40 Problems with xianity.

[the_ignored]

Some are more solid problems then others. Some are things I never thought about before:

Under (19) Judas

Second, Jesus was not in hiding during his time in Jerusalem. He was out and about, performing miracles, and routinely in plain view of the Roman authorities, making it unnecessary for anyone to rat him out for arrest.

[Doctor X]

Most are simply noting the problem of evil which I--in My Humble MagNIfIcence--have recast in a far more rigorous form that loosens the bowels of apologists and makes Pete Carroll call for a pass.

Ones of Interest:

(12) Delayed Documentation

The accounts of Jesus’ life in the gospels were written well after the events allegedly occurred. The crucifixion of Jesus is believed to have occurred around 30 AD. The best estimates date the gospels as follows:

Mark: AD 68-73
Matthew: AD 70-100
Luke: AD 80-100
John: AD 90-110

Mark ["Mk"--Ed.] is later than 70 CE given he is post the destruction of Jerusalem. Theologians have tried, mightily, to push him as early as possible to preserve the hope he preserves "actual history" and all of that. Mk has far more pressing problems such as historical and rather gross geographical errors. Mt and Lk use him as a source. Whether or not Jn uses him is a topic of considerable debate which I will not waste time on.

But.

Mark clearly uses earlier sources. These sources are, however, not terribly reliable: things like miracle stories. His compilation of a few results in the rather embarrassing geographical error where a sea has to move some 30 miles! Do some of the earlier sources preserve historically valid information? Further, what about Q? Granted, what is preserved of Q in Mt and Lk and sometimes in the later GofTh ["Gospel of Thomas"--Ed.] are simply "sayings." They are all composed in the wrong language. . . .

(13) Fact Checking

It is widely understood that the persons who wrote the gospels were not eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry and were not historians as we would define the term today.

Nor were most historians and we do what we can with the information. However, why does he not mention Paul who, while a loon with an insane agenda, met and writes about the Historical Junior's Brother and Peter as well? As an objection against blind inerrancy, sure, awesome. Yet do not throw the baby out with the ex-girlfriend's body parts . . . no . . . wait!

(15) “Growing Fish”

He loses points for not recognizing that Mt and Lk use Mk as a source and alter him as they see fit.

(17) Raising of Lazarus and Woman Caught in Adultery

He loses massive points for not realizing that the second "moves" in the textual witnesses. There is even a witness that places it in Lk, if memory serves me correctly. I can look it up, but then I would have to walk into another room. Be that as it may, if he raises this objection he should know the details. Yes . . . these are stories. He should spend some time on what "And Junior Wept" actually means in Greek.

(19) Judas

The story of Judas, the traitor, is fraught with inconsistency. First and foremost, it should be obvious that what he allegedly did actually hastened the salvation of mankind, as defined by Christianity.

Oh for crap's sake! Figure out that in Mk, the earliest source, he is a "type." He is not a character at all. He is expanded in later sources that independently fill out the details to considerable length. Thus, in Mk he shows up, betrays, and buggers off. In Mt he hangs himself. In Luke-Acts [Acts.--Ed.] he . . . well . . . explodes! Seriously. We have other "fan fiction." Frankly, I doubt there ever was a Judas though I will agree with a mentor's suggesting that the Historical Junior showed up at the Temple to destroy it--this did not happen--you had a riot, the Romans rounded everyone they could up, and a "Judas" follower, seeing his cult leader was a fraud, turned him it. That also explains the persistent embarrassing tradition of "Rock" betraying him three times. Peter's Chappaquiddick. To which I will add, did that happen? Paul does not mention it. If it was a strong tradition, given his embarrassment at NOT being a follower of the Historical Junior and his disagreement with Peter, why not remind the readers of his letters about it? Interesting.

Right, the rest are, as another mentor put it "meh." I guess this is suppose to supply "ammo" in "debates with Creatards" and all of that, but it has been done far better with more accuracy. Further, these have all been known for decades to centuries. Fundis have "answers" to all of them.

--J.D.

[Anaxagoras]

The notion that Jesus was simply made up from whole cloth seems unlikely to me.

But of course he was only a man. A minor cult leader.

[DrMatt]

Not enough cowbell

[hammegk]

That enough?

[Doctor X]

--J.D.

[Nyarlathotep]

Most are simply noting the problem of evil which I--in My Humble MagNIfIcence--have recast in a far more rigorous form that loosens the bowels of apologists and makes Pete Carroll call for a pass.

Ones of Interest:

(12) Delayed Documentation

The accounts of Jesus’ life in the gospels were written well after the events allegedly occurred. The crucifixion of Jesus is believed to have occurred around 30 AD. The best estimates date the gospels as follows:

Mark: AD 68-73
Matthew: AD 70-100
Luke: AD 80-100
John: AD 90-110

Mark ["Mk"--Ed.] is later than 70 CE given he is post the destruction of Jerusalem. Theologians have tried, mightily, to push him as early as possible to preserve the hope he preserves "actual history" and all of that. Mk has far more pressing problems such as historical and rather gross geographical errors. Mt and Lk use him as a source. Whether or not Jn uses him is a topic of considerable debate which I will not waste time on.

But.

Mark clearly uses earlier sources. These sources are, however, not terribly reliable: things like miracle stories. His compilation of a few results in the rather embarrassing geographical error where a sea has to move some 30 miles! Do some of the earlier sources preserve historically valid information? Further, what about Q? Granted, what is preserved of Q in Mt and Lk and sometimes in the later GofTh ["Gospel of Thomas"--Ed.] are simply "sayings." They are all composed in the wrong language. . . .

(13) Fact Checking

It is widely understood that the persons who wrote the gospels were not eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry and were not historians as we would define the term today.

