(4601) The lamp analogy
Suppose you are in a room with a lamp and several electrical outlets. As it gets dark, you plug your lamp into one of the outlets, the one marked ‘Atheism.’ But the lamp does not illuminate. So you try another one, this one marked ‘Islam.’ Same result, no light. You try others including ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Buddhism,’ with the same result. Finally you plug it into the outlet marked ‘Christianity’ and the lamp illuminates giving you light and heat.
Now at this point, would you ever unplug the lamp from the Christianity outlet and plug it into any other outlet, including the Atheism one? No. You have found the outlet that works and you will stick with that one.
In the same way, if Christianity is true, and its followers are getting real, tangible benefits by being ‘plugged in’ to a supernatural, omnipotent, prayer-answering deity, then it would foolish to ‘plug in’ to anything else that doesn’t have these benefits.
From this analogy, it is argued that if Christianity is true, and that its followers are connected to a supernatural source, and receiving obvious tangible benefits, then it would be nearly unheard of for any of them to fall away from the faith. Yet, this is happening at an increasing pace every day, both anecdotally and statistically.
Another way to look at it is that if any religion was true, then the people who converted to it would never leave, while those following false religions would tend to fall away. Given time, this would imply that the only surviving religion would be the true one. But this is not happening with Christianity. Other religions are thriving while Christianity is withering. How could this happen if Christianity is true, while other religions are false? Answer: Because Christianity is not true.
(4602) God’s ‘love’ is not lovely
The mantra of the Christian religion- that God loves human beings and offered his son to die so that we could be ‘purified’ enough to enter heaven- is FATALLY FLAWED. Whoever thought up this scheme never considered the implications. The following was taken from:
https://medium.com/excommunications/the-manipulative-nature-of-the-christian-faith-67f6b7d4ac5f
Christians love to preach Jesus and his ministry on Earth. They love bringing up his crucifixion as his great sacrifice. They love telling us, unbelievers, that he died for us so we could go to Heaven through him. And this all sounds great, until one starts thinking about it more deeply.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
What I often ask Christians is: If a mother told her child that if they rejected her she would put them in the basement and torture them eternally, but that it was their decision, what kind of mother would you say she was? Would you call her loving and caring or rather abusive? Why do we make an exception with God?
Why is it considered loving for God to say that He loves us and yet He is willing to let us suffer for the pure act of not being convinced He exists? That’s how much He loves us — if you don’t believe in Him, He’ll send you to Hell. And before you say that He is not the one sending anyone to Hell, if He created Hell, then He is. Otherwise, He could have easily created a different system.
I was told that it didn’t matter what kind of person I was, if I was an atheist or a non-Christian, I was already on my way to Hell. Does God even care about someone’s heart? I always hear that He knows our intentions and He very much cares about them. However, if He truly did, wouldn’t that be enough?
To God, every sin is the same. — (A friend of mine)
Furthermore, how come non-Christian murderers receive the same punishment after death as other non-Christians who were good people throughout their lives? How is that fair? How is someone sleeping with their romantic partner who they love before marriage as big of a crime as killing someone? I honestly never understood that.
Besides, what we often hear Christians say is that we don’t deserve anything and that we are terrible, sinful beings who fall short in the eyes of God, so, Jesus died for our sins so we could be forgiven…why couldn’t we be forgiven without a sacrifice? Also, the question I have been asking again and again is, why couldn’t God have created us differently? He is omnipotent after all.
“A place I created for the Devil and his angels.”
“If you created it for the Devil, why do you want to save me from it?”
“Because you will go there if you don’t let me in.”
“But you created me this way.”
“I know. That’s why I want you to be saved.”
No one has given me an answer yet that made me rethink the message of this religion. I’m still waiting for the person whose answer makes sense and turns this God into a loving being in my eyes. I’m not saying that we are perfect — but what is perfect? Even God thought that his creation was good, not perfect.
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning — the sixth day.
If God creating a Hell is loving, then I don’t know what the opposite of it is. I’m not choosing to not believe and if God knows everything, He knew from the beginning that I wouldn’t become a Christian. Why did He create me this way? So my soul would suffer eternally? Very loving indeed.
Christianity would be better off if it never invented the concept of hell. Just have unsaved people cease to exist. Even with that, it would still be a stupid plan to base eternal life on a belief that is supported by insufficient evidence, but at least it would avoid the ridiculous, macabre element of hell. But one good thing about hell- it lets us know for sure that this religion is a farce, made up by humans, and has nothing to do with any cosmic deity.
(4603) Christians need material evidence
Because of a lack of evidence supporting their beliefs, Christians are vulnerable to scams that purport to be relics of their faith. This represents a desperate attempt to hang on to their hopes of a glorious afterlife. It can be conjectured that if Christianity was real, there would be plenty of substantial evidence supporting it, obviating the need for these pathetic attempts at validation. The following was taken from:
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/opeds/cain1357902
The Shroud of Turin special 2010 Expo is over. We are told that about 2 million pilgrims have traveled there to see a medieval hoax. This is a miracle, indeed, even if the Vatican has never officially said it is the real burial cloth of Jesus — they have defined it as an “icon” that recalls Jesus’ passion — the way it is solemnly shown in a cathedral gives the people just the opposite sensation.
While pareidolia seems to be a psychological phenomenon of all Christianities, relics and weeping statues are confined to the Catholic universe. The best scholar who debunked many of these fake relics was a Christian: John Calvin. I consider him to be still the best ally in this battle against ignorance and superstition. It was he — and not an agnostic or an atheist — to show the absurdity of a cult, which brought his religion close to paganism.
In his native France, Calvin had come across so many abuses, so many palpably false claims that he concluded in his treatise on relics that there were more perversity and idolatry among Christians than ever was known among unbelievers. Calvin turned his considerable power of irony on some choice contemporary manifestations of the cult. He had heard that some treasured what they deemed “a piece of a broiled fish which Peter gave Jesus on the sea shore.” That fish, observed Calvin, “must have been thoroughly spiced to have been preserved so long.” On the amazing power of the Virgin Mary to produce milk, he commented that “had the Virgin been a wet-nurse for all her life, she could not have produced more milk that you can see in various parts of the land.”
So Calvin continued methodically considering the four lances that claimed to have pierced Jesus’ side, the three heads of John the Baptist, or the two bodies of Mary Magdalene. He perceived that a curious kind of bad faith operated when men and women of his time came to look at relics. Instead of using their brains or even their eyes, people preferred to bow down reverently and blindly. This is why still today faithful cannot see that the hair and the presumed blood of the man of the Shroud follow patterns as if he was standing up and not laying down in a tomb. Calvin said that an arm at Geneva, said to be St. Anthony’s, was worshipped uncritically until it fell out of its shrine and was found to be the penis of a stag. In the same city, St Peter’s brain was displayed on the high altar of one church until the profane discovered it to be in truth a lump of pumice-stone.
Just a week ago, I found out that after selling a feather of the Holy Spirit, you can now buy a 1 centimeter fragment of the True Cross of Jesus for $800 on eBay http://cgi.ebay.it/RELIQUIA-RELIC-RELICARIO-SS-CROCE-TRUE-CROSS-D-N-J-C-/130390677761 All these supposed biblical relics are inventions for deceiving silly folk and devout believers: pious frauds or honest deceits to stimulate the devotion of the people. Is this faith? I wonder why do some Christians still need material evidence of the life and death of Jesus? What is a believer looking for?
In this contemporary age, many are surprised to hear reports of extraordinary religious events and that there are people who take them seriously. After all, we seem to have passed beyond the age of miracles to enter a time when God does not communicate with humans. Especially in the modern West, people go about their daily business and only rarely hear about the spiritual side of existence. When we do hear of such reports, we typically strive for alternative explanations that affirm our skepticism and prove that the apparently dramatic is merely another example of the mundane.
Such an approach to relics, visions, or apparitions is consistent with the tenor of our times. What were once thought to be miracles no longer survive close scrutiny. Increasingly over the last century, scholars armed with scientific methodology and philological analysis have debunked presumed secrets behind supernatural claims or miraculous relics. These have been useful instruments for catching charlatans, Holy Grail seekers, or discoverers of Noah’s Ark.
The divine is, by its very nature, not accessible to science, science being limited to what people can directly observe and measure. Some people claim to have seen the Virgin Mary, who often gives them messages to convey to the faithful. On occasion, however, some claims seem outside the bounds of acceptability even to believers. One example maybe Diana Duyser, a woman who possessed a grilled cheese sandwich that – she said – bore an image of the mother of Jesus. She kept it in her house for a decade with flocks of pilgrims going by to pray in front of a slice of grilled cheese. In the end, she sold it on eBay for $28,000. I am sure Calvin felt a cold shiver running down his spine, even if he is dead.
In a certain sense, the grilled cheese relic story challenges our understanding of what is the religious experience of a human being. And, on the other hand, it teaches us something else. It gives the answer to my question: believers want to see, need to see to turn their idea of the divine into an object which is here with us on Earth.
Rather than validating their faith, when Christians fall for fake relics, it reveals how poorly evidenced their beliefs are. If Christianity was true, the Bible would be prescient, prayers would be effective, and the universe would show signs of intelligent design. Lacking all of that, Christians are left making fools of themselves as they embrace ludicrous scams.
(4604) Sword converts
The history of world religions is one filled with conquest and oppression, such that invading parties were able to instill their religion upon the conquered by the point of the sword. It is often overlooked that most people are worshiping a god that was forced on their ancestors upon penalty of death. The following was taken from:
Most people follow a religion which was forced upon their ancestors, often times in very brutal and inhumane ways. If this fact was more well known, it would cause many people to leave religion.
The only countries today which do not worship a foreign God are India and Saudi Arabia. Think about that for a second. Do you think the old Gods all around the world just willingly stepped down for the Gods of the foreign invaders. No. They were murdered.
What this means is that the gods that most people believe in were determined by the result of ancient wars- we worship the gods that were worshiped by the winners.
(4605) Empirical evidence is required
Because multiple religions exist, it is not sufficient to present arguments for the non-specific existence of a divine being or beings without also providing preferred evidence for a given religion- that is evidence that supports a given religion to the exclusion of all others. The following thesis explains why atheists are justified to state that the evidence for Christianity or any other religion is insufficient because it fails to make this distinction.
Thesis Statement: Atheists are right to request empirical evidence of theological and religious claims because there is a marketplace of incompatible religious ideas competing for belief.
Premise 1: In religious debates the atheist/skeptical position often requests empirical evidence to support religious truth claims.
Premise 2: Theists often argue that such demands of evidence do not reflect a usual standard of knowledge. I.e. the typical atheist holds many positions about the world of facts that are not immediately substantiated by empirical evidence, so theistic belief needn’t be either. See here all arguments about faith not requiring evidence, Christ preferring those who believe without evidence, etc.
Premise 3: There is a diversity of religious beliefs in the world, which are often mutually incompatible. For example, one cannot simultaneously believe the mandatory truth claims of Islam and Christianity and Hinduism (universalist projects inevitably devolve into moral cherry-picking, not sincere religious belief within those traditions).
Premise 4: When trying to determine the truth out of multiple possibilities, empirical evidence is the most effective means in doing so. I.e. sincere religious seekers who care about holding true beliefs cannot simply lower their standard of evidence, because that equally lowers the bar for all religious truth claims. Attacking epistemology does not strengthen a Christian’s argument, for example, it also strengthens the arguments of Muslims and Hindus in equal measure. Attacking epistemology does not make your truth claims more likely to be accurate.
Edit: The people want more support for premise 4 and support they shall have. Empirical evidence is replicable, independently verifiable, and thus more resistant to the whims of personal experience, bias, culture, and personal superstition. Empirical evidence is the foundation for all of our understanding of medical science, physics, computation, social science, and more. That is because it works. It is the best evidence because it reliably returns results that are useful to us and can be systematically applied to our questions about the world. It and the scientific method have been by far the best way of advancing, correcting, and explaining information about our world.
Logical arguments can be good too but they rely on useful assumptions, and for these reasons above the best way to know if assumptions are good/accurate is also to seek empirical evidence in support of those.
“But you have to make a priori assumptions to do that!” you say. Yes. You cannot do anything useful in the world without doing so. Fortunately, it appears to all of us that you can, in fact, make accurate measurements and descriptions of the real world so unless it’s found that all of our most fundamental faculties are flawed and we are truly brains in vats, this is obviously the most reasonable way to navigate the world and seek truth.
Premise 5: Suggesting that a bar for evidence is too high is not an affirmative argument for one’s own position over others.
As such when an atheist looks out upon the landscape of religious beliefs with an open mind, even one seeking spiritual truth, religious arguments that their standards of belief are “too high” or “inconsistent” do nothing to aid the theists’ position. As an atheist I am faced with both Christians and Muslims saying their beliefs are True. Attacking secular epistemology does nothing to help me determine if the Christian or Muslim (etc.) is in fact correct.
Evidence for Christianity is no greater than that for Islam or any other religion for that matter. It is because of this situation that most Christian apologists fall back on arguments that support the concept of a generic deity. This will not work to convince any atheist, agnostic, or non-Christian theist.
(4606) Herod wants to kill Jesus…or not
There is a major contradiction between the Jesus birth stories in Matthew and Luke. In Matthew the whole narrative revolves around the threat to Jesus’ life by Herod as well as his successor Archelaus. For this reason, Jesus is kept out of Jerusalem for at least 10 years. But in Luke, Jesus is presented at six weeks in the temple in Jerusalem and proclaimed to be the Messiah. This would be an immediate death sentence for Jesus if Matthew is to be believed. The following was taken from:
I second the recommendation of Raymond Brown’s “The Birth of the Messiah,” but for those who do not have the time or access to it, the most blatant contradiction is this:
The reason Joseph flees to Egypt in Matthew is that Herod is such a paranoid homicidal maniac that he is willing to kill every male infant in Bethlehem to get to Jesus (Matt 2:16), based only on a rumor from foreign visitors, even though Herod is so old that an infant would not be old enough to threaten his rule before Herod dies of old age, which he does within a few years.
Not only does Matthew have Joseph cowering in Egypt for those years, but even after Herod dies, he is warned (2:22) that Judea is still not safe for him, because Herod’s son and successor Archelaus also has murderous intent. Archelaus ruled until 6 CE, so according to Matthew, Joseph would have stayed out of Judea for at least ten years.
In Luke, not only does Joseph take Mary and Jesus to the Temple in Jerusalem at the age of six weeks (Luke 2:22, Lev 12:3-4, 6), but the baby Jesus is publicly proclaimed to be the Messiah by various prophets in the Temple (2:25-35), half a mile from Herod’s palace. Luke explicitly says that the prophetess Anna told everyone who was looking for the Messiah about Jesus (2:36-38), so Herod would have heard about him even if he didn’t have spies in the Temple. Yet Joseph and his family are not bothered by Herod at all; they have a nice time in Jerusalem and then go home to Nazareth, completely unmolested(2:39).
Luke also states (2:41-42) that they return to Jerusalem (which is in Judea) every year for Passover, with Jesus “as usual,” which contradicts Matthew’s account that Joseph was afraid to go to Jerusalem while Archelaus reigned.
Either Jesus was imperiled by Herod or not, but both cannot be true. No Christian can read these two accounts and come away satisfied that they both recount true history. Yet very few are even aware of this major contradiction.
(4607) Questions lacking satisfying answers
It doesn’t take much thinking to have Christian theology making knots in your brain. Whenever you think about it deeply, strategically, and objectively, it makes no sense. It was not well thought out by its creators. The following asks some of the questions that Christians struggle to answer:
-
- Why is the Old Testament God mean while the New Testament God is loving? Especially if God is beyond time and doesn’t conform to linear timelines?
- If the Bible is a moral book with ageless relevance, why are there laws that force women to marry their rapists, promote slavery, and encourage killing war orphans?
- Why are there four Gospels, and why are they all different — even contradictory? How do Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John infallibly write passages where Jesus is alone and praying?
- If God is omnipotent not just on Earth but throughout the universe, how does Satan exist at all? If God is merciful and loving, why are you telling me that He “allows” Satan to exist?
- How can the Bible still be inerrant after the dozens of translations, revisions, canonizations, cuts, and political interpretations it’s gone through?
And these were just the technical, hermeneutical questions. Don’t even get me started on the blatantly philosophical questions like:
Of course, Christians have answers to most of these questions, all of which are variations on the theme: “God works in mysterious ways.” For those intellectual believers not satisfied with fluff, there were the charts and the graphs and the original Greek. However, the logic that buoys them ends after a couple of layers, something I quickly started to see once I turned an academic eye to the platitudes I’d absorbed all my life. Some of these theories are so bigoted they have no place in any serious modern conversation— the Curse of Ham, anyone? (Yeah, that’s one I grew up with.)
As someone who no longer has to worry about fitting an entire world’s complex and multilayered philosophical history into a single book, most of these questions are incredibly, refreshingly simple to me. Contradictions or apparent inaccuracies in the Bible are just that: contradictions and inaccuracies. Bad things happen to good people because life’s not fair. God doesn’t intervene in natural disasters because God — at least the engaged, guardian-of-the-galaxies Christian God— does not exist.
All of the conundrums above and others are simply explained by the fact that there are no gods and that all religious belief is based on myth. It is the simplest solution, and usually the simplest solution is the one that is correct.
(4608) Demolishing Luke’s census story
Christians luxuriate when telling the story of the census in the Gospel of Luke that brought Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem, where Jesus was allegedly born. But there many compelling reasons to conclude that this tale is not historical. The following was taken from:
https://bam.sites.uiowa.edu/faq/can-you-explain-problem-census-gospel-luke
I frequently receive questions about the census mentioned in the Gospel of Luke. Specifically, people ask about the problematic nature of this census with regard to its historicity and to the fact that it doesn’t align so well with the birth narrative offered in Matthew’s Gospel. First, know that biblical scholars have wrestled with this census issue for over a century. But let me explain it as best I can here.
Luke 2:1–3 reads:
(1) In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. (2) This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. (3) All went to their own towns to be registered.
There are a couple of problems with the census.
First, Quirinius and Herod the Great did not rule at the same time. Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. (If that fact alone causes you some hesitation—the fact that Jesus must have been born 4 to 7 years “before Christ” (BC)— please read my 2009 article, Why Christians Should Adopt the BCE/CE Dating System, which explains why this is the case.) Anyway, Herod the Great died in 4 BCE, and yet Publius Sulpicius Quirinius wasn’t appointed as the governor of Syria until 6 CE, that is, well after Herod the Great died and after Herod’s son and successor, Archelaus, was banished as ruler of Judea.
Mary and Joseph register for the census before the Roman Governor Quirinius. Byzantine mosaic at the Church of the Holy Saviour in Chora, Constantinople (modern Istanbul, Turkey) 1315–20. (Image credit: The Yorck Project (2002), distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH)
What does this mean? It means that Quirinius didn’t rule until 10 years after Herod the Great had died! This means there is no way that Quirinius could have called a census while Herod the Great was king. Herod had been dead for a decade! And this means that Jesus couldn’t have been born both during the reign of Herod the Great and during the census of Quirinius! It’s not possible—the chronology is off by a decade.
At the very least, there’s a historical mistake recorded in the Bible. Either Luke wrote down the name of the wrong governor, or there was no census. Luke used the census as a literary device to bring Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem of Judea so that Jesus of Nazareth, would be born in Bethlehem. But we’ll come back to that problem in a second.
There is a second problem with the census in Luke 2. Simply put, Romans did not require subjects to return to their ancestral homes to be counted, rather, they made them return to their present homes. To explain this, I’ll refer you to what I wrote on pg. 230 of my 2016 book, The Cities That Built the Bible:
First, censuses were taken for the purpose of taxation. Although there are certainly literary records of censuses taking place throughout the Roman Empire at this time,there is no evidence that those who were being counted were required to travel to their ancestral hometowns in order to be counted. Indeed, an Egyptian census edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Roman prefect of Egypt from 103 to 107, did require that “all persons who for any reason whatsoever are absent from their home districts be alerted to return to their own hearths, so that they may complete the customary formalities of registration and apply themselves to the farming for which they are responsible.”
Although this edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus does mention a return home for the purposes of taxation, residents were not required to return to their ancestral homes, but to their present homes, so that both people and assets could be assessed for purposes of taxation. Essentially you couldn’t be “out of town” when the government came to take the census and collect taxes. Indeed, traveling to one’s ancestral home would not allow pilgrims to “apply themselves to the farming for which they are responsible.”
Rather, residents under Roman rule were to go to their present homes so that they and their possessions could be counted and taxed. Luke further strains credulity by arguing that the nine-months-pregnant Mary would have made the arduous three-day journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem. Thus, any registration would have required Joseph and his family to return to their present homes to be counted, and Jesus’s present home was in Nazareth, not Bethlehem.
[12] Josephus, Antiquities 17.13.5 (17:354); 18.1.1 (18:1–2).
[13] Lewis, Naphtali, Life in Egypt Under Roman Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), 156. The census edict of Gaius Vibius Maximus of 104 CE from Alexandria is written on papyrus and cataloged as P.London 904 in the British Museum. See also Hunt, A. S., and C. C. Edgar, Select Papyri, Volume II: Public Documents. Loeb Classical Library 282. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1934.
Essentially, we don’t have evidence that subjects of ancient Rome were required to return to their ancestral homes for counting and taxation purposes. Returning to an ancestral home actually defeated the purpose—all a subject’s property would still be back in their present home. The Romans wanted to see who was in each present household and what they owned so they could tax it.
Thus, it is far more likely that Luke used this chronologically-challenged census as a literary device to bring Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem temporarily so that Jesus could be born there, as Luke depicts Joseph and Mary as living in Nazareth both before and after his birth.
Remember, this is different from the birth narrative in the Gospel of Matthew, which depicts Joseph and Mary as already living in Bethlehem, and Jesus simply being born at home. There is no mention of an “inn” or manger or guest house in Matthew’s Gospel like there is in Luke 2:7. Note also that there is no mention of Nazareth (or a census for that matter) prior to Jesus’s birth in Matthew’s Gospel. In Matthew’s Gospel, the star appears, and the magi begin their trek from the east to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1–2). They stop to speak to Herod the Great on the way. This all takes some considerable time and is not congruent with a short, temporary stay in a Bethlehem guesthouse. Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem according to Matthew’s Gospel, and following Jesus’s birth, they fled to Egypt for a couple of years (Matthew 2:13–15). Only after Herod the Great died did they move to Nazareth and make their new home there because they learned that Herod’s son, Archelaus, was ruling in Jerusalem (Matthew 2:19–23). It is clear in Matthew’s Gospel that Mary and Joseph did not previously live in Nazareth, as verse 23 says, “He made his home in a town called Nazareth.” There is no need for Matthew to introduce the reader to the town of Nazareth if Mary and Joseph had already lived there prior to Jesus’s birth.
Thus, there are multiple problems with the census in Luke chapter two. First, Quirinius and Herod the Great didn’t rule at the same time so Jesus couldn’t have been born during both of their rules. Second, Romans didn’t require their subjects to return to their ancestral homes to be counted, but instead to their present homes. This creates a problem because in Matthew’s Gospel, Mary and Joseph live in Bethlehem, and only move to Nazareth after fleeing to Egypt, while Luke’s Gospel depicts Mary and Joseph as already living in Nazareth. Thus, Luke likely used the census as a literary device to bring Jesus to Bethlehem, so that he could be born according to the prevalent tradition that Jesus of Nazareth was born in Bethlehem.
The census is total and complete fiction, perhaps never even meant to be taken literally by the author himself. But most Christians today accept its truth without knowing or pursuing the facts that definitively render it as a myth.
(4609) God ‘answers’ your prayers
Many Christians believe that God (sometimes) answers their prayers (though a statistical analysis would beg to differ). But irrespective of the truth of their perception, it leaves a wide gap of credulity when looking at the BIG PICTURE. The following exposes this pious credulity:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/17itp2j/do_you_believe_god_answers_your_prayers_things_i/
Do you believe in a god that answers prayers?
To believe in a god that answers prayers, you must acknowledge that this same god ignored slavery, and the holocaust, and all the millions of prayers that were offered up, and acknowledge that this same god allows the continued sexual abuse & cover-up of sexual abuse of children by religious leaders claiming to represent Him. But he answers your prayers.
You acknowledge that this god allows 8-9 million children die each year & that their parents prayers go unanswered, but he answers your prayers. Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. But this god chooses to answer your prayers.
