Joey Johnsen is one of many campus preachers at UF. There was a spate of recent letters to the editor (including
my own) following publication of
a column in our campus newspaper criticizing Joey and telling him to go use his time and his faith to do something productive with them. Joey
responded with his own letter to the editor.
He is a nice guy. We have been corresponding via email lately, and instead of keeping such long and drawn out dialogues between us, I want to share them. A lot of the reason I want to share them is because I did a pretty extensive amount of looking into the dispute in the Matthew and Luke accounts of Jesus' genealogy. Also, there is some general good stuff interspersed throughout our discussion. I would like feedback on it, from both sides of the fence.
Joey is not new at campus evangelism. He did a lot of it while he was at UPenn as an undergrad, in their business program. He was involved in CCC (at least, their Fall retreats) and started a campus ministry called "Frontline" in which people would go, unsolicited and unwanted (in most cases), to dorm rooms to "witness" to others:
Every Saturday, approximately seven students from different fellowships at Penn and other universities in Philadelphia spend an hour and a half going from door to door in the Quad dormitory complex to inquire about the spiritual condition of students. The outreach begins with a meeting in someone's room to fellowship and pray in groups of three or four. Then, at most six of the seven students will separate in groups of two equipped with tracts and Bibles to evangelize. Meanwhile, at least one person remains in the room to continue praying.
For Wharton Undergraduate Johnsen, serving the Lord through Frontline is what God has called him to do. "I hear my God telling me 'Go out and make disciples of all nations,'" he said, "When I walk around campus, I see people that are going down a path of destruction. Over this past summer, God impressed on me how awful and horrendous eternal punishment will be. Through Frontline, you can have an eternal influence on people."
Two students in Frontline had the opportunity to lead their peer to Christ one Saturday night. One of these students was a freshman and it was his first time ever evangelizing. "As soon as I heard that someone got saved, I started yelling. We were high-fiving and rejoicing that God would save someone and allow us to be a part of it." Johnsen said.
This ministry changes the hearts not only of those hearing the gospel but also of those delivering the gospel. "It has given me a greater heart for the lost-going out there and realizing how in need they are. God's also given me a joy: I get so excited to bring the gospel to people. So many people don't know what they believe so people default to what their family believes," said Johnsen.
Johnsen was one of the founding members of Frontline. The ministry started in the Fall semester of 2002 with five sophomores who were roommates and accountability partners as well as close friends. These men took the initiative to go to the Quad every week choosing this dorm because it houses many freshmen. They started evangelizing for two reasons: to share the gospel in obedience to Jesus and in hopes for someone's salvation and to gain experience and confidence evangelizing so that they could share the gospel in other arenas outside of Frontline.
So he has ample experience at giving people what they don't want, and what God apparently doesn't care to give them without people like Joey -- a good dose of evangelism. The full-text of the last email I sent Joey follows:
_________________
Joey,
I'll indent quotations of your words, first the newer email, then the older one:
Hey man, just wanted to see if you are still going to respond to my last email about the genealogies.
Sorry for the delay. I've been quite busy.
I think it pretty much satisfactorily answers any objections of there being an error. I think you are a rational, intelligent enough guy to see that.
Joey, if I really believed that, I wouldn't bring up objections. If I was satisfied with the responses, I'd never make the objections in the first place
I already admitted that you can come up with **some response** (not that it is satisfactory), when I said,
"Is this believable? No. But you can make *anything* fit if you stretch credulity thin enough. And I stretched mine until it broke. Like I said, don't bother digging through "solutions" to try to make sense of this. If this one thing was all it was, I'd never have left Christianity. But the difficulties in making Christianity rational are enormous, beyond belief. The number of logical and textual difficulties in Christianity and its Bible and its doctrines I run into on a daily basis, and wonder, "How did I even not notice this before?""
I'm not going to spend a lot of time going on about particular Bible issues, eg the genealogy dispute, but if you're interested in annotated lists of contradictions, you can start at the SAB -- by name, or by book; or here.
It'll keep you busy, assuming you want to see what it is that people find unbelievable about your book.
I just read your email today. I've been busy, and went to Baltimore this past weekend. I appreciate the dialogue. I hope it will continue.
