Emails from Christian apologists: 4


    A short time letter after posting up page 3 of the attempts by Christian apologists to argue for their beliefs, yet another email from a Christian was received, attempting to assert the Bible is not contradictory. In the first instance, the Christian writer attempts to argue that there is no contradiction between (1)John 20:19,22 that says Jesus imparted the Holy Spirit to the disciples on the day that he was resurrected, and (2)Acts 2:1-4 which says the Holy Spirit was not given to the disciples until Pentecost, a period of weeks after Jesus had ascended into heaven.
    The Christian stated:
>The Holy Spirit given on Easter Sunday - John
>20:19,22 - Only visit from Jesus, sorry to inform you.
>The Holy Spirit given at Pentecost - Acts 2:1-4
>That is correct
>In John 20;22 Jesus in this statement is telling
>in order to be forgiven for your
>sins, you need to receive the Holy Spirit as they do
>today.
>In order to be saved you must received the Holy
>Spirit. No where in that statement does it say the
>Apostles received the Holy Spirit, they only see
>Jesus. The Holy Spirit isn't even waiting outside.

    I replied:
    'The text of John clearly says that Jesus 'breathed on them' and then said 'Receive the Holy Spirit' (John 20:22). In fact 'spirit' in Greek is also rendered 'breath' which obviously links in with the comment that Jesus breathed on them; this depicts a present not a future action or reference to any future event (the Greek here is not the future but the present tense). This is why all translators render it 'Receive' and not, as you believe, 'You will receive'. As you do believe that it applies to the future you will have to show the grounds for this, which of course also means that all those translators who rendered it in the present tense are incorrect.
    In a futile attempt to avoid John 20:22 contradicting Acts 2:1-4, you are actually proposing that Jesus was referring to a later occasion and therefore really meant 'Receive the Holy Spirit, but not yet. Receive it, but not for another 40 days...'. This is absurd. You are simply attempting to change the meaning, which is obvious, in an attempt to avoid the inconsistency.
    Commentators, including conservative ones, do not interpret the text as you do but as I have used it. The fact that no commentator or theologian agrees with you is made evident if selecting a number of different books at random, written by various scholars, none of whom are 'liberal' or 'modernist'. In these it is obvious that John 20:22 is considered to refer to Jesus imparting the Holy Spirit to the disciples at that time. The following are some examples:

(i)'John 20:22. 'Receive the Holy Spirit'. The breath of God is a regular metaphor in the scriptures for the Holy Spirit...
There is no reason for assuming that the Holy Spirit was not fully imparted at this moment...'
(David J. Ellis, B.D., M.Th, in The New International Bible Commentary (with the NIV), ed. Professor F. F. Bruce, rev. (Marshall Pickering/Zondervan, 1986), p.1262).
(ii)''He [Jesus] breathed on them and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit...'' (John 20:22). It cannot be disputed that here the endowment with the divine Spirit is portrayed as if it were a 'thing',possibly in association with God's quickening breath (Gen 2:7)'.
(Professor W. G. Kummel, The Theology of the New Testament (SCM Press, 1973), p.313).
'John 20:22. However this verse be interpreted, it means at the least that Jesus was bestowing on his disciples the same Spirit that descended on him at his baptism'.
(Dr G. E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Lutterworth,1974), p.289).
(iv)'John 20:22. The disciples are given the Spirit'.
(Professor William Davies, Invitation to the New Testament (SPCK,1983), p.500).
(v)In their Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John,J. N. Sanders and B. A. Mastin, it is agreed that in John 20:22 Jesus imparts the Holy Spirit and they admit 'the placing of the gift of the Spirit on easter day can hardly be harmonised with Acts 2:33'. They can only suggest that Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, his exaltation and the imparting of the Spirit 'only later came to be described as separate incidents'. (p.433).
(They also mention the doubts about the reliability of the author of Luke/Acts as they observe that Acts 1:3-19 reports that Jesus ascended into heaven forty days after his resurrection whereas the same writer, when composing Luke, says in Luke 24:51 that Jesus ascended on the day of his resurrection).
(vi)'John uses a deliberately ambiguous phrase in John 19:30 which foreshadows the giving of the Spirit in John 20:22'
(Professor J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (SCM, 1980), p.141).

    'As you appear to be in a minority and perhaps the only person who is proposing that John 20:22 does not reflect the giving of the Spirit, it is obviously necessary for you to substantiate this viewpoint with evidence. However, you choose not to do this which in the circumstances, is not surprising'.
    The Christian writer also stated:

>Jesus was the first person to rise from the dead -
>Acts 26:23, Rev 1:5
>Jesus was not the first person to rise from the dead
> 2 Kings 4:32,35, Luke 7:12-15, Matt 9:18,25, 11:5,
>27:52, John 11:44
>2 Kings, chap 4 only has 12 versus.

    '2 Kings does has 44 verses. Your Bible is either incomplete (perhaps you have torn out all the pages with which you disagree?), or another explanation is that you have made yet another error and looked at 2 Samuel 4 by mistake, which does indeed have only 12 verses: this is somewhat ironic in view of your allegations about errors I have supposedly made'.
    The Christian writer continued:

>These are the miracles Jesus performed to provide
>proof he was the Son of God if you read the full verse which I
>am sure you have. Jesus was raised by God and ascended
>into Heaven.
>It was through him this was done. You phrase it as
>though this happened as an unnatural element
>other then Christ. No where in the Bible does it
>say, especially in the Old Test that God has risen
>anyone from the dead.

    'The purpose of much of this rambling, disjointed comment is unclear. However, the Biblical texts are clear. One says that Jesus was the first to rise from the dead and yet the Bible records numerous occurrences of people rising from the dead before this.
    If you take the time to read the verses listed, you will see that these refer to resurrections from the dead before Jesus' resurrection. This includes 2 Kings 4:32,35, in the Old Testament. Therefore your defence that 'No where in the Bible does it say, especially in the Old Test that God has risen anyone from the dead' is wholly incorrect. You would have not made this error if you had first examined the texts'.

>From my observation, it is pretty clear your facts
>are like, really off. Everything you quoted I was able
>to back it up......with what? With its own words in its own
>sentence. Nothing you said could not be supported with what
>was already there and good old fashion knowing how
>to read a sentence and make sense of what it being said
>You pick out a few words to make a whole verse
>wrong. You back up none of your "supposed" discrepancies.
>You throw out scripture, from what even the most
>"unBible smart person" can see as manipulative. [snip]

    'This puerile comment says nothing. In sum, despite the length of your email, you have merely commented on just two listed contradictions; with the first you find it necessary to 'rewrite' the verse to avoid the obvious contradiction and offer no reasons for actually doing this, and with the second you make more than one error which merely demonstrates your unwillingness to study the relevant texts.
    NB. It is not necessary to 'back up "supposed" discrepancies', as the texts speak for themselves'.


    Therefore, once again, a Christian seeks out an anti-Christian website, and yet does not bother to study the contents, but sends an email which only confirms: (i)an unwillingness to consider material that invalidates the Christian belief, and (ii)an ignorance of the writings that are supposed to be studied and considered sacred.
    It cannot go unnoticed how in this case the Christian writer also indulges in self-deception and 'rewrites' a text when it does not harmonize. What is also apparent is the all-too-obvious paucity of knowledge possessed by such Christian writers, and yet in their arrogance they choose to send emails, not realising that these reveal their ignorance even further. No less incredible, their emails make repeated accusations of inaccuracy and error and yet the onlyinaccuracies and errors are their own. Nonetheless, this does clearly demonstrate the abysmal quality of argumentation used by Christians to defend their mythology.