You must acknowledge that he allowed thousands of babies to suffer & die of neglect and/or abuse in church run homes for unwed mothers, but still answers your prayers. You must acknowledge that he allows children to be shot in school by the hundreds, but he answers your prayers.
We could keep going here, pretty much indefinitely. What mechanism do you think your god uses to choose who lives and who dies? Why do you think he intervenes in your life when he clearly ignores all of the needless suffering & atrocities of this world? Do you think you are more deserving than others? Is this frame of mind humble or arrogant?
Christians would be better off believing that God doesn’t answer any prayers than clinging to the idea that they have a special and somewhat exclusive connection to the divine. It is astonishing to see how Christians can be so insular as to not see that their beliefs are not matching what’s happening in the world as a whole. God does not answer prayer because God does not exist.
(4610) Lying for the Lord
Although Christians are for the most part taught to be honest with themselves and others, and not to cheat or steal, there remains a VERY POWERFUL incentive for them to lie in a manner that enhances the faith of their friends and family. This is important to remember when evaluating any miracle claim made in person or in the scriptures.
If a Christian is asked whether it is better to always be truthful and have their daughter go to hell, or to concoct a story about a miracle that would result in the daughter remaining faithful and going to heaven, then it is obvious that they would say that telling the lie was the right thing to do.
This predilection to tell lies for the ‘eternal benefit’ of others is endemic to the Christian faith as well as other religions. This, of course, also includes enhancing stories to make them seem more miraculous. Because of this, a true skeptic would conclude that most if not all miracle stories are made up, and to be suspicious of any claims of this nature.
The Bible is full of made-up miraculous tales, knowingly fabricated by the authors, and rationalized as a ‘good lie’ because it supposedly brings more people to the brink of salvation. And not just the Bible, but otherwise honest Christians who practice this deception themselves for the same purpose.
(4611) Jews interpreted terms differently
In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus is called the Son of God and Messiah. Christians today interpret these terms as indicating divinity, but that was not the case for First Century Jews. The following was taken from:
At the time Jesus was alive, “messiah” would probably not have conveyed a sense of divinity.
The term messiah comes from the Hebrew for “anointed.” This refers to an ancient practice in which kings were anointed with oil. The word “Christ” also comes from the Greek word for this practice.
Second temple Jews used this term because they were specifically expecting a leader, from the line of David, ordained by God to overthrow whatever power controlled Judea (in Jesus’ time, Rome) and re-establish an independent Israel, God’s kingdom on earth. This title would not imply divinity. It would imply royal favor with God.
Variants of “messiah” are even used in a number of places to refer to kings who aren’t this anticipated redeemer of Israel. In Psalm 2:2 it refers to the Davidic King, and in Isaiah 45:1 it refers to the Persian King Cyrus, who returned Judahites from exile.
“Son of God” is similarly a title used for Israelite kings. For example, in Psalm 2:7, God tells the Davidic King that he is God’s son. God calls Solomon his son in 1 Chronicles 28:6. Again, this isn’t a statement of divinity.
There are a few complications. “Sons of God” is a term used throughout the Hebrew Bible to refer to various divine entities; in Genesis 6, Psalm 82, and DSS Deuteronomy 32, for example, it refers to the various patron deities of the world’s nations. “Son of God” may have also had a more divine connotation in a Greco-Roman context, where audiences would be more familiar with stories about literal demigods and emperors had a habit of being called “divi filius” (son of (a) god) as a propagandistic tool or as a literal claim of divinity after their death.
In a second temple Jewish audience, though, this terminology wouldn’t have suggested divinity. It would have suggested kingship or favor with YHWH.
SOURCES:
-
- Ehrman, The New Testament
- Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist
- Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination
- New Oxford Annotated Bible, NRSV
Thus, it appears that the gentile populations re-interpreted the terms ‘son of god’ and ‘messiah’ to indicate that Jesus was god. This is not the same perspective that Jews of Jesus’ time or Jesus himself would have understood. Therefore, it is no wonder that Jews for the past twenty centuries have maintained that Jesus, assuming he was a unique historical figure, was a mortal human being.
(4612) Christianity’s razzle-dazzle
Christianity was hyped up by the authors of the New Testament in order to sell the faith to a doubting public. Borrowing from ancient folklore, they imbued Jesus with all kinds of magical powers. And they were able to sell their tale because it all happened during a time when people were very credulous and where fact-checking was a thing of the future. The following was taken from:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2023/11/christianitys-addiction-to-magical.html#more
The New Testament authors used exactly this kind of razzle-dazzle to bring converts to the Jesus cult. These authors borrowed freely from miracle folklore of the ancient world: they depicted Jesus healing a blind man by smearing mud on his eyes; a woman was healed by touching the hem of Jesus’ garment. He transferred demons from a man into pigs, fed thousands of people with just a few loaves and fish, turned water into wine, raised a man from the dead by voice command, recommended magic potions—drinking his blood and eating his flesh—to gain eternal life. He cured a paralytic by forgiving his sins. Jesus glowed on a mountaintop while chatting with Moses and Elijah—and the voice of Yahweh came from water vapor (a cloud). Jesus walked on water and controlled with weather. At the end of his story, he floated up and away, disappearing in the clouds.
There’s magic as well in the letters of the apostle Paul. He taught that by believing in your heart—and saying with your lips—that Jesus was raised from the dead, “you will be saved.” That’s a magic spell. Paul also was sure your sexual desires are canceled (or, as he put it, crucified) if you “belong to Jesus.”
The New Testament is a handbook of magic. Any one of these Jesus stories told from the pulpit evokes a feeling of awe, “Wow, wasn’t Jesus wonderful!” But a responsible study/analysis of scripture means that even the most devout readers must consider probabilities, based on how we know the world works. Which is more likely—that Jesus did such awesome things, or that the gospel authors fashioned their stories from the fantasy folklore of the time? If your favorite priest or minister claims to have pulled off miracles similar to these Jesus-deeds in the gospels, only the most gullible would be convinced. In this era of cell-phones, many churchgoers would ask for evidence: “Let’s see the pictures.” But when they believe—and adore—the magic stories in the Bible, they waive the request for evidence.
There is very little curiosity about what it was like to live at the time the New Testament was written, or a grasp of how little knowledge of the world and the universe most people at that time possessed, e.g., that we live on a planet whose crust consists of seven continents and vast oceans—with a molten core at its center; that we are in a solar system that orbits the galactic center, along with billions of other solar systems. The Bible authors didn’t even know what stars are.
Nor is there much curiosity among the devout about the authors of the New Testament. Who were they, after all? But it is hard to satisfy this curiosity because the gospels were written anonymously, and so many of the epistles were forgeries. Because of the apostle Paul’s own seven authentic letters, we have an abundance of information about him—which, unfortunately, is not a good thing! But from what the New Testament authors wrote, we can figure out a lot about their mind-sets—which, also unfortunately, is not a good thing. The church has done a good cover-up job by positioning these authors as saints, and this has deflected attention from the superstitions and magical thinking that they embraced and promoted.
Scholars have researched and debated these realities for a long time, with devout scholars trying to put the best possible spin on ancient beliefs that should be trashed. Religions have always thrived on the appeal to belief without evidence. That’s the whole point of the story of Doubting Thomas, found only in John’s gospel (20:24-29). When the other disciples told Thomas that the resurrected Jesus had appeared to them—Thomas wasn’t there when it happened—his skepticism kicked in. A week later, Thomas was present when Jesus showed up again. He invited Thomas to touch the sword wound in his side, and that convinced him: “My Lord and my God!” And then he got a scolding from Jesus: “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.”
Religions rely on this gimmick: believe what the preachers claim to know about god(s).
It would be virtually impossible for a new religion similar to Christianity to develop today. There is too much readily-available information woven into the fabric of our lives. What it would take would be REAL miracles, scientifically-verified. It seems that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
(4613) God loves whales more than humans
For those Christians who believe in a designer-god, either by creation or evolution, there exists a good reason to conclude that God loves whales more than humans. That’s because whales are much more resistant to cancer and choking. The following was taken from:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2023/11/for-god-so-loved-whales.html#more
Hafer explains how whales have two completely separate tubes for breathing and swallowing, respectively. Humans, in contrast, breathe and swallow through a shared tube, the pharynx, and must correctly route air, food, and liquid to the proper branch (the trachea which sends air to the lungs, and the esophagus that sends food and drink to the stomach). A moveable flap of cartilage called the epiglottis stops food from entering the larynx. That is, when everything works. But it’s very easy for people to accidentally inhale food, causing them to choke. Without some prompt means of clearing the airway, the choking human can rapidly suffocate and die. Whales don’t have this problem; they can’t choke on anything entering through their mouth. They’d have to introduce foreign objects into their blowhole. That isn’t a typical risk for a whale, whereas humans court death with every meal. According to Bard, “an estimated 5,057 people died from choking in the United States in 2020. Of these deaths, 78% were adults aged 65 years or older. Food was the most common cause of choking deaths, followed by small objects such as toys and coins.”
Hafer mentions cancer in other contexts, but she doesn’t mention Peto’s paradox. (I first learned about that by reading Principles of Evolutionary Medicine (2016) during my book version of pandemic doomscrolling. Incidentally, emerging fields of science such as evolutionary medicine, evolutionary psychology, etc., show that science creates actual value – there are no creationist counterparts.) According to the English Wikipedia, Peto’s paradox is “the observation that, at the species level, the incidence of cancer does not appear to correlate with the number of cells in an organism.
For example, the incidence of cancer in humans is much higher than the incidence of cancer in whales, despite whales having more cells than humans. If the probability of carcinogenesis were constant across cells, one would expect whales to have a higher incidence of cancer than humans. Peto’s paradox is named after English statistician and epidemiologist Richard Peto, who first observed the connection.” Also see Bard’s take on cancer in humans and whales. Whales apparently have several different adaptations that make them far more resistant to cancer than humans are. Researchers are trying to figure out the whales’ advantage, with the goal of giving humans what God neglected to give them.
Cancer is considered a disease of aging, in that cancer rates tend to increase rapidly with age, although cancer can strike humans of any age, including, cruelly, children. (Theodicy is a whole ‘nother challenge for folks who believe in an omni-God, addressed in other blog posts and in John W. Loftus’ books, but I’ll stick to whales here.) Some whale species have long lifespans, with the bowhead whale able to live for over 200 years. For a whale to live that long, it must have robust and durable systems for resisting cancer, far outclassing the human’s endowment.
Before modern science, human thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle flattered themselves with their scala naturae (“Ladder of Being”). The notion was further developed by medieval Christians as their great chain of being. That is “a hierarchical structure of all matter and life, thought by medieval Christianity to have been decreed by God. The chain begins with God and descends through angels, humans, animals and plants to minerals.” Further, “the higher the being is in the chain, the more attributes it has, including all the attributes of the beings below it.”
Well, whales have some desirable attributes that humans clearly lack, such as their vastly superior resistance to choking and cancer. This is another example of how faith fails. Modern science began around 400 years ago, based on the radical idea that people should test their claims against evidence. It was radical then, and is still radical to a lot of people, although much of the educated class at least pays lip service to the idea.
Before modern science, even educated people had some strange views of Man’s place in the universe. Jennifer Nagel explains how modern thinking is very different than medieval thinking. However, large chunks of medieval thinking persist in the faith community, which has become an odd chimera of the two. On the one hand, most persons of faith lead modern lives, consuming the benefits of technologies made possible by scientific thinking. At the same time, they function like cognitive fossils, bringing a medieval perspective where it suits them. It is both a strength and weakness of science that almost anyone can consume the benefits of science, including science deniers.
In any case, the next time you hear a person of faith claiming to have been “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14) and presenting their own rockin’ body as evidence of God’s love for us, you can point out that when it comes to choking and cancer, God apparently loves the whales more.
If God was involved in creating or guiding the evolution of humans, it would seem certain that humans would enjoy the same robust protections from choking and cancer as do whales. Or maybe God really does love whales more. Or maybe he doesn’t exist.
(4614) Musings about God’s ‘sacrifice’
So much of Christians’ love for God is based on the idea that God sacrificed his son for the salvation of humankind. This deo-romance can be accepted only as long as one does not think too deeply about it. But once that happens, the charade falls apart. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/17mvkam/what_exactly_did_god_give_up/
Grew up in a Christian home, attended a private Christian school, spend most of my adult life as a relatively dedicated Christian until a few years ago things happened and I can no longer justify any sort of faith or belief in this or any religion. But one thing that bugged me, even then, comes from one of Christianity’s most loved verses: John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son”.
Christianity teaches that God had to sacrifice his son Jesus for us to save us from our sins. That verse says he “so loved the world” in order to make this sacrifice. But I mean, for one: all the events leading up to his death in the Bible, if I recall correctly, took place over a few mere hours. Maybe one full day at most. From his arrest, to being beaten within an inch of his life, to being strung up on the cross and left to die.
Christians try to make it sound like God can understand us because of Jesus suffering, but it seems so… insignificant compared to millions of lives who have had it far far worse — from being imprisoned and tortured for years, to being trafficked for sex or labor, slavery, etc. So many people have suffered more than Jesus ever did on “Good Friday”. And hell, even on the cross, he was dead far quicker than the other two criminals who were crucified with him. He never even broke a bone.
And then, to top it off, he didn’t actually stay dead. He was alive and kicking just a few days later and reunited with God in heaven in about a month, so God didn’t actually give anything up. There was no actual sacrifice on his part, which I guess is a more accurate reflection of his alleged “love” that John 3:16 points towards. Sure, Christians will argue that Jesus had to rise from the dead to “conquer death”, and that is what “solidifies” Christianity in many of their minds, but it makes absolutely zero sense to me (among many of the other things in the Bible I used to blindly follow and accept). So to make the claim that God is “relatable” because of the sacrifice of Jesus is so laughable. Plus, with the mentality and power of a literal god, where is any evidence that he even felt any pain or suffered at all? The more I have distanced myself from Christianity, the clearer I feel I am able to see it for what it really is.
Christianity works best for people who take it at face value and don’t probe underneath the veneer. Of course, there was no ‘sacrifice.’ It is a sham claim that bamboozles Christians who sit like sheep in church and instinctively accept everything they are told.
(4615) Why people believe in gods
The following essay explores the various reasons why humans tend to believe in gods. It results from many causes, including fear, a desire to say ‘I know’ in lieu of ‘I don’t know,’ as a means of control and enrichment, etc. It was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/17ouf28/why_do_people_believe_in_gods_essay/
Imagine yourself standing in front of a dark room, dark basement or dark corridor. Most of the time we are perfectly aware of what is there. Just some ordinary stuff, nothing special. There are no reasons to be afraid, we’ve been to this basement multiple times already and nothing bad ever happened. So, it feels counter intuitive to be anxious while standing at the stairs to the basement. And yet, many of us experience uneasiness. The dark is, well, dark, so our eyes do not perceive any light waves. We know what’s in our basement, but we don’t see, we can not one hundred percent confirm that there are no scary ghosts or ghouls or aliens from space. Or maybe a maniac with a knife who got into our house somehow. Only when we turn on the lights, we see for ourselves that there is nothing to be afraid of, we feel relieved. This might feel rather silly or even stupid to fear your own room or basement. The fear of the dark has a specific term. It’s called “nyctophobia”. It comes from the Greek words “nyctos” and “phobos”. Which translates as “night” and “fear”.
This nyctophobia is part of a larger fear – the defining fear of our lives. The fear of the unknown. Doesn’t really matter where we might live, in a commie block apartment somewhere in Minsk, Belarus. Or in a house in suburbia in Chicago. Or in the slums of Rio-de-Janeiro. Doesn’t really matter how old we are, our gender or skin color matter not either. We fear what we don’t know, what we don’t understand. We don’t see in the dark – we fear it. We don’t see what’s in the depths of the sea below us – we fear it. This particular phobia is called “thalassophobia”. We inherited fear of the unknown from our ancient ancestors. Imagine yourself a Neanderthal woman living fifty thousand years ago in, say, Crimean Peninsula. You are standing in front of a tall grass. You don’t know whether to go through grass or avoid it and find a different route. The grass might be a shortcut, however, you can not be sure that dangerous predators of your prehistoric world aren’t lurking there in the grass waiting for you to come.
So, after some contemplation, you decide to avoid the tall grass, you spend more time walking home, but you come back alive. You give birth to your children. You pass your genes to the next generation of humans. But a man who ventured into the grass despite not knowing what’s there was killed and eaten by a tiger. He didn’t come back and he didn’t pass his genes to the next generation. The genes of a woman who feared the unknown territory survived and developed in later generations of humans. The fear of the unknown is, as we can see, an evolutionary thing. We must fear the unknown if we want to have better chances of survival.
Now, what does it have to do with gods and religions? Well, we, humans, fear what we do not know. And in ancient times there were too many things that we didn’t know. We didn’t know why the Sun was rising and setting. Why it rains sometimes, why it snows. Why the stars flicker, why the Moon changes its phases We didn’t know that. But we always hated not to know things. We always tried to rationalize everything and pretend that we actually do know. We absolutely hate the answer “I don’t know”. Or “We don’t know”. The tire broke in the middle of the road between Chicago and Milwaukee. How do we replace it? I don’t know. The rent increased again. Our salaries didn’t. How are we supposed to survive the next month? I don’t know.
What do thunder and lightning happen? Instead of just admitting that we don’t know, we start coming up with different stories to explain what we can’t comprehend. To make ourselves feel better. The lightnings happen because Zeus makes them. Or because Thor plays with his hammer somewhere high above. The Sun is a god Ra riding his fiery barge across the sky. These explanations, albeit completely false and not based on anything, served, nonetheless, as some kind of consolation to people. Humans pretended they knew how everything worked.
They pretended they knew what the Sun and the lightning were and could explain it. People less feared things this way. Let’s take the Milky Way as an example. We know what the Milky Way is – this name was assigned to our galaxy in which the Sun and billions of other stars are located and they all orbit around the center of the galaxy which is believed to be a massive black hole. We know this because of our scientific development. Ancient tribes and civilizations could not know that, obviously. So they came up with different stories of what the Milky Way is. The Kaurna people who inhabited South Australia believed that the Milky Way was a river in the sky and that numerous campfires surrounded it. Cherokee used to believe that the Milky Way was cornmeal. A dog stole some cornmeal and was chased away. The dog ran to the North and spilled the cornmeal along the way. This is how the Milky Way was formed. Ancient Greeks had a very different story. Zeus allowed his song Heracles to suckle up the divine milk of Hera’s, his wife, while she was asleep. However, Hera woke up and immediately pushed Heracles away. The spurting milk became the Milky Way. This is why we call it the Milky Way.
What does the majority of people fear the most? Death. People are scared of death. It is scary to think that after we die, there will be nothing. All our thoughts, emotions, aspirations, our love, anger, everything will disappear. There won’t even be dark. There will be nothingness. Similar to sleep without dreams. Eternal sleep with no dreams. If it’s true then why should we do anything? Why try to explore or invent? Why wake up every single morning, go to the field, work until we can’t work any longer. Why cook food, fall in love and make love to each other if there is nothing after death? It can’t all be for nothing. There must be some sort of eternal afterlife where we will exist forever outside of the spacetime continuum.
There must be someone who runs it all, who controls everything. To whom we can all turn for help. Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have one single God that is responsible for everything. Religions existed as a reflection of humanity’s struggle to understand the world around us, fear of the unknown which resulted from natural selection. Humans needed to explain stuff they couldn’t study. This is why religions were created all throughout the world from Hawaii to Palestine. Religion became an instrument to control people and make people do what you want very similar to patriotism and nationalism. How do we motivate high school students? We promise that if high schoolers study well, they will go to a good college or university, graduate, get a degree, and find a well-paying job. Everything that high schoolers do now, however hard or unpleasant it might feel, will pay off when they become adults. Religion is largely the same. Behave properly now, do as I say, and you’ll go to Heaven where you’ll experience eternal bliss.
Life of an Ancient Egyptian peasant might have been miserable but it’s only temporary. He will experience endless pleasure after death. So, don’t try to overthrow the Pharaoh, just obey, or you’ll go to Hell instead of Heaven. How do you make a group of warriors obey you and do what you say? You promise them rewards in the afterlife. Muhammad promised his male followers seventy-two virgins in Heaven if they do what he says, if they kill and conquer whoever he tells them to kill or conquer. He was a warlord after all. Do what your commander says now and you’ll go to Heaven. Disobey and you’ll be in Hell.
The punishment had to be very serious to instill enough fear in people. You won’t scare people by threatening them with spanking in Hell. You need something much more terrifying. Do bad stuff and your soul will be burning for all eternity. Bad stuff is arbitrary, though. It can be adultery or homosexuality. Whatever your warlord doesn’t like is automatically considered a sin. This way empires and kingdoms existed for centuries. People were scared to fight off their oppressors because they were scared of going to Hell. The warlords, the kings and emperors were all very much interested in spreading religion among people. To simply control. Peasants always vastly outnumbered the elites, yet elites could do practically anything to peasants. Mutilate them, starve, kill, sell. Fear of the unknown was replaced by fear of Hell. This is how religions survived through ages and even today, when we made so many great scientific discoveries, when we learned about neutrons and pulsars, when we looked into the deepest depths of the observable Universe – many people, even those who embrace science, still believe in the Bible or Quran. Kids are indoctrinated since childhood. If your parents believe in God, your sisters, brothers, school teachers, everyone, then this can’t be a lie. This all must be true. You can both study astrophysics and believe in creationism. Many people these days do not closely follow the religion. Those who do, we call them fanatics or extremists. ISIS, Hamas, Boko Haram, they all essentially do what the Quran says. But to us it all looks barbaric. Because humanity evolved through centuries. Especially in the West. Religions are used not only to control people, but also to profit from them. In medieval Europe the Roman Catholic Church used to issue indulgences to people. Pay us money and the Church will grant remission of your sins so you won’t go to Hell. In many cults like Jehova Witnesses or Mormon Church followers are still expected to pay tithe to participate in religious activities.
It’s not just religious people who tend to rationalize unknown things. Scientists accept that there is no intelligent alien civilization nearby us. According to Carl Sagan, the first radio signal powerful enough to leave the Earth’s atmosphere was during the Olympic Games in the Nazi Germany in 1936. It’s currently 2023. Since radio waves travel at the speed of light, our radio waves already covered 174 light years. We sent radio broadcasting, sports games, music to space. We sent Nina Simone, Chuck Berry, Led Zeppelin, Nirvana and Taylor Swift. And yet, we didn’t receive a signal from an alien civilization. For over one hundred fifty light years across, there is no one to receive the signal and to send something back. Thus, scientists suppose there are no developed forms of life in our near cosmos. But what if radio waves already became obsolete? What if there are super advanced civilizations that can easily travel between the star systems? What if we are like ants to them? They know we exist, they watch us, but we are too primitive to understand and communicate with them. This is the Fermi Paradox.
We try to rationalize space. If we don’t hear from aliens, if we are not visited by aliens, if we don’t see them, we haven’t reached them yet. Or they haven’t reached us. Just like in Ancient times, we didn’t know what Sun and stars were, so they must have been gods somewhere up above. We can’t prove there are aliens watching us right now. Ancient people couldn’t prove the Sun is not a god riding his badge. We are stuck in pretending we know more than we actually do. Because it is more comforting than admitting that we don’t know anything. But unlike religion, science is in constant search of answers. Actual answers that we can prove. So, someday we might discover the whole truth of the Universe. Someday science we’ll be our only instrument and all the religions will fade into obscurity.
Religious belief is likely to be a default setting for any emerging intelligent species in the universe, bridging the gap between the emergence of intelligence and the foundation of science. We are still in that gap but it is quickly closing.
(4616) Old Testament invalidates Jesus as a prophet
There is a clear path of logic that can be used to prove, based on the Bible, that Jesus was a false prophet. Although Christian apologists have constructed arguments around this problem, the plain reading of scripture belies their efforts. The following was taken from:
Thesis: According to the Old Testament, we should not listen to Jesus.
Verse: Deuteronomy 18:22 “When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.”
Claims of Jesus:
-
- Matthew 10:23 “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
- Matthew 16:28 “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
- Matthew 24:30 – 31, 34 “Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. […] Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
- Matthew 26:64 – “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Finally, we can take Revelation 1:7 as an authoritative interpretation of the above passages by an early Christian. It says “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.” – Revelation 1:7
As is plain to see, Jesus and his followers expected a Second Coming within the lifetimes of Jesus’s contemporaries. This did not happen, thus Jesus is a false prophet and can be safely ignored.
