I Don’t Know When Jesus is Coming, but Neither Do You

A few years ago I was pedaling my bicycle down a back road when a woman driving an old station wagon full of kids pulled up beside me, matched my speed, rolled down the window and shouted, “Do you know Jesus?” I shouted, “Yes,” at which the wagon began to pick up speed as the woman shouted back, “He’s coming soon!”

Whether God has a particular liking for years ending in “000,” or perhaps certain authors have discovered that there is money to be made writing books about the end times, there has been no shortage of speculation about the eminent end of the age and the second coming of Jesus, the technical term for which is “Parousia”.

The question which comes to me amid all this speculation is why people would venture a prediction in the light of all the failed predictions in the past. Are we so much smarter or so much more in tune with God than our forebears?

I guess the first misapprehensions about the return of Jesus date from the 1st century, some of which are recorded in the New Testament.

(Mat 16:27-28 NASB) “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and WILL THEN RECOMPENSE EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS. {28} “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Continue reading

Posted in Eschatology, Popular Christianity | Leave a comment


In 1997-98 the Lutheran Church (ELCA), the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA), the Reformed Church (RCA) and the United Church of Christ (UCC) all approved resolutions aimed at mutual recognition and unity.

When proposals of this importance are made, there are arguments on both sides, and a lively discussion results. Reading these discussions has reminded me of the distinction made in American courts between the standards of proof in civil and in criminal cases. In civil cases one must show a “preponderance of evidence” to prevail; that is, my evidence must be more compelling than yours. In a criminal case there is a higher standard of proof (proof “beyond a reasonable doubt”) because under the criminal law, everyone is presumed innocent.

In the case of church unity, the discussions I have seen seem to be carried out under the rule of “preponderance of evidence”. I have seen unity weighed against things like quality of organizational structure, or doctrinal purity. But I would suggest that the clear command of Christ for unity (reiterated in the rest of the New Testament) is a mandate so strong that it takes the status of presumption. To discard Christ’s own commands in a Christian argument should require an incredibly persuasive argument–an argument which must establish its point “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Continue reading

Posted in Popular Christianity | Leave a comment

A Historical Approach to Jesus

In the context of criticism of the Jesus Seminar, it has been claimed that the actual Gospel accounts are of high reliability, and further that no Christian who reveres Christ would dare “make anything up”.

Such a view is a faith view, not the view of a historian.

First, we know that Christian scribes frequently amended the texts of the canonical gospels. We know this beyond all doubt from the literally thousands of variant Greek manuscripts which exist to this day [1]. It is not a matter of speculation, but of observation that some Christians made stuff up.

One might argue that such glosses and “corrections” and emendations were minor. However, it appears that the story in John’s Gospel of the woman caught in adultery is, from manuscript evidence, not an original part of John’s Gospel. But perhaps it was a independent tradition that found a home there.

Fine, what about Christians making up whole books? There are several collections of these in the book stores now. Christians wrote Gospels by the scores! I would just mention two of them which are probably earlier than the rest of their fellows: The Infancy Gospel of James and the Gospel of Thomas. These are either real history or they are made up–which is it? There is the possibly early fragment from the Gospel of Peter. whose account of the resurrection cannot be reconciled with that of the canonical gospels. How about pseudo-Matthew in the 6th century who added details to the birth narrative in canonical Matthew based on his reading of Isaiah. Continue reading

Posted in Historical Jesus | Leave a comment

The Historical Jesus vs. the Christ of Faith

I’m a practicing Christian, and that means that I go to church and I participate in ritual actions and I speak ritual phrases. We have a canon of scripture and a body of doctrine. The Bible which we hold sacred was written by the faithful — that is, the story is told through the viewpoint of other Christians who also had their ritual and doctrine.

On the other hand there is historical research in to the life and times of Jesus. While there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus outside Christian Scripture (and someone like Schweitzer in The Quest of the Historical Jesus concludes that the historical Jesus must remain unknown), there is material about the times: about the culture, society and government; and there also those who try to uncover the layers in the Christian texts themselves to learn what lays behind them (for example as is done in The Historical Jesus by John Dominic Crossan or E. P. Sanders in his Historical Figure of Jesus).

The picture of Jesus which emerges from Historical Jesus research is wonderful and compelling — but it doesn’t look much like the Christ of Christian doctrine.

I’d like for it to all fit together and make sense and maybe it really does. Continue reading

Posted in Historical Jesus | Leave a comment

The New International Version of the Bible

The NIV is a Bible translation first published in 1978 by the International Bible Society coming out of work started by the National Association of Evangelicals. If you wish to learn more about this version from the publisher’s viewpoint, this link is provided to their web site. The publisher holds this version in much higher esteem than I do. I flat out don’t trust it.

I first became aware of the NIV when involved in a USENET discussion where I said that the Bible said one thing and someone else argued that it said no such thing. This started happening a lot, and at the root of the disagreement, there always seemed to be a NIV Bible. I eventually bought a copy of the NIV and made little marks in it whenever something came up. I never went looking for problems in the NIV; they came to me. [The New American Standard Bible is taken as the reference translation for this article; King James equivalents are linked at the bottom of the page.]


Let’s start at the beginning:

(Gen 2:17 NASB [KJV]) “but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.” Continue reading

Posted in Bible | Leave a comment

Authentic Sayings of Jesus

Matthew 5:17-20

Why do I consider Matthew 5:17-20 inauthentic?

