Posts by JosephAlward

10

Honoring Parents

by JosephAlward in

this is my response to a true believer who emailed me about my claims that the gospel stories were plagiarized from scriptural antecedents, and about my claim that jesus showed disrepect for parents--if you can believe the bible:.

do you have proof -- not your insights -- for your claim that the bible is nothing but a mimmic of ancient myth?.

evidence is all i have.

JosephAlward

"Honor your father and mother" (Matt 19:19)

Luke thinks that Jesus requires his followers to hate their parents, "Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother...cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14.26)

And Matthew thinks that when a disciple begged for permission to bury his father, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father," Jesus told him to let him rot: "Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead." (Matthew 8:21-22) Is this the same Matthew who told us that Jesus told his disciples to love their parents?

In regards to the story in Luke, Kenneson writes,

this is a parable meant to teach the demands of discipleship... You can't be half-hearted toward Jesus.

By “parable,” you mean that Jesus did not mean for his disciples literally to hate their parents? If that’s the case, then don’t you think that Jesus, who allegedly was the son of the infinitely wise and all-knowing God, would have known that his words would be misinterpreted, if indeed Luke was quoting Jesus accurately? Why couldn’t Jesus just have said, “I expect you to put the needs of God before those of your parents”? That would have been possible without literally hating their parents, right?

And, why couldn’t the disciple run off and bury his father? He could have done that, and still given this heart fully to Jesus, couldn’t he? If you claim that this, too, is parabolic speech, not to be taken literally, then was the man actually allowed to go bury his father, or not? If so, why didn’t Matthew tell us that?

The absence of the clarifying information suggests strongly that Matthew wasn’t guided by God in writing this tale, because if he had been inspired, God would have known that we would think that Jesus really didn’t let the poor man bury his father, so God would have made sure that Matthew explained that wasn’t the case at all. The same is true for the Luke's tale; if it were inspired by God, God would have made sure that the readers understood that disciples were not expected literally to hate their parents. The absence of this clarification suggests that Luke, too, was not guided by God when he wrote his gospel, and thus may have been mistaken.

Which seems more reasonable: Luke and Matthew were mistaken about what Jesus said, or that Jesus really did say those words, but they were not meant to be taken literally?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

39

Timeless Truths in the Bible

by JosephAlward in

some of my favorites are:.

"man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies, so dies the other.

all have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.

JosephAlward

Faithful2Jah writes,

Solomon had not turned to those gods ... He still served the God of Israel. He had, however, become influenced by his wives' false religious beliefs.

Where do you get support for your statement, above, that “Solomon had not turned to those gods”? What do you think the verse below says?

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods (1 Kings 11:4-6)

Faithful responds:

This obviously means that Solomon remained a worshipper of the God of Israel, but not FULLY. Do you know what the words "not fully" mean Joe? No I didn't think so. I'm again done talking to you. Every time I do I am amazed at your inability to understand the English language.

If you're done talking to me, it's not because I can't understand English, and everyone on this board knows it. You made a mistatement, and I questioned you about it, and you respond in anger, and pretend that my question was about Solomon being "fully" a worshiper of God.

You said that "Solomon had not turned to those gods," but you know that that is exactly what 1 Kings 11:4-6 said had happened:

"As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods

Just admit you were wrong, and move on, Faithful, and then you can be done talking to me.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

39

Timeless Truths in the Bible

by JosephAlward in

some of my favorites are:.

"man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies, so dies the other.

all have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.

JosephAlward

Faithful2Jah writes,

Solomon had not turned to those gods ... He still served the God of Israel. He had, however, become influenced by his wives' false religious beliefs.

Where do you get support for your statement, above, that “Solomon had not turned to those gods”? What do you think the verse below says?

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods (1 Kings 11:4-6)

On the matter of why Solomon, in all of his writings, never explained to his readers that he had rejected afterlife because he had partly turned away from the God of Israel and adopted some of the teachings of the gods Astoreth and Molech, Faithful offered this explanation (emphasis added):

Like the Saducees, he had become somewhat spiritually confused. But he still worshipped the God of Israel. So of course he would not be speaking of other gods.

What logic leads you to conclude that Solomon “of course... would not be speaking of other gods”? Do you perhaps believe that Solomon would not want anyone to know that he worshiped other gods, or that their influence on him was not relevant, or pivotal? Or, he didn’t want to show disrespect for the god you claim he still worshiped?

Those reasons seem silly, if that’s what you had in mind, for Solomon had already waved a large red flag in the faces of all readers for all time when he made it perfectly clear that he had rejected a central teaching of the God of Israel, namely, that there was an afterlife. Thus, Solomon was partly rejecting the God of Israel by rejecting some of the Word of God; this is quite a slap in the face of the God of Israel, so why would he be shy about explaining to his readers why he had rejected this extremely important teaching?

Why, after rejecting God’s teaching about afterlife in a very high-profile manner, would Solomon not bother to explain to his readers in his writings that the gods Astoreth and Molech, through his wife, had led him to this belief, if that is in fact what had already happened to him at that point? These gods had an immense influence on his attitude about life and afterlife, so if he had held these attitudes at the time of his writing, he would have let the reader know about those gods, about this pivotal event in his life, and how they played such an important role in his life, wouldn’t he? Of course he would.

Why would he not mention this, at least once, if that actually had happened already at the time of his writings? Saying, “Of course, he would never do such a thing,” is just silly, Faithful. It takes more than just hopeful, all-believing faith to make an argument, Faithful; you need to use objectivity and a certain measure of logic to explain why he would “of course” never do such a thing.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

10

Honoring Parents

by JosephAlward in

this is my response to a true believer who emailed me about my claims that the gospel stories were plagiarized from scriptural antecedents, and about my claim that jesus showed disrepect for parents--if you can believe the bible:.

do you have proof -- not your insights -- for your claim that the bible is nothing but a mimmic of ancient myth?.

evidence is all i have.

JosephAlward

This is my response to a true believer who emailed me about my claims that the Gospel stories were plagiarized from Scriptural antecedents, and about my claim that Jesus showed disrepect for parents--if you can believe the Bible:

Do you have proof -- not your insights -- for your claim that the Bible is nothing but a mimmic of ancient myth?

No proof. Evidence is all I have. You have to realize that there is no proof which you would accept that the Bible's stories about Jesus are based on Scriptural antecedents. Even if you were to find in the Bible--the book you trust above all others--a passage which described how all of the stories about Jesus are fake, you would just say that God deliberately put that passage their to test our faith. Those who believed it would be consigned to hell, perhaps because they failed to read and understand the implications of Proverbs 14:15. Thus, you see, "proof" to you and other true believers cannot ever be produced.

And now that I've explained the supposed "Honor your parents" issue, are you prepared to take that article down?

Perhaps in your mind you've debunked my article, but you have not said a word about Jesus' apparent disrespect he showed to the unburied father. Would you not expect that Jesus would have at least let the poor man go to bury his father, if indeed Jesus taught that one should honor and respect his parents? This is not a question of the dead father standing between the son and God, is it? Now, which is more reasonable, that Jesus actually behaved this way, or the author of this verse was mistaken?

Also, what about this:

Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother...cannot be my disciple.(Luke 14.26)

This is totally inconsistent with honoring and respecting one's parents, isn't it? Which is more likely, then? That Luke was mistaken, and Jesus never said this, or he did say it?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

39

Timeless Truths in the Bible

by JosephAlward in

some of my favorites are:.

"man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies, so dies the other.

all have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.

JosephAlward

Faithful,

You are avoiding the central question. If it's true that Solomon had already--as you claim--turned to false gods when he was writing Ecclesiastes, how is it possible he never mentioned them once? It's not as if he didn't mention gods at all, is it? He mentioned the god of creation--elohiym--forty times.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

39

Timeless Truths in the Bible

by JosephAlward in

some of my favorites are:.

"man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies, so dies the other.

all have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.

JosephAlward

Faithful, you didn't address my main point. I'll repeat it below:

If you want to claim that the Solomon who wrote Ecclesiastes, and who apparently didn’t accept the notion of an afterlife, had already lost his God-given wisdom and understanding, and was the Solomon who had turned toward Ashtoreth and Molech, you’ll have to explain why there is not a single reference to any god besides the god of Genesis creation, “elohiym,” anywhere in Ecclesiastes. There are forty references to “elohiym,” and not one to false gods.

The absence in Ecclesiastes of any hint that Solomon had turned toward Ashtoreth and Molech, and the repeated reference to only the “true” god of creation, elohiym, is consistent with Solomon still having the near infinite-wisdom and understanding God--according to the 1 Kings 4:29-30 author--had given him.

Faithful, why do you persist in believing that the Solomon who had written Ecclesiastes was the same Solomon who had turned to other gods, even though there's zero reference to such gods in his writings, while forty times he refers to the god of Genesis creation, elohiym, the same god which gave him wisdom and understanding that was measureless?

How do you explain the utter lack of reference to the gods he turned to in later life, and his exclusive reference only to elohiym, if it's true as you claim that Solomon had already begun to follow Astoreth and Molech when he was writing Ecclesiastes?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

39

Timeless Truths in the Bible

by JosephAlward in

some of my favorites are:.

"man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies, so dies the other.

all have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.

JosephAlward

I offered this passage to show that Solomon apparently rejected the notion of afterlife:

Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. (Ecclesiastes 3:18)

Faithful2Jah wrote,

Much of Ecclesiastes was obviously written to illustrate the perspective of a person who had lost much of his faith. These passages of scripture allow Bible readers to see how such a spiritually lost person views the world. God inspired their writing and saw to it that they were contained in the scriptures for this reason.

There is a big problem with your interpretation, Faithful. Before I explain, please read the passage below:

God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. Solomon's wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the men of the East, and greater than all the wisdom of Egypt. (1 Kings 4:29-30)

How could it be possible, Faithful, for God to have given to Solomon wisdom and understanding that was immeasurable, greater than all the wisdom in the East, a wisdom and understanding that was virtually as near-infinite as the number of grains of sand on the seashore, but yet not have given him enough understanding to comprehend that there was an “afterlife,” as you say? Does this make sense to you?

Faithful responds with this passage:

"As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord ; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done." (1 Kings 11:4-6)

Faithful concludes from this passage that

Solomon...lost some of the wisdom he once possessed.

Faithful, you’re taking as evidence that Solomon lost his wisdom the fact that at some point later his life his heart turned away from the Lord to Ashtoreth and Molech, but we’re not talking about Solomon’s judgment after he lost his wisdom and understanding and turned to false gods. We are talking about the Solomon of an earlier time, a time when he wrote Ecclesiastes, a time when he still had sufficient wisdom and understanding to follow the “true” god of creation, "elohiym."

Faithful, if you want to claim that the Solomon who wrote Ecclesiastes, and who apparently didn’t accept the notion of an afterlife, had already lost his God-given wisdom and understanding, and was the Solomon who had turned toward Ashtoreth and Molech, you’ll have to explain why there is not a single reference to any god besides the god of Genesis creation, “elohiym,” anywhere in Ecclesiastes. There are forty references to “elohiym,” and not one to false gods.

The absence in Ecclesiastes of any hint that Solomon had turned toward Ashtoreth and Molech, and the repeated reference to only the “true” god of creation, elohiym, is consistent with Solomon still having the near infinite-wisdom and understanding God--according to the 1 Kings 4:29-30 author--had given him.

Thus, without evidence to the contrary, we should conclude that the Solomon in Ecclesiastes is the infinitely wise and understanding Solomon who apparently rejects the afterlife. Consequently, we must conclude that either that the author of 1 Kings probably was wrong about God giving Solomon so much understanding, or else the Ecclesiastes author was misguided, or else Solomon was right about there being no afterlife.

No matter how you look at it, the Bible seems to be in error, and if the Bible can be in error in this instance, it might be wrong in its account of the creation, and the flood, and even wrong about the resurrection.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

39

Timeless Truths in the Bible

by JosephAlward in

some of my favorites are:.

"man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies, so dies the other.

all have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.

JosephAlward

UnclePenn writes,

The point of Ecclesiastes is that life is utterly meaningless without God.

Perhaps, but this doesn't remove the problem at hand. Solomon appears to be totally unaware that there is the "afterlife" that Christians believe is offered by God to those who accept him. Such ignorance in one who was given by God a measureless wisdom and understanding is virtually inconceivable. Thus, either Ecclesiastes is not "God-breathed," which makes 2 Timothy 3:16 wrong, or 1 Kings is wrong about Solomon being measurelessly wise. Either way, the Bible is in error, and if the Bible is wrong in this case, it could be wrong about the creation, and the flood, and perhaps even the resurrection.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

39

Timeless Truths in the Bible

by JosephAlward in

some of my favorites are:.

"man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies, so dies the other.

all have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.

JosephAlward

Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. (Ecclesiastes 3:18)

Faithful2Jah wrote,

The Ecclesiastes verses were] obviously written from the perspective of a man who lacked confidence in an afterlife. It is meant to be understood in that manner.

Much of Ecclesiastes was obviously written to illustrate the perspective of a person who had lost much of his faith. These passages of scripture allow Bible readers to see how such a spiritually lost person views the world. God inspired their writing and saw to it that they were contained in the scriptures for this reason.

There is a big problem with your interpretation, Faithful. Before I explain, please read the passage below:

God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore. Solomon's wisdom was greater than the wisdom of all the men of the East, and greater than all the wisdom of Egypt. (1 Kings 4:29-30)

How could it be possible, Faithful, for God to have given to Solomon wisdom and understanding that was immeasurable, greater than all the wisdom in the East, a wisdom and understanding that was virtually as near-infinite as the number of grains of sand on the seashore, but yet not have given him enough understanding to comprehend that there was an “afterlife,” as you say? Does this make sense to you?

Or, is it more sensible to believe that either the Ecclesiastes author was wrong about Solomon rejecting the notion of “afterlife,” or else the 1 Kings author was wrong about God giving Solomon measureless wisdom and understanding? Or, perhaps both stories are wrong.

Which makes more sense to you, Faithful?

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html

39

Timeless Truths in the Bible

by JosephAlward in

some of my favorites are:.

"man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: as one dies, so dies the other.

all have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal.

JosephAlward

"Man's fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless." (Ecclesiastes 3:18-22)

Faithful2Jah wrote,

The Ecclesiastes verses were] obviously written from the perspective of a man who lacked confidence in an afterlife. It is meant to be understood in that manner.

That can't be right. Accoding to the writer of 2 Timothy, all of the words in Scripture came straight from God. According to that author, Scripture does not contain misguided opinions of ordinary men, as you seem to believe. He believes the words in Scripture were breathed by God into the ears of his writers, and are useful for teaching God's Word:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16)

Faithful, if you're right about the Ecclesiastes verses being just the misguided opinion of one man, then the writer of 2 Timothy is wrong, and the Bible is in error.

On the other hand, if you're wrong about the verses, and they really are God-breathed and useful for teaching, then God in these verses is teaching us that there is no afterlife, which contradicts other parts of the Bible which teaches that there is an afterlife.

Either way, there is an error or contradiction--one more among thousands.

Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html