Sep 21 2009
The Fake Steve Jobs Points Out That Jesus Didn’t Always Tell The Truth Either
As you’re coming to find out, I love The Fake Steve Jobs blog. In his most recent post, he points out that even Jesus himself didn’t always tell the truth. He also points out that those who wrote the gospel contradict each other… and concludes that one of them must be lying:
You go through the whole New Testament and you’ll find case after case where Jesus kind of holds back a little bit, or stops short, and maybe it’s not outright lying but it ain’t the truth, either. Same with the guys who wrote the gospels. How else can you explain the fact that they all contradict each other? Somebody was lying, right?
It’s always nice to see a blogger I love point out the obvious.
6 responses so far
Either they’re lying, they forgot, or they’re not quite telling the truth.
None of those sound like a good way to write a sacred book.
For the past 2000 years people have been [eroneously] making this same claim. There is nothing new under the sun.
I would openly challenge the writer of that blog to expose a SINGLE contradiction in the Gospels (or even the entire body of Scripture) and I would especially challenge them to prove a single lie from the Savior’s lips.
It is really a shame when a person is so zealous to “drag Jesus’ Name through the dirt” that they don’t take the time to prove their point. As throughout the entire history of mankind since Jesus walked on the earth, empty accusations abound. But my challenge stands!
“Put up or shut up” I believe would be the correct response. Since I already know that blogger cannot, his entire post is mote and just another example of a soul rejecting their Creator. It’s sad but a fact of life and part of the society that we live with.
God Bless!!
R. Keith Richardson
http://meditationsintheword.com
Keith is absolutely right; there are no lies, nor are there any contradictions in the good book. As I have said before, it is apparent to me that people who make baseless claims about the Bible’s authenticity, synergy , accuracy simply have not had a good Bible teacher.
That is a very sad thing, but I understand and sympathize because after a lifetime of Catholicism I still didn’t understand the Bible until a Baptist minister taught me how to read it, at which point I bought a book called “What the Bible is All About” by Dr. Henrietta Mears. Once I truly understood the Bible as a WHOLE, the evidence for God was overwhelming and I could find no contradictions whatsoever.
Most importantly, you’re never going to understand the book if you keep cannibalizing it. It must be understood as a WHOLE, just like any story. Just because people quote it doesn’t mean it is a buffet whereby one can graze over bits and pieces and choose what appeals to them on a given day. It will undoubtedly confuse far more than it enlightens if consumed in that manner
Blessings,
Mark
I was going to write something but then I realised that Mark and R. Keith Richardson had written it all. Guys, when considering ‘case after case where Jesus kind of holds back a little bit, or stops short’, please look at the fact that He often said things like ‘he who has an ear, let him hear’, and talked about the hardness of the human heart to receive spiritual truths. The Fake Steve Jobs guy doesn’t quote a single example of Jesus’ teaching to back up his observation, which looks to me like simply an emotional response Christ’s words, rather than any thing else.
ARE THERE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN THE HOLY BIBLE?
What the atheistic and the Muslim critic of the Bible fail to understand is that the Bible is not only the oldest surviving book in the world– it did not come from one person. Pathetically, the Muslims mistakenly see the Bible as the Christian equivalent of their Qur’an. So, like the Western atheists, Muslims cite wrong parts of the Bible in their attempt to prove that the Christian Word of God is contradictory.
Even then, logically, the seeming inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible are what confirm its genuineness. Such parts of the Holy Bible were observations and writings of VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS and under VARIOUS CONDITIONS. Scientifically, such reports are subject to INDIVIDUALITY and CONDITIONALITY unless they are edited. Therefore, this existence of ‘INDIVIDUALNESS’ and ‘CONDITIONALITY’ is logically a strong proof that the individual Biblical account have never been edited; and are not fictions in which case they would have been identically written by all the collaborators, but are true and historical events writen independently by various individuals.
Example of CONDITIONALITY Mark (10:46-52) says that Jesus healed while LEAVING Jericho. But Luke (18:35-43) says while ENTERING Jericho. This, as a Western Reverend writer observes in his book, had been thought to be (as it is apparently) a sharp contradiction until the excavation of Earnest Sellen of the German Oriental Society (citing ‘Archeology and Bible History page 295), when it was discovered that the Jericho of Jesus’ time was a double city–Jewish (old) Jericho and Roman (modern) Jericho, such that LEAVING one could as well mean ENTERING the other.
Therefore both Mark and Luke are perfectly right. Their various versions were caused by the CONDITION of the then Jericho namely, its double-city nature.
Example of INDIVIDUALITY Because Mark and Luke (as in the case above) did not collaborate but rather independently wrote, INDIVIDUALITY became obvious in their judgments. Thus while one of them ‘conservatorially’ regarded regarded the original (Jewish) Jericho as the (actual) Jericho, the other ‘modernly’ regarded the administrative (Roman) Jericho as (currently) the Jericho.
Other Examples i. Mark (1:6) says, “John’s food was ONLY locust and honey”, while Mathew (11:18) says, “John came NEITHER eating nor drinking.
Here, while Mark considered the ‘exact aspect’ of John’s feeding, Mathew on the other hand considered the ‘comparative’ or ‘metaphorical’ aspect .
ii. According to John (19:17) Jesus bore his cross up to the Golgotha. But according to Luke (23:26), one Simon was later on forced to carry the cross to follow Jesus. ‘A clear contradiction!! ‘, Muslims would exclaim. But the fact is that the then Jerusalem was a large and walled city and Golgotha was a place just outside Jerusalem. Normally, Jesus most have bore his cross from the Pilate’s Court to as far as outside the Jerusalem Wall and within the premises of the Golgotha before the Simon, who was not even an accused, was nevertheless forced to just take over form the apparently too fatigued Jesus to the exact crucifixion spot.
