Faith and Reason: Disturbing Christian Doctrines

By Carmel Paul Attard

As a Christian you might have asked yourself questions like:

How could a benevolent God, “our Father,” punish anyone in fire eternally?
How could billions of non-members of my church all be going to hell?
How can there be three “Gods” in one God?
How can Jesus be both human and divine?
Why is the “kingdom of God” in heaven, but we pray for it to “come on earth”?
Why is the Bible infallible when it’s littered with textual contradictions?
The talking serpent clearly relegates Adam and Eve’s story to the realm of tales.
Since they never existed, how could they have committed original sin?
So how could we inherit it? And what did Jesus need to redeem us from?
It’s been almost two thousand years: will Jesus ever come back to earth?
How can Jesus be inside the Eucharist?

Faith and Reason shows why and how we’ve come to believe such oddities.
“The truth will set you free!” John 8:32 (NIV)

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Dec 28, 2020
• ISBN: 9781663210944

Carmel Paul Attard

Carmel Paul Attard, a Bible enthusiast, ex-Jesuit of more than six years, bachelor in physics and mathematics, and third-time author just retired from an engineering and manufacturing carreer. He and his wife of forty-eight years, Mary, have three children and three grandchildren and live in Brampton, Ontario, Canada.

Book preview

Copyright © 2020 Carmel Paul Attard.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the author except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

844-349-9409

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

ISBN: 978-1-6632-1093-7 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-6632-1094-4 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2020919985

iUniverse rev. date:   12/23/2020

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. [Biblica]

Scripture quoted by permission. Quotations designated (NET) are from The NET Bible® Copyright © 2005 by Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C. www.bible.org All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked RSV are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, 1971 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Used by permission.

Scripture quotations marked KJV are from the Holy Bible, King James Version (Authorized Version). First published in 1611. Quoted from the KJV Classic Reference Bible, Copyright © 1983 by The Zondervan Corporation.

Scripture quotations marked ESV are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®). Copyright ©2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NLT are taken from the Holy Bible, New Living Translation, copyright © 1996, 2004, 2007. Used by permission of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Carol Stream, Illinois 60188. All rights reserved. Website

Scripture quotations marked GNT are taken from the Good News Translation — Second Edition. Copyright © 1992 by American Bible Society. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NKJV are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked AMP are from The Amplified Bible, Old Testament copyright © 1965, 1987 by the Zondervan Corporation. The Amplified Bible, New Testament copyright © 1954, 1958, 1987 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

To my extended family

Anthony and Gazelle, and

Catalina the newcomer

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Preface

Introduction

Chapter 1     The Bible

Chapter 2     Bible Contradictions

Chapter 3     Bible Prophecies

Chapter 4     Original Sin

Chapter 5     Creation

Chapter 6     Hell

Chapter 7     The Eucharist

Chapter 8     Confession

Chapter 9     Prayer

Chapter 10   The Trinity

Chapter 11   Sex

Chapter 12   God’s Nature

Conclusion

About the Author

Appendix A:   Roman Catholic Bible Books

Appendix B:   Science in the Bible

Appendix C:   Christian Denominations

Appendix D:   Christian Doctrines

Appendix E:   Trinitarian Heresies

Bibliography

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As in my previous books, I feel extremely indebted to my wife for patiently tolerating my countless hours of writing this book.

I would also like to thank, in a special manner, my ex-work-colleague and well-versed, close friend, Veton Visoka, for his invaluable constructive criticism and feedback, not to mention his unfailing encouragement.

PREFACE

In an 1822 letter to theologian James Smith, American founding father, third president of the United States of America, and principal author of its Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, wrote,

Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without a rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck. ¹

This book was mainly inspired by the above quote. To put it simply, in my opinion, faith should be based on reason and evidence. I know it sounds like a contradiction in terms; however, it does make a lot of sense as I shall show throughout this book.

Do you really think, for example, that Jesus’s disciples would have followed him had they not witnessed any marvels from him? Or, do you really think that Christianity would have taken root if Jesus’s followers did not, somehow, really believe that they saw him alive again after he was crucified? So, they had reason and evidence for their faith. Whether or not they had enough reason or evidence to persuade outsiders is another question; they strongly believed it was what actually happened: they were convinced it was the truth—at least as far as they knew.

On the other hand, however, the reason for our faith is the testimony of these first contemporaneous witnesses of Jesus on earth; there is nothing wrong with this: provided, of course, their testimony is indeed credible. If what one is told comes from a reliable person or source, there is nothing wrong in believing it; in fact one should believe it: to expect to have the source’s same experiences may lead to unreasonable skepticism. Over time, however, historical facts are often distorted to suit one’s agendas; they are exaggerated or even mythologized. So, is our faith still significantly linked to what actually happened and the original teachings of Jesus, or have we deviated significantly from them?

This book started as a personal, educational research for the sources of the Roman Catholic Church’s beliefs and teachings. When I first started my research, I believed in all the doctrines of Roman Catholicism, including the infallibility of the Bible, its dogmas (mandatory beliefs), and its popes: indeed, I used to be a Jesuit for more than six years. As it turned out, however, I had to change my mind, unfortunately, in order to hold on to my reason and reconcile myself with the evidence staring at me. There is a strong message to be taken when someone starts biased in one direction and, on researching things, is swayed in the opposite direction.

Everyone has biases and agendas, and I do not claim to have none; however in this book, I shall try to set them all aside (as far as is humanly possible), keep an open mind, and let the dice fall whichever way they will: I honestly see no point in trying to shove my opinion down someone else’s throat. I shall present the evidence as I see it, and I shall call a spade a spade. Whenever I do not know or even doubt the answer to a question, I shall give the alternatives and let the reader make up one’s own mind. I shall try my utmost to keep my words soft and sweet: one never knows when one has to eat them. It is possible that the reader will end up with more questions than answers after reading this book; however, anyone who has delved into answering questions about truth, faith, and the afterlife knows that this is quite often the case.

All my life I had these nagging questions about God, our faith, and the afterlife. They were aggravated by inconsistencies and contradictions in both the Bible and Christian doctrine. I thought a lot about them, for many decades, and I still do not have all the answers. However, at the setting of my life, before my logic fails me and it is too late, I decided to write down what I think I learnt so far for posterity’s sake; I thought it would be a shame to take it with me to my grave: sharing it with whoever cares is much more appealing to me.

I am a scientist with an avid interest in religious matters; some people may wonder how one can be interested in both science and religion. Given the fact that science deals primarily with physical reality while God, the soul, the afterlife, and so on are presumably non-physical concepts, it is not instinctual to connect or reconcile the two disciplines. In fact, toward the end of the twentieth century, the two fields of science and religion were kept separate: the term used was non-overlapping magisteria or NOMA: which roughly states that neither side can prove or disprove anything about the other, and that they do not overlap. This was, I surmise, a reluctant agreement on the part of scientists in (prudent) consideration of the fact that research funding would have been withheld by the church, which was probably the main source of funding for many institutions of learning back then; naturally, the church felt that scientists were biting the hand that feeds them.

However, I do not think that NOMA is the right way of reasoning; I believe science and religion do overlap—and in many places. For example, I believe that whether God exists or not is a scientific question because it boils down to knowledge about reality. So, a thorough search for the truth and the reality out there has to include both science and religion, and they both have to converge to the same truth; in case of a total conflict, one of them must be wrong. In other words, if science says that God does not exist and religion says he does, then either science or religion must be wrong—never mind what NOMA says. This concept is what made me write a scientific book on the existence of God; originally, I intended it to be just one chapter of this book, but I discovered that there was too much information concerning God and science to explain clearly in one chapter: so, I ended up writing a whole book. ² I decided to write that book before this one because I realized the former was of a more basic and universal interest.

How can science give an opinion about immaterial things if it only deals with the physical world? The answer is by inference. For the longest time, for example, we could not see atoms, but their existence was inferred from the phenomena we observed. When we see a written book, we infer it was written by an author—an intelligence. Similarly, when we observe the improbability of our universe coming into existence by chance alone and the intelligence in the living cell, we infer an intelligent Author.

This book discusses beliefs and teachings of Roman Catholicism, which most Christian denominations agree with (see appendix D): examining and often challenging the credibility of their sources. It is probably of interest to most Christians but primarily Catholics: it critiques, rationally and scientifically, the inconsistencies and contradictions in Christian doctrine and Holy Scripture (the Bible), which is considered the root of Christian doctrine. Again originally, I only intended to write a single chapter on the Bible here, but I was sidetracked from my original undertaking because there was too much to say regarding the Bible’s infallibility or otherwise; so, I ended up writing another book. ³ If nothing else, in this book (as in my previous books) I try to be consistent in my conclusions; however, I repeat, I do not have answers to everything—especially regarding the afterlife.

In this book I do not address the dark history of Christianity or of the Catholic Church, like the crusades and the Inquisition. Nor does it address the current scandalous, pedophilic behavior of some Catholic priests, because these do not constitute the church’s directions; they are incidentals: some members of any institution are not going to measure up from time to time. It is mainly concerned with the beliefs and teachings, the doctrine, of the church.

For clarity’s sake, whenever I write about God I shall only be referring to God the Father (not to the Trinity) of the Christian religion, who, presumably, is also the Jewish and Islamic God. I must apologize beforehand to my readers of other religions here; I have to admit that my knowledge of other world religions, outside Christianity and possibly Judaism, is very limited; I can only hope that my arguments about God, at least, make sense also to these readers. Moreover, this book basically addresses only the Christian and Jewish Holy Scriptures: namely, the Bible—including the New Testament.

I shall often explain concepts, ideas, and reasons by means of a parable, a short story or scenario with a moral lesson behind it, in imitation of that great teacher, Jesus Christ, as he is portrayed in the Gospels. My teaching experience has taught me that abstract notions, especially, are best understood this way.

Many times, over the centuries, science has revised and even reversed its hypotheses; being a scientist at heart, I shall adhere to these scientific practices. I have drastically changed my opinions over the years, and I shall continue keeping an open mind this way. Please do not be surprised if, in the future, I change my current views; I shall keep following the truth, wherever it leads me until I die. Consequently, I present the evidence as it appears today.

The conclusions in this book may be termed dangerous by some so-called religious people; however, I assure the reader that they are consistent with reason and current scientific knowledge. I hope you will enjoy reading this book as much as I have enjoyed writing it, but if you completely disagree with me, let us simply agree to disagree—no hard feelings!