I enjoy the dialogue also, but I hate to spend a lot of time on responses that will only be read by one person, and are not open to 3rd-party critique. Plus, lots of experience in these sorts of dialogues with Christians has shown me that they *always* turn to personal evangelism, and away from addressing the intellectual objections to the faith in an objective way, over time.
I feel bad in some ways for you because your heart has been blinded to truth.
If that is true, you ought to feel bad for me in *every way*.
You can try all you want to make this out to be an intellectual issue with you and Christianity, but it's not.
So are you a certified psychic? I suggest you don't quit your day job.
Proverbs 4
23Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of
life.
Proverbs 10
8The wise in heart will receive commandments: but a prating fool
shall fall. (pratting means babbling)
I respond to these two verses way below with a bunch of other verses referring to wisdom.
I think you should really rethink the claim that the Bible has errors. There has never been one proven error. Never has it been proven that there is even one thing false in what it says. Think about that.
Of course you believe this. That doesn't mean you're correct.
Preliminary consideration: The source documents of the Bible
--Please remember that the English version of the Bible is a compilation of various textual sources, and there are 300,000 textual variants among the sources. Choosing which ones to use is a scholarly (read: not magical or divine) act, carried out by bodies of scholars who convene for the purpose of putting things together. Guess what? The "editing" that is done ensures that common grammatical mistakes and unintelligibles are filtered out. That is, in the sifting and translating, some of the "liberties" that are taken by the committees render things with sense, even if the source documents don't make any. Classic examples of this abound in the KJV translation. If you want to learn more about inerrancy, check out Bart D. Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005. $24.95. x + 242 pp. ISBN 0-06-073817-0. Ehrman is the chair of the religious studies dept at UNC. This is but one book of hundreds I could point to. These books detail the sorts of issues that go into reconstructing *one* book out of thousands of variant copies. And yes, there are literally thousands upon thousands of variant copies. Reconstructing them is like doing evolutionary biology -- you choose characters from the codices and use homology and dating to refit the original [hopefully]. See F.F. Bruce, renowned NT scholar, section three, paragraph three, who cites 5,000 manuscripts in part or whole of the NT:
He goes on to say in paragraph 11:
"The study of the kind of attestation found in MSS and quotations in later writer' is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism.' This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two dips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists' errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remain' among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice"
Of course, this is a rather subjective value judgment, coming from a Christian, but even here we see the admission that I am pointing to -- reconstructing the "authentic" passages is literally guesswork that is done in comparing all of the variant MSS...this is hardly a "divine/magic" process, and the scholars, in so doing this, conveniently "fix" all of the glaring manuscript problems with any singular copy.
Secondary consideration: The sources of the sources
--The scrolls that we have do not go back very far. The very oldest fragment that I'm aware of is a scrap from John's Gospel dated to the mid-2nd CE (John 18:31-33,37ff). The sources of our sources are completely speculative. Completely, assuming tradition and the church fathers were reliable and had the same whole documents from which they quote only small fragments. When people speak with authority about how this Gospel or that one was written at such-and-such a time, keep in mind that not only do complete copies of the Gospels not appear for *hundreds* of years after the time of their [supposed] described events, but these earliest ones are often neglected in favor of those that line up more with what people now believe!! Cases in point: i) pericope adulterae, ii) Mark's longer ending, iii) the Mary virgin birth and lineage story.
Regarding iii, since we have been discussing it, the Codex Sinaiticus has some quite different wording that renders different meaning on these events. Matt 1:16 has no indication from Sinaiticus, nor from a number of other MSS, that Jesus was born of a virgin. Insurresting...eh?
Also, consider the Synoptic problem and the fact that most serious NT scholars regard all of the Gospels as having a common origin..."Q". A whole laundry list of Biblical considerations exists deriving from "high textual criticism" that began in the 18th CE. A large consequence of this new method and area of study was the modernization of the Church -- esp in regards to their doctrines concerning Creation and hell. Basically textual criticism opened a new can of doubt, to which the most difficult to defend doctrines fell as casualties. Yeah, I know, the work of textual critics is all "liberal and biased" -- but you're not, of course. ;)
Tertiary consideration: The finished product
--What you hold in your hand is itself a mess. The idea of a constant God with a constant message can be and is easily falsified by just flipping around to random parts of the OT, then going to the Gospels, then going to Paul's letters. The God of the Sermon on the Mount is not the God of Joshua's conquest. The promise to establish Israel, an actual ethnic and nationalized peoples, changed to a promise to "save the souls" of everyone on earth...
