The Problem with the Gospels

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok let me remind you what you're talking about:

It does not make sense to say that God 'just is' and yet he also does not exist, that is a contradiction.

See I never said that God doesn't exist. YOU did.

1. So you're not implying that when you say his existence if irrelevant? In which case... what is your point? If his existence is irrelevant then that means him 'being' is irrelevant, because he can't 'be' or do anything if 'He' does not exist.

2. On MSN you've said to me before that he doesn't exist... and that he doesn't exist by my language. Yet you haven't clarified how he exists by your language.

If he doesn't exist there there is no God and everything about him is irrelevant outside of the possibility of the placebo effect. He can't be or do anything. Saying he "just is" makes no sense whatsoever if he doesn't exist. If he doesn't exist then outside the placebo effect, He is irrelevant. To say his existence is irrelevant is to say he is... unless you're simply arguing for the placebo effect, unless you're saying that delusional possible inspiration and/or consolation is worth it?

Well said CP. The statement fr0d0 made:

I don't think in terms of 'existence' but rather that God just 'is'.

- is completely nonsensical. So if most Christians truly think that way, then most Christians don't understand language lol.

EvF

[chatpilot]

Thanks EVF but you have to remember our good friend fr0d0 is a strange bird. He has the Holy Bible according to fr0d0 with his own foot notes and interpretation and everything. And his own language that no one with half a mind could understand. He is in a class all by himself, but I like the guy he is entertaining. Next thing you know he will be doing Christian stand up comedy lol.

[fr0d0]

No you misunderstood me then too Evie. And I've seen other people explain it to you too. Chatpilot just admitted that he has never understood the concept.

[Edwardo Piet]

So you completely dodged my points about how your statement "God's existence is irrelevant" and yet he "just is" is nonsensical then?

Not that I didn't expect a dodging, but your response is extremely weak to say I'm misunderstanding you if you are completely failing to respond to my points. What am I misunderstanding? All I'm doing is pointing out that your statement is nonsensical.

God does not exist= There is no God. That's what it means. It's called English.

Except God doesn't fit the definition 'exist'. God just 'is'.

This is a load of bullshit you see. Since what you are responding to refutes your response!

If God cannot fit into the definition of 'exist' then he can't fit into the definition of 'just is' either. Because they are part of the same thing. For 'just is' to apply to him, he'd have to be or do things, and without existing he can't do that, because if he doesn't exist that means that there is no God to 'be' or 'do'.

To claim that God doesn't fit into the definition of 'exist', and to claim that despite this he still fits into the definition of 'just is', to claim that it somehow makes sense to claim that, and that his existence is irrelevant - is all completely nonsensical bullshit talk on your part.

Surely you realise that God 'just is' is completely irrelevant if his existence also is? And surely you realize that to say he 'just is' can't be true if he doesn't exist?

When you say God 'just is' you are saying that he exists. So what are you talking about when you are saying that existence is irrelevant? What is your point?

' His existence is irrelevant and yet he 'just is' '= "His existence is irrelevant and yet he just exists". So... what is relevant then? Do you have a point?

EvF

[chatpilot]

EVF: "What am I misunderstanding? All I'm doing is pointing out that your statement is nonsensical.

You're misunderstanding fr0d0 unless you have the fr0d0 lexicon of language you will never understand him. Trust me I've tried many times.

[fr0d0]

I've seen someone very eloquently explain this in extensive detail to you before Evie. It appears to me that you just refuse to get it. What can I say I know very well this is a waste of time, unless you can convince me otherwise (so far you haven't). Hence my request for YOU to use your brain just a little bit in this instance to show we aren't going to always be confined to the kindergarten.

[Historynut]

A while ago I commented that lack of scientific evidence was not my only reason for becoming an atheist, but problems with Religion and the Bible. Rjh4 asked me about these, and I gave a brief response, promising to do a more detailed response on at least one aspect, since there are so many to address. I've decided to address the Gospels since there has not, to my knowledge, been a thread dedicated to just the Gospels, and I personally find it a fascinating subject of study. Note: I'm not a Bible Scholar, but I have done my own personal study on the topic. I also plan to source Wikipedia, simply because of its ease of use. I did not glean all my knowledge of the subject from Wikipedia. BTW, this is not a debate of any kind, so everyone, please feel free to chime in!