INTRODUCTION

In the preface, we came across a quote from one of the letters of the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, stating that faith divorced from reason is like a ship without a rudder: ⁴ the victim of every wind or whim. It usually leads to superstition, prejudice, and fanaticism that often end up in faith-based violence in defense of one’s unreasonable beliefs. Consequently, I believe faith must be based on reason. I know it sounds like a contradiction in terms, but it does make perfect sense, as I hope I shall demonstrate effectively in the course of this book.

The object of this book is to suggest a realignment of Christianity, particularly Roman Catholicism (which I use as a template for the doctrines of most Christian denominations), to reason, scientific evidence, and first principles as originally taught by Jesus Christ: minimizing the divergences that occurred over the time of its existence.

Generally, distortion of facts and inculcation of the party line are both enemies of the truth. For example, it is common knowledge that Ignatius of Loyola (in modern Spain), the founder of the revered Society of Jesus (the Jesuits) nonetheless, in his Spiritual Exercises instructed the members of his religious order,

We must hold fast to the following principle: what seems to me white, I will believe to be black if the hierarchical Church so defines. ⁵

Undoubtedly, this is a classic case of a party line.

Now, I have great admiration for the Jesuits: I myself was a Jesuit for over six years, and I owe them my entire education from primary school through high school to university. I feel I am biting the hand that fed me in pointing this out, but I must say that what Ignatius teaches here is wrong. It is equivalent to living a lie; it is reminiscent of the time when the church burnt heretics (people who thought differently) at the stake. While it might seem good for the unity of the church, it does not say much for honestly searching for the truth. It may have been all right in the Middle Ages, but it simply boils down to brainwashing nowadays. I think this is something modern Jesuits should have the good sense to review and consider changing; even though obedience to the pope happens to be part of their constitution.

Why do I think this is wrong? By inference, for Ignatius to be right, the Roman Catholic Church must have a monopoly on the truth: it must be infallible. However, it is not enough that it usurps that power by declaring itself infallible; only God can (in theory) somehow declare such a thing clearly and unequivocally to all of humanity. In fact, all the Protestant Churches, as well as the Orthodox Church, disagree strongly. Moreover, we (all of us followers) constitute the church, and we can all go wrong. Furthermore, history tells us that even the popes and the church hierarchy including our first leader, Peter, went wrong (as we shall see presently). For example, there was a period in the church’s history in which popes, together with the church hierarchy, thought that the end justifies the means. They embarked on killing people of other religions in the crusades, forcing non-believers to convert to Christianity or else be killed, and burning books including their authors for not conforming to the church’s teachings: so much for the so claimed unerring guidance of the church by the Holy Spirit!

In his book Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit, Catholic Church historian Garry Wills writes that the papacy went through several phases of condoned corruption: avarice in the Middle Ages, earthly power in the Renaissance, and nepotism combined with open sexual misconduct in the tenth century. (I draw extensively from Wills’s Papal Sin throughout this book.) Thankfully, the church has moved away from all of these scandals, ⁶ but nowadays it has fallen into another error: namely, deceit. Wills writes,

It is time to free Catholics, lay as well as clerical, from the pressures of deceit that are our quiet modern form of papal sin. ⁷

Notice especially the subtitle of Wills’s book: Structures of Deceit—that is, papal structures of deceit. Regrettably, the Catholic Church has become a whitewashed tomb: ⁸ it looks good from the outside but its doctrine is all cobwebs and its conduct deceitful—it is rotten inside. This also holds true, more or less, with most other Christian denominations because basically they all subscribe to most of its doctrines—see appendix D. Whatever happened to the truth will set you free? ⁹ Christ’s church should look for the truth no matter what: its founder declared, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. ¹⁰ I just hope that, with God’s help, we shall also overcome this cancer that plagues us nowadays. (Incidentally these two verses were the basic inspiration for my writing this book: I believe Jesus is God’s living truth, revealed to us in earth’s history.)

It took me many years, decades, to realize that the Catholic Church is not a truth factory. Just because the church makes a certain belief a dogma of the faith, thus obliging all of its followers to believe it or to be excommunicated, it does not necessarily make it true. A lie that everyone believes is still a lie. Assuming the assistance of the Holy Spirit and declaring that he absolutely cannot allow the church of Christ to err in important matters is a gross presumption and the epitome of ignorance of how God works: namely, leaving us free to make our own decisions, and thereby enjoy the fruits or deal with the consequences of those decisions.

The specific Roman Catholic dogma that bothered me most and triggered my questioning the truth of dogmas was the church’s declaration that: Outside the Church there is no salvation. ¹¹ Currently the world’s population is about 7.8 billion people, of which only about 1.3 billion are Roman Catholic. So, according to this Catholic dogma, the majority of humanity, at least 6.5 billion people, is going to burn in hell for all eternity. Moreover, this is the best scenario: that is, assuming that all Catholics will go to heaven when they die—which is unlikely. The Orthodox Church agrees with this statement of the Church Fathers as well.

Most Protestant Churches (especially the historic ones) ¹² agree with this concept, to some extent at least: they all preach that belief in Jesus Christ is absolutely necessary for salvation anyway. So, even if we assume that the only requirement for salvation is belief in Jesus Christ, as most Christian denominations believe, the scenario is almost just as bad. There are only about 2.4 billion Christians worldwide: so that leaves some 5.4 billion who will be going to hell when they die. If this be the case then, a priori, the devil (or evil) would have defeated God (or good), hands down, throughout all the ages (so far at least) no matter how one tries to present or smokescreen the bottom line: numbers do not lie.

According to this doctrine, innocent unbaptized babies and aborted fetuses are going to hell, too, because they have failed to enter under the umbrella of the church. Interestingly, most other religions, including many Christian denominations, have similar beliefs condemning us Catholics to hell for eternity—what an ironic situation. Religions are so divisive; yet they preach love of neighbor: what inconsistency of action and doctrine.

Incidentally, why are babies born in original sin? Which judge in the whole world would convict a newly born child simply because its parent was a criminal? What kind of justice is that? Would you say this qualifies as divine justice, for crying out loud?

The next church teaching that disturbed me most is the Christian concept of hell, which is usually described as an enormous pit of fire. There, right after their death, all the damned souls are punished for their unrepented sins by suffering the physical pain of being burnt alive in fire (without being minimally consumed by it) for all eternity: not for a while, but for all eternity—unendingly.

Meanwhile, in the Apostles’ Creed, which is probably the oldest summary of what the original followers of Jesus believed in, Christians profess:

I believe … in Jesus Christ … who … was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day He rose again from the dead. ¹³

So Jesus, supposedly, suffered in the fires of hell for three days; thereby (I surmise) suffering much more than his entire crucifixion ordeal; or maybe he was insulated somehow? No wonder he cut the three days short to about one and a half days. Moreover, the damned are supposed to suffer physical pain (not just mental anguish) right after their death. At the same time, we know for a fact that their physical body remains behind, in the grave, until it decomposes, and long (centuries) after that. Now, how is it possible for a spirit to suffer physical pain without a physical body?

The Catholic Church, like probably all Christians, also teaches that Holy Scripture (the Bible) is infallible (or inerrant) because, it argues (or rather assumes without proof), its writers were inspired by God himself what to write: therefore, it believes that, indirectly, the Bible is the Word of God. Consequently, the church believes, most dogmas have, supposedly, been revealed in the Bible text. That would be great, to have such a divine book for reference. Unfortunately, however, as I have shown beyond any reasonable doubt in my book Is the Bible Infallible?, ¹⁴ this is just wishful thinking.

As I shall again show clearly in this book, the contradictions in the Bible text itself preclude its being written by God: God, by definition of a perfect being, does not contradict himself. Of course the church gives strained explanations as to what it calls apparent contradictions, but they are far from convincing; the simple truth is that the Bible contains many contradictions, contradictions that cannot be reconciled and so both versions cannot be right: one of the contradicting versions must be wrong—if not both. Moreover, I shall also show clearly that there is serious doubt as to whether there are any prophecies in the Bible. Furthermore, one might also point out here, that the violence allegedly instigated by God himself (especially in some Old Testament passages) as well as by Jesus himself (in the New Testament book of Revelation) go directly against the grain of Jesus’s absolutely-non-violent character and teaching as portrayed in the Gospels. Presumably, Jesus’s character is identical to his Father’s—God’s.

Christianity also believes that Jesus died on the cross to redeem us from original sin—the sin allegedly committed by our so-called first parents, Adam and Eve. However, the story of Adam and Eve is a myth based on a prior Sumerian myth—the Epic Poem of Gilgamesh—which was written (engraved) on clay tablets about a thousand years before the Bible’s first book of Genesis was written. One can also see clearly that Adam and Eve’s story is only a parable: a talking serpent is only found in fables, no? So, in reality, original sin never happened; consequently, there was no original sin for Jesus to redeem us from.

Another extremely baffling Roman Catholic dogma, which is diametrically opposed to reason, and with which unfortunately most Christian denominations also agree, is the so-called mystery of the Trinity: which roughly states that three equal full-fledged ‘Gods’ constitute only one God—like Siamese twins (triplets rather) I surmise. It also begs the question whether Jesus is God, a man, or both? A frog cannot also be a stone at the same time; and the difference between God (who is infinite) and man is much greater than the difference between a frog and a stone.

A classic case of blind faith, which goes totally against all tangible physical evidence, is the so-called real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (or Holy Communion). Strangely enough, apart from the Calvinists, most Christian denominations (including Anglicans and Lutherans) believe this too in some way or another. I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would have said to this.

A question resulting directly from biblical texts is: assuming Our Lady (Jesus’s mother, Mary) was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, through her impregnation by the Holy Spirit, both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, but not the Protestant Churches (except for Anglo-Catholics and some Lutheran Churches) claim that she remained a virgin. ¹⁵ If so, how is it that, according to two gospel accounts, Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters? ¹⁶ Somewhat related is the question of why sex is such a taboo in the Roman Catholicism and throughout Christianity? Any species would vanish without reproduction. Moreover, why are there no venial (minor) sins in Catholicism when it comes to sex? Every other kind of sin can be grave or trivial.

Again, why are women treated as sub-members of the Catholic Church, when we know (as is clearly shown in our earliest Christian writings—the apostle Paul’s undisputedly authentic letters) that in his lifetime, Jesus did indeed elevate them to equality with men, and that they actually had prominent roles in his ministry? Why this distortion of Jesus’s original principles?

Furthermore, if God knows the future absolutely, how is one supposed to change one’s lot in achieving one’s salvation? How does this concept jibe with free will? It basically gravitates to predestination, as indeed Calvinism professes. And if God knows that one is going to end up in hell, why does he go ahead and allow that person to come to existence anyway?

Finally, and (in my opinion) most importantly, is God a Father, as Jesus taught us, capable only of unconditional love; or is he the inflexible Judge portrayed by the church in later centuries? Is God capable of punishing someone in the fires of hell for all eternity, even for a single unrepented mortal (grave) sin? How can fickle creatures like us really love such a rigid, unrelenting being? The church has distanced God from us; it did exactly the opposite of what Jesus tried to achieve in his lifetime. Jesus became the lowest of the low when he was crucified, so that no one would shy away from him and his Father—who are presumably very much alike. Is God (whom we cannot see) like his son (whom we were able to experience) or not?

All these inconsistencies and contradictions bothered me for the longest time; they do not bother me so much any longer, because I think they are simply wrong: as I already mentioned, the church is not a truth factory. This book shows clearly why they are false doctrines.

Unfortunately, however, as Catholic historian, politician, and writer Lord Acton once wrote, referring to the papacy, Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. ¹⁷ This is how the church of Christ behaved when it became the religion of the state in the Roman Empire, which was spread all over the known (western) world—roughly all around the Mediterranean Sea. It forced everyone to adopt its (sometimes erroneous) doctrines or be killed. So, some people with different strong beliefs had to run for cover and hide themselves and what they considered sacred or inspired books. This is why, I suppose, the Dead Sea Scrolls were found hidden in caves.

Similar to what the scientific community does from time to time, I suggest it is high time for the Catholic Church to revise its dogmas (just as I suggested above that the Jesuits revise their constitution). The same thing applies to Christianity across the board since the majority of denominations agree with most doctrines of the Catholic Church. There is no shame in admitting that one was wrong. How much more wrong can one be than to think that the earth was flat whereas it was actually round (spherical, rather); or to misinterpret the orbiting of the earth around the sun as a rotation of the sun around the earth? Yet the scientific community admitted such things, and science, unlike the church, still enjoys the best of reputations.

Spanish philosopher Lucius Seneca (1–65 CE) is credited to having once said, To err is human; to persist in it, is diabolical, ¹⁸ which later became a Roman proverb. We had a sliver of hope of progressive change in the Catholic Church in the 1960s with the Second Vatican Council; that is, until the late Pope John Paul II decided to withdraw, single-handedly, everything it tried to achieve—never mind what an entire ecumenical council of experts thought. For this, astonishingly, he was made a saint on the super-fast track. To add to the confusion in the church he was made a saint together (on the same day) with his predecessor Pope John XXIII who initiated the said Second Vatican Council. It is glaringly obvious that the church was trying to gratify both types of believers, the conservatives and the progressives, thus throwing serious misgivings on sainthood. Truly a pitiful way of trying to hold on to a dwindling number of members! The hierarchical church is supposed to lead us; not to campaign for our votes.

In this book I recommend a reevaluation of the above teachings, not because I have a grudge or contempt for the church (or the Jesuits for that matter); on the contrary, it is because I care about it (and about the Jesuits). I disagree with the church on a number of doctrines, but I do not want to leave the church of Christ or form my own church.

As a parallel example, to make my point, I would like to mention here that in the early church, the apostle Paul disagreed with Peter, the apostles’ leader, regarding the latter’s obliging gentiles (non-Jews) who converted to Christianity to observe the Jewish laws (particularly circumcision). Paul confronted Peter even though the latter was the Christians’ leader, and, besides, Paul was a newcomer to the faith. ¹⁹ Obviously, Paul had no intention of undermining or leaving the church of Christ: he just wanted to steer it in the right direction.

When one disagrees with certain laws or political views of the country one belongs to or lives in, it does not mean that one prefers or wants to go to another country: it only means that one would like to improve one’s country. It means one cares for one’s country; if one did not care, one would probably say nothing: that is what freedom of speech is all about. One can love one’s mother, but at the same time one might be aware of her faults: it does not mean that one would like to replace one’s mother.

So, to some people, this book might look like an attack on the church, but it is not. Some people might object, for example, to my not mentioning the fact that the church does a lot of humanitarian good to our societies, probably more than any other institution, except governments, perhaps. I do not mention or elaborate on any of this since this book is only concerned with teachings and beliefs—the doctrine or faith of the church. Likewise, neither do I discuss things like the sexual abuse scandals committed by priests because it is not intentionally condoned by the church. Why? Simply because these are not matters of faith and are therefore beyond the scope of this book.

This book might also be labelled as dangerous teaching by some. I suggest, therefore, that the reader should pause here and question oneself whether one should settle for blind faith or base one’s faith on reason. If the answer is yes to blind faith, then this book is probably not for such a reader. However, if deep down in one’s heart, the reader feels that I might be right in some of what I said in this introduction and in the preface, then the rest of this book might help one answer some of one’s own nagging questions. I spent a lifetime reading all sorts of books trying to do this, and I am giving it to the reader on a silver platter.

Also remember, nobody can dispute that God is always on the side of truth. This book aims at discovering the truth: it points out disturbing doctrines in Christianity, but it also gives reasons. Hopefully, if this book is heeded and doctrines are amended, it will save our church from extinction.

I am not a biblical scholar, theologian, or historian: I am a bible enthusiast, and this book is for lay people who are curious enough about religion and the Bible. So, I rely on quotes by experts in these fields; consequently, most of my textual statements are footnoted for endorsement purposes.

Throughout this book, I quote the Bible mainly from the Challoner-revised Douay-Rheims translation, which is an English translation from the Latin Vulgate. Admittedly this is not the ideal situation since in his encyclical (universal letter) Divino Afflante Spiritu, Pope Pius XII stressed the importance of Bible translations being made directly from their original languages. ²⁰ However, I do refer to other more authentic and modern translations when deemed necessary. Unfortunately, I must do this since I require extensive biblical quotes for the reader to appreciate the Bible’s authentic point of view in question by reading the biblical text itself. My main reason for my using the Challoner-revised Douay-Rheims translation is to avoid the possibility of copyright infringement: it is a Catholic translation that is no longer copyright-protected.

12996.png

CHAPTER 1

THE BIBLE

The Roman Catholic Holy Scripture, otherwise known as the Bible, consists of a collection of seventy-three so-called books, some of which are just short letters: forty-six of them were written before the time of Jesus and constitute the Old Testament, and the other twenty-seven were written after the time of Jesus and constitute the New Testament. (See appendix A.) The word ‘Bible’ comes from the Greek word biblia meaning ‘books’—the singular is biblion. The main issue I would like to address in this and the next few chapters is the credibility and reliability of the Bible.

Christianity claims that the Bible is infallible (or inerrant) because, it contends, the writers were inspired what to write by God himself—through the Holy Spirit: and God, being perfect, cannot be imagined to deceive us; consequently, every single verse in the Bible is considered infallible. As mentioned in both the preface and the introduction, the Catholic Church (as well as all of Christianity) also claims that most of its doctrines are rooted in some verse or other taken from the Bible. In his 1965 encyclical, Dei Verbum (Latin for ‘Word of God’), Pope Paul VI wrote,

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. For holy mother Church, relying on the belief of the Apostles (see John 20:31; 2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Peter 1:19-20, 3:15-16), holds that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. ²¹

Let us therefore examine the evidence for the Bible’s infallibility and decide whether this is a valid claim or not. Since I wrote a whole book on this subject, ²² I am not going to rewrite it here. In the next couple of chapters, I shall confine myself to discussing only those items that are normally considered to be the litmus tests for the Bible’s infallibility.

The most straightforward litmus test for the Bible’s infallibility is whether there are any contradictions in its own texts. If there be a single irreconcilable contradiction in the Bible text itself, then both versions cannot be right: one of them must be wrong—if not both. If this be the case, then the Bible must be deemed fallible: that is, of human rather than of divine origin since God, being perfect, cannot be imagined to err.

The second litmus test is prophecies in the biblical text: most, if not all, Bible believers appeal to prophecies in favor of the Bible’s infallibility. Presumably, only God knows the future; so, if there truly be prophecies in the Bible, it must be an indication that God had something to do with it. However, it is much harder to prove infallibility in this case because it is not enough to prove that one prophecy came true, but one must prove that all prophecies in the Bible text have indeed transpired. This would take volumes of research, of course. On the other hand, however, if one can actually prove that one prophecy did not transpire, again it topples the whole edifice of the Bible’s infallibility.

Moreover, it is very hard to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, when a specific biblical text was actually written or whether it was tempered with by later sub-authors—as is known to have been quite common in antiquity. Of course, if written or tweaked after the supposed prophecy took place, it nullifies the claim. Naturally, the onus to prove all of this rests on the Bible believer. Before we embark on this investigation of the Bible, it is worth knowing some basic facts about the Bible books.

Authorship

For starters, it might come as a complete surprise to the reader that, unfortunately, we do not really know who most of the authors of the various books of the Bible were. The Bible books were, traditionally, attributed to forty-odd authors, but we only know who one of these authors really was, Saul/Paul of Tarsus (better known as Saint Paul), whose undisputedly authentic writings cover only about 3% of the Protestant Bible. (In the first-century-CE Roman Empire, it was customary for Jews to have both a Jewish and a Latin name, especially if one was also a Roman citizen like Paul—similarly Simon/Peter, the apostles’ leader.)

Furthermore, over time, many things happened to the Bible that might undermine one’s confidence in its accuracy and authenticity. According to the New American Bible, it took about 1,300 years to write the entire Bible. ²³ It explains that there were many more biblical authors than the traditional forty-odd because some of the books were written by several authors.

For example, it adds, Psalms could not have been written by only one person because it took about a thousand years to write it. ²⁴ Some books, like those of Isaiah and Zechariah, are, in fact, collections from various individuals who lived at different times and circumstances. ²⁵ The authors of Deuteronomy repeatedly rearranged and tweaked prior writings to better fit their then-prevalent philosophy or doctrine that might have changed, slightly or significantly, over time. ²⁶

Moreover, between 500 CE and 1000 CE, the Jewish rabbis produced what is known as the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible (i.e., the Old Testament). Oddly enough, the original Hebrew Bible was written only in consonants: it had no vowels; reading it for the first time, especially, must have been quite a chore. In the Masoretic Text the Jewish rabbis added the appropriate vowels to it; after completing the task, they did their very best to destroy all previous consonant-only manuscripts to avoid uncertainties. A modern historian would, no doubt, look at something like this with a raised eyebrow; however, luckily, later manuscript discoveries of the original consonant-only text showed that the Masoretic Text is substantially faithful to the original text and therefore reliable enough. ²⁷

Undoubtedly, having no original manuscripts, coupled with messy additions and alterations of the original text, and not knowing who the real authors were, casts serious doubt on the authenticity and reliability of the Bible. Nowadays, if one reads something doubtful or controversial, the first thing one does is look for the credentials of the author. If the literature is anonymous, one would probably simply dump it; but, unfortunately, this is all we have: so, we must make the best use of them.

