one addressed a creator or our origins – the question had nothing to do with a creator or our origins. I’m beginning to tire of wasting my time, trying to hold an intelligent conversation with an airhead. Nate has far more patience than I, you should be glad for that.
LikeLike
Your life, Kathy, isn’t complete without a supernatural creature in it; mine is. As your cohort is fond of saying, end of story.
LikeLike
ate,
“me: “So, you’re saying that the writers, who were not the disciples or other eyewitnesses, believed it, but what they believed was a hoax? Made up by others.. the disciples? Is that right?”
“No, that’s not really what I’m saying. The simplest way to see this is to imagine the game of telephone, where people pass around a message long enough that it begins to lose its original meaning and the details quickly change.”
A simple way to respond would be to say that it’s waaaay too simple an explanation considering the disciples gave their lives to spread this belief.
I’m sure you already know this but, there were lots of people in those times who had followers who were devoted to them.. but when the leader died, they followers fell away and the faith/ belief dissolved. The very opposite happened with Jesus. In spite of the oppression and threats to their lives, they pushed onward.. 100% dedicated to doing what Jesus instructed them to do.. until they were forced to stop.
” I believe that Jesus was probably a real person. I think he was an itinerant preacher who believed that the kingdom of God would soon come. ”
Why do you believe this and not that He was who He claimed to be according to the Bible? What are you basing this belief in Jesus on.. just parts of the Bible? Why those parts only? Your theory “sounds good” to those who want to believe it, but again, it’s based only on your own thoughts, combined with SELECTIVE portions of the Bible.. not on any unbiased supportive evidence. Where as, people who believe Jesus was who He said He was are basing our belief on the entire Bible with all it’s credentials supporting it’s entire truth overall.. not a selective “truth”. You’ve weeded out everything that doesn’t fit YOUR narrative.
“When he died, I believe most of the disciples were shocked — how could God have let him die like that? But a few of them may have had visions of him afterward, which is not all that uncommon after the loss of a loved one. In fact, I had a very real dream about my grandfather last night, and he’s been dead for 6 years now.”
Yes, you’re right, people do sometimes have very real experiences or dreams of people who’ve passed on.. so, it “sounds good” as an explanation for Jesus’ followers and the “real” truth of the Bible. It’s not enough Nate.. it’s not nearly enough to explain people giving there lives for the next 2 millennium… but it sounds good… to atheists. It’s just not a good enough explanation.
” Other disciples probably began thinking of his death as a sacrifice — and the more they thought about that, the more it fit within the Jewish sacrificial framework.”
It WAS a sacrifice.. Jesus told them this. I know that they were confused after Jesus’ death, which again, you seem to selectively accept that part of the Bible.. but that’s not enough to dismiss who Jesus claimed to be. And the scriptures only say that they were confused at His resurrection.. not at His death.. they all knew He was facing death in Jerusalem.. and He told them why He was going there despite the danger.
“All the while that his core disciples were processing events and thinking about his life and death and what it all might mean, the stories began to grow and evolve. As more disciples were brought into the fold, and as the movement began to spread into other areas, the teachings evolved even more.”
This just makes no sense Nate.. this kind of growth, over false notions isn’t reasonable in light of the opposition they faced. It’s not plausible.
LikeLike
“I didn’t set out to disprove a Creator Kathy, your question, if I still recall it, was, if not Christianity, then what is the best way to live.”
You recall wrong Arch. I said nothing about the “best way to live”.. my claim is that Christianity offers the most rational, best explanation for our existence.
LikeLike
“It WAS a sacrifice.. Jesus told them this.” – you have no idea what Jesus, if he ever existed, told ANYone, because the only people who claim to have recorded his words, are unnamed, unsubstantiated, and never met him.
LikeLike
“my claim is that Christianity offers the most rational, best explanation for our existence” – then I misinterpreted or misrecalled, either way, your claim is absurd. Other than, “In the beginning, god created the heaven and the earth,” without any evidence whatsoever to back it up, THAT is the only explanation the Bible offers for our existence.
LikeLike
Arch, please give your “better” explanation for our existence.. and I’m pretty sure I’ve asked this already.. but no one answered.. which means.. Christianity IS the BEST explanation we have! Which then means that anyone who rejects it isn’t being objective.. at the very least an objective person would say ” I don’t know” if Christianity is the correct explanation.
LikeLike
@Kathy
What you , and most every christian, fail to acknowledge is that while one may find certain positive attributes within the doctrine of Christianity ( as one might find in every religion) it is the downside that is the concern of all right minded critical thinking people: namely that f one does not follow Christianity and acknowledge Yeshua a as a saviour ( saviour for what has never been adequately explained) one is doomed to spend eternity in Hell.
And, contrary to the ”ownership” claims stated/suggested by you and many other Christians of the apologetic ilk, this spiteful nature is not in any way indicative of a creator deity who claims that love is the be all and end all.
Simple common sense would alert the reader that any deity that openly states ‘He’ is a jealous god already has serious, human-like emotional issues.
“Worship Me only…or else”
And this is one of the central, most pertinent parts of Christian doctrine that causes so many Christians to deconvert, and why fear and ignorance is encouraged through indoctrination ( especially of children) to maintain a hold over adult Christians such as yourself.
It really is a disgusting practice and those proponents of such grossly dehumanizing tactics should be brought to book once and for all.
That you are unable to even consider the possibility you may be wrong, that the fear you have been brought up with is almost unpardonable.
Only the fact that those that imposed this belief upon you are /were as ignorant as you in this regard is the only excuse.
If Nate and every other deconvertee or non religious or believer in another religion is wrong, then all Nate and the rest of us ask is for you to demonstrate why.
It is a simple request.
LikeLike
Arch, please give your “better” explanation for our existence.
Magic pixies did it! And until you can prove to us that they didn’t, they offer the superior explanation.
LikeLike
We’re misunderstanding one another. I didn’t say Buddhism was true, nor am I a Buddhist. You asked me what I thought the best religion was: I think Buddhism is a better religion than the other religions I’m familiar with, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s true.
And if you think Buddhism needs credentials, then you don’t understand Buddhism. It needs no more “credentials” than geometry does.
LikeLike
And how could they determine which were which?
LikeLike