If logic, applied objectively, was endemic to human brains, Christianity would have died out before the end of the First Century. But people love to use rationalizations to rescue their cherished beliefs. So instead of a quick death, Christianity is withering away slowly, but, at least in the past few decades, it is vanishing at a determined pace.
(4618) Plausible truth of the ‘resurrection’
The story of Jesus’ resurrection could range from being pure myth to even actual history. But most likely, the truth is something in between. In the following, it is speculated that allies created the illusion of death by use of a drug administration:
https://onlysky.media/jpearce/the-resurrection-of-jesus-a-hypothesis/
I have long been fascinated by the Resurrection of Jesus, which is really the core tenet of the Christian faith. The Apostle Paul makes this abundantly clear when he states “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” (1 Corinthians 17-19).
Obviously, as an atheist, I do not believe that “God raised Jesus from the Dead” supernaturally, but there must be some basis for this belief that the disciples and apostles declared openly, sometimes at the risk of persecution. (I do not subscribe to the apologetic “The disciples would not die for a lie” as there is very little evidence that any disciple had the opportunity to recant their belief to avoid death, but I can accept that some faced persecution for this belief.)
Secular scholars of the New Testament have presented hypotheses to explain why the disciples were convinced that Jesus had risen from the dead, with some suggesting that one or more disciples experienced a “grief hallucination” that they believed was a veridical experience of a “living Jesus.” Bart Ehrman is one such scholar, and he subscribed to this view in his book How Jesus Became God.
I have, in the past, viewed this explanation as plausible, but it seemed to me that a hallucination, however vivid, would not be enough to cause the disciples to boldly claim a resurrection, especially as there seems to be a focus on the physicality of Jesus’ resurrection appearances in the Gospels. I began to research whether other explanations might have more “power” to motivate the disciples to claim a bodily resurrection.
Our only source of information on Jesus is found in the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John), The Acts of the Apostles (thought to have been written by the author of Luke), and the Epistles of Paul. The Gospels are rather suspect sources, being written about 40 to 60 or more years after the crucifixion of Jesus, by anonymous non-eyewitnesses, probably outside Palestine, written in Greek (not Aramaic, which was probably the language of Jesus and his followers), and written by evangelists with an agenda to convert people to Christianity. In addition, we do not have originals of any of these documents, so we do not know what redaction, additions, or modification to the original text has happened from the time they were written until our first usable copies were available.
Despite these problems, I think there are snippets of information, in the Gospels, which on their own, don’t amount to much, but when taken as a whole, can support a naturalistic narrative that may explain how a physical resurrection came to be accepted by the early followers of Jesus.
There can be little doubt, that Jesus was an “apocalyptic prophet.” This means that Jesus thought the world was under the influence of evil forces (i.e., controlled by the devil), but that things would get to such a stage of suffering that God would intervene in the world and establish a Kingdom where those who had kept God’s laws would be rewarded, and those who sided with the devil would be punished. I think it is highly likely that Jesus thought God’s intervention would come soon (i.e., within the lifetime of Jesus and his disciples—Matthew 16:28 “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”). Since Jesus believed he was the Messiah, he thought that God would make him “King” to rule over this New Kingdom with his disciples as his “Ministers” to represent the twelve tribes of Israel.
This motivated Jesus’ thoughts and actions as can be seen by his decision to come to Jerusalem for the Passover, where he thought the final moments before the Apocalypse would play out. He hoped to convince the people to “Get right with God”, and thus be saved in the imminent apocalypse.
I suggest that Jesus’ preaching on the Apocalypse attracted the attention of a highly-placed individual (maybe a priest or Temple official) who was drawn to this message, and genuinely thought that Jesus was the “True Messiah.” This person (or persons) maybe became the archetype for “Joseph of Arimathea” and/or “Nicodemus” (in quotation marks to indicate that we do not really know who these people were or whether they were constructed) from the Gospels. Their names were probably unknown or kept secret. Since we will likely never know their names, I will use “Joseph” and “Nicodemus” as proxy names in this article.
It is probable that Jesus caused a disturbance in the Temple, as it is reported in all four Gospels (although the author of John has the incident at the start of Jesus’ ministry), maybe to foment an uprising against the Temple leaders. Another possibility is that Jesus hoped to be arrested, and to face a death penalty. Since he believed that he was the Messiah, he might have believed that God would be forced to intervene to prevent his death, and thus bring about the New Kingdom.
Whatever the reason, I think that Jesus was arrested by the Temple guards and held by them until the Temple leaders decided what to do with him.
The Temple leaders would have faced a dilemma. If they did nothing, the Roman rulers would think they were not keeping order in Jerusalem, and would maybe instigate military action against the populace and Temple leaders. However, if they turned Jesus over to the Roman authorities, it might cause deep resentment and anger among the Jewish population. They wanted very much to keep the status quo and keep in the good graces of the Romans, so they could continue their practices and income. I think, therefore, they decided to hand Jesus over to the Romans saying that he was inciting a rebellion among the people.
I do not believe that Jesus was betrayed by Judas, and I think this is confirmed by Paul’s letter (1 Corinthians 11:23): “…The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed,” where the word translated as “betrayed” is, in other places in Paul’s letters, translated as “handed over.” In addition, this would also align with Paul’s mention of “The Twelve” (1 Corinthians 15:5): “and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” This shows that he had no knowledge of Judas’ betrayal and subsequent suicide.
Furthermore, I do not believe that there was any Jewish trial of Jesus since the description of the trial does not align with the correct Jewish trial protocol. It must be realized that, by the time the Gospels were written. there was already some antagonism between Jews and Christians since the Jews refused to acknowledge Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. For this reason, Christians wanted to paint the Jewish leadership in a negative light. In addition, the Jewish council, in the Gospels, seemed to be pursuing Jesus for blasphemy, but asserted that one who is the Messiah is not blasphemous as it is not asserting divinity. Even if the Jewish council had found Jesus guilty of blasphemy, they would have sentenced Jesus to death by stoning, and would not have needed to hand him over to the Roman authorities for execution.
Similarly, I don’t believe there was much interrogation of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. Pilate was known as a ruthless Governor and would be quick to dispose of any rebel. Since Christians, at this time, were mostly Gentiles and thus more aligned with Greco-Roman culture, the Gospel writers seem to be white-washing Roman culpability in the crucifixion of Jesus, making it appear Pilate was reluctant to crucify Jesus. He only agreed to it at the insistence of the Jewish leadership.
I speculate that, when Joseph of Armithea (who believed Jesus to be the Messiah), learned of Jesus’ capture, and his being turned over to the Roman authorities, he needed to take decisive action to save Jesus’ life. I believe he devised a plan to administer a drug to Jesus while on the cross, which would give the appearance of death. He would then try to have the body removed as quickly as possible to give the best chance of survival. We know that some people had survived crucifixion as detailed in Josephus’ writings, where he saw three of his friends being crucified and begged for their release, whereupon two died but one survived. It is likely they were on their crosses a lot longer than Jesus, and yet still one survived.
I think the drug was administered when Jesus was given vinegar to drink (according to Matthew 27:48, Mark 15:36, and John 19:29) that was somehow doctored, since Jesus “died” very shortly after.
To me, this seems very plausible since normally victims of crucifixion can take many hours and even days to die, but Jesus apparently “died” after only three hours (Mark 15:44): “Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time.”
(Naturally, apologists want to insist that Jesus actually died on the cross in support of their Resurrection narrative, but I counter many of their arguments in my article “Did Jesus die by crucifixion.”)
I would assume that someone would be observing Jesus’ reaction to the drug, and would then report to “Joseph” so that Jesus’ body could be removed from the cross expeditiously.
After being removed from the cross, the Gospel account says that “Nicodemus” came with 100 pounds of aloe and myrrh (John 13:39): “Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds.” As some have pointed out (for example, Rabbi Tovia Singer), there would be no need to apply such spices to conceal the smell from a decomposing body that would be involved in a funeral procession, since criminals were not allowed to have full burial rituals. It seems more likely that the herbs were used as a poultice to heal Jesus’ wounds.
I think Jesus was taken away to a safe house where his wounds could be treated, and after a short while, the effects of the drug would have worn off and Jesus would regain consciousness. Jesus would be taken aback to find himself still alive and would want to communicate with his disciples to let them know he was alive.
I do not believe there was any tomb involved (empty or otherwise), as I am convinced this was an invention of the author of Mark, and thus, I believe, all accounts of women and men visiting the tomb are totally fictitious (see my article here for details on this).
The disciples would have been informed that Jesus was alive, and they would have been taken, in secret, to visit him. In their minds, they would believe that God had resurrected Jesus, since they witnessed his “death” on the cross, and were now seeing him alive. They would certainly believe a miracle had occurred. Even Jesus, himself, would likewise be convinced that he had been raised from the dead, if he was not aware of the drugging.
It is my belief that, after a short while, Jesus succumbed to his injuries, and was quietly buried, and his disciples would have believed he was “taken up into heaven,” as he was no longer around. (There are several legends that have Jesus fully recovering from his wounds and traveling to various places including England and India. I do not think we can place much credence in these legends). I think “Joseph” and “Nicodemus”, who assisted in this rescue mission, would probably have left Jerusalem shortly after Jesus died, as they would no want to be arrested for assisting a criminal, and thus face severe punishment for their actions. This could well be why their names never appear in the Gospels or Acts after the burial accounts.
I wish to emphasize that this hypothesis is just speculative (has been discussed widely for many years, and I am just putting my own thoughts into this debate), but does seem to fit with many small details in the Gospels. These details seem to suggest possibilities that could better explain why the disciples were convinced that Jesus had physically resurrected. It would also explain why there are so many contradictions and inconsistencies in the Gospel resurrection narratives, since there was no definitive account, and each Gospel writer seemed free to come up with their own version of what transpired. Of course, they were not immune from embellishing earlier accounts.
This account is unlikely to be true, but it is orders of magnitude more likely than that a human died and returned to life 36 hours later. As an analogy it would be more believable if someone told you that they threw 10 die and they all come up ‘6’ than if they told you they threw 100 die with the same result. Both are improbable but the later borders on the impossible.
(4618) Seven obsolete body parts
Christians claim that humans were created out of scratch in God’s image, or else that he directed evolution to achieve the same goal. If this is true, God made a few mistakes. The following discussed seven human body parts that no longer serve a purpose:
https://www.interestingfacts.com/useless-body-parts/ZKXiBic2ZwAH8m9N
The human body contains around 600 muscles, more than 200 bones, and all sorts of tendons, fascia, and organs — but some of them are pretty much obsolete, even if they make for decent party tricks. A few body parts have even started to disappear already, and are only present in certain segments of the population. In extreme cases, as people who have had appendectomies or wisdom tooth extractions can attest, it seems like some of these body parts exist only to hurt us.
Are you missing a mostly useless arm muscle? What muscles are key for dogs, but not particularly handy for us? These seven body parts are pretty much just along for the ride.
Appendix
The appendix, a small pouch attached to the large intestine, is perhaps the best-known useless organ, doing little except occasionally getting infected. However, it turns out that it might not be entirely useless. Scientific theories have been floating around since 2007 that the appendix might actually serve as a “safe house” for beneficial gut bacteria, storing it to replenish it in the rest of the gut if it gets wiped out by illness (or, in modern times, antibiotics).
If this turns out to be accurate, it’s still not a particularly important organ, and if it gets severely infected, you still need to get it removed. Don’t worry: Hundreds of thousands of people get them taken out every year and are doing just fine.
Tailbone (coccyx)
Humans don’t need tails, but our ancestors sure did — and tailbones, also known as coccyxes, are the last remaining part of them, consisting of three to five vertebrae that aren’t connected to the spine. The coccyx is not a functional tail, but it is woven in with the ligaments, tendons, and muscles in the area. Occasionally, it gets rid of itself by fusing with the sacrum, another lower back bone. In cases of extreme pain that don’t resolve with any other treatment, people can get their coccyx surgically removed, but it’s unnecessary in the vast majority of cases. Occasionally a baby will be born with an actual tail — and human embryos generally form with a tail that later disappears as it grows into the tailbone — but it’s extremely rare.
Wisdom teeth
Wisdom teeth, a third set of molars, have made dental surgery a rite of passage. For those who get them — many people don’t — they usually start emerging between the ages of 17 and 21. Often, there’s no room in the jaw, and the teeth end up trapped. When that happens, they need to be surgically extracted. Occasionally they grow in without incident and just become extra teeth.
It’s a lot of trouble for a set of teeth that we don’t even need. One theory is that our ancestors, who ate harder-to-chew things and didn’t have dentists, needed them as backup teeth. Modern science has gotten pretty good at just replacing teeth as they fall out, but wisdom teeth could still replace damaged molars in a pinch.
External ear orienting system
If you have a pet dog or cat, you’ve probably noticed their ears snapping to attention at an interesting or startling noise. Humans still have those muscles and, likely, the brain circuits associated with them. In one study, researchers observed tiny, involuntary movements in the directions of interesting sounds. For one part of the study, they had participants read a boring text while they played attention-grabbing sounds like crying babies and footsteps. Next, they had participants try to listen to a podcast while a second podcast played in the background. Those ear muscles fired up in both cases — they’re just obsolete for modern human beings. Some humans can still wiggle their ears, which does serve one purpose: It’s a cool party trick.
Goosebump muscles
Human ancestors were much furrier than us, and sometimes needed to fluff up their hair for warmth or to look bigger and more fearsome. They had tiny muscles attached to their hair follicles, called arrector pili muscles, that would shift each hair up into a vertical position. Today, in our much more hairless state, those muscles give us goosebumps, also known as goose pimples, when we get chilly, scared, or excited.
Some emerging research suggests these muscles may have a role in combating hair loss — and without them, we wouldn’t have a name for the iconic children’s horror series Goosebumps — but as far as basic survival goes, the arrectores pilorum are pretty much useless.
Third eyelid
Most animals have a third eyelid, also called the nictitating membrane, which serves as a kind of windshield wiper that distributes tears and clears debris from the eye. This trait evolved out of human beings and some apes, but we still have a tiny vestigial remnant in the inner corners of our eyes. It’s a bit of eye tissue just inside that fleshy pink eye bump. In exceedingly rare cases — only two have ever been reported — humans can have a more developed nictitating membrane that covers a larger portion of the eye.
So why did we lose ours? One theory is that, unlike animals that still have them, we’re not typically sticking our faces directly into bushes or other animals to forage for food, so we have less debris to push out of our eyes.
Palmaris longus muscle
The palmaris longus is a muscle stretching the length of our forearm that’s evolving away before our very eyes, literally — because it’s visible when you hold your hand and wrist a certain way, you can actually tell whether you still have yours on sight. It’s already missing in a significant portion of the population, and different studies around the world have observed its disappearance in anywhere between 1.5% and 63.9% of participants.
The muscle helps with wrist flexion in those who still have it, but it’s getting progressively weaker as other muscles take over its duties. If you don’t have one, you can still do all the same things as someone who does have it. While it’s unnecessary as is, the palmaris longus is pretty useful as a donor tendon for plastic surgery.
Christian apologists have a tough time with this issue. If humans are so special to God, why did he allow them to be burdened with unnecessary parts that often cause trouble? (appendicitis, for example). Of course, if one accepts evolutionary science, then all of this is easily explained by the mechanics of this un-directed process.
(4619) Jerusalem entry problems
There are discrepancies and inconsistencies in the gospel stories of Jesus as he entered Jerusalem, such that it appears not only to be talking about more than one preacher, but also characterizes the Romans in a manner completely inconsistent with non-biblical history. The following was taken from:
According to Mark, in the weeks before his death, Jesus has been making his way towards Jerusalem (10:32 – 33), followed by multitudes of people (10:1). He travels from the Galilee (9:30) to Capernaum (9:33), crosses the Jordan into Judea (10:1), then goes to Jericho (10:46), Bethphage and Bethany (11:1) before coming to Jerusalem. Later, at Passover (14:1), in Bethany again, at the house of Simon the leper an unnamed woman anoints his head with costly oil (14:3).
However, John tells a different story: Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, which causes a huge sensation (11:45-48; 12:9-11) and enrages the Chief Priests and Pharisees, who plot to kill him “From this day on” (11:53). He stops traveling openly and goes into hiding, holing up with his disciples in the Judean wilderness, in a hill town called Ephraim (11:54) before coming to Lazarus’ house in Bethany six days before Passover (12:1), where Lazarus’ sister Mary anoints his feet with costly oil (12:3).
Jesus’ tremendous popularity peaks and then, completely inexplicably, immediately fizzles out, crashes and burns after his triumphant – albeit short-lived – entry into Jerusalem, when the whole town turns out for the miracle-working prophet from Nazareth (and then promptly turns on him without explanation). Yet the writers who chronicled all the historical events of Judea ignore this momentous occasion too – even those who we know were actually in Jerusalem around this time.
Compounding the problem is the presence of the Romans, who would’ve looked very dimly on any figures coming to town and being hailed as the new King of the Jews… Yet according to the Gospels they hardly notice him at all until he is brought before Pilate, and even then there is much Roman head scratching over what to make of him.
Mark and John tell stories of different people, so we know at least one of these accounts is fictional, but it’s even more likely that both are so. Both the Jews and the Romans are mis-characterized in what certainly was an effort to appeal to Gentiles while disparaging the Jews.
(4620) Suffering and Christian apologetics
Christians find themselves on a one-way dead end street when they attempt to justify their omnipotent god in the face of a tsunami of human suffering. The usual argument that all suffering leads to a net benefit seems to imply that humans should never attempt to alleviate it. The following was taken from:
In my experience, the most common theodicies reject the idea of unnecessary suffering, usually by claims along these lines:
-
- All suffering is necessary, because it brings about some tremendous good that we are unaware of.
- All suffering is necessary, because to prevent suffering is to violate the free will of whomever is causing it.
But if either of these theodicies hold any water, then it seems like any action taken to relieve suffering would need to be condemned on moral grounds. Put into a syllogism.
P1: One should allow suffering, if it results in a greater good.
P2: All suffering results in a greater good.
C: One should always allow suffering.
This seems like a repugnant conclusion to me, suggesting to me that these common theodicies (defending P2) are false.
One Response to this Argument, and its Implications
One response to this argument may be to reject Premise One. This might be seen as taking a more deontological approach to ethics: the act of preventing suffering is a moral good in and of itself, regardless of the outcome of this action. (In order for the theodicy to remain intact, one would also need to propose that God follows a different moral system. Perhaps, for example, God’s moral goodness requires him to allow suffering, but his moral commands require mortals to try to prevent this same suffering).
But taking this two-system approach to morality still leads to dramatically repugnant conclusions with respect to our own actions. If preventing suffering is morally required, regardless of known outcomes, then even the slightest allowance for suffering on utilitarian grounds would need to be condemned. Parents allowing their children the brief pain of a vaccination needle would be condemned for allowing suffering, for example.
Taken as a whole, it seems seems like accepting the most common theodicies for the Problem of Suffering results in a complete abandonment of some of our most basic moral principles.
It should be clear that Christians, to be somewhat genuine, should concede that God is either not all powerful or he is not all good. The combination of omnipotence and omni-benevolence is off the table.
(4621) Four Jesus’s
A careful, objective comparison between how Jesus is portrayed in the four gospels leaves the realization they are describing four different persons. Most Christians read one gospel in isolation at a time and fail to realize this problem. The following was taken from:
In the face of multiple lines of evidence, Biblical historians today largely accept that the Gospels were not written by the four authors traditionally attributed to them. However, a common fallback position is that the Gospels are still based on oral tradition or perhaps even interviews with key characters, and so still present four independent witnesses of Jesus. Furthermore, they insist that these four traditions present a consistent portrait of a real person. For instance, Anglican theologian C.F.D. Moule, quoted in Michael Grant’s Jesus: A Historian’s Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1995) asks:
“How comes it that, through all the Gospel traditions without exception, there comes a remarkably firmly-drawn portrait of an attractive young man moving freely about among women of all sorts, including the decidedly disreputable, without a trace of sentimentality, unnaturalness, or prudery, and yet, at every point, maintaining a simple integrity of character?”
Grant himself is sold, and adds, “The consistency… of the tradition in their pages suggests that the picture they present is authentic.” Yet even a cursory examination of the four Gospels shows that this idea is nothing but wishful thinking. The Gospels are consistent neither in their portrayals of Jesus’ character nor of the events of his life.
Mark’s Jesus is a fallible, suffering human. There is no miraculous account of his birth; his story begins when he becomes God’s son at his baptism (1:11), reflecting the early Christian belief called Adoptionism. He is a “secret messiah,” not only denying that he is God (10:18), but hiding his true identity, disguising his message and teaching his followers in secret: “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables, in order that they may indeed look, but not perceive, and may indeed listen, but not understand . . .” (4:11-12). Incidentally, many historians who accept the idea of the “secret messiah” motif don’t think it reflects what the “real” Jesus did, but that it was a literary device to explain why Jesus was unknown in his own day – a telling admission…
Mark’s Jesus uses traditional pagan magic techniques (spit and magic words) to heal the blind and deaf, but not always successfully (7:32-35; 8:23-25). He loses his temper sometimes, both with people (8:33; 9:19), and with inanimate objects – infamously cursing (and withering) a fig tree after failing to find figs on it – because it was not yet fig season (11:12-14). He can even be a bit of a jerk. He initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Gentile woman’s daughter, telling her it is not right to take the children of Israel’s bread and toss it to the dogs (7:25-27).
In the garden of Gethsemane, Mark’s Jesus fares the worst. He is distressed and agitated (14:33), even
“sorrowful unto death” (14:34). He goes off on his own, and then breaks down completely, falling to the ground on his face (14:35) and prays three times to take away the cup of suffering from him (14:36,39,41), stopping in between to scold the disciples for falling asleep on the job (14:37-38,40) before finally telling them sarcastically, “Fine, go ahead and sleep now; look, here they come to arrest me” (41-42).
Mark’s Jesus repeatedly tells people he will return during their lifetimes (9:1; 13:30; 14:62) and dies in despair on the cross crying words cribbed from the opening line of the 22nd Psalm:
“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (15:34, cf. Psalms 22:1)
Matthew’s Jesus is a new and improved take on Mark’s original. After all, Matthew was not setting out to create some new Gospel, just revising the only one he knew. But when he’s not copying Mark verbatim, he upgrades Mark’s Jesus by correcting Mark’s mistakes about basic Judaism, not repeating his geographical errors and expanding on the narrative, including: a dark and suspenseful nativity story, a suitable genealogy, a longer ending, embellishing Jesus’ deeds and attributes, and beefing it up with plenty of miracles throughout.
Matthew’s Jesus is also a most Jewish Jesus, a rabbi who upholds the Torah, insisting “not one jot or stroke of the Law will pass away” (5:17–19). He wears a prayer shawl tasseled with tzitzit (9:20-22), observes the Sabbath (12:1-8), teaches, worships and heals in synagogues as well as the Temple (4:23; 9:35; 14:21).
Matthew doesn’t just correct mistakes Mark makes, he also fixes mistakes Mark’s Jesus makes, even removing anything that makes his Jesus look less than perfect. For example, in Mark 6:5-6, Jesus is unable to do any “mighty work” in his (unnamed) hometown and is amazed at their unbelief (even though just 3 verses before the crowds are astonished by his learning). Matthew will have none of that. He cuts out Jesus being taken by surprise, and changes “could not” do mighty works to “did not” (13:58).
In addition, Matthew constantly claims that nearly every event in Jesus’ life was prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures. Some of his Old Testament “prophecies” are so vague, à la Nostradamus, they could mean anything (13:35); others are simply self-fulfilling prophecies cutand-pasted into the story (e.g., 21:1-7). He’s also not above taking verses out of context, citing prophecies that either weren’t about the messiah (e.g., 1:23; 27:9- 10), or weren’t prophecies in the first place (e.g., 2:13- 15), even prophecies that no one has ever managed to find (e.g., 2:23). He even goes so far as to deliberately alter scriptures to fit what he wants them to say, such when he cuts out whole generations of Jesus’ genealogy to make it fit his numerological scheme (1:17).
Contrary to Mark’s Jesus, Matthew’s Jesus doesn’t say that he will return any moment now. Instead his Jesus says he will come back … some day, and gives a parable against slacking off just because the Lord delays his coming (Matt. 24: 42-51).