The "Kingdom is at hand" and the "Kingdom is within you", yet "My Kingdom is not of this world"...I pick these three passages not to start a long conversation about their exegesis, but to point to what I think you are already familiar with -- that is, the difficulty and caution people must take in the plain reading of the Bible. You cannot "just" read it, without finding some real theological questions arise. Jesus never spoke of a "sinner's prayer", yet this is the customary "method of salvation" of today. Jesus never gave the disciples any convincing arguments that he was the fulfillment of the OT when he said, "Follow me," yet the Bible claims these men walked off and immediately left behind their families and careers (a sacrifice Jesus demands later, in saying one must "hate" their father, mother, etc., in order to follow him). So when we compare how the disciples, ostensibly believing Jews, reacted to Jesus, and compare that to God's stern warning not to follow false prophets, one must wonder how much legend and folklore play into this story.
When we read the four resurrection narratives and see the following contradictory claims (this *even after* translators do their best to fix some things):
Dan Barker has compiled the Scriptures in parallel around the contradictions of the Resurrection narratives. He posted the work in an (http://www.ffrf.org/about/bybarker/rise.php) article entitled: "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" His analysis--
1) What time did the women visit the tomb?
* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
2) Who were the women?
* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
3) What was their purpose?
* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
4) Was the tomb open when they arrived?
* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)
5) Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)
6) Where were these messengers situated?
* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
7) What did the messenger(s) say?
* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
* John: " Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
8) Did the women tell what happened?
* Matthew: Yes (28:8 )
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8 )
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18 )
9) When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8 )
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)
10) When did Mary first see Jesus?
* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
11) Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
12) After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
13) Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
14) Did the disciples believe the two men?
* Mark: No (16:13[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
15) What happened at that first appearance?
* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
16) Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
* Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
17) Where did the ascension take place?
* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
Now, keep in mind the Synoptic Problem and Q when you read this -- they derive **from the same original sources**, and yet look at the variation!
I can go on and on all day, but as I said, the finished product is a mess, and here are your proofs:
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=104
I believe it has no errors, and you having read it know that for such an immense book as the Bible, with all that it says, to have no errors could only mean that it's true and actually the Word of God.
Read the above.
Take a step of faith Daniel, believe in the Bible, and what it says about Jesus, who can save you from your sins and eternal punishment.
I took the "step of faith" when I was 11, then again, when I was 18. I believed the Bible (in the way you mean) for 90% of my conscious life. I didn't stop believing flippantly, or without serious thought, and lots of introspection. I'm sorry for you that you think otherwise. I'm sorry for you that you think I converted for reasons which are not compelling.
In terms of a discussion board, I think I'd be fine with it in certain contexts. But if I want to be saying things to you personally, I want to email you directly. Cool? I hope you had a good weekend. I hope you come to place your faith in God's Word.
Not cool. If I want evangelism, I'll go to church. If you write me without addressing the substantive intellectual reasons that I am not a Christian (and am an atheist instead), I will likely ignore the email. Simply put, I know the stories, Joey. I don't need to hear them repeated.
I also wanted to ask you if there's anything I can be praying about for you. Are you going through any difficulties? God can help you, if you are. Let me know. Take care and God bless you Daniel.
Joey, do you really think I'm going to believe that prayer matters? You're talking to the ceiling, in my view.
None of what you have said has in the least convinced me that God's Word has even
one error in it, and I'm a rational, logical, intelligent human, just
like the multitudes of other Christians.
Of course I can't "convince" you of that, because you are precommitted to believe it, regardless of the evidence contrariwise. You will always simply go for an ad hoc "explanation" of the "apparent, but not real" problem.
Daniel, if the Bible was rife with contradictions like you try to purport, don't you think tons of Christians who study the Bible their entire lives would eventually find them and realize there are errors in God's Word and leave. But no, this is not common.
How many atheists do you know were serious Christians before? I know *many*. Every one of us, without fail, found serious issues in the Bible that we could no longer believe it because of.
The more people study the Bible and learn it, in general the stronger in faith they grow and the more godly they become.
So I guess I, and the other former Christians I know (see here: http://www.ex-christian.net/) are all just "anomalies"?
Don't you remember all the testimonies of the power of God that changed people's life for the good when they received Jesus as Lord?