This post is going to most likely be long, so I'll forgive any TLRs. I'm also writing this from the top of my head, so forgive me if the argument isn't as cohesive as it could be if it was a well thought out essay.

What I was Taught: Since the question does include how I came to atheism through other religious problems, not just lack of scientific evidence, I should briefly mention my Catholic upbringing. As a Catholic you are taught that the gospels were written by Jesus's own apostles. I distinctly remember a teacher doing a time line and saying, "So John was really really old, he was blessed with longevity." To a child this makes sense, but if you consider the typical life expectancy at the time and the difficulty of remembering details from a year ago, never mind a life time ago...things start to get really sketchy. I was never encouraged to read the Bible. All Bible knowledge came from religion class where specific sections were chosen, or in church, once again, where specific sections are chosen. Many Bible stories I'm familiar with...well when I read them now I'm shocked at some of the context that I was completely unaware of. Suffice to say, my later inability to accept that the authors of the Gospels were likely to be eye-witnesses, given the length of time between their authorship and Jesus's supposed Death and Resurrection...that was a chink in the armor and the rest came crumbling down.

Markan Priority: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John....wait...no...Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. So Mark was the first Gospel writer, estimated to have written his Gospel around 70 C.E. This seems like a minor issue, but it becomes a very important problem when you consider the synoptic Gospels. In attempts to harmonize the Gospel accounts of the Bible, it is often claimed that you simply have 4 witnesses giving their version of what they saw. The details might be different, but the major event itself is still the same. This explanation seems nice at first but is laughable when you begin to take a closer look. In truth, the Gospels themselves show an evolution from Jesus a man, to Jesus a God. Each Gospel has it's own agenda and purpose to promote their version of what they think Christianity to be. So let's take a closer look at the Synoptic Problem.

Synoptic Problem: The Synoptic problem refers to the Gospels Mark, Matthew, and Luke and how they are interconnected. (John is vastly different from all of them) In essence, Mark was first and Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source (completely destroying the notion that the gospel writers were eye-witness accounts) and possibly the Q gospel. The Gospel of Mark is written in simplistic Greek and is a very bare bones account (It doesn't even include Jesus's birth!), meanwhile Matthew and Luke includes better Greek more events and changes events in Mark to conform to the viewpoint they want to espouse. For instance, the Gospel of Luke specifically promotes the idea that the Jews are responsible for Jesus's death. This concept is not present in Mark or Matthew. This is not a difference in "Witness accounts" but a specific change meant to promote antisemitism. Hell, they can't even get the Lord's Prayer right! Each Gospel cites a different version. Another difference is the final words of Jesus on the cross. They are different in each Gospel except Matthew and Luke, and at first that does not seem like a big issue unless you consider the context.

Sayings of Jesus on the Cross

1. Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).
2. Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).
3. Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (John 19:26-27).
4. Eli Eli lama sabachthani? ("My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?", Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34).
5. I thirst (John 19:28).
6. It is finished (John 19:30).
7. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46).

Mark's account is in harmony with the picture of Jesus as a suffering man. It's also consistent with the Garden of Gesthemane, where Jesus pleads for his life. The quote "Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani" is also taken from a Psalm in the Old Testament.

Luke's version is consistent with Luke's message that Jesus is for everyone, not just Jews, and he is a confident prophet. It is also consistent with the scene in Gesthemane, where Jesus only pleads once and also adds if God is willing.

In John, Jesus is not crying or suffering, just thirsty and dies when he's good and ready. In Gethsemane, he doesn't plead it all. He sets up a hypothetical and says it's ridiculous to try to get out of it. It's a systematic portrayal of being God himself.

Another difference that cannot be written off as eye-witness variations, or each Gospel writer taking information from the same source is the Messianic Secret. I find this concept very intriguing, for many reasons.

Messianic Secret: In the Gospel of Mark we see that Jesus attempts to keep his identity secret. An example of this often subtle difference is in Jesus's baptism between Mark and Matthew.

(Source of Bible Quotes: http://www.biblegateway.com )

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased."