Matthew switches Jesus’ lasts words from Aramaic to Hebrew so that he cries out “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” not “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani.” Mark wanted the bystanders to think Jesus is calling for Elijah (Mark 15:34-35). Unfortunately, his play on words only works in Hebrew, not in Aramaic. It makes no sense for the bystanders to think that Jesus is calling for the prophet Eli if Jesus was saying “Eloi.” Matthew changes the quote to Hebrew; this is historically incorrect for someone like Jesus to have spoken, but at least it makes the pun work (27:46).
Luke’s Jesus is serene, beatific and unflappable. Interestingly, Luke claims to be the only one who is giving us the REAL story, unlike all the other Gospels floating around. But then he takes the outline and major portions of his Gospel story from Mark (50% of Mark appears in Luke, often in identical wording) and from Matthew (or perhaps the hypothetical source “Q”). He also gets plenty of historical window dressing, though again, often incorrectly, from Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews. However, when he is not copying verbatim from Matthew and Mark, he is totally incompatible with either. Unlike Matthew, Luke gives us a happy, angst-free nativity story and a brand new genealogy for his perfect Jesus – both completely irreconcilable with Matthew’s versions.
Right from the manger, Luke’s Jesus is wonderful and faultless. Even as a boy of twelve, he amazes his exasperated parents when they lose him for a few days only to finally find him in the temple, confounding the teachers of the law with his knowledge (2:40-52). He never feels despair, doubt or fear and remains unfazed in tight corners. Jesus is surprised to be unable to work miracles in Mark 6:5-6; Matthew says he was unsurprised and able but just unwilling (13:58); Luke’s Jesus tops them both. Not only is his Jesus not surprised, he even anticipates all this difficulty, and then effortlessly breezes out of the clutches of a lynch mob for good measure (4:16-30).
In contrast to the distraught anguish of Mark’s Jesus (and Matthew’s copycat Jesus), Luke’s Jesus is as imperturbable as a Japanese geisha in Gethsemane. Unlike them, he doesn’t feel the need to take Peter, James and John along for any moral support. Nor does he become distressed or agitated, or “sorrowful unto death.” He doesn’t collapse to the ground but simply kneels (22:41) and prays just once (not three times), asking God politely, if he would be willing, to please remove the cup (22:42). He doesn’t berate the disciples, or rub it in with any snide zinger at the end like Mark’s and Matthew’s Jesuses. Instead, he rouses them just once, as Judas is arriving (22:46).
In fact, there’s only a single point where Luke’s unflappable Jesus is less than dignified perfection: as he prays in the garden, an angel from Heaven suddenly appears to give him strength (22:43). Then, “in his anguish he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground” (22:44). This odd, sudden burst of angels and agony momentarily interrupts his divine calm but then abruptly vanishes again, and he returns to his normal Zen master mode. Why the anomaly? In the more scrupulous Bible translations (such as the highly respected New Revised Standard Version) verses 43 and 44 are in double brackets – to indicate that translators consider them spurious. Why? One important reason is that the pair of angel and bloody sweat verses are absent from many of our most reliable manuscripts of the New Testament, including our oldest.
While Mark’s Jesus dies in anguish and despair, Luke’s Jesus exits with composure and acceptance. Luke dispenses with the words of the 22nd Psalm altogether and takes his Jesus’ parting line from Psalm 31:5: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (23:46). And contradicting Mark’s Jesus, Luke repeats Matthew’s (or Q’s) parable, in virtually identical language, that the Lord will NOT be right back during his followers’ lifetimes after all (12: 42-46).
John’s Jesus is a Superman without a Clark Kent. Not only is he no secret Messiah at all, he has a radically different personality, much more large and in charge, in total control at all times. This Jesus knows he’s God, and he doesn’t care who knows it! He is constantly talking about his divinity and declaring himself to be the bread of life (6:35, and again in 6:41 and 6:48), the living bread that came down from Heaven (6:51), the light of the world (8:12 and 9:5), from above and not of this world (8:23), the Son of Man (8:28), the good shepherd (10:11), the resurrection and the life (11:25), the way, and the truth, and the life (14:6), the true vine (15:1) and even says “Very truly, I tell you, before Abraham was, I am” (8:58).
As if all this wasn’t enough blasphemy already, he also makes it explicitly clear that he is God, too: “The Father and I are one” (10:30). “Even though you do not believe me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father” (10:38). “Can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (10:36). It’s difficult to understand how John’s Jesus wasn’t stoned to death on his first day of preaching, since the other gospels’ Jesuses get into trouble for far less sacrilege.
John’s Jesus is not born of a virgin; he matter-offactly states that Jesus is Joseph’s son without comment (1:45). Nor is he born in Bethlehem; John consistently denies any Bethlehem link, insisting that Jesus comes from Nazareth in the Galilee (1:45-46; 7:41-42, 52, ff.). And unlike the other Gospels, when John the Baptist says he’s not fit to baptize him, John agrees – no baptism for the perfect and sin-free Messiah in this Gospel.
The ministry of John’s Jesus is in striking disagreement to the other Gospels, which say that it lasted only about a year, took place mainly in the Galilee, and that Jesus came to Jerusalem only once, at the very end of his life. In contrast, John stretches it out over three years and centers action mostly in Judea around Jerusalem, where he goes back and forth often.2 In the Synoptics, Jesus drives the moneychangers from the Temple at the very end of his career, in the week before his crucifixion (Mark 11:15-18, Matt 21:12-13, Luke 19:45- 47). In fact, Mark tells us this is why the Jewish leaders start plotting his death (Mark 11:18). Not John’s toughguy Jesus; his 3-year career begins by thrashing those defilers of the Temple with a homemade scourge (John 2:13-16).
John’s Jesus also has an entirely different speaking style. He gives no parables, no snappy Cynic-style comebacks, no Sermon on the Mount (like Matthew) or Sermon on the Plain (like Luke), and so no Beatitudes: no Blessed are the Meek, no Love thy Neighbor, no Suffer the Little Children, no Consider the Lilies of the Field, no Turn the other Cheek. The poor and the suffering may be the focus of his ministry in the other Gospels, but they barely get a mention from John’s Jesus. This is a Republican Jesus.
And who else does John’s Jesus hate besides liberals? The Jews. Though Matthew’s rabbi Jesus is quintessentially Jewish, John’s Jesus hates the Jews. His antipathy is not just confined to the treacherous Jewish leaders and the rich hypocritical fat cats. No, John’s testy Jesus is as obsessed with “the Jews” collectively as Mel Gibson. The other Gospels mention “Jew” or “the Jews” no more than a handful of times (5 times apiece in Matthew and Luke, 6 times in Mark3 ), but in John they are brought up a whopping 71 times, and over half of the time in some nasty anti-Semitic fashion.
The Jews are depicted as conniving persecutors out to murder Jesus (5:16). They badmouth him (6:41); stalk him (7:1-11,25,35); are blind to his teaching (7:46-47); accuse him of having a demon in him (8:52) and try to stone him (8:59).4 John’s Jesus even refers to them as the lying spawn of their father the Devil (8:44) which is a trifle odd, seeing as they are the chosen people of God and well, Jesus himself is one – not to mention our anti-Semitic Gospel writer John, too (at least, according to Christian tradition).
If John can be believed, the Lord’s Supper never happened and Jesus never established the sacrament of the Eucharist. Instead, during a public sermon in a Capernaum synagogue much earlier in his ministry, an event no other Gospel relates, he describes himself as the Living Bread, and outrages his Jewish audience by insisting they eat his flesh and drink his blood (6:51- 58). Though Luke tells us six times that the Last Supper is a Passover Seder (22:1,7,8,11,13,15) – he even has Jesus explicitly say so – John contradicts this completely. His Jesus doesn’t have a Last Supper of Passover lamb – he IS the Passover lamb. There is no way his Last Supper can be a Seder, because he repeatedly tells us this happened the day before the Passover feast (13:1, 29).
Though all the other Jesuses spend hours in the garden of Gethsemane, John’s Jesus instead spends the evening washing his disciples feet (13:4-12) and then talking in the upper room, for four whole chapters from Luke 14 through 17. He barely arrives at Gethsemane (18:1) before Judas shows up in the very next verse (18:2).
Needless to say, John’s SuperJesus doesn’t cry or need any angels to comfort him in the garden of Gethsemane. All the other Jesuses are deeply troubled at this point, but not John’s; he spends the whole of chapter 17 announcing to God how he is ready to roll. In the other Gospels an apprehensive Jesus asks if he really has to drink the cup of suffering, and wonders hopefully if maybe God can call off the whole crucifixion thing (Matt. 26:39, Luke 22:42, Mark 14:33-36). But John’s Jesus laughs scornfully and says bring it on! “Shall I not drink the cup which the Father has given me?” (18:11). He even seems to be openly mocking the suffering Jesuses in the other Gospels when he jokes “…What shall I say, ‘Father, save me from this hour?’ But for this cause I came unto this hour” (12:27).
When John’s Jesus is arrested, he remains in complete control of the whole situation. For starters, unlike in the three other Gospels, John draws the line and doesn’t let Judas kiss on his Jesus. When the soldiers come for him, Jesus demands to know who they are looking for, and then steps forward to announce, “I am he.” Upon hearing this, the entire detachment of armed troops, completely overwhelmed by his sheer presence, draws back in panic and falls to the ground (18:6). Though Matthew’s Jesus supposedly fulfills prophecy at his trial by never saying a word, John’s Jesus blows this off completely and refuses to keep his mouth shut, giving both the High Priest (18:20-21, 23) and the Roman governor (18:34, 36, 37; then again in 19:11) his two cents’ worth in spirited back-and-forth exchanges.
Jesus might have been a real person, but he was not four persons at once. Christians should decide which one they want to believe, and then delete the three gospels from their bibles that describe somebody else.
(4622) Parable of the ten mathematicians
The test that confronts religious people is rather daunting because the gods are so hidden that there are multiple possibilities of the divine truth. The following parable addresses this problem:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/17uquhw/analogy_for_the_hiddenessconfusion_of_god/
Hello, I’m having a lot of trouble with finding the truth and I’ve created a scenario to represent my problem, I’m hoping for engagement and rebuttal from anyone with a religious background. For reference, the religion I chose for a while was Islam but I’m not sure I can call myself anything anymore. My main objection with religion is based around how confusing it seems to be to try and discern the true religion when the stakes are so high (Heaven/Hell).
Here’s the scenario:
A man kidnaps 10 mathematicians from around the world who each speak different languages and do math differently, he brings them together in a room and presents them with a never before seen math equation or perhaps problem in which the equation needs to be discerned on top of the solution. He says you have 1 week to solve the problem and he will not say if someone gets the right answer before the period is over. By the end of the week whoever gets it right lives and whoever doesn’t dies. (This is still tame compared to heaven and hell for eternity)
For the following days the mathematicians frantically try to solve the equation each getting different answers from there different methods. They try and convince each other that individually they have the right answer and some mathematicians agree with each other and form groups. Regardless if they are all in good faith and want each other to survive someone is bound to be killed due to circumstance and lack of information.
This scenario is how I view trying to find the true religion. It seems to me that there are many different ‘ways’ some more convincing than others, but none definitive enough for me to devote my life to. Heaven and Hell are incredibly extreme endings and its really scary to think that we might come face to face with that without ever having the means to have found out the truth. It scares me to think I may get the answer wrong and suffer hell for eternity. If Jesus is truly the way it seems unfair that I was exposed to Islamic worldviews so much as it is viscerally painful to me to try and view Jesus as God now. I imagine the same experience applies to Christians and those of other faiths.
This is one more way to see why no religion has a logical foundation in the real world. No god worthy of the title would leave humans in a state of ignorance to the truth of its existence, especially if this god intended to impart infinite punishment to those who can’t figure it out. If God was real, the divine equation would be evident to everyone.
(4623) How Christianity fails
According to Christianity, no one makes it to heaven without holding a belief in Jesus as their lord and savior. But when confronted with real-world scenarios, it becomes obvious that this theology is complete and total nonsense. The following testimony was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/17us1tk/reason_147_i_cant_subscribe_to_christianity/
I was born with a jaw deformity that got worse the older I got.
My parents couldn’t afford the required braces and surgery required to have it corrected.
After college I was able to land a job and afford the treatments needed to correct my jaws.
My surgeon was an amazing man who hailed from the middle east. His patience, kindness, and skill literally changed my life for the better.
No part of me can accept the possibility of this wonderful man suffering for eternity in hell because he was raised in the wrong faith (this is just an assumption but based on his first and last name there’s a 99% chance he was raised in Islam).
He gave me the opportunity to live my life to the fullest. To speak, laugh, eat, and smile without embarrassment or shame. And I think about him everyday with gratefulness in my heart.
The inventors of Christianity designed it as an exclusive club- ‘you must believe in our god-man or you are doomed.’ This theology totally collapses in the scenario described above. If Christianity is true, Yahweh is the most evil character in the universe.
(4624) Gethsemane sword attack
There is an enigmatic passage in each gospel telling of an attack by one of Jesus’ followers taking a sword and cutting off the ear of the high priest’s slave. The are many incongruities with this story. The following was taken from:
So in all 4 gospels, there’s a passage where Judas and a crowd of some sort (Soldiers are part of this crowd in John’s Gospel). Near the end, someone in the group, explicitly Peter in John, has a sword and decides to attack a member of the arresting party, a slave of the high priest.
Mark 14:46-47
46 Then they laid hands on him and arrested him. 47 But one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
Matthew 26:50-52
50 Jesus said to him, “Friend, do what you are here to do.” Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and arrested him. 51 Suddenly one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 52 Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place, for all who take the sword will die by the sword.
Luke 22:49-51
49 When those who were around him saw what was coming, they asked, “Lord, should we strike with the sword?” 50 Then one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. 51 But Jesus said, “No more of this!” And he touched his ear and healed him.
John 18:10-11
10 Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. 11 Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?”
In John Jesus heals the man but there’s pretty much no reaction from anyone about this incident and it’s never brought up again, even during the trial where you’d think it would be mentioned considering it could be seen as resisting arrest. Even stranger, right after this the disciples all run away and there’s no hint of anyone trying to chase them down. Which comes across as as bizarre considering Jesus is immediately hauled off to face trial and execution for sedition but nobody seems to care that one of the disciples violently attacked a member of the arresting party. Or is the fact the man was a servant/slave the mitigating factor here and thus Peter/the attacker only did property damage instead of assault?
For that matter, why aren’t the rest of Jesus’s group being hauled in with him as accomplices? Later they’re all hiding and Peter explicitly denies Jesus because he’s afraid of being caught, but the arresting party didn’t seem to care that much about them when they were all there together. It’s even stranger in the light that in some of the gospels, Jesus almost immediately points out “I was in the temple several times and you didn’t arrest me then”, apparently after the table flipping incident earlier in the week. Which is a good point but only puts the actions of the arresting party here in even sharper relief.
It feels really weird if the reader is supposed to be reading this as true events in the Life of Jesus and not passages written to make a certain theological point, as in Jesus is willing to accept execution and the disciples being cowards not willing to stand with him while the priests are hypocrites for not arresting him on the spot when he was right there in the temple. Or is that the entire point and the rest is just part of the set dressing of the story?
This story is almost certainly fictional. It has been theorized that the author of the Gospel of Mark invented it to symbolize the fact that the Romans couldn’t ‘hear’ the message of Jesus, thus the cutting off the ear.
But there is an even bigger problem- Jesus working a verifiable miracle by replacing/repairing the ear on the spot. How could the arresting party have witnessed this amazing feat without them becoming aware that Jesus was a super-human?
Given all of these issues, one can only conclude that this episode was never really meant to be taken literally- rather it was intended to be symbolic of the failure of the Romans to understand Jesus’ ministry, and it falls in line with many of the other symbolisms that were first written in the Gospel of Mark.
(4625) Evidence apostles were fictional
The gospels imply that the apostles were extremely important luminaries that carried the Christian religion in its early years to grow and spread its influence. But their footprint on early church history is astonishingly lacking, and this causes a problem. The following was taken from
All early Christian factions claimed apostolic authority for their beliefs. But if Jesus’ twelve disciples were anywhere near as important as claimed, the scantiness of information on them makes no sense. Price notes, “It is astonishing to realize that the canonical lists of the Twelve do not agree in detail, nor do manuscripts of single Gospels!” And just as with Jesus, the Gospels frequently disagree about basic facts concerning the disciples.
It should be apparent that if the twelve Apostles were actual historical figures, especially ones who were primarily responsible for the growth of Christianity, it would simply be impossible to have such widespread and ongoing confusion over the basic question of who they were. Nor would we have to do so much guesswork to glean any biographical information about them. The fact that we have conflicting legends about where they went, what they did and how they died does not bode well for their veracity either.
If these men were really the first missionaries and fathers of the church, surely they would have had writings that were treasured by the first Christians, even if they had dictated them to a scribe. Sermons, memoirs, letters, doctrinal teachings, liturgy, encouragements – the list of what we might expect from them goes on and on. Yet the truth is we have nothing from any of the twelve Apostles – not a single authentic document, only a handful of forgeries like 1 and 2 Peter, written well after the supposed apostles of Jesus were all dead.
But did they ever live at all?
Most of our information on the lives and activities of the apostles does not come from the New Testament, but from much later writings. Many Christian communities wrote a biography of the disciple they adopted as their founder, so many that “Acts of the (various) Apostles” (and some notable non-apostles like Pilate and Paul’s female helper Thecla) became an actual genre of early Christian literature. But today all are generally acknowledged to be pure invention.
In fact, Mark appears to simply have co-opted the names of the known leaders of the early Jerusalem church (James, Peter, John and Cephas) and recast them as Jesus’ disciples or family. In the Gospels Peter and Cephas are conflated (e.g., John 1:42), but venerable Christian tradition notwithstanding, Paul makes it clear they are two separate individuals (Galatians 2:7-9).
One often-cited defense of the historicity of the twelve disciples is John P. Meier’s article “The Circle of the Twelve: Did it Exist During Jesus’ Public Ministry?” (JBL, 116/4, 1997, pp. 635-72). Meier spills much ink arguing against those who say the Twelve were a later invention, yet he goes nowhere near the idea that Jesus could be fictional as well. His defense boils down to two criteria, embarrassment and multiple attestations.
By “criterion of embarrassment,” Meier means (pp. 665-6) that the Crucifixion and Jesus’ betrayal by Judas were too shocking for early believers to make up, so they can only be historical facts. But then he ironically solves his own dilemma when he notes that right from the beginning, believers (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:3-5; Matt. 27:9-10; Mark 14:21; John 13:18, 17:12; Acts 1:16, 20, and many more) repeat that all these “events” occurred “according to the scriptures.”
Then he is quick to deny even the possibility that these Old Testament texts are being used to create a myth, insisting, “the shocking fact calls forth the scripture texts—not vice versa.” How does he know?
Similarly, before we even begin to examine the credibility or transmission of his sources (something he never addresses), his “multiple attestation from independent sources” breaks down – since there is nothing that would indicate that “the Twelve” Paul mentions are Jesus’ disciples of the Gospels and Acts.
Meier takes it for granted that if the Twelve existed at all, Jesus created them and one of them, Judas, handed him over to the authorities (p. 669) – but neither of these “facts” are ever established by Paul. What’s worse, Meier’s sources (“Mark, John, Paul, probably L, and probably Q,” p. 663) are neither independent nor do they give multiple attestation, since Paul never names anyone in his “Twelve” or says what their connection was to Jesus, if any, and the Gospels disagree with one another on the identities of the Twelve.
With further irony, Meier goes on to describe at length how puzzling it is that we have so little historical data on the Twelve, and points out gaping holes. For example, Paul says much about his interactions with the leaders of the Jerusalem church and other apostles – but any mention of the Twelve is glaringly absent:
“One would have expected that the history of the first Christian generation would be replete with examples of the Twelve’s powerful presence and activity in the church. The exact opposite is the case.
“When we stop to consider how Paul goes on at length about his relations or struggles with Peter, James, John, Barnabas, Apollos, and various apostles or ‘pseudo-apostles’ in the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Galatia, and Corinth during the 30s, 40s, and 50s of the first century, it is astounding that Paul never mentions his relations or interaction with the Twelve as a group.
“Likewise surprising is that Luke, for all the emphasis he puts on the Twelve as a living link between the time of Jesus and the time of the church, has increasingly little to say about the Twelve as the chapters of Acts pass on. The total silence from the rest of the epistolary literature of the New Testament – deutero-Paul, James, Peter, John, Jude, and Hebrews – is equally deafening. The same could be said for almost the entire corpus of the apostolic fathers.” (pp. 670-71)
Meier admits the absence of the Twelve from most of the NT and the 2nd century Leaders of the Church puzzlement puzzles him. The only reasonable conclusion he can come up with is that they must have only played a significant role during Jesus’ ministry and then swiftly disappeared. But is it reasonable to think they would vanish without a trace from all early Christian writings, only to reappear hundreds of years later in spurious legends as the founders of churches all across the empire, as if they had been a dynamic presence all along? Perhaps a better reason why they only played a significant role during Jesus’ ministry is that they were only characters in his fictitious story.
The apostles, if real, would have had a much more prominent presence in the initial growth of Christianity. Therefore, it can be concluded that they were most likely fictional characters added to stories of the equally fictional tradition of a god-man savior.
(4626) Christian misconceptions
The question should be asked if Christianity is defined by the Bible, or by the consensus of modern Christians. Because these two are not the same. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/17wrdtc/things_christians_think_are_in_the_bible_but_are/
Since most Christians have never read the Bible, but rely on fascist extremist pastors, pundits and politicians to tell them what it says, there is a popular cultural understanding of the Bible that bears little to no resemblance to what the book actually says. And that’s why Christians think it contains shit like this:
Age of Accountability: the idea that anyone who died before a certain age automatically goes to Heaven whether they follow Christianity or not. This is a fiction invented to conceal the fact that it says the exact opposite and make the church seem cute and cuddly. This idea directly contradicts the notion of original sin, which IS in the Bible, and was created specifically to make sure anyone who dies young is hellbound by default.
God cares about free will: if everything is predestined according to God’s inviolable plan, then there is no free will. Furthermore, there are plenty of examples of God directly violating someone’s free will and turning them into his puppets in the book. This is an infantile, passive-aggressive tactic that seems to only have been dreamed up in the last 15 years or so. They’ll tell you, “Well, if you just want to burn in Hell SO BADLY, then it would be cruel of God to deny you what you want SO MUCH!” Some of them will even go so far as to say God cares about not violating your free will infinitely more than he cares about your salvation. No different from a parent telling their toddler who won’t eat his broccoli that he can starve if he really wants to.
Prosperity gospel: Christians will tell you that God wants them to be rich in the here and now. The Bible says the exact opposite, to give away all your wealth, to wait for treasure in the afterlife, and to expect to be miserable in the here and now. But that doesn’t suit the millionaire televangelists, who are the only ones actually profiting from this idea, or the fat, greedy, complacent, middle-class white people who live in gated golf communities.
If is 100 percent certain that if Jesus could somehow come back to life he would be appalled at the religion that developed around his life. The mismatch is startling. And it also should be understood that if Christianity was true, God would not have allowed this situation to develop.
(4627) Jacob fighting God and Gilgamesh
In the Book of Genesis (32:22-32) the highly improbably story is told of Jacob wrestling with God. Not only is this story obviously mythical, but further it was plagiarized from the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh. The following was taken from:
https://www.academia.edu/1213087/_Echoes_of_Gilgamesh_in_the_Jacob_Story_JBL_130_2011_625_42
Echoes of Gilgamesh in the Jacob Story
esther j. hamori
ehamori@uts.columbia.eduUnion Teological Seminary, New York, NY 10027
It was popular for some time to seek apparent Near Eastern parallels to biblical narratives. The methodology employed was at times problematic, and conclusions were often overstated, as similarities between texts explicable in any number of ways were attributed to direct relationship.
For some biblical texts, of course, there is stronger evidence for Near Eastern influence. I propose that this is the case in regard to one text for which a Near Eastern counterpart has not previously been suggested: the story of Jacob’s wrestling match in Gen 32:23–33 (Eng. 32:22–32). There is reason to believe that the Israelite author knew some form of Gilgamesh, and particularly the scene of the wrestling match between Gilgamesh and Enkidu. The case presented here is not simply one of a shared motif or logical grouping of elements, but one of an unexpected and striking series of correspondences between two texts. The two stories in question share several elements that are each highly unusual and that bear no inherent relation to one another. Moreover, these features occur in the same order in the two texts. This is not to suggest that the author of the Israelite text sat looking at a copy of Gilgamesh. However, the unlikely cluster of correspondences, with the same sequence of uncommon elements, implies the author’s familiarity with the story.