I had my own "testimony", Joey. So? It's all in the power of one's perception and belief. That doesn't mean that the object of their belief exists. Muslims and other religions have these same "testimonies", where God "delivers" them from some habit/bondage/sin.
Daniel, this weekend I thought of something I really wanted to tell you because I think it is very relevant to you. It's this: *Proverbs 16:18
Okay, and here's something that I really wanted to tell you b/c I think it's relevant to you (refer back to Prov 14 --"atheists are fools" you quoted, Prov 4:23 and Prov 10:8 you quoted above):
____
Proverbs 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
Proverbs 3:13 Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.
Proverbs 8:11 For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it.
Proverbs 15:2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.
Also see Proverbs 14:7-8, 14:16-18, 14:21-22, 29, 16:21-22
Proverbs 23:23 Buy the truth, and sell it not; also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding.
Eccl 1:13 And I gave my heart to seek and search out by wisdom concerning all things that are done under heaven: this sore travail hath God given to the sons of man to be exercised therewith.
Eccl 2:13 Then I saw that wisdom excelleth folly, as far as light excelleth darkness.
Eccl 7:25 I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness
Eccl 9:16 Then said I, Wisdom is better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom is despised, and his words are not heard.
Eccl 10:10 If the iron be blunt, and he do not whet the edge, then must he put to more strength: but wisdom is profitable to direct.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom ... ask of God ... and it shall be given him. [or just seek it out]
James 3:13-17 Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? Let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth...but the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. [wisdom from above, or just plain old "true wisdom"]
_____
So tit-for-tat.
Daniel, you left the faith, and you made a mistake.
Sure. Why is it then that I feel so much less confusion, much more peace, and happier? Why is it then that all of the issues I always had with belief don't trouble me? How am I supposed to believe that I made a mistake? The only way I can be shown I made a mistake is by pointing to it specifically in evidential terms. Or, I suppose, if God wants me to see it then some miraculous thing will happen.
Yes Daniel, many will not be saved, most will not be saved.
Some God you follow, then. That's just an unbelievable sort of God -- why would it create people at all, if it saw the pain and suffering that would come out of it? Why allow people to be born who are going to roast in hell? Don't say, "free will", because lots of people *want* to have kids and can't. Therefore, why is it God doesn't make more people infertile when God sees that their kids will roast in hell, or let the kid die of disease when they're young, or something? (Heck, God should've let Hitler die young, shouldn't the Big Guy?)
In terms of comparing the morality of non-Christians to real Christians, come on Daniel. Trying to say that non-believers, with no Christian upbringing to set them straight, come anywhere close to a real Christian's morality (not a nominal) is rediculous.
Ever hear of Ghandi? The Dalai Lama's? Buddha? Confucius? Socrates? Aristotle? Etc., etc., etc.,?
Also, your statement is loaded with "real Christians". Who gets to define that term? You? Protestants? Catholics? How do we go back in time to Christendom, and the Inquisitions, and the Crusades, and see that those people were not *real* Christians, but that you are, or that I was, etc.?
Go meet any strong mature man of the Christian faith and you will see the real deal in terms of morality. Go meet some defiant old staunch atheist and you will see the end of those who reject God and his ways.
Joey I grew up in church. I met those who were regarded as "mature men/women of the faith". I saw the same doubts, the same humanity, the same fears, the same hopes, the same issues in them that I see in myself now and then. But, these people claimed to be filled with God's Spirit. I see the same as I see in "defiant old staunch atheists". The question is -- why does one do good, and why does the other? The latter has no commandment to do good, has no fear of hell, has no belief in eternal rewards. The former does. Who is more moral, for giving to charity and helping others? Who does good *for the sake of good*?
They aren't a moral group. Don't be one of them.
Really? So the two men who gave $37B of their own money to help solve malaria, because all of the Christian governments and nations and companies in the world won't, because it is a 3rd world country issue, and it stands to gain no one any money...are they immoral? The names are Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Both non-Christians (both atheists, if I recall correctly).
Again, ever hear of Ghandi? The Dalai Lama's? Buddha? Confucius? Socrates? Aristotle? Etc., etc., etc.,? See this post I put up, and this list of freethinkers, and really consider the greatness of some of these men and women:
The reason you have morals in your life is because of your Christian training, no matter how much you want to try to argue otherwise.
