Playing God's advocate...

[Gestahl]

So, being bored with the level of opposition and idiocy from the most vocal Christian posters, and wishing to extend his own knowledge and security in the fact that the Bible is indeed inconsistent, Gestahl set out to play God's advocate on the JREF religions forum (not that YHVH needs his advocacy, of course).

The Rules (some make it easier for me, others easier for you):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Gestahl asks to be given a chance to answer first. Specifically, 1inChrist and other quite *ahem* vocal Christian posters are asked not to jump into the thread until Gestahl has had a chance to answer.

2) Specific questions are to be asked. This means 'Explain this story' is out. Links to skeptic's annotated bible saying 'here' will be throughly ignored. References to supporting scripture for your question should be provided, along with version used. Gestahl will be mainly pulling from NIV, KJV, and NAS. Please see note on source languages below.

3) Literal interpretation will not be always be considered. Metaphorical and allegorical interpretations will be used in cases where this is clearly implied by the story, assumed level of education of the author, etc. Gestahl must defend why the story is allegory, besides stating "This is simply so rediculous, it must be metaphorical."

4) Grammatical ambiguities will not be considered (stupid English). In the case where an interpretation could be made in two different ways based on grammar alone, the point is considered moot.

5) Regular english definitions from dictionary.com shall be used. If discussion necessitates, another definition may be agreed upon by both people. Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic source words may be used to clear up ambiguities.

6) Gestahl will *not* assume inerrancy and infalliablility of the Bible from the start. Gestahl will assume God's existence, his influence on the authors, and that his purpose was to reveal himself through this book.

7) Gestahl will assume that man wrote the book, inspired by God, and being that man is falliable and constrained by his time, certain things will be in archaic language, or not quite up to current understanding. Arguments over bats and circumferences of pools are stupid.

7) Gestahl will assume that each book is a complete work, not redacted. Gestahl will not dismiss an argument as being different interpretations by different authors redacted together.

8) Gestahl will concede outright that the New Testament and the Old Testament are not entirely consistent, since they were written for different audiences at different times, and the coming of Christ changed people's relation with God. Gestahl will explain, however, why the fact that the scripture appears in the New Testament explains the apparent contradiction.

Gestahl also asks everyone to be patient, as he is sure people have sites with Biblical inaccuracies bookmarked and a Ctrl-C & Ctrl-V away. Please, one question per post, and until I can answer your question, please do not post another.

This should be fun and hopefully elucidating to both Christians wanting some good, serious apologetics, and skeptics wanting to truly find problems with the Bible not based on completely literal interpretations (otherwise it is simply too easy).

Let the questions begin...

 

[Anathema]

Can you provide a sound scriptural basis for the seemingly pick-and-choose application of Leviticus among contemporary Christians? I realize the standard jokes about "selling daughters into slavery" and "do I have to kill my father if he works on Sabbath" are simplistic, but I'd like to get the detailed apologetics behind it.

What is the primary scriptural source for declaring the "Old Law" inoperative for some things (dietary standards, ritual purification, animal sacrifice), but fully operative on matters like homosexuality? In other words, where is Leviticus formally parsed into "this goes, that stays"?

 

[Gestahl]

What is the primary scriptural source for declaring the "Old Law" inoperative for some things (dietary standards, ritual purification, animal sacrifice), but fully operative on matters like homosexuality? In other words, where is Leviticus formally parsed into "this goes, that stays"?

First note for newcomers, I am really an athiest, and thus take my "I believe", etc. as it is: getting into character.

There is no definite scripture for what you are asking. In general, the concept of sin changes in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, all infractions had prescribed sacrifices (possibly of said transgressor) or cleansing rituals.

In the New Testament, Christ himself is the sacrifice. God gave is Son to be sacrificed to atone for all of the sins in one whack. This is why you might hear him referred to as the Lamb of God, as white, pure lambs were used in many OT sacrificial rites. The implication here is innocence. That is why Christ was sinless... he was the perfect unblemished lamb to be sacrificed for all of us.

In truth, all sins may be forgiven save one: That of rejecting this sacrifice given to you. If you refuse his blessing, its your ass. The fact of the matter is, all is forgiven in advance for every sin you have, are, and will commit, if you accept His Son. All you must do is acknowledge it and accept it.

Secondly, there are societal rules in place in Leviticus. These were social order commands (such as marriage of brother's wives, etc.). When it came around to Jesus's time, there were other societal orders in place. "Render unto Ceaser's that which is Ceaser's", a statement by Christ, has a double meaning. Not only pay your taxes (the literal interpretation), but to also abide by the societal rules of the region you live in. The societal structure was in place for the Jewish people for the fulfillment of Christ's birth. That being accomplished, and the world in a more stable, civilized environment, they were no longer necessary.

Not only that, but once you have accepted this, God still forgives your sins of weakness. Willful defiance and rejection of Him, however, will again result in the rejection of you. There are some theological disputes over this last part (some believe if you are saved once, you are always saved, period. I believe faith, acceptance, and love of Christ are not constant, and it's what you think and do now that matters to God, not what you did when you were 8).

Christ also made this statement:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

This seems to run at odds with what I just said. However, if you look a little deeper, here is what Christ said:

1) The Law is still there, and still valid.
2) However, I have (will) fulfill this law (by my own sacrifice).
3) *Without* Christ, the Law still abides, and if you do not follow them (The Pharisses were a particulary stringent, orthodox sect of Jews at the time), you will not get into heaven, with the implication that through Him, you may. This passage is a explication by Christ as to why he is here.
4) He says the laws still apply, and it is implied that through Him all his forgiven.

Does this help?

 

[Anders]

When I have the chance to talk to Christians, I usually say that there are no historical written accounts about a person living around the year zero and listened to the name of Jesus. That is there was no biblical Jesus. But, if the Christian is well educated in theology they sometimes say there really are evidence.

So what is it? Is the historical evidence of the existence of jesus, or not?

 

[Gestahl]

When I have the chance to talk to Christians, I usually say that there are no historical written accounts about a person living around the year zero and listened to the name of Jesus. That is there was no biblical Jesus. But, if the Christian is well educated in theology they sometimes say there really are evidence.

So what is it? Is the historical evidence of the existence of jesus, or not?

This is a highly debated question, for obvious reasons. There is only one contemporary account commonly held to be somewhat reliable, that from the historian Flavius Josephus. There is a single passage in which he describes a Jesus. However, this passage has come under attack as being edited later. Most current historians regard the passage as part Josephus (possibly), and lots of later additions. Most critics discount this passage as either a whole cloth later fabrication, or a highly modified copy, as Josephus was an orthodox Jew, and he mentions Christ being the Messiah (not a commonly held view!). Even if Josephus was a convert, he would either extol such an obvious virtue more, or would say nothing at all, since Christians of the day (especially Jewish converts) were still persecuted (his somewhat high position would exacerbate this). Furthermore, the passage is distinctly different grammatically and in word choice from his other writings. Here is the passage:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 §63

Another incongruity was found in the last phrase. Josephus is writing this as the Christian church is starting, 1st century. Why use the seemingly over-superlative phrase of "has still to this day not disappeared?"

There are other writings, but they are either not contemporary, or are even more dubious that Josephus' writings. This includes the Gospels (dated by most scholars to be 50 to 100 years after his death).

Recently, there was a ossuary (small coffin just for burying bones) with the following inscription written in Aramaic (with different un-Anglicized names, too, but what would be later translated into these familiar names):

"James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus"

Statistical studies on the prevalance of names suggested that if it were authentic, there would be only one or two people this could belong to. In essence, it would be the ossuary of Jesus' (half-)brother. Unfortunately the last phrase of the inscription appears to be added later, probably for higher resale value (although it was noted it was a good forgery).

To this day, there remains no uncontested, uncontrivertible, unbiased, and untampered-with evidence of Christ's existence. The Christians you hear saying that are usually speaking of Josephus' statement, and give it more credit than it is due.

 

[gnome]

I hope this fits the kind of questions you were looking for.

As someone who has received no personal, incontravertible experience of divinity, what are the reasons for me to believe in the Christian God rather than, say, Zeus?

What are the reasons that one would not believe in Zeus, that do not also apply to God?

Let me add: This has been a refreshing exercise so far. It is good to see someone willing to confront a difficult issue head-on.

Edited to add: I see that your interest focuses on defense of the Bible... so if you choose to skip my question I understand.

 

[Zombified]

Isn't there a passage (in Acts I think) where Paul indicates that gentile converts need only follow Jewish law on matters of sexual morality and not the rest?

 

[Yahweh]

Isn't there a passage (in Acts I think) where Paul indicates that gentile converts need only follow Jewish law on matters of sexual morality and not the rest?

Pedant moment: No, there isnt any passage in Acts where Paul says such a thing, because the author of Acts is generally associated with Luke (a Gentile Physician). I dont know of a verse off the top of my head for your question.


My question to Gestahl:

Current evidence suggests that the story of Genesis is not an accurate description of the universe, and more to the point doesnt describe very well what the first forms of life were like. Basically, there was probably no Adam And Eve, no Garden of Eden, and no Tree of Knowledge. Now, if this is true - that Genesis didnt happen as it is written - what must we make of the concept called "Original Sin"? (My immediate guess is that no one is born with Original Sin, but maybe I'm missing something.)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Who wrote the Pentateuch ?

 

[Jellby]

Just one question, even though it's worded as three:

Which were this God's reasons to create the Universe, the Earth and, specifically, all the conscious beings in it (whether to include non-human animals here, is an open question)?

How can God justify the willing creation of so many millions of beings who will, eventually, suffer eternal pain?

Why "eternal pain" and not "silent oblivion"?

 

[Humphreys]

Following on from what Yahweh said, how do you plan on defending the obvious nonsense in the Genesis creation story?

1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
1:5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

The firmament is obviously something that has been created to separate some waters above from some waters below. Where is this firmament? Why are there no waters above?

What does it mean to say above or below in space?

1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

How can there be days when there is no Sun?
How can there be light when there is no Sun?

1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years
1:15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

How and why have the Sun and Moon been placed above the Earth? And in this physical firmament which we know isn't actually there?

How can something be placed directly above the Earth?

That's just the beginning of the Genesis nonsense which is so obviously describing a flat Earth, and demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of gravity, and referring to a firmament which we know does not exist, and stating the reason for the creation of the stars is "to light the Earth" (which is ridiculous because only a very small percantage af stars are even visible to us!)

 

[geni]

When I have the chance to talk to Christians, I usually say that there are no historical written accounts about a person living around the year zero and listened to the name of Jesus. That is there was no biblical Jesus. But, if the Christian is well educated in theology they sometimes say there really are evidence.

So what is it? Is the historical evidence of the existence of jesus, or not?

Balanced. Josephus doesn't really amount to much. Tacitus provides evidence that someone he calls Christus was exicuted by Pontius Pilate and that this person was the founder of chiristianity. Taken with the other historical records I feel that the historical evidence for Jesus can be put down as a formal maybe.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

Balanced. Josephus doesn't really amount to much. Tacitus provides evidence that someone he calls Christus was exicuted by Pontius Pilate and that this person was the founder of chiristianity. Taken with the other historical records I feel that the historical evidence for Jesus can be put down as a formal maybe.

Actually, I'd say that Tacitus confirms that Christians believed in Christ and that the stories of the 4 gospels were fairly well known stories by then.

As for the historical evidence that the Jesus of the gospels did what he did (preached to masses, loaves and fishes, walked on water, healed sick, etc.), we hear only crickets noises. The lack of comment from the arena of literate contemporary scholars is DEAFENING.

Since the difference means Christianity or no Christianity... those cricket noises are pretty loud.

(And sorry but the Ossuary box doesn't help one way or another even if it is real.)

 

[geni]

Actually, I'd say that Tacitus confirms that Christians believed in Christ and that the stories of the 4 gospels were fairly well known stories by then.

Tacitus tended to research his claims quite carefuly is is unlikey to have view the books of a relgion he didn't like very much a source.

 

[DangerousBeliefs]

Tacitus tended to research his claims quite carefuly is is unlikey to have view the books of a relgion he didn't like very much a source.

Tacitus only mentions "Christus" in passing. He was actually commenting on the excesses of Nero.

I'm not saying he read the Christian gospels, simply that the stories were well enough known for a scholar to make a brief note of them.

But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. - Annals 15

 

[Gestahl]

I hope this fits the kind of questions you were looking for.

As someone who has received no personal, incontravertible experience of divinity, what are the reasons for me to believe in the Christian God rather than, say, Zeus?

What are the reasons that one would not believe in Zeus, that do not also apply to God?

Let me add: This has been a refreshing exercise so far. It is good to see someone willing to confront a difficult issue head-on.

Edited to add: I see that your interest focuses on defense of the Bible... so if you choose to skip my question I understand.

I really don't have an answer for this one. My own biases prevent me from coming up with a good answer.

 

[MLynn]

Gestahl, I find this thread really interesting and appreciate what your'e doing. What is your academic/religious background, and why would you want to play the role of "God's advocate?"

Edited to add: Why do agnostics, atheists, etc. say there is no evidence of Jesus Christ ever existing?

 

[Gestahl]

My question to Gestahl:

Current evidence suggests that the story of Genesis is not an accurate description of the universe, and more to the point doesnt describe very well what the first forms of life were like. Basically, there was probably no Adam And Eve, no Garden of Eden, and no Tree of Knowledge. Now, if this is true - that Genesis didnt happen as it is written - what must we make of the concept called "Original Sin"? (My immediate guess is that no one is born with Original Sin, but maybe I'm missing something.)

Very good question. My answer is that Genesis is a mixture of allegory and mythology, though still inspired by God.

For those not heavy into Christian theology, Original Sin is the concept that we are all doomed to be separated from God, because we all inherit the sin of Adam and Eve, the first sin (involving everone's favorite Satanic archetype and a certain fruit tree). This is in parallel with the Jewish law of the time. Many illnesses and misfortunes of the younger generation get blamed on the "sins of the father." While they might have had a point in that the apple falls near tree, it was even more stringent than that. God seems to think this way too, as he has several passages that indicate he would not only curse that person, but their descendants as well (with a numerological floursh, such as "to the seventh generation". God plays fair, though, in that those who exalt the Lord have their descendants blessed as well (see Abraham).

This was the justification of the Jewish superiority of their religion: because of Original Sin, they had the only way to purify themselves of it, through the Law. This sets up the necessary society and culture into which Jesus was to be born.

With the onset of Christ, we can have this interpretation. There is no real Original Sin. This is a concept steeped in interpretations of the OT. The only concept of sin is that of not following God's will. There is only one human (well, half anyway) that went without sinning, that being Jesus. All sin against God, simply because it is impossible not to, or there would be no free will (an argument for later). Therefore Christ's atonement is not for original sin, but for our own sins that we inevitably commit.

 

[Gestahl]

Who wrote the Pentateuch ?

Evidence points to Jewish writers, scholars, and court members in the 1000-500 BCE kingdoms. Not Moses (writing one's own death is very tricky). See any major work concerning authorship in main-line scholarly Biblical research.

 

[Gestahl]

Following on from what Yahweh said, how do you plan on defending the obvious nonsense in the Genesis creation story?

I do not. It is complete allegory, and fits in with the cosmology of the day. It consisted ascendingly of water, earth, air, water again (hence rain), then the heavens. This is a way God could reveal his creation story in the vaguest, most comprehensible way to the people of the time.

As I said, I do not plan to defend the Bible with literal interpretation.