I will argue here that the Israelite author utilized—and skillfully subverted—the framework familiar from Gilgameshin composing the story of Jacob’s wrestling match, and that this use sheds light onthe aim of the Genesis passage. While the larger stories of Jacob and Gilgamesh are very different, each includes a critical scene featuring a type of unarmed combat notably distinct from representations of fighting found in other ancient Near Eastern literature. Many significant elements of the wrestling scenes are shared by the two stories, including the manner, purpose, and outcome of the fight; each of these elements stands out from common portrayals of fighting found elsewhere in the Near East. The text with the relevant material is found already in the Old Babylonian version of the Gilgamesh Epic (Pennsylvania tablet [P] 200–239)
The wrestling match performs a pivotal function in each story. The story of Jacob is characterized by the search, or even struggle, for blessing. This theme reaches its climax in the wrestling scene. Here Jacob is blessed directly by a divine agent and is given his name, his title as the father of Israel. After this scene (setting aside the P addition of the text in ch. 35, which combines material from chs. 28 and 32), the adventures of Jacob come to a close and the character retreats to a secondary role.
In the Epic of Gilgamesh, before the fight Gilgamesh’s rule is harsh and his people are distraught; after it, the formerly unbearable ruler stops tormenting the people of Uruk and directs his attention toward more worthwhile endeavors. In the fight he meets his match, the man who will tame him, and through it he gains his most loyal companion, around whom much of the epic revolves. The function of the two wrestling scenes is not the same—in the Jacob cycle it provides resolution close to the end of the hero’s story, and in Gilgamesh the conflict and resolution lay the foundation for the continuation of the story. The reason for this difference lies in the particular perspective of the Israelite text.
Many intriguing parallels stand out between the fight scenes. In each story the hero is met at night by his opponent, who begins the fight. The antagonist is divine or divinely created for this very purpose. This aggressor is not known by the hero at the time of the attack.
The hero, however, is known to him. The aggressor provokes the hero to unarmed combat. They wrestle, though in neither case is the bout intended to be a fight to the death. Rather, in both stories the match functions as a rite of passage. In neither case is there a traditional end to the fight. In addition to unusual lack of lethal intent, there is also no decisive move that would provide a logical conclusion to the match. Each hero at some point simply lets his attacker go, and the latter ceases to be seen as an antagonist. The hero is somehow appeased, and his opponent blesses him.
In both cases it is the hero who is attacked while he goes on his way one night: Jacob on his way back to Canaan across the Jabbok, and Gilgamesh on his way intoa wedding celebration. It is just on the threshold that each man is accosted by an unknown assailant. Each hero is deliberately sought out by his opponent: Jacob was left alone at night when “a man wrestled with him,” and Gilgamesh was engaging in his customary wedding-night activities when Enkidu blocked the door to challenge him (P 198–99). The antagonist is divine or a divine agent in both texts. Jacob’s attacker is the(“man”) who shows himself to be God. He renames Jacob Yisra-El, explaining that Jacob has striven with God. He blesses Jacob, and when Jacob realizes that he has encountered God, he responds by namingthe place Peni-El, explaining that he has seen God face to face.
The figure who names Jacob Israel and blesses him, the man of whom Jacob says, “I have seen God face to face,” is God himself.
In the Gilgamesh story, Enkidu has been created by the gods expressly for the purpose of fighting this round with the hero. Anu responds to the lament of the people of Uruk by summoning Aruru to create a match for Gilgamesh, one equal in strength, in order to contend with him (I 92–104). While the scene of Enkidu’s creation is not attested in the OB version, the dreams of Gilgamesh are, and these represent the divine sending of Enkidu to Gilgamesh.
Gilgamesh dreams that an object falls from heaven before him but is too heavy for him to lift; he pushes at it but cannot move it (P7–9). With the help of the townsmen, he brings it home to his mother. Upon hearing this dream, his mother explains that Enkidu will come to him, and Gilgamesh will embrace him.
The difference between the divine man in Genesis and the divinely sent man in Gilgamesh is not to be overlooked: this is an important indication that the Israelite author is not content to adopt a story line but intends something quite different from the Gilgamesh text. The significance of this difference will be addressed later. In each story, the identity of the attacker is not made known to the hero until the end of the fight. Jacob asks his opponent his name, and it is when he responds, “Why do you ask my name?” and blesses him, that Jacob recognizes the figure’s divine identity and declares, “I have seen God face to face, and my life has been delivered” (Gen 32:29, 30). Gilgamesh, too, is surprised by his unknown attacker, who blocks his way, provoking him to a fight. It is only in the next intel-ligible scene that the two kiss one another and become friends (Yale tablet [Y] 18).
So far, then, we have unknown divine agents who appear at night and pro voke the heroes to a fight. Another parallel, and one of great significance, is the lack of intention to fight to the death evident in both matches. Presumably because of the dearth of biblical and Near Eastern references to such non mortal combat, some have theorized that Jacob’s fight was in fact intended to be a lethal encounter.
It seems that the best foundation for this argument is that engaging in combat was indeed generally assumed to be an act of life-threatening aggression. The descriptions of the combat in these two scenes, however, do not give any indication that the fights were meant to be lethal. On the contrary, elements of the two stories reveal that neither episode was intended to be a fight to the death. It is of course clear in literary terms that Jacob’s fight could not be deadly.
Jacob must survive in order to become Israel, and there is no question of the being killed; unless both parties survive, there can be no future to the story. Additionally, the basis of Jacob’s blessing as the father of Israel is his victory in this fight. He says to his wrestling partner, “Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed” (Gen 32:28). At this point, one might argue that this demonstrates only that the author of the text intended the outcome of the fight to be as it is and that this implies nothing about the intention of the characters; the author may have written a nonlethal ending to what (for the characters) might have been mortal combat. The intention of the author must lie deeper than this, however. The core elements of the story demonstrate that the resolution of the fight is not the outcome of what might have been a death match.
On the contrary, the characters themselves are portrayed as consciously engaging in nonlethal combat. He wants to go before the sunrises, and so he tries to disable Jacob—not to kill him. Jacob agrees to let him go once he blesses him. Neither character is portrayed as having any intention of killing the other. The same want of lethal intent is visible in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Here too there is a point at which the partners seem to agree to stop fighting, and the hero lets his attacker go. Gilgamesh simply releases Enkidu when he ceases to be angry. Like boys in the schoolyard, when they are exhausted the one helps the other up and they become the best of friends. The combat is a rite of passage, not a duel to the death.
Moreover, it is made perfectly clear from the start of the epic that Enkidu is created to be an equal match for Gilgamesh and to contend with him so that Uruk might be at peace, and Gilgamesh is certainly a changed man after his encounter with Enkidu. Enkidu was not sent to enter potentially lethal combat; he was sent to wrestle Gilgamesh to his senses.
Biblical literalists are left defending a comic-book scene that was copied from an earlier non-Abrahamic text. Anyone who believes that Jacob wrestled with God is beyond help. Once it is understood that this divine fight never happened, it opens up everything else in the Bible as likely being similarly mythical.
(4628) Inconsistent views of the afterlife
The Bible should tell one, consistent description of the afterlife that awaits human beings, but it actually tells many inconsistent ones. The following was taken from:
https://medium.com/@frankzanon/the-bible-and-me-from-believer-to-critic-part-3-3-ca94a10bfa47
It is easy for Bible zealots to come and claim my issue with the Bible is simply that I’m an immoral person that doesn’t want to follow it, that’s easy. In the other hand, it is difficult to admit their own dissimulation as they pretend the book as a whole is insightful and has a clear moral teaching when, in reality, it just doesn’t.
Take, for example, a key subject like afterlife, and we have some 5 different views about it through the Biblical books. Look at the Old Testament. In some places it seems that death is the end, in others it is implied the existence of “Sheol”, a sort of shadowy underworld. But we are also told that certain righteous men like Enoch and Elijah didn’t die but were taken to Heaven.
Go to the New Testament and it is even more complicated. We are told there is a resurrection, but sometimes it is portrayed as an event in the future (as it is believed by reformed theology and Jehovah Witnesses today), while sometimes it seems to be a place you go right after death (like the Ancient Greek and Egyptian beliefs). In Paul, for example, no hell or place of punishment is mentioned at all, as if the unsaved are just going to perish in the sense of stop existing. In Apocalypse, we learn that they’re thrown into the lake of fire and experience a second death, which sounds ambiguous enough to be interpreted as both as perpetual punishment or annihilation.
Now, I could calm down and just pretend it says the same thing in every single book. But then I would be just straight up lying to you and I prefer to be as transparent as I’m allowed to be. If I am to take it literally, I have to pretend all the contradictions are not there. Even worst, I have also to pretend to not see the progressive Zoroastrian and Hellenistic influences in the Biblical writing.
The vague Elohim eventually becomes the anthropomorphic “Lord”, “Ancient of Days” or “Father”. Slowly, the absolute God starts to divide the universe with his dark counterpart, Satan, which could only be a Jewish carbon copy of the Persian Ahriman. Even the idea of a special savior and the resurrection of the dead that first appeared in Zoroastrianism now makes its debut into Rabbinical and Christian literatures.
Not to mention how Jesus starts in the Gospel of Mark as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet and ends as the Greek demi-god philosopher in the Gospel of John.
The afterlife, if it exists, can exist only as a singular truth that functions in a singular manner, not as a mishmash of several theories. The Bible should consistently tell this story, which it would if it was truly inspired by a supernatural source. Instead what we see is the result of a book written by many uninspired humans.
(4629) Luke copied Josephus
It is already well-known that Luke copied large sections of the Gospel of Mark, but less well-known that he also copied from a text written in the mid- 90’s of the First Century by the historian Josephus. This places the dating of this gospel well in to the Second Century, consistent with when it is assumed that the Book of Acts (authored by the same person) was also written. The following was taken from:
In Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), Josephan scholar Steve Mason demonstrates that Luke copied from Flavius Josephus as well – but unfortunately, not always accurately. In fact, Luke’s mistakes in plagiarizing are one of the ways we know that he’s copying from Josephus, and not the other way around.
Where there are points of contact between them, the information Josephus provides is: 1) more extensive, 2) much more detailed, 3) more accurate, and 4) in the correct context. For example, he knows exactly when and why the census under Quirinius happened, that the census was only of Judea and not the whole world, etc. By contrast, Luke’s details on the same matters are sketchy and simplified, quite often wrong, and unrelated to the story. They are merely tidbits that have been inserted into the narrative simply to provide window dressing and flourishes of authenticity. Luke is quite deliberately mining the works of Josephus for historical details he can use to give his Gospel the appearance of a real historical work. He is fabricating history, not recording it.
Incidentally, since Josephus wrote Antiquities of the Jews in the mid-90s (c. 93 or 94), this means the author of Luke could not have written his Gospel before then, and it is more plausible that it was written much later. A date early in the second century, or perhaps even as late as the 130’s would be a realistic estimate of its composition, along with the book of Acts, which Luke also wrote.
The Gospel of Luke is nothing more than an error-prone plagiarized version of both Mark and Josephus and thus deserves virtually no historical credence- this is especially significant because this gospel is generally regarded as being the most revered by the Catholic Church. Given these considerations, it is likely that the author of Luke was born well after 75 CE, and therefore he likely had no contact with any eyewitnesses of Jesus (assuming Jesus was a real human being).
(4630) Can a historical Jesus be saved?
Working in reverse logic, it is acceptable to ask what would the pieces of evidence look like if Jesus was whom as Christians claim. In the following, 21 aspects are examined, each of which should (but fail to) provide compelling evidence for Jesus as described in the gospels. The final score is 0 for 21:
There comes a point when it no longer makes sense to give Jesus the benefit of a doubt. Even if we make allowances for legendary accretion, pious fraud, the criteria of embarrassment, doctrinal disputes, scribal errors and faults in translation, there are simply too many irresolvable problems with the default position that assumes there simply had to be a historical individual (or even a composite of several itinerant preachers) at the center of Christianity.
Indeed, the New Testament and the unfolding of Christianity would look very differently if Jesus – even a merely human Jesus – had been an actual historical figure. How differently would things look if Jesus had been real? Here are a few examples:
The Silence of Paul – and Everyone Else
There would not be the strange absence of biographical information about Jesus from Paul and everyone else in the earliest generations of Christian writers. Incidentally, when ostensibly biographical information does first appear decades later in the late first century with the Gospel of Mark, it appears disconnected from the mythic details of the earlier Christ.
This new account of Mark’s is short and relatively unornamented, and with each successive version, that basic story is expanded, gains more details, is fleshed out and ramified in mutually incompatible directions as time goes on.
Needless to say, the silence of all contemporary commentators, both during and for decades after the years of Jesus’ ministry, makes no sense considering that we do have historical evidence for much less interesting messianic figures and events in Judea from that same period – and that without taking any alleged miracles into account!
Distribution and Spread
The Jesus movement would have began in the Galilee and in Judea around Jerusalem, radiating out from there instead of divergent sects appearing scattershot all over the far corners of the empire in places like Alexandria, Greece, Rome and Asia Minor.
Forgetting Jesus
Those same early Christian communities would be much more homogenous, not seemingly clinging onto a few isolated fragments of Jesus’ teachings and personality, and then forgetting or just jettisoning the rest to create completely incompatible versions of their Christ Jesus – particularly if those same communities had been founded by Jesus’ own disciples or family members.
A Jesus Who Never Died There would not be early Christian communities who had no concept of Jesus dying for sins (or dying at all), like that of the Gospel of Thomas community. Their Gospel not only contains no information whatsoever about his suffering or dying to save humankind from their sins, but explicitly states that his followers will only be saved through heeding his secret Gnostic wisdom (Gospel of Thomas, Saying 1).
Jesus Without a Cross – or a Name
Paul (or perhaps an even earlier Christian) would not have had to insert a reference to the cross into the Pre-Pauline Kenosis Hymn in Philippians 2:5-11. It’s fascinating that this early Christian hymn, perhaps the very earliest surviving Christian writing we have, celebrated the sacrifice of a savior who died – by not by crucifixion.
And what’s more, this same early hymn goes on to tell us that the savior did not receive the name Jesus (in Hebrew, “Yahweh Saves”) until after he died and was exalted.
But what other name could Paul’s Christ have had in the unquoted portion of the Philippians hymn? The Gnostics certainly had plenty of names to go around for their various Christs; Price has noted that in the Nag Hammadi texts, the savior goes by names like Melchizedek, Seth, Derdekas, Zoroaster, the Third Illuminator, and others. It’s entirely possible that Paul had no idea what his Lord had originally been named during his time on earth – if he even believed that Jesus had been on earth.
Paul’s List of Witnesses
Paul’s odd list of witnesses to the risen Christ in 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 15: 5-8) would not conflict with the Gospels, and the Gospel accounts themselves might be expected to be more in agreement with one another.
The Jerusalem Church
Paul’s problematic dynamic with the Jerusalem Pillars would be very different – and probably far more deferential – if he actually thought they had been family and disciples of Jesus. Instead, he ignores them for fourteen years and when he finally comes into open conflict with them and is summoned to account for himself, he contemptuously dismisses them (Gal. 2:2-6) as nobodies (!), enemies and false believers. Their relationship is so antagonistic, Luke feels the need to completely rewrite history to cover it up.
Splits in the Early Church
The many, many issues that continued to tear the early church apart (circumcision, adhering to Mosaic law, eating with unbelievers, faith versus works, etc.) would have been long-resolved by Jesus if he had actually pronounced on them as he does in the Gospels. For example, Peter and Paul are still arguing over the Hebrew dietary laws – even though Jesus taught that all foods are clean (Mark 7:14-23), and in Acts (10:9-16) Peter has already received a vision from Jesus telling him (three times) the same thing all over again!
The Eucharist
Paul would have no reason to have to explain the Lord’s Supper if it was already a tradition of the disciples, and it would be very strange for him to try to take credit for receiving it in a vision if everyone already knew about it from the disciples. And by the same token, John would not have been able to get away with excluding the Lord’s Supper from his gospel.
Earlier Teachings
Jesus’ teachings would not appear in the writings of so many earlier authors, such as in Pharisaic literature, Stoic and Cynic maxims and Pythagorean fables.
The Testimonium Flavianum
There would have been no need for Eusebius to forge the Testimonium Flavianum in the 4th century. Flavius Josephus would have mentioned Jesus, if only as just another false messiah and charlatan. Of course, we could also expect to see mention of Jesus as a teacher, preacher, or popular martyr from Philo, Justus of Tiberius, Nicolaus of Damascus, and scores of others.
Miracles and Other Spectacular Events
It bears repeating that if any of Jesus’ miracles or the other spectacular events that appear in the Gospel stories (e.g. earthquakes, supernatural darkness, the mass resurrection of dead Jewish saints who emerged from their graves and come into the streets of Jerusalem, etc.) had really occurred, it’s very doubtful that they all would have been missed by all contemporary accounts – including the other gospels!
Response from the Authorities
By the same token, if Jesus had actually returned from the dead, it’s astounding to think that there was no reaction from the populace or the Jerusalem authorities, or that no one would agree how long he remained on earth (just one afternoon? More than a week? Forty days?) before visibly ascending through the clouds into Heaven.
Identities of Jesus’ Disciples
There would not be so much confusion, awkward gaps of information and outright contradictions over who the twelve apostles were. And it seems unlikely that there would be so much literary (and perhaps also astrological) symbolism intertwined in their stories if the twelve apostles were actual human beings and not fictional characters.
First Century Historical Accounts
We might also expect to have genuine accounts, if not written (since the apostles were allegedly illiterate), then at least dictated by the apostles or other eyewitnesses. By the same token, we might expect to find Jesus or Paul had been mentioned in the writings of the real historical figures who appear in the Gospels and Acts.
Jesus’ Trial
The details of Jesus’ trial accounts would be more consistent, not be blatantly fabricated out of the Hebrew scriptures and so full of unrealistic errors.
Chronology
People would agree on the date (or day! or year!) of his death. And perhaps it’s not too much to expect that the sources would agree on the general circumstances, if not the date or year, of his birth, death, resurrection, and nearly every other event in Jesus’ life.
Absence of Jesus in Later Trial Transcripts
The trial accounts of Peter and Paul in Acts would mention Jesus instead of revealing a widespread ignorance of any of the events surrounding Jesus’ ministry, trial and execution.
Rival Christs
There would not be so many disparate kinds of Christs and gospels being preached in the early years by the rival, “false” apostles Paul continually fumes about (2 Cor. 11:4, 13-15,19-20, 22-23; Gal. 1:6-9; 2:4) or the “traffickers in Christs” warned against in the Didakhê (12:5), not to mention the many “true” Christian factions, such as that of Apollos (1 Cor. 3:5-9, 22; 4:6), according to Acts 18:25 an Alexandrian Jewish Christian, teaching in Corinth, who appears to have originally been a disciple of John the Baptist.
Judean Religious Politics
The interactions between Jesus and the religious authorities would be very different than as portrayed in the Gospels, which get many basics completely wrong. In reality, Pharisees would have admired, supported and mentioned Jesus. Like them, he opposed their bitter enemies, the Sadducees, and stood up to the Romans. He even taught their parables.
Physical Evidence
Finally, perhaps it’s not unreasonable to think that there could have been writings, physical evidence or actual relics of Jesus preserved, rather then the scores of frauds that did not start appearing until three hundred years later.
This evidence, or rather lack of evidence, points to one of two hypotheses- Jesus was a fictional character, or he was MUCH less famous than how the gospels paint him. And if the latter is true, it can be safely assumed that he was nothing more than a regular, mortal human being.
(4631) Mark changed the perception of Jesus
Assuming Jesus was an historical figure who died in approximately 30 CE, then for about 40 years there were a multitude of opinions about who he was and what he was trying to accomplish. But around 70 CE, an author penned the Gospel of Mark, a hagiography that painted an idealized, romantic, and almost entirely fictional allegory of Jesus based on many literary references. Once this was in circulation, the image of Jesus was changed and it eventually became grounded in Christian theology once other gospel authors used Mark as a blueprint for their work. The following was taken from:
Perceptions of Jesus changed forever once the anonymous author we call Mark wrote The Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mark tells us what he is doing right from the outset: he is writing a gospel, not a history or a biography (Mark 1:1).
And numerous historians, including Arnold Ehrhardt, Thomas Brodie, Richard Carrier, Randel Helms, Dennis MacDonald, Jennifer Maclean and more have detailed the ways that Mark’s entire Gospel is a treasure trove of symbolic, rather than historical, meaning.
Even though increasing numbers of believers came to later accept it as historical fact – and were encouraged to do so – the original Gospel was an allegory, constructed from a variety of sources, both Greek and Jewish: classic Homeric themes, possibly selected sayings from the Gospel of Thomas, snappy one-liners from Cynic and Stoic philosophies, bits of astrology and sacred geometry, pharisaic parables and proverbs, names from Paul’s epistles, and above all, as with Paul, motifs from the Hebrew Scriptures: Psalms, the Jacob’s Well story in Genesis, and passages from Ezekiel and 2 Chronicles.
Taking all these elements and then deliberately employing a simple, folksy style of Koine Greek, Mark composed a brilliant literary achievement. In a potent mix of Judaism and Paganism, he created a moving story filled with powerful Jewish symbolism and a narrative that parallels the burial liturgy of the Orphic Mysteries and classic motifs from the Homeric Epics.
Mark’s Gospel story, just like the parables he put in Jesus’ mouth, was written to teach truths while concealing their meanings. The entire Gospel of Mark is one great parable to conceal the secret, sacred truths of a mystery faith, the Mystery of the Kingdom of God. Mark has Jesus give this clue to the reader of his Gospel:
“The Mystery of the Kingdom of God is given to you, but to those who are outside everything is produced in parables, so that when they watch they may see but not know, and when they listen they may hear but not understand, for otherwise they might turn themselves around and be forgiven.” (Mark 4:11)
Like the pagan mysteries, the truths of Mark’s Mystery of the Kingdom of God are being concealed behind parables, only explained to insiders. Mark is not reporting history; he is creating a framework for passing on a sacred mystery to a chosen few and no one else. And he fully expected his initiated readers to recognize this is what he was doing. The cornerstone Gospel upon which all the others were built was not a biographical work at all, but an impressive literary construction.
It is ironic that a story written by an author (who had no intent to hide his objective to write a legendary account of Jesus) would be taken literally by billions of people twenty centuries later. This person, if he could somehow come back to life, would be astounded at the stupidity of those of who completely misinterpreted what he was doing.
(4632) If Christians were honest about hell
The theology of hell is one that has dogged Christians since the inception of their religion. They have done their best to ‘sweep it under the rug’ because it doesn’t play well in polite company. Below is a dialogue that would happen if Christians were to be totally honest about the scriptural description of hell:
https://medium.com/bouncin-and-behavin-academy/if-christians-were-honest-about-hell-e09eb2896994
Pause. Shuffling. Door answered.
CE — “I live in the neighborhood and I was wondering if we could talk for a few minutes”.
N — “Well, sure…I guess. I am between tasks”.
CE — Nervously…“I wanted to let you know that…God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life”.
N — Rolls eyes… “uhh, okay. Are you a Jehovah’s Witness?”
CE — brightening… “Oh no, I go to God is Great Baptist Church just down the street.”
N — pause… “Ok I’ll bite…what would you like to say.”
CE — “Well, it’s true, God does love you and he has a wonderful plan for your life.”
N — “Is God the all-powerful creator and sustainer of the universe?”
N — mock relief. “Well so glad to know that God loves me, then. So I guess I am all set. Anything else”.
CE — thoughtful pause… “Well…it is not quite that simple…”
N — “Hmmm… Ok… In what sense?”
CE — “Well, you see, he has a wonderful plan for your life…but it’s just his plan. It hasn’t happened yet. In order to realize his plan for your life you have to repent of your sins and turn to him in faith. It is what we call the Good News”.
N — “Well, appreciate you coming by but I already have a wonderful life. Adoring wife and kids, job that I love. Friends that care about me.” Starts to close the door.
CE — “Wait… again…it’s not that simple. Please let me finish”
CE — “I am glad that you have a wonderful life. But it could be even more wonderful. And in any case, a terrible fate awaits those that don’t repent and turn to Christ in faith.”
N — long pause “… you mean hell?”
CE — “Yes. A place called Hell”.