And why are all those people I listed above moral (Ghandi, etc.)? You don't think that humans had morals before they had the Bible? Silly...
Ask yourself, is there anything you are practicing now that Christianity calls a sin? If you are, then you're a sinner living a life of evil. If you aren't then you're following the Christian faith with respect to morality. See the truth there?
No, because it can be put a few different ways:
"Joey, is there anything you are now practicing that Islam/Buddhism/Hinduism/etc. calls a sin?...If you aren't then you're following the Islam/Buddhist/Hindu/etc. faith with respect to morality."
Christianity doesn't have the lock on morality, and many many religions had morality before Christianity even existed, Joey. So what? Morality doesn't "belong" to any of them. It doesn't "poof" into existence from nowhere. It is a human endeavor -- to observe that which is good for us, and to learn it, and to do it. It has been around as long as humans have -- that is why we were able to form social structures, which themselves led to governments and religions.
See what you're doing Daniel is simply choosing to believe people and your own theories that deny the truth of Scripture.
Since when is believing in the Bible not "believing people" (believing these people were inspired, whatever) and since when is sola scriptura as a doctrine of "right religion" not a human theory of religion? As much as you want to make it all divine, religion is a very very human endeavor.
There is nothing, and I mean nothing that proves anything false in God's message contained in the Bible. Yet, if someone wants not to believe it, like you, there are plenty of things to grab hold of to try and convince themselves of it.
Because all religions have flaws, logical difficulties, etc., because people came up with them hundreds, or thousands, of years ago.
This is an easy one Daniel. You see what it says..."his seed." In Matthew we have Joseph's lineage. Jesus Christ was not of Joseph's seed. Joseph is not his biological father, and therefore the prophecy stands unbroken. :)
I'm afraid you're quite wrong about Mary's lineage (even if it was that) somehow solidifying your case. Luke contradicts the claim found in 2 Sam 12:7 and 1 Chr 28:4-10, which states that the messianic line of descent was to be through none other than Solomon. But Luke has Jesus descending from Nathan (v. 31), which leaves you with yet another difficulty.
The promise to David to establish his throne forever, if you assume Jesus as being Israel's Messiah, is not "fixed" if Luke describes Mary's genealogy (which I dispute below). Nathan was specifically excluded in the promise to David to establish his throne forever, as he was never a king in Judah, Solomon was. Matthew avoids this error, but unfortunately has Jechoniah in Jesus' line and this creates another problem, as we have seen in Matthew's genealogy .
Furthermore, the "solution" of believing that one is through Mary and the other through Joseph is completely unsupported by any evidence of Jewish genealogies being done in this way. Find me one source which records a genealogy in this way in the ANE culture. Find me one, which names the father, yet "means" the mother. Raymond Brown writes:
"What influences this suggestion is the centrality of Joseph in Matthew's infancy narrative, as compared with the spotlighting of Mary in Luke's. Even at first glance, however, this solution cannot be taken seriously: a genealogy traced through the mother is not normal. in Judaism, and Luke makes it clear that he is tracing Jesus' descent through Joseph. Moreover, Luke's genealogy traces Davidic descent and despite later Christian speculation, we really do not know that Mary was a Davidid" (Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, p.89)
I also pointed you to the Catholic source which pointd out this same thing. Your proposal may be, indeed, a way to fix the contradiction, but so is saying that drunken scribes messed up the order in recent copies. The point is, neither of those "fixes" are plausible, or supported by evidence. They are both what we would call ad hoc. And, your "fix" of the obvious contradiction and the Jeconian issue doesn't fix it both ways -- here in Luke we still have a problem with the line of descent -- through someone who was not "of the royal lineage".
Not so, Jesus can trace his royal lineage to David through Mary in her genealogy.
Go do a study on Nathan v. Solomon.
The section you quoted does not refute the claim at all. They say that the critical text makes it less likely there is a parenthesis, but that makes no difference. In the Luke account it never says in the Greek, received or critical, that Joseph is the "son of Heli," it just says he is "of Heli." As in, son-in-law to Heli or of the household of Heli through Mary.
