Tim Gracyk

After Jesus died, his followers were baffled. 
 
What did it all mean? 
 
The messiah was not supposed to be squashed like a bug by the Romans. Was Jesus not the messiah? 
 
Early followers decided to redefine “messiah.” 
 
That word means “the anointed one,” but it would no longer mean a political leader who would help Jews triumph over enemies. 
 
An unknown early Christian recalled the scapegoat in Leviticus and spread the good news that Jesus is the scapegoat for all humans. Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world and died, all sins dying with him. 
 
Mark 10:45 says Jesus died to atone for others’ sins: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." 
 
This is not Luke’s understanding of Jesus. Luke shows Jesus wrongly put to death, but Luke expresses no interest in atonement. 
 
Today, we say a “scapegoat” is anyone wrongly blamed for another person’s problems. 
 
Leviticus 16:21 talks of an actual goat. Villagers put the sins of the village dwellers on the goat’s head and sent that goat into the wilderness. One goat suffers and dies for many. 
 
 
 
Jesus and the scapegoat in Leviticus 16:21 -- one goat dies for many

After Jesus died, his followers were baffled.    

What did it all mean?

The messiah was not supposed to be squashed like a bug by the Romans.  Was Jesus not the messiah?  

Early followers decided to redefine “messiah.”  

That word means “the anointed one,” but it would no longer mean a political leader who would help Jews triumph over enemies.

An unknown early Christian recalled the scapegoat in Leviticus and spread the good news that Jesus is the scapegoat for all humans.  Jesus took upon himself the sins of the world and died, all sins dying with him.  

Mark 10:45 says Jesus died to atone for others’ sins: "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

This is not Luke’s understanding of Jesus.  Luke shows Jesus wrongly put to death, but Luke expresses no interest in atonement.

Today, we say a “scapegoat” is anyone wrongly blamed for another person’s problems.

Leviticus 16:21 talks of an actual goat. Villagers pu

Jesus & scapegoat in Leviticus 16:21 = one goat dies for many (Mark 10:45 says Jesus died to atone)

2 Kings 2:23-24 is about the Hebrew prophet Elisha. 
 
Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. 
 
He turned around, looked at them, and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the boys.

2 Kings 2:23-24 is about the Hebrew prophet Elisha.

Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said.

He turned around, looked at them, and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Two bears came out of the woods and mauled 42 of the boys.

odd passage in Bible = prophet Elisha called "bald" so God has bears maul 42 kids (2 Kings 2:23-24)

One contradiction in the Bible is that Stephen--the first Christian martyr--is put to death by the Sanhedrin even though John’s gospel declares that the Sanhedrin may not carry out the death penalty. 
 
In other words, during Passover around 30 A.D., Jesus is put to death by Romans since Jewish leaders lacked the authority to put Jesus (or anyone) to death, yet around 32 A.D. Stephen is 
put to death by these same Jewish leaders. 
 
It is not likely that Sanhedrin members killed Stephen illegally since this body of Jewish leaders was preoccupied with upholding the law. 
 
Here is what John 18:31 says about a need for Romans to put Jesus to death: Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.” 
 
Here is what Acts 7:54-58 says about Stephen: 
 
When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven...“Look,” he said, “I see heaven open....” All rushed at him, dragged him out of the city, and began to stone him. 
 
If we view God as the Bible’s author, we have to wrestle with this contradiction and many others. Contradictions in the Bible are less serious if we say the Bible collects books by different writers with different beliefs and different purposes. 
 
New Testament writers had no idea they were writing holy scripture that would be collected in one book. They had no reason to worry about their statements conflicting with what is in other documents. 
 
They were not interested in literal truth. They were more interested in converting pagans, in bolstering the faith of those already converted, and in establishing theologically correct answers to questions being asked. 
 
 
 
 
 
Bible contradiction Stephen (Christian martyr) killed but John 18:31 "Jews can't give death penalty"

One contradiction in the Bible is that Stephen--the first Christian martyr--is put to death by the Sanhedrin even though John’s gospel declares that the Sanhedrin may not carry out the death penalty.  

In other words, during Passover around 30 A.D., Jesus is put to death by Romans since Jewish leaders lacked the authority to put Jesus (or anyone) to death, yet around 32 A.D. Stephen is 
put to death by these same Jewish leaders.

It is not likely that Sanhedrin members killed Stephen illegally since this body of Jewish leaders was preoccupied with upholding the law.

Here is what John 18:31 says about a need for Romans to put Jesus to death:  Pilate said, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.”

Here is what Acts 7:54-58 says about Stephen:  

When the members of the Sanhedrin heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him.  Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven...“Look,”

Bible contradiction Stephen (Christian martyr) killed but John 18:31 "Jews can't give death penalty"

Malachi 1:2-3 states that God hated Esau. 
 
It seems to contradict the popular "God is love" equation stated in 1 John 4:7-12. 
 
Here is Malachi 1:2-3: 
 
 “’I have loved you,’” says the Lord. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the Lord says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’” 
 
We like to say Gold loves everyone, but since God states clearly that he hated Esau, we have an important exception. 
 
Does the Bible say that God loves everyone? The first letter of John gives the formula that God is love. 
 
________________ 
 
1 John 4:7-12 “God Is Love” Prayer 
 
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love…. 
 
No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. 
 
______________________________ 
 
Does God hate? 
 
Here is Malachi 1:2-3: “’I have loved you,’” says the Lord. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the Lord says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’” 
 
____________________ 
 
Here is a baffling statement in John’s gospel: 
 
John 1:18 No one has ever seen God… 
 
God appears to many in the Old Testament. 
 
The gospel writer “John” (we don’t know his real name) seems unaware of ancient scripture. 
 
For example, God visits the parents of Samson: 
 
Judges 13:22 Manoah said to his wife, “We shall surely die, for we have seen God.” 
 
Genesis 18:1-15: The Lord appears to Abraham and calls attention to Sarah telling a fib: Sarah denied laughing, saying, "I did not laugh” 
...The Lord said, "No, but you did laugh." 
 
Here are some people who saw God 
 
Enoch 
Abraham & Sarah 
Isaac 
Jacob 
Moses & 73 others 
Solomon 
Job 
Elijah 
Isaiah 
Daniel 
Parents of Samson 
 
The statement in John’s gospel that no one has seen God is repeated in the First Letter of John (4:12). 
 
It’s a contradiction. Twice the New Testament says clearly no one has seen God, but the Old Testament tells of many humans seeing God. 
 
Many more hear God’s voice. 
 
The New Testament may be saying twice that stories in ancient scripture about God appearing to humans are mere stories--don’t take them literally and don’t expect to see God in your lifetime. 
 
 
 
 
Does God love everyone? Do some Bible passages indicate that God hates some? God hates Esau?

Malachi 1:2-3 states that God hated Esau.

It seems to contradict the popular "God is love" equation stated in 1 John 4:7-12.

Here is Malachi 1:2-3:

 “’I have loved you,’” says the Lord. But you ask, 'How have you loved us?' ‘Was not Esau Jacob's brother?’ the Lord says. ‘Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.’”

We like to say Gold loves everyone, but since God states clearly that he hated Esau, we have an important exception.

Does the Bible say that God loves everyone?  The first letter of John gives the formula that God is love.

________________

1 John 4:7-12 “God Is Love” Prayer

Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love….

No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

_____________________

Malachi 1:2-3 says God hated Esau = contradicts "God is love" equation stated in 1 John 4:7-12?

In John’s gospel Jesus offends religious leaders by claiming to be God’s son, but in Psalm 82:6 God says humans are gods: 
 
"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'” 
 
This psalm should be familiar since Jesus quotes it in John 10:34: 
 
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'? 
 
God says humans are gods though I don’t know if God means all humans or just some. The phrase “sons of the Most High” may exclude females. 
 
Isaiah 45:5 is a problem since it says humans cannot be gods: “I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.” 
 
 
 
 
 
In John 10:34, Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6--humans are gods! Isaiah 45:5 says opposite

In John’s gospel Jesus offends religious leaders by claiming to be God’s son, but in Psalm 82:6 God says humans are gods: 

"I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.'”

This psalm should be familiar since Jesus quotes it in John 10:34: 

Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"'?

God says humans are gods though I don’t know if God means all humans or just some.  The phrase “sons of the Most High” may exclude females. 

Isaiah 45:5 is a problem since it says humans cannot be gods: “I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God.”





In John 10:34, Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6--humans are gods! Isaiah 45:5 says opposite

In John 10:34, Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6--humans are gods! Isaiah 45:5 says opposite

2 Kings 13:20-21 
 
Elisha died and was buried. Moabite raiding parties invaded the land at the beginning of the year. One day some men were burying a man when they spotted a raiding party. They threw the dead man into Elisha’s tomb. 
 
When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the dead man came to life and stood on his feet. 
 
Here are the Bible's resurrections in correct order: 
 
1. Son of a Zarephath widow--raised by Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-22) 
2. Son of a Shunammite woman--raised by Elisha (2 Kings 4:32-35) 
3. A man is raised when his corpse touches Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20-21) 
4. Many saints rise around Easter (Matt. 27:50-53) 
5. Son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-15) 
6. Daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:21-43, Matthew 9:18-26, Luke) 
7. Lazarus (John 11:1-44) 
8. Jesus (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul’s 7 genuine letters) 
9. Dorcas--raised by Peter (Acts 9:36-41) 
10. Eutychus--raised by Paul (Acts 20:9-10) 
 
 
Dead man and Elisha’s bones (one of the Bible’s resurrections) 2 Kings 13:20-21

2 Kings 13:20-21

Elisha died and was buried. Moabite raiding parties invaded the land at the beginning of the year.  One day some men were burying a man when they spotted a raiding party. They threw the dead man into Elisha’s tomb. 

When the body touched Elisha’s bones, the dead man came to life and stood on his feet.

Here are the Bible's resurrections in correct order:

1. Son of a Zarephath widow--raised by Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-22)
2. Son of a Shunammite woman--raised by Elisha (2 Kings 4:32-35)
3. A man is raised when his corpse touches Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20-21)
4. Many saints rise around Easter (Matt. 27:50-53)
5. Son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:11-15)
6. Daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:21-43, Matthew 9:18-26, Luke)
7. Lazarus (John 11:1-44)
8. Jesus (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John, Paul’s 7 genuine letters)
9. Dorcas--raised by Peter (Acts 9:36-41)
10. Eutychus--raised by Paul (Acts 20:9-10)


Dead man and Elisha’s bones (one of the Bible’s resurrections) 2 Kings 13:20-21

dead man and Elisha’s bones (resurrections were common, says Bible) 2 Kings 13:20-21

To prove that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, the synoptic gospels sometimes cite Old Testament scripture that was not written as prophecy. That’s a problem. 
 
Consider Matthew 2:14-15 declaring that Jesus spent his childhood in Egypt: 
 
Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and withdrew to Egypt, where he stayed until Herod’s death. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my Son.” 
 
Only Matthew’s gospel mentions Egypt. Mary and Joseph leave their home in Bethlehem for Egypt. Luke says Mary and Joseph have a home in Galilee (they visit Bethlehem due to a census), and Jesus was raised in Galilee. That’s a contradiction. 
 
Matthew places Jesus in Egypt due to Hosea 11:1: “...and out of Egypt I called my son.” 
 
But Hosea 11:1 is not about a future messiah. God famously called the nation of Israel out of Egypt during the Exodus--that “fact” is part of Jewish culture. 
 
Hosea refers to Israel as God's son since these words were spoken to Pharaoh: "Israel is my first-born son; let my son go, that he may serve me.” 
 
By putting Jesus in Egypt, Matthew seems to indulge in “prophecy historicized,” not history remembered. “Prophecy historicized” means that early Christians searched Hebrew scripture for predictions about what would be true of the messiah. They created stories about Jesus based on these predictions. 
 
The problem here is that no prophet said the messiah would come out of Egypt. Matthew is too eager to prove that Jesus is the messiah. 
 
Weak evidence is always counter-productive since it brings into question an author’s credibility. Matthew’s gospel has many problematic passages, so I assume that very little in Matthew’s gospel literally happened. 
 
 
 
 
 
Jesus in Egypt? Matthew's gospel is wrong on Hosea 11:1 -- prophecy historicized hurts credibility

To prove that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, the synoptic gospels sometimes cite Old Testament scripture that was not written as prophecy.  That’s a problem.

Consider Matthew 2:14-15 declaring that Jesus spent his childhood in Egypt: 

Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and withdrew to Egypt, where he stayed until Herod’s death. This fulfilled what the Lord had spoken through the prophet: “Out of Egypt I called my Son.”

Only Matthew’s gospel mentions Egypt.  Mary and Joseph leave their home in Bethlehem for Egypt.  Luke says Mary and Joseph have a home in Galilee (they visit Bethlehem due to a census), and Jesus was raised in Galilee.  That’s a contradiction.

Matthew places Jesus in Egypt due to Hosea 11:1: “...and out of Egypt I called my son.” 

But Hosea 11:1 is not about a future messiah.  God famously called the nation of Israel out of Egypt during the Exodus--that “fact” is part of Jewish culture.

Hosea refers to Israel as God's son since these words were spoke

Jesus in Egypt? Matthew's gospel is wrong on Hosea 11:1 -- prophecy historicized hurts credibility

Does Satan tell Eve to eat the forbidden fruit? 
 
No. A serpent speaks in the Garden of Eden. 
 
That Satan speaks to Eve is a popular myth. 
 
Genesis clearly states that the most crafty of wild animals speaks, and the text nowhere implies that this is Satan in disguise. Satan does not appear in the Bible until the book of Job. 
 
HERE IS THE TEXT: 
 
The serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman replied to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” "You will not die,” the serpent replied. 
 
 
 
 
 
Genesis 3:1-4 = Does Satan tell Eve to eat the forbidden fruit? no, a serpent is in Garden of Eden

Does Satan tell Eve to eat the forbidden fruit?

No.  A serpent speaks in the Garden of Eden.

That Satan speaks to Eve is a popular myth.  

Genesis clearly states that the most crafty of wild animals speaks, and the text nowhere implies that this is Satan in disguise.  Satan does not appear in the Bible until the book of Job.

HERE IS THE TEXT: 

The serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals God had made.  He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”  The woman replied to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”  "You will not die,” the serpent replied.





Genesis 3:1-4 = Does Satan tell Eve to eat the forbidden fruit?  no, a serpent is in Garden of Eden

Genesis 3:1-4 = Does Satan tell Eve to eat the forbidden fruit?  no, a serpent is in Garden of Eden

In 2 Samuel 7:11-14, this prophecy is given to King David: 
 
"The Lord will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever." 
 
David’s offspring did not sit on the throne forever. 
 
Zedekiah was Judah’s last king. 
 
In 586 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, burned the Jewish Temple, and ordered that many of Jerusalem’s residents be taken in captivity to Babylon. 
 
For the next centuries Jews were ruled by the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Syrians, and Romans. 
 
________ 
 
2 Samuel 7:11-14 = prophecy about King David offspring on throne forever

In 2 Samuel 7:11-14, this prophecy is given to King David:

"The Lord will make you a house.  When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.  He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever."

David’s offspring did not sit on the throne forever.  

Zedekiah was Judah’s last king.  

In 586 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah, burned the Jewish Temple, and ordered that many of Jerusalem’s residents be taken in captivity to Babylon.  

For the next centuries Jews were ruled by the Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Syrians, and Romans.

________

2 Samuel 7:11-14 = prophecy about King David offspring on throne forever

2 Samuel 7:11-14 = prophecy about King David's offspring being on the throne forever

Can an all-knowing God change his mind? Does that make sense? 
 
Consider 1 Chronicles 21:14-15: 
 
The Lord sent a plague on Israel, and seventy thousand men fell dead. And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the Lord saw it and relented and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Enough!” 
 
God makes a decision but changes his mind? 
 
The problem with God changing his mind in the Bible is that it goes against the common assumption that God knows everything, including the future. 
 
An omniscient being incapable of making mistakes does not make decisions that need to be reversed. 
 
1 Chronicles 21:14-15 (New International Version)

Can an all-knowing God change his mind?  Does that make sense?

Consider 1 Chronicles 21:14-15:

The Lord sent a plague on Israel, and seventy thousand men fell dead. And God sent an angel to destroy Jerusalem. But as the angel was doing so, the Lord saw it and relented and said to the angel who was destroying the people, “Enough!”

God makes a decision but changes his mind?

The problem with God changing his mind in the Bible is that it goes against the common assumption that God knows everything, including the future. 

An omniscient being incapable of making mistakes does not make decisions that need to be reversed.

1 Chronicles 21:14-15 (New International Version)

All-knowing God changes his mind? 1 Chronicles 21:14-15 (ah, but does Bible say God is omniscient?)

“Prophecy historicized” means that early Christians searched Hebrew scripture for predictions about what would be true of the messiah and then created stories about Jesus based on those predictions. 
 
The historical Jesus was from Nazareth, but Luke and Matthew placed him in Bethlehem at birth since Micah predicted a leader from Bethlehem. 
 
This is “prophecy historicized.” What looks like history is a story based on old prophecy. 
 
Another example involves Roman soldiers spitting at Jesus: “Then some began to spit at him…” (Mark 14:65). Was Mark a witness? Did he interview the Roman soldiers? No. 
 
The gospel writer reports that Roman soldiers spit on Jesus because Isaiah 50:6 said it would happen: “I do not hide from shame, for they mock me and spit in my face.” 
 
I first learned about “prophecy historicized" from John Dominic Crossan's book titled Who Killed Jesus. 
 
Over the years, I have seen the idea developed in many scholarly books. Of course, this type of material is not covered by priests or ministers when they talk on Sundays, which is a shame. 
 
The idea that early Christians come up with stories based on prophecy explains a lot! I always wondered how the gospel writers knew the details reported in the gospels. 
 
I don't think the gospel writers themselves created the stories. Instead, I view them as professional writers who produced a coherent manuscript after patrons handed to them various earlier manuscripts. In the case of Matthew and Luke, one early manuscript was Mark's gospel. Others were the "Q" sources and various other sources lost to history. 
 
Sources for John's gospel are completely unknown, but they differ wildly from sources used by the other three gospel writers. 
 
 
 
 
 
“Prophecy historicized” = Mark 14:65 is from Isaiah 50:6 (“spit in my face") John Dominic Crossan

“Prophecy historicized” means that early Christians searched Hebrew scripture for predictions about what would be true of the messiah and then created stories about Jesus based on those predictions. 

The historical Jesus was from Nazareth, but Luke and Matthew placed him in Bethlehem at birth since Micah predicted a leader from Bethlehem.  

This is “prophecy historicized.”  What looks like history is a story based on old prophecy.

Another example involves Roman soldiers spitting at Jesus: “Then some began to spit at him…” (Mark 14:65).  Was Mark a witness?  Did he interview the Roman soldiers?  No.

The gospel writer reports that Roman soldiers spit on Jesus because Isaiah 50:6 said it would happen: “I do not hide from shame, for they mock me and spit in my face.”

I first learned about “prophecy historicized" from John Dominic Crossan's book titled Who Killed Jesus.

Over the years, I have seen the idea developed in many scholarly books.  Of course, this type of material is not cov

“Prophecy historicized” = Mark 14:65 is from Isaiah 50:6 (“spit in my face") John Dominic Crossan

Does the Bible promise a blissful afterlife in heaven after we die? 
 
The Old Testament speaks of a quiet place called Sheol (it’s not heavenly) but also teaches that there is no afterlife. 
 
When we die, that’s the end of it, according to Ecclesiastes 9:5. 
 
Ecclesiastes 9:5: ...the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten. 
 
In stressing that we will have no rewards after death, Ecclesiastes contradicts Jesus and St. Paul saying that resurrected bodies will live in a just kingdom on earth. 
 
The Bible never says souls go to heaven. 
 
If we view God as the Bible’s author, we have to wrestle with this contradiction and many others. 
 
Contradictions in the Bible are less serious if we say the Bible collects books by different writers with different beliefs from different centuries. 
 
By viewing the Bible this way, we can easily understand why the Bible lacks consistency on the subject of the afterlife. 
 
What happens in the afterlife turns out to be guesswork for everyone. 
 
Or is Ecclesiastes correct--no afterlife? 
 
 
 
 
 
Ecclesiastes 9:5 says no afterlife--Bible contradiction (Bible never says souls go to heaven)

Does the Bible promise a blissful afterlife in heaven after we die?  

The Old Testament speaks of a quiet place called Sheol (it’s not heavenly) but also teaches that there is no afterlife.

When we die, that’s the end of it, according to Ecclesiastes 9:5.

Ecclesiastes 9:5: ...the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.

In stressing that we will have no rewards after death, Ecclesiastes contradicts Jesus and St. Paul saying that resurrected bodies will live in a just kingdom on earth.

The Bible never says souls go to heaven.

If we view God as the Bible’s author, we have to wrestle with this contradiction and many others.

Contradictions in the Bible are less serious if we say the Bible collects books by different writers with different beliefs from different centuries.

By viewing the Bible this way, we can easily understand why the Bible lacks consistency on the subject of the afterlife.  

What happens in the afterlife turns out to be gu

Ecclesiastes 9:5 says no afterlife--a Bible contradiction (Bible never says souls go to heaven)

If I get a chance to talk to the pope, I’ll tell him about how I’m revising the Bible so "bad" passages are removed--that is, passages which influence humans to do evil deeds. 
 
I refer to pro-slavery passages and others that urge humans to behave in wicked ways. 
 
I’m certain that such passages do not come from God. 
 
Oh, I also don't think witches should be killed since this is just an excuse to kill women you don't like (witches don't exist). 
 
Here is Exodus 21:20-21: If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he or she dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for the slave is his property. 
 
Exodus 21:1-6 If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free. But if the servant declares, “I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free,” then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life. If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as male servants do. 
 
Leviticus 25:44 Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 
 
Exodus 21:20-21 If a master strikes his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies, the master shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken, for he is the master’s property. 
 
_____________________ 
 
In 2015, Pope Francis expressed the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty, calling it "inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed." 
 
The Catholic Church also teaches that the Bible is divine revelation--that God is the primary author, the Holy Spirit working through human writers. 
 
Many Biblical passages promote the death penalty. 
 
The language is clear. 
 
So the pope’s call for an abolition of the death penalty goes against divine revelation. 
 
Leviticus 20: 9: Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. 
 
Leviticus 20:13: If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. 
 
Nobody today takes such passages seriously. Nobody wants the death penalty in these cases. 
 
Such passages were written by humans, not God, and the Church should acknowledge that God is missing in some parts of the Bible. 
 
 
 
is Bible proslavery? Leviticus 25:44 & Exodus 21:20-21 God wants humans to own humans Exodus 21:1-6

If I get a chance to talk to the pope, I'll tell him about how I'm revising the Bible so "bad" passages are removed--that is, passages ...

Is the Bible pro-slavery? Leviticus 25:44 &amp; Exodus 21:20-21 &amp; Exodus 21:1-6 = harmful Bible bits

Leviticus 11:29-33 
 
Leviticus 11:29-33 Of the animals that move along the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink, and the chameleon… 
 
If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. 
 
 
 
 
Leviticus 11:29-33 animals that move along the ground are unclean--weasel, rat, lizard, gecko, stink

Leviticus 11:29-33   

Leviticus 11:29-33 Of the animals that move along the ground, these are unclean for you: the weasel, the rat, any kind of great lizard, the gecko, the monitor lizard, the wall lizard, the skink, and the chameleon…

If one of them falls into a clay pot, everything in it will be unclean, and you must break the pot. 




Leviticus 11:29-33 animals that move along the ground are unclean--weasel, rat, lizard, gecko, stink

Leviticus 11:29-33 animals that move along the ground are unclean--weasel, rat, lizard, gecko, stink

Samson pulls down the temple in Judges 16:28-30 
 
Samson said, “O Lord, strengthen me once more so that with one vengeful blow I may pay back the Philistines for my two eyes.” Samson reached out for the two central pillars supporting the temple. Bracing himself against them with his right hand on one pillar and his left hand on the other, Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines.” When he pushed, the temple fell on the people in it. In his death he killed more than he had killed in his life. 
 
The passage is about vengeance--making others pay if one must suffer. Adolf Hitler was a kind of Samson. When Germany was losing the war, he knew he was going to die, so he gave orders to destroy his own country--if he had to go, the whole country likewise must go down with him. 
 
The infamous Nero Decree (in German, it is "Nerobefehl") was issued by Hitler on March 19, 1945. It ordered the destruction of German infrastructure. On one level is makes military sense to prevent highways and water systems to be used by Allied forces as they penetrated deep within Germany. But it is essentially national suicide--a better leader is needed. 
 
Samson is a good symbol for what happens sometimes in life. 
 
When a petty leader throws a tantrum that hurts his own country, we call him a Samson figure who is pulling down the temple. Samson is a useful reference when if any leader childishly harms himself and the country as a whole when that leader lashes out due to a violent impulse. 
 
Vengeance is not what Jesus taught. Instead, Jesus taught the opposite when Jesus said to turn the other cheek. But Samson lived long before Jesus. Samson might not have lived at all. Whether Samson lived or not, he represents a type of personality that we've all come across. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Samson pulls down temple (Judges 16:28-30) symbol for failed leaders who sabotage their own nations?

Samson pulls down the temple in Judges 16:28-30 

Samson said, “O Lord, strengthen me once more so that with one vengeful blow I may pay back the Philistines for my two eyes.”  Samson reached out for the two central pillars supporting the temple.  Bracing himself against them with his right hand on one pillar and his left hand on the other, Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines.”  When he pushed, the temple fell on the people in it.  In his death he killed more than he had killed in his life.

The passage is about vengeance--making others pay if one must suffer.  Adolf Hitler was a kind of Samson.  When Germany was losing the war, he knew he was going to die, so he gave orders to destroy his own country--if he had to go, the whole country likewise must go down with him. 

The infamous Nero Decree (in German, it is "Nerobefehl") was issued by Hitler on March 19, 1945.  It ordered the destruction of German infrastructure.  On one level is makes military sense to prevent highways 

Samson pulls down temple (Judges 16:28-30) symbol for failed leaders who sabotage their own nations?

In his actions and teachings, Jesus resembled John the Baptist. It would be logical to conclude that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist. But that is not the conclusion of King Herod. We are speaking of Herod Antipas, not his father (Herod the Great). 
 
Herod Antipater, known by the nickname Antipas, was a 1st-century ruler of Galilee and Perea. He bore the title of tetrarch and is referred to as both "Herod the Tetrarch" and "King Herod" in the New Testament though he never held the title of king. 
 
Was Herod Antipater--called "King Herod" by Mark--insane? The gospel writers never question Herod's sanity. Yet Mark reports that Herod thinks Jesus is the resurrected John the Baptist. We might say this is a crazy conclusion--or we could say resurrections were so common at that time that Herod was thinking logically. After all, the Bible does have many resurrections passages. 
 
But, of course, this part of the New Testament is fiction. After all, the anonymous writer of this gospel from around 70 CE was not at Herod’s court and had no way of knowing what Herod said 40 years earlier. Are we supposed to believe that Herod's comments were written down in 30 CE in official court documents and that "Mark" had access to court documents in 70 CE? Or are we to believe that "Mark" interviewed eye witnesses who remembered this four decades later? 
 
The passage in question (Mark 6:14-16) indicates that the gospel writer was obsessed with resurrection. Herod Antipas was not. 
 
Mark 6:14-16 
 
King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” Others said, “He is Elijah.” Still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.” But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, whom I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!” 
 
The Bible describes a culture in which resurrections happened on a regular basis, so Herod jumping to the conclusion that Jesus is the resurrected John the Baptist is not surprising. 
 
What is surprising is the Bible indicating that resurrections were common in that part of the world, yet not non-Biblical sources are silent about these resurrections. After all, Roman and Greek manuscripts also give us a view into the world at that time, but only Jewish writers indicate how common resurrection used to be. 
 
Here are the Bible's resurrections in correct order: 
 
1. Son of Zarephath widow raised by Elijah (1 Kings 17:17-24) 
2. Son of a Shunammite woman raised by Elijah (2 Kings 4:32-35) 
3. Man raised by Elisha’s bones (2 Kings 13:20-21) 
4. Jairus’ daughter raised by Jesus (Mark 5:21-43, Matt. 9:18-26, Luke) 
5. Son of the widow of Nain raised by Jesus (Luke 7:11-15) 
6. Lazarus raised by Jesus (John 11:1-44) 
7. “Many saints” rise around Easter (Matt. 27:50-53) 
8. Jesus (four canonical gospels, Paul’s 7 genuine letters) 
9. Dorcas raised by Peter (Acts 9:36-41) 
10. Eutychus raised by Paul (Acts 20:9-10) 
 
 
King Herod’s view of Jesus (Mark 6:14-16)--Jesus is John the Baptist resurrected! Herod Antipas

In his actions and teachings, Jesus resembled John the Baptist.  It would be logical to conclude that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist.  But that is not the conclusion of King Herod.  We are speaking of Herod Antipas, not his father (Herod the Great).  

Herod Antipater, known by the nickname Antipas, was a 1st-century ruler of Galilee and Perea.  He bore the title of tetrarch and is referred to as both "Herod the Tetrarch" and "King Herod" in the New Testament though he never held the title of king.

Was Herod Antipater--called "King Herod" by Mark--insane?  The gospel writers never question Herod's sanity.  Yet Mark reports that Herod thinks Jesus is the resurrected John the Baptist.  We might say this is a crazy conclusion--or we could say resurrections were so common at that time that Herod was thinking logically.   After all, the Bible does have many resurrections passages.

But, of course, this part of the New Testament is fiction.  After all, the anonymous writer of this

King Herod’s view of Jesus (Mark 6:14-16)--Jesus is John the Baptist resurrected! Herod Antipas

This is about Jesus Christ... 
 
Who, although he was in the form of God, 
Did not regard 
being equal with God 
 
As anything to be 
grasped after. 
 
But he emptied himself, 
Taking on 
the form of a slave 
 
In human appearance 
 
He humbled himself 
And was obedient unto death, 
Even death on a cross. 
 
For that reason, God highly exalted him, 
 
Bestowing on him a name 
That is more revered than other names. 
 
At the name of Jesus 
 
Each knee should bow, 
No matter if one is in heaven, 
On earth, or under the earth. 
 
Each tongue is to proclaim 
That Jesus Christ is Lord 
To the glory of God the Father. 
 
The Christ poem in Philippians 2:6-10 
 
Scholars view an early passage in Paul’s letter to the Philippians as one of the most important in the New Testament. 
 
Paul incorporates into the Philippians letter an early Christian hymn. Paul did not write these words. Instead, Paul passes along info that preceded Paul’s ministry, so this may represent the earliest surviving Christian thinking. It is “pre-literary” Christian thinking. It is "pre-literary" in the sense that these words were around before any Christian was putting Christian thinking down on paper. Before Paul's letters, Christian beliefs were passed along orally, sometimes through memorized hymns. 
 
It states that Christ was a pre-existent being who chose to empty himself into human form. Because of this, he was elevated to a higher status than he had before. Some scholars have interpreted the passage to mean that Jesus was an angel who chose to appear in human form and thereafter was exalted into being God. 
 
Paul's letter to the Phillippians is earlier than any surviving gospel and helps us understand how the earlier Christians (those of the first generation) viewed Jesus. The first generation had a different view than the later generation that produced our four canonical gospels. 
 
According to Philippians Jesus is co-equal to YHWH but did not start out that way. Jesus was elevated to equality. This is in contrast to John's gospel (John 10:30), which claims that Jesus and YHWH are equal though not the same. “I and the father are one,” from John's gospel, might suggest they are the same, but it really means they are close. (If they were the same, Jesus would be talking to himself when praying, but that is not the case in John's gospel. Since Jesus prays, it is likely that YHWH prays, too--right?) 
 
On the other hand, maybe John's gospel does not present Jesus as equal to God the Father. In John 14:28, Jesus says the Father is greater than him? John's gospel is not logically consistent. 
 
It is safest to say that John's gospel presents Jesus and the Father has having the same divine status; therefore, they are equally worthy of worship, 
 
Anyway, the first generation of Christians viewed Jesus as exalted to a higher place on the divinity ladder. Jesus had preexistence only as an angel. By the time of the second and third generations, Jesus is increasingly exalted in Christian thought and worship. Heightened views led to higher Christologies--that is, Jesus was always God (no preexistence as a mere angel).. 
 
The end of the Christ Poem (written in Greek) echoes Isaiah 45:22-23 (written in Hebrew). 
 
I recommend Susan R. Garrett's book No Ordinary Angel: Celestial Spirits and Christian Claims about Jesus (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library). 
 
Her book covers the development of "angelology" and the origins of Christology. It also covers popular Western spirituality movements. 
 
 
 
 
 
Saint Paul's letter famous Christ poem in Philippians 2:6-10 (Jesus emptied himself into slave form)

This is about Jesus Christ...

Who, although he was in the form of God,
Did not regard 
being equal with God

As anything to be 
grasped after.

But he emptied himself,
Taking on 
the form of a slave

In human appearance 

He humbled himself
And was obedient unto death,
Even death on a cross.

For that reason, God highly exalted him,

Bestowing on him a name
That is more revered than other names.

At the name of Jesus

Each knee should bow, 
No matter if one is in heaven, 
On earth, or under the earth.

Each tongue is to proclaim
That Jesus Christ is Lord
To the glory of God the Father.

The Christ poem in Philippians 2:6-10

Scholars view an early passage in Paul’s letter to the Philippians as one of the most important in the New Testament.  

Paul incorporates into the Philippians letter an early Christian hymn.  Paul did not write these words.  Instead, Paul passes along info that preceded Paul’s ministry, so this may represent the earliest surviving Christian thinking.  It is “pre-

Saint Paul's letter famous Christ poem in Philippians 2:6-10 (Jesus emptied himself into slave form)

Bible’s First Resurrection (1 Kings 17:17-24) = Elijah resurrects son of the Zarephath widow 
 
The son of the woman who owned the house became sick. His sickness was so serious that there was no breath left in him. Elijah said, “Give me your son.” He took him out of her 
arms, carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his own bed. He cried out, “O Lord, have You brought tragedy on the widow with whom I lodge by killing her son?” 
 
He stretched himself out on the child three times and said, “I pray, let this child’s soul come back to him.” After the Lord heard Elijah’s voice, the soul of the child returned, and the boy revived. 
 
Elijah said to the mother, “See, your son lives!”

Bible’s First Resurrection (1 Kings 17:17-24) = Elijah resurrects son of the Zarephath widow

The son of the woman who owned the house became sick.  His sickness was so serious that there was no breath left in him.  Elijah said, “Give me your son.”  He took him out of her 
arms, carried him to the upper room where he was staying, and laid him on his own bed.  He cried out, “O Lord, have You brought tragedy on the widow with whom I lodge by killing her son?”  

He stretched himself out on the child three times and said, “I pray, let this child’s soul come back to him.”  After the Lord heard Elijah’s voice, the soul of the child returned, and the boy revived.  

Elijah said to the mother, “See, your son lives!”

Bible’s First Resurrection (1 Kings 17:17-24) = Elijah resurrects son of the Zarephath widow

Does Macbeth murder King Duncan because the witches plant the idea in his head, or do the witches greet Macbeth because he already has the idea? 
 
Shakespeare’s play doesn’t say. 
 
Here is another issue the play doesn’t address. 
 
Macbeth thinks nearly everyone should be put to death, but he never thinks of killing the witches. 
 
Why? Most kings at this time felt it their duty to have witches put to death. 
 
For many centuries, so-called witches were put to death because of Biblical passages. More precisely, the Bible was cited when strong women were accused of being witches and were killed. 
 
Here is Deuteronomy 18:10-11: Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or who consults the dead. 
 
Here is Exodus 22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. 
 
When children recite the Ten Commandments, they know nothing about the many Biblical passages that tell us whom to kill and for what reason. Children can easily memorize "Thou shalt not kill" (or some variation), but this simple wording doesn't mean what it seems to say. 
 
Bible really means "Thou shalt not murder innocent people who have not violated one of the many rules that bring on capital punishment." People caught in the act of adultery are condemned to death. And there are many more reasons for being put to death. 
 
I marvel that God allowed the witch passages to be included in the Bible. God would have realized that zealots would accuse innocent women on being witches, yet God allowed these passages to be in the Bible. Putting such passages in the Bible is like giving a razor blade to a baby--that is, humans can't be trusted with such passages. The passages have done harm throughout history. 
 
By the way, do not contact spirits with Ouija boards 
 
Here are the Ten Commandments. Again, the one about not killing is misleading since the Bible is very clear about whom must be killed. 
 
Have no other gods before me 
Do not make any graven image 
Do not take the Lord’s name in vain 
Keep the sabbath holy 
Honor your father and mother 
Do not kill 
Do not commit adultery 
Do not steal 
Do not bear false witness 
Do not covet--have no envious thoughts 
 
 
 
Shakespeare's Macbeth has witches live = Exodus 22:18 says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

Does Macbeth murder King Duncan because the witches plant the idea in his head, or do the witches greet Macbeth because he already has the idea?

Shakespeare’s play doesn’t say.

Here is another issue the play doesn’t address.

Macbeth thinks nearly everyone should be put to death, but he never thinks of killing the witches.

Why?  Most kings at this time felt it their duty to have witches put to death.

For many centuries, so-called witches were put to death because of Biblical passages.  More precisely, the Bible was cited when strong women were accused of being witches and were killed.

Here is Deuteronomy 18:10-11: Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or who consults the dead.

Here is Exodus 22:18: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

When children recite the Ten Commandments, they know nothing about the many Biblical passages that tell 

Shakespeare's Macbeth has witches live = Exodus 22:18 says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"

The Bible has two sets of Ten Commandments. Or you could say it has three since the first set in Exodus is soon duplicated after Moses does a smash-up (same wording, two different stone tablets) and another set (about rituals) appears in Exodus 34. 
 
Or you could say there are four sets. When Jesus recites the commandments to keep, he omits the one about observing the Sabbath. It makes sense that Jesus omits this one since too many Jews wernt too far in observing the Sabbath, forgetting that our real mission is to love and serve others. 
 
Anyway, discussing the Ten Commandments is complicated. Which ten? The phrase “Ten Commandments” is used just twice in the entire Bible, and neither time is the text referring to the well-known Ten Commandments (what is sometimes called the Ethical Decalogue). 
 
Exodus 20 is the list that we know (the Ethical Decalogue), and Deuteronomy 5:16 repeats it, but Exodus 34 is different from what we know. 
 
The commandments in Exodus 34 are sometimes called the Ritual Decalogue (as opposed to the Ethical Decalogue that most people are familiar with--again, from Exodus 20). 
 
The Ritual Decalogue is mostly concerned with sacrifices and ceremonies. You could say the Ritual Decalogue has only nine Commandments. 
 
In Exodus 20, Moses comes down from Mount Sinai with a set of stone tablets, gets mad, smashes them, and goes back up for another set. God says, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke” (Exodus 34:1). 
 
Both versions here refer to the Ethical Decalogue. 
 
Moses doesn't break the first tablet of the commandments in Exodus 20. It happens in Exodus 32. Actually Moses break the tablet that was written in Exodus 31. 
 
Here is Exodus 34:1: The Lord said to Moses, “Chisel out two stone tablets like the first ones, and I will write on them the words that were on the first tablets, which you broke.” 
 
Exodus 20 has God speaking the Ethical Decalogue from Mount Sinai to the Hebrews, but it makes no mention of anything being written down and does not refer to them as the Ten Commandments. 
 
In Exodus 24, Moses writes lengthy laws. Then God calls him up the mount to for more laws, giving several chapters about rituals and about technical specifications for the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle. 
 
At the end of this, he gives stone tablets written "with the finger of God" in Exodus 31. 
 
In Deuteronomy 5, Moses gives the Ethical Decalogue to the Hebrews, saying God wrote it on two stone tablets. Moses does not mention the Ten Commandments by name. 
 
In Deuteronomy 10, the story is repeated with variations. Moses is again told to carve two new tablets "like the first," and God will write the same words on what Moses brings. This is referred to as the Ten Commandments, but it is not stated which Commandments are being referred to. 
 
The Ritual Decalogue comes midway through a section describing the giving of the Ten Commandments, and the text immediately after the Ritual Decalogue reads: "And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments." 
 
It seems that the Ritual Decalogue is the Ten Commandments although with some confusion over what is carved in stone and by whom. 
 
 
 
 
 
Bible two sets of Ten Commandments = Exodus 20 (Deuteronomy 5:16 repeats it) & Exodus 34 (different)

The Bible has two sets of Ten Commandments.  Or you could say it has three since the first set in Exodus is soon duplicated after Moses does a smash-up (same wording, two different stone tablets) and another set (about rituals) appears in Exodus 34.

Or you could say there are four sets.  When Jesus recites the commandments to keep, he omits the one about observing the Sabbath.  It makes sense that Jesus omits this one since too many Jews wernt too far in observing the Sabbath, forgetting that our real mission is to love and serve others.

Anyway, discussing the Ten Commandments is complicated.  Which ten?  The phrase “Ten Commandments” is used just twice in the entire Bible, and neither time is the text referring to the well-known Ten Commandments (what is sometimes called the Ethical Decalogue).

Exodus 20 is the list that we know (the Ethical Decalogue), and Deuteronomy 5:16 repeats it, but Exodus 34 is different from what we know.

The commandments in Exodus 34 are sometimes called

Tim Gracyk Videos