Part 1
Email Debate with Ed (Anon)
Part 1
|
Recently, I posed a question on The
Infidel Guy's "Questions
to ask theists about god, gods & spirituality" page thus:
If Jesus was nailed and died on Friday evening,
and walked out of the tomb on Sunday morning, where's the 3rd NIGHT
he predicted? Per Matthew 12:40: "For as Jonas was three
days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man
be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
In response, I began to get a few emails that attempted to solve the riddle. I replied to them cordially with refutation of their arguments and never heard from them again. Except for one particular fellow named Ed, who decided to continue the conversation, which I now present here, starting with Ed's original email to me. -----Original Message-----
From: Ed (last name removed upon request, as he wishes to be anonymous, probably from embarrassment) Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 6:50 PM To: buckcash@buckcash.com Subject: Matt 12:40 "I. The Jewish writers extend that memorable station of
the unmoving sun, at Joshua's prayer, to six and thirty hours; for so
Kimchi upon that place: 'According to more exact interpretation, the
sun and moon stood still for six and thirty hours: for when the fight
was on the eve of the Sabbath, Joshua feared lest the Israelites might
break the Sabbath; therefore he spread abroad his hands, that the sun
might stand still on the sixth day, according to the measure of the
day of the Sabbath, and the moon according to the measure of the night
of the Sabbath, and of the going out of the Sabbath, which amounts to
six and thirty hours.' "II. If you number the hours that pass from our Saviour's
giving up the ghost upon the cross to his resurrection, you shall find
almost the same number of hours; and yet that space is called by him
three days and three nights, whereas two nights only came between, and
one complete day. Nevertheless, while he speaks these words, he is not
without the consent both of the Jewish schools and their computation.
Weigh well that which is disputed in the tract Scabbath, concerning
the separation of a woman for three days; where many things are discussed
by the Gemarists, concerning the computation of this space of three
days. Among other things these words occur: R. Ismael saith, Sometimes
it contains four 'ownowt, sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much
is the space of an 'ownaah? R. Jochanan saith, Either a day or a night.
And so also the Jerusalem Talmud: 'R. Akiba fixed a DAY for an onah,
and a NIGHT for an ouch.' But the tradition is, that R. Eliazar ben
Azariah said, A day and a night make an ouch: and a PART of an onah
is as the WHOLE. And a little after, R. Ismael computed a part of the
onah for the whole." Thus, then, three days and three nights, according
to this Jewish method of reckoning, included any part of the first day;
the whole of the following night; the next day and its night; and any
part of the succeeding or third day. [In the whale's belly] That a fish of the shark kind, and not
a whale, is here meant, Bochart has abundantly proved, vol. 3 col. 742,
etc., edit. Leyd. 1692. It is well known that the throat of a whale
is capable of admitting little more than the arm of an ordinary man;
but many of the shark species can swallow a man whole, and men have
been found whole in the stomachs of several. Every natural history abounds
with facts of this kind. Besides, the shark is a native of the Mediterranean
Sea, in which Jonah was sailing when swallowed by what the Hebrew terms
daag (OT:1709) gadowl (OT:1419), a great fish; but every body knows
that whales are no produce of the Mediterranean Sea, though some have
been by accident found there, as in most other parts of the maritime
world; but, let them be found where they may, there is none of them
capable of swallowing a man. Instead of either whale or shark, some
have translated daag (OT:1709) gadowl (OT:1419), Jonah 1:17, by a fishing
cove, or something of this nature; but this is merely to get rid of
the miracle: for, according to some, the whole of divine revelation
is a forgery-or it is a system of metaphor or allegory, that has no
miraculous interferences in it. But, independently of all this, the
criticism is contemptible. Others say, that the great fish means a vessel
so called, into which Jonah went, and into the hold of which he was
thrown, where he continued three days and three nights. In short, it
must be anything but a real miracle, the existence of which the wise
men, so called, of the present day, cannot admit. Perhaps these very
men are not aware that they have scarcely any belief even in the existence
of God himself!
From: Buckster
To: Ed
Sent: Thursday,
August 08, 2002 7:20 PM
Subject: RE:
Thank
you for the lengthy explanation that 1+1=3 in the bible.
I'm
sorry, but you may cite a thousand apologetics of a thousand words each
for a thousand years to me, but I doubt I will ever reckon along with
you that 1+1=3.
All the best to you,
Buck
From: Ed Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 8:03 AM To: Buckster Subject: Re: RE: SInce your attacks against
the credibility of the bible imply that you are actually qualified to
make such judgements, would you be so kind as to tell me where you studied
the languages of scripture and exactly how many hours you have garnered.
Also, I would be interested
in your credentials in terms of Jewish history and culture as well as
ancient history of New Testament times.
You see, it is impossible
for you to make legitimate criticism of the scripture without at least a
graduate level education (gained formally or informally) of the subject
at hand. Your criticism is not actually a criticism of the NT scripture.
It is an assault on a particular version of a copy of a copy of a
manuscript which is a copy of an actual autograph, (BTW, do you
know what an autograph is?). For those of us who are use to debating
'scholars' on these issues, certain arguements do NOT surface. So, when
I see a particular argument, such as yours, I immediately recognize
that I am not dealing with someone who is sincerely investigating evidence,
but rather, a determined critic, who, in spite of the best evidence
will find a reason not to believe.
Here is the sumation
of the argument. Based on the amount and credibility of the evidence
that we have before us today, is it reasonable to believe that Christian
Theism is true or that Atheism is true. We begin with arguements from
the most fundamental of all scientific laws, "The law of First
Causes." Everything that began MUST have had a cause. Scientific
evidence strongly supports the proposition that the universe and everything
in it had a beginning.
Three choices here.
1. It always was.
Answer: the evidence
says NO. It actually began, at some point, to exist. That is, there
was a time when it did NOT exist. There are several lines of evidence
to support this view alone (Infinite regress, second law of thermodynamics,
etc)
2. It was self-caused
This is absurd. How
can somthing cause itself, IF IT DOES NOT EXIST YET.
3. It must have been
caused by something else.
But what? ot Whom? As
with anything that is built or created, the creation reflects the charactistics
of its creator. Examine creation and we see beauty, design, care, wonder,
etc. So we see a hint of what this Creator must be like, but only a
hint.
Is this first line of
evidence consistent with what athiests and many agnostics believe.
No, it is not. Atheists and agnostics must believe one or two above.
But one and two are both implausible postulations. They are not consistent
with what we know to be true in science.
Notice something, 'Buckster', I have not mentioned the
bible once. You see, I don't need the bible to conclude that it is
reasonable to beleive that there is a God. All I need are science, some
intellectual objectivity, and good ol common sense. This will not aid me
in being saved or born again, but it will prompt me to say, ok, if there
is a God, which one is the true God. Or how many are there. Then you begin
to examine the Christian Worldview to see how consistent it is with
science, history and what we know in our hearts and minds to be true about
reality. You see, you don't have a problem with a God who says, Buckster,
do whatever you want to do and you can still enjoy eternal life. Believe
in me, don't believe in me, love or hate, make love or rape, it does
not matter. You are all going to enjoy eternal life regardless. No, your
problem with Christianity is that Jesus had the nerve to tell you and all
of us how to live. But again, would it not be reasonable for the creator
to tell the thing it created, you are mine and you will do as I wish
or else. And if you do as I say, you will have joy that is
unspeakable, but if not, it is only fair to warn you that the pain will be
unimaginable. We have fair warning, which is really what bothers you guys
anyhow.
Here it is. You condemn
God for sending you to hell for not believing, for whatever reason you
have for not believing. But I would bet, that even YOu would not allow
some people into heaven if you had the chance. Lets say the guy who
raped and murdered you wife, and murdered and ate part of your kid in
a brutal act. I would say, you would make a moral judgement that such
a person would not enter your heaven. Why? Because they are, in your
moral terms, immoral and not deserving. So where is the ciricism of
God justified?
The difference between
True Christians and Atheists is that, at least (godly) christians
live a life that is consistent with their worldview and atheists do
not. Christians are moral because it is logical to be so, given their
views. Atheists have no logical reason to be moral or even think such
a concept should exist. Yet an atheist will claim, without thinking
it through, that if someone should steel something from them, they have
somehow been wronged. They have no logical reason to think such a thing.
Absolute morality has no reasonble place in the life of the atheist,
yet they live as though it does, every day of their life.
I have not referenced
one scripture, and I have only given you one line of evidence in a very
condensed version, and touched upon another one very lightly. I
will promise you this, your answer will be weak, inconsistent, and not
scientifcally or historically supportable. If you are interested in
objectively searching for answers, I am more than willing to discuss
some of your difficulties for not believing. But if you are only
interested in ignoring the evidence, and living your life, your way,
and no matter what, no one will convince you. I will tell you the
truth right now. Many have died, who were just like you. They needlessly
have perished into the belly of hell and today, they don't just believe
that God exists, they know He exists. I implore you to step back, take
a deep breath, and lets talk about why you should re-examine your positon.
Perhaps we can discuss the boundless love of God who would have His
son die for such unworthy creatures as us.
Ed
From Buckster:
Am I to understand that one must have some higher credentials in order to read and understand the Bible? To comprehend God's only literary work to date? To garner the knowledge so essential to "his" children for their everlasting salvation? How
about this? Quite plainly, it can be interpreted any way one
wants and, over the centuries, has, in order to promote war and death
on scales unequivocal to any other cause?
But
in NO WAY can you show me that there is a THIRD NIGHT to be found
between Friday evening and Sunday morning by showing me examples of
other texts that don't show it either. Either Jesus means what
is written or it has not been properly translated or it cannot be
understood by any common person, leaving the interpretations
to men who CLAIM knowledge and power over other, lesser men who cannot
understand it.
If
it came from a god as a text for the salvation of the common man,
certainly a GOD would have provided a way for the common man to understand
it.
I
have studied the Bible for some 40 years in churches, schools and
on my own. I have read it many times, as well as it's history
from many sources. While I do not fluently speak, read or write
ancient Greek or Hebrew, I have read much by those that do.
This much I understand: It does not make sense on any level, unless
one applies a wholly biased view of it as a text that has no errors
going into it, then thinks up ways to get around the obvious inconsistencies
a cursory or thorough examination reveals. This practice is
called apologetics, and contains a hundred times more text that tries
to explain away all of it than the original text of the bible uses
to supposedly reveal the nature of God to us.
If
it could be discerned with any certainty, there wouldn't be over 2000
sects of Christianity today, all claiming to have properly discerned
what that book says, and all disagreeing with each other over it at
the same time. For you to be yet another in a long list who
claims this ability to understand it better than other men shows that
you are just one more in the list, nothing more.
You
may continue to defend it at your leisure, but you should be aware
that it is probably a waste of your time.
I
wish you and yours all the best,
Buck
Immediately after I sent this response to Ed's unexpected first reply, I decided I should do a more thorough job in my standard format of addressing each question, statement and claim one at a time immediately as they are presented to me. I continue that format from here on out. My remarks are written in a different color, just as they were formatted for Ed's benefit in making it easier to follow who's saying what. Ed's text is in
dark blue or dark blue bold,
while mine is in light blue or
light blue bolded. |