I'm not sure if you read it all. It appears you did not, or did not care to read it carefully. Indeed, they do discuss the "parenthetical expression" contained in Luke: "as was supposed". They point out that this expression is not evidence to indicate that Luke was (thus) referring to Mary for having used this expression:
"First, the Greek text preferred by the textual critics reads, on ouios, hos enomizeto, Ioseph tou Heli, "being the son, as it was supposed, of Joseph, son of Heli", so that the above parenthesis is rendered less probable. Secondly, according to Patrizi, the view that St. Luke gives the genealogy of Mary began to be advocated only towards the end of the fifteenth century by Annius of Viterbo, and acquired adherents in the sixteenth. St. Hilary mentions the opinion as adopted by many, but he himself rejects it (Mai, "Nov. Bibl, Patr.", t. I, 477). It may be safely said that patristic tradition does not regard St. Luke's list as representing the genealogy of the Blessed Virgin." (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06410a.htm)
Then, they *go on* to examine the other problems I mentioned. They point out, "Hey, if these are both supposed to describe Joseph, though, then why are both Nathan and Solomon mentioned?" Then they answer:
"Both St. Matthew and St. Luke give the genealogy of St. Joseph, the one through the lineage of Solomon, the other through that of Nathan. But how can the lines converge in St. Joseph? St. Augustine suggested that Joseph, the son of Jacob and the descendant of David through Solomon, might have been adopted by Heli, thus becoming the adoptive descendant of David through Nathan. But Augustine was the first to abandon this theory after learning the explanation offered by Julius Africanus. According to the latter, Estha married Mathan, a descendant of David through Solomon, and became the mother of Jacob; after Mathan's death she took for her second husband Mathat, a descendent of David through Nathan, and by him became the mother of Heli. Jacob and Heli were, therefore, uterine brothers. Heli married, but died without offspring; his widow, therefore, became the levirate wife of Jacob, and gave birth to Joseph, who was the carnal son of Jacob, but the legal son of Heli, thus combining in his person two lineages of David's descendants." (ibid)
Note that Julius Africanus proposed this as a solution, which does not mean there is any evidence to support it (getting to have a familiar ring yet?)
In the middle section, they examine the two oddest names that appear *after* the supposed divergence between Joseph and Mary, and ask, "how likely is it these two rare names, appearing around the same chronological time, could appear for both Joseph and Mary's lineage?"
part (a) - "It is more commonly admitted that the two names in St. Matthew's list are identical with the two in St. Luke's series; for they must have lived about the same time, and the names are so rare, that it would be strange to find them occurring at the same time, in the same order, in two different genealogical series."
part (b) - "A more simple solution of the difficulty is obtained, if we do not admit that the Salathiel and Zorobabel occurring in St. Matthew's genealogy are identical with those in St. Luke's. The above proofs for their identity are not cogent. If Salathiel and Zorobabel distinguished themselves at all among the descendants of Solomon, it is not astonishing that about the same time two members of Nathan's descendants should be called after them." (ibid)
So two possibilities -- i) they're not the same people; ii) they are. If i), they invent a Levirate marriage to try to make this make sense. If ii), they propose that identical names were given around the same time for kids from Solomon as kids from Nathan. Both of these are "logical solutions" insofar as they prevent complete dismissal of the accounts as accurate. But again, and I've said this multiple times now, the question of evidence, and the question of ad hoc hypotheses, haunts this effort. It haunts every effort of Biblical apologists. Finding evidence to support their "defenses/fixes" is a daunting task.
In the final section, they examine the question of royal lineage from David, and their answer is that Jesus is "from David" through Joseph (via Matthew):
"If by virtue of Joseph's marriage with Mary, Jesus could be called the son of Joseph, he can for the same reason be called "son of David" (St. Augustine, On the Harmony of the Gospels, II, i, 2)." (ibid)
They then confirm what I said above -- that Mary is descended through Nathan:
"John Damascene (De fid. Orth., IV, 14) states that Mary's great-grandfather, Panther, was a brother of Mathat; her grandfather, Barpanther, was Heli's cousin; and her father, Joachim, was a cousin of Joseph, Heli's levirate son. Here Mathat has been substituted for Melchi, since the text used by St. John Damascene, Julius Africanus, St. Irenaeus, St. Ambrose, and St. Gregory of Nazianzus omitted the two generations separating Heli from Melchi. At any rate, tradition presents the Blessed Virgin as descending from David through Nathan." (ibid)
Again, this is not the *royal* lineage, but is a Davidic lineage (if even true).
