THE FOUR GOSPELS ARE UNRELIABLE

The Roman Catholic Church has been forced to confess that the Bible is unreliable and contains stories that are not true.

 

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible - Times OnlineWorld view

 

 

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document

instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five

million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that

they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible.

“We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete

historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture.

The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right,

in particular in the US.

Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told

in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing

“intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began.

But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times

conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s

Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may

contain “historical traces”.

The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century,

when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in

the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the

solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic

scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature

to the Bible.

In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They

say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word

expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given

both to the word of God and its human dimensions.

They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing

times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”.

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but

continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular

matters.”

They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to

warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach.

“Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group

see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider

themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.”

Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on

our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops

say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish

people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic

exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging

hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels

between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations

between Jews and Christians.”

As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early

chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other

cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the

primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that

they could not be described as historical writing.

Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book

of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen

Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.

The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and

is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this

book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about

when the end will come.”

In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the

land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal

Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context.

They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value,

what can be trusted and what is really true.

The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of

Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of

Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than

ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious

treasure, both ancient and ever new.”

A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary

school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary

and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised

£200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of

the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only

756,000 of them go to church regularly.

That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian

teaching.”

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

UNTRUE

Genesis ii, 21-22

So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he

took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the

Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man

Genesis iii, 16

God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly

multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet

your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

Matthew xxvii, 25

The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.”

Revelation xix,20

And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence

had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the

beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the

lake of fire that burns with brimstone.”

TRUE

Exodus iii, 14

God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.”

Leviticus xxvi,12

“I will be your God, and you shall be my people.”

Exodus xx,1-17

The Ten Commandments

Matthew v,7

The Sermon on the Mount

Mark viii,29

Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ

Luke i

The Virgin Birth

John xx,28

Proof of bodily resurrection

 

If the Bible is unreliable so are the gospels.  The Church is simply picking and choosing what it wants to believe out of the Bible.

 

As they are the only accounts of Jesus’ life the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are the only places to look for evidence for believing Christianity. Christians contend that Jesus is supposed to have been the saviour and Son of God and God himself because he was sinless and so would not lie and did miracles as a sign that God approved of him. But on what do the Christians depend on for evidence that he was sinless and had miracle powers? The four gospellers and the rest of the New Testament works. They must have been the best experts on theology and ethics there ever was when they could be sure that Jesus always did right. Brighter people than them cannot agree on what is right and wrong so why should we listen to a few tax-collectors and fishermen that Jesus was sinless? They never ensured that the other side would be given a hearing and that is a sure sign of unjust bias towards making a superstar of Jesus. They did not want people to make up their own minds.

It cannot be true what Matthew says about all Jerusalem being disturbed by and interested in the Magi’s claim that the Messiah had been born. The citizens would have thought the Magi were cranks and how could they have been disturbed for they wanted the Messiah to come and throw the Romans out.  The gospels says they went to Herod to ask him if he knew where the Christ child was.  We cannot believe that Herod desperately wanted the child dead and instead of sending spies after the Magi depended on them to come back and tell him where the child was! The Magi would have known that he was a jealous fanatic from gossip so what did they go to Herod for in the first place?

It was also a scandal that Matthew said that everybody believed the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem for Micah predicted that when he did not actually say the Messiah would be born there only that he would come from there.

If Matthew believed that Joseph’s dream about an angel was a real vision and not just a dream that happened to be right (2) Matthew was commanding us to be credulous and so he cannot be trusted with his other miracle stories, the greater ones such as the resurrection. Jesus was the one who said that if you cannot trust anyone in small you cannot trust them in big things either.

It is said that there is no conflict between the records which give different numbers and accounts of the appearances of the risen Jesus for they do not mention them all. That would be true if the gospels were not written to function as evidence for the divine authority of Jesus Christ. They say that miracles were to be signs for the world and then they deny it by leaving out most of Jesus’ post-resurrection miracles. A complete contradiction.

Mark expects us to believe that Jesus wanted nobody to know that he cured the daughter of Jairus. If he didn’t then he would have cured her in secret from a distance for he had to know the people at the house would gossip far and wide about his healing prowess. Mark’s Jesus was a deceiver when he behaved like that. He was capable of faking miracles.

When the oldest gospel, Mark, has claims like the chief priests and the scribes trying to arrest Jesus by trickery to avoid a disturbance among the people at festival time though the people were told about it as soon as it happened and has Jesus himself wondering why the Jews never arrested him in the temple when they had the chance it shows a lot of lies were being told. The Jewish leaders knew that if there would be trouble it would be guaranteed if they tried to eliminate Jesus at the festival time for that would be worse than arresting him. Lots of people with huge fan bases were arrested at festival times so Mark is lying when he says the Jews were reluctant to do the same to Jesus.

Matthew, Mark and Luke want us to believe that the Sanhedrin’s false witnesses at Jesus’ trial contradicted each other left right and centre when they would have been better coached than that. Besides there was no need for them because Jesus claimed to be the Messiah which was illegal under Roman law and the gospels themselves say making this claim meant a death sentence. The Sanhedrin would have questioned Jesus first instead of trying to incriminate him with false witnesses.

 

Luke said that Jesus was very famous and the Jews complained to Pilate the Roman Procurator that Jesus was inflaming people all over Judea and Galilee.  Pilate had just met Jesus and was told then by the Jews that Jesus was a Galilean and so was under King Herod's jurisdiction and upon learning that he sent Jesus to Herod. 

 

All that is nonsense.  Pilate would have known that already if Jesus were really that famous.

