Welcome to the 3nd edition of Biblical Errancy Commentary.
We're glad you could join us.

In this program we'll shift our focus from the Bible in general to the most important biblical figure from a Christian perspective, Jesus Christ.
After all, talking about the Bible's inadequacies without mentioning the myriad of problems associated with Jesus would be an oversight of the first magnitude.
In order to do so we'll concentrate on a pamphlet distributed several years ago by us entitled Jesus Christ Is the Answer?
The pamphlet's title is appropriately followed by a question mark because the title itself is wholly inaccurate.
The document is composed of 22 questions directed to apologists with respect to the character, teachings and behavior of Jesus.
Its questions represent an excellent place to launch our critique and similar inquiries will follow in subsequent programs.
So we again invite you to get out your pencil and paper and we'll move to the actual dilemmas it brings to the fore.
 

Our FIRST encounter is with one of those problems that Trinitarians detest.
While on the cross Jesus said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me."
The obvious question any rational person would have in this regard is: How can Jesus Christ be our saviour when he couldn't even save himself.
Now let's be reasonable!
Those aren't the words of a man voluntarily dying for our sins; those are the words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be.
Christians strongly proclaim that Jesus willingly died for us.
If so, then why does he show an obvious displeasure for what is occurring?
You don't cry out in agony when your wishes are being fulfilled.
One would only use the word "forsaken" if he felt he had been abandoned.
There can be no doubt that the words emanate from a man who doesn't have the situation under control.
Quite the contrary, they are words of desperation and clearly describe an individual who is not dying willingly for anyone.
In regard to a similar verse Gerald Sigal poignantly states on page 227 in The Jew and the Christian Missionary,
"Christian missionaries claim that Jesus came into the world to offer himself as a willing sacrifice to atone for mankind's sins.
         If that was the case, why did he hesitate and pray for the reversal of the fate prescribed for him.
         Matt. 26:39 says, '...going a little way forward, he fell upon his face praying: 'My Father, if it is possible, let this cup (from a Greek word meaning "fate") pass from me.  Yet, not as I will, but as you will'.
         Jesus alleged exclamation: 'Yet, not as I will but as you will,' undoubtedly indicates that had it been his choice, he would not have undergone execution.
         And why did Jesus, the god-man, need an angel to strengthen him in Luke 22:43?"
 

The SECOND QUESTION goes to the heart of Jesus' character.
In Matt. 5:22 he condemns people to hell for calling others "fools;" while he engages in the practice himself.
In Matt. 23:17 and Luke 11:40 he refers to others as fools.
The obvious question becomes: Shouldn't he be sent to hell too?
After all, he did lay down a maxim for all to follow.
Or is he to be exempt from morality and allowed to do whatever strikes his fancy?
Some apologists try to resolve this problem by alleging that there are different Greek words for "fool" and Jesus did not call people the kind of fool that is referred to in Matt. 5:22.
This is not only a case of rationalizing but of blatant deception.
The word "fool" in Matt. 5:22 and the word "fool" in Matt. 23:17 and 19 come from the same Greek word which is transliterated as "moros."
So there is no way to use the "You have to go back to the Greek" approach to escape this dilemma.
The problem is there; it's blatant, and it's obvious.
As will be shown later, this is by no means the only time Jesus engaged in either reprehensible behavior or rhetoric.
Yet, we never hear of him being condemned by others.
Perhaps a double standard rules the universe.
One law for man, another for God and Jesus.
The question then becomes, Who made that standard?
If it was God, i.e., Jesus, then Jesus, in effect, is nothing more than a law unto himself.
He is above and beyond morality.
He can do whatever he desires, whenever he desires to do it.
Earthly tyrants are often accused of propounding the same philosophy.
 

QUESTION #3 will be addressed much more extensively in a subsequent program and need not be covered in depth here.
In essence, it refers to the fact that no extrabiblical writing in all of ancient history clearly refers to a man by the name of Jesus of Nazareth.
If you want to read writings about Jesus written when he roamed the earth, you'll have to confine yourself to the Bible, because nothing outside of scripture is available.
As one would expect, apologists heatedly deny this contention and refer to such well known ancient authors as Josephus, Tacitus, Seutonious and Pliny the Younger.
They will trot out passages supposedly referring to Jesus from some of the greatest figures of ancient literature.
They neglect to mention, of course, all the deceptions surrounding their arguments.
For instance, biblicists repeatedly denounce their critics for taking verses out of context.
If I have heard that argument once, I have heard it a hundred times.
Yet, that has always been a hallmark of their strategy.

As is true with messianic prophecy in which they scowered the OT for any passage that could be twisted in such a manner as to refer to Jesus, they have gone through all the writings of the ancient world and twisted every word, every phrase, every paragraph, that could possibly be stretched in such a manner as to be applied to Jesus of Nazareth.

The key word is "stretched."
They have employed the very tactic which they have so heatedly decried in others.
For instance, the only passage referred to from Seutonius is found in Section 25 of his book entitled The Deified Claudius which says,
"Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he (the Emperor Claudius) expelled them from Rome."

Apologists overlook the obvious fact that the passage refers to "Chrestus," not Christ.
It says Chrestus, C-H-R-E-S-T-U-S.
There is no justification for ignoring the context and arbitrarily assuming that Christ and Chrestus are identical.
Why assume Chrestus is another name for Christ.
Many people were named Chrestus.
Moreover, even if the two words are identical, that in no way proves
     Jesus ever lived.
Just because a being has an entourage doesn't mean he really existed.
Greek gods such as Zeus had followers also.
Does that mean they really lived?
Because people believe in a being is no proof for his existence.
There are no books, no chapters and few paragraphs that can even be cited as relevant to the issue.
All of the passages that biblicists mention from ancient literature wouldn't fill much more than a couple of pages.
And that's a sorry record, indeed, in light of the fact that there is a sizable body of literature from that era.
Isn't it amazing that the alleged savior of the world was all but ignored by everyone but the authors of the NT who were, no doubt, his followers, if not his creators.
On page 271 in The Life and Works of Thomas Paine one of the most distinguished men in American history summarized the entire problem rather well when he said,
"There is no history written at the time Jesus Christ is said to have lived that speaks of the existence of such a person, even as a man."
 

The FOURTH QUESTION is a classic and should always be used in any discussion with defenders of the Bible in general and Jesus in particular.
In Matt. 12:40 Jesus prophecied that he would be buried 3 days and 3 nights, as was Jonah in the whale for 3 days and 3 nights.
Since he died and was buried some time on Friday afternoon and rose sometime Saturday night or Sunday morning, he couldn't have been buried for 3 days and 3 nights.
To be technical, from Friday afternoon to Saturday night or Sunday morning is barely a day and a half.
Clearly the prophecy failed.
 

The contortionistic explanations apologists have displayed to escape from this problem are truly a sight to behold.
Some have even gone so far as to allege that the Crucifixion occurred on Wednesday rather than Friday in direct defiance of the verse that says it occurred on the day before the Sabbath.
Every Jew in the land knows that Saturday is the sabbath and the day before Saturday is Friday.
So the Crucifixion had to have been on Friday.
On page 55 in the book 508 Answers to Bible Questions apologist DeHaan was asked the following question:
       On what day was Christ crucified, and on what day did he arise?
His answer is:
"It is my firm conviction that Christ was crucified on Wednesday, and arose after sundown on Saturday night.
         In no other way can we account for three days and three nights.
         'Good Friday' is an unscriptural tradition only."

Of course, DeHaan is wrong on two counts.
First, it may be his conviction but that's about all.
Nothing justifies shifting the Crucifixion from Friday to Wednesday other than a need to escape the problem.
Second, "Good Friday" is not unscriptural.
Quite the contrary, the text clearly states that the Crucifixion occurred on the day before the sabbath.

Others have alleged that Jews considered any part of a day to be equal to an entire day.
Thus, when one takes into account the fact that the events covered part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday, the prophecy of being 3 days in the grave proved to be true, so they claim.
Of course, they fail to mention the fact that the prophecy said 3 days and 3 nights, not just 3 days.
How do you cram 3 nights into a period from Friday afternoon to Sunday morning?

This problem becomes even more impossible for apologists to resolve when one realizes that according to Mark 8:31 Jesus was to rise after 3 days, not on the third day.
Noting this dilemma, the apologist Josh McDowell contends that "on the third day" is synonymous with "after the third day."
Apparently desperation set in.
 

The FIFTH QUESTION exposes another failure in the prophetic talent of Jesus.
In far too many instances, to use the vernacular of the adolescent, Jesus just couldn't get it together.
In John 13:38 he told Peter that, "The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me 3 times."
But you need only read Mark 14:66-68 to see that the cock actually crowed after the first denial, not after the third.
If one compares what is prophecied in a gospel with what actually occurs in the same gospel, John, for example, the problem usually vanishes.

But if gospels are compared with one another, if what is prophecied in John is compared with what actually occurs in Mark, the problem steps forward to reveal its awesome stature.
 

The SIXTH QUESTION opens up a whole can of worms with regard to the character and integrity of Jesus.
In Matt. 19:17 he asked a rather simple question.
"Why callest thou me good?  there is none good but one, that is God."
Here we have a clear-cut statement by Jesus that he is not perfect,
     his character is flawed, and he can't be considered the
     quintessential model of propriety.
We have it from his own mouth.
What more could one want?
Yet, his followers contend to the end that he is immaculate and the model of sinless perfection.

Besides the fact that Jesus denied his perfect goodness, we have numerous instances in which he behaved or spoke in a manner that was anything but a model of rectitude.
For example, in John 7:8-10 he told some people to go to a feast and that he would not be going.
Yet, the text states that he later went up, not in public, but in private.
In other words, he broke his word.

In Matt. 26:18 Jesus told a man to "Go into the city to such a man, and say to him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples."
Well!  Jesus could use a course in etiquette; that's clear.
You don't just invite yourself into someone's home.
First you receive an invitation.

And lastly, he lied to the thief on the cross when he told him, "Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."
How could they have entered paradise together that day, when Jesus lay in the tomb for 3 days?

On page 241 in The Jew and the Christian Missionary Gerald Sigal said in this regard,
"There is no end to the inconsistencies, for Luke has Jesus promise the thief...that 'today you shall be with me in paradise.'
         This promise could not be true if...Jesus rose on the first day of the week which was 3 days later."
 

The SEVENTH QUESTION involves one of many conflicts between Jesus and Paul.
Jesus said at the end of Matthew, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the son and the Holy Ghost."
But later Paul said in 1 Cor. 1:17 that Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel.
In effect, Paul is saying Jesus lied.
Either that or Paul is rewriting the script and has usurped the leadership of Jesus in Christianity.
 

On page 156 of Volume 7 in Thomas Jefferson's Works our third president and one of America's founding fathers makes the following relevant comment.
"Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the...first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus."
 

The EIGHTH QUESTION addresses one of those problems that is systematically evaded by nearly all apologists.
The latter take great delight in distorting and perverting complimentary OT verses that can somehow be related to Jesus.
Indeed, they have made quite a specialty of this.
But they have intentionally avoided all negative verses that could be just as easily applied to the founder of Christianity.
For example, the NT repeatedly refers to Jesus as the "son of man."
But one need only read the OT to see that the son of man is often referred to in the most uncomplimentary fashion.
For instance, Psalm 146:3 states, "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man in whom there is no help."
That's right; no help is to be expected from Jesus.
And Job 25:6 says, "How much less man, that is a worm?  and the son of man which is a worm."
The son of man is a worm!
Would you follow a worm?
One would have far less difficulty applying these verses to Jesus than many vague allusions that have been deemed forecasters of his presence.
Nearly all of the latter are of no relevance.
On page 258 in his Theological Works Thomas Paine spared no words in this regard when he said,
"I have now gone through and examined all the passages which the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, quote from the OT and call them prophecies of Jesus Christ.
         When I first sat down to this examination, I expected to find cause for some censure, but little did I expect to find them so utterly destitute of truth, and of all pretensions to it...."

Biblicists have gone through the OT and taken what can be used for purposes of expediency to prove their case and systematically ignored all the rest.
However, when Psalms and Job refer to the son of man as a worm in whom there is no help, they are intentionally avoided.
There is no reason they could not apply to Jesus other than the fact that the image of Christianity's founder would be tarnished immensely.
 

The NINTH QUESTION, and our last for today, is a direct assault upon the doctrine of the Trinity, which we often refer to as the Great Backdoor, the Great Escape Hatch.
According to Christian theology, Jesus is God.
But how could this be true when he repeatedly said he was not God's equal.
In John 14:28 Jesus said, "My Father is greater than I"; in John 20:17 he said, "I ascend to my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God"; and in John 7:16 he said, "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."

In every instance Jesus is denying that he is God's equal.
Why would anyone who is God's equal say the Father is greater than himself and that he recognized the Father as his god?
The Trinity is one of the most ludicrous ideas to have ever to come down the pike.
Even apologists admit it's impossible to comprehend.
On page 41 in their book The Bible Has the Answer apologists Morris and Clark state,
"The mystery of the divine-human nature of Christ is beyond our finite understanding....
         The Bible simply presents as fact...that Jesus Christ was both God and man.
         It does not try to explain how this could be, because it is inexplicable.
         It must be apprehended on faith alone,...."

Without going into an extended analysis of the Trinity, let us conclude our brief comments on this topic by noting some astute observations made by Robert Ingersoll in the last century.
On pages 266 and 267 of Volume 4 in his Works he says the following.
"Christ, according to the faith, is the second person in the Trinity, the Father being the first and the Holy Ghost the third.
   Each of these three persons is God.
   Christ is his own father and his own son.
   The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both.
   The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten--just the same before as after.
   Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son (Imagine a father and son of the same age--Ed.)....
   So it is declared that the Father is God, and the Son God and the Holy Ghost God, and these three Gods make one God."

And Ingersoll concludes by saying,
"Nothing ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma of the Trinity."

The Trinity, and all of the problems associated with messianic prophecy as well, will be outlined in greater detail in subsequent programs.
 

That completes our presentation and please join us later for the 4th edition of BIBLICAL ERRANCY COMMENTARY, when we'll continue discussing our pamphlet and showing why the Bible is nothing more than the flawed composition of some fallible human beings.

Thank you for listening.