___
In concluding, I would quote one last small comment, found in the middle section, part (b):
"The reader will observe that we suggest only possible answers to the difficulty; as long as such possibilities can be pointed out, our opponents have no right to deny that the genealogies which are found in the First and Third Gospel can be harmonized." (ibid)
This is the case with all Biblical defenses of error, Joey. It is always this way. I told you already that apologists can, and do, invent "just-so" stories, whether they have evidence to support them, or not. And therefore, it all reeks of ad hoc trickery.
God created the world perfect and gave man the capacity to sin. Also, God created the world for his glory, as it is written:
So you think that, somehow, God's "perfection/glory/whatever" is higher having sin and evil exist, than just having God's own perfect Self and perfect nature exist? How does that make sense? God saw the future, and all the evil and pain and suffering that would enter the creation, but *did it anyway*???
God didn't create us as puppets Daniel. He allowed us to choose him or death
But we're going to be "puppets" for eternity in heaven, aren't we, Joey? We can't "choose" to leave, or not worship God, in that day, *for eternity*. Yet, we are supposed to believe that the price of human freedom somehow makes up for all the natural evils: earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, deformity; and accidents: falls, miscommunications that result in death/injury, etc.?? Those things have *nothing* to do with free will.
The Plantinga "Free Will Defense" I took a look at recently on the Debunking Christianity blog that I contribute to, I suggest you check it out:
I'll copy and paste the relevant text:
Do you believe that our world has the minimum evil that God could've made it with? The minimum accidents, diseases, deformities, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.?
I think 99% is a major exaggeration. You don't know the real number. I doubt you could come anywhere close to being accurate, and neither can I.
Well, you admitted that more will go to hell than heaven (strait/narrow/wide/etc). And, you ought to consider the relatively small fraction of the world's total populace that have *historically* been Christians. Are you a young-earth creationist? The reason I ask is because I know that YEC's have a completely revised version of history, in which human civilization is not nearly so old.
********You live in a world where God used to talk to people clearly,
and show
them miracles, to help them believe, and to know what to do, but today
God sits upon His holy thumb and watches blood spill and babies starve,
for whatever reason, and "waits" to make it all "perfect
again".********* As it is written: Heb 1:1-3
You didn't answer the question -- what is God waiting for? Every nation to hear the gospel? As that happens, more and more secular, modern countries are losing believers. Therefore, it is a constant balancing act, isn't it? However many converts you get out of the jungle peoples, you're losing in people like me, and millions across the globe, especially in Europe.
*********I hope there is no moral freedom in heaven, Joey, cause this
whole cycle
will just repeat itself, won't it? Another "fall" inside the pearly
gates...wait, you mean that can't happen in heaven? So God thought that
freedom was worth all the pain and suffering in this life, but then God
takes away free moral agency?********* * 1 Corinthians 2:9
*
But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have
entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for
them that love him.
So you're "cool" with us being "puppets" forever? Jeez, it would've been nice to just start out that way, and not die and have pain, suffering, disease, etc., etc., etc.
Give me your single best shot about proving the Bible has an error in its message. I'll try to give a reasonable reason why it isn't an error.
Hopefully you understand, from the methodology I explained in the genealogy issue, why I explained that you will always have a "reasonable reason" which is just another ad hoc solution without evidence, and therefore completely "unreasonable".
Daniel receive Jesus as your Savior before it's too late. Put your faith in God's Son. Be born again for the first time.
So I was never a Christian to begin with? Sure. Whatever helps you sleep at night. I guess all those prayers, tears, hours of worship, etc., I was just deluding myself. Perhaps you are too...think about it.
Come to the truth and trust in God. Stop trusting in your own opinions and flawed conclusion, limited knowledge, and personal speculation full of errors when you have the perfect Word of God to tell you what's true.
The problem is that my own mind is all I have, and I have to use it. When you tell me to trust the Bible, that is a mental function -- belief and assent. It's saying, "look at this and trust it and believe it is true". But, I have to use my mind to do this, and when I start to even look at it, I immediately find reasons to ask, "why should I believe this is true?" I'm supposed to believe those stories and claims without evidence, which completely contradict our understanding of the world? Talking snakes, talking donkeys, burning bushes that aren't consumed, sticks that turn into snakes, dead people raised, millions of people moving from the most powerful civilization in earth's history (at the time) completely without record or evidence, etc., etc., etc.
