Jesus, Interrupted:Hidden bible contradictions

[nygreenguy]

I just heard this story (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101389895) on NPR. I thought it was pretty interesting.

From, the NPR website:
Chapter Four

Students taking a college-level Bible course for the first time often find it surprising that we don't know who wrote most of the books of the New Testament. How could that be? Don't these books all have the authors' names attached to them? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the letters of Paul, 1 and 2 Peter, and 1, 2 and 3 John? How could the wrong names be attached to books of Scripture? Isn't this the Word of God? If someone wrote a book claiming to be Paul while knowing full well that he wasn't Paul—isn't that lying? Can Scripture contain lies?

When I arrived at seminary I was fully armed and ready for the onslaught on my faith by liberal biblical scholars who were going to insist on such crazy ideas. Having been trained in conservative circles, I knew that these views were standard fare at places like Princeton Theological Seminary. But what did they know? Bunch of liberals.

What came as a shock to me over time was just how little actual evidence there is for the traditional ascriptions of authorship that I had always taken for granted, and how much real evidence there was that many of these ascriptions are wrong. It turned out the liberals actually had something to say and had evidence to back it up; they weren't simply involved in destructive wishful thinking. There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles). Other books were written by authors who fl at out claimed to be someone they weren't.

In this chapter I'd like to explain what that evidence is.

Who Wrote The Gospels?

Though it is evidently not the sort of thing pastors normally tell their congregations, for over a century there has been a broad consensus among scholars that many of the books of the New Testament were not written by the people whose names are attached to them. So if that is the case, who did write them?

Preliminary Observations: The Gospels as Eyewitness Accounts

As we have just seen, the Gospels are filled with discrepancies large and small. Why are there so many differences among the four Gospels? These books are called Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John because they were traditionally thought to have been written by Matthew, a disciple who was a tax collector; John, the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the Fourth Gospel; Mark, the secretary of the disciple Peter; and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These traditions can be traced back to about a century after the books were written.

But if Matthew and John were both written by earthly disciples of Jesus, why are they so very different, on all sorts of levels? Why do they contain so many contradictions? Why do they have such fundamentally different views of who Jesus was? In Matthew, Jesus comes into being when he is conceived, or born, of a virgin; in John, Jesus is the incarnate Word of God who was with God in the beginning and through whom the universe was made. In Matthew, there is not a word about Jesus being God; in John, that's precisely who he is. In Matthew, Jesus teaches about the coming kingdom of God and almost never about himself (and never that he is divine); in John, Jesus teaches almost exclusively about himself, especially his divinity. In Matthew, Jesus refuses to perform miracles in order to prove his identity; in John, that is practically the only reason he does miracles.

Did two of the earthly followers of Jesus really have such radically different understandings of who he was? It is possible. Two people who served in the administration of George W. Bush may well have radically different views about him (although I doubt anyone would call him divine). This raises an important methodological point that I want to stress before discussing the evidence for the authorship of the Gospels.

Why did the tradition eventually arise that these books were written by apostles and companions of the apostles? In part it was in order to assure readers that they were written by eyewitnesses and companions of eyewitnesses. An eyewitness could be trusted to relate the truth of what actually happened in Jesus' life. But the reality is that eyewitnesses cannot be trusted to give historically accurate accounts. They never could be trusted and can't be trusted still. If eyewitnesses always gave historically accurate accounts, we would have no need for law courts. If we needed to find out what actually happened when a crime was committed, we could just ask someone. Real-life legal cases require multiple eyewitnesses, because eyewitnesses' testimonies differ. If two eyewitnesses in a court of law were to differ as much as Matthew and John, imagine how hard it would be to reach a judgment.

A further reality is that all the Gospels were written anonymously, and none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness. Names are attached to the titles of the Gospels ("the Gospel according to Matthew"), but these titles are later additions to the Gospels, provided by editors and scribes to inform readers who the editors thought were the authorities behind the different versions. That the titles are not original to the Gospels themselves should be clear upon some simple reflection. Whoever wrote Matthew did not call it "The Gospel according to Matthew." The persons who gave it that title are telling you who, in their opinion, wrote it. Authors never title their books "according to."

Moreover, Matthew's Gospel is written completely in the third person, about what "they"—Jesus and the disciples—were doing, never about what "we"—Jesus and the rest of us—were doing. Even when this Gospel narrates the event of Matthew being called to become a disciple, it talks about "him," not about "me." Read the account for yourself (Matthew 9:9). There's not a thing in it that would make you suspect the author is talking about himself.

With John it is even more clear. At the end of the Gospel the author says of the "Beloved Disciple": "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true" (John 21:24). Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple.

As for the other Gospels, Mark was said to be not a disciple but a companion of Peter, and Luke was a companion of Paul, who also was not a disciple. Even if they had been disciples, it would not guarantee the objectivity or truthfulness of their stories. But in fact none of the writers was an eyewitness, and none of them claims to be.

Who, then, wrote these books?

Excerpted from Jesus, Interrupted by Bart D. Ehrman. Copyright © 2009 by Bart D. Ehrman. Excerpted by permission of HarperOne, a member of HarperCollins Publishers.

[Joykins]

Yes, this is the sort of thing you study in a freshman-level New Testament course. ;)

[Goodchild]

I have Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236239027&sr=8-1), and it was a fascinating read. I look forward to this new one when it goes into paperback :)

[Ray Moscow]

Yes, this is the sort of thing you study in a freshman-level New Testament course. ;)

Not at Moody Bible Institute, apparently. Erhman then went on to Wheaton, where he did learn this stuff, but his fundamentalism collapsed when he went to grad school at Princeton.

[Joykins]

Not at Moody Bible Institute, apparently. Erhman then went on to Wheaton, where he did learn this stuff, but his fundamentalism collapsed when he went to grad school at Princeton.

Well, then, they're behind Penn State at Moody. But you can only go so far with an assumption of Biblical inerrancy IMO.

[Ray Moscow]

Well, then, they're behind Penn State at Moody. But you can only go so far with an assumption of Biblical inerrancy IMO.

In some denominations, and even in parts of "mainstream" denominations, you can go all the way to the top, for your whole life, without modern biblical scholarship entering your thinking at all.

[Garnet]

In some denominations, and even in parts of "mainstream" denominations, you can go all the way to the top, for your whole life, without modern biblical scholarship entering your thinking at all.


Ayup. That's the kind of believer I've been most frequently exposed to. I'm still not convinced that they are the minority.

[Barbarian]

Someone, on a discussion board far, far away, once posted this (http://web.archive.org/web/20071230022734/http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/340) stuff, 'Autobiography of a died-again Christian'. Scary and powerful testimony about losing one's faith as the result of too much study.

[Ray Moscow]

Someone, on a discussion board far, far away, once posted this (http://web.archive.org/web/20071230022734/http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/340) stuff, 'Autobiography of a died-again Christian'. Scary and powerful testimony about losing one's faith as the result of too much study.

That's a great essay.

I identify with what he went through, although my experience was milder and slower (in that I had other things in my life besides my rather intense Christianity). MissingGod help those poor people who go into it full-time only to find out years later that they've been eating bullshit all those years, and only more bullshit awaits them.

[Puck]

I caught the interview of Ehrman on NPR, also. I think it was Terry Gross who did the interview, and I think she wanted him to end up confirming a god, and he didn't.

[DMB]

In this day and age, when we cling onto intellectual property rights and seek kudos for writing stuff, it is hard to understand the mindset of those who would willingly assign false authorship to books. But I cam across this sort of thing years ago when I was interested in the history of mathematics. If you produced some good new thing in maths, it would get greater acceptance if it were attached to the name of some long-dead famous mathematician, such as Pythagoras. So that's what people did.

[lpetrich]

Before printing was invented, the only way to copy a book was to write it by hand, and this required convincing would-be copyists that one's books are worth copying. As DMB pointed out, a way to do that in past centuries was by pseudepigraphy or inverse plagiarism, by attributing one's books to someone very noteworthy and respected, like Moses or King Solomon or Aristotle or whomever. Aristotle was an especially big victim because he wrote on many subjects, thus making it easy for someone to claim that their books is yet another of Aristotle's books.

[Joykins]

In this day and age, when we cling onto intellectual property rights and seek kudos for writing stuff, it is hard to understand the mindset of those who would willingly assign false authorship to books. But I cam across this sort of thing years ago when I was interested in the history of mathematics. If you produced some good new thing in maths, it would get greater acceptance if it were attached to the name of some long-dead famous mathematician, such as Pythagoras. So that's what people did.

Not only that; a lot of scholars believe there were different early Christian communities associated with an apostle; so the Gospel according to Matthew would more accurately be the Gospel according to {the tradition or community of} Matthew.

[Norrin Radd]

Well, then, they're behind Penn State at Moody. But you can only go so far with an assumption of Biblical inerrancy IMO.

In some denominations, and even in parts of "mainstream" denominations, you can go all the way to the top, for your whole life, without modern biblical scholarship entering your thinking at all.

Umm... Hmm...

I kind of think Gordon Fee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Fee), Craig Keener (http://drckeener.googlepages.com/home), Gary Burge (http://www.wheaton.edu/Theology/Faculty/burge/), and a few others would be surprised to learn that they're oblivious to "modern" scholarship.

[Ray Moscow]

Well, then, they're behind Penn State at Moody. But you can only go so far with an assumption of Biblical inerrancy IMO.

In some denominations, and even in parts of "mainstream" denominations, you can go all the way to the top, for your whole life, without modern biblical scholarship entering your thinking at all.

Umm... Hmm...

I kind of think Gordon Fee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Fee), Craig Keener (http://drckeener.googlepages.com/home), Gary Burge (http://www.wheaton.edu/Theology/Faculty/burge/), and a few others would be surprised to learn that they're oblivious to "modern" scholarship.

I didn't mean Fee, although I find his evangelical doubletalk to be bullshit.

However, one can be (and several are), for example, an Anglican bishop or a leading US evangelist or pastor of a megachurch and be completely ignorant of modern biblical scholarship.

[dug_down_deep]

In this day and age, when we cling onto intellectual property rights and seek kudos for writing stuff, it is hard to understand the mindset of those who would willingly assign false authorship to books. But I cam across this sort of thing years ago when I was interested in the history of mathematics. If you produced some good new thing in maths, it would get greater acceptance if it were attached to the name of some long-dead famous mathematician, such as Pythagoras. So that's what people did.

Not only that; a lot of scholars believe there were different early Christian communities associated with an apostle; so the Gospel according to Matthew would more accurately be the Gospel according to {the tradition or community of} Matthew.
I'm under the impression that gospels were produced in order to establish factional power. Based on the sophomoric knowledge I have of the subject.

[Norrin Radd]

...

I didn't mean Fee, although I find his evangelical doubletalk to be bullshit.

Ok. Just out of curiosity, could you give me an example of what you view as "doubletalk"?

[tjakey]

Someone, on a discussion board far, far away, once posted this (http://web.archive.org/web/20071230022734/http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/340) stuff, 'Autobiography of a died-again Christian'. Scary and powerful testimony about losing one's faith as the result of too much study.

Why is that "scary and powerful?" Isn't curiosity, learning, and then adjusting one's world view to what has been learned the essence of being a human being? Isn't that the very thing that makes us different and unique in the animal kingdom?

My main complaint with religion isn't that it is false, (though it is). My main complaint is that religion, blind faith and dogmatism seeks to quench the very thing that makes humanity what it is. Religious beliefs rob the individual of the best parts of his or her humanness. Where ever religion rules real individuals suffer abuse, oppression and being degraded as something less than human.

[Ray Moscow]

...

I didn't mean Fee, although I find his evangelical doubletalk to be bullshit.

Ok. Just out of curiosity, could you give me an example of what you view as "doubletalk"?

Sure. In his co-authored "How to Read the Bible ...", his explanation of how Psalm 137, with its bashing the babies' brains out, is still "the Word of God", is doubletalking BS.

More generally, explanations of how and why people wrote various parts of the Bible, and yet how these human creations are still "the Word of God", are doubletalking BS.

[Norrin Radd]

...

I didn't mean Fee, although I find his evangelical doubletalk to be bullshit.

Ok. Just out of curiosity, could you give me an example of what you view as "doubletalk"?

Sure. In his co-authored "How to Read the Bible ...", his explanation of how Psalm 137, with its bashing the babies' brains out, is still "the Word of God", is doubletalking BS.

More generally, explanations of how and why people wrote various parts of the Bible, and yet how these human creations are still "the Word of God", are doubletalking BS.

Ok, so basically your complaint is not really about anything "evangelical" per se, but about even older but still non-liberal traditions of "divine inspiration."

[Ray Moscow]

Generally, non-evangelicals just admit that the Bible is wrong when it advocates atrocities. For Fee, it's still "the Word of God", even extremely shitty parts like Psalm 137.

[Joykins]

Generally, non-evangelicals just admit that the Bible is wrong when it advocates atrocities. For Fee, it's still "the Word of God", even extremely shitty parts like Psalm 137.

It's a great lyric poem, viewed as one.

[Ray Moscow]

Generally, non-evangelicals just admit that the Bible is wrong when it advocates atrocities. For Fee, it's still "the Word of God", even extremely shitty parts like Psalm 137.

It's a great lyric poem, viewed as one.

Yeah, I like poems that endorse murdering babies.

Seriously, this is a typical red herring thrown up by liberal Christians. The Bible is Word of God -- wait, OK, maybe not but it's great literature anyway.

Next Sunday, it's back to being "the Word of God" again.

[Joykins]

Generally, non-evangelicals just admit that the Bible is wrong when it advocates atrocities. For Fee, it's still "the Word of God", even extremely shitty parts like Psalm 137.

It's a great lyric poem, viewed as one.

Yeah, I like poems that endorse murdering babies.

Endorse? Look at it.


Seriously, this is a typical red herring thrown up by liberal Christians. The Bible is Word of God -- wait, OK, maybe not but it's great literature anyway.

Next Sunday, it's back to being "the Word of God" again.

Psalm 137

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.

We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.

For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.

How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land?

If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.

If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

This is grief-as-rage.

[Goodchild]

Was it grief-as-rage as well when the bears sent by god tore up the children in 2 Kings: 2:24? Or is there some other explain-away for that atrocity?

[dug_down_deep]

Brats.

[Ray Moscow]

It's a great lyric poem, viewed as one.

Yeah, I like poems that endorse murdering babies.

Endorse? Look at it.


Seriously, this is a typical red herring thrown up by liberal Christians. The Bible is Word of God -- wait, OK, maybe not but it's great literature anyway.

Next Sunday, it's back to being "the Word of God" again.

Psalm 137

By the rivers of Babylon, there we sat down, yea, we wept, when we remembered Zion.

We hanged our harps upon the willows in the midst thereof.

For there they that carried us away captive required of us a song; and they that wasted us required of us mirth, saying, Sing us one of the songs of Zion.

How shall we sing the LORD's song in a strange land?

If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning.

If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.

Remember, O LORD, the children of Edom in the day of Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the foundation thereof.

O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

This is grief-as-rage.

Yes, it's obviously a cry for revenge, upon innocent children. It's quite understandable as a (badly flawed) human point of view.

Just how is that "the Word of God"?

[Notta]

Yes, this is the sort of thing you study in a freshman-level New Testament course. ;)If one never took a formal Bible study or New Testament course, one would NEVER BE TOLD THIS INFORMATION in one's relatively conservative church.

It was discovering the true history of the writing of the bible that started me on my path towards atheism. It's too bad that things like this aren't taught children in their confirmation classes.

[Notta]

Well, then, they're behind Penn State at Moody. But you can only go so far with an assumption of Biblical inerrancy IMO.

In some denominations, and even in parts of "mainstream" denominations, you can go all the way to the top, for your whole life, without modern biblical scholarship entering your thinking at all.Or even being aware of the entire field of biblical scholarship......

[David B]

Well, then, they're behind Penn State at Moody. But you can only go so far with an assumption of Biblical inerrancy IMO.

In some denominations, and even in parts of "mainstream" denominations, you can go all the way to the top, for your whole life, without modern biblical scholarship entering your thinking at all.Or even being aware of the entire field of biblical scholarship......

While in the meantime, the churches in my neck of the woods blithely claim on their notices things like 'Christmas is Jesus' birthday' and (I remember this old one because it is false in so many ways) 'The Millenium is Jesus' 2000th birthday'.

Trying deceptively to give a false sense of historicity to the stories? Or what?

I just see people lying for their faith.

Bastards!

David

[Joykins]

Well, then, they're behind Penn State at Moody. But you can only go so far with an assumption of Biblical inerrancy IMO.

In some denominations, and even in parts of "mainstream" denominations, you can go all the way to the top, for your whole life, without modern biblical scholarship entering your thinking at all.Or even being aware of the entire field of biblical scholarship......

This, this is why I stopped going to the church I used to go to and why I like the one I'm at now so much better. The pastor addressed and engages these disciplines.

[David B]

In some denominations, and even in parts of "mainstream" denominations, you can go all the way to the top, for your whole life, without modern biblical scholarship entering your thinking at all.Or even being aware of the entire field of biblical scholarship......

This, this is why I stopped going to the church I used to go to and why I like the one I'm at now so much better. The pastor addressed and engages these disciplines.

So what does he make of the nativity stories, and the alleged slaughter of the innocents?

David

[Joykins]

Or even being aware of the entire field of biblical scholarship......

This, this is why I stopped going to the church I used to go to and why I like the one I'm at now so much better. The pastor addressed and engages these disciplines.

So what does he make of the nativity stories, and the alleged slaughter of the innocents?

David

He regards the virgin birth as a later addition to the nativity stories. I can't say for the rest because the actual study I attended was about Holy Week.

[Norrin Radd]

In some denominations, and even in parts of "mainstream" denominations, you can go all the way to the top, for your whole life, without modern biblical scholarship entering your thinking at all.Or even being aware of the entire field of biblical scholarship......

While in the meantime, the churches in my neck of the woods blithely claim on their notices things like 'Christmas is Jesus' birthday' and (I remember this old one because it is false in so many ways) 'The Millenium is Jesus' 2000th birthday'.

Actually, 1996 was probably His 2000th birthday.



Trying deceptively to give a false sense of historicity to the stories? Or what?

I just see people lying for their faith.

Bastards!

David

I will take the risk of assuming that at least part of your complaint involves the familiar canard that Xians are "lying" because in "reality" the December holiday is a pagan one -- Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, or whatever.

In light of this (http://www.geneveith.com/why-christmas-is-on-december-25/_183/) and this (http://www.kencollins.com/holy-02t.htm), that claim may be overstated.

Even apart from that, "lying for their faith" is nothing more than your own jaundiced perception. Here in the western world, at least, the common trappings of Xmas -- evergreen trees, wreaths, Santa Claus, etc. -- are at least as thoroughly divorced from any pagan background as they are from the Xian interpretations applied to them. Since we don't know the "real" date Jesus was born, and long-standing tradition uses December 25 as the celebration day, it is not "lying" for Xians to remind ourselves and others to look beyond the glitter and consumerism and to recall the traditional basis for the celebration, any more than it is "lying" for someone born on Feb. 29 on a Leap Year to subsequently celebrate on either Feb. 28 or Mar. 1.

And of course I'm sure you're one of those noble, high-minded people who don't want to "offend" any believers by using words like "lying" and "bastards."

[RBH]

Someone, on a discussion board far, far away, once posted this (http://web.archive.org/web/20071230022734/http://www.cityside.org.nz/node/340) stuff, 'Autobiography of a died-again Christian'. Scary and powerful testimony about losing one's faith as the result of too much study.The guy's dissertation is here (http://web.archive.org/web/20071230130703/upetd.up.ac.za/thesis/available/etd-03192004-135203/). The Abstract is interesting reading, too: Seven reasons to conclude that Yahweh doesn't exist.

[David B]

Or even being aware of the entire field of biblical scholarship......

While in the meantime, the churches in my neck of the woods blithely claim on their notices things like 'Christmas is Jesus' birthday' and (I remember this old one because it is false in so many ways) 'The Millenium is Jesus' 2000th birthday'.

Actually, 1996 was probably His 2000th birthday.



Trying deceptively to give a false sense of historicity to the stories? Or what?

I just see people lying for their faith.

Bastards!

David

I will take the risk of assuming that at least part of your complaint involves the familiar canard that Xians are "lying" because in "reality" the December holiday is a pagan one -- Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, or whatever.

In light of this (http://www.geneveith.com/why-christmas-is-on-december-25/_183/) and this (http://www.kencollins.com/holy-02t.htm), that claim may be overstated.

Even apart from that, "lying for their faith" is nothing more than your own jaundiced perception. Here in the western world, at least, the common trappings of Xmas -- evergreen trees, wreaths, Santa Claus, etc. -- are at least as thoroughly divorced from any pagan background as they are from the Xian interpretations applied to them. Since we don't know the "real" date Jesus was born, and long-standing tradition uses December 25 as the celebration day, it is not "lying" for Xians to remind ourselves and others to look beyond the glitter and consumerism and to recall the traditional basis for the celebration, any more than it is "lying" for someone born on Feb. 29 on a Leap Year to subsequently celebrate on either Feb. 28 or Mar. 1.

And of course I'm sure you're one of those noble, high-minded people who don't want to "offend" any believers by using words like "lying" and "bastards."

My objection to some Christians telling people that Christmas is Jesus' birthday stems from my understanding that, presuming his historicity at all, no-one knows when he was born.

A good idea of when he was born might have been obtained from Roman records concerning the alleged taxation decree, but this seems to be....well, an untruth.

Your first link confirms the view that Dec 25 was not Jesus' birthday.

No wonder Tighe concluded that December 25th “is wholly unlikely to have been the actual date of Christ’s birth”.

As does your second link

Nine months after 25 March leads to 25 December, which would be the birthday of Jesus Christ if all those assumptions and calculations were correct. They aren’t correct, but the fact remains that the date has a Christian origin.

So my view stands, that when priests say to their flock that Christmas Day is Jesus' birthday, they are lending a false sense of historicity to Jesus, and the Bible as a whole.

If they state that Jesus birthday was Christmas Day, and are aware of the fact that the likelihood of it being so is small, then what is that but a lie?

And what motivation can they have other than to deceive their flocks, and particularly the children, that there is more historicity to Jesus than in fact there is?

I find that misleading children like that morally indefensible, myself.

OTOH, if they truly believe that Dec 25 is Jesus birthday, then they have themselves been misled - but surely anyone who has done any Bible study at all must know that there are no good grounds for placing Jesus' birthday on that date.

If they said something like 'Dec 25th is the date when Christians of our denomination celebrate Jesus' birthday, but we don't know when it is really' then I'd find that acceptable.

But, in my experience, they don't.

David

David

[David B]

I seem to have ignored part of your post, by jumping on too quickly.

Actually, 1996 was probably His 2000th birthday.

Well, if so, and the churches know that, to claim that the Millennium was Jesus' 2000th birthday was again deceptive.

What do you base that date on?

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ussher believe the birth of Jesus to have been 4 BC, and then fiddled the genealogies in the Bible to make the date of creation be 4004 BC, because of some metaphysical belief that the second coming was to be 1996? Or was it 2996? Something to do with each millennium mirroring a day in the creation story, anyway?

David

[Norrin Radd]

...
So my view stands, that when priests say to their flock that Christmas Day is Jesus' birthday, they are lending a false sense of historicity to Jesus, and the Bible as a whole.

If they state that Jesus birthday was Christmas Day, and are aware of the fact that the likelihood of it being so is small, then what is that but a lie?

And what motivation can they have other than to deceive their flocks, and particularly the children, that there is more historicity to Jesus than in fact there is?

I find that misleading children like that morally indefensible, myself.

OTOH, if they truly believe that Dec 25 is Jesus birthday, then they have themselves been misled - but surely anyone who has done any Bible study at all must know that there are no good grounds for placing Jesus' birthday on that date.

If they said something like 'Dec 25th is the date when Christians of our denomination celebrate Jesus' birthday, but we don't know when it is really' then I'd find that acceptable.

But, in my experience, they don't.

David

David

In my experience, the word, "birthday" isn't really used. Instead, most of the churches I'm familiar with use the well-worn, "Jesus is the Reason for the Season." They have Xmas Day services where they read the Advent accounts in the Gospels, but frankly, in that context, the issue is THAT it happened, and by convention we celebrate it on that day, not whether that day is ACTUALLY the anniversary of the event.

[David B]

...
So my view stands, that when priests say to their flock that Christmas Day is Jesus' birthday, they are lending a false sense of historicity to Jesus, and the Bible as a whole.

If they state that Jesus birthday was Christmas Day, and are aware of the fact that the likelihood of it being so is small, then what is that but a lie?

And what motivation can they have other than to deceive their flocks, and particularly the children, that there is more historicity to Jesus than in fact there is?

I find that misleading children like that morally indefensible, myself.

OTOH, if they truly believe that Dec 25 is Jesus birthday, then they have themselves been misled - but surely anyone who has done any Bible study at all must know that there are no good grounds for placing Jesus' birthday on that date.

If they said something like 'Dec 25th is the date when Christians of our denomination celebrate Jesus' birthday, but we don't know when it is really' then I'd find that acceptable.

But, in my experience, they don't.

David

David

In my experience, the word, "birthday" isn't really used. Instead, most of the churches I'm familiar with use the well-worn, "Jesus is the Reason for the Season." They have Xmas Day services where they read the Advent accounts in the Gospels, but frankly, in that context, the issue is THAT it happened, and by convention we celebrate it on that day, not whether that day is ACTUALLY the anniversary of the event.

I'm pleased to hear that. It's not my experience, though - where do you come from?

A quick google, though, makes me less sanguine.

http://www.alphabet-soup.net/chris/starry.html

Christmas is Jesus' Birthday!

http://www.alighthouse.com/bjesus.htm

Happy Birthday, Jesus!
Daddy said that you were near,
And that you had a birthday
This time every year.

http://www.geocities.com/italkr2/HAPPYBIRTHDAYJESUS.html

This one makes me want to throw up, but it does seem to me to imply that Chrismas is the birthday of Jesus, rather than a day on which it is celebrated.

That will do for now.

Would you agree that to tell kids that Christmas is Jesus' Birthday, rather than a day on which it is celebrated by convention, is deceptive?

David

David

[Bartender]

If you produced some good new thing in maths, it would get greater acceptance if it were attached to the name of some long-dead famous mathematician, such as Pythagoras. So that's what people did.

Isn't that the guy that discovered those great big snakes?

[dug_down_deep]

No, that was Boas.

[nygreenguy]

The Abstract is interesting reading, too: Seven reasons to conclude that Yahweh doesn't exist.

Well, we already know yahweh is simply an extension of the canninite religion. He was a more minor god, then the jews decided to ignore the others and promote yahweh to HBIC.