N — “Umm… okay. So, what the hell is hell, then.”
CE — “I’m so glad you asked. Let me tell you. Have you ever been cooking or at the grill and you burned your hand?”
CE — “Well… hell isn’t like that. It’s more like being locked in a room in a burning building. Except it isn’t really like that. Because only parts of your flesh are being burned at a time. In hell, every square inch of your flesh is set on fire at the same time. The bible calls it a Lake of Fire”.
N — long pause — “wow… and you… actually believe that…?”
CE — “Oh yes. Hell is where God tortures you for not turning to Jesus…forever and ever. And he has a special magical power that he employs as chief torturer.”
CE — “Well, if you have ever read the story of how Moses came to serve God, it was because he saw a burning bush. But the fact that it was burning is not what was special about it. What was special about it is that it was burning but it was not consumed. In the process of burning, the bush didn’t ‘burn up’. That is God’s magical power that he employs. In hell your flesh is burned but it is never consumed. So he gets to torture you forever-and-ever because your flesh is never consumed. The ‘virtue’ of being burned alive is that your flesh is eventually consumed and you die. But God isn’t limited by that. With God, you just burn and keep burning. Cool trick isn’t it?”
N — “I think that is an AWFUL trick… And this is the same God who loves me and has a wonderful plan for my life?”
CE — “Yep. Christians have a wonderful hymn they sing… Amazing Grace. And in that song we get to sing that When we’ve been there for 10,000 years we’ve no less days to sing his Praise. Same thing is true of hell, though. When you have been there having your flesh burned but not consumed for 10,000 years…well the party is just getting started.”
CE — “Yep. Kinda complicated I know. But it is easily resolved. Just turn to Jesus in repentance and faith. Then you get to have a wonderful life AND a wonderful death. Streets of gold and mansions and all of that”.
N — “Ok, let me ask you some questions. This God, this Torturer in Chief. You use the words, Good, Loving, and Kind to describe him.”
N — “But those that are not Christians, they get plan B. They don’t get the God who is good, loving and kind. They get the god who is Torturer in Chief”
N — “And there are 8 billion people in the world. Of those, let’s assume that 1/3rd of them are Christians, which leave approximately 5.5 billion people who, when they depart this earth will get to know Torturer in Chief rather than Good, Loving, and Kind.
CE — “Yep, pretty much. Might be slightly more complicated than that but that’s about it.”
N — “Well, let me ask you a theoretical question. Suppose you have a friend and he has 9 wives. And let’s say that for 3 of the wives he takes care of them, tends to their needs, loves them, cooks for them, takes them out for pleasant walks, buys them things. And he does that every day. But he also visits the other 6 wives every day. And he tortures them mercilessly. Ties them to burning cauldrons. Pours boiling water on them. Starves them. Beats them. Threatens them. Nearly drowns them. Makes their lives such a living hell that their greatest longing is for death. Would you say your friend is good, loving, and kind or a monstrous devil”?
CE — “I would say that he is a monstrous devil. But…he is a man. The rules are different for God. Because he is God. Once again you are over-simplifying.”
N — “For the record, I don’t think I am over-simplifying at all. I need to understand why behavior that would ALWAYS be described as a Monstrous Evil if done by a man, is somehow okay when applied to the creator and sustainer of all things?”
CE — “Well, it is because he is holy and just…”
N — interrupting… “Just? Really? So you think what you have described is ‘just. I suppose you think that jaywalkers and speeders should be tortured and put to death?”
N — “But it is okay for God, because he is God, to torture people every day for ‘10,000 years and the party is just starting’. That wouldn’t be ‘just’ for even Hitler or Attila the Hun. And definitely not for my muslim neighbor who is the most thoughtful, self-less and kind person that I know. If you want me to ‘turn to God’ I am sorry, but I could not turn to a God like that.”
CE — “Well you don’t understand what it means for God to be Holy…”
N — interrupting…”no…you don’t understand what it means for God to be Good, Loving, and Kind and, at the same time, ascribe to him those kinds of atrocities. You can’t have it both ways. Once you eat the cupcake…the cupcake is gone. Well, this has been an interesting chat. Have a nice day.”
It shouldn’t take anyone time to realize, once they have read about hell in the Bible, that Christianity is a fake religion designed to create fear and compel people to comply with its demands. There is ‘no way in hell’ that a ‘real god’ would create such a gruesome form of punishment or devise such an enigmatic formula for avoiding it.
(4633) Christianity’s Paul problem
A thorough and concise examination of Paul’s ministry reveals some big problems- first, way too much of Jesus’ history seems to have evaded Paul’s attention. Second, there are fatal conflicts between Paul’s letters and the Book of Acts. Third, Paul’s ‘vision’ of Jesus is fully consistent with similar visions of the Virgin Mary or Joseph Smith’s vision of Jesus and Yahweh (Mormonism) that Christians rightly reject out of hand- so why was Paul’s vision legitimate but not the others? The following was taken from:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2023/11/christianitys-embarrassing-apostle-paul.html#more
Anyone who reads the letters of Paul, carefully, thoughtfully, will be stumped by his failure to mention the ministry, teachings, and miracles of Jesus of Nazareth. How can that be? Since there is no hint in the New Testament that Paul ever met or even saw Jesus, it’s not a big surprise. We’re familiar, of course, with the dramatic story of Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, told three times in the Book of Acts. This is probably dramatic storytelling—like so much else in Acts—because Paul doesn’t mention it in his own letters. But after this life-changing conversion, wouldn’t Paul have wanted to pump the disciples for information about Jesus? The author of Acts reports that Paul did indeed head back to Jerusalem:
“…he attempted to join the disciples, and they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, brought him to the apostles, and described for them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who had spoken to him, and how in Damascus he had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them in Jerusalem, speaking boldly in the name of the Lord.” (Acts 9:26-28)
But the author of Acts is caught in a lie here. He had not read Paul’s letter to the Galatians:
“…nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were already apostles before me, but I went away at once into Arabia, and afterward I returned to Damascus. Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him fifteen days, but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!” (Galatians 1:17-20)
Since we are so familiar with Peter as depicted in the gospels, we might imagine that Paul asked him a lot of questions about Jesus. But who was this Peter whom Paul visited? Chances are he wasn’t the guy who appears in the gospel accounts: we have no idea where those stories came from. They look too much like fantasy literature. In any case, whatever this Peter might have told him about Jesus didn’t end up in Paul’s letters. Paul never mentions the empty tomb, for example.
And why was Paul so emphatic (“I do not lie!”) that he didn’t mix with other disciples? He probably wanted to assure his readers that his knowledge about Jesus came directly from Jesus. That is, the risen Jesus in the spiritual realm. Earlier in Galatians 1 Paul had written: “For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (vv. 11-12)
This is the essence of Embarrassment One: Paul’s ultra-certain faith is based on his visions. Today, the professionals who study brain science would say, his hallucinations. We all know that devout folks dismiss visions of other religions, e.g., Protestants even ridicule Catholic visions of the Virgin Mary, nearly everyone laughs off Mormon vision claims. So many devout people—scattered across different religions, with conflicting concepts of god—have been certain they’re getting glimpses of happenings in the spiritual realm. If it’s someone in your own religion—especially long ago—folks say, “Isn’t that wonderful!” But if it’s outside your religion: “Isn’t that ridiculous!”
Devout New Testament scholars, holding out hope that the gospels contain some glimpses of history, argue that “reliable” oral traditions about Jesus were in circulation in the decades before the gospels were written. But Paul seems not to have been aware of such stories about Jesus, or just chose to ignore them. Again, his credibility among his followers was based not on “things he might have heard about Jesus”—but on his communications from Jesus in the spirit world.
Reliable oral traditions may just be wishful thinking. There is little ethical teaching in Mark’s gospel. Matthew decided to correct that by adding The Sermon on the Mount, which Luke shortened—and changed the wording. The author of John’s gospel omitted it entirely, and added lengthy Jesus monologues found nowhere else.
We are entitled to wonder, by the way, if Paul was aware of the Jesus stories that we know from the gospels. Paul’s advice in Romans 13 is a major puzzle:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.” (vv. 1-2)
He seems not to have known that Jesus was executed by Roman authorities—and, of course, this is simply bad theology: that all government authorities are divinely appointed. Paul was several stages removed from reality. He goes on to say, “For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s agents, busy with this very thing. Pay to all what is due them: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due.” (vv. 6-7) What a perfect occasion to quote Jesus’ famous advice in Matthew 22:21, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…” But Paul simply wasn’t aware of anything Jesus taught.
One comeback may be to point out that Paul quotes Jesus at the Last Supper (I Corinthians 11:23-26). How would he have known this? He wasn’t at the Last Supper, and bragged that he didn’t learn anything about Jesus from human sources. He states that “I received from the Lord” the famous words of the Eucharist, i.e., from his visions. When Mark created his account of the Last Supper, he probably quoted Paul’s version of the story.
One thing should be certain- if there really was a god who intended to extend human lives after death to have them enter either a paradise or a torture chamber, then this god would have provided humanity a much more consistent and verifiable road map for navigating their eternal destiny. No god could have been so incompetent as to allow the mishmash of conflicting information that contaminates the current state of Christianity.
(4634) Christianity’s schizophrenic infancy
If Christianity was true, it would be expected that its early structure would have been very concise and uniform, only to split apart later into various factions. But it seems that a multitude of factions existed almost immediately. The following was taken from:
If early Christianity is supposed to have begun as a single movement, then it was a wildly schizophrenic one. As Price notes:
“The cherished image of a single early church untainted by heresy, with everyone of one heart and soul worshiping one Christ, and eventually producing a harmonious canon of scripture speaking a single Gospel with a single voice – is a myth. In every case, an earlier diversity has been unsuccessfully hidden away behind a screen of history as the finally dominant faction wished it had been.”
Pioneering Bible Scholar F.C. Bauer was the first to notice how a great deal of the New Testament only makes sense when you realize there was a war going on in the early church.3 Peter and Paul were on opposite sides of two rival Christianities, one Jewish, one Gentile, in major conflict with one another. The New Testament is divided along these lines, with each side having its own Gospels and Epistles, and evidence of several completely different traditions about Jesus.
Paul’s Christians seem to have no details of Jesus’ earthly life and instead venerate a cosmic Christ who traveled to the Hebrew underworld and back up through the layers of the Heavens to defeat the demonic spirits.
Mark’s community took the opposite tack. Their suffering Jesus was an ordinary human man whom God “adopted” at his baptism, tested and later resurrected and exalted to divine Lord to reward his obedience. This is in stark contrast with the community who followed the Gospel of John. Their Jesus was the Logos who was there at creation and fearlessly wanders across Judea loudly declaring that he is God himself.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus is the heavenly High Priest who offers his sacrifice in a heavenly sanctuary, a perfect blend of traditional Jewish theology and Alexandrian-style Platonism, and a conception of Christ unlike any other.
In addition to Peter’s, Paul’s, John the Baptist’s and the other Gospel factions, there were still many other Christian or proto-Christian sects in the first and second century. Some we know nothing about except that their names happened to be included in Orthodox heresy-hunting manuals. Doubtless there were many more that we will never know anything about. Once the faction that became the “orthodox” position had become strong enough to begin enforcing its will, the Church worked long and hard over centuries to burn as many of these heretical writings (as well as the occasional heretic) as they could.
The best argument that can be made concerning this strangely uncoordinated beginning of the Christian religion is (1) it seems quite normal for something invented by humans to suffer initial chaos borne of a multitude of disparate opinions, and (2) it seems very abnormal for a god intent on establishing his ‘one and only true’ religion to allow so many conflicting factions to develop, clouding the thrust of his ultimate communication with humankind. Combining (1) and (2) together sends a strong signal to any objective mind that we are dealing with a non-supernatural phenomenon of human history.
(4635) God and the genocide of the Americas
The brutal extermination of the native populations of North/Central/South America that began approximately 530 years ago is the most massive genocide in history. The following essay questions why a loving god would not have done something to prevent such an incalculable amount of suffering:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2023/11/a-big-item-on-gods-to-do-list-kill-as.html#more
Just twenty-one years after Columbus’s first landing in the Caribbean, the vastly populous island that the explorer had renamed Hispaniola was effectively desolate; nearly 8,000,000 people—those Columbus chose to call Indians—had been killed by violence, disease, and despair. It took a little longer, about the span of a single human generation, but what happened on Hispaniola was the equivalent of more than fifty Hiroshimas.”
And: “The destruction of the Indians of the Americas was, far and away, the most massive act of genocide in the history of the world.”
How does God-Is-Love theology survive when we become fully aware of such horrendous suffering? “He’s got the whole world in his hands” fails to have any meaning at all. The New Testament especially makes the point that its god is aware of every human, i.e., everything we say, and even think—which is how prayer is supposed to work—is known to god.
And how can the god who runs the cosmos not be aware of the Big Picture?
He had to know very well that Europeans were sailing west to find a way to China, but that a massive land mass was in the way—a land mass that was home to many millions of people who had been settled in north, central, and south American for thousands of years. Moreover, this god must have known that these residents of the Americas would have no immunity whatever to the many diseases that the European explorers brought with them. These diseases proved to be primary cause of death—wiping out millions of people: a super version of the 14th century’s Black Plague.
Yet, god just watched it all happen? How can this not be an enormous problem for Christian theology? An all-powerful god just sitting on his hands? It makes no sense whatever.
Stannard devotes considerable space in his book to descriptions of the societies that the Spanish found as they ventured deeper into South America. He quotes from letters and diaries that explorers wrote, in which they marveled at the wonders they encountered: examples of advanced architecture and well-ordered, well-run communities.
But the Spanish were not tourists. They were money motivated, on the hunt for gold, silver for the Spanish monarchy—and for slaves. Columbus was the trail-blazer—and a malicious one at that; he was a man
“…with sufficient intolerance and contempt for all who did not look or behave or believe as he did, that he thought nothing of enslaving or killing such people simply because they were not like him. He was, to repeat, a secular personification of what more than a thousand years of Christian culture had wrought. As such, the fact that he launched a campaign of horrific violence against the natives of Hispaniola is not something that should surprise anyone. Indeed, it would be surprising if he had not inaugurated such carnage.” (pp. 199-200, Kindle, Stannard, emphasis added)
Later, heroes of the United States shared similar ideas.
“George Washington, in 1779, instructed Major General John Sullivan to attack the Iroquois and ‘lay waste all the settlements around . . . that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed,’ urging the general not to “listen to any overture of peace before the total ruin of their settlements is effected.”” (p. 119, Kindle)
Thomas Jefferson, “…in 1807 instructed his Secretary of War that any Indians who resisted American expansion into their lands must be met with ‘the hatchet.’ ‘And . . . if ever we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe,’ he wrote, ‘we will never lay it down till that tribe is exterminated, or is driven beyond the Mississippi,’ continuing: ‘in war, they will kill some of us; we shall destroy all of them.’” (p. 120, Kindle)
And: “…the man who became America’s first truly twentieth century President, Theodore Roosevelt, added his opinion that the extermination of the American Indians and the expropriation of their lands ‘was as ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable.’” (p. 245, Kindle)
So many of the devout do their very best not to think about these evils: easy acceptance of the very terrible is an easy way out. Well, maybe not so easy—if they’re honest with themselves—but they adopt it anyway to shelter their beliefs from close examination.
This is actually cowardice. Serious threats to the faith should be addressed head-on. One helpful tool for this is John Loftus’ hefty (more than 500 pages) 2021 anthology, God and Horrendous Suffering.
The existence of a good, loving, all-powerful, competent god does not withstand careful, critical, skeptical analysis. The Christian god who allowed the American Holocaust is the same one who does nothing to irradicate thousands of genetic diseases, mental illnesses—and cancers that are rampant in the world. He’s “got the whole world in his hands” is such a pathetic misunderstanding of reality. And how is it that a god who supposedly “inspired” humans—that is, manipulated their minds—to write a 1000-page holy book, couldn’t have changed thousands of minds in the direction of improving basic human decency? That is, cleansed our brains of racism. Is that too much to expect?
One of Stannard’s final observations: “…there is little doubt that the dominant sixteenth-and seventeenth-century ecclesiastical, literary, and popular opinion in Spain and Britain and Europe’s American colonies regarding the native peoples of North and South America was that they were a racially degraded and inferior lot—borderline humans as far as most whites were concerned.” (p. 278, Kindle, emphasis added)
Humanity would be a lot better off if the Christian god had much greater tutorial skills.
This points to the same syllogism that pops up almost daily- The Christian god is either (1) insensitive to human suffering/ brutal/evil, or (2) The Christian god is not omnipotent, and had no control over what happened, or (3) the Christian god does not exist.
If there is fourth possibility, it would be the overused Christian standby excuse- God is mysterious, and what we see as tragic actually works for the greater good. If anyone is persuaded by this nonsense, then they have likely overdosed on kool-aid.
(4636) What must be true if Christianity is true
If Christianity is true, then the following 30 things must also be true:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2023/11/reality-check-what-must-be-case-if.html#more
1) There must be a God who is a simple being yet made up of three inexplicable persons existing forever outside of time without a beginning, who therefore never learned anything new, never took a risk, never made a decision, never disagreed within the Godhead, and never had a prior moment to freely choose his own nature.
2) There must be a personal non-embodied omnipresent God who created the physical universe ex-nihilo in the first moment of time who will subsequently forever experience a sequence of events in time.
3) There must exist a perfectly good, omnipotent God, who created a perfectly good universe out of a desire/need to glorify himself by rewarding in heaven the few human beings who just got lucky to believe by being born at the right time and place, and who will condemn to hell those who do not believe.
4) That the highest created being, known as Satan or the Devil, led an angelic rebellion against an omnipotent omniscient omnibenelovent omnipresent God, and expected to win–which makes Satan out to be pure evil and dumber than a box of rocks.
5) That there was a first human pair (Adam & Eve) who so grievously sinned against God when tested that all of the rest of us are being punished for it (including animals), even though no one but the first human pair deserved to be punished. If it’s argued that all of us deserve to be punished because we all would have sinned, then the test was a sham. For only if some of us would not have sinned can the test be considered a fair one. But if some of us would not have sinned under the same initial conditions then there are people who are being punished for something they never would have done.
6) That although there are many other similar mythological stories told in Ancient Near Eastern Literature that pre-date what we read in the Bible, the stories in the Bible are about real events and real people.
7) That although we see completely different perspectives and evolving theologies in the Bible, including many things that are barbaric and superstitious to the core, it was authored by one divine mind.
8) That when it comes to verifiable matters of historical fact (like the Exodus, the extent of the reign of David, Luke’s reported world-wide census, etc) the Biblical stories are disconfirmed by evidence to the contrary as fairy tales, but when it comes to supernatural claims of miracles that cannot be verified like a virgin birth and resurrection from the grave, the Bible reports true historical facts.
9) That although a great number of miracles were claimed to have happened in the different superstitious cultures of the ancient world, only the ones in the Bible actually happened as claimed.
10) That an omniscient God could not foresee that his revealed will in the Bible would lead believers to commit such atrocities against others that reasonable people would conclude there is no divine mind behind the Bible. I call this The Problem of Miscommunication.
11) That God created human beings with rational minds that require evidence before they accept something, and yet this same God does not provide enough evidence but asks them to have faith instead.
12) That although people around the world are raised in different cultures to believe in their particular god(s) there is only one God and he will judge all people based upon whether or not they believe Jesus is Lord.
13) That Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy even though there is not one passage in the Old Testament that is specifically fulfilled in his life, death, and resurrection that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today’s historical-grammatical hermeneutical method.
14) That although there were many false virgin birth claims about famous people (like Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, Plato) mythical heroes (like Mithra, Hercules) and savior gods (like Krishna, Osiris, Dionysus) in the ancient world, Jesus was really born of a virgin.
15) That while there is no rational explanation for how a person can be 100% man and 100% God, and although ancient pagan superstitious people believed this can take place (Acts 14:11-12; 28:6), Jesus was incarnate God in the flesh.
16) That while the results of science are assured when it comes to chemistry, physics, meteorology, mechanics, forensic science, medical science, rocket science, computer science, and so forth, when it comes to evolutionary science that shows all present life forms have common ancestors, or when science tells us that dead bodies do not arise from the grave because total cell necrosis is irreversible, the results of science are wrong because the Bible says otherwise.
17) That although there is no rational explanation for why Jesus had to die on the cross to atone for our sins, his death atoned for our sins.
18) That although historical reconstructions of the past are are notoriously difficult because they depend on the poor evidence of history, and even though historians must assess that evidence by assuming a natural explanation for it, and even though historical evidence can never establish how to view that evidence, the Christian faith can be established historically anyway. My argument is that when it comes to miraculous claims, yesterday’s evidence no longer can hold water for me, for in order to see it as evidence, I must already believe in the framework that allows me to see it as evidence. In other words, in order to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for me, I must already believe the Christian framework that allows me to see yesterday’s evidence as evidence for Christianity.
19) That although there is no cogent theodicy that can explain why there is such ubiquitous and massive human and animal suffering if a perfectly good omnipotent God exists, God is perfectly good and omnipotent anyway.
20) That while scientific tests on petitionary prayers have produced at best negligible results and at worst completely falsified them, God answers these kinds of prayers anyway.
21) That even though Christianity shows evidence that it is nothing but a cultural by-product of human invention there is a divine mind behind it anyway.
22) That Jesus is the Son of God even though the textual evidence in the New Testament conclusively shows that the founder of the Jesus cult was a failed apocalyptic prophet who prophesied that the eschaton would take place in his generation, which would involve a total cosmic catastrophe after which God inaugurates a literal kingdom on earth with the “Son of Man” reigning from Jerusalem over the nations.
23) That although there can be no moral justification for the sufferings of animals in this created world, a perfectly good God created this world anyway. We don’t even see God’s care for the lower animals in his supposed revealed word, which is described in Psalm 119 as his “perfect will.” Think otherwise? Then read what I wrote here.
24) That although the only method we have for determining the truth in factual matters is methodological naturalism, which assumes a natural explanation for any phenomena, and although this method is the hallmark of the sciences, the phenomena of the Bible can be exempted from this method as applied through Biblical Criticism, and believed anyway.
25) That although God’s supposed revelation in the canonical Bible is indistinguishable from the musings of an ancient, barbaric, superstitious people, the Bible is the word of God. As SilverBullet recently said: “…the lord doesn’t work in mysterious ways, but in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence. It seems to me that there is nothing in the Christian scriptures, no sentence, paragraph, or idea, that couldn’t be anything more than the product of the humans alive at the time that the apparently divinely inspired scriptures and ideas were “revealed”. Sure, its possible for a god to reveal himself in an inspired book, and throughout history, in ways that are indistinguishable from the work of human minds and human minds alone. But how probable does that seem to you?”
26) That although it’s claimed God got the attention of Abraham, Moses, the Pharaoh, Gideon, Mary, Joseph, and Saul (who became Paul) and that he knows how to get the attention of anyone and everyone, there is no objective evidence he’s trying to get the attention of the billions of people who don’t believe. In fact, Christians are much more concerned than God is that non-believers are converted. Just compare the lengths to which Christians will go in order to convert non-believers, with a God who has the means to convert everyone and yet does nothing to help them do this. If you say God is helping to convert non-believers then tell us how to objectively know God is actually doing this.
27) Christianity is a faith that must dismiss the tragedy of death. It does not matter who dies, or how many, or what the circumstances are when people die. It could be the death of a mother whose baby depends upon her for milk. It could be a pandemic like cholera that decimated parts of the world in 1918, or the more than 23,000 children who die every single day from starvation. These deaths could be by suffocation, drowning, a drive-by shooting, or being burned to death. It doesn’t matter. God is good. Death doesn’t matter. People die all of the time. In order to justify God’s goodness Christianity minimizes the value of human life. It is a pro-death faith, plain and simple.
28) That God’s punishments are good, right, and just, even though it means sinners are thrust into a surprisingly dangerous world, and in death will be blindsided by an eternal punishment in hell, which is “Christianity’s most damnable doctrine.” In this world how do you think human beings first learned that venomous creatures like certain kinds of spiders, snakes, ants or scorpions could kill us? People/children had to die, lots of them. How do you think human beings first learned that polluted water or lead poisoning could kill us? Again, people/children had to die, lots of them. It was inevitable since God never told us what to avoid in order to stay alive. We had to learn these kinds of things firsthand. The same thing can be said for hell. People do not know their choices will send them to an eternal punishment in hell. For if we knew this, and if it was possible not to sin at all, we wouldn’t sin. Do you doubt this? Then consider that if you knew with certainty that by crossing a line drawn in the sand you would get beaten to a pulp by a biker gang, you would not do it!
