Who Was Jesus? Part 9

In the name of integrity and honesty, the rational person needs to ask why we must suspend logic and scientific methodology when it comes to religious texts and traditions. It seems unconscionable for G.o.d to force believers into abandoning their critical, logical and rational minds, but this suspension is precisely what the believer is asked to do, repeatedly-indeed, not thus suspending logic and reason may const.i.tute an "antisupernatural bias!"1 Several examples of where we must abandon logic in order to believe the gospel story as historical fact have already been provided. Even from the beginning of the tale, we encounter strange occurrences, as we read in the gospel story about the wise men following a star to find Jesus; yet, after tracking the star for many miles the strangers from the East become so lost that they must stop at the house of Herod in order to inquire where the new "king" has been born! Bizarrely, Herod shows them the way, but he too is so confused that he seems to have forgotten completely his own instructions and must slaughter all the children under the age of two in the village, instead of simply finding Jesus using the same directions he gave to the magi.

Not only does this heinous episode not appear in the historical or archaeological record, as there is not a word about any of the sensational events surrounding Jesus's birth in the works of any Jewish or Roman historian, but it also seems illogical and artificial. In reality, it is impossible to believe that no Jewish scribe would have recorded such an offensive ma.s.s murder of children, but we are left with not a mention of this hideous crime outside of the gospel of Matthew. The quandary this fact raises as to the authenticity of the account is further underscored by the presence of similar infant-slaughtering themes in other legends and myths, such as in the story of Moses. The apologist argument for this omission from history is that Bethlehem had a very small population at the time, so Herod killed "only" a couple of dozen babies at most. This apology begs the question of why, if Bethlehem was so tiny, both Herod and the wise men couldn't find the baby Jesus in the first place, especially with a brilliant spotlight in heaven s.h.i.+ning above his birthplace.

Furthermore, it would be very surprising if the people of Bethlehem had forgotten all about the slaughter of their children that attended Jesus's birth, even if there were only a couple of dozen babies killed! Surely, the townsfolk would have been aware all along that Christ had been the child honored as the Lord G.o.d and future king of the Jews, const.i.tuting such a threat to Herod that he became the cause of this abomination. Yet, when Jesus is an adult, no one acknowledges the awful circ.u.mstances of his birth, and this infanticide is never again referred to, as if it never happened. Moreover, why would the all-powerful and all-seeing Lord, taking birth as his own Son in Jesus, allow Herod to mercilessly kill all of these innocent children, while he himself fled to Egypt? Did the omniscient Lord not see this horror coming? Could the omnipotent G.o.d not stop it? In addition, this Herodian infanticide was not "prophesied" by the Old Testament Jeremiah, as a.s.serted by Matthew: The OT scripture quoted refers to the "Babylonian Exile," not the slaughter of infants six centuries later. This type of twisting of scriptures to fit purported "prophecies" has occurred more commonly than fathomed.

Crazy or Fiction?

According to the story, an angel informed Joseph and/or Mary that she would be bringing forth the Lord Himself, via a miraculous conception and virgin birth produced by the Holy Spirit, and that this child-again, the Lord G.o.d Almighty-would "save his people from their sins." (Mt 1:21) This divine being would be called "Son of the Most High" of whose kingdom "there will be no end" and who the Holy Spirit further called "the Son of G.o.d." How, then, could Christ's family and friends later doubt his sanity, trying to seize him against his will in order to stop him, as they are depicted at Mark 3:21? The scripture at Mark relates, "And when his friends heard it, they went out to seize him, for they said, 'He is beside himself.'" (The term for "beside himself" also means "out of his mind" or "insane.") In the original Greek, the word translated as "friends" in the KJV and RSV is para, a "preposition indicating close proximity," which could also be used to designate family members and relatives (i.e., "those close to him" or "his own"), as well as friends. In this regard, other translations do render the term para to mean "family," "own people," "relatives," etc. How could Christ's own family ever doubt him, if the circ.u.mstances of his divine birth were true, as well as other prodigies, such as the astonis.h.i.+ng teaching in the temple at the age of 12? (Lk 2:38-42) Even the fetal John the Baptist knew who the Lord was-surely the rest did too!

Jesus's Siblings?

In addition, while the dubious "carpenter" aspect of Jesus has been much publicized, other purported, germane aspects of Christ's life have been completely ignored, including references to his family members. For instance, at Mark 6:3 the evangelist writes: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him.

What are we to make of this verse and the one at Matthew 13:55? If it is brought up to fervent believers, they too may take offense! Yet, it is a significant remark that warrants further commentary, such as who are Jesus's brothers and sisters? Is Mary also their mother? How did she remain a "perpetual virgin?" Christians have claimed over the centuries that Christ's brother and sisters were Joseph's children from a previous marriage, but there is no evidence for this a.s.sertion, other than this brief mention that Jesus even had brothers and sisters. The Catholic Encyclopedia, of course, argues for Mary's perpetual virginity and that she never bore any other children, explaining these "brothers and sisters" as "cousins" whose mother is Mary's sister, Mary.

Protestant apologists such as Geisler, however, see no problem in accepting that these brothers and sisters are really Christ's siblings, born to Mary, who does not remain a "perpetual virgin."1 If Jesus had so many brothers and sisters, why do we never hear about them again? Is it not reasonable and realistic to suggest that some of Jesus's siblings would be involved in the development of Christianity? Except for "James, the brother of Jesus," we hear nothing about these siblings. Christ has at least four brothers and two sisters-what happened to the other five besides James? Why is James's role in the gospel story so non-existent, even though he is later depicted as head of the Jerusalem Church? Nevertheless, there is not a word about him in the gospels, other than identifying him as one of the four brothers. The Catholic Encyclopedia argues that "James the brother of the Lord" is in fact the same as James, son of Alphaeus, and "James the Lesser," and is not a biological brother of Jesus but, again, his cousin, as a son of Christ's aunt, also named Mary.1 Since we are not even certain whether or not Jesus had biological brothers, or if these were "cousins," or if they were simply members of the congregation, how can we paint an accurate biography of Jesus? In addition, if this dynasty of rabble-rousers were running amok all over Judea, how could it escape the notice of the authorities and historians? Like so much else about the gospel story, this part comes across with an air of unreality and fabrication.

Moreover, if all of Judea was aware of Jesus's birth, with astrologers2 from afar following a star to honor the divine babe, recognizing him as the Son of G.o.d along with all the other wonders, why at Matthew 13:54-57 would the people of Jesus's "own country" later be astonished by his miracles and ask whether or not he was the "son of the tekton," in actuality being offended by him (Gr. skandalizo)? Why is the Lord Jesus depicted at first laboring unknown and later rejected, as if he were a common scoundrel or worse?

It is odd that the Jews as a whole were desperately waiting and agitating for the messiah; yet, when Christ came, with all the attendant signs and wonders, and fulfilling numerous messianic prophecies, practically no one noticed. This bizarre lack of notice is all the more peculiar considering the circ.u.mstances of Jesus's life, including as a 12-year-old flabbergasting the temple elders. After all these events, would the Jews just go about their business for a decade or two, forgetting all about Jesus, to the point where, when Christ finally began his ministry, no one knew who he was? Why did no one record Jesus's earlier life? Did the messiah-known throughout the country, presumably, because of the miraculous circ.u.mstances of his birth and other wonders-just drop out of sight, with no one asking him anything or having any interest in his life? And, if the Messiah's people were so sorely and desperately suffering under the yoke of the foreign occupation-and many Jewish rebels and rabblerousers certainly felt that way-why would he wait for decades before he acted to save them?

Continuing with the illogic in the gospel story, why would the devil offer G.o.d/Jesus the control over all the kingdoms of the world? Is G.o.d/Jesus not omnipotent and already in control of the earthly kingdoms? Isn't the Lord also in control of Satan? If not, how can G.o.d be considered all-powerful? If G.o.d is in control of Satan, why does he make Satan tempt him?

If Jesus is somehow separate from G.o.d, such that he needs to verify that he is G.o.d by having himself tempted, how can we claim that Christ possesses all of G.o.d's powers and is thus G.o.d himself? This argument is tautological, and the tale is illogical, as is the premise of the gospel story itself.

Indeed, why would G.o.d need to fix the creation that he made badly in the first place-man-by coming to Earth as his own Son and being brutally scourged and murdered? Is this a plan that we ourselves would think to use in fixing something we created badly?

Additionally, does it not seem a harsh and irrational punishment for someone who utters, "You fool!" to be "liable to the h.e.l.l of fire," as Jesus is depicted as stating at Matthew 5:22? Do you really believe this frightening fate will happen to everyone who says, "You fool?" In an evident contradiction, Jesus himself is later portrayed as calling the scribes, Pharisees and his followers, "You fools!" a number of times.1 Christ further states at Matthew 5:37 that anything we say more than "yes" or "no" is "evil"-does that make any sense? How could we conduct our lives if all we could ever say is "yes" or "no?"

At Matthew 5:39, Jesus tells his followers, "Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also..." Does this command make sense? Are Christians supposed to allow evil to run rampant and to let themselves be beaten up? Should Christians allow Satan to overcome them? Why, then, in a very important episode verifying that Jesus is G.o.d, does Christ himself resist Satan's temptations in the desert?

If we are "perfect" like our Father in heaven, why does Jesus call us "evil" and "sinners" for whom he has come? And, if G.o.d is our Father, the same as Jesus, why do we need an intermediary between us and G.o.d, i.e. Jesus or a priest, minister, etc.? At Galatians 3:20, Paul says that an intermediary implies more than one but that G.o.d is one. If G.o.d is one, how can he also be three, as in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? If G.o.d is omnipresent, wouldn't that mean that everything is G.o.d, including us? The significance of this last a.s.sertion cannot be understated: If G.o.d is everywhere present, then we are "him," and "he" is us. G.o.d is everything, and everything is G.o.d-doesn't that sound like pantheism as well? The word "pantheism" comes from the Greek, "pan" meaning "all," and "theism" pertaining to G.o.d/divinity. Can something be monotheistic and pantheistic at the same time? If not, how do we separate out the omnipresent G.o.d?

If G.o.d is all good, how can he lead us into temptation? If he doesn't lead us into temptation, why are we to pray to him in the Lord's Prayer specifically not to lead us into temptation? In fact, later in the Bible this prayer is seemingly abrogated when it is claimed contradictorily that G.o.d himself "tempts no one." (Jas 1:13) Nevertheless, why does G.o.d make the righteous and sin-free path so narrow and difficult to follow, by putting so many temptations in our path? Would a human father be considered a good and moral individual if he were to throw all sorts of temptations and roadblocks in the path of his children?

Other of Jesus's sayings are illogical and absurd, such as the scripture about the lamp and the eye at Matthew 6:22-23: "The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!"

Luke repeats this strange saying and appends to it additional confounding language. Is this statement to be taken literally? What about the blind, whose eyes are not "sound?" How can the "light in you" be darkness? The explanations for this saying rely on mysticism-do Christians believe in these mystical explanations? In fact, Christian apologists do a.s.sert that this odd parable is not to be taken literally. If not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, where do we draw the line as to what is literal, historical and factual, and what is metaphorical, allegorical and mythical? Since there's no solid and valid scientific evidence of even Jesus's existence, much less what he said or did, could not the entire story of Christ be deemed a figurative "exemplary teaching," not to be taken literally?

The idea that the Bible is not always to be take literally is confirmed by the apology proffered by Josh McDowell: The Bible claims that G.o.d used human personalities to receive and communicate eternal truths. Therefore, expressions of speech (such as when Jesus used exaggeration) should not always be taken literally, then pitted against another portion of Scripture.1 In other words, where the Bible is inconvenient to the facts, it need not be taken literally. May we not, then, deem any portion of the Bible as "exaggeration" or, perhaps, "hyperbole," and not take it literally?

As another instance of unreal oddities in the New Testament, since the cross supposedly only gained spiritual significance after Christ died on it, what is Jesus referring to when he instructs his disciples to "take up the cross?" (Mt 10:38, 16:24; Mk 8:34, Mk 10:21; Lk 9:23, 14:27) Again, is this unusual request meant to be taken literally? Or, as previously noted, a reflection of pre-Christian veneration of the cross, as found on Jewish ossuaries.

In addition, Matthew 11:12 says, "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence..." The RSV notes that other ancient authorities state that "the kingdom of heaven has been coming violently." Why the difference, and which is the original? Is it logical to a.s.sert that heaven can "suffer violence?" Can heaven be "coming violently?" How could it be considered heaven then?

Also, at Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven," and says that whatever he-Peter-"binds on earth" will be "bound in heaven" and whatever he "looses on earth" will be "loosed in heaven." What does this mean? The Greek word for "bind," deo, also means "forbid" or "prohibit." The Greek word for "loose," luo, also means "declare unlawful." Does Peter have the same authority as G.o.d in creating prohibitions and legal declarations? If so, and if Peter is the basis of the Roman Catholic Church, as tradition holds, should we not all be Catholics and follow the Catholic Church's "laws" or doctrines to the letter? Or did G.o.d change his mind many centuries later when Martin Luther caused the Protestant Reformation? Is Peter-the rock upon whom Jesus built his church-no longer in charge of creating prohibitions and legal declarations on Earth?

Furthermore, Jesus is portrayed as being G.o.d the Father himself, saying, "I and the Father are One" (Jn 10:30), among other depictions. Yet, at certain points, such as at Matthew 20:23 or when he's basically praying to himself in the garden of Gethsemane, Christ is separate from whom he calls "my Father" but who in reality is himself! The very premise of this story of a giant, invisible man in the sky splitting himself up into not two but three individuals, in order to act out this strange drama, seems to be extremely bizarre and certainly no more historical or factual than the myths of other cultures.

Another instance of illogic occurs with the apologist argument regarding the diverging chronology for the pericope of Jesus's anointment by a woman in the house of Simon. This reasoning holds that since Christ's ministry was at least one to three years long-that number being unclear in the gospels as well-he would have been anointed in houses many times. However, all that anointing would be surprising, not only since there is no precedent for it but especially since the disciples fiercely objected to such a costly ritual even once, and they did not suggest that it had ever happened before. Moreover, of all these possible anointments, why would the evangelists. .h.i.t on two Simons? Were all these anointments only in the houses of people named Simon? The more logical response is that one or both of the evangelists got the facts wrong.

During the Pa.s.sover celebration, Jesus acknowledges that one of his disciples would betray him, saying that it would be better for this man "if he had not been born." If G.o.d sent his only begotten Son to be crucified for the sins of mankind, then in turning Jesus over to the authorities, Judas would be doing G.o.d's will, so why should he be punished? Judas serves an important role in G.o.d's plan for salvation, which is presumably under G.o.d's own control. Hence, it would seem that Judas should be rewarded for thoroughly obeying G.o.d's will. In fact, as the Gospel of Judas and other Christian writings reveal, Judas was esteemed in certain sects as an obedient servant of G.o.d.

At Matthew 26:50, Judas approaches to identify Jesus, who asks why he is there. Why would Christ do that, when he already knew Judas would betray him that very night? Furthermore, why does Judas need to kiss Jesus to identify him, considering that Christ had become widely known during the preceding weeks? Other ancient authorities, RSV notes, have Christ also tell Judas to "do that for which you have come." It seems that in ancient times others noticed the same illogicality of Jesus asking why Judas was there, and attempted to correct the error by adding this phrase. Obviously, the ancient authorities felt they had the right to change what Christ supposedly said, essentially fabricating a quote. Under these circ.u.mstances, are we not justified in wondering how much else of the gospel story is fabricated?

How could Peter, after witnessing Jesus's many miracles-even walking on water himself!-and seeing Christ transfigured on the mountain, deny him later? And why would Jesus, knowing that Peter would deny him, make the disloyal apostle the "rock" of his church? Peter, who had witnessed the Lord in all His glory, surrounded by Moses and Elijah, and p.r.o.nounced the Son of the Father by the latter's own voice declaring, "This is my son, in whom I am well pleased"-yet, the "faithful apostle" goes on to deny Jesus, cowardly running off when confronted! Despite this treacherous behavior, Peter is nonetheless given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and has Christ's church built upon him, becoming the first pope. Would this sort of activity not set a precedent that regardless of our disbelief in or denial of Jesus, we need not fear punishment but could reasonably expect to be rewarded?

The irrationalities continue: Why would the Jewish crowd, who had been following Jesus around and many of whom had been healed by him, shouting "Hosannas" upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, nevertheless ask for an infamous criminal, Barabbas, to be released, and for Christ to be put to death?

If Jesus is G.o.d, why would he cry out, "My G.o.d, my G.o.d, why hast thou forsaken me?" How can G.o.d forsake himself? Moreover, why are there different accounts of what Jesus/ G.o.d said while on the cross? Couldn't G.o.d/Jesus as the Holy Spirit infallibly inspire the evangelists to recall his exact words?

Also, why do Matthew, Mark and Luke make no mention of Jesus as the remover of sin? Matthew only mentions the word "sin" in two places, while the term never appears in Mark and Luke. Only John records Christ's role as the remover of sin-and John uses the word 15 times. If Jesus is the remover of sin-the whole reason Christ supposedly came to earth!-how could the synoptists omit this detail, if this story is factual?

At the end of John (Jn 20:31, 21:25), the evangelist writes that Christ's deeds were so many that the "world itself could not contain the books that would be written" about them. Concerning this statement, Dr. Blomberg remarks that "John's gospel ends by saying, somewhat hyperbolically, that the whole world couldn't contain all the information that could have been written about Jesus..."1 If it is acknowledged even by Christian apologists that there is "exaggeration" and "hyperbole" in the Bible, how can we be sure that other incredible claims made therein do not also represent a bunch of hype? As can be seen, there exist enough hyperbole, illogic and irrationality to cause one to question the purported historicity of the gospel story itself.

Jesus's Character.

Regardless of whether or not they believe in Christ's miracles, countless people follow Jesus because they suppose he set a great moral example. But, did he really? If we all acted like Jesus, would the world truly be a better place? There are a number of instances that make Christ's character seem less than stellar. To reiterate one important example, if Jesus is the all-powerful G.o.d who could change the world with ease, why does he flee from the petty thane Herod, leaving behind innocent infants to be murdered hideously in his place? As the omnipotent G.o.d, Jesus could easily stop this horrible slaughter, but he does not, choosing to run away and hide instead.

Many people who read the gospels are bothered by Jesus saying he came to bring not peace but a sword. (Mt 10:34) Jesus not only speaks about coming with a sword but also makes many p.r.o.nouncements that the world will be in violent chaos-these concepts are objectionable to peace-loving people, and, again, since Christ is the omnipotent Lord of the cosmos, he is in charge of these events and could prevent them from happening, if he wished. Hence, since apparently Jesus does not wish to thwart these horrifying events and their appalling loss of limb and life, how could he be considered "all good?" Is it "good" to allow-or cause, if you are the omnipotent G.o.d-your children to flounder, suffer and die?

Moreover, when Christ tells people to hate their mothers and fathers, and to leave them behind in order to follow him, he sounds very much like a cult leader. The same can be said when Jesus denies his mother and brothers (and sisters), appearing callous and uncaring towards them. Christ also seems to encourage people to die for him, or suffer martyrdom, by telling his followers that "he who loses his life for my sake will find it." (Mt 10:39) Jesus further informs his disciples that they will be rewarded a "hundredfold" if they leave their family and nation in his name. At Luke 14:33, Jesus instructs his followers that only those who renounce all that they have can be his disciples. In addition, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles (5:5, 10), Christ's "rock," Peter, essentially causes the deaths of two people who did not give him enough money! These teachings seem to be very objectionable and the marks of a cult leader. How many people do these things demanded by Christ, abandoning family and home, and giving up all their possessions, for his sake? Can we pick and choose what makes us perfected Christians destined for heaven?

Christ also predicts that his disciples will be hated for his sake and will suffer and be put to death-why, if Jesus is the omnipotent Lord and could easily prevent this horror? Why the fixation with suffering and death? In fact, if Jesus is G.o.d, and G.o.d is all-powerful, Christ could easily change the entire world and not have anyone suffer in his name or at all.

Continuing in an aggressive vein, at Matthew 13:41-42 Jesus evokes some frightening imagery: "The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth." The "Son of man" is Christ himself, who is basically stating that he will send angels to burn "evildoers." At John 15:6, Jesus says, "If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned." These pa.s.sages have been used over the centuries to justify witch-burnings and a.s.sorted other tortures of non-believers. Was it really a good idea for the omnipotent Lord to make such violent threats, which incited his fanatic followers to seize thousands of innocent people in order to torture and/or murder them? Instead of burning "evildoers" in this horrible manner, why can't the all-powerful G.o.d simply change them? And if Christ has been with us for 2,000 years-or for eternity, as Christian doctrine dictates-then wasn't he in charge of the world during this sickening period of horrific violence? Especially as concerns the Church in his very name? If not, where was Christ, who is eternal and omnipresent, during this time when there were endless horrors in his name? Why didn't Jesus stop this terror immediately? And what about life on Earth today, with all its horrors-why can't the omnipotent G.o.d/Jesus end such atrocities? Could the answer be that the figure in the New Testament named "Jesus Christ" was not who he was purported to be?

Jesus's violent side surfaces yet again at Luke 19:27, where Christ tells a strange parable about a king, in which he has the king say, "But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me." If this pa.s.sage does not refer to Christ and the kingdom of G.o.d, why does Jesus tell this parable? And if it does refer to Christ and the kingdom, as is widely accepted, doesn't it indicate a very aggressive, violent and dangerous character?

Also, being the omniscient Lord, why didn't Jesus know beforehand that his beloved cousin John the Baptist was about to be gruesomely murdered? Being omnipotent, why didn't he prevent this hideous crime of beheading a holy man? And not just any holy man, but the very one who recognized Jesus as the messiah, being Christ's forerunner! In addition, in the story Jesus does not seem to be particularly disturbed by John's awful death.

Furthermore, some people object to Jesus equating the Canaanite/Palestinian woman with a "dog," making Christ appear uncompa.s.sionate and bigoted. In repeatedly stating that he came not for the Gentiles, and in making a remark that an offending brother is like a "Gentile and a tax collector," Jesus again seems to be bigoted against non-Jews.

When Peter objects to Jesus being killed, he is expressing concern about his Lord; yet, Jesus snarls at his apostle and calls him "Satan." Why would Christ be so hostile and attack Peter so viciously simply because his apostle did not want him to die?

Jesus also seems very violent not only when he attacks the moneychangers in the temple but also when he curses the fig tree. If Jesus is G.o.d, and G.o.d created the fig tree, why would Jesus/G.o.d make it barren of fruit in the first place, such that he would have to curse and destroy the poor tree later? If Christ is the omnipotent Lord, could he not just snap his fingers and make the fruit materialize? Is the angry and violent attack on the tree really a sign of a G.o.dly character? Also, why does Jesus-the Almighty G.o.d Himself-need food in the first place? Can't Christ just blink his eyes and make the food appear or his hunger disappear?

Dr. Geisler's apology for this difficult pa.s.sage includes the reasoning that Christ knew the fig tree was supposed to have fruit, but he needed to approach it in order to see that it really did (Mk 11:13) and, seeing that it had foliage, he a.s.sumed it would bear fruit as well: "It was the foliage that drew Jesus to the tree in hope of finding fruit."1 This excuse begs the question as to why the omniscient Lord of the cosmos needed to draw near physically to the fig tree to discover whether or not it had fruit. Moreover, Geisler's argument that, being the omnipotent Lord, Jesus "can curse a fig tree for reasons unknown to us" could be deemed a flimsy "copout," with other interpretations appearing equally weak.

Furthermore, it seems to be highly arrogant and presumptuous of Jesus to a.s.sume that he could just take someone's a.s.s and foal, simply by declaring that he is the Lord of the universe! Why would Jesus not manifest his own a.s.s, rather than borrowing someone else's, without even telling them? Wouldn't this act ordinarily const.i.tute theft? What kind of example does Jesus set here?

At a number of points (Mt 3:7, 12:34, 23:33), Jesus calls Jews "vipers," and at John 8:44 he attacks the Jewish authorities, saying they are of their father "the devil." These remarks seem very harsh, essentially stating that the Jewish authorities are evil and the sp.a.w.n of Satan. Christ is thus abusive of pious Jews, calling them all sorts of names, and then he threatens to destroy the temple. Is this proper behavior? How would we react to this behavior if someone threatened to destroy a temple today? Unfortunately, the anti-Jewish sentiment in John has been utilized over the centuries for nefarious ends. As the omnipotent Lord, shouldn't Jesus have seen these violent confrontations coming and presented himself more temperately in order to avoid them?

In addition, Jesus predicts that Judea will be destroyed, which many people logically believe is simply reportage after the fact by the biblical scribes. Nevertheless, even if Christ did predict this occurrence, since he is omnipotent, why didn't he stop it? Since he is G.o.d, he must have caused it in the first place. Where is Christ's compa.s.sion and understanding?

If G.o.d/Jesus is compa.s.sionate, why does he have a planned tribulation for the entire world, during which millions of people, including innocent men, women and children, are going to suffer and die horribly?

As we have already seen, Jesus also shows a lack of character when he discusses the poor, evidently not at all wis.h.i.+ng to help them but simply accepting that they exist-and declaring that they will always exist, despite the fact that, as the all-powerful G.o.d, he could snap his fingers and end poverty immediately. In consideration of what huge problems poverty and slavery represented within the Roman Empire-with an estimated 1 to 1.5 million slaves in Italy alone-the failure to address and condemn these major social ills becomes all the more egregious. Adding insult to injury is the fact that Jesus Christ is purported to be the all-powerful Lord of the cosmos, who, presumably, could end slavery, poverty and all suffering instantly. Instead, one of Christ's most important followers and arguably the major establisher of Christian doctrine besides Christ, Paul, actually encourages slavery in his letters to the Ephesians, Colossians and t.i.tus: Slaves, be obedient to those who are your earthly masters, with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as to Christ... (Eph 6:5) Slaves, obey in everything those who are your earthly masters, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing the Lord. (Col 3:22) Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory... (Tts 2:9) The word for "slaves" in the Greek is douloi, from the singular , which is often rendered "servant" in the various versions of the Bible, in order to soften the impression. The fact will remain, however, that slavery and poverty were rampant in the Roman Empire and beyond, and, despite claiming to be the savior of the world, Christ made no condemnation of, or attempt to end, either problem. Indeed, Rome was full of suffering people; yet, the omniscient and omnipotent Lord of the universe who came to Earth to alleviate people of their sins oddly felt fit to make his appearance in a tiny backwater section of the Roman Empire far away from this suffering!

Moreover, some of Jesus's words and deeds were so absurd and repulsive to the locals that they claimed he was possessed by demons and "mad." (Mk 3:21-22; Jn 10:20) The issue of Christ's seeming megalomania and arrogance-exhibiting "delusional psychosis" and "grandiose beliefs"-has been profound enough for apologists to craft arguments in defense of Jesus's sanity. Jesus's megalomaniacal and arrogant jargon includes: "I am the Alpha and Omega" (Rev 1:18, 1:11, 21:6, 22:13); and, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (Jn 14:6) These numerous examples const.i.tute objections regarding the character displayed by Jesus throughout the gospels. There are people who, even if they believe there was a man called Jesus who did some of the things in the gospel, do not think he was a particularly good man, much less a G.o.d. Christ often comes across as arrogant, as well as angry, and he continually speaks down to people in a very haughty and conceited manner. He is self-absorbed and obsessed with issues that are seemingly not very important, such as whether a fig tree bears fruit for him or his head will be anointed, whereas real problems, such as slavery and poverty, remain unexamined and unchallenged by him.

Repellant Deeds, Sayings and Doctrines.

In addition to the abundant character flaws are a number of peculiar and repugnant teachings by Christ and within Christianity as a whole. For instance, at Matthew 5:40-42, Jesus tells us that, should anyone sue us for our coat, we should just give him our "cloak" as well! Should we really follow that command? How many Christians have done so? And what happens to those who do not? Christ also exhorts that "if any one forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles." Are we supposed to surrender ourselves to people who would force us to do things, essentially const.i.tuting slavery? Jesus further instructs us to give to anyone who begs or borrows from us. Can we really do that and live a decent life? What about our children-should we not save and prepare for them? In his apology for the scripture encouraging Christ's followers to give to anyone who asks of them, Geisler proffers a highly speculative justification, saying that "Jesus no more expected His listeners to take, without qualification, the command to 'give to him who asks you' than He intended them to literally cut off their hands and pluck out their eyes if they offended them...!"1 There is, in reality, no substantiation for this conjecture of what Christ expected or intended as concerns these particular verses, and this apology leaves us with the impression that Jesus's remarks are meaningless and pointless. If Christ did not intend for us to understand these comments literally, why even say them, as there is no sensible figurative way in which to comprehend them?

Furthermore, at Matthew 6:25, Jesus advises us not to worry about the future, not even about what we will eat and drink-is this a practical teaching? Why, then, if G.o.d knows we need food and drink, do people die from thirst and starvation every day? And if G.o.d knows our needs, why must we pray to him for bread on a daily basis, as in the Lord's Prayer?

At Matthew 7:11, Jesus tells his followers that they are "evil." Who exactly is evil-all of us? Why would G.o.d make us evil? If we are made in G.o.d's image, how can we be evil, unless G.o.d is evil?

Christ's p.r.o.nouncements regarding marriage, divorce and adultery appear to be very harsh and uncompa.s.sionate. Does it sound like a good idea to consider an "adulteress" a woman divorced for reasons other than unchast.i.ty, including, perhaps, domestic violence and abuse? Is not a woman who has been "unchaste" or committed infidelity an adulteress anyway? Doesn't this declaration mean that all divorced women would be considered adulteresses, regardless of whether or not they were faithful? Should we also deem a man who marries such a woman an "adulterer?" The penalty for adultery in Old Testament times often was death, by stoning or otherwise (Deut 22:22; Lev 20:10). Christ said he did not come to abolish the Mosaic Law but to fulfill it-should we therefore stone adulterers, as defined by Jesus?

Christ tells his followers that they should cut off their hands and feet, and pluck out their eyes, but should anyone really do that? Should we cut off people's hands if they steal? Amputations of this kind have been common in various cultures since ancient times, so it was already a custom and understood as literal, not something "figurative" that Jesus was exhorting. Are these gruesome concepts something "good" to which we should expose the innocent and impressionable minds of children?

What about becoming an eunuch for heaven by being castrated? Apologists may say that it is better to be castrated than to forfeit heaven, but some people might respond that heaven is not a proven place, so castration is quite a risk to take. Apologists also claim that the phrase "receive this" in the "eunuchs for the kingdom" scripture refers not to the castration but to acquiring an understanding of Jesus's purported "parable" here. In the original Greek of the verse there is no way to determine whether the word for "receive it"- or kh.o.r.eito-refers to actual castration or the statement itself. This fact has not prevented translators of recent Bible editions from rendering the phrase "accept this statement." (New Living Translation) This rendering remains an interpretation of what the editors thought Jesus may have meant. If the New Testament represents the literal Word of G.o.d, it is puzzling why G.o.d/Jesus would go to the trouble of putting forth such remarks and then not make them clear, such that they constantly require interpretation.

Moreover, even if the "it" does refer to the statement, what is Jesus trying to impart here? If he is speaking in a parable, in effect winking at his listeners, is Christ not likely conveying nevertheless that he condones or encourages men to become eunuchs for heaven? The fact will remain that early Christians such as Church father Origen and others perceived Jesus's words as meaning that they should become castrated-and they followed through with what they considered a commandment from their Master. Indeed, this verse has traditionally been interpreted to mean that Jesus's disciples should abstain from s.e.xuality, such that it is clear that Christians from the earliest times onward believed Christ was encouraging them to be "eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven." As a later example, in 1871 biblical commentators Jamieson, Fausset and Brown rendered the word "eunuch" thus: "persons const.i.tutionally either incapable of or indisposed to marriage." As concerns the last phrase regarding "receiving it," JF and B comment, "He who feels this to be his proper vocation, let him embrace it." Regardless of any other possible interpretation of this scripture, segments of Christendom over the centuries, including various sects such as the Russian "Skoptsi," have viewed this scripture as an inducement to castration at worst and abstinence at best.

When Christ says that families will be handing over their members to be killed, including children having their parents put to death, as at Matthew 10:21-23, he is in effect creating a blueprint for his disciples to follow. Why would the G.o.d of the universe bring about such a horrible creation, when, being all-powerful, he could manifest anything he wants?

Another strange teaching appears at Matthew 18:21-22, where Jesus tells Peter that the latter must forgive his brother's sins against him not seven but "seventy times seven." Is that really wise? Is it possible? Should we really just forgive people over and over again, no matter what they do?

Even if they are murderers or rapists? How are we to forgive them? Should we not punish them and not let them do it again?

In pressing his point, at Matthew 18:34-35, Jesus tells Peter that everyone who does not forgive his brother "from his heart" will be tortured in prison by the Lord G.o.d. In this pericope, Jesus relates the story of a slaveholder who delivers one of his unforgiving slaves to torturers, and then says that G.o.d will do the same to all of us for not forgiving our brothers' sins.

It should be noted that many translations of this Matthaean verse cloak the term "slave"-doulos in the Greek-behind the word "servant," while the term for those who tortured the slave-basanistes in the singular-is translated as "jailers" and "tormentors." Strong's defines this word basanistes (G930) as: 1) one who elicits the truth by the use of the rack a) an inquisitor, torturer also used of a jailer doubtless because the business of torturing was also a.s.signed to him Hence, the term is more appropriately translated as "torturer." What happens to those of us who do not follow these exhortations to forgive our brother? Will we all forfeit the Kingdom of Heaven and be cast into h.e.l.l to be tortured by G.o.d? If it's not G.o.d who is to torture us, then who-Satan? If the torture is G.o.d's punishment for not forgiving our brother's sins, then is Satan G.o.d's instrument? Is all of this logical and sensible? Should an all-good and merciful G.o.d be torturing people?

At Matthew 23:8, Jesus tells us to "call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven." Does this mean we can't call our own fathers "father?" If so, doesn't that seem harsh? What about priests? Is the Catholic practice of calling priests "father" against G.o.d? Why does no one literally follow this command of Jesus? If we can overlook this scripture, can we not ignore others as well, including those that tell us to believe the incredible claims regarding Jesus in the first place? In the next breath, Christ tells us that he is our Master-should we ignore that scripture as well? Jesus follows this overbearing declaration of his dominion over us with a lecture on humility-doesn't that seem hypocritical?

In the pericope of the "widow's mite" at Luke 21:1-4, Jesus seems to be encouraging poor people to give away all their belongings to the temple/church. Is this a good policy? Why does the omnipotent Lord need the money of poor people or any people at all? Doesn't this sort of behavior set a dangerous precedent for people to prey on the poor, old and gullible?

In Matthew 24, Jesus tells two long parables about "wise and foolish maidens" and about money, so that he can impart the following lesson: "For to every one who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away."

Does this teaching sound right? Doesn't it seem to be lacking in compa.s.sion?

At John 12:25, Jesus says, "He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life." This scripture has been repeated many times and is fairly well known, but does it sound very good? Isn't Christ encouraging people to be miserable and even suicidal about being alive? Isn't Jesus essentially saying, "If you love life, you have to die. But if you hate life, you have to stay alive forever." Could such a remark not be construed as very cruel? If G.o.d gave us this life, why should we "hate" it? Did G.o.d give us very bad lives? Why would an all-good, all-powerful and merciful G.o.d do such a thing?

At the Last Supper/eucharist, when Jesus tells his disciples that they should eat the bread and drink the wine because these are Christ's body and blood, doesn't that sound like barbaric cannibalism and vampirism? When you first heard about the eucharist, perhaps as a child, how did you feel about it? Were you not repulsed by the notion of drinking some guy's blood and eating his body? Are these barbaric, cannibalistic concepts really something we should be exposing our children to?

The bloodiness continues, as at Matthew 27:25 the Jews are depicted as saying, "His blood be upon us and our children." Why would the Jews make such a statement? If it is because they want to be washed in the "blood of the lamb," wouldn't that absolve them of their sins? If Christ gave his life in atonement for sins, why would being bathed in his blood be a bad thing? Why were the Jews labeled "Christ-killers" and persecuted repeatedly over many centuries, when they were evidently asking for the salvific baptism in the blood of the Lamb? In any event, the whole concept of blood atonement in the first place ranks as repulsive and barbaric-and unnecessary for an all-powerful and loving G.o.d.

Is it logical to vilify Jews as committers of deicide, when it was by all pious accounts G.o.d's own plan to take birth as a human and sacrifice himself on the cross? Jesus himself is depicted as saying he will be crucified, long before he is found guilty of anything remotely meriting capital punishment-and that in itself is another issue, because Jesus's alleged misdeeds did not warrant the death penalty. Christ's sacrifice was salvific, not expiatory, meaning it was for our salvation, rather than as a punishment for any crimes he committed. Indeed, it is a matter of Christian doctrine that G.o.d so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. (Jn 3:16) In such a case, it would appear to be blasphemy to demonize the people who served as crucial partic.i.p.ants in G.o.d's highest plan for the salvation of mankind!

As we have seen, various factions attempted to place the onus of Christ's death on either the Romans or the Jews, for political reasons. Whether Romans or Jews, they were evidently under divine guidance in sacrificing Jesus; therefore, they could not be found culpable of "deicide," unless G.o.d-whose plan it was in the first place-himself is guilty of deicide. How can anyone be guilty of "deicide" since it is impossible to kill the immortal G.o.d? What all this rumination means is that an atrocious amount of people have been hideously tortured and murdered for no good reason whatsoever.

Moreover, it is beyond shameful that anyone would destroy others centuries later for the supposed "sins of their fathers." Also, why would the all-powerful and loving G.o.d the Father allow his children-i.e., Christians-to go on rampages and kill millions of G.o.d's other children, including Christians, as well as G.o.d's chosen people, the Jews?

Moreover, if Jesus is G.o.d, and G.o.d's plan is good, why does he ask himself to stop the coming torment and suffering of his Pa.s.sion? Why is this G.o.d's plan to fix his own creation? Indeed, according to Christian doctrine, Jesus the man is created specifically for the reason of coming to Earth and dying for our sins-again, isn't this a bizarre way for G.o.d to mend things? Does an architect whose building turns out badly jump off the edifice in order to fix it?

Furthermore, many people believe that teaching young, innocent and impressionable children that they are "born in sin" is abusive and harmful. There are numerous other repellant and scary sentiments expressed in the Bible, which includes many depictions of extreme violence and bloodshed on a ma.s.sive scale.

All in all, the numerous instances of questionable sayings, deeds and actions in the gospels and New Testament as a whole are quite distinct and noticeable. This issue const.i.tutes a very important one that should not be taken lightly and dismissed with a variety of trivial and unsophisticated excuses. It is further perplexing that so many intelligent and erudite individuals have engaged themselves in the study of biblical texts without these questions and objections being raised in their minds. Such a scenario is reflective not of the all-encompa.s.sing "truth" of the New Testament but of the intoxicating power of religious conditioning.

Apology Accepted?

"Men often run into gross mistakes by understanding that literally which the scripture speaks figuratively."

Rev. Matthew Henry, "Commentary on John 2"

"Early Christians certainly read scripture allegorically, understanding it to refer to some kind of so-called higher realities that weren't really present in the text itself."

Dr. Harold W. Attridge, "From Jesus to Christ"

The field of Christian apologetics provides responses for any number of the quandaries and objections concerning the difficulties and problems of the gospels, as ill.u.s.trated by several examples already provided. To some people, however, many of these answers appear to be illogical and contrived, leaving us to continue wondering about any solid data upon which to base or judge anything concretely about the New Testament. Several of these responses and excuses also seem dishonest and lacking in integrity, such as the "principle of harmonization" that essentially const.i.tutes a waving away of the hand indicating the gospel writers were not interested in accuracy. Other apologies come across as desperate and sophistic attempts to rationalize and harmonize issues that do not make sense and that do not follow natural laws or even appear realistic.

In addition to the apologies already explored are a number of other themes within the field of apologetics. For example, one more justification for the many discrepancies and difficulties in the gospel texts points out that the biographies of other people also reveal differences in what supposedly happened in the subjects' lives. However, here we are not discussing the biographies of "any old people" but the inerrant portrayal of the Lord G.o.d himself, allegedly infallibly recorded by scribes inspired by the Holy Spirit! The standard for judging the gospels needs to be much higher, since G.o.d himself is purported to have written them. Additionally, these texts were not composed by four unrelated individuals as is the case with the biographies of other people: The canonical gospels are the result of a concerted effort purportedly to depict accurately the life of the most important person ever to walk the face of the earth. The gospels simply cannot be so casually and carelessly handled as to justify various apologies, such as: The times were different; people saw things differently; the evangelists didn't care about accurate representation, etc. Surely, the Lord G.o.d Almighty-the purported true author of the gospels-is not just "one of the people" who abides by the sloppy and disinterested rules of the day!