2007-12-13 21:50:05 UTC
As the Son of God, Jesus certainly must have known that people might
question his divinity, his teachings, his very existence. He was, after all,
omniscient, wasn't he? Why not leave some proof, some brain droppings? What
better proof than writings , documents, in his own hand, if possible, that
clearly and unequivocally demonstrate his existence, his superior knowledge,
his intention for the future, his relationship with his Dad, etc.
I'm sure many Christians will say that he did, and point to the Gospels. But
that's unsatisfactory for any number of reasons.
* First, the Gospels were not written by him. (They weren't written by
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John either, but that's another topic for another
day.) They were written by unknown authors anywhere from 30 to 100 years
after he allegedly died. Why didn't he write his own memoirs?
* Second, they are incomplete. They have little biographical information
in them about his first 30 years, for instance, dwelling on his last three,
and between the four Gospels, they contradict each other in many respects.
Where's an editor when you need one?
* Third, the fact that he was supposedly a carpenter's son, and hence
relatively uneducated, should not have prevented him leaving some evidence
of his own existence. He was god (for god's sake)! He could do anything he
wanted. To point to his apparent illiteracy is a non-starter of an argument
or defense. What's the point of having someone else write his biography,
when an autobiography would have been far more convincing?
So why did he not leave some evidence of his existence? A lock of hair would
be nice. Maybe a photograph? (he could do it, he was GOD after all.)
The obvious answer is.well.obvious, isn't it?
John said, on August 2nd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
A year or so ago I decided to re-read the 4 Gospels. I can't find my damn
notes on the reading (I'd love to cite examples here).
I found some really interesting contradictions. And, equally, some really
FASCINATING agreement. 2 of the books in particular had many word-for-word
agreements. Anyone who knows anything about plagiarism will quickly realize
what this means.
If you and I see exactly the same event and then write a couple of
paragraphs describing it, the odds against us writing even a single sentence
exactly the same are astronomical. A whole paragraph? For all intents and
purposes - impossible. Now, if you argue that "nothing is impossible for
God", then the problem is that by not doing it consistently, the obvious
impression is left with any reasonable person that some of it was lifted,
either by the original author of one of the books or some scribe at some
later point. Why would God want to deceive you in to seeing plagiarism?
The parts that are contradictory are interesting. Here's one I remember - In
one book the scene from Jesus' burial tomb has certain people coming to it
and greeted by an angel as bright as the sun and another book has different
people as the first to show up there and greeted by a "man". Both man and
angel both give the same basic story that Jesus has risen.
We all know many examples from old and new testaments that we can criticize
on some level. I think these are particularly telling because the 4 Gospels
are the basis of what every Christian believes and fundamentalists will tell
you that it's the absolute unerring word of God. To them I say, how is that
possible based on the above?