Nor were most historians and we do what we can with the information. However, why does he not mention Paul who, while a loon with an insane agenda, met and writes about the Historical Junior's Brother and Peter as well? As an objection against blind inerrancy, sure, awesome. Yet do not throw the baby out with the ex-girlfriend's body parts . . . no . . . wait!

(15) “Growing Fish”

He loses points for not recognizing that Mt and Lk use Mk as a source and alter him as they see fit.

(17) Raising of Lazarus and Woman Caught in Adultery

He loses massive points for not realizing that the second "moves" in the textual witnesses. There is even a witness that places it in Lk, if memory serves me correctly. I can look it up, but then I would have to walk into another room. Be that as it may, if he raises this objection he should know the details. Yes . . . these are stories. He should spend some time on what "And Junior Wept" actually means in Greek.

(19) Judas

The story of Judas, the traitor, is fraught with inconsistency. First and foremost, it should be obvious that what he allegedly did actually hastened the salvation of mankind, as defined by Christianity.

Oh for crap's sake! Figure out that in Mk, the earliest source, he is a "type." He is not a character at all. He is expanded in later sources that independently fill out the details to considerable length. Thus, in Mk he shows up, betrays, and buggers off. In Mt he hangs himself. In Luke-Acts [Acts.--Ed.] he . . . well . . . explodes! Seriously. We have other "fan fiction." Frankly, I doubt there ever was a Judas though I will agree with a mentor's suggesting that the Historical Junior showed up at the Temple to destroy it--this did not happen--you had a riot, the Romans rounded everyone they could up, and a "Judas" follower, seeing his cult leader was a fraud, turned him it. That also explains the persistent embarrassing tradition of "Rock" betraying him three times. Peter's Chappaquiddick. To which I will add, did that happen? Paul does not mention it. If it was a strong tradition, given his embarrassment at NOT being a follower of the Historical Junior and his disagreement with Peter, why not remind the readers of his letters about it? Interesting.

Right, the rest are, as another mentor put it "meh." I guess this is suppose to supply "ammo" in "debates with Creatards" and all of that, but it has been done far better with more accuracy. Further, these have all been known for decades to centuries. Fundis have "answers" to all of them.

--J.D.

So, what you are trying to say, is you got 99 problems (with Xtianity) but Judas ain't one.

[Doctor X]

So, what you are trying to say, is you got 99 problems (with Xtianity) but Judas ain't one.

No, I am noting he is trying to argue against F.B.I. based on redeeming qualities he sees in the Joker.

--J.D.

[the_ignored]

I've bookmarked this page. Doctor X's material looks interesting. Did you have training in this field, I assume?

[ed]

The writer makes the point that the absence of the things that follow from the commandments show that an all wise, benevolent etc etc god could not have written them.

(38) The Ten Commandments
The Ten Commandments have been presented as the ultimate guide to human morality. But a close inspection reveals that only five have a meaningful impact: do not steal, do not perjure, do not kill, don’t commit adultery, and honor your parents. Just as revealing is what is not included:
No proscription of slavery
No proscription of child endangerment
No proscription of bigotry
No proscription of racism
No proscription of sexism
No proscription of classism
No proscription of blackmail or bribery
No proscription of discrimination against LGBTQ persons
No proscription of incest
No proscription of torture or terrorism
No proscription of rape
No proscription against the mistreatment, exploitation, and relocation of native populations
No command to treat animals humanely
No command to take care of the Earth’s environment
No command to help others in need
No command to settle disputes peacefully
No command to distribute the Earth’s resources fairly
It should be obvious that an all-knowing, all-wise, all-discerning, supernatural God could have devised a much better set of rules for mankind, a set that would have placed humanity on a more peaceful, loving, and kind trajectory that the one we have experienced.

The problem is that this is Whig history at it's best. It is viewing what "ought to have been" from a decidedly biased perspective. The writer says, basically, that God is a Progressive. Which is absurd blather.

[ed]

I made the observation that the killer for Christianity is simply that there is no evidence whatsoever that the books on which it is based are anything other than the scribblings of humans. Even supposing a divine inspiration, there is no evidence of any superior insight. The writer of the article in the OP elaborates and does a better job than I:

The Bible lacks any insights related to science that were not understood at the time and includes many of the then-current scientific misunderstandings. The two creation myths in Genesis are good examples. What should be troubling to a Christian is why this is so. Wouldn’t the maker of the universe have communicated some basic truths about the world, such as the germ theory of disease to alleviate a lot of needless suffering? The absence of new ideas about science in the Bible is evidence that it was written by men with no inspiration from a supernatural being.

A true, factual religion represented by a supernatural God would not suffer the number of problems that we see in Christianity. It would be precise, flawless, authentic, transcendent, unmatched, prescient, prophetic, revelatory, internally consistent, and scientifically accurate. In Christianity, we see none of these elements.

I'd also like to suggest that if thee were the devine involved the concept of Apologetics would be unnecessary. The existence of apologetics is proof, in my mind, of the human nature of this belief system.

[Pyrrho]

552165_10152213309015010_1483370051_n.jpg

So basically a lobotomy and plastic surgery.

[izittrue]

That sounds more Hollywood than Christianity.

[Abdul Alhazred]

(38) The Ten Commandments
The Ten Commandments have been presented as the ultimate guide to human morality. ...

Ultimate guide to human morality? Straw man.

The Ten Commandments aren't the whole of the Mosaic law, and many of the above are in fact covered. Incest for example.

Otherwise, the "problem with Christianity" (or Judaism) is that it isn't 21st century leftism.
Even leftism of 25 years ago doesn't measure up.