ACCIDENTAL SLIPS IN A CHRISTIAN BOOK SHOW THAT THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF MAN NOT OF GOD
Conspiracies and the Cross by Timothy Paul Jones is one of the best Christian
answers to the theories of Dan Brown and Barbara Thiering and others who seek to
undermine the Christian story of Jesus. The unbeliever can learn a lot from this
book - if only learn how not to refute Christianity!
Conspiracies and the Cross, Timothy Paul Jones, Front Line, A Strang Company,
Florida, 2008
Page 15 notices how the authors of the four gospels of
the New Testament, Matthew and Mark and Luke and John, never say, "I and Jesus
did such and such" or mention that they are based on eyewitness testimony.
MY COMMENT: When the gospels don't claim to be eyewitness testimony, that means
that all the bits that Christian scholars say read like they are such testimony
prove nothing. Scholars don't agree on what bits seem to have come from
eyewitnesses. They only think or assume that certain portions are based on what
witnesses said. If an account shows a bit of detail that is more than necessary
they assume that it was taken from an eyewitness. But that could be accounted
for in many different ways. The gospellers could have imported some revised true
stories about the life of some Jewish saint into their gospels. The John gospel
claims to use an eyewitness testimony but it doesn't say whose testimony it is
using so it is no good. The gospels do not even pretend that eyewitnesses were
consulted.
Page 21 uses the testimony of Papias to try and show that Mark and Matthew wrote
the gospels of Mark and Matthew that we have
MY COMMENT: But the book says Papias got his information from associates of
associates of the apostles - hardly very reliable! If it was really that
well-known that Mark and Matthew wrote the gospels, then why didn't they use
their names especially when lots of fake gospels were circulating. Did Mark and
Matthew not wish to add authenticity to their writings? Plus the book says
Papias was familiar with these gospels we have. But Papias wrote that Mark was
incomplete and jumbled and says that Matthew had to arrange the gospel in an
orderly manner. This is really a denial that Mark wrote a gospel. All he did was
take notes and Matthew turned them into a gospel. It follows then that if Papias
had any of our New Testament gospels in mind, he was saying that the gospel we
currently call Mark was the real gospel of Matthew. The bad Greek in Mark would
indicate that Matthew the tax-collector did not write it for tax-collectors were
generally good writers. It would indicate that whoever wrote Mark had to do it
without consulting others and do without their help. He probably was making the
whole thing up when he was that reclusive! This would raise the question of how
anybody knew who wrote his gospel! The other gospel called Matthew in the New
Testament was written by somebody else. We can doubt the reliability of a
testimony about the authorship of the Mark gospel coming from Turnkey where
Papias lived when the gospel of Mark was written in Rome!
The book admits on page 64 that the early Church did not depend on gossip and
tradition to work out if some text came from the apostles. It quotes the letter
of Seraphion. Seraphion when he heard of the gospel of Peter rather than just
reject it outright, compared it with available New Testament writings to see if
it could be true or could be Peter's work. He decided it was false. He didn't
say, "There is no reliable tradition that Peter wrote this gospel therefore I
reject it." Page 64 also confesses that there is more ancient papyri for this
gospel than there is for the gospel of Mark. Christians use the fact that a lot
of fragments of the gospels went about to show that the gospels were taken
seriously by the Church and regarded as having an origin among the apostles or
their close associates. They suppose the apostles or their close associates must
have produced them when they were so well known and so popular. Christians don't
want to take the gospel of Peter seriously so they ignore it. They don't suppose
that it had an apostolic origin despite the fragments all over the place. They
are totally unfair and biased. This Peter gospel speaks of Jesus being an
apparition not a man and speaks of witnesses to the resurrection itself. The
four gospels never speak of such witnesses but merely of people who saw Jesus
after he rose which is a different thing. Its being authentic would undermine
the Christian faith.
There is every reason to deny that Mark and Matthew really wrote the gospels
bearing their names.
Page 22, Polycarp learned from eyewitnesses that Matthew wrote his gospel among
the Hebrews and in Hebrew. He learned that it was written while Peter and Paul
were preaching in Rome. Mark wrote the gospel of Mark after Peter and Paul died
in Rome. Luke wrote a gospel and then finally John wrote his gospel.
MY COMMENT: The book should not be using this testimony for it contradicts the
evidence that Mark appeared first and Matthew came after. It contradicts nearly
every modern scholar. Also Matthew, from internal evidence, was not written
during the time Peter and Paul were alive. The testimony is unreliable. The
Gospel of John was not written by the apostle John for its version of Jesus is
antinomian in temperament. His Jesus advocates the idea that you can lie, get
drunk, claim to be a god as long as you love. The other gospels however have a
Jesus who was morally strict.
You might say if somebody was lying about the authorship of a gospel why would
they say or let people think it was Mark who wrote it for he was not a
well-known figure or an apostle? But what about the gospel of Mary Magdalene and
the Gospel of Judas and the Recognitions of Clement (attributed to Clement of
Rome). None of these figures were as important as the twelve apostles. There is
less chance of being caught out too if you pretend that the real author is
somebody of lesser importance.
Polycarp was a liar.
Page 29, mentions the view of some scholars that the ancient gospel of Thomas
has a Jesus who was just a wandering sage who did not do miracles or rise from
the dead. This silence could mean denial or that the beliefs about Jesus of
miracle and resurrection were considered insignificant. The book gives a date
range from 100 AD to 150 AD for this gospel.
MY COMMENT: Jesus says in the gospel that he is there when a piece of wood is
split up. He seems to stress his presence in nature as a pantheistic deity. He
wants to be found in nature and not in Heaven as a resurrected god. He said that
a lion that eats a human is lucky for it becomes a human. He seems to be saying
that the lion assimilates human flesh and becomes human in that sense. He is
hinting that we are animals for eating animals or plants for eating plants. It
does not sound like he believed God would raise dead bodies up. To raise Jesus
for example would be raising the animals and plants he ate. The gospel of Thomas
claims to have been written by Thomas the Twin. That automatically gives it one
over on the gospels of the New Testament. While it is true the author could have
been lying, at least we have a testimony be it right or wrong that the gospel
came from the pen of an apostle. Also the gospel takes the form of oral
traditions and all scholars agree that the original Church used oral traditions
about Jesus. It is a better match with the apostles than the gospels.
The gospel of Thomas is a good challenge to Christian nonsense.
Page 38, Morton Smith allegedly discovered a portion of Mark's gospel copied from
the second century writings of Clement of Alexandria into a book. The copy was
made into the book in eighteenth century writing. We have only photographic
copies of it. The writing was retouched to make it look eighteenth century. The
writing refers to error being mixed with truth like dirt being mixed with salt.
This was a mistake for Smith didn't know that granular salt didn't exist in the
time of the second century. The copy was a hoax.
MY COMMENT: People see all sorts of things in photographs. We need the original
which is missing before we can accuse anybody of a hoax. Photos are just not the
same. Also, Jesus said in the gospel of Mark that everybody would be salted with
fire. That sounds like granular salt until you think of Jesus meaning that
everybody would be flavoured with the fire. Also dirt can be mixed with granular
salt and non-granular salt as well. The ancients couldn't grind the salt down
very well but they broke it down enough to flavour their food.
Page 38 gives us no reason to assume that the missing portion of Mark claim is
based on a hoax. Recent books have shown that the portion does seem to have been
cut out of Mark for it contains poetic chiasms (patterns) that match the pattern
of the much of the existing gospel Smith tried to use the portion to prove that
Jesus was a profligate libertine but it fails to do that. A real forger wouldn't
abuse his forgery like that. He would have it saying what he wanted to say.
The portion belongs to Mark.
Page 54, states that the claim of scholar Elaine Pagels that the bodily
resurrection of Jesus was not important for early Christians until after the
apostles died is false.MY COMMENT: The book mentions Acts 2:31 where Peter says
that Jesus was raised in fulfilment of the psalm which said that his flesh would
not decay. First it is not Peter saying this but the author of Acts saying that
Peter said it. Second, neither Peter or the author were claiming infallibility
for Peter in saying this thing. The author only reports. Thirdly, the psalm
doesn't mention anybody actually dying. It was always been taken by Jews to
refer to David getting very sick and almost dying but the Lord will keep him
from dying and rotting. Peter seems to be basing his belief in bodily
resurrection on a warped and fanciful interpretation of a line from the Bible
rather than on apparitions of Jesus or touching Jesus. Mark 8:31, 9:9,10,
31/10:34 are cited by the book as showing a belief in physical resurrection. The
Mark gospel is picked out for the author thinks it was written when the apostles
were still alive. But it only says Jesus will rise but not how he will rise or
if it will involve his body or not. Perhaps a magical body would be made from
one cell of it. After all Paul said the body was the seed of the resurrection
body. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 said that the Messiah died and was buried and
rose again. This does not necessarily indicate that Jesus rose bodily or that
the apostles could verify it. Seeing an apparition - even one that you can touch
does not mean that you are entitled to assume a bodily resurrection. Pagels view
is unrefuted.
Chapter 4 of the book outlines much of the fake evidence and false claims that
the words of Jesus and the text of the New Testament was altered. It says none
of the variations between ancient New Testament texts are important . For
example, John 1:18 in some manuscripts is one and only Son and in others it is
the one and only God. The book contends that it doesn't matter which version is
right for the gospel says Jesus was the only Son of God and was God anyway. It
affects no doctrine.
MY COMMENT: The references to Jesus being God are so few
in the New Testament you would wonder why anybody would want to distort one of
them leaving us unsure if it calls Jesus God or not. The only son possibility is
the one that should be assumed. Plus, it is a fact that the John gospel does not
say Jesus was God. When it says the Word who was God became flesh it does not
clearly indicate that the Word actually became a man - Jesus Christ - in the
Greek. The variation does affect doctrine. Scholars state that Paul says the
Church is the body of Jesus and we are his arms and legs and means it as more
than a metaphor. Yet they say Paul would not have thought we are God or that
Jesus is not a man anymore. The ancients had a funny way with religious
language. Paul once wrote that he was no longer alive but Jesus was alive in
him. That sounds like he was claiming to be Jesus. He wasn't. The book ignores
an important point by saying the variations between the manuscripts don't matter
for they don't affect doctrine. A God who inspires scripture and who can't
preserve the text is not a God in whom we can have much confidence. The
scripture is left with variations from what he wants. Many Christian doctrines
from the Bible hang on one verse from the Bible or even one word. For example,
Jesus said at the end of the Matthew gospel, go and baptise in the name of the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit. If Jesus said go and baptise in the names of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it would demolish the doctrine of the
Trinity for those who depend on this verse to justify believing in the Trinity.
It would be giving them three gods or personages not three persons in one God or
one name. When it is that strict, how do you know that you are not basing a
doctrine on one word or line that was altered from its original meaning?
The book is uncertain (page 82) if the story in John 8 about Jesus saving the
adulteress belongs in the Bible. That is a whole portion. The Jews brought the
woman to Jesus to ask what should be done with her for they thought she should
be stoned to death for adultery. Jesus said that he who is without sin must be
the first to throw a stone at her. He said he approved of her being killed if
those judging her were better than her. This contradicts modern Christianity's
refusal to punish adulterous people by murdering them as long as it is the
virtuous that carry out the killing. Jesus let her go just the same way the
courts have to let the guilty go if the accusers make a mess of their
statements. Doctrine is affected by the inclusion or omission of the text.
Page 84 says that the forged ending of Mark's gospel which contains the
resurrection appearances Jesus made after his crucifixion says nothing that the
Bible already says. The book says that even if it is fake it still changes
nothing that the Bible believers believe about Jesus. It says that the
resurrection appearances are implied in the gospel of Mark at 9:9 and 14:28
anyway. True but it doesn't say they happened as promised or if they will
provide evidence that Jesus was raised.
Also the gospel says there were strangers at the tomb after the body
disappeared. They could have taken the body. It never hints that they were
angels or supernatural. And it is surprising that Christians think it is
terrific to imagine that there was no human being who could have stolen the body
when they believe angels who could have stolen it were there! The men at the
tomb told the women who had come to the tomb and found it open not to be amazed
and that Jesus had gone before his followers into Galilee. That sounds like they
were saying that Jesus did not rise as a result of a miracle so there was
nothing to be amazed about and that he had gone to Galilee on foot and was there
then. He must have went on foot and have been staying somewhere there to await
reunion with his friends. That sounds anything but supernatural. A supernatural
being is not going to vanish from the tomb and appear in Galilee to wait for his
friends when there is nobody about.
The Mark account is indicative of a hoax, was Jesus let go before the
crucifixion? Were the believers led to believe he had in fact died on a cross
and got buried? Mark never says the women saw into the tomb - they were just
told Jesus wasn't in it. That would explain what an all too human Jesus was
doing in Galilee.
The ending promises that believers will take up snakes and drink poison and not
die and heal the sick and so on. The book says the Old Testament promise such
powers. But it never says they will be given when the risen Messiah will appear.
It is only the forged ending that has Jesus giving such powers at that time.
Luke 10:19 has Jesus promising the apostles his protection. The book deceitfully
says that what is said in the forged ending is said here anyway. The verse says
nothing about people getting bitten by snakes and poisoned without any
ill-effects. The ending does affect doctrine and says things the Bible does not
say.
If Jesus did not say what the ending says he said, then other Bible verses
saying similar things does not help one bit. Jesus is still being said to have
said what he didn't say. The account is false. If the account is false, then
Christians have put the word of man in the word of God.
The book says the ending is a fifth witness to the resurrection of Jesus Christ
(page 84). It is not. First of all its magical Jesus does not fit the
indications in the real Mark that Jesus may not have been a supernatural being
after his resurrection. Secondly, Mark does not testify to the resurrection. So
what you have is Matthew, Luke and John and the forger testifying. That is
really three for one testament is dubious.
The Christians are lying to cover up proof that their scriptures are not
divinely inspired at all.