16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

Notice the difference between what God says. "You are my son" and "This is my son". One is a conversation directly to Jesus and the other is to the crowd. This is consistent with the Messianic Secret, which is prevalent throughout Mark. Jesus was a secret messiah, not announced to even his apostles in some cases. Example:

35That day when evening came, he said to his disciples, "Let us go over to the other side." 36Leaving the crowd behind, they took him along, just as he was, in the boat. There were also other boats with him. 37A furious squall came up, and the waves broke over the boat, so that it was nearly swamped. 38Jesus was in the stern, sleeping on a cushion. The disciples woke him and said to him, "Teacher, don't you care if we drown?"

39He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, "Quiet! Be still!" Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

40He said to his disciples, "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?"

41They were terrified and asked each other, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!"

Why is this so important? It further shows the biases and severe differences between the Gospels, which once again shows the lack of cohesiveness so commonly argued. This also brings me to Marcion, A fascinating figure in Early Christianity. Why fascinating? Well he was a big part of why the early church had to canonize certain Gospel accounts to keep their version of Christianity.

Marcion of Sinope: Marcion believed that Jesus was the son of a new God, not the Jewish God Yahweh. He viewed the Jewish God as merely a creator demiurge. He supported this idea that the Apostles were idiots and didn't realize who Jesus was. He supported the Gospel of Mark because it supported his view. He believe Paul was the only apostle who understood the message of salvation. I'll quote Wikipedia here:

Marcion was the first well-known heretic in the history of the early church. His alternative interpretation of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ helped to create the idea that certain theologies should be sanctioned as orthodox while others should be condemned as heresy. As a reaction to the Marcionite church's popularity, the orthodox church attempted to prescribe a set of beliefs that should be catholic (used here to mean 'universal'). The Marcionite heresy can thus be seen as a catalyst for the development of the unified, catholic and Judaism-derived form of Christianity that dominated political and social life in Europe until the Enlightenment.

The church that Marcion founded had expanded throughout the known world within his lifetime, and was a serious rival to the Catholic Church. Its adherents were strong enough in their convictions to have the church retain its expansive power for more than a century. It survived Christian controversy, and imperial disapproval, for several centuries more.[10]

Marcion was the first Christian leader to propose and delineate a canon (a list of officially sanctioned religious works). In so doing, he established a particular way of looking at religious texts that persists in Christian thought today. After Marcion, Christians began to divide texts into those that aligned well with the 'measuring stick' ('canon' is the Greek translation of this phrase) of accepted theological thought, and those that promoted heresy. This essential dualism played a major role in finalizing the structure of the collection of works called the Bible. The initial impetus for the orthodox Christian project of canonization flowed from opposition to the 'false canonization' of Marcion.

The fact that there were arguments about which gospels should be canonized, different views on who Jesus was, movements and so forth, goes to show the complete lack of unification between early Christians and their writings.

Conclusion: So I have only touched the surface of many underlining issues in the Gospels. We can see that the Gospels were not "Independant Witnesses" as many people would like to claim, but a different account that promotes a certain bias. The gospels were not eye-witnesses, Matthew and Luke clearly copied and changed certain stories in Mark (Which, once again, is far from consistent with the "independent Witness" theory.) There were even major disagreements in who Jesus was, and I haven't even touched the Jesus Myth Theory....well now I did. But only just a tiny bit. Furthermore, there are even known forgeries in the Gospel. For instance, there's the story of the adulterous woman in John, a forgery, or how about Mark 16's ending, it was added on. Without the forgery it would just end with just an empty tomb. Considering that Matthew and Luke were written after Mark, this severely damages the "resurrection" story for me. How can Mark ignore such an important aspect of Christianity and be an eye-witness?

Add all these problems together, with many more that I haven't discussed, and you come up with 4 messy conflicting versions of who Jesus was and what he did. Hardly evidence for the death and resurrection of a man nearly 2 centuries ago, which is arguably the single most important aspect of Christianity. And with the evidence of Jesus's life and resurrection in such disrepair, (Let us not forget there are is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus) Christianity, in my mind, is not shown to be true, and this is one of the many reasons I do not believe in Jesus, and I am an atheist today.

Blarg, I'm done. Forgive any typos or grammar mistakes, please!

---

Great post! I am currently rewriting my "Bible Study Book" that was self-published ten years ago. I am adding more content. You should check it out! Available at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Also free at Open Library. Or you can email me, it is still available on my website (http://www.sleepinbuff.com) but I have to tell you where to find it.