Yes I am aware that for readers approximating my age range, such readers would recognise the above title as that of a song written and sung by Roger Whittaker, released in 1977. But this little word, at least according to what I have experienced, have read about, and listened to, has proven catastrophic over two millennia of Christendom. This is actually a continuation of last week's blog, When I Question My Faith, and continue to examine what I believe in, why, and to try to analyse why atheists believe the way they do.
I can't help but feel sympathetic for the average atheist. Or for that matter, the agnostic too. The main difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the latter accepts the possibility of God's existence. In turn, the atheist denies his existence altogether. But neither would accept the revelation of God's divine creation as history. My late father was an agnostic. He believed in the existence of God. But he rebuked me, even to the point of teasing, for believing in a young-Earth creation as recent as six millennia in the past, together with the idea of a talking snake, and the thought of a shoreless ocean annihilating a whole race of men and air-breathing animals alike. Ahem. And not to mention a talking donkey rebuking a mad prophet who had dollar signs in his eyes! Not long after my conversion, and still living at home, Dad saw me read a Bible that was given to him by a Jehovah's Witness back in the 1950's. So indeed it was quite an old copy, a King James version with two columns of cross-references, one on both edges of each page. For up to twenty years this particular copy of the Bible sat at our bookshelf, totally undisturbed as it was squeezed between other books on both sides. But that particular day, after a few months reading it, Dad took the Bible out of my hands and with anger, literally tore it to shreds right in front of me.
Of course, I was horrified, and also suffered a terrible loss. Not long after, when our Catholic priest came round to have a talk to me, I agreed to attend his church on Sundays. So for a short while I started attending. This pleased both my parents and it seemed to bring peace to the household at last. But I did not feel at home in a Catholic church, and it was not long before I left, to attend a live Anglican Church in Brixton, South London, much to the disappointment of my parents. But the point is that such disagreement among Christian worshippers is fuel thrown to the fires of atheism. And to my confusion too, back in those days.
And this blog was written just a day after a terrorist incident at an Underground train in West London, where a bomb planted in one of the carriages was only partially detonated, and flash-burning every passenger who was unfortunate enough to be close to the bomb. The device failed to detonate properly. Had it, then there would have been a high number of deaths within the train, and for those further away, plenty more would have been seriously injured. I for one, am convinced that the failure of the bomb to detonate properly was from God's mercy, who imposed a "restriction" on what the device can do. Sure enough, any atheist would burst into laughter at my theory and ask why if God was able to restrict the explosion, then why not prevent it entirely? Really, was God's hand simply not long enough to have prevented the detonation altogether?
The Islamic terrorist, in turn would have asked the opposite question. After carrying out his duty so faithfully, why had Allah let him down so badly? Didn't his deity inspire his prophet Mohammed to have all unbelievers and apostates slain? Then further confusion arises, especially among the unchurched, that Yahweh and Allah is perceived as the one true merciful God, worshipped and adored by Christians and Muslims alike, according to the Vatican. Yet no matter how hard I try, I have found it to be impossible to reconcile Yahweh, who sent his Son to atone for our sins, with a son-less deity who is bent on murder, terrorism, and revenge. And yet despite such difficulty in reconciling the two entities, I can still conjure up an image of Jerusalem in my mind. A city I'm already very familiar with, having spent some time of my life there. The Old City is divided into three monotheistic religions - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian. Even the Christian section of the city is sub-divided, with the Armenians having their own Quarter, making four Quarters altogether. The other Christian Quarter has in it Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic churches, along with a Lutheran church, and an Anglican church just inside Jaffa Gate. Among all of them, the concept of Eternal Security of the Believer is relatively unknown, even if both the Anglican and Lutheran churches are perceived to be closer to Biblical truth than the other churches, which tend to lean more on custom and traditions.
And this I can testify. I attended services at Christ Church Anglican, close to the gate, on several occasions. Behind the pulpit, the twin tablets on which the Decalogue is displayed remains in full view. And they insist on the historicity of Holy Scripture. That was why I felt that I belonged there whilst I was living in Jerusalem, even if I didn't agree with everything they taught. Oh, how short the walk was along Souq David, from my hostel to the church, passing shops open for business, Arab shopkeepers constantly beckoning passing tourists, along with the banter of daily life. Yet as I saunter through the Medieval streets of the Old City, here was the one city which was home to three different monotheistic religions - all three teaching that faith without works is dead, and that the believer, whether Islamic, Jewish or Christian, must work to a greater or lesser degree to secure his salvation. Unfortunately for the Muslims, this entry into Paradise after death often involve jihad, or holy war, where many are slain to promote Allah and to convert to the writings of the Koran, which all Muslims believe to be written under Allah's inspiration, and therefore free from error.
Exactly like we as Christians accept the Bible to be free from error. Then you as a Christian, reading this, how would you feel if I was to say that the Bible isn't free from error, but instead contains some inconsistencies? Yes, you read that right. Would you instantly click off from this page and go elsewhere, dismissing me as an apostate or liberal? Before you do, let me ask you to read on and consider these inconsistencies:
Such as Matthew 27:9-10. Here the apostle cites an Old Testament prophecy, and saying it was a quote from Jeremiah. But actually he was quoting from Zechariah 11:12. Then we have Mark declaring that Jesus was crucified "in the third hour" - that is nine o'clock in the morning (Mark 15:25), whilst Matthew writes that by the sixth hour, that is midday, Jesus was already on the cross, and it was then it began to get dark (Matthew 27:45), with Luke fully agreeing with Matthew's testimony (Luke 23:44). However, John has Jesus still standing in front of Pilate's judgement seat at midday (John 19:14). Where there might have been some collaboration between Matthew and Luke with Mark's testimony, yet it does seem rather stretching to believe that Jesus was already crucified by nine in the morning, especially if Luke records Pilate sending Jesus to Herod sometime in between. And only Luke records this visit to Herod's palace. Furthermore, we are not told how long Jesus stood before Herod. It could have been as long as an hour. Then considering the slow movement of the crowds, along with the bustling and confusion, allowing up to thirty minutes each way to make the journey across Jerusalem, which means there have, most likely, been a break in Pilate's judgement for up to two hours, making John's testimony of Jesus still standing before Pilate at midday more credible.
But the rather wide inconsistency between Mark's testimony and that of John's testimony in the timing of the crucifixion still remains. Then again, I have little idea when exactly in the morning was Jesus escorted to Pilate's palace by the Jews. But all four seem to agree that it was early morning, most likely shortly after daybreak, which would have been sometime between six and seven o'clock. If that was the case, then Mark's testimony of a nine o'clock crucifixion does hold some plausibility. But that still does not explain the inconsistency between Mark and John.
Then there is another apparent inconsistency which can still baffle many to this day, and which I had difficulty in coping with. Consider these verses:
Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?
And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples.
And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the Passover.
Matthew 26:17-19, also Mark 14:12-17, and Luke 22:7-14.
Yet John says:
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgement: and it was early; and themselves went not into the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled; but they might eat the Passover.
Pilate then went out to them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
John 18:28-29. All quotes from the AV.
If I, who had read the Bible for over forty years, still find these conflicting verses difficult to grasp and reconcile, how would a new convert to the faith feel when he comes across such contradictions? And how would the atheist gloat, grinning from cheek to cheek with glee? Many church-goers don't seem to be aware of such contradictions, and if they are aware, they tend to sweep them under the carpet and pretend that's it's not a problem. But as I see it, where atheists are concerned, these contradictions present a massive problem for us who may want to witness to them and verify the historicity of Holy Scripture. And the trouble is, many of these atheists are not Biblical ignorant. They can open the Bible and read out these verses and we can only hide our blushes by cupping our faces in our hands.
The Bible is messy. It often does not appear so straightforward. Take another example of apparent contradiction. In Romans 8:38-39, Paul assures us that we are eternally secure in our salvation, and nothing can separate us from the love of God through Jesus Christ. And that is not only confined to man's persuasion to think otherwise, but not even demons, nor "powers in the air" nor height or depth, nor anything in the whole of creation can separate us from the love of God. Then flick through a couple of pages, and you see Paul's warning that we as non-Jews are likened to branches of a wild olive tree which were grafted into the cultivated olive tree. Then he warns us not to be conceited, or else we too will be broken off, just as the unbelieving Jews were (Romans 11:16-22). Here, in the very same letter, the apostle first reassures us that we are eternally secure in Christ, then afterwards we are to fear of becoming disenfranchised from God if we become too high minded. Then turn over some more pages until you come to Paul's letter to the church in Colossae. After discussing such glorious promises in partaking in the Resurrection of the just, Paul then concludes:
In the body of the flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreproveable in his sight:
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister.
Colossians 1:22-23.
And considering many more similar verses scattered across the whole New Testament, people has come up to me with the explanation that yes indeed, we as believers are eternally secure in Christ, and no one can take our salvation away from us, no, not even the spiritual realm of demonic powers in the air. But as long as you must yourself remain in the faith. According to them, you remain safe in Jesus Christ if you don't voluntarily walk away from the faith, or else it's hell after death. And they quote these and other similar Scriptures to prove their point.
I have looked upon history to see for myself the fruits of such a train of thinking. And all I could see was apostasy and the rise of iniquity among those who professed to have lived in a "Christian country". The Popes of Rome, for example, along with many of the Cardinals and of the clergy, were the most wicked men to have ever walked the earth! Cases of prostitution, adultery, paedophilia, murder, suppression, exorbitance, betrayal, conquest, the Inquisition with its many cases of physical torture, and many more crimes are forever etched into the history of the Roman Catholic Church spanning the centuries. And mainly, in my mind, due to the concept of the sinner "doing penitence" instead of just changing the mind about Jesus Christ being the risen Christ, the Son of God. Doing penance is the core of Catholic catechism. The process is to eradicate sin before the believer can be justified, and if sin is not eradicated, then there is little or no hope of heaven in the afterlife.
Yet despite of all this, the Bible is messy, and the atheist knows this. What I find by reading Holy Scriptures is that Prophecy, which is scattered throughout the entire Bible. By being extremely accurate in predicting events which took place even thousands of years after the prophecy was given, thus advocating the omniscience of God. And here is the crunch. If a "saved" person can simply walk away from the faith, then wouldn't the "omniscient God" be aware of this to begin with? Or to put it another way, would an all-knowing God make any effort to save a person if he already knows that that person will one day fall away? And what kind of gift is that apostate is to the one who suffered so painfully on a cross? A "naff" gift? Can't this all-knowing God choose properly? And to add to this, consider the spiritual realm. If a person "voluntary walks away" from the hand of Jesus Christ who is supposed to be holding him secure (John 10:28-30), then to walk away means that he must be going somewhere, no doubt to a more attractive location. And who is showing him that location? The Devil? If so, then the Adversary is stronger than God himself and it has also proved God to be a liar.
Questions, questions...
And yet, the Scriptures does look as if such contradictions exist in them. Free from error? There are times when I have pondered. Really, I have! I have to admit, even to myself, that I don't think that I could stand up against an atheist who knows the Bible well. Not unless I possess a Greater Power within who can not only take the knocks, but can deliver answers which would refute the atheist's every question, proving once and for all that this Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the risen Christ, and God manifest in the flesh.
And with such a manifestation of the Glory of God, in Christ I rest my case.
I can't help but feel sympathetic for the average atheist. Or for that matter, the agnostic too. The main difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the latter accepts the possibility of God's existence. In turn, the atheist denies his existence altogether. But neither would accept the revelation of God's divine creation as history. My late father was an agnostic. He believed in the existence of God. But he rebuked me, even to the point of teasing, for believing in a young-Earth creation as recent as six millennia in the past, together with the idea of a talking snake, and the thought of a shoreless ocean annihilating a whole race of men and air-breathing animals alike. Ahem. And not to mention a talking donkey rebuking a mad prophet who had dollar signs in his eyes! Not long after my conversion, and still living at home, Dad saw me read a Bible that was given to him by a Jehovah's Witness back in the 1950's. So indeed it was quite an old copy, a King James version with two columns of cross-references, one on both edges of each page. For up to twenty years this particular copy of the Bible sat at our bookshelf, totally undisturbed as it was squeezed between other books on both sides. But that particular day, after a few months reading it, Dad took the Bible out of my hands and with anger, literally tore it to shreds right in front of me.
Of course, I was horrified, and also suffered a terrible loss. Not long after, when our Catholic priest came round to have a talk to me, I agreed to attend his church on Sundays. So for a short while I started attending. This pleased both my parents and it seemed to bring peace to the household at last. But I did not feel at home in a Catholic church, and it was not long before I left, to attend a live Anglican Church in Brixton, South London, much to the disappointment of my parents. But the point is that such disagreement among Christian worshippers is fuel thrown to the fires of atheism. And to my confusion too, back in those days.
And this blog was written just a day after a terrorist incident at an Underground train in West London, where a bomb planted in one of the carriages was only partially detonated, and flash-burning every passenger who was unfortunate enough to be close to the bomb. The device failed to detonate properly. Had it, then there would have been a high number of deaths within the train, and for those further away, plenty more would have been seriously injured. I for one, am convinced that the failure of the bomb to detonate properly was from God's mercy, who imposed a "restriction" on what the device can do. Sure enough, any atheist would burst into laughter at my theory and ask why if God was able to restrict the explosion, then why not prevent it entirely? Really, was God's hand simply not long enough to have prevented the detonation altogether?
The Islamic terrorist, in turn would have asked the opposite question. After carrying out his duty so faithfully, why had Allah let him down so badly? Didn't his deity inspire his prophet Mohammed to have all unbelievers and apostates slain? Then further confusion arises, especially among the unchurched, that Yahweh and Allah is perceived as the one true merciful God, worshipped and adored by Christians and Muslims alike, according to the Vatican. Yet no matter how hard I try, I have found it to be impossible to reconcile Yahweh, who sent his Son to atone for our sins, with a son-less deity who is bent on murder, terrorism, and revenge. And yet despite such difficulty in reconciling the two entities, I can still conjure up an image of Jerusalem in my mind. A city I'm already very familiar with, having spent some time of my life there. The Old City is divided into three monotheistic religions - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian. Even the Christian section of the city is sub-divided, with the Armenians having their own Quarter, making four Quarters altogether. The other Christian Quarter has in it Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic churches, along with a Lutheran church, and an Anglican church just inside Jaffa Gate. Among all of them, the concept of Eternal Security of the Believer is relatively unknown, even if both the Anglican and Lutheran churches are perceived to be closer to Biblical truth than the other churches, which tend to lean more on custom and traditions.
And this I can testify. I attended services at Christ Church Anglican, close to the gate, on several occasions. Behind the pulpit, the twin tablets on which the Decalogue is displayed remains in full view. And they insist on the historicity of Holy Scripture. That was why I felt that I belonged there whilst I was living in Jerusalem, even if I didn't agree with everything they taught. Oh, how short the walk was along Souq David, from my hostel to the church, passing shops open for business, Arab shopkeepers constantly beckoning passing tourists, along with the banter of daily life. Yet as I saunter through the Medieval streets of the Old City, here was the one city which was home to three different monotheistic religions - all three teaching that faith without works is dead, and that the believer, whether Islamic, Jewish or Christian, must work to a greater or lesser degree to secure his salvation. Unfortunately for the Muslims, this entry into Paradise after death often involve jihad, or holy war, where many are slain to promote Allah and to convert to the writings of the Koran, which all Muslims believe to be written under Allah's inspiration, and therefore free from error.
 |
| Christ Church, Jerusalem - interior. |
Exactly like we as Christians accept the Bible to be free from error. Then you as a Christian, reading this, how would you feel if I was to say that the Bible isn't free from error, but instead contains some inconsistencies? Yes, you read that right. Would you instantly click off from this page and go elsewhere, dismissing me as an apostate or liberal? Before you do, let me ask you to read on and consider these inconsistencies:
Such as Matthew 27:9-10. Here the apostle cites an Old Testament prophecy, and saying it was a quote from Jeremiah. But actually he was quoting from Zechariah 11:12. Then we have Mark declaring that Jesus was crucified "in the third hour" - that is nine o'clock in the morning (Mark 15:25), whilst Matthew writes that by the sixth hour, that is midday, Jesus was already on the cross, and it was then it began to get dark (Matthew 27:45), with Luke fully agreeing with Matthew's testimony (Luke 23:44). However, John has Jesus still standing in front of Pilate's judgement seat at midday (John 19:14). Where there might have been some collaboration between Matthew and Luke with Mark's testimony, yet it does seem rather stretching to believe that Jesus was already crucified by nine in the morning, especially if Luke records Pilate sending Jesus to Herod sometime in between. And only Luke records this visit to Herod's palace. Furthermore, we are not told how long Jesus stood before Herod. It could have been as long as an hour. Then considering the slow movement of the crowds, along with the bustling and confusion, allowing up to thirty minutes each way to make the journey across Jerusalem, which means there have, most likely, been a break in Pilate's judgement for up to two hours, making John's testimony of Jesus still standing before Pilate at midday more credible.
But the rather wide inconsistency between Mark's testimony and that of John's testimony in the timing of the crucifixion still remains. Then again, I have little idea when exactly in the morning was Jesus escorted to Pilate's palace by the Jews. But all four seem to agree that it was early morning, most likely shortly after daybreak, which would have been sometime between six and seven o'clock. If that was the case, then Mark's testimony of a nine o'clock crucifixion does hold some plausibility. But that still does not explain the inconsistency between Mark and John.
Then there is another apparent inconsistency which can still baffle many to this day, and which I had difficulty in coping with. Consider these verses:
Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover?
And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples.
And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the Passover.
Matthew 26:17-19, also Mark 14:12-17, and Luke 22:7-14.
Yet John says:
Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgement: and it was early; and themselves went not into the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled; but they might eat the Passover.
Pilate then went out to them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
John 18:28-29. All quotes from the AV.
If I, who had read the Bible for over forty years, still find these conflicting verses difficult to grasp and reconcile, how would a new convert to the faith feel when he comes across such contradictions? And how would the atheist gloat, grinning from cheek to cheek with glee? Many church-goers don't seem to be aware of such contradictions, and if they are aware, they tend to sweep them under the carpet and pretend that's it's not a problem. But as I see it, where atheists are concerned, these contradictions present a massive problem for us who may want to witness to them and verify the historicity of Holy Scripture. And the trouble is, many of these atheists are not Biblical ignorant. They can open the Bible and read out these verses and we can only hide our blushes by cupping our faces in our hands.
The Bible is messy. It often does not appear so straightforward. Take another example of apparent contradiction. In Romans 8:38-39, Paul assures us that we are eternally secure in our salvation, and nothing can separate us from the love of God through Jesus Christ. And that is not only confined to man's persuasion to think otherwise, but not even demons, nor "powers in the air" nor height or depth, nor anything in the whole of creation can separate us from the love of God. Then flick through a couple of pages, and you see Paul's warning that we as non-Jews are likened to branches of a wild olive tree which were grafted into the cultivated olive tree. Then he warns us not to be conceited, or else we too will be broken off, just as the unbelieving Jews were (Romans 11:16-22). Here, in the very same letter, the apostle first reassures us that we are eternally secure in Christ, then afterwards we are to fear of becoming disenfranchised from God if we become too high minded. Then turn over some more pages until you come to Paul's letter to the church in Colossae. After discussing such glorious promises in partaking in the Resurrection of the just, Paul then concludes:
In the body of the flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreproveable in his sight:
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister.
Colossians 1:22-23.
And considering many more similar verses scattered across the whole New Testament, people has come up to me with the explanation that yes indeed, we as believers are eternally secure in Christ, and no one can take our salvation away from us, no, not even the spiritual realm of demonic powers in the air. But as long as you must yourself remain in the faith. According to them, you remain safe in Jesus Christ if you don't voluntarily walk away from the faith, or else it's hell after death. And they quote these and other similar Scriptures to prove their point.
I have looked upon history to see for myself the fruits of such a train of thinking. And all I could see was apostasy and the rise of iniquity among those who professed to have lived in a "Christian country". The Popes of Rome, for example, along with many of the Cardinals and of the clergy, were the most wicked men to have ever walked the earth! Cases of prostitution, adultery, paedophilia, murder, suppression, exorbitance, betrayal, conquest, the Inquisition with its many cases of physical torture, and many more crimes are forever etched into the history of the Roman Catholic Church spanning the centuries. And mainly, in my mind, due to the concept of the sinner "doing penitence" instead of just changing the mind about Jesus Christ being the risen Christ, the Son of God. Doing penance is the core of Catholic catechism. The process is to eradicate sin before the believer can be justified, and if sin is not eradicated, then there is little or no hope of heaven in the afterlife.
 |
| Church of St. Peter, the Vatican. |
Yet despite of all this, the Bible is messy, and the atheist knows this. What I find by reading Holy Scriptures is that Prophecy, which is scattered throughout the entire Bible. By being extremely accurate in predicting events which took place even thousands of years after the prophecy was given, thus advocating the omniscience of God. And here is the crunch. If a "saved" person can simply walk away from the faith, then wouldn't the "omniscient God" be aware of this to begin with? Or to put it another way, would an all-knowing God make any effort to save a person if he already knows that that person will one day fall away? And what kind of gift is that apostate is to the one who suffered so painfully on a cross? A "naff" gift? Can't this all-knowing God choose properly? And to add to this, consider the spiritual realm. If a person "voluntary walks away" from the hand of Jesus Christ who is supposed to be holding him secure (John 10:28-30), then to walk away means that he must be going somewhere, no doubt to a more attractive location. And who is showing him that location? The Devil? If so, then the Adversary is stronger than God himself and it has also proved God to be a liar.
Questions, questions...
And yet, the Scriptures does look as if such contradictions exist in them. Free from error? There are times when I have pondered. Really, I have! I have to admit, even to myself, that I don't think that I could stand up against an atheist who knows the Bible well. Not unless I possess a Greater Power within who can not only take the knocks, but can deliver answers which would refute the atheist's every question, proving once and for all that this Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the risen Christ, and God manifest in the flesh.
And with such a manifestation of the Glory of God, in Christ I rest my case.
It depends on how you read scripture. If it is divinely inerrant in it's original form then you will be constantly trying to defend why it doesn't add up, because you don't have it's original form. If scripture is man's growing understanding of God then everything can fit because it is not bound by divine correctness. It is God breathed in the sense that divine inspiration can be found in it's pages but not in every word.
ReplyDeleteYour inability to convince a committed atheist has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge on your part. There are still people who believe the earth is flat, after five hundred years of exploration proving is is round.
ReplyDeleteFor your own benefit, it can be helpful to know that according to Pappias, writing about 90 AD. Matthew adn John were written by Jesus' apostles in Hebrew shortly after the crucifixion. Mark and Luke were written in Greek about twenty years later, based on interviews and teachings by Peter and others. According to Pappias, the apostle John said Mark and Luke sometimes got things out of order because people's memories were not perfect. Since is is nearly impossible to translate perfectly from one language to another, further discrepancies were introduced when Matthew and John were trnslated to Greek about 75 AD. These were compounded with the translation into English and other languages.
There are many wrongly interpreted scriptures in the Bible because there are so many different interpreters. I find the blog http://time-space-perceptions.blogspot.co.uk/ interesting because the blogger knows much about the original languages they were written in.
ReplyDelete