All of those things that contradict our every experience, why should I trust it? On your authority? Why should I believe it's God's Word? Out of fear if you're right? Then you ought to be afraid if the Qur'an or the Hindu Vedas or whatever are right. How can any of us be *sure* that something in those many many "holy books" isn't really a message from God? How do we know?
We use our minds. We form our beliefs from simple starting points. We employ wisdom. And when I do that, I find no reason at all to believe the stories in the Bible.
I've just shown you how you were wrong with the Jeconiah contradiction. Think about it.
No, you didn't. Think about it.
With warm regards,
Daniel
_______
_______
On 10/11/06, S. Daniel Morgan <dmorgan- a t -chem.ufl.edu wrote:
Joey,
Thanks for the response. Don't fret over the delay.
I would prefer we interact via blog messaging, or perhaps on a
discussion board, as I like the conversations to be available for public
comment, and open to external criticism if you don't mind. I find it
really helps keep dialogue constructive and impersonal -- the more
personal people get, the less rational and more emotional they tend to be.
You can stop by any ol' post on the AAFSA website and leave your
thoughts on any post except the first one (the welcome message):
http://aasauf.blogspot.com/
You can also stop by my own blog and leave a comment on any post whatsoever:
http://blog.danielmorgan.name/
Or you can suggest any discussion board you like. I am a member of
quite a few Christian discussion boards.
I will respond to this last email via an email response, but I would
prefer we "take it to the board" afterwards, which should be fine with
you, yes?
At the moment, I have to prepare for an AAFSA meeting (7 PM tonight, CLB
414, you're welcome to come!), but I will say one quick thing, and then
respond at length later:
"You can try all you want to make this out to be an intellectual
issue with you and Christianity, but it's not. This is a heart
issue Daniel, and your heart has been hardened and you don't want to
believe Christianity and you don't want to believe the Bible."
When I was a Christian I said such things as well, because I was
convinced I owned/believed the truth, and thus there was no intellectual
grounds upon which to falsify it. Therefore, I understand why you say
this. If you didn't believe this, you would be admitting that there are
rational reasons to reject the dogma that "The Bible is God's Word" or
other such indefensible premises in Christianity. Of course, you will
not admit this, because you have "committed your life to Jesus" --
whereas I have no such commitments. I am not "committed" to atheism, or
general disbelief of Christianity, and you know this, or else you
wouldn't attempt to appeal to me at such lengths. Atheism doesn't
require a "pledge of allegiance" or any other such idea, unlike all
religions. In that sense, no atheist ever has a position from which
they cannot just say, "You know, I could be wrong about this one aspect
of what I think," since they'd simply be admitting to human error, and
they could revise their thinking.
On the other hand, no such symmetry applies for the Christian.
Admitting that you are wrong, in your own mind, is equivalent to saying
that God is a liar, because you equivocate the Bible as God, etc.
That said, realize that your statements (above quoted) are nothing but
an attempt at mind-reading, and reflect more of the same sort of empty
faith that drives you to defend obvious problems with general God-belief.
All of the prophecies you refer to, all the things that convince you
that the Bible is God's Word, have very natural explanations. First,
the Bible is not the first (or only) book to contain writings that are
"wise" and useful in many ways. Second, the "prophecies" that people
see are always:
i) Fall prey to the fact that we cannot verify their authenticity in
any meaningful way, because we receive them "after the fact" -- that is,
after both the supposed delivery of the prophecy and its supposed
fulfillment
ii) Are never explicit and specific -- almost every "prophecy" is
extremely general and vague, no names, no exact dates, no exact
details. Examples include when kings were "doomed" but details were
never spelled out.
iii) Are often retro-interpreted -- typically because of their ambiguity
(Isa 7:14 is a fine example of this), to fit a preconceived notion of
the reader, and to align with the reader's presuppositions and
theology. This is why the Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah, right?
Like I said earlier, we can go back and forth all day, but the fact that
your book requires so much defense is an explanation in itself to its
issues and errors. And we haven't even moved into the primitive
peoples' idea of the history of the world and origins of life and etc.
So, I'll respond more in detail later, but hopefully afterwards we can
move this to the www. Do you have a site of your own?
With warm regards,
Daniel
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion
