I was intrigued yesterday by Drich's citation of an obviously spurious prayer attributed to Jefferson. Fortunately, Minimalist was there to come up with an instant demolition. "This prayer was not written or delivered by Thomas Jefferson. It is in fact from the 1928 United States Book of Common Prayer. Explanations of the 1928 revision of the Book of Common Prayer make no mention of an earlier source for the prayer,[1] which is identified simply as "For Our Country."[2]"
It reminded me of a thread I started some time ago on the Firendly Atheist Forum, so with some updating I am going to recycle the OP in which I give my thoughts on lying for Jesus.
in the 21st century
I can't be the only one who grumbles about the religious spam that finds its way to the inbox. A while back I received three new specimens from the same elderly correspondent, whose name is Bert.
The first one, with a photo of then Australian prime minister Julia Gillard, reports on a speech she is supposed to have made telling “Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law … to get out of Australia” and then informing all and sundry:
Of course the whole thing is a fiction. Last year the spammers were attributing the exact same speech to Ms. Gillard’s predecessor Kevin Rudd. More seriously, as was widely reported at the time she took office, Julia Gillard is a self-acknowledged atheist. I'm pretty sure that Australians live in a secular nation which does not post Christian teachings on the walls of their public schools.
Now there may have been a whole chain of people forwarding this email who accepted it uncritically at face value, but as for the person who first concocted it, I can only describe his action as lying for Jesus.
About a week later I got another email recounting at length a debate between a devoutly Christian student and his atheistic professor, which of course the student won—by cribbing from Augustine his notion of evil as the privation of good. At the end we are solemnly informed the name of that student was Albert Einstein. The great physicist was of course born into a family of non-observant Jews. In later years he attached some importance to his Jewish cultural identity, but on several occasions he stated clearly that he did not believe in a personal God, for which he was attacked by the American religious establishment, one of whom charitably suggested that he should have been left to the tender mercies of the Nazis. Again, the email is lying for Jesus.
The last one has to be my all time favorite specimen of religious spam. It berates the Members of Parliament in Canada for introducing a bill to remove the slogan "In God We Trust" from our money, which is astonishing since it has never been there. That is an American phenomenon.
in the 19th century
Now one might think that facile religious falsehoods like the ones above only sprang up after the internet was there to give them wings, but that would be wrong. Lately I have been reading a lot of the great 19th century freethinker Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, and in a short article entitled The Truth of History he details no less than four falsehoods that were circulated about him.
Ingersoll received an obscure English newspaper (the Matlock Register) in the mail and was astonished to read:
Ingersoll retorted that he had never previously heard of Mr. Hine (who passed for a prominent preacher in the obscure British-Israelism movement) and had not the slightest interest in his theme. He asks:
On another occasion, says Ingersoll,
However, a retraction has no effect on those who are prepared to lie for Jesus. A few months afterward, Ingersoll received an English religious paper claiming that “so overwhelming was the testimony brought forward by Mr. Prime that I [Ingersoll] admitted that Paine did recant and paid the thousand dollars.”
It was also published that one of Ingersoll’s daughters had joined the Presbyterian Church, “a story without the slightest foundation and although denied a hundred times, it is still being printed and circulated for the edification of the faithful.” Likewise, it was stated in print that Ingersoll’s son “having been raised in the atmosphere of infidelity, went insane and died in an asylum” an even more remarkable claim since Ingersoll never had a son.
One can hardly disagree with Ingersoll’s conclusion:
in the 16th century
Strangely, when I was taking classes at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, my professors never drew my attention to this quotation. I must admit, however, that they did mention the context and criticized Luther for it: Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, wanted to marry one of his wife’s ladies-in-waiting and solicited the support of prominent Lutheran theologians, citing the polygamy of the OT patriarchs. Somewhat reluctantly, the theologians consented to the bigamy but told him to keep the second marriage a secret. When the story came out, Luther advised him to deny the marriage with “a good strong lie.”
in the 4th century
in the 1st century
It is well established from secular sources that Herod died in 4 BCE, 10 years before the census of Quirinius (6 CE). In spite of the thorough documentation of Roman history there is no record of a universal census ordered by Augustus, and no record ever of a census with the bizarre requirement of returning to the home town of one’s ancestors. The authors of Luke and also Matthew, knew the tradition that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee but believed that according to OT prophecy the Messiah must come from Bethlehem.
They have different narratives to reconcile the discrepancy. The author of Luke has Joseph and Mary as natives of Nazareth who come to Bethlehem only to register for the census. The author of Matthew seems to present them as natives of Bethlehem who flee to avoid Herod’s slaughter of the innocents—undoubtedly another lie for Jesus, as Flavius Josephus detested Herod and listed all his sins in detail but never mentioned that one. Then returning from Egypt after the death of Herod, Joseph decides to settle in the backwater of Nazareth.
Both of these authors narrate the miraculous story of the virgin birth, which is not mentioned in any other NT book but is a common theme in the stories of pagan divinities and heroes such as Perseus, Adonis, Alexander the Great, Plato, Pythagoras and Augustus Caesar.
We have seen that Christians from our age back to the Church Fathers have been ready to lie for Jesus, or at least to repeat lies uncritically that others have told them.
What then becomes of the claim that the Biblical narratives are confirmed by a chain of testimony going back through supposedly impeccable authors such as Irenaeus and Polycarp? Do I have any reason to believe that Polycarp was less credulous than Bert Desroches? I would trust Bert to repay a loan, but I would hardly trust him to assess the evidence about the religious convictions of the Australian prime minister. I know a lot more about Bert than I do about Polycarp. I have no way of knowing if I could even trust Polycarp to repay a loan.
The gospels were written decades after Jesus by unknown authors living somewhere in the Greek-speaking world, probably Asia Minor. It’s most likely the authors of the gospels got their stories at tenth hand, or even at hundredth hand. To use the scenario Bart Ehrman gives by way of illustrating the spread of Jesus stories, a merchant in Ephesus hears and believes the story of Jesus’ resurrection from a traveller who did not himself witness the events he narrated. On a business trip to Smyrna the merchant tells his contacts of his new beliefs and they in turn tell their friends and relatives. And so on ad infinitum with the first written records going back through a long chain of oral repetitions, which rapidly mutate as in the game of Telephone, where a short message gets changed beyond recognition after 10 repetitions at most.
So when the biblical narrative contains contradictions and inaccuracies and miracles that strain credulity, the most likely explanation is that it started off with someone lying for Jesus.
I have no doubt that this group can furnish many other instructive examples, both ancient and modern, of lying for Jesus.
It reminded me of a thread I started some time ago on the Firendly Atheist Forum, so with some updating I am going to recycle the OP in which I give my thoughts on lying for Jesus.
in the 21st century
I can't be the only one who grumbles about the religious spam that finds its way to the inbox. A while back I received three new specimens from the same elderly correspondent, whose name is Bert.
The first one, with a photo of then Australian prime minister Julia Gillard, reports on a speech she is supposed to have made telling “Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law … to get out of Australia” and then informing all and sundry:
Quote:Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.
Of course the whole thing is a fiction. Last year the spammers were attributing the exact same speech to Ms. Gillard’s predecessor Kevin Rudd. More seriously, as was widely reported at the time she took office, Julia Gillard is a self-acknowledged atheist. I'm pretty sure that Australians live in a secular nation which does not post Christian teachings on the walls of their public schools.
Now there may have been a whole chain of people forwarding this email who accepted it uncritically at face value, but as for the person who first concocted it, I can only describe his action as lying for Jesus.
About a week later I got another email recounting at length a debate between a devoutly Christian student and his atheistic professor, which of course the student won—by cribbing from Augustine his notion of evil as the privation of good. At the end we are solemnly informed the name of that student was Albert Einstein. The great physicist was of course born into a family of non-observant Jews. In later years he attached some importance to his Jewish cultural identity, but on several occasions he stated clearly that he did not believe in a personal God, for which he was attacked by the American religious establishment, one of whom charitably suggested that he should have been left to the tender mercies of the Nazis. Again, the email is lying for Jesus.
The last one has to be my all time favorite specimen of religious spam. It berates the Members of Parliament in Canada for introducing a bill to remove the slogan "In God We Trust" from our money, which is astonishing since it has never been there. That is an American phenomenon.
in the 19th century
Now one might think that facile religious falsehoods like the ones above only sprang up after the internet was there to give them wings, but that would be wrong. Lately I have been reading a lot of the great 19th century freethinker Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, and in a short article entitled The Truth of History he details no less than four falsehoods that were circulated about him.
Ingersoll received an obscure English newspaper (the Matlock Register) in the mail and was astonished to read:
Quote:A day or two since I received from Mr. Hine the exhilarating intelligence that through his lectures on “the Identity of the British Nation with the Lost Israel” in Canada and the United States, that Col. Bob Ingersoll, the Arch Atheist, has been converted to Christianity and has joined the Episcopal Church. Praise the Lord! 5000 of his followers have been won for Christ through Mr. Hine’s grand mission work.
Ingersoll retorted that he had never previously heard of Mr. Hine (who passed for a prominent preacher in the obscure British-Israelism movement) and had not the slightest interest in his theme. He asks:
Quote:How can we account for an article like that? Who made up this story? Who had the impudence to publish it?