 

Luke says that the Jews accused Jesus to Pilate of claiming to be a king.  Jesus then admits it to Pilate and Pilate then says the man has committed no crime.  This is a contradiction.  The Jews knew it was a crime and here we are asked to believe that it wasn't.  History testifies that Rome did not tolerate alleged kings in Israel.  It was a crime to claim to be a king.

It is undeniable that Jesus could have got a donkey without having one stolen. He told his disciples to take a donkey and if anybody objected just to say the Master had need of it. They could not be expected to believe it really was for the Master.  The donkey was stolen for Jesus told them to say this only if anybody asked them what they were doing.  So he had no problem with them just taking the donkey and telling nobody.  Then why did the owners let them take it?  Perhaps they believed with Jesus that the world was about to end soon so you could let people steal off you.  Jesus advised letting people steal off you in the Sermon on the Mount.  With all the followers Jesus had he should have been able to get a donkey without this bizarre set-up and certainly without stealing one.  If he walked about as much as the gospels say it is extraordinary that he didn’t have one already.

John has Magdalene not knowing Jesus rose after her first visit to the tomb while Matthew has her and her companions being told and persuaded by an angel that Jesus rose on the first visit.

In Matthew, the angel sends a message for the apostles to go to Galilee to see Jesus risen from the dead while in John they see him that same day in Jerusalem. Christians deny that the angel meant that they were to see him for the first time in Galilee. But what else could the angel have meant? He said they had to go to Galilee to see Jesus. When the gospels could not get the most important appearance right why trust them in the other religious claims they make? Jesus is even presented as telling the disciples they will be scattered when they lose their shepherd – himself – but that when he rises he will go before them to Galilee which clearly means that is where they will see him again for the first time, contradicting John which places the meetings in Jerusalem.

Christians say the differences - and some would admit that there are contradictions - tell us that if the gospels agreed it would be a sign that the stories were being made up. We must realise and help Christians to realise that the accounts of two or more witnesses being identical are not contrived just because they are identical. If the witnesses could have met after the event they are testifying to and before they gave their testimony then and only then could the accounts be fabricated. It is totally ridiculous to argue that because the gospels differ that they are sincere for they could have looked up what the reports about Jesus were saying. They contradicted each other because they thought each other was wrong or each gospel was hoping to become the scripture of the Church and exclude the other gospels so the contradicting could have been on purpose. So if the gospels are true they have to agree on everything. So you can be sure that when the Gospel of John reports almost entirely things that Jesus did that do not match the other gospels and when John decrees that two witnesses are necessary it follows that John is telling us to scrap his gospel if he has no support. And there is nothing but his own word.

 

Jude complains about heretics who condemned the angels.  He means the Gnostics who held that angels made and or ruled the world and were bad.  Clearly Jude agreed with them that angels did make or rule the world.  Christianity has conveniently forgotten that doctrine.  Jude said that rather than condemn the angels we should follow the example of Michael the Archangel who refused to rebuke Satan in a dispute over who should have the body of Moses.  Michael just said, "May the Lord punish you".  So Michael is being held up as an example!  So it is better to wish punishment on Satan than to rebuke him!  Big difference!  What Michael said was as much a judgement of Satan as bad as rebuke would be.  If nobody can rebuke Satan then how come Christians in the Bible and ever since feel entitled to tell Satan to go away and rebuke him in the exorcisms they attempt?  How could Jesus justify rebuking Satan?  Christians say it was different for Jesus for Jesus was not an angel like Michael but God himself.  But that would imply the stupid idea that nobody has the right to rebuke except God.  Also Jesus had only a minority who believed he was God so his example was a bad one.  There is no doubt that Jude rejected anybody who dared to say that Jesus rebuked demons or anybody.   This implies that a large part of the gospels is lies.
 

2 Peter 1 has the apostle Peter saying that himself and the other witnesses did not make up myths about the coming of Jesus for they saw his glory on the mountain when God declared Jesus to be his beloved Son who pleased him well.  This implies that the apostles never knew Jesus until he started coming to them in visions.  There is no reason to hold that this vision took place before the resurrection but it is more likely to have come after.  This contradicts the idea that the vision took place before the resurrection which is in the gospels.  The letter is saying that it was not a myth that Jesus was seen!  He talks as if Jesus was only known in visions and that the gospels are false.

One bad thing about believing in the divinity and inspiration of the New Testament is that men long long ago chose the books they wanted to put in it and these men worked without the greater intelligence and methods of scientific investigation that are employed today. To reply that God chose the Bible books that compose the Bible and men only ratified it is really to put men before God because there is nothing to prove that God really chose it. Anybody could say God told them to do this or that.

Christians are not devoted to Jesus at all. They are devoted to what early Christians wrote about him. It is their word about Jesus that is trusted and not Jesus. Jesus is a victim of the Church as much as each member of the Church is. The clergy are in on the hoax too and the theologians undeniably are. What a fantastic way to get control over peoples’ lives. People will always disagree with one another even in the simplest of issues. When Christians are asked to accept all the gospels say that is a sure indication of a desire to manipulate them by getting them to suppress any critical faculties they might have. For example, when Mark said Pilate asked the centurion if Jesus was really dead for he seemed to die too soon he does not name his sources. If the gospel was really from God it would be able to for we cannot stake too much on hearsay or what might be pure invention.

 

It Ain’t Necessarily So, Investigating the Truth of the Biblical Past, Matthew Sturgis, Headline Books, London, 2001

Conspiracies and the Cross, Timothy Paul Jones, Front Line, A Strang Company, Florida, 2008

The Jesus Inquest, Charles Foster, Monarch Books, Oxford, 2006