Therefore, while John ignored the ‘negligible’ contribution of Simon, Luke on the other hand, recognized it, perhaps for historical record.
Naturally, ‘INDIVIDUALITY’ and ‘CONDITIONALITY’ variously manifest any time a historical event is independently reported by different individuals and or when there is a difference of condition.
These types of situations are what Muslims simplistically referred to as contradictions in the Bible.
iii. Matthew 20:29-34 says two blind persons, Mark 10:46 and Luke 18:35-38 say one blind person.
It just means that there were two blind persons. One is active in asking Jesus, the other was barely involved. So, while Mark and Luke ignore the “insignificant” involvement of the reluctant blind man, Matthew felt it was important to acknowledge his inconsequential involvement. In other words, while Mark and Luke recognize only active presence, Matthew acknowledges non active presence. This was because there was no collaboration. Each of them wrote independently with different emphasis and different intended message. If the event was fictitious, the versions would have collaboratively looked very identical.
It should be noted, however, that the contradictions and inconsistencies in the Qur’an can not be explained in terms of ‘CONDITIONALTY’ and ‘INDIVIDUALITY’ because the Qur’an as a whole was supposedly uttered by one person (God). Of course if there exist contradictions in the direct words of God in the Bible, they likewise can not be explained in that ways. But there is non in actual sense.
So, Contradictions or Lazy and Mischievous Scholarship
Being the oldest surviving book in the World, contemporary intervening factors need to be taken into account when dealing with apparent inconsistencies in the Bible.
A Cambridge University scientist, Professor Colins Humphreys tackled the biblical seeming inconsistency in which while Matthew, Mark and Luke all say the Last Super coincided with the start of Jewish feast of Passover, John implies it was before Passover.( http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110418/wl_uk_afp/britainreligionchristianseaster)
The scientist believes it was due to a calendar mix-up between the one (a conservative Jewish calendar) used by Jesus – along with Matthew, Mark and Luke on one hand and the one (official lunar calendar) used by John on the other.
Professor Humphreys, who used a combination of biblical, historical and astronomical research, then noted, “Many biblical scholars say that, for this reason, you can’t trust the Gospels at all. But if we use science and the Gospels hand in hand, we can actually prove that there was no contradiction.”
Other claims of contradictions in the Bible are mere mischief of the Muslims and their paid agents, the normally greedy, materialistic and corrupt Western atheists.
May the Almighty Yahweh open the eyes of my Muslim friends to see the light of Christ.
ARE THERE INCONSISTENCIES AND CONTRADICTIONS IN THE HOLY BIBLE (2)?
These are the last examples. You don’t need to be much observant to know whether it is God or others that are speaking in the Bible. However, if you can’t I advice you to look for the Bible that distinguishes the statements of God (or Jesus) from the statements of others by red inking or italics.
Like I normally say, as usual, the evidences of supposed Biblical contradictions quoted are historical records by different individuals (authors) who operated under the then CONDITIONS that we are not familiar with. So, the ‘contradictions’ (actually, some differences) which you noticed are evidences of independence of the INDIVIDUAL authors. In other words, INDIVIDUALITY and CONDITIONALITY naturally apply here as well.
Note that where an event is identically reported by different INDIVIDUALS and tends to fit into the current CONDITION, intelligent scholars would naturally suspect collaboration among the authors, or editing or fabrication which might lead to doubt on the historicity of the event. However, little minds would not suspect anything.
Applying CONDITIONALITY and INDIVIDUALITY on the following instances:
i. 2 Samuel 24:9 (five hundred thousand) Vs 1 Chronicles 21:5 (four hundred and seventy
thousand)
CONDITIONALITY
In 1 Chronicles, where the number is said to be four hundred and seventy thousand, Levi and Benjamin are reportedly excluded. And you know Levi and Benjamin might have others under them.
INDIVIDUALITY
While the author in 2 Samuel felt it was proper to state the number inclusive of (the people of) Levi and Benjamin since it was all about capable hands, the author in 1 Chronicles felt otherwise—and things like that.
ii. 2 Samuel 24:13 (3 yrs or 7yrs in Hebrew Septgt) Vs 1 Chronicles 21:12 (3 yrs)
Here in most translations of the Bible the common ‘three years’ is retained; the rare ‘seven years’ found in some is attributed to Hebrew Septuagint.
CONDITIONALITY
The possible interfering condition is not clear to me.
INDIVIDUALITY
For whatever condition (or reason), while the author in 2 Samuel felt a larger 7 yrs was the figure, the author in 1 Chronicles 21:12 felt the common 3yrs was the figure.
iii. 2 Kings 8:26 (22 yrs) Vs 2 Chronicles (22 yrs or 42 yrs in Hebrew Septgt)
Similarly, here most translators retain ’twenty two years’ ; the ‘forty years found in some is possibly attributed to Hebrew Septuagint.
CONDITION (not certain)
The King might have started as a defector ruler at 22 likely to help his ailing father. May be the father died when he was 42, when he officially assumed rulership.
INDIVIDUALITY
iv The author in 2 Kings might have taken into consideration the actual time that Ahaziah began to rule, while the author in 2 Chronicles might have disregarded the period of unofficial rule of Ahaziah—and things like that.