On another occasion, says Ingersoll,
Quote:I had a little controversy with the editor of the New York Observer, the Rev. Irenaeus Prime, (who is now supposed to be in heaven enjoying the bliss of seeing Infidels in hell), as to whether Thomas Paine recanted his religious opinions. I offered to deposit a thousand dollars for the benefit of a charity, if the reverend doctor would substantiate the charge that Paine recanted. I forced the New York Observer to admit that Paine did not recant and compelled that paper to say that “Thomas Paine died a blaspheming infidel.”
However, a retraction has no effect on those who are prepared to lie for Jesus. A few months afterward, Ingersoll received an English religious paper claiming that “so overwhelming was the testimony brought forward by Mr. Prime that I [Ingersoll] admitted that Paine did recant and paid the thousand dollars.”
It was also published that one of Ingersoll’s daughters had joined the Presbyterian Church, “a story without the slightest foundation and although denied a hundred times, it is still being printed and circulated for the edification of the faithful.” Likewise, it was stated in print that Ingersoll’s son “having been raised in the atmosphere of infidelity, went insane and died in an asylum” an even more remarkable claim since Ingersoll never had a son.
One can hardly disagree with Ingersoll’s conclusion:
Quote:And there are many other falsehoods which the church has told, the which if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books which should be written.
in the 16th century
Martin Luther Wrote:What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.
Strangely, when I was taking classes at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary, my professors never drew my attention to this quotation. I must admit, however, that they did mention the context and criticized Luther for it: Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse, wanted to marry one of his wife’s ladies-in-waiting and solicited the support of prominent Lutheran theologians, citing the polygamy of the OT patriarchs. Somewhat reluctantly, the theologians consented to the bigamy but told him to keep the second marriage a secret. When the story came out, Luther advised him to deny the marriage with “a good strong lie.”
in the 4th century
Quote:Do you see the advantage of deceit? ...
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived.
– John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1
in the 1st century
Quote:In the time of Herod king of Judea (Luke 1:5) … Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world (This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) And everyone went to their own town to register. So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. (Luke 2:1-4)
It is well established from secular sources that Herod died in 4 BCE, 10 years before the census of Quirinius (6 CE). In spite of the thorough documentation of Roman history there is no record of a universal census ordered by Augustus, and no record ever of a census with the bizarre requirement of returning to the home town of one’s ancestors. The authors of Luke and also Matthew, knew the tradition that Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee but believed that according to OT prophecy the Messiah must come from Bethlehem.
They have different narratives to reconcile the discrepancy. The author of Luke has Joseph and Mary as natives of Nazareth who come to Bethlehem only to register for the census. The author of Matthew seems to present them as natives of Bethlehem who flee to avoid Herod’s slaughter of the innocents—undoubtedly another lie for Jesus, as Flavius Josephus detested Herod and listed all his sins in detail but never mentioned that one. Then returning from Egypt after the death of Herod, Joseph decides to settle in the backwater of Nazareth.
Both of these authors narrate the miraculous story of the virgin birth, which is not mentioned in any other NT book but is a common theme in the stories of pagan divinities and heroes such as Perseus, Adonis, Alexander the Great, Plato, Pythagoras and Augustus Caesar.
We have seen that Christians from our age back to the Church Fathers have been ready to lie for Jesus, or at least to repeat lies uncritically that others have told them.
What then becomes of the claim that the Biblical narratives are confirmed by a chain of testimony going back through supposedly impeccable authors such as Irenaeus and Polycarp? Do I have any reason to believe that Polycarp was less credulous than Bert Desroches? I would trust Bert to repay a loan, but I would hardly trust him to assess the evidence about the religious convictions of the Australian prime minister. I know a lot more about Bert than I do about Polycarp. I have no way of knowing if I could even trust Polycarp to repay a loan.
The gospels were written decades after Jesus by unknown authors living somewhere in the Greek-speaking world, probably Asia Minor. It’s most likely the authors of the gospels got their stories at tenth hand, or even at hundredth hand. To use the scenario Bart Ehrman gives by way of illustrating the spread of Jesus stories, a merchant in Ephesus hears and believes the story of Jesus’ resurrection from a traveller who did not himself witness the events he narrated. On a business trip to Smyrna the merchant tells his contacts of his new beliefs and they in turn tell their friends and relatives. And so on ad infinitum with the first written records going back through a long chain of oral repetitions, which rapidly mutate as in the game of Telephone, where a short message gets changed beyond recognition after 10 repetitions at most.
So when the biblical narrative contains contradictions and inaccuracies and miracles that strain credulity, the most likely explanation is that it started off with someone lying for Jesus.
I have no doubt that this group can furnish many other instructive examples, both ancient and modern, of lying for Jesus.
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people — House