29) When believers like Christians or Muslims contend their faiths are based on reason, one may simply object that this can’t be so because their god in fact doesn’t allow it. Using reason to arrive at any other belief than the correct one will earn you an eternity in hell. Thus, reason is an evil to be avoided….Blind, unquestioning, and unexamined belief is what the theist’s retributive god truly desires, not a belief grounded in reason. And yet they maintain Christianity is reasonable.
30) The Christian thinks there is an objective absolute morality that stems from their perfectly good God, which is both eternal and unchangeable. But the morality we find in the Bible is something quite different than what they claim. Morality has evolved. What we find in the Bible is not something we would expect from a perfectly good God, but Christians believe there is a perfectly good God anyway. So Christians must choose, either 1) hold to a philosopher’s god divorced from the historical realities of the Bible, or 2) continue to worship a moral monster.
Every Christian should face these points and ask themselves if they are able to rationalize them away. But what would normally happen is that they would sidestep the challenge, and simply continue to believe without putting in much thought. It is probable that any Christian who honestly confronts all of these points, with the intent to argue against all of them, will nevertheless fail and end up discarding their faith.
(4637) Non-belief is stickier than belief
It would seem that if Christianity was true, then people who believe in it would likely continue to believe it, given that a continual flow of evidence would support and bolster their beliefs. Assuming the same, it would seem that atheists would be less likely to maintain their beliefs in the face of this same evidence. However, the opposite is true. Non-believers tend much more than Christians to maintain their beliefs. The following was taken from:
https://onlysky.media/afiala/non-religion-is-sticky-and-contagious/
A recent article in the Guardian suggested several reasons for the general decline in religion. It may have something to do with the hypocritical moralizing of religious patriarchs and the changing values of a younger generation. The mandatory church closures of the Covid pandemic seem to have accelerated church attrition. But non-religion is not a passing fad. Non-religion is both sticky and contagious. As a critical mass of people come out of the nonreligious closet, others will follow, and will likely stay out. Social scientists suggest that people who become nonreligious tend to stay that way and pass their nonreligion on to the next generation.
If this is true, then our way of understanding religion as a natural function of human experience needs to be revised. Religious belief was once taken for granted as fulfilling a kind of natural human instinct. But as nonbelief is normalized, the assumption that human beings have a natural religious instinct no longer makes sense.
Sociologists have been studying the rise of the nones for a couple of decades. Studies of “nonversion” (conversion away from religion) remind us that there are lots of individual stories and no single cause for the decline of religion. And yet, non-religion seems to be both contagious and sticky.
To say it is contagious means that it catches on. When people are exposed to non-religion and realize it is an option, they may choose it. To say it is sticky means that once people become nonreligious, they tend to stay that way. Linda Woodhead, professor of sociology of religion, explains the generational stickiness of religion as follows: “For people who say they were raised Christian, there is a 45 percent chance they will end up identifying as nones, but for those raised with ‘no religion’ there is a 95 percent probability that they will stay that way. Thus, ‘no religion’ is currently ‘sticky’ in a way Christianity is not.”
As non-religion grows, it comes to seem normal and unexceptional. Phil Zuckerman concludes his study of why people reject religion as follows. “Obviously many people, from various walks of life, can live without religion—in fact, prefer as much. This bald fact strongly counters the notion that all people—as people—are somehow intrinsically religious or that religion is some sort of necessary, universal, or inextricable component of the human condition.”
People tend to hold on to their convictions when those convictions are firmly grounded in reality. If there are no gods, then atheists should be less likely than theists to change their views. This is what we observe.
(4638) Mormon miracles better attested
Christians blithely dismiss the miracles of Mormonism, but credit their own Christian miracles using arguments that are much better suited for supporting the miracles of Mormonism. This inconsistency passes over the minds of most Christians. The following is taken from:
It seems to me that, using the same popular evidences proposed by Christian apologists, the miracles recorded in the early history of the Mormon church are much better attested than those in Christianity… and yet most apologists seem comfortable dismissing claims of Mormon miracles as insufficiently evidenced. This seems like a contradiction to me.
-
- Early Attestation Christian apologists seems excited by the idea that the gospels may have been written ‘only’ 20 years after the fact (or that the Pauline epistles contain a creed dating back to ‘only’ two years after the crucifixion). But Mormon miracle accounts were often recorded on the day they occurred.
- First-hand Eye-Witness Testimony Christian apologists sometimes emphasize that the gospels “contain eye-witness testimony” (i.e., have second-hand reports in them). But the Mormon miracles are often reported as first-hand, first-person eye-witness testimony, and there are more of these reports than there are for the gospel accounts.
- Inclusion of Historical Names and Places Christian apologists seem to feel like the inclusion of historical locations and names (especially in Acts… over 80 details!) But in the Mormon church history, there are literally hundreds of verifiable historical details mentioned constantly (town names, geographic features, family names and connections, etc).
- Criteria of Embarrassment Apologists often say that including embarrassing details is evidence of the truth of the gospel narratives. However, Mormon history is full of embarrassing details, including outright chastisement by God of Joseph Smith (and other leaders). Using the apologist standard, this is strong evidence that Joseph Smith and the other witnesses were telling the truth.
- Wouldn’t Die For A Lie A common apologist argument is that the original apostles of would not have died for a lie (and thus their martyrdoms are strong evidence for the truth of Christianity), but the reports of most apostle’s deaths come from over a century after they were supposed to have occurred. There are many more Mormon martyrs, including of course Joseph Smith himself (and by apologist logic, since Joseph Smith would have known if he were telling a lie, his martyrdom proves that he was telling the truth).
Since most apologists seem comfortable rejecting Mormon miracle claims, it stands to reason that they should similarly reject New Testament miracle claims as well.
EDIT: Heck, why not one more…
-
- Multiple Independent Attestation
Even going by the most generous of Christian claims of attestation, the gospel miracles were only recorded first-hand by two people who ‘were there’ (John and Matthew), and second-hand by Peter (through Mark as a scribe). I think more reasonable estimates would conclude that almost all the miracles in the New Testament were described by only one independent source: Mark (then copied through Luke and Matthew) or John. Miracles attested by both sources are surprisingly rare.
Compare this to Mormonism, where we have the statements from seven different people who claimed to have interacted with angels, plus another eleven who claimed to have seen and handled the Golden Plates.
Any disinterested person evaluating Christianity and Mormonism would conclude that the miracles of Mormonism are more believable- with one caveat- if Christianity is false, then Mormonism is also false, as the former establishes the foundation of the latter.
(4639) Bible displays lack of knowledge
There are many examples in the Bible where it appears obvious that the authors were not inspired or informed by a supernatural agency, and that throughout its pages reflects the general state of ignorance that existed 2-3,000 years ago. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1879wzg/the_constant_scientific_factual_historical/
The bible is filled with constant errors and inaccuracies that are clearly influenced by the authors lack of understanding of scientific, historical and geographical knowledge during the period which has been proven to be fundamentally false.
There is a common defense used that many of the inaccuracies are “metaphors” and it should not be taken as a scientific/historical book. This is wrong. These texts are clearly written in the form of a scientific and historical fact to be taught and spread. hey are not written as metaphors. Many of these misconceptions align with common misconceptions that were believed in many different cultures outside the Hebrews until they were debunked scientifically I later.
NOTE: This is a small list of the many faults and mistakes within the bible. There is far more that would make this post too long to read.
-
- Genesis 1-2: This well-known passage describes the creation of the universe, the Earth, and life in six days. However, it contradicts the modern scientific understanding of these processes, which are known to have taken place over billions of years.
Note: Writing was not developed until 5000BCE. It was difficult to maintain historical records prior. Most societies had no knowledge of life prior to this. This matches very closely with the supposed age of earth. (Notice something?)
2. The creation of plants before animals: Genesis 1:11-12 states that plants were created on the third day of creation, before animals were created on the fifth and sixth days. However, we now know that animals existed before plants.
3. Genesis 1 states that the Earth was created before the sun, moon, and stars. However, we now know that the sun is significantly older than the Earth.
4. The belief that the Earth is the center of the universe: The Bible often describes the Earth as being fixed in place and the center of the universe (Psalm 93:1; Isaiah 40:22). However, we now know that the Earth is one of many planets that orbit the sun, which is just one of billions of stars in the universe. It is not even the center of our solar system
5. The formation of mountains: The Bible often describes mountains as being formed by earthquakes or volcanic eruptions (Psalm 95:4; Isaiah 2:19). However, we now know that mountains are formed over millions of years by the movement of tectonic plates.
Note: A common misconception before tectonic planes were discovered in 1967
6. Cosmology: The Bible’s understanding of the cosmos is also incompatible with modern astronomical knowledge. For example, the Bible describes the Earth as being flat and supported on pillars (Job 38:4). However, we now know that the Earth is a sphere that orbits the sun.
Note: Lets not forget this text was written at a time where everyone believed the Earth was generally flat. To say this claim was a metaphor is escapism.
7. The rainbow: Genesis 9:12-17 states that the rainbow was created after the flood as a sign of God’s covenant with Noah. However, we now know that rainbows are caused by the refraction of sunlight through water droplets in the atmosphere.
Note: This clearly shows how the authors tried to make sense of something they had little understanding off.
8. The nature of thunder and lightning: The Bible often describes thunder and lightning as being caused by God’s anger (Psalm 18:13; 78:48). However, we now know that thunder and lightning are caused by the movement of air and the buildup of static electricity in clouds.
Note: It was common for cultures to associate Thunder and lighting to the anger of their Deity/deities.
9. The motion of the sun: The Bible often describes the sun and moon as moving across the sky, as if they were objects that could be physically moved. For example, Joshua 10:12-13 states that Joshua prayed to God to extend the day so that he could defeat his enemies. “Then Joshua spoke to the Lord, and he said, ‘In the presence of Israel, stop the sun and moon from moving.’ So the sun stopped moving, and the moon stood still until the people had defeated their enemies.”
We know know the sun is fixed in Place within our solar system. The misconception that the Sun rotated around the Earth aligned with the The prevailing understanding at the time was based on the limited scientific knowledge available.
10. The stars as fixed points: The Bible often describes the stars as being fixed in place in the firmament (Psalm 19:1; Isaiah 40:26). However, we now know that stars are constantly moving and changing.
11. The Bible attributes diseases to demons or divine punishment (Leviticus 13:1-46). However, we now know that diseases are caused by natural factors, such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites.
Note: Again written as a fact. Not metaphor. It aligned with how many societies attribute diseases with superstitious believes before modern science.
12. Bloodletting: the idea that bloodletting is a cure for disease: Leviticus 17:11-14 prescribes bloodletting as a way to atone for sin. However, we now know that bloodletting is ineffective and can even be harmful. Note: This is a common misconception from the era
In conclusion: All the texts are written as facts in the perspective of a person that lived in an era with limited technology.
This shows the how the bible was based off the lack of scientific, geographic and cosmological understanding within the period rather than the word of an omnipotent being. It they were the word of an omnipotent God, they would have been 100% accurate.
If the Christian god existed, and the Bible was to be his principal vehicle for communicating with humans, it should be assumed that he would have prevented the inclusion of factual errors. The existence of these errors points to the likely conclusion that the Bible is solely the work of human knowledge that existed at that time.
(4640) Ancient readers didn’t expect realism
The history of the times of Jesus was replete with stories about famous people that were written not in a sense to be taken literally but rather figuratively, and readers of these accounts at that time understood this fact. This included the biblical gospels. Only later, did Christians come to believe that all of the Bible stories were literal history. The following was taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/188gde3/what_is_our_earliest_instance_of_someone/
There was a census in 6-7 CE administrated by The Syrian governor, Quirinius. Luke specifically names it as the “first census under Quirinius.” So there is no question that the first census of Judea happened under Quirinius in 6-7 CE, the problem is that it didn’t apply anywhere but Judea, so not the “whole world,” and would not have applied even to Galilee. It also didn’t require anyone to travel.
Scholars have been questioning the historicity of the Nativities as a whole, not just little details like that, at least since Strauss eviscerated them in his Life of Jesus Critically Examined 200 years ago.
As for ancient audiences expecting realism and accuracy, they didn’t. They wanted good stories and in the case of birth narratives they routinely attached mythical tropes to people perceived as special in some way. This applies to both real people, mythical figures and legendary figures. For example Hercules, Romulus Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar had miraculous birth stories attached to them. They were actually very common as were translation/ascension stories.
The best book on this, in my opinion, is Richard C. Miller’s Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity. Miraculous birth stories were almost inevitably attached to certain kinds of individuals after they died, especially kings and Emperors, but it could also happen for people famous for other reasons such as poets, philosophers, athletes, artists, great generals. People of accomplishment. People like Pythagoras and Aesop, for example.
Now as it pertains to your essential question – did ancient audiences question the accuracy of the nativity stories, the answer Miller gives is that they would not have questioned it because they never expected these stories to be literally true in the first place. They were understood as poetic, theological, symbolic, honorific. Just to clarify, I’m talking specifically about birth and death stories, not necessarily the real lives in between, but it was not just common but almost inevitable that famous people would get these mythologized birth and death stories. Death stories usually involved some sort of translation – ascension to Heaven, transformation into stars or sometimes animals, birds or plants – Romulus was born of a virgin and ascended to Heaven. These were tropes, allegories, people didn’t take them literally. Miller says it was like a kind of Hall of Fame.
This would be like people in the future believing that the story of the Wizard of Oz was factual history and that Dorothy was swept up by a miraculous tornado and ushered into a future time to a city of golden splendor-Oz. If one today could be brought back to life 2000 years from now and see a group of people taking this story literally, it would be similar to First Century Christians coming to the present day and being bewildered at how fundamentalist Christians think that all of the gospel stories are factually historical.
(4641) Cessationism is a cop out
Christian apologists, trying to explain why contemporary Christians cannot display the same magical healing powers of the various biblical heroes, termed ‘cessationism,’ use a specious argument, contrary to the words of their own scriptures, that the ‘age of miracles’ has ended. The following essay demolishes this claim:
Certain Christians claim that although Christians during the so-called Apostolic Age were able to perform miraculous healings, such miraculous healings are no longer possible for Christians to perform. This is part of a broader doctrine named cessationism.
But the Christians’ scriptures, when discussing miraculous healings and YHWH, do not assert that the ability to perform miraculous healings will stop.
Consider what the Christians’ scriptures portray Jesus as doing. The Christians’ scriptures portray Jesus as performing miraculous healings. The Christians’ scriptures also portray Jesus as claiming at GJohn 14:12-14 that Christians will be able to perform deeds equal to and better than his deeds and that whatever they ask for in his name they will receive.
Lest it be thought that these promises do not refer to miraculous healings or only refer to the people whom Jesus was addressing, the Christians’ scriptures explicitly portray Christians as miraculously healing people (for examples of both this and their receiving what they ask for in his name, see Acts 3:2-8 and Acts 9:32-24) even when Christians were not present with Jesus while Jesus was alive and only became Christian after Jesus died (Acts 9:32-34, Acts 20:7-12). Furthermore, such an interpretation is contrary to the Christians’ scriptures’ claims about Jesus’s teachings about his followers’ ability to perform miracles, which Jesus is presented as saying are for all who believe in him (GJohn 14:12).
Lest it be thought that the Christians’ scriptures claim, either implicitly or explicitly, that only apostles can perform miracles, the Christians’ scriptures claim that the non-apostle Stephen, having faith and being filled with the holy spirit, was also able to perform miracles (Acts 6:5, 8).
The Christian may allege that Stephen was special compared to other Christians because he had received a laying on of hands from the apostles (Acts 6:5-6) which allowed him to perform miracles which other Christians not apostles cannot do. But the laying on of hands is not associated within the Christians’ scriptures with his ability to perform miracles and such an interpretation is contrary to the Christians’ scriptures’ claims about Jesus’s teachings about his followers’ ability to perform miracles, which Jesus is presented as saying arise from their faith in Jesus (GJohn 14:12) rather than from their receiving a laying on of hands.
The Christian may allege that these miracles did not include healing, but such a limitation upon the miracles which Stephen performed is not found within the Christians’ scriptures. Because miracles performed by Jesus and by Christians within other contexts within the Christians’ scriptures are said to include healings, it can be inferred that Stephen also performed miraclulous healings.
The fundamental problem, though, with assuming that after the Apostolic Age Christians lost the ability to perform miraculous healings is that such an assertion both requires the addition of a temporal limitation to Jesus’s words in GJohn 14:12-14 and requires the Christian to assert that the Christians’ scriptures are false in terms of what they say about YHWH. James 1:17, in addition to affirming claims from the Jews’ scriptures that YHWH does not change (Malachi 3:6), also assert that YHWH sends good things to people. Miraculous healings are good things, meaning that if YHWH were truly unchanging and if Jesus was telling truth from YHWH, as the Christians claim, then the fact that Christians were once able to perform miraculous healings should mean that Christians are still able to perform miraculous healings.
By contradicting what their scriptures say about whether Christians are able to perform miraculous healings, Christians who assert that that Christians after the Apostolic Age ceased to be able to do miraculous healings of the sort which their scriptures present make it less likely that Christianity is true because they are indirectly conceding that their scriptures’ claims about what Christians would be and will be able to do are not true but trying to salvage the situation by contradicting what their scriptures say. But once it is conceded that the Christians’ scriptures make false claims about Christians’ powers and the benefits arising from being Christian, other claims made by the Christians’ scriptures about Christians’ powers and the benefits arising from being Christian are similarly open to being disbelieved – including the central claim by Christianity that Christianity offers a valid path to salvation.
The Christian may assert that in fact Christians are able to perform such miraculous healings. But such a claim does not address my argument, which is for the Christians who claim that Christians cannot perform miraculous healings any more. Furthermore, if Christians were able to perform miraculous healings as obviously as certain Christians claim and as their scriptures portray them as doing, then this would be obvious to Christians and non-Christians alike (although whether such miraculous healings prove Christianity to be true is another matter) and certain Christians would not be needing to argue, through arguments which contradict their scriptures and reduce the likelihood that Christianity is true, that Christians can no longer perform such miraculous healings.
The Christian may assert that because I do not believe that the Christians’ scriptures are true, I should not formulate an argument which assumes that the Christians’ scriptures are true. To this, I say that it is the Christians who claim that their scriptures are true, so we non-Christians, when debating with Christians, should be able to take their claim at face value and use it as the basis for arguments about Christianity. Certainly, Christians do the same thing when they argue among themselves about which Christianity is true.
Christians cannot perform healings because there is no force available that allows them to circumvent the natural laws of the universe. This fact has always been true, even when all of the Bible miracles allegedly took place. In fact, there has never been a single miracle in the 13.8 billion year existence of the universe.
(4642) Christianity is a mess
It should be expected that a religion created by an omnipotent god would be guided by this being to ensure that it stayed focused, consistent in its messaging, and free from scandal. None of these attributes describe Christianity. It is a mess. The following reveals this problem in six ways:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2023/12/how-did-christianity-get-to-be-such-mess.html#more
Evidence of the Mess: One
When American Christians head off for church on Sunday morning, how many church buildings of other Christian brands do they pass on the way to their own denomination? Baptists would be horrified at the thought of worshiping at a Catholic church instead. And Catholics would be baffled at the style of worship at a Methodist or Presbyterian church. This is the essence of Mess One: there are, in fact, thousands of different Christian brands, i.e. denominations, divisions, sects, and cults. There has been rampant splintering for hundreds of years because the devout cannot agree on basics about god and how he wants to be worshiped.
There is something terribly wrong with this: it makes no sense whatever. Church folks willingly accept the version of their faith preached by their own clergy. Does this mean that the clergy of so many other brands are guilty of misunderstanding—have it all wrong? It’s a mystery that the laity aren’t alarmed: maybe our denomination is the one that misunderstands? But there is far greater reason for alarm: why have Christians disagreed so profoundly? The disagreements in the early Christian movement are on display in the Bible itself—and we’ll get to that issue later.
Evidence of the Mess: Two
A few years ago, I asked a prominent Italian journalist his opinion on this: “Is it really possible that the clergy at the Vatican actually believe all of the goofy Catholic dogma?” His response: “Oh, maybe half of them do. But don’t forget, it’s a business.” That’s a big part of the mess: church has become business. For example, the holdings of the Vatican and the Mormon church are estimated to be billions of dollars. What is the purpose of holding on to such wealth when there are so much horrible suffering in the world?
A major part of church business is show business. That applies especially to the guys at the Vatican: what a costume budget! But all churches put on a show at their worship services: the décor, the ritual, ceremony, liturgy, music, costumes. It’s all meant to enhance emotions, encourage the feeling that the holy spirit is taking part. The clergy earn their salaries—putting on the best possible show—as part of this business. You’ll search in vain for a command of Jesus, “Build as many churches as possible!” But historically, that’s what has happened.
The worst part of this mess is televangelism, the ultimate in putting on a show—and raking in the dollars. I recently came across a list of about twenty televangelists who are multi-millionaires. It’s hard to imagine that they give a damn about Jesus, but they posture successfully. What do they do with these texts, “Sell what you have and give to the poor” and “It’s easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God”? One televangelist was quoted as saying that “Jesus hasn’t come back because donations haven’t been high enough.” What a disgrace. There should be an association, Christians Opposed to Televangelism to confront and shut down this part of the mess.
Evidence of the Mess: Three
Why isn’t membership in the Catholic Church down to zero by now? The last figure I saw—the amount this church has paid out in court settlements for priests abusing/raping children—is 3.1 billion dollars. What does it say about Christian theology that the most devout followers of Jesus rape children? What a mess. And it’s so alarming that Catholics don’t boycott their church en masse—what are they thinking?
Why would anyone still show up at these churches? A major part of this scandal has been that the embarrassed church has tried to cover up the abuse (e.g., quietly transferring guilty priests to other parishes), has fought to squash attempts to extend the reach of the law timewise, in the persecution of child rapists. Confronting this scandal head-on, publicly, could have done a lot to restore confidence in the church. What a relief it would have been for the Pope to hold a weekly news conference, to announce: this is how many priests have been handed over to the police; this is how many priests have been dis-ordained for their crimes. And, of course: these are the measure we have adopted to carefully screen candidates for the priesthood, and to get at the root of the problem. Why are the clergy so vulnerable to committing these sins?
This seems to be a problem for other denominations as well, e.g., Baptists, Mormons, the Church of England. Religions want to set themselves above others—especially atheists—because their devotion to god(s) gives them superior morality. But it doesn’t seem to be working out that way.
Evidence of the Mess: Four
A few days ago we saw this headline: “261 Georgia congregations leave the United Methodist Church over a divide on LGBTQ issues.” This reflects yet another mess: Christians are deeply divided on important social issues, including the rights of gay people and women—especially regarding abortion. Misogyny is arrogantly, aggressively championed by the Catholic church: No, women will never be ordained priests. It’s been a long painful struggle to achieve equal treatment under the law for gay people, women, and racial minorities. And by no means is the struggle over. Those who are most firmly opposed are still attached to Bible verses that reflect ancient superstitions and biases, e.g., regarding same-sex relations, women, and slavery.
How many of the folks in those 261 Methodist congregations took the time to study what we now know about homosexuality? The research has been exhaustive. How many took the time to study/reflect on the opposing views of other Christians who welcome—and even ordain—gay people? It was delightfully welcome news just a few days ago that Pope Francis has reprimanded the virulently anti-gay Cardinal Raymond Burke—by taking way the cardinal’s residence and salary.
Another aspect of this mess: the enthusiastic evangelical embrace of Donald Trump, who fails by any standard imaginable of being a Christian. There has finally been pushback on this, as Trump’s evil, erratic nature has become more obvious. Maybe the multiple indictments have something to do with it!
Evidence of the Mess: Five
There are a couple of largely unnoticed messes. Number Five is…the Bible. Largely unread by the laity—certainly not read carefully, critically—it is, in fact, the source of so much division in Christianity. The four gospel authors had different ideas about Jesus—the differences between Mark and John being extreme. Matthew and Luke copied most of Mark’s gospel, and made changes as they saw fit.
I recently came across an article by Tim Zeak, Is Christianity Nonsensical and Painfully Undefinable? and he makes the point that it’s pretty easy—if the reader is paying attention—to see how the New Testament authors differed on such basic issues as how to win salvation. How do we reconcile the apostle Paul’s assurance that salvation is guaranteed if you say—and believe in your heart—that Jesus was raised from the dead (Romans 10:9), with the gospel of John’s Jesus-script that drinking Jesus’ blood and eating his flesh would do the trick (John 6:53-57)?
Zeak includes quite a list of the contradictions, then comments:
“Given the enormous number of contradictions and disputes about basic doctrinal issues, no one can believe that their denomination or belief system is the right one. Could a perfect and good God who intended to communicate a message to His creatures, possibly fail in that attempt by having it so flawed and convoluted to such a degree that it actually inspired wars, murders, racism, woman abuse, ‘witch burnings,’ slavery, and among other atrocities, genital mutilation?
“Could it be possible that Christianity is just as wrong as the other hundreds of religions there are on earth and it’s God, just as fictitious as the thousands of other Gods that have been worshipped and served for the whole of all history?”
Theology is guesswork, speculation, wishful thinking—so it’s no wonder that the imaginations of the New Testament authors wandered off in so many directions.
Evidence of the Mess: Six
This mess, we can say with confidence, is beyond the horizon of awareness of almost all the laity: the Jesus mess. The clergy—no matter the Christian brand—have huge vested interests in promoting an idealized version of their holy hero. Many, if not most of them, are not aware themselves of the turmoil in Jesus studies for a long time now. Once serious scholars began examining the gospels as trained historian do, the problem became obvious: the gospel writers do not name their sources. Writing their accounts decades after Jesus, no one knows where/how they got their information. The gospels overflow with fantasy, miracle folklore, and magical thinking. Devout scholars have come up with so many different versions of who Jesus was, because each scholar has his/her own private hunches as to which gospel verses can be trusted as history. But can any of them be trusted? Yes, it’s a mess, especially since many scholars have become skeptical that there was a real Jesus hidden below all the layers of theology. And the clergy hope that the laity don’t somehow become tuned in to what’s been happening in serious New Testament scholarship.
They want to keep all the messes hidden. Funny how the clergy have become masters of deceit.
There is no good excuse for why the Christian religion appears more like a project developed by many disagreeing human minds rather than the special creation of a divine being. The confused, inconsistent, scandalous history of Christianity is a good clue that it has nothing to do with any supernatural entities.
(4643) Prayers for COVID go poof
A recent study of intercessory prayer- that is people praying for people who are unaware that they are being prayed for- has revealed that there was no significant difference in the outcome of COVID-19 patients whether or not they received these prayers. This was a real-world test of whether there is a god who is hearing and responding to these types of prayers. The following is an executive summary of the study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10689938/#d35e555
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of intercessory prayer performed by a group of spiritual leaders on the health outcomes of hospitalized patients with Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) infection, specifically focusing on mortality and hospitalization rates. Design: This was a double-blinded, controlled, and randomized trial conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Interventions: Both groups continued to receive their usual medical care in accordance with HCor Hospital’s institutional patient care protocol for COVID-19 patients. Intervention: Both groups received their regular medical care according to HCor’s institutional patient care protocol for COVID-19 patients. The intervention group, in addition to standard treatment, received intercessory prayers performed by a group of spiritual leaders.
Main outcome measures: The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Secondary endpoints included the need for mechanical ventilation during hospitalization, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, and length of hospital stay. Results: A total of 199 participants were randomly assigned to the groups. The primary outcome, in-hospital mortality, occurred in 8 out of 100 (8.0 %) patients in the intercessory prayer group and 8 out of 99 (8.1 %) patients in the control group (HR 0.86 [0.32 to 2.31]; p = 0.76). Additionally, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of secondary outcomes. Conclusion: The study found no evidence of an effect of intercessory prayer on the primary outcome of mortality or on the secondary outcomes of hospitalization time, ICU time, and mechanical ventilation time.
So, for this situation, there are four possibilities- (1) God heard the prayers but decided not to answer them, (2) God heard the prayers but was unable to answer them, (3) God was unable to hear the prayers, or (4) God does not exist. Most Christians will pick #1 and access the ‘mysterious ways’ excuse, while most rational people will pick #4 and be rather certain that they have it right.
(4644) Christianity should have died by the 2nd Century
The evidence is overwhelming that Jesus, his apostles, Paul, and the early converts to Christianity were all certain that the end of the world was imminent. If they were right, the apocalypse would have taken place no later than 100 CE. Christianity survived only because people decided to ignore this fact. The following wast taken from:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/18b117n/the_failed_apocalypse_of_the_new_testament/
Matthew 16:27–28:
“For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Or Mark 13:30–31:”Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.”
What is “all these things” in v. 30? Just before v. 30, Jesus says that “in those days” after the tribulation (the destruction of the temple), there will be a cosmic catastrophe (vv. 24-25), and people will see the Son of Man coming from Heaven with great power and glory (v. 26). He will then send his angels to gather the elect (v. 27).
The type of apologetic response Christian theologians have been giving for millennia to vindicate Jesus from being wrong, as well as to this day (both Evangelicals and Catholics), is to appeal to the other writings of the New Testament and their theological perspective to harmonize them with Jesus. Indeed, in the aftermath of the easter “experiences,” the followers of Jesus came to believe that he had come back to life and was taken up into heaven, where he was currently reigning as a deity. This led to the rise of new theological explanations for what his crucifixion was really about. Early Christians like Paul theorized that Jesus had died as a sacrifice for sins in fulfillment of eschatological promises in the Old Testament: sins were forgiven, the spirit of God had been imparted to believers, and a spiritual resurrection had already occurred.
In this sense, the “Kingdom” was also a present reality mystically and spiritually. Such a concept has been categorized as the “already and not yet” in New Testament theology. The Kingdom of God HAS broken into reality. Therefore, many conclude Jesus wasn’t wrong in his predictions: through the crucifixion and resurrection and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, God’s Kingdom did come in power, and now we’re just waiting for its full completion when Christ returns from heaven.
There are several problems with this apologetic response:
-
- Without evidence, data, or justification, it assumes that these spiritual realities actually happened. They’re merely assertions based on ancient texts, and their reasoning is circular to appeal to one’s holy scriptures to prove the holy scriptures.
- Related to the first, in anthropological and religious studies scholarship, this tendency of spiritualization is a well-known phenomenon in apocalyptic groups when things don’t materialize as expected. Jesus, if he existed, probably led a messianic movement centered on himself, and his followers were deeply invested. Faced with the horrible trauma of his crucifixion, they had to find new ways of thinking about him.
- Most importantly, and this is what the rest of this post will be about, these very New Testament documents expected the imminent end of the world and, therefore, cannot be used to neutralize the sayings of Jesus.
As stated above, the New Testament writers believed the world was soon ending, and the Lord (Jesus) would come from heaven to judge the world. This reflects that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, and these elements lived on in the early Jewish-Christian community who remembered his promises. There are numerous lines of evidence for this. Let’s start with our earliest Christian literature, Paul’s letters.
Most scholars agree that 1 Thessalonians is probably our earliest Christian writing. One of the main themes in the letter is encouraging the Thessalonian Christians to persevere in faith and wait for the return of the Lord. 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10: “For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.” Paul is telling THAT community that the wrath is soon coming and we will be delivered. He isn’t talking to Christians living thousands of years later. This is made more explicit one of the more famous eschatological passages in the book: 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18
“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep (dead), that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. Therefore, encourage one another with these words.”
Paul believes that he will be among the generation that sees the return of the Lord. 1 Thessalonians 5, just as in the Markan apocalypse, the hearers are advised to “stay awake” because the Lord could return at any moment.
Other places in Paul and in the NT confirm this same idea, and for space, I will put these out quickly:
-
- 1 Corinthians 7: Paul advises the Christians at Corinth to stay in their social structures (i.e. not getting married, staying single, staying as a slave) because the “present form of this world is passing away.” (v. 31) Paul couldn’t be clearer: “I think that in view of the impending distress, it is good for a person to remain as he is.” (v. 26). The “distress” he is referring to is the Day of the Lord which would be a day of wrath.
- In the same letter, Paul says the parousia (return) of Jesus will happen soon, and he will live to see it. 1 Corinthians 15:51–52: “Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”
- Romans 13:11–12: “Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed. The night is far gone; the day is at hand. So then let us cast off the works of darkness and put on the armor of light.” Most scholars see the “salvation” being referenced here as the return of the Lord.
- There are many other examples in the epistles of the NT, but I will finish with the Book of Revelation, Christians’ favorite apocalyptic book that supposedly speaks of future events. Indeed, it does refer to the future. However, the fulfillment was expected to be completed in the ancient world at the height of the Roman empire. According to the writer, Jesus is coming very soon (1:1). The instruction “Jesus” gives to the churches in Asia Minor, one aspect of the teaching is preparing them for tribulation, which is about to happen. Revelation 3:3: “Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you.” Much more explicitly, Jesus tells the Church in Philadelphia that they will be rewarded soon. Revelation 3:10–11: “Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have so that no one may seize your crown.” Most importantly, the eschatological war predicted in the book is a war between Jesus and his angels against the beast, which is clearly a symbol of the Roman Empire. Scholars believe that the book of Revelation is written as a harsh polemic against the Roman empire and that judgment is soon going to come upon it. The book’s writer thought then that the return of Jesus would happen when the Roman empire was still around. The book closes in chapter 22 with repeated assurances that Jesus is “coming soon.” Revelation 22:10: “And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.”
Jesus is over 1900 years overdue. It is way past time for Christians to acknowledge that he isn’t coming back…ever.
(4645) Genesis 6:6-7 and the game is over
If a Christian commits to the task of reading the Bible from cover to cover, and further commits to keeping an open mind and analyzing the implications of each verse, then once he reads the following two verses, he should close the book, and find a reason-based focus for his life.
Genesis 6:6-7
The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
Here are the problems:
An allegedly omniscient deity fails to see what’s coming, and has a troubled heart?
An allegedly omnipotent deity has regret?
An allegedly perfect deity made humans so imperfect that he had to start over?
An allegedly omni-benevolent deity has no sense of compassion but to kill all living things minus a very few?
The Christian god is the alpha and the omega, is timeless, omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent, perfect, the creator of all things, and yet he makes a big mistake, is unhappy with his work, wishes he had done things differently, and has no qualms about murdering innocent people and other animals (by drowning, no less, the most painful way possible) to cover up his failure. Yes, this is where the Bible reader should stop, place the Bible in the trash, and live life free from superstition and control.
(4646) Strongest argument against the existence of God
The strongest argument against the existence of the Christian god is that there is a debate about the existence of this god. In a world with an omnipotent, all-seeing, omni-present god who listens to and answers prayers, and who keeps track of and is determined to judge every human, there would be no debate about the existence of this constantly-in-your-face deity. There would exist only differing opinions about his attributes, priorities, and future plans. The following was taken from:
You can disagree with the conclusion of an argument and yet still recognize the argument to be plausible. Imagine a vegan was arguing for the end of meat consumption and the abolition of inhumane factory-farming methods, which perpetuate mass horrors against animals and even lead to the spread of zoonotic diseases. They point out that animal husbandry requires huge land clearings, destroying ecosystems, causing soil erosion, increasing our carbon footprint etc. Now, you might reject veganism for several reasons – you might not have any moral qualms with slaughtering animals humanely and eating them, you might not think a vegan diet is practical or safe for everyone etc. Whatever it may be, you can recognize that the opposing argument is at least somewhat plausible, it’s not totally outlandish. You can see where the vegan is coming from, and maybe if you had slightly different intuitions you could imagine being a vegan yourself.
Similarly, a Christian can believe in God for several, prudent reasons, but he can recognise that there are powerful arguments for atheism – The Problem of Evil, Divine Hiddenness, Discrepancy between science and scripture etc. These are not trivial problems, these questions have troubled some of the most brilliant theologians of all time. Although responses and theodicies have been written, many are still unconvinced, with differences in opinion often boiling down to a clash of intuitions. But then, we have to ask the question: if there exists a benevolent God who wants us to know him, why should there exist any plausible reasons to deny God at all? Should we expect this reality to obtain in a world supervised by an all-powerful God who wants us to believe in him? It’s hard to see.
We should expect the existence of God to be self-evident to us, as self-evident as the rules of arithmetic or logic. You don’t see people debating whether 2+2=4, but when it comes to the question of God’s existence, people have been debating this puzzle for literally thousands of years. Even after 3000 years of intense debate, pitting one syllogism against another, we haven’t really achieved any consensus on this issue- there are confident theists, there are confident atheists, and ultimately there are plausible arguments on both sides. Should we really expect belief to be such a struggle?
If atheism is true then a diversity of beliefs is not problematic – people have different base intuitions and different epistemologies, so we naturally expect them to reach different beliefs. But in a world supervised and guided by an all-powerful, all-loving creator, who wants his creation to know him and worship him, it’s hard to explain the existence of so many non-resistant nonbelievers. Many of these people wish God existed, but they just find the evidence wanting and at odds with their gut feelings.
This, in my opinion, is the single strongest argument for rejecting the Christian God.
This follows the logic, A= The Christian god exists, B= the evidence that would definitely exist if the Christian god exists. Thus, if A, then B. However if not-B, then not-A. We don’t have the evidence that would definitely exist if the Christian god exists, so we can confidently conclude that there is no Christian god.
(4647) Luke’s obsession concerning wealth
In the gospel of Luke, a parable is presented that infers that wealthy people will be punished in the afterlife strictly due to their wealth and that poor people will be rewarded strictly on account of their poverty. There is no discussion of moral character or good works. This same author reduced the beatitude saying of Jesus in Matthew – “blessed are the poor in spirit” to simply “blessed are the poor.” Here is the parable:
Luke 16:19-26
“There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
The following was taken from:
Luke’s parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus is missing a crucial feature that its Egyptian and rabbinical parallels have: a moral justification for the reversal. In the story of Setme and Si-Osiris, the rich man is punished for his wickedness, and the poor man is rewarded for his righteousness. It is the same in the Talmudic tale. The moral of both stories seems to be, “Pursue goodness rather than riches, for only the former carries eternal value.”
But in Luke’s story, nothing is said of the rich man’s evil deeds or the poor man’s piety that earn them their respective rewards. In fact, it seems to be the rich man’s wealth itself that damns him, and Lazarus’s poverty that earns him comfort. That is certainly the rationale given by Abraham in verse 25. Nevertheless, this reasoning is so hard to accept for some readers that they look for an implicit crime that the rich man has committed. Richard Bauckham cites examples of scholars who insist that the rich man must have misused his wealth, acquired it wrongly, or neglected to give Lazarus charity; and that Lazarus must have been pious in addition to poor.
But the claim that the parable does not explain the reversal of fortunes is untrue. The reason is clearly stated in verse 25, where Abraham justifies the reversal to the rich man. …What has to be put right is the fact that one man lived in luxury while another was destitute. The next world compensates for this inequality by replacing it with a reverse inequality.…In effect, therefore, it is true that the rich man suffers in the next life just because he was rich in this life, while the poor man is blessed in the next life just because he was poor in this life. (See Bauckham, 232–233, for the quote and aforementioned citations.)
It is hard to imagine today’s Prosperity Gospel churches acknowledging the fairly obvious implications of this parable, let alone agreeing with them. Indeed, even scholars shy away from the moral conclusions of the parable, and Ronald Hock chides them for letting “their own moral sensitivities, not to mention their own tacit approval of wealth” affect their exegesis (Hock, pp. 452-454).
Admittedly, the topic of repentance is raised in verse 30, but only long after the reason for the rich man’s misfortune has already been explained. I think that if Luke wanted to emphasize repentance and ethical behavior through this parable, he should have brought them up sooner.
This is a prime example of how one person’s bias contaminated the gospels, distorting the underlying theology of the Bible that tries to convey the idea that one’s personal behavior, convictions, or beliefs is what is important, rather than one’s wealth. This parable evidently came from the mind of a man, one who was likely envious of wealthy people, rather than emanating from the mind of a god.
(4648) Jesus nativity quiz
It is embarrassingly easy to poke holes in how the gospels (Matthew and Luke) describe the birth of Jesus. In the following, five questions are asked that expose these dueling accounts and put them squarely in the category of myth:
https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2023/12/a-pop-quiz-for-christians-number-8.html#more
If churchgoers actually studied these accounts, they would legitimately ask: How has the church been able to get away with this?
So here are essential questions in this Pop-Quiz:
1. What is the evidence that Jesus was born on December 25?
Read Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2: is the evidence there?
2. Where did Mary and Joseph live when they found out she was pregnant?
Matthew and Luke didn’t agree on this.
3. Is it a good idea to add astrology—the ancient superstition of imagining omens in the sky—to Christian theology?
The Wise Men (magi/astrologers) saw the “Jesus star” and set out on a journey to find him. This is mentioned only in Matthew: is there any way at all to make this story credible?
4. What are the problems with that star?
Its behavior changes as the story unfolds.
5. Name two Old Testament verses that Matthew applies to Jesus, but which had nothing whatever to do with Jesus.
Matthew’s use of scripture is eccentric—to put it mildly.
Answers and Comments
Question One: What is the evidence that Jesus was born on December 25?
Events relating to the birth of Jesus are described in only two places in the New Testament: Matthew 1 & 2, and Luke 1 & 2. Mark begins his story with the baptism of Jesus, and John positions Jesus as having been a factor in the creation of the world; he seems not to have cared how Jesus was born as a human. But it was important to Matthew and Luke, yet neither of them bothers to mention the date when Jesus was born. December 25th was chosen later. This article, Why Is Christmas in December? offers details:
“In the 3rd century, the Roman Empire, which at the time had not adopted Christianity, celebrated the rebirth of the Unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus) on December 25th. This holiday not only marked the return of longer days after the winter solstice but also followed the popular Roman festival called the Saturnalia (during which people feasted and exchanged gifts). It was also the birthday of the Indo-European deity Mithra, a god of light and loyalty whose cult was at the time growing popular among Roman soldiers.”
Thus it seems that the Jesus-birthdate is a borrowing, i.e., the church capitalized on the popularity of December 25. But this is a red flag, a warning that there was too much borrowing. It doesn’t take much study of ancient religions to see that virgin birth for gods and heroes was a welcome credential. Matthew and Luke—alone among New Testament authors—attached this credential to Jesus. And while we’re studying ancient religions, we can wonder if December 25 was fiction on a whole different level: was Jesus born at all?
Richard Carrier makes this point:
“Right from the start Jesus simply looks a lot more like a mythical man than a historical one. And were he not the figure of a major world religion—if we were studying the Attis or Zalmoxis or Romulus cult instead—we would have treated Jesus that way from the start, knowing full well we need more than normal evidence to take him back out of the class of mythical persons and back into that of historical ones.” (On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, p. 602)
Hysteria may be the response of some folks to any suggestion that Jesus was a fictional character. My suggestion: calm down and read Carrier’s book. Find out why, after 600 pages of evidence and reasoning, this is his conclusion. Make the effort to study the gospels carefully, critically: find out why historians don’t trust them to deliver authentic accounts of Jesus. And realize that devout New Testament scholars have been agonizing over this problem for decades.
Question 2: Where did Mary and Joseph live when they found out she was pregnant?
In Matthew’s story, there is no mention whatever of a census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem. This was simply where they lived, and they fled from there to Egypt—here again, this tall tale is found only in Matthew—to protect Jesus. When they decided to return to their home, it was deemed too dangerous. “And after being warned in a dream, [Joseph] went away to the district of Galilee. There he made his home in a town called Nazareth…” (Matthew 2:22-23) There is not the slightest hint that Mary and Joseph had lived there originally.
Moreover, Luke knew nothing about the escape to Egypt mentioned in Matthew’s account. He offered an extended description of Jesus being taken to the Temple in Jerusalem for circumcision, and the words of adoration spoken about Jesus by two holy people, Simon and Anna. Then it was time to head for home: “When they had finished everything required by the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth.” (Luke 2:39)
It’s puzzling that two gospel authors did not agree on something so basic: where the parents of Jesus lived. And it’s even more puzzling that those who assembled the New Testament would include gospels that didn’t agree. Actually, scholars have been alarmed that the gospel authors fail to agree on so much.
Question Three: Is it a good idea to add astrology—the ancient superstition of imagining omens in the sky—to Christian theology?
The authors of the New Testament had a hard time separating fact from fiction, credible beliefs from superstition. But at least they were inventive. Matthew imagined that astrologers (in the East, presumably Babylon, 900 miles away) figured out that a star represented a new king of the Jews. Why would they care? Why would they embark on a long journey “to pay him homage”? This seems to be a reflection of Matthew’s arrogance that his breakaway Jesus sect was the one true religion. So bring on the “wise men” from other religions!
But astrology was (and remains) an ancient superstition. How does this not drag Christian theology down? Alas, of course, quite a few ancient superstitions in the gospels damage Christianity, e.g., mental illness is caused by demons, people with god-like powers can raise the dead and heal people (Jesus cured a man’s blindness by smearing mud on his eyes), a resurrected human sacrifice guarantees salvation for those who believe. Using astrology to enhance theology is part of a much bigger credibility problem.
Question Four: What are the problems with that star?
Matthew is guilty of a major plot flaw. The astrologers headed to Jerusalem to get information on where to find this new king of the Jews. Their inquiry alarmed King Herod, who made inquiries of the religious experts. They told him that Bethlehem was the place to look, based on a text in Micah 5:2. So the astrologers headed for Bethlehem: “…they set out, and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen in the east, until it stopped over the place where the child was.” (Matthew 2:9) Scholar Robert Price has said that the star had suddenly turned into Tinkerbell! Why didn’t it do this earlier, bypassing Jerusalem altogether, thereby keeping King Herod in the dark, and avoiding the Massacre of the Innocents? (Matthew 2:16)
The Tinkerbell Star stopped over the house where Jesus was living—no stable in this story—and Jesus is described as a child or little-boy. When Herod went on his furious rampage later, killing children in the Bethlehem area, the order was to execute those two years old and younger, “according to the time that he had learned from the astrologers.” (Matthew 2:16) After all, 900 miles was a long trek. It is abundantly clear that Matthew depicts an event that did not take place on the night Jesus was born. Placing the Wise Men in Luke’s stable is totally misleading. It makes for good theatre—that’s what appeals to the clergy and Sunday School teachers, I suppose—but it’s not what the Bible says.
Question Five: Name two Old Testament verses that Matthew applied to Jesus, but which had nothing whatever to do with Jesus.
New Testament authors specialized in taking old bits of scripture out of context. They were on the hunt for verses that they could apply to Jesus, no matter the intent of the original authors. Since they were sure that the old documents were filled with secret codes that about their lord, the game was on. Here are two examples:
· In Matthew’s birth story, he quotes Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy about Jesus. Please read Isaiah 7: how can anything in this text be about a holy hero who would be born centuries later? It is about how Israel’s god will help resolve a crisis at the time.
· As mentioned earlier, it is only Matthew that tells the farfetched story of Mary and Joseph taking Jesus to Egypt to protect him. It would seem this was even too absurd for Luke to believe: he reports that Mary and Joseph—after the circumcision of Jesus—headed back to Nazareth. But Matthew had landed on Hosea 11:1, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” The reference is clearly to Israel as a people, and moreover, the chapter is a lament that this people had been too ungrateful and rebellious.
Contemporary Bible readers should be able to figure out that Matthew’s use of old texts doesn’t help at all to make the case for Jesus.
The five questions in this Pop-Quiz serve as an introduction to the problems presented by these two birth narratives. Historians don’t take them seriously at all, since they clearly belong to the genre we call religious fantasy literature. Joseph is told by an angel in a dream that Mary is pregnant by the hold spirit; an angel in a dream tells him when to head home from Egypt. These are bits of fantasy, unless we could be sure that Matthew had access to a diary that Joseph kept, in which he wrote down his dreams (that’s the kind of documentation historians rely on). But at most, the diary would show that Joseph was out of touch with reality, believing that his god spoke to him via angels in dreams. Luke also was stoked at the thought of angels playing speaking roles, e.g., to the father of John the Baptist, to Mary, and to the shepherds on the night Jesus was born.
The gospels of Mark and John are deeply flawed, but at least those two authors showed no interest in spinning tales about how Jesus was born. Fortunately—or unfortunately, depending on your perspective—the Matthew and Luke birth narratives are a good place to start in undermining the credibility of the gospels, and in the falsification of Christian theology.
But that requires curiosity, critical thinking, and a willingness to engage in serious study—wherever that may lead.
The people who compiled the Bible appeared to have had no sense that were presenting two inconsistent, myth-laded stories about how