Beyond Belief: The Legend of Jesus

   

Several months ago, my boss asked me to consider reading Bob Ripley's, "Life Beyond Belief:  A Preacher's Deconversion".  I have just finished the fourth chapter, and up until this point, it's about what I have expected.  The arguments are as old as faith itself.  If I am convinced of anything, it is this;  Bob Ripley really is an atheist. 

   That is an important point.  Within the Christian community, we often ask that very question before welcoming a new person as one of our own.  Are they truly one of us?  So for those of you within the God-less community, I want to encourage you to welcome him with open arms. I truly believe he is one of you.

  I make this assertion out of the fact that his writing reflects the same spirit and attitude I have encountered among other atheists.  So I believe it is quite safe to assume he has the same kind of spirit as the rest.  It is difficult for me to communicate clearly, but I will do my best.  Here are two aspects of his dialogue that I generally find elsewhere among those who wrestle aggressively against The Imaginary Friend.  

 1.  The Unwillingness or Inability to Stay On Topic

I still remember meeting my first atheist.  When he found out I was a Christian he told me, "I have questions you can't answer."  I noticed a look of excitement in his eye, as if this was a grand opportunity to reveal his great intelligence to this young Christian.  He proceeded to ask me a very easy question.  Before I had the chance to respond, he just kept talking, making more of what I am sure he thought were points against Christ.

I see the very same quality in Bob Ripley.  He is either incapable or unwilling to introduce  a topic and stay on it.  I have never figured out whether this is simply a tactic intended at making it difficult for the reader to actually process what he is saying, or if it just comes out of his nature.  My hunch is that it is some combination of the two.

    For example.  He rightly presents to us that each of the four Gospels have parts of them that differ from each other.  He spends very little time on that topic before switching to other supposed objections to Christ.  I think atheists have to do this.  If they were to really think on it, of course 4 different testimonies would share different details.  Anything else would indicate corroboration, not authentic testimony.

If you really want to test this out, find 4 different people to write their account of your life.  Preferably, find two people who know you personally, and two people who only know about you.  Let me know how similar those accounts turn out to be.  According to a mind like Bob's, unless each account is verbatim the same, then maybe you don't exist.  Do you exist?

2.  Unwillingness or Inability to Apply Consistent Textual Criticism

Chapter 4 takes great pains to question the legitimacy of the Gospel writings.  I respect that.  I really do.  As a Christian, I have nothing to fear from the truth.  In fact, we believe that liars burn in hell. Read Revelation. (Which is kind of odd...I mean, why would a group of Christians completely fabricate a religion, and teach that liars end up in a lake of fire?)

He has been quite thorough in his study.  What he fails to do, as I have witnessed consistently in the non believing community, is that he most notably does NOT similarly scrutinize other ancient writings.  After writing several pages sizing up the authenticity of the accounts of Christ, Bob tells us, "I looked beyond the gospels to the pagan religions before and during the life of Jesus." Pg. 58.  In fact, for all (and I mean all) other ancient writings, there fails to be even one word of question to their credibility.

 

Congratulations world.  You truly have won this guy over.  What would this discussion look like if things were different?  What would Bob discover if he demanded the same credibility from writings on Osiris, as that of Christ?  You would discover this:  If the same level of textual criticism were to be applied equally to ALL ancient texts, none compare to that of the scriptures.

I get it though.  Why would Bob want to actually think through even one of his points?  Why would he want to give the same skepticism to ancient pagan writings?  Why would he scrutinize the stories that were rejected by the people who love Christ?  At the core, Bob has looked at who God is, and just plainly doesn't like Him.  He used to like Him, or at least thought he liked Him, until he actually took the time to seriously look at who God really is.   As long as he keeps switching the topic, and as long as he doesn't demand the same level of credibility from non-biblical writings as he does of The Bible, I'm sure he will maintain his current worldview.