Dating

Some of the Bible books were not actually written when their internal text claims they had been written. Other books were written posthumously to their claimed author—like several Pauline letters.

Bible-inerrancy believers will probably reject such hypotheses as preposterous. They might even ask, How can one tell when a given book, chapter, tract, passage, or verse was written if not dated? Biblical scholars tell us that one can, most of the time, tell roughly when a given text was written from the grammar, certain words that were later discarded, and new words borrowed from other languages (e.g., Aramaic, Persian, or Greek) and adopted in different eras into the Hebrew language—the language of the Old Testament. The Hebrew language kept evolving over many centuries: ²⁸ giving us a virtual time scale. To some extent, this phenomenon indeed happens in every language.

Occasionally, anachronisms tell us, indirectly, when a book was written. For example, at times, we may encounter references to nations or empires that did not yet exist at the alleged time of writing the Bible book in question: meaning it was written or modified later.

At other times, the writing style reveals the approximate time a given Bible book was written. For example, the visions in Daniel, which, according to its text, took place between 598 BCE and 538 BCE, while the Jews were exiled in Babylon, were, in fact, written about four centuries later around 165 BCE. ²⁹ The hero, Daniel, claims, in the book’s text, that he was one of the first Jewish captives to be exiled to Babylon (i.e., in 598/597 BCE) where he stayed until the end of the Babylonian exile (i.e., in 539/538 BCE). We happen to know, however, that the apocalyptic style, in which the visions in the book were written, did not come in vogue prior to around 200 BCE. ³⁰ Clearly, we have evidence of an anachronism here: this is analogous to wearing modern suits in a medieval movie. Naturally, this makes the alleged prophecies in Daniel highly questionable. A closer examination of the book’s text shows that the author was writing at a time of harsh persecution of the Jews. This narrows the book’s writing to the Seleucid (Greco-Syrian) persecution by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, which occurred between 175 BCE and 164 BCE—a far cry from the early sixth century (598/597) BCE claimed in the book’s text.

May I make it clear, before proceeding further, that this last paragraph is not merely my own opinion, but that of the biblical scholars of the New American Bible, who also do believe that the Bible is God’s Word—inspired by the Holy Spirit. ³¹ The previous paragraphs also are various statements by the same scholarly group. All my statements above and going forward are footnoted.

Gospels

In the Christian Bible there are four gospels, which constitute the core of the New Testament: they all give an account of Jesus’s life. They were not written at the same time, nor were they written immediately after Jesus’s death. About four decades elapsed after Jesus’s death, which was around 30 CE, before the first gospel was written, and the four gospels were written roughly a decade apart. The simplest way to remember their approximate time of writing, therefore, is as follows:

(1) The Gospel according to Mark was written around 70 CE, ³²

(2) The Gospel according to Matthew was written around 80 CE, ³³

(3) The Gospel according to Luke was written around 90 CE, ³⁴ and

(4) The Gospel according to John was written around 100 CE. ³⁵

Even though they are attributed to Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, as already mentioned under Authorship above, unfortunately, we do not know who wrote any of the four gospels: none of the authors gave us their name.

The three gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke (taken together) are known as the synoptic Gospels. The word synoptic is a combination of two Greek words: syn meaning ‘together,’ and opsis meaning ‘sight’ or ‘view.’ This means that these three gospels saw the life of Jesus from a single point of view: the similarity of these gospels affirms this. ³⁶ Matthew and Luke probably used Mark as their basic skeleton.

Luke also wrote another book of the Bible:

(5) The Acts of the Apostles, which was written around 110 CE. ³⁷

This book gives an account of the early Christian movement: mainly, how Saul/Paul of Tarsus, Turkey, spread it along the Mediterranean coast.

Pauline Letters

In the New Testament, there are thirteen letters written in Paul’s name. Seven of them are known as the undisputed Pauline letters, namely:

(1) The Letter to the Romans,

(2) The First Letter to the Corinthians,

(3) The Second Letter to the Corinthians,

(4) The Letter to the Galatians,

(5) The Letter to the Philippians,

(6) The First Letter to the Thessalonians, and

(7) The Letter to Philemon.

The other six letters, which were probably not written by Paul, are:

(8) The Letter to the Ephesians,

(9) The Letter to the Colossians,

(10) The Second Letter to the Thessalonians,

(11) The First Letter to Timothy,

(12) The Second Letter to Timothy, and

(13) The Letter to Titus.

This was not exactly forgery in ancient Jewish tradition since it was an accepted practice to attribute new developments in teaching or theology to venerable ancient figures. The most important question for us, of course, is whether the new developments were in agreement and in continuity with the venerable figure’s original ideas or diametrically opposed to them. ³⁸

Science

Needless to mention, the science in the Bible is of a very primitive nature. For example, the Bible text implies that the earth is flat, the sun rotates around the earth, the skies are a gigantic, solid, shiny, metallic dome, and the stars are very small. I have addressed biblical science extensively in my book Is the Bible Infallible?, ³⁹ so I shall not repeat it here. However, I have tabulated where modern science agrees and disagrees with the Bible in appendix B: scientifically, the Bible is, at best, only 50% right. I also included the Catholic Church’s teaching as well as my personal opinion on the various scientific statements.

Undoubtedly, the so-called biblical science discredits the Bible’s infallibility, but this book is intended mainly for the ordinary Christian believer: consequently, I shall try to leave science out of it for the most part.

Inspiration

The above, I believe, is already enough to throw serious doubt, at least, on the doctrine of divine inspiration of the scriptural authors.

Moreover, as we shall see in Original Sin, some biblical accounts are based on previous local myths. Naturally, if certain biblical stories are indeed based on folklore, the odds of their being inspired by God are minimal. The obvious question that arises is: how many more accounts in the Bible, besides the ones we got to know about, are simply based on myths?

If it is not inspired, how can we honestly say that the Bible is infallible? If it is only a human book, how can we trust it? It follows, therefore, that it would be foolish to accept the Bible on blind faith, as the church would have us do: it has to be analyzed and judged true, or not, through our reasoning, some form of common sense, and possibly our morality—our current sense of what is right and what is wrong. Why did Jesus himself never write anything for posterity? Probably because whatever we need to know is embedded in our nature, or basic morality, and our reason. So I doubt the whole idea of God’s direct, personal revelation to us altogether: even nature’s laws and the origins of our world and the universe he apparently made discoverable by us through our own abilities: that is, through science.

Personally, I believe the Bible was written by people trying to find God, like me and you, the interested reader. Like any good book some of the passages in it are inspired or inspiring, but in the ordinary sense of reading a good book; it should not be unquestioned: one can give it the benefit of the doubt if one likes, but that is all.

On the other hand, however, neither should the Bible be completely discarded because of its shortcomings. Some passages of the Bible I find particularly inspiring; for example, in Jeremiah we read God telling the Jewish people,

"[When you⁴⁰] call upon Me [God] and come and pray to Me … I will listen to you. You will seek Me and find Me when you search for me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord, and I will restore you from captivity [change your lot⁴¹]." ⁴²

So, according to Jeremiah, we are called upon by God, to honestly look for him and he will reveal himself to us. He will show us what is right and what is wrong in the honesty of our heart. Is this reality or just wishful thinking? I cannot prove what I am about to say; one can only experience it. I believe I have experienced it: my three books are the only testimony I can give the reader.

Another biblical passage I find very inspiring comes from Micah.

I will shew thee, O man, what is good, and what the Lord requireth of thee: Verily, to do judgment [justice⁴³], and to love mercy, and to walk solicitous [humbly⁴⁴] with thy God. ⁴⁵

To walk, of course, means to ‘have a relationship with.’

Talking about humility when interacting with God, Isaiah puts these words in God’s mouth:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts: nor your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. ⁴⁶

When one looks at the complexity and elegance of the human genome (DNA), the human mind, the laws of physics and chemistry and the fine-tuning of the universe, the balance of any ecosystem, and so on, one cannot help but marvel at God’s ingenuity—it is far superior to ours. Delving into the intricacies of our existence, our universe, and life gives one such a humbling feeling.

Yet, God did not want to treat us like slaves, machines, robots, or computers: always doing exactly what he asks of us. He wanted to have a living, personal relationship with every one of us, even if at times we get things wrong. He did not want to make things easy for us, say, by giving us a book unequivocally written by him. We are called upon to seek him with all our being; perhaps somewhat like a grandfather would like to see his grandchildren interested in his experiences: allowing him to impart wisdom on them at an early age, and guide them through life’s difficult stages.

This is what I shall try to do throughout this book—honestly look for God and the truth. I am not trying to shoot the Bible down here; I simply believe that this is the right attitude toward reading, or studying, the Bible. Personally, I always compare it to the proverbs, or sayings, of a nation: there is great wisdom in them, but nobody ever considers them infallible or inspired by God. We use them, but with reservations.

Interpretation

When interpreting the Bible, one needs to be aware of language idioms, metaphors, and cultures that are connected to the time when and the place where they were written. The accuracy of any translation is always questionable—even if translated at the same time and in the same culture in which it was written. Let alone, therefore, how much harder it is to understand accurately a passage translated at a much later time and in a totally different place and culture.

One must also keep in mind, that some New Testament books, about Jesus especially, were written earlier than others, and that the earlier books tend to be more authentic than the later ones, because of a natural tendency of the authors’ mythologizing their heroes over time. Moreover, normally, later books tend to be less reliable, on account of a lack of eyewitnesses who might be able to challenge what is written, and who may have died by the time they were written. On the other hand, there could be developments in doctrine in later books: better understanding and interpretation of the facts that make more sense than prior writings; we must not exclude this possibility either. All this implies that the correct interpretation of the Bible is a very difficult task indeed.

The Catholic Church therefore declares itself guided by the Holy Spirit to be the official sole guardian and infallible interpreter of the Bible. According to Pope Paul VI’s Dei Verbum,

Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. ⁴⁷

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the apostles assigned this deposit of our faith to the Catholic Church.⁴⁸ It then quotes Dei Verbum.

The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [in Tradition],