From: jdt@ebay.sun.com (Jim Turner)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: A.N. Wilson's New Book.
Date: 3 Oct 92 06:37:54 GMT
Reply-To: jdt@ebay.sun.com
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In article 7538@geneva.rutgers.edu, dabbott@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au (Derek Abbott) writes:
> I've just read an article about A.N. Wilson's new book where he explains
> why he lost his faith.
> 
> One of his points is "unresovled contradictions" in the Gospels.
> The four he came up with were:
> 
> 1) Jesus called the Gentiles "pigs & dogs" and yet the Church
>    included Gentiles

To my knowledge Jesus didn't call Gentiles pigs or dogs in any
derogatory way.  He did say that the children (Jews) should be fed
before the dogs(gentiles) when talking to the Syrophoenician woman in
MK 7:24-30 (see also MATT 15:22-28).  In the end though Jesus did heal
this woman's daughter.  Jesus showed great compassion for Jew and
Gentile alike, but He recognized that His earthly ministry was to the
Jew.  The Gentile was to be included later.

Gentiles were always intended to be in the church.  From the earliest
prophecies given to Abraham this was made clear (GEN 22:18, GAL 3:8).
Jesus himself wanted Gentiles in the church.  Why else would He
command to make disciples of ALL nations in MATT 28:19.


> 2) When Jesus was called "Good master" he said only "God is good,"
>    thereby apparently denying both his sinlessness and divinity
>    in one swoop.

I would assume this is a reference to MK 10:18.  It seems to me that
this young rich man did not believe that Jesus was God, and Jesus was
trying to drive home the point.  This was not a denial of His own
divinity, but rather a lesson to the young man.

There are enough examples of Jesus affirming His diety that it is
doubtful that in this one instance He would deny it.

 
> 3) Jesus chose blood as a symbol, which would be anaethema to Jews
>    at the time. Being a good Jew himself, he "wouldn't do such a thing."

This is simply not true.  Blood was the cornerstone of the Jewish
sacrifical system and has always been used symbolically by the Jews.
Rather than paging through the Old Testament, I'll point out a few
passages from Hebrews.

	-The Mosaic covenant was instituted with blood (HEB 9:18-21).

	-The Hebrew writer states that according to the Law (of Moses) blood was
	 required for the forgiveness of sins (HEB 9:22).

	-The Jewish High Priest came once a year with blood to offer sacrifice, first
	 for himself and then for the people (HEB 9:6-7).

	-All this was a type of Jesus own sacrifice, where he came to offer himself.
	 He didn't need the blood of bulls or goats, because He Himself being sinless
	 was an acceptable sacrifice.  Jesus therefore shed His own blood as an 
	 offering for us (HEB 9:11-14).

Rather than being a contradiction, the shedding of Jesus blood is
completely in keeping with the picture presented by the Law of Moses,
and was absolutely necessary for our own sins to be forgiven.
	


> 4) The Trial of Jesus happened on the passover. Wilson says that good
>    Jews would not interupt the rituals of an important holy day with a
>    trial for a mere Galilean trouble maker.

Jesus was not considered a "mere Galilean trouble maker".  The Jewish
leaders feared that if he was not stopped, their own place with Rome
could be in jeopardy. John makes this quite clear in JN 11:47-50.  The
Jews plotted to kill Jesus to "save" there nation. The Jews took Jesus
when they did because they thought it would be their only chance to
get Him.  Frank Morrison in his book "Who Moved the Stone" discusses
why the Jews had to take Jesus when they did.


> Any comments?

Its hard for me to understand how someone could use these
"contradictions" as justification for losing one's faith.  I often
hear chistian types accused of believing and then coming up with
reasons for that belief later.  It seems to me that this may be a case
of someone not wanting to believe, and coming up with reasons to
support that unbelief.

--jim

[There are certainly things about Christianity that I can understand
people might be sceptical about.  But I agree that these things seem
like an odd set of problems to lose one's faith over.  On the other
hand, they are taken from a book, so there were probably other issues
as well.  --clh]