THE RATIONAL BLOG

The Amazing Bible Miracle That Nobody Ever Talks About

therationalguy — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:46:01 +0000

It could be argued that it is one of the most amazing miracles in the Bible and if true, all of history. Yet, except for the Gospel of Matthew nobody ever talks about it.

The gospels of Mark, Luke and John never mention it.

The Apostle Paul doesn’t bring it up.

Josephus, Tacitus and the other Roman historians don’t seem to think it’s worth writing about.

Origen, Justin Martyr and the other church fathers don’t discuss the issue.

It doesn’t seem to be preached about in sermons. Movies and plays about Jesus seem to ignore it altogether.

Yet, if this is supposed to be history it is an incredible event that took place in Jerusalem. One that could arguably be more miraculous than one man coming back from the dead or one empty tomb. Yet, only one gospel writer mentions it.

But, if it’s not history, but merely symbolic and a work of fiction than what does it say about the reliablity of the Gospel of Matthew, or the gospels in general as reliable history?

So, let’s see what Matthew has to say about the events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus.

Lets look at Matthew 27:45-56 (NIV).

The death of Jesus starts with Matthew 27:45: “From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land.”

In verse 46 Jesus utters a famous line: ” About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi,[a] lama sabachthani?”—which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

Incidentally, what Matthew has Jesus say is part of a verse from Psalm 22:1: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?”

In Matthew, verse 50 Jesus dies: “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.”

Matthew 27:51 describes an earthquake: ”At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split.”

At this point, one of the most incredible events in all of Bible history occurs. Matthew 27:52 recalls the miraculous moment: ”The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.”

A mass resurrection of people, back from the dead! Not just a few, but many!

Matthew continues in verse 53: “They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.”

They came out of their tombs and many people saw them!

Verse 54: “When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, “Surely he was the Son of God!”

The centurian and guards all witnessed this and it frightened them!

Verse 55-56: “Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.”

Many women watched all these dead people come back from the grave!

Now, a group of dead people breaking out of their tombs would be a fantastic event! (Sorry, I can’t help it. Sounds like a scene from a zombie movie.). Did Mary Magdalene and the other women approach these resurrected holy people ? Did the Roman guards talk to these saints or try to arrest them? Did the centurion run back to Pontius Pilate and give him a full report? “You’ll never guess what happened today at Golgotha!”

This is an amazing occurrence! But did it really happen? If so, why does no one else in the entire Bible mention this miraculous event?

Was Matthew writing history and is he a reliable historian? Or was he simply writing symbolic literature? Was he a gifted novelist writing a story?

Furthermore, if we accepted one supernatural resurretion story as historical truth, why not the other? And if we say one is symbolic, an exaggeration or a work of fiction, then why not the other?

If the Bible is really inerrant and without flaw then why the contradictions and sidestepping of such a miraculous event in the gospel accounts and the epistles of Paul?

When dealing with a seemingly miraculous event that defies the laws of science and the known world, it would seem that we have to deal with the question: Is this history or myth?

Are we really being intellectually honest when we try to have it both ways? In my opinion the answer is no.

Got Sin?

therationalguy — Sat, 03 Jan 2009 20:15:25 +0000

As someone who has been, at times, accused by some Christians of being one of Satan’s minions (I’m not kidding) as well as a candidate for the lake of fire, I sometimes have to laugh.

Now, I make the above statement not out of disrespect to the Christian, but simply because, as a rational adult I have trouble taking the threat of an ancient curse seriously. Especially, when I take the time to think about the whole concept. It really doesn’t make much sense to me. It’s illogical and doesn’t fit into my experience of the way the world really works.

For instance, I got this from the Patrick Henry College website at: www.phc.edu/statement_2.php

All students are asked to affirm a Statement of Faith. Among the statements posted are:

“Christ’s death provides substitutionary atonement for our sins.”

“Satan exists as a personal, malevolent being who acts as tempter and accuser, for whom Hell, the place of eternal punishment, was prepared, where all who die outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious torment for eternity.”

Now this brings up questions about the doctrine of Christ’s “substitutionary atonement”. If Jesus is the “ransom” or “substitute” (He suffered so believers won’t have to) why was he only dead for such a short time? Christians cite Jesus as being resurrected after three days, though technically it wasn’t even that long. Friday afternoon to Easter morning Sunday is less than three days. According to the Gospel of Matthew it would seem that Jesus didn’t fulfill his own prophecy:

“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Matthew 12:40 (NIV)

So Jesus’ time in the tomb (Friday afternoon to Easter morning Sunday) falls way short of “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”.

Yet, how does His relatively short suffering atone for ETERNAL torment/suffering? Seems He would have to be in Hell for eternity to atone for eternal suffering.

On top of which, why would an omnipotent God who knows all, have created an angel (Satan) that he knew was going to fall from grace, become dangerous and perpetuate evil in the world? What kind of loving, responsible father would favor free will over the safety of his children?

As an example, say you’re a little kid and your dad, the zookeeper brings home, a cute young lion cub. He lets you and your brothers and sisters treat it as a pet at first, since it’s small and harmless.

Now he knows in a few years it’s going to grow up to be a dangerous animal. Is he, as a responsible adult, going to let it freely roam around the house after it matures and becomes potentially dangerous and could harm his children? No. After a few years when it’s big, with claws and fangs he’s gonna cage it up, not let it roam unsupervised with his kids!

Seriously, what kind of God is Yahweh supposed to be? He seems like a rather irresponsible creator/ father.

Which brings up another question. Why did God, the Father, essentially put a cookie jar (The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) in the middle of the Garden of Eden to tempt his innocent children (Adam and Eve) and then tell them not to touch the tasty morsels? He then lets a sneaky talking serpent in to further tempt his children.

When they fail His test all of their children and their ancestors suffer as a result. According to modern Christian doctrine, we all become sinners because of what Adam and Eve did thousands of years ago, even though the Bible sometimes disagrees with itself on this point. Ezekiel 18:20 (NIV) says that we will not share the guilt of our fathers:

“The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.”

Interestingly in Genesis, the Old Testament redactors slip up a bit and a vestige of polytheism remains. God isn’t exactly a lone deity:

“ And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Genesis 3:22 (NIV)

God states that man has become like “one of us”, an obvious reference to the fact that religion at that time was polytheistic and had multiple gods. I’ve heard Christians state that God was talking in this passage about angels, but that doesn’t make sense, unless they are willing to say that God’s angels were equal to Him.

God’s reference to”us” seems clearly to relate to other gods in Yaweh’s council of gods:

“God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the “gods “.” Psalm 82:1

“I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High.” Psalm 82:6

In fact the New International Version of the Bible, which is the favorite of Evangelical Christians, admits as much. Read Psalm 82:2:

“How long will you defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?”

You’ll notice that “you” has a footnote reference which reads: “The Hebrew is plural.”In other words the Bible translators admit that Psalm 82:2 could actually read:

“How long will WE defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?”

“We” being a reference to a council of gods.

In fact in the New Testament, in John 10:34-36 (NIV) if you again, read the footnotes you’ll see that Jesus references Psalms 86:2 :

” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken—what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?”

If you read carefully you’ll find both monotheism and polytheism present in the Bible.

People sometimes ask me why I’m an atheist.

I became an atheist, not because I didn’t give Christianity and the Bible a chance. I became an atheist precisely because I read the Bible as a rational adult. I realized it was an ancient book (actually an anthology of different books with sometimes opposing doctrines) written by ancient men with beliefs and superstitions that conflict with a modern ethical and rational worldview.

The Sin of Sodom was NOT Homosexuality

therationalguy — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 02:42:25 +0000

Because of Proposition 8 and the gay marriage issue there’s been quite a bit of debate lately concerning homosexuality and the Bible.

I’ve infuriated quite a few Christians with the following argument. But I believe I’m on solid ground. A few Biblical scholars have pointed this out: According to the Book of Ezekiel, homosexuality is NOT the reason God destroyed Sodom!

I encourage Christians to read this for themselves, don’t take my word for it.

In Ezekiel 16:48-50 (New International Version) it’s written that God himself explains the “sin” of the city of Sodom :

“As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done. Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”

Now where does God mention the sin of homosexuality in that passage? In fact, nowhere is it mentioned. Sodom’s sin is not homosexuality, but basically inhospitality. God disliked the Sodomites’ arrogance, gluttony and the fact that they wouldn’t help the poor and needy. They were also inhospitable and violent to guests who visited their city.

Now it also mentions “detestable things”, but those aren’t specified. It could be argued that one of the “detestable things” alluded to in the passage was rape. And of course, rape is detestable. But that crime is detestable whether it is heterosexual or homosexual rape .

I’d also like to point out that if homosexuality itself was the reason God destroyed the city why does Ezekiel make no mention of it as the sin of Sodom? It’s because, quite simply, in the context of this passage homosexuality doesn’t even fit as a “detestable” thing. God was angry with the citizen of Sodom because they just were arrogant, selfish, mean-spirited and didn’t care to help others.

In this context the slur of being a “Sodomite”, other than being a resident of Sodom, would seem to be a person who is arrogant, selfish, and not charitable.

The Good Old Days

therationalguy — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 07:03:24 +0000

The good old days. I remember words of wisdom from Mom about the “good old days”. Mom at times seemed overwhelmed and befuddled with life. Yet she also surprised me with observations that were clear headed and razor sharp. Mom pointed out to me a few times that people always talk about “the good old days”.

Nostalgia.

But she would differ on the subject.

“The good old days weren’t always so good,” Mom would remind me.

Case in point:

The year was 1958. A white man and a black woman were convicted of a crime: They got married in Washington D.C. and then moved back to Virginia. In 1958 Virginia still outlawed interracial marriages. Both husband and wife were prosecuted and convicted under Virginia’s miscegenation law, each receiving a sentence of a year in jail.

The judge promised to suspend the sentence if the couple would leave the state for 25 years. This is what he said:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

The sentence was eventually overturned, but the couple had to move out of state and fight it out in court for almost a decade. Surprisingly these racist laws were still on the books until the year 2000 in some of the Bible Belt states.

I never noticed the ethnic mix in my family. I guess in that respect, I grew up somewhat colorblind until it was pointed out to me. People told me that Mom looked like a little Asian woman and Dad looked like a tall white guy. My aunt and uncle got their dark skin from their Indonesian heritage. Good thing they didn’t settle in a southern state instead of California.

So, fun as it is to look back in time, I temper it with a good dose of reality. As a society we aren’t free of racism and discrimination yet. But it’s better than it once was. We can learn from history so we don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. So the next time I hear someone pine away for days long gone, I’ll remember this quote and give credit where credit is due:

“The good old days weren’t always so good.”

Words of wisdom from Mom.

I Think…

therationalguy — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 05:35:57 +0000

I think.

I write.

I try to be rational.