(Mat 5:17-20 NRSV) “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. {18} For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. {19} Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. {20} For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

There’s a short answer, and a long answer. The long answer deals with why I might think any saying of Jesus in the Gospels is inauthentic. Let me deal with the long question first, and then with the particular verses.

The first question is whether the New Testament Gospels are “supernaturally accurate”. That is, do they record events and words to a degree impossible for normal humans to have remembered them? Continue reading

Posted in Bible, Historical Jesus | Leave a comment

Why have you forsaken me?

A discussion of Mark 15:34 and Psalm 22.

This article was originally written in reply to a particular person, but it has general application to the critics of Christianity who read the saying of Jesus from the cross, “My God, My God, Why Have You Forsaken Me?” as an expression of failure and despair. This text has been updated since its original appearance on the talk.religion.misc newsgroup.

The fundamentalist Christian often interprets this saying as marking the point at which Jesus took upon himself the sins of all mankind requiring God (who they say cannot look upon evil) to turn away. I strongly disagree with this idea also, but that is another discussion for another article. Continue reading

Posted in Bible | Leave a comment

Luther and the Jews

I guess everybody has heard of Martin Luther, the 16th German Christian reformer who may be credited with starting the Protestant Reformation and loosing the Roman Catholic Church’s hegemony in Europe. Better-informed folks will know that Luther made an important translation of the Bible into the German language and perhaps something about Luther’s theology, including the doctrine of Justification by Faith alone, and his Theology of the Cross. One can read in Luther’s Table Talk and other writings that Luther was an earthy man who said what he thought without sugar-coating it. Most of Luther’s writing is argumentative, regularly trashing the Papists, the Anabaptists and others. What is particularly troubling is some of Luther’s writing about Jews.

What Luther Wrote

The best-known tract on the subject is entitled Ãœber die Juden und Ihre Lügen (On the Jews and their Lies). There are copies of this on the Web that one can read for themselves, and I won’t summarize it except to say that it talks about harassment of Jews including burning of their homes and destruction of their places of worship. Until recently, a companion work to On the Jews and their Lies was not available in English. This work, Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (of the Unknowable Name and the Generations of Christ) appears in the appendix to Gerhard Falk’s excellent book: The Jew in Christian Theology: Martin Luther’s Anti-Jewish Vom Schem Hamporas, Previously Unpublished in English, and Other Milestones in Church Doctrine Concerning Judaism.

It is important to note that On the Jews and Vom Schem were both written in response to alleged Jewish statements cited by Salvagus Porchetus de Salvaticus, a 14 century Cartesian monk in Victoria adversus impios Hebraeos. Luther was not simply out to bash the Jews in these works but to refute their “lies” and to defend Christ. These alleged statements were pretty offensive and Luther was obviously quite angry about them. Attacking the views of others was what Luther did best. Continue reading

Posted in Controversy | Leave a comment

The Verdict? A Reply to Josh McDowell

I had been avoiding reading Josh McDowell’s Book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Faith, largely out of prejudice. I was pretty sure that what McDowell was trying to do was impossible, and that his book would be a disgraceful propaganda piece. But when I found the book at a used bookstore, I figured that I really should read it and here are my thoughts.

Usually in a trial, both sides get to make their argument. It is the defense lawyer’s job to represent his case in the best possible light. McDowell’s book is such a defense. I don’t mean to take the “other side” because I am a Christian myself, but I do have some problems with McDowell’s arguments. I also think that a good defense lawyer will answer the hard questions that his opponent asks; Evidence ignores the hard questions substituting easy “straw man” questions.

When you reduce any argument about Christianity down to the most basic level, everything hinges on the Bible. There is no other contemporary source for what happened during the first 3 decades of the first century in Palestine or in Israel in the centuries before. You either believe that the Bible contains 100% literal, reliable, historical accounts (McDowell’s premise), or you don’t. There’s no external evidence to compare with.

One annoying thing that McDowell does is to quote other people at length. Citing someone else’s opinion is not evidence. If I had turned in an English composition paper with this much quotation in it, I would have gotten a bad grade. I think McDowell intends for all this material to be convincing since it comes from “books”, but again, opinion is not evidence. Some of the cited material is obsolete, and some of it misrepresents the authors views, and some of the citations are patently false. In fact, it looks like there is more quoted material than there is original material (didn’t actually measure it). Continue reading

Posted in Controversy, Popular Christianity | Leave a comment


I believe that God will reconcile us all to himself in some way.

The Christian scriptures clearly set out the hope of eternal life to the Christian. I’m not sure that the early Christians were any more in agreement about everyone else than we are today.

If one believes that Revelation (20:14 for example) is an inspired doctrine about the afterlife (rather than a message of hope in symbolic language to 1st century readers) and if one takes the symbolic language about Gehenna in the Gospels as both literal and authentic, then there is some support for the common Christian notion that non-Christians go to hell. And indeed, when I was a kid, people in my Baptist church thought many (but not all) Catholics were going to hell, too. There is a huge black and orange billboard on Interstate 85 with the phrase:

But I think that it is clear from the teachings of Jesus that God does not DESIRE that anyone perish, and I for one pray “Thy will be done”. Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment