This is a broad, by chapter review of Solomon Tulbure's Christianity Exposed.
The story of Tulbure is a tragic one; he was widely reputed to have run financial scams online, and his life ended in suicide.
Many atheists distanced themselves from Tulbure, who also wrote books on Islam and the Illuminati, and claimed to be a member of the latter.
However, his book remains on the market, and so it is warranted to maintain a review of it.
How did Tulbure come to compile this massive volume? He "began to hang out in libraries after school, and began to study various subjects, including about his own religions." [sic] He also has a degree in Electronics. We are obviously not dealing with someone here on a credible level of scholarship.
I learned about this book when three different persons wrote me with copies of material Tulbure had posted on various discussion boards -- not all of them relevant (for example, an "ex-Mormon" board). The post consisted almost entirely of "argument by outrage" against God; investigation of Tulbure's Web site revealed little better: For example, a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount in which no effort is made to address the Beatitudes in their social context, but answers given to the effect, "This is a stupid rule because..." followed by, "Do you believe this moron/idiot Jesus taught this?" One wonders if Confucius would escape thusly unscathed, or any other ancient teacher who taught some of the same things.
At any rate, the method is carried over into book format, but in addition to referring to Christians as "complete irrational morons" we have other, different forms. Between enormous numbers of typos (the back cover refers to the "United Sates") and serious grammatical errors (it has been related to me that Tulbure blames the English language for being "the stupidest language" he has ever seen), we have "smile" symbols dotting the pages, purposeful misspellings for polemical purposes ("JeZus", "GeeZeus"), and various appropriate accusations.
Why didn't Tulbue consult credible scholarly sources? "...most authors seemed more interested in showing off their linguistic scholarship, instead of concentrating on the subjects they covered." We have vague generalizations: "...in every nation where Christians lived, they have divided, hated and persecuted each other with all the power they had." Don't expect even a few lines about history proving this, though.
We have claims sure to evoke atheistic sympathy: "Don't you think that churches would serve a better purpose if we tear them down and build apartments for the poor or schools?" Who's going to pay for all of that construction? Isn't it less expensive to build on land that is still open?
On the other hand, we should give more respect to scientists who "gave you cars, light bulbs, calculators, medicine, airplanes, trains, candy [!], good foods, wonderful music and instruments..." Yes, and also pollution, nuclear weapons, anthrax, couch potatoes -- come to think of it, wouldn't the candy factories and record companies also be better off as low-income housing by the logic we have seen?
But enough of generalities; let us move by chapter.
Chapter 1: The theme of this short chapter is to express the idea that Jesus was a) not a nice person to his family; b) not known to be divine by his family. Enlisted for idea a) :
- John 2:4
- Matthew 12:46-50, While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Also Luke 11:27-8. Both are taken as "disrespect" to Jesus' mother and family. The analysis begs two key questions:
- Is the Gospel message true, or did Jesus believe it to be true? If the answer is yes in either case, then this is not disrespect, it is the urgent truth. Tulbure as an atheist begs the question and naturally assumes the message to be untrue. Presumably he thinks he proves it false elsewhere, but then this issue belongs at the end of his text, not at the beginning.
- What was the relationship of Jesus to his family before this incident? The data would suggest that the "disrespect" was coming from the other direction.
Mark's report of this incident, which Tulbure ignores in this context and does not connect to this narrative, says that the family came because "went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself." (Mark 3:21) The word "lay hold" is krateo and signifies taking hold fast (as in taking by the hand), or seizing by strength -- it is the same word used of those who came to arrest Jesus (Matt. 26:57). "Relatives normally sought to conceal other relatives' behavior that would shame the family" in ancient times, even as today [Keener commentary on Matthew, 370].
Jesus' mother and brothers -- but not his sisters -- this was no "friendly family outing" but the head of the household arriving with the "goon squad" to pick up the wayward brother -- showing up and declaring openly that he was mad, and wanting to seize and hide him, sounds like the "disrespect" had its origins in another place.
Elsewhere John' gospel has Jesus' brothers mockingly suggesting that he go to the feast and show off, though they did not believe in him (John 7:5). More will be said on this in relation to b) above shortly.
- John 19:26-7 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
Tulbure mysteriously omits the final sentence; this incident is described thusly: Aside from the "woman" reference (which uses the same word as John 2:4), we are told that Jesus should have said "something loving and comforting" like "we'll be in heaven together".
It is also asked why Jesus' mother's care was assigned to John when he had seven other siblings. This was not loving and comforting? What Jesus has done here is recognize his mother as a true disciple and as a member of the family of faith. Again, an atheist would beg the question of the importance of this, but would need to disprove the larger Christian message first in order to make this sort of argument effective.
This leads into the second major theme of the chapter -- Tulbure thinks that Mary "had no idea or knowledge about her son's alleged mission," as shown thusly:
Luke 2:48-50 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.
Tulbure supposes that if the Nativity chronicles were true, such statements would be impossible, and moreover, Jesus' brothers would have believed in him. But let us again scrutinize the data below the surface:
- What was not understood specifically here was "the saying" -- what Jesus said. They did not understand what he meant by "his Father's business" and how it connected to the incident of finding him teaching in the Temple. It is not that they did not understand, as Tulbure alleges, that Jesus "was to be the Messiah, etc" (though what "etc" is, is not stated).
That leads to a second point:
- What exactly were Joseph and Mary told? From Matthew and Luke, they are told Jesus:
- Was conceived of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:20; Luke 1:35) -- i.e., was not a bastard child, as Joseph apparently suspected
- Would "save" or "deliver" people from their sins (1:21)
- They saw strangers from the land of the Parthians, the deadly enemies of Rome, come forth bringing gifts and offering worship (2:11)
- He will be called the Son of the Highest, and will have the throne of David forever (Luke 1:32-3)
That's it. What's missing? There are no details here about a "mission" by Jesus, just a few points indicating a special child -- on the surface.
Now this is where we get into social background data regarding Messianic expectations at the time of Jesus. What did people expect of the Messiah at this time?
Messianic figures ranged from king to priest to prophet, from mere humans to quasi-divine individuals (See here for a review.), from a warrior that would destroy the Romans and restore Israel to being a rightfully independent kingdom to an eschatological high priest.
The four "basic facts" above, revealed to Mary and Joseph, melded well with just about any of the interpretations of the Messiah held in this time period. What interpretations Mary and Joseph held personally is not known. If they lived in Galilee, a center for independence and sedition, they may have leaned towards the "destroy Rome" side of things.
In any case -- more so with the "military" Messiah-idea than the others -- sitting in the Temple and calmly rapping with the rabbis wasn't likely to have been an understood aspect of the Messianic paradigm, of the "business." Being a "teacher" was not among the profiles in Messianic expectations -- and thus it is no surprise that Mary thought something had gone awry when she came to collect her son.
- That said, the data does indicate an awareness of some sort of Messianic mission that was "in tune" with certain expectations. Mary's request that Jesus take some action at the wedding in Cana (2:5) implies that Mary had some knowledge of Jesus' power and abilities -- while his response shows that she does not fully understand the "mission" indeed. Using Jesus as a grocery supplier, when it was not necessary (as Witherington notes in his commentary on John [78], such wedding feasts ran for days; running out of wine must have happened often, and there were caterers who could readily provide more wine, so that Mary's request was for a "stopgap" so that the guests could keep on drinking without pause), suggests a view of the Messiah as one who would answer needs -- even frivolous ones.
The reaction of Jesus' brothers (7:5), baiting him into doing miraculous deeds, shows the same sort of belief system at work. If this is the understanding that Mary had, and passed on to the brothers, little wonder she and Joseph didn't get the point at the Temple court.
Other comments on this chapter: Tulbure suggests that "Catholics" inserted the story of the virgin birth (rather difficult to see, since the organized Catholic church did not exist until well after the third century, when we have copies of Matthew and Luke with the story), and offers a comment about "God having sex" with Mary, though how creative fiat counts as "sex" is not explained.
Chapter 2: This chapter is a straw man. It addresses the idea that "Jesus did not teach anything new and original at all." No one claims that he did. The only point worthy of comment is the claim that Matthew 5:43-44 "claims that the Jewish Bible and Judaism teach hatred of one's enemies." -- Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
There is no attribution here to the Jewish Bible or to Judaism as a whole; nevertheless the principle of hating enemies is found in some Jewish teachings. Keener's commentary [203] notes that the Qumran community members took an oath to "hate the children of darkness" and it is likely that popular piety against the Romans (exemplified in groups like the Sicarii and the Zealots) took this view as well.
The concept of hating enemies is more widely found in Greco-Roman literature of the period, and educated Jews, of the Diaspora especially, would certainly have "heard it said" and perhaps even adapted it into their own belief system.
One odd is a claim that a work called "The Secrets of Enoch" is a "Pharisaic apocryphal work" from the first century BC. This work is also called Slavonic Enoch, and according to Craig A. Evans, Noncanonical Writings and New Testament Interpretation (23, I have gotten this data from a page on the works of Enoch) this work "was written late first century C.E. in Egypt by a Jew. It survives only in late Old Slavonic manuscripts."
Chapter 3, 4 and 5: Comments on Jesus as "unblemished" answered here. Comments on the law answered here. Comments on the relationship of Jesus and God answered here.
Chapter 6 -- The major focus of this chapter involves a rather curious notion: that "Paulistianity" and its idea of grace is not in agreement with Judaism's idea of salvation by works. Actually, we agree that one can be saved by being perfect. But no one has ever succeeded in that, which is the point.
Some minor issues: Tulbure says that the NT is "filled with hate toward the Jews" but cites no example of this, referring only to persecutions of Jews by medievals and by Hitler. He offers the "Elijah and Enoch went to heaven" objection. Other verses he quotes saying that a given person died and received an eternal reward in the OT, but none of the verses specifies the cause for the reward -- did they keep the law perfectly? Did they have faith in God? Indeed, Ps. 31:19 praises those who trust in God (have faith in Him) and says nothing about keeping the law. Other passages like Is. 45:17 clearly refer in context to a political "salvation," not a spiritual one. For more on this issue, see our response to Gerald Sigal on atonement.
Paul did not say that Judaism was wrong to suppose that one could be saved by following the law, or that Judaism was not of God; he argued -- rightly -- that this was an impossible path for men to take. This very subtle missed distinction renders all of Tulbure's comments in this chapter irrelevant.
Chapter 7 -- for a corrective see Glenn Miller's item on Messianic expectations.
Chapter 8 -- this chapter is a collection of common errors by Skeptics. Here's a rundown:
- On the incorrect belief that Jesus would return in the disciples' lifetime, see here.
- Here are Tulbure's comments on textual criticism: "There were many manuscripts after that and all of them with conflicting accounts about Jesus." "After Paul's writings, many other manuscripts started to appear all over the place." "Since we have concrete evidence that the manuscripts have been heavily tampered with, it is hard to know exactly what Jesus may or may not have said."
This is so far from the process of textual criticism as practiced by scholars (even Bart Ehrman) that little can be said.
- He says: "...since we know the Catholics who composed and released the New testament [sic] in the fist [sic] place, have been a miracle fabrication body, it is of no surprise the New testament is full of them." Miracle stories were "most likely inserted later, or invented by the authors, or edited and fixed up by the Council of Nacea [sic] before they released the New Testament for public consumption."
The Nicean council did not "release the NT for public consumption"; it was in use and available for "public consumption" from the very beginning.
- Without specifics given, we are told that Christianity includes a "blending of Zoroasterism" (sic). See here.
- John 21:12 is referenced: "Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord." This is said to show that "the author is actually reveling [sic] to us that there was great doubt indeed." How? "There would have been no need to mention that none of the disciples dared to ask Jesus who he was, unless there was a lot of doubt."
What is Tulbure saying here? That this was actually someone else? What's the point? Apparently, though, every note that some doubted (as in Matt. 28) is to be turned into a historical verification that there was no resurrection, whereas the much greater records of belief provide no evidence in favor.
Chapter 9 -- this enormous chapter about "Christian proof texts" tries to cover the sort of ground that seminary students spends upwards of five years covering. It will be enough to link to broad conceptual answers, with an example or two from Tulbure's text.
- The Trinity -- Tulbure's conception of the Trinity and knowledge of the background of the doctrine is poorly informed at the very least. See link above and here. Exemplars: Texts like Is. 45:5-6 ("there is no God beside me") don't account for the Trinity as case of the Word and Spirit being attributes of the Father; Tulbure doesn't know Trinitarianism from tritheism.
For a corrective of Tulbure's use of Ps. 82, see Chapter 7 of The Mormon Defenders. Most of the OT texts Tulbure thinks are "proof texts" of Trinitarianism are verses I have never seen used by any scholar or apologist to defend or explain the relational aspects of the Trinity. The exception is Prov. 8:22ff, which Tulbure dismisses based on the KJV translation saying that Wisdom was "created"; see link above for analysis of this.
- Typology -- Throughout the chapter Tulbure offers common Skeptical arguments of OT texts being misinterpreted by Matthew and Paul. This is answered by items found here and here.
Tulbure sets Is. 11:1 ("a rod out of the stem of Jesse") against Rev. 22:16 ("I am the root and the offspring of David"), arguing that "Jesus cannot be the rod if he is already the root". Tulbure is applying a modern, scientific definition of "root" to an ancient Greek word used before the advent of modern botany. The word in question refers to any major outgrowth from the source of a tree, not just the underground roots. (Cf. Luke 3:9, "And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.")
However, it may be added the Revelation passage alludes both to Christ's role as Creator of David and as his offspring -- a dual reference.
Another note, a bit perverted: Rev. 2:26, 28 is quoted, "And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star." Somehow, in a way not explained, Tulbure interprets the "morning star" reference as meaning Jesus will be "giving himself to someone sexually or as property" [116] since Jesus is the morning star elsewhere in Revelation (22:16).
Tulbure needs to examine the Greek: the "morning star" in Rev. 2 is proinos aster; the second one is orthinos aster. The latter is used in the sense of the primary rising star, indicating Jesus' prominence. However, the connection of star imagery in Judaism (Num. 24:17) indicates that what Jesus will give is a share in the Messianic kingdom.
In reply to Romans 9:6-8, Tulbure consults neither a scholarly commentary, nor any other work, but merely comments, "How can anyone in his or her right mind believe this sh#t?" Can you imagine turning in a seminary paper with such contents?
- The Law -- see here. Tulbure quotes numerous verses that refer to the law as "for ever". The word used in the Hebrew is 'olam and means, not exactly forever, but "in perpetuity." It is used to describe as well the term of a slave (Ex. 21:6//Deut. 15:17). Unless Tulbure thinks that this means that the master would dig the slave out of his grave and put him to work, this clearly does not mean "forever" in the sense that covenant would always be kept, but implies that the Jews would keep these feasts and such as long as they maintained the covenant agreement and didn't break it.
At the same time, it hardly indicates that God cannot sign a new covenant/contract with others on different terms. Tulbure needs to consider the nature of Deuteronomy as a covenant document and the nature and use of such documents in the ANE.
On the misuse of Eccl. 12:7, see here. On the misuse of Deut. 24:16, etc. see here. On the use of Job 15:4 to say that Jesus could not be born clean or sinless: This verse is said by Eliphaz, one of Job's adversaries/friends, who at the end of the book is implicated to be in the wrong as a whole.
On Jesus' genealogy see here. Tulbure says that "no genealogical records were kept." [129] As the link shows, this is simply false.
On Is. 7:14 see here.
On Matt. 2:23 see here.
On Matt. 11:2-3 see here.
On the two donkeys see here. Tulbure anounces that in Jesus' time, "riding on donkeys was the norm" and so Jesus was not special in this regard. Actually in this time as well it was normal to dismount as you entered a city; only those who came as conquerors or kings were thought privileged enough to enter a city while riding.
On the Bethlehem issue see here. On the Slaughter of the Innocents see here. From somewhere Tulbure gets the idea that this event involved 30,000 to 90,000 babies. Does Tulbure think there were this many "in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof"? More like 10 or 12, not 30,000 to 90,000.
Tulbure also wonders, then, why the family would flee to Egypt if Herod only threatened babies in Bethlehem. He supposes they could have gone to Nazareth, but Herod ruled that area, too, and if he found out about the escape, would not hesitate to do what was needed.
Tulbure also thinks the family "went on a very long and most difficult journey, all the way to Egypt..." The journey must not have been too "long and difficult," or at least must have been worth it, for as Keener reports, in this time many Jews sought refuge in Egypt, most likely because a) Herod had no formal extradition treaty with the Roman authorities in Egypt; b) Egypt had a huge Jewish population which would be easy to blend into. But a fugitive on the run hardly thinks about any inconveniences.
- On Daniel's Son of Man -- Tulbure states that this "one like a son of man" was not a messiah but "could be anyone." This is not correct -- see here. On the alleged lack of a Second Coming see here. On James 1:13 see here, last paragraph.
- Alleged contradictions in the Gospels -- see here and here.
Tulbure misuses Paul's irony in 2 Corinthians [157] to make Paul out to be an actual miscreant by his own admission.
Chapter 10
Material in this chapter is conceptually refuted by links above concerning NT use of OT prophecy and the link on Gerald Sigal. It is again no more than Tulbure repeating arguments by non-experts like Thomas Paine who had no knowledge of first century Jewish exegesis and hermeneutics.
A few points otherwise:
- Tulbure offers an extremely simplistic idea of predestination as meaning we are "pre-programmed by God." This is not held by even Calvinism.
- On the cry from the cross see here.
- Tulbure continues to argue based on the false idea of God = Jesus in a one-to-one correspondence; see links above.
- Tulbure rightfully states that historic Christianity should have been thankful to the Jews, not persecuting them.
- On John 12:47 see here.
- On Ps. 22 see Did Christians invent the "pierced my hands and feet" part?
- On Jesus' drink see here.
- On human sacrifice and Jesus see here.
- On Jewish role in the death of Jesus see here
- On Daniel, if Tulbure thinks Cyrus filled the bill, he needs to explain, but doesn't, Daniel 9:29. We do that here. Tulbure accuses "Churchianity" of "ignoring the punctuation" in the Hebrew text, which is in error because Hebrew did not have punctuation until after the Christian era.
Chapter 11
This one takes Jesus to task for bad behavior and "argument by outrage" against righteous judgment and punishment. We have already answered most of this:
- On Matthew 10:34-6 and Luke 22:36 see here.
- On why the disciples were not arrested, see here. Romans were most likely not part of the party. An odd note: Tulbure writes, "If I remember correctly, the punishment for attacking and wounding a Roman citizen and a soldier at that, was death...{I could be wrong though.)"
Is this reflectice of serious research?
- Tulbure thinks that Jesus was wrong in the Temple cleansing because the moneychangers, et al provided a needed service and did not rip people off. They did, actually, as later rabbinic literature attests, but furthermore they did not need to set up in the Temple courtyard -- there was ample room elsewhere, and in fact, this was not the only market available.
On the idea that we have here "a ruthless and certainly violent G-zus, whom, very likely, had mental problems," see here. The idea that Roman guards protected the moneychangers is only partially true -- there were only a few Romans in all of Judaea, and they patrolled the top of the fortress wall. They would not interfere unless things got truly violent, which they did not. No human blood was shed.
- On the fig tree see here.
- On Luke 14:26 see here.
- This is the first new one I've seen in a while, Matthew 19:29. It doesn't need a new answer, though, just application of an old one. See also here for why our family would forsake you.
- On teaching in secret see here.
- On Matthew 5:25 -- see here.
- On Matthew 18:19 and other prayer verses, see here. On doing "greater works" see here.
- On Mark 16:17-18 see here. Matthew 7:22-3 represents claims, not necessarily successful ones.
- On disrespecting Paul the "great desceiver" (sic) see here and here.
Chapter 12
This is a short take on Messianic prophecy in Isaiah. It needs no new answers other than those we have linked above on the subject.
Chapter 13
This one's on the covenant. Much of this is covered by what we say here. On atonement see here. Tulbure criticizes Paul for saying that those who break even one of the laws are guilty of all of them -- problem is, this was said by James (2:10), not Paul, and just as an incidental note, James 2:10 reflects comments also found in rabbinic Judaism (to the effect that those who break one law are liable to the rest), and they point not to actual lawbreaking, but to the mind-attitude that allows one to break any one of the laws in the first place. (The verb in James 2:10 can mean liable to, or responsible to.)
In light of that some of Tulbure's next comments are ironic:
The reason so many morons believed and still believe Paul is due to three reasons: 1. People who believe Paul are anti-Semitic, pure and simple. 2. People who believe Paul are lazy morons who don't care what the Law actually is, or what the Bible actually has to say. 3. People who believe Paul are poorly educated for he [sic] most part, and have mental problems of sorts, which prevent them from being able to deal with reality in a rational manner.
By this, a scholar like Ben Witherington has "mental problems of sorts." I'm sure he'll be glad to hear that diagnosis from an expert like Tulbure.
Tulbure quotes Is. 66:23 to prove that Jewish holidays will be kept in the Messianic kingdom. To some extent we agree -- but that hardly means that the holidays and sacrifices will be vested with the same ceremony and significance, and Is. 66:23 does not say that.
Chapter 14
For most of his book Tulbure has been critiquing the NT; now he turns with whole heart and loose mind to the OT. There's some stuff here beyond our scope, and more of the namecalling we have seen before. A large portion of the chapter is about evolution and the age of the earth. Tulbure brazenly asserts a belief in eternal matter (but don't expect any analysis of the problems associated with that), offers the "who made God" argument as though it were actually a worthwhile challenge; calls people at the time of Moses "barbaric, uneducated," and "ignorant"; criticizes the creation account as unscientific; speculates that Moses thought the sun was only three feet in diameter and offers the point about the sun standing still and going backwards as well (see here).
Further, he speaks extensively about how wonderful science is (science, which gives you candy and music, but also the WTC bombing) and how wonderful man is ("YOU are the only god you should worship..."); misinterprets the "image" language of Gen. 1:26 as the Mormons do (see The Mormon Defenders, Chapter 1); argues fort two creation accounts (see here); makes remarks that Glenn Miller addresses here; comments about the Exodus (see here and here).
Tulbure wonders why Moses didn't make a speech about "freedom, kindness, and peace" to convince Pharaoh to let the people go. Why not? The likely response of an Egyptian despot-god to such things: "That's nice. Throw him into the crocodile pen." Tulbure should know that the Plagues struck at the heart of Egypt's social, economic, and religious life and were the most effective weapon, collectively, to force Pharaoh's hand. He also wonders why Pharaoh was not overthrown by his people, but that's not how an ancient collectivist society thought, and besides, only one side had any weapons to work with.
Tulbure refers to the Promised Land as "tiny and ugly...nasty" -- then one wonders why anyone lived there at all, as our excavations have shown. He tells us that manna "defied the law of physics", partly because it magically changed to the amount of one omer however much you gathered (no, I don't know where he gets this from -- possibly from a careless reading of Ex. 16:18); wonders why God didn't provide "a generous variety of meats and vegetables" (spoken like a true modern who gorges himself like a Roman Emperor, while most people in the world eat a handful of rice every day); doesn't know that the "hornet" is a symbol of Egypt, and what would help drive people out of the promised land; wonders how, with people in the Promised Land, wild beasts could have been a threat (they didn't have things like high-powered rifles); wonders why God would care to make such detailed instructions for the cultic apparatus (it's how the ancients thought, not moderns -- they cared deeply about such things); argues against Mosaic authorship (see here); declares the law about uncleanness after birth, especially being double for a girl, to be "barbaric" (see here to get a grip on the cultural background, and understand why Tulbure is wrong on the broader ceremonial issues, and here for a more specific corrective); offers points re slavery (see here); calls various laws in the OT "barbaric" without any comparison to other ancient law codes or any relevant analysis of the social background data; and objects on polygamy (a survival necessity, often, in ancient times, and in defense of the Mormons, let me add that polygamy is NOT considered pure in Utah by the majority there anymore); the usual about Numbers 31 (see here), and plenty of argument by outrage.
Chapter 15
This is a short chapter, only 3 pages, and an unusual one -- it represents Tulbure's one "original" thesis in the book. Tulbure thinks we have been "misled by tradition and ignorance" to think that "only two were crucified with the Lord." [277] Tulbure says, "there were two thieves (gr. lestai=robbers) and there were to [sic] malefactors."
Yes, Matthew and Mark refer to two lestai, which the KJV renders "thieves" (though the word is better a description like we may say, a terrorist). Luke in the KJV does say "malefactors" -- the Greek word here is kakourgos, meaning a criminal or a wrong-doer. In other words, it is a general term. It is like Matthew and Mark (John only says "others") are saying they are "bank robbers" and Luke is saying they are "criminals". So is refuted Tulbure's one original contribution to Biblical scholarship: There were not two with Jesus, but four.
Tulbure supports his thesis by arguing that the Gospels have the "thieves" and "malefactors" crucified at different times with respect to Jesus, but in fact none of the Gospels give time-markers; in all cases the other two are an afterthought or a footnote, as we would say, and it nowhere says they were crucified before or after Jesus.
The final chapter of this book is by far the largest and seems to have been the place where Tulbure collected every single alleged Bible contradiction he could find. It is still not as thick as McKinsey's Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (though remove McKinsey's polemic and repetition, and it might be) and contains mostly citations that we have already covered. Others are simple enough to simply add as entries in our Encyclopedia, and we will do so. Thus we advise the reader to consult our Encyclopedia indices for the majority of these. In several cases Tulbure adds new verses to old arguments, but these do not add new validity in any instance.