 |
Search this site |
 this page last updated 26 October 2008 All Rights Reserved Text: World Copyright GWBAA Copyright of pictures acknowledged where possible |
The Atheist's Introduction to the New Testament How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity Mike Davis Outskirts Press, Denver (2008) You can go for the general. Point out the philosophical contradictions that faith implies: "if God created us, who created God?" Respond to the pseudo-scientific arguments that believers cling to: "here is the evidence that the eye, bacterium flagellum and other superficially complex phenomena are the products of evolution". Alternately, focus on specific religions and carefully dismantle their central tenets: "Why does God think that endless sex with 72 virgins is all that men aspire to in heaven - and what do the virgins think about that goal?" Mike Davis takes the second approach in The Atheist's Introduction to the New Testament (Outskirts Press 2008). In 170 concise, clearly argued pages, Davis' points out the irreconcilable contradictions and inconsistencies that lie at the heart of Christianity. Here are some of the questions that Davis raises in the story of Jesus' birth and death: • How many generations link King David and Jesus' father Joseph? Matthew says 27; Luke says 42. • When Christ was an infant, did his family flee to Egypt? Yes, says Matthew. No, says Luke. • In the Garden of Gethsemane, did Jesus tell his disciples to fight the Romans? Yes, says Luke. No, according to Matthew. • When did Mary Magdalene come to Jesus' tomb? During daylight, according to Mark; at night, says John.
Davis goes on to remind us of other issues that have caused theologians sleepless nights since Christianity first took root. How to reconcile conflicting statements about Jesus' divinity, or lack of it? What about Paul's view of Jesus and sin? And what exactly do the Old Testament prophecies say? And let's not forget the many different translations in which the Bible has appeared - translations which reflect uncertainties in the original Greek text but, at times, deliberately paper over obvious inconsistencies. (Luke 22.70 in the New American Standard Bible has Jesus claiming to be the Son of God; in most other versions he implicitly denies that statement.) Equally useful are the rebuttals Davis provides to overturn the arguments of believers rationalising the inconsistencies in the NT, including: • "the contradictions are trivial but the basic message is sound" - not true; the message is unclear throughout) • "the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally" - that both makes it irrelevant and ignores 2 Peter 1:20, which demands the text be taken literally. I don't agree with Davis' interpretation of every issue. His suggestion that God and Jesus, not humanity, brought sin into the world is, in my opinion, a misinterpretation of the verses in John and Romans that he quotes. But such disagreements are to be expected when discussing a text as contrary as the Bible. The basic objection to the New Testament - and therefore to Christianity - remains: does this scripture offer an internally consistent theology? The answer is clearly No. AINT is essential reading for anyone seeking a response to Christian nonsense, although Davis is wise enough not to take his argument to its logical conclusion - the likelihood that Jesus never existed. That is too big a pill for the ordinary believer to swallow; it even takes many atheists time to come round to the idea. But that is the reality underlying the Gospels and Paul's epistles. To explore that a little further, click here. 
Custom Search
Email us, pasting the URL into your letter with the comment This account is protected by Spamarrest. You will receive a one-off request to verify your email before it is delivered. |
If God existed, he would... admire the beauty of a universe that he did not create recognize that eternity is meaningless deny both heaven and hell disown all men and women who speak in his name denounce the harm caused by religious "morality" help the human race to thrive without him If God existed, he would be an atheist. What is the difference between science and faith? science is certain of nothing and requires proof of everything faith is certain of everything and requires proof of nothing Which do you trust? "I know there is no God" or "I believe there is no God" ??? Check the answer |
|
Supporting advertisers helps to provide an income for The Atheist God. Clicking on advertiser links may allow these companies to gather and use information about your visit to this and other websites to provide you with advertisements about goods and services presumed to be of interest to you. |