Emails from Christian apologists: 7


    Yet another email received is as follows:

>Unfortunately (for you) your information is
>the obvious result of very uninspired reading or summations
>without the benefit of any research. You say you graduated
>with "Honours" and yet my 17 year old has done better
>research. I do not consider myself to be a Bible scholar,
>but have done enough research to know that the first
>page of yours I read was laughable except for the fact
>that if you believe it you are likely going to Hell.
>You are so wrong. (e.g. study the days
>of the week for Hebrews and Jews with regard to Jesus
>crucifiction. Learn the Greek language if you really want
>to understand what you are apparently reading.)
>But, why spend so much time on something you believe not
>to be true? If, there is no proof then what have you got
>to be worried about? On the other hand, you can be a
>sinner and go to Hell whether you do any research or not.
>Fortunately, the answers you are seeking are premised
>upon conviction that exists within your heart. I
>pray that you find the truth and soon....

    The above represents the classic Christian response: a stream of rambling puerile insults without any evidence whatsoever to support any of the view(s) being expressed. While saying 'You are so wrong. e.g. study the days of the week for Hebrews and Jews with regard to Jesus crucifiction [sic]. Learn the Greek language', the Greek meanings appearing in this site are taken directly from standard Greek New Testament lexicons. However, the writer conveniently chooses not to say why he believes these translations (by respected academics) are incorrect and his rendering is preferable, or offer any alternative rendering.
    With regard to the chronology that is mentioned, the writer fails to offer anything to reconcile the contradiction between John and the three Synoptics where John has the last supper, betrayal, trial and crucifixion all one day earlier than the Synoptics. It is to be appreciated that Christians will become agitated when contradictions are mentioned, but it is sad that they can only throw out insults that only further demonstrate their own ignorance and self-delusion. The fact of this particular contradiction is admitted by commentators, e.g.,

"John 13:1ff. It appears from John 18:28 that this supper was on the day before the feast of the Passover, i.e., on the evening (which in Jewish reckoning begins the day) of the Friday, or in our reckoning, on Thursday. Thus for John the meal was not the Passover, though according to the synoptics (e.g. Mark 14:12) it was."
J. N. Sanders and B.A. Mastin, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. John (A and C Black, London), p.303.

    In respect of the writer's warning 'On the other hand, you can be a sinner and go to Hell whether you do any research or not ', the writer fails to explain where this much-mentioned location of 'hell' is, and how immaterial beings can be tormented in such an environment by physical flames, and will have to physically gnash their physical teeth, etc., etc. Moreover, as torment in hellfire requires a post-mortem soul/spirit, there is the insurmountable problem of the complete absence of any evidence for the human being having a dual nature, i.e., an immaterial soul and a physical body: in fact all the evidence wholly upholds the non-dualist (no-soul) physicalist stance.
    With regard to the challenge about why anyone would seek to discredit something in which they do not believe, one can of course turn this around and ask why so many Christians (such as the writer himself) devote their time in feeble attempts to challenge atheism? In fact the reason why atheists challenge Christianity is for its inherent absurdity and danger: even a cursory review of its history during the last few centuries up to the present time will testify to the ignorance, narrow-mindedness, and absurdity of Christian belief during this time, and this is apart from the misery and dangers it creates and presents in the present.
    Finally, with regard to the writer's hope that I 'find the truth and soon', it is tempting to ask which truth and to what brand of this truth he is referring in view of the thousands of Christian churches and denominations, each one preaching a different version of the gospel from the others...
    NB. The fact this 'Christian' cannot even spell 'crucifixion' correctly (i.e, as 'crucifiction') should not go unnoticed. In fact the usage of 'fiction' in the word may actually be very appropriate...