INTRODUCTION
Many people, though not all, seem to disregard logic and common sense when reading and interpreting the Christian Bible. I have encountered numerous individuals who, when discussing their religion and the Bible, disregard logic and common sense. Their common sense and logic just disappear into thin air, seemingly. Instead, they will throw out a phrase like “You just have to have faith” when refusing to admit that something in the Bible isn’t logical or that you are the one who isn’t using common sense when reading it.
Let me provide you with an example. There are people who read about Noah in the Bible. They pore over every detail and think they have found the remains of Noah’s Ark someplace in, say, Turkey, or they buy into the idea that someone else has found it. For anyone to genuinely believe that, they must disregard common sense and logic. I am setting aside the question of whether a boat of that size could have been built or whether it was large enough to house all the animals it would have needed to house. Those two things can be logically argued. Thus, for argument’s sake, let us just assume that the Ark could be built as written and was big enough to house all the animals it was claimed to have housed.
What is illogical is the assumption that any remnants of the Ark lasted until modern times, much less the entire vessel. In the Ark story, it rains for 40 days and 40 nights, or that it took 40 days for the floodwaters to reach the Ark, depending on the version you follow; yes, there is more than one version of the Christian Bible. There are over 1000 different versions of the Christian Bible. Then the Ark floated for around 110 days until landing on Mount Ararat. At this point, common sense should be applied. Common sense should tell you that after the world was flooded for around 150 days, the Ark is probably the only non-waterlogged wood around with which to build structures and start fires. Thus, common sense should tell you that Noah and the other survivors dismantled the Ark within a short period after landing, and Noah’s Ark ceased to exist.
I present this concept to individuals, and after a moment of contemplation, the majority respond with, “Yes, that makes perfect sense. It no longer exists.” But some refuse to give up their beliefs and will argue, “Well, it doesn’t say they did that in the Bible.” That statement is true, as it doesn’t say anything about what happened to the Ark in the Bible, either. Why not? Probably because the original audience understood the Ark would have been dismantled, so the story didn’t need to mention it. Many things that are not included in the Bible are known to be true, which makes this one of the most illogical arguments people often use. I show how illogical the argument is by saying their name is absent from the Bible, implying they don’t exist.
My book doesn’t aim to convince you the Bible is fiction. No, I intend to encourage you to read it in its proper context, especially where historicity is concerned. You must not claim that the Bible is history unless you read and interpret it accordingly. To achieve that, faith should not be involved, but common sense and logic should be used. Let me provide you with a quick story to back this up.
I was baptized Catholic, and at one point, I wanted to be the Pope. Then one evening, my mother got a phone call: “It is perfectly alright if Paul doesn’t come back to Confirmation.”
My mother remarked, “What did he do now?” under the impression that I was being unruly once more. She had a valid reason to think that, as in 1st or 2nd grade Sunday school, she came to pick me up, and I was tied up with jump ropes in the coat closet because I wouldn’t sit still. Before you judge that situation as awful, I likely deserved it because I was rambunctious, and no, I did not have any disorder. The Sunday school teacher, Mrs. Lovelace, who had something like a dozen kids of her own, actually called my mother a ‘saint’ for putting up with me.
No, it wasn’t for being rambunctious this time; it was for asking too many difficult questions about the Bible that the people leading Confirmation could not answer. My mother told the person on the phone to find someone who could. “Well, he already stumped the Bishop.”
My mother looks at me and asks, “Did you talk to the Bishop?” Now back then, about the only times I remembered seeing the Bishop, he would be in full regalia, but apparently the older gentleman in a red sweater they had me go talk to in a different office the previous Sunday was our Bishop.
So, I said, “If that person was the Bishop, then I guess so. He repeated the same old phrase, ‘You just have to have faith,’ whenever he couldn’t provide a logical answer.” My mom then told the person on the phone that they are ridiculous, and I will be coming on Sunday.
“Well, Mrs. Amberg, your son has been removed from the Confirmation class until the time he is ready to just accept the teaching. He is not welcome back and will be sent home if he shows up.” (Or words to that effect.)
My parents were divorced, and it was more my father who wanted me to be confirmed, so she called him and told him that if he wanted me confirmed, it was up to him to get me into the Confirmation class at one of the 3 other Catholic Churches in Minot, ND. So, the next weekend that my dad had custody, he asked me, “If I get you into one of the other Confirmation classes, will this happen again?”
“If they give me the same responses, then most likely,” I responded. Dad then says, “Can’t you just not question things for the time it takes to get confirmed?”
“Dad, you are the one who taught me to ask questions and, more importantly, use logic and common sense.”
“You’re right. Ok, son, we won’t put you in another class you’ll just get kicked out of.”
I was left to find my own way with religion, and I have used that philosophy with my kids. My son recently decided to convert to Roman Catholicism due to my new daughter-in-law being of that faith. I have also taught my children to use common sense and logic in every aspect of life. I am not asserting that they consistently have, as I once referred to my son as “the dumbest smart kid I know” due to instances where he completely overlooked basic common sense. Likewise, I also told him, “My only job is to get you to 18 without you accidentally killing yourself,” again due to his lack of the use of common sense at times. Granted, even though I adopted him, he couldn’t have been more like me had he been a biological product of my loins (see how I got a little biblical there?). In fact, I am sure my dad said similar things about me growing up, and my grandfather probably said similar things about my dad, as we are all similar in certain ways, and it took a little while for common sense and logic to take hold.
After all of that, if you saw my bookshelf, you might think I was still pretty ‘religious.’ I consider myself spiritual, but I am not religious, nor will you see me going to services. I mean, according to Matthew 6:5-6 (NIV)
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”
To me, that comes across as saying you are not supposed to go to services. Of course, you probably won’t ever see that part read from the pulpit on a Sunday.
I won’t cover every Bible passage, as that would take many volumes and bore most readers. I will start at the beginning of the Old Testament and work forward, covering the more major points people don’t tend to use common sense with. There will be one exception to this rule. Since this is about how many Christians don’t use common sense when reading the Bible, I will start with a chapter about Joshua the King (whom you probably refer to as Jesus Christ). The reason for starting with a chapter about him is to point out that Joshua the King was not a Christian for a single day of his life, which is the first piece of common sense and logic people need to understand.
1
Joshua the King, aka Jesus Christ
Look up the English letter spelling of Joshua in either Hebrew or Aramaic. You are going to get Yehoshua and Yeshua. Where the word “Jesus” comes from is the Old Greek translation of the Aramaic or Hebrew word for Joshua into Iesous, which monks later transcribed to be Jesus instead of the intended Joshua. Christos, meaning ‘the King’ or ‘the Anointed One,’ which became Christ in translation, was added by writers in Old Greek. Thus, if we are going to use a true translation into modern English, it should be Joshua the King, Joshua the anointed one, or maybe just Joshua.
So why does this matter, and where does common sense come into play? It is relevant for two superb reasons. First, you have been using the wrong name when you are praying. That is a common-sense argument for why your prayers aren’t answered. Well, there’s one common sense answer to that at least, and I’ll present an even better one once we get to Matthew. Second, people have been looking for historical non-biblical references to Jesus since the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., if not earlier than that. No one has found a single reference to anyone named ‘Jesus’ from the time he would have lived. Some will try to quote Josephus, but that has been debunked, and only those who refuse to acknowledge the debunking still claim Josephus mentions him by name.
How has that reference been debunked, you ask? Well, not all translations of Josephus contain a reference to Jesus. In fact, the oldest translations found in Arabic libraries do not contain that reference, and before you try to argue that Muslims left that reference out, I will point out that by “older,” it means they were translated before the couple that mentioned Jesus were translated and before Islam even existed. Furthermore, Muslims revere Joshua, aka Jesus, as arguably their second most important prophet after Muhammed. Muslims just do not buy into the divinity of Jesus.
Next, Josephus was a Jew and a Roman citizen; however, the style of the small passage that references ‘Jesus’ differs significantly from his other writings. As a Roman apologist, he would never have written that about a minor Jewish prophet whom no one else considered important at the time. The paragraph makes sense without the few lines about Jesus.
There are two possible reasons for the lack of historical non-biblical references to Joshua/Jesus, both of which are logical and make sense. The first is that there’s never been such a person. The second would be that you need to be looking for proper translations, meaning you need to be looking for someone named Joshua, or Joshua Ben Joseph (Joshua, son of Joseph).
The argument that there was never such a person is logical. It can also follow a similar argument about the identity of King Arthur. That argument is that both are based on a group of people, not a single person. Jesus was not the only self-proclaimed Messiah walking around the Holy Land in his day; there were many. In fact, I have seen an estimate that there were at least 50. Thus, it would make sense that people writing after the fact would have created a composite Messiah. The other reason they would have created a composite is that according to Jewish Messianic tradition (the Messiah is a Jewish concept after all), there are supposed to be not one, but two Messiahs. We’ll get to this later.
The second option is also logical. If he were based on a single person and were mentioned anywhere in non-biblical historical writings, it would be with his actual name, not the mistranslation of Jesus. However, it really comes down to this: If he was the massive threat the Bible makes him out to be, to the Jewish Sanhedrin and/or Roman rule, there would almost certainly be easily found references to this person in Roman texts. There is not one reference anywhere in Roman texts, which implies that either he was very minor in the eyes of the Romans, or he never existed at all.
Finally, to accurately understand the Bible, you must understand that Joshua/Jesus, if he existed, was never a Christian for even a single second of his life. Christianity did not even come into being immediately upon his death but took several centuries to evolve. Joshua/Jesus, if he existed, was a Jewish rabbi. It says that in the Bible. At no point does Joshua/Jesus ever state that he is starting a new faith. Specifically, Matthew 5:17-18 NKJ says,
“17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. 18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.”
In fact, to be the Messiah, Joshua/Jesus must be a Jew. Christians do not get to change that because Joshua/Jesus being a Jew who probably never intended there to be a new religion does not fit their narrative. You also must keep in mind that most, if not all, writers of the Christian Bible were Jews, and only a few of them became Christians. The first non-biblical use of a term near to “Christian” comes from the Roman historian Tacitus, who used the Latinized form “Chrestianos” in his Annals around 116 CE. Biblical apologists will try to claim it was in ACTS from about 40 CE, but they also deny that there is any proof that ACTS was written then.
Let’s conclude before we proceed to Genesis. No, Jesus is not talking to you and telling you something different. This is your own mind at work as you attempt to maintain your ‘faith’ instead of recognizing logic and common sense. Jesus would be trying to talk to you as he was—a Jewish rabbi—if he were talking to you. Anytime someone claims they hear voices talking to them that are not Jesus, you probably think they are suffering from schizophrenia. Thus, logic would dictate that if you were really hearing voices, then you too are suffering from schizophrenia. It is illogical to think that the only time you aren’t schizophrenic is when Jesus supposedly talks to you. Consider this: if God or Jesus wanted to get our attention, they would likely announce it loudly for everyone to hear.
And one last thing before we move on to Genesis. No, Jesus is not talking to you and telling you something different. That is your own brain doing that as you try to keep your ’faith’ rather than acknowledge logic and common sense. Jesus would be trying to talk to you as who he was, a Jewish rabbi, if he was talking to you. Anytime someone claims they hear voices talking to them that are not Jesus, you probably think they are suffering from Schizophrenia. Thus, logic would dictate that if you are really hearing voices, then you too are suffering from Schizophrenia. Jesus supposedly talking to you being the only time it isn’t Schizophrenic is illogical. I mean, think about it, if God or Joshua/Jesus wanted to get our attention, they would probably just boom it out for everyone to hear.