The Trustworthy Bible

The fictitious Bible

Skeptics tells us that the Bible cannot be the word of God. It contains too many contradictions and internal inconsistencies, precluding it from being the infallible word of an omniscient creator. The God it reveals, particularly the God of the Old Testament, is just plain mean. Plus, the New Testament wasn’t written until decades after the supposed events it describes. And we don’t even know who wrote the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. Moreover, there is no extrinsic evidence supporting the New Testament’s central teachings about the life, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Son of God, who is named Jesus. That is because the Bible is essentially a propaganda piece and a masterful work of fiction (masterful except for its inherent inconsistencies and weird stories).

The capricious God of the obsolete Bible and its teachings

An eternal God should mean unchangeable values and teachings, but there is a distinct shift from the Old to the New Testament. We believe God’s values should be ours and are perplexed by some of the biblical stories and teachings that fly in the face of what we know is right. We are confused as to the authenticity of the Bible as the Word of God. Shouldn’t we believe ‘objective’ scholars and theologians who have studied these issues (as opposed to Christian clergy, scholars and theologians who are just trying to prove their pre-determined conclusions)? The objective scholars tell us that the existence of the omniscient and omnipotent being we refer to as God is illogical and that all his attributes and the story of Jesus are fictions created by mendacious zealots. In the face of such overpowering erudition, how is it possible to believe?

Arrogant and exclusionary Christianity

Assuming there is a god, why should it be the Christian God? How about Allah, Yahweh, or the myriad of other gods worshipped throughout the ages?

The essential issue

These questions of authorship, dates of writing and other corollary issues relating to the four Gospels and other books of the Bible would be important if we didn’t have Jesus revealed to us in no uncertain terms by his mother at Fatima and elsewhere, as well as by his Turin photograph (see Evidence Independently Verified). Still, these issues are debated by different factions within academia and by scholars of different stripes. Neither side can convince the other and so it seems that everyone runs around in circles jabbering. How can you and I know who is correct from a scholarly point of view?

We can’t – and they can’t

The antagonists can dance around as much as they like, honing their debating skills, but in the end, their conclusions and arguments are meaningless. What matters is the compelling evidence that God has laid out for us to see, if we but look with an open mind. When you consider the numerous appearances by Mary, miraculous healings, the physical evidence, and other miraculous events, all questions about the veracity of the four Gospel accounts of the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ should dissipate. But they don’t, and that is why we will briefly look at these questions and offer some insight that you may have not considered.

Skeptics claim that the four accounts of The Resurrection contained in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John contradict one another, thereby proving their falsity. The Resurrection is, of course, the sine qua non of Christianity. Absent other compelling evidence, inconsistent accounts could be a problem for the believer. In fact, a cursory reading of the four Gospels’ accounts of the Resurrection could lead one to conclude they are inconsistent and even contradict one another. But we will show that a reasonable reading of these Gospels is that they in fact complement one another. In The Resurrection: Complementary Gospel Accounts we will offer a chronology of what happened on that first Easter Sunday by integrating all four Gospel accounts into one narrative. We use the language of the Gospels and some background information, along with a few reasonable premises, to present one alternative of how the Resurrection occurred. This account harmonizes the four Gospels and at the same time reveals a remarkably cohesive account written from four different vantage points.

Additionally, the objective evidence in the person of the man on the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium tell us that the Gospel accounts of torture and pain he endured are painfully accurate.

The fact is that most of the events described in the Gospels are stunningly unexpected, imaginative, and incongruous (see Incongruous Doctrines and Events). If these events, such as the Transfiguration, are fictional we are forced to accept the notion that the early Gospel writers took the long way around to create a completely unbelievable religion that flew in the face of Judaism, and yet flowed directly from the Old Testament. The Transfiguration is but one example and its details and the details surrounding the other events within the Gospels demand that we recognize either its truth or a level of conspiratorial sophistication on the part of the Apostles or early disciples that would have been quite beyond the reach of these humble Palestinians some 2,000 years ago. To drive home the point, see The Apostolic Conspiracy for a fictionalized meeting of the Apostles showing how they concocted all the cutting-edge Christian beliefs and stories about the life of Jesus such as the Transfiguration, the Virgin birth, walking on water, etc. Their coup de grace was to have Jesus preaching as he hung from the cross. See Seven Last Words.

Footnotes and Attributions

Painting of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John writing their Gospels by Pieter Soutman (died 1657) retrieved from Wikmedia Commons.

Last modified October 10, 2019