REPLY #68f TO
are parts of the original essay (or a subsequent reply) to which the respondent has directed his comments.
prefaced by (R) are those of the respondent and are presented unedited.
My replies appear under the respondent's comments in blue text
and are prefaced by my initials (MB)
This is the sixth of a nine-part reply. Select the "Go to next reply" link at the end of each part to read the next part of the reply.
Fourth, the Gospels themselves disagree on the details surrounding several of
the purported miracles of Jesus.
(R) If your going to make a claim, at least back it up with some
(MB) I've already provided some examples, but I normally have more in reserve.
How about these?
Matthew 8:28-31 -- two were possessed with devils
Yes, there are more. Let's see if you can successfully
harmonize any of the ones I've already presented before I give you any more to
Luke 8:26-34, Mark 5:2-14 -- only one was possessed
Matthew 8:1-2 and Matthew 8:14 -- Jesus heals a leper before entering
Mark 1:29 and Mark 1:40 -- He heals the leper after leaving Peter's
One needs only to read the Bible itself to refute this. Jesus was certainly not
the only person to have risen from the dead, so that incident itself can't be
taken as any proof that Jesus is God (even if we accept the absurd notion that
God could die in the first place).
(R) Actually, it can. Jesus was the only one to raise from the dead and STAY
(MB) How do we know that? The eventual fates of the others who were resurrected
are not given in the Bible. Perhaps, resurrection bestows immortality? In that
case, one cannot simply assume that all others eventually died a second time. On
the other hand, since there is no extra-Biblical evidence that Jesus ever rose
from the dead at all and since the Biblical story is fraught with contradictions
and difficulties, we can't just accept that Jesus ever died in the first place,
that he ever rose again or that he remains alive to this day. Then, there is the
additional difficulty of the OT telling us about two mortal men, Elijah and
Enoch, who ascended to heaven while still alive. Are they still alive today,
too? If so, that pretty much quashes your argument for Jesus, doesn't
(R) All others who were raised from the dead eventually died again.
(MB) Again, you must resort to speculation to make this
(R) But not so with Jesus. Romans 6:9 states "For we know that since Christ was
raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over
(MB) So, why doesn't the same logic apply to all others who were raised from the
dead? Perhaps there is some basis for my argument about resurrection bestowing
immortality? If you have to resort to a bunch of special-case scenarios to make
Jesus' case "different" from all the others, doesn't that pretty much rule out
any significance for his resurrection itself?
(R) How could God die? God took on the form of a human being as
(MB) In my previous reply, I quoted a verse from Genesis that proves either that
God could never have done what you are claiming for him or that he spoke
erroneously -- which a perfect entity could never do.
(R) Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. He was God in human form.
(MB) It's impossible to be 100% of two mutually-exclusive things at the same
time. It's a great-sounding apologetic line, but, as logic, it's nothing but
cross-eyed badger spit.
(R) When he died on the cross, he died physically. His human form died while
His spirit went to Abraham's bosom (Luke 16) to release the captives which are
those who were righteous and died before Christ came (Eph. 4:8-10).
(MB) Here, I can present another contradiction for you to
chew on. Ephesians 4:8 ("Wherefore Jesus saith, When he ascended up on high, he
led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men") is a misquote by Paul of Psalms
68:18 ("Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast
received gifts for men"). Receiving and giving gifts are two entirely different
things. Also, some like to think that the Psalm is referring to Jesus (even
though it clearly refers to God), but Paul's verse has Jesus talking about
somebody else. I'd also like to know when Jesus ever "led captivity
(R) It is impossible to understand the tri-unity of God with our finite
(MB) Why? "Finite" does not mean "empty" or "incapable". Now, it's
understandable that religion prefers the flock to stay ignorant and not ask
questions so that it won't have to deal with embarrasing answers. But, would it
be a bad thing if we *did* have full understanding? We also don't need 100%
understanding in order to get good answers to our questions.
I think that Robert Ingersoll had a pretty good understanding of the Trinity
(from Works, Vol. 4):
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. The Holy
Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son, but was equal to the Father and the
Son before he proceeded, that is to say, before he existed, but he is of the
same age as the other two. 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....Nothing
ever was, nothing ever can be more perfectly idiotic and absurd than the dogma
of the Trinity.
(R) How can a creation understand its creator?
(MB) By asking questions and not being afraid of the
(R) Although you refer to yourself as a man of "genius level intelligence", in
the eyes of God your wisdom and knowledge is foolishness.
(MB) This is one of Paul's rantings in 1 Corinthians. However, like much of
Paul's writings, it doesn't make much sense. Paul is appealing to the common
person who may well feel intimidated by those who are learned and intelligent.
If that common person can be convinced that God prefers his ignorance to the
knowledge possessed by others, that person will feel better about himself and
will likely become a faithful believer. In the meantime, he's still
(R) 1 Corinthians 1:25 says "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's
wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
(MB) This would be as expected for an omniscient, omnipotent deity.
Unfortunately, you are reading this as an admonition that we shouldn't strive
for knowledge or wisdom since we can't hope to approach that which is possessed
by God. It would seem to make more sense to assume that if God gave me a brain,
he intended for me to use it. Needless to say, if there's no God at all, I
still have my brain and don't have to worry about any supernatural
(R) 1 Cor. 2:14 says "The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that
come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot
understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." This is rather
(MB) It sure is. It says that if you are not a believer, then the notion of God
is foolishness. I would have to agree. It also implies one of the common
themes of your arguments -- that you must first believe in order to
Also, Jesus was not the only person ever to have raised another person from the
dead. Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-22), Elisha (2 Kings 4:32-35), Peter (Acts
9:36-41), and Paul (Acts 20:9-10) are all said to have raised at least one
person from the dead.
(R) This is true in part. Yes, others did raise people from the dead. But this
was not with their own power but by the power of God. With Jesus, however, He
raised Lazarus and others by His own power because He WAS God (John
(MB) Again, this requires a presupposition about the nature of Jesus that is
unique to the Gospel of John and is not shared by the others. In any case, your
argument does not answer the point I was making. Whether or not Jesus actually
*was* God, it was still the power of God that acted through all of those
individuals who raised people from the dead. None of those individuals other
than Jesus was claimed to be anything other than a mortal man. Since they all
accomplished the same task and did so by the power of God, you can't single out
any one of them and say that his particular act proves that he is divine without
implying that all of the others were divine, as well.
As to the "overwhelming evidence" that Jesus actually rose from the dead, once
again we only have the Bible's say-so for that.
(R) Writing about 56 AD, the Apostle Paul mentions the fact that more than 500
people had witnessed the resurrected Christ at one time and most of them were
still living when he wrote (1 Corinthians 15:6).
(MB) You made this exact same argument before and I've already answered it in
Reply #57b. Did you read it?
(R) This statement is somewhat of a challenge to those who might not have
believed, since Paul is saying that there are many people yet living who could
be interviewed to find out if Christ had indeed risen. If there were no
witnesses, Paul would have been called a liar by his peers and Christianity
would have died out. The fact that no one objected to this but only supported
it says enough.
(MB) Who supported Paul's claim? There is no mention of it in any of the
Gospels or in any non-Pauline book of the NT. There is no mention of such a
thing in any contemporary historical reference. Maybe the statement was
considered so outlandish at the time that it wasn't even considered necessary to
refute it (or even acknowledge it) in writing. And, if it had been refuted, do
you think that the rebuttal would have appeared in the NT? Finally, to
Christians, it was the resurrection itself, and not how many people may or may
not have witnessed it that is the important point. So, even if Paul's claim was
widely regarded as spurious, it wouldn't have been sufficient to cause the
entire emerging Christian belief to die out.
(R) The historical evidence is more than sufficient to satisfy the curiosity of
the honest inquirer.
(MB) What historical evidence? As I've already told you, there's none to be
(R) This can be seen not only by the positive defense that can be made for the
case for the resurrection, but also by the lack of any evidence for an
alternative explanation. The theories attempting to give an alternative
explanation to the resurrection take more faith to believe than the resurrection
(MB) What alternative explanation(s) would these be and why are they so much
worse than the resurrection story itself? Also, you are making the logical
error of assuming that a lack of evidence for one story gives any credibility to
a competing story. This is not the case. All stories must support themselves
on their own merits.
Also, the various Gospel accounts differ in several critical details that are
enough to inspire grave doubts (no pun intended) about any purported
resurrection. Ask yourself some questions:
(R) Grave doubts? More like grave doubters.
(MB) That, too!
What time did the women visit the tomb? Which women came? Was the tomb open or
closed when they arrived? Whom did they see at the tomb? Were they inside or
outside the tomb? Were they standing or sitting? Did the women tell the
disciples what they had seen? How did the women find out that Jesus had risen?
Since these questions are unreconcilable in the Gospel accounts, the veracity of
the entire story must be seriously questioned.
(R) Now that's funny. All these "contradictions" and no scripture to back them
up. If your going to make the claims, give some evidence. Its hard to see how
they are "unreconcilable" when there is no support.
(MB) Don't you even know where to find the resurrection stories in your own
Bible? I thought you were quite familiar with it (unless, of course, all of
your attempted rebuttals are nothing more than bulk copying out of apologist
books). In any case, I will be happy to provide the requested Gospel
references. Then, let's see if you can answer any of the questions.
What time did the women visit the tomb?
So, can you put this tangled mess together and come up
with one single, consistent, and coherent story with no
- Sunrise (Mark 16:2)
- When it was still dark (John 20:1)
Which women came?
- Mary Magdalene (John 20:1)
- Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (Matthew 28:1)
- Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome (Mark 16:1)
- Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the other women (Luke
Was the tomb open or closed when they arrived?
- Open (Luke 24:2)
- Closed (Matthew 28:1-2)
Whom did they see at the tomb?
- An angel (Matthew 28:2)
- A young man (Mark 16:5)
- Two men (Luke 24:4)
- Two angels (John 20:11-12)
Were they inside or outside the tomb?
- Inside (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:3-4, John 20:11-12)
- Outside (Matthew 28:2)
Were they standing or sitting?
- Standing (Luke 24:4)
- Sitting (Matthew 28:2, Mark 16:5, John 20:12)
Did the women tell the disciples what they had seen?
- Yes (Luke 24:8-9)
- No (Mark 16:8)
How did the women find out that Jesus had risen?
- An angel sitting on the outside told them (Matthew 28:5-6)
- A man on the right side inside the tomb told them (Mark 16:5-6)
- Two men inside the tomb told them (Luke 24:5-6)
This is the standard apologetics interpretation of what is really a simple and
straight forward question asked by Jesus.
(R) Yes, this is a common apologetics answer.
(MB) Which, of course, is why the refutation to it is so
(R) Jesus many times uses questions and statements to invoke thought in others
and put them in uncomfortable positions (Matt. 21:25; John 6:53-60; John
(MB) This is a good tactic of philosophical debate (as I'm
sure you've noticed by now). In Matthew's tale, Jesus asks the priests to tell
him by what authority was John baptized. "From heaven, or of men?", he asks.
The priests are depicted as being in a predicament only because they fear the
response of the people to a truthful answer. Jesus uses this as an excuse to
avoid telling the priests what gives him his own authority.
In John 6, we have the Jewish disciples being confronted
with a problem when Jesus tells them they must eat of his flesh and drink of his
blood. Obviously, this is in direct and severe contradiction of Jewish dietary
laws. Knowing this, Jesus asks if his directive offends them. Of course, he
could have just said that he was speaking metaphorically and put their minds at
John 14:6 is Jesus' claim that he is "the way, the
truth, and the life". No support for this claim is provided, of course.
(R) Jesus also had a very good sense of humor. In Matt. 23:24, Jesus says that
the Pharisees swallow a camel and strain out a gnat! Get it? They swallow a
bunch of food but when it comes out the other end it amounts to nothing! Now
(MB) So, Jesus essentially calls the Pharisees "constipated" and anybody over
the age of 12 is supposed to find that to be funny?
Fortunately, we don't have to be lowered to scatalogical
humor in this instance since your interpretation of this verse is 100% wrong.
The proof here is in the simple fact that you are giving the verse backwards!
Jesus is chiding the Pharisees as being folks who will strain out a gnat, yet
swallow a camel. This is an entirely different meaning. He's basically saying
that they are prone to miss the forest for the trees or that they will nitpick
about little things but completely miss the big picture. Check out how the World
English translation gives this verse:
Matthew 23:24 (WE) -- You blind leaders! You take a fly out of your cup, but you
drink down a big animal like a camel!
I haven't the foggiest idea where you got the absurd
notion that Jesus was essentially telling shit jokes about the Pharisees. Heck,
I wonder what Jesus himself would think of that idea...*grin*
(R) If you look at the over all life at Jesus, and not just one verse taken out
of context, you will see that Jesus uses satire, irony, comedy, and the plain
simple truth all in an effort to win people to Himself.
(MB) Somehow, the idea of Jesus as a comedian or as a scintillating wit has
never been something that has struck me from reading the Gospels. Do you have
any more examples of this "sense of humor"?
(R) In affect, His reply to the ruler matches His personality and character
(MB) I would agree with that, but not in the way you would
The question is perfectly understandable and honest one if Jesus is actually
a mortal man who is preaching the love and worship of God and involves no
(R) Your first presupposition in this statement makes the rest
(MB) Oh? How? The statement is perfectly logical because I said "...if Jesus
is actually a mortal man...". That makes it a premise from which a conclusion
can be proposed and not a presupposition which already accepts a preordained
(R) Jesus was not JUST a mortal man. He is God who was preaching the love and
worship of HIMSELF (Matt. 10:37; Luke 19:37-40).
(MB) Now *this* is an example of a presupposition (actually, three of them). You
have stated three things as if they were facts. In addition, your Bible verses
do not apply to the story being discussed (which is Matthew 19:17).
(R) You are right; this statement does not need "linguistic
(MB) That doesn't seem to stop the apologists from trying,
(R) That is why if you read it in context and have a better understanding of
Jesus, it would make perfect sense.
(MB) I've done both, thank you, and it *does* make perfect sense as I've been
saying all along.
Agreed. But, since Jesus' own words show that he does not claim to be God, he
can still be a good man.
(R) As shown before, Jesus clearly views Himself as God.
(MB) That is anything but clear in either a factual or a
(R) Holding on to an alternative view does absolutely nothing except keep you
from acknowledging the truth.
(MB) In this case, the alternative view turns out to *be*
(R) Again, if you read the whole of the Gospels in context, instead of trying to
find individual verses which seem contradictory, the non-biased person will come
to the conclusion that Jesus claimed to be God.
(MB) No, he will not. I've quoted the verses and I've presented the problems.
You haven't shown where I've taken a single verse out of context. Instead,
you've done that yourself and echoed the apologists' standard spin-doctoring
along with relying almost entirely on circular reasoning and question-begging
for your arguments. Personally, I think it's great! It just demonstrates how
weak the case for belief actually is.
He is not placing the ruler under any dilemma.
(R) Yes, He is. Man is sinful by nature. Jesus could be a good God or a bad
man, but not a good man. The ruler had to decide on which to believe.
(MB) How does Man's nature (sinful or not) come into play here? Also, you've
left out a couple of possibilities for the ruler's decision. Jesus could also
be a bad God or a good Man. Why can't he be a Man and still be good? Yes, the
ruler had to decide which to believe, but the actual reality of the situation
wouldn't change one bit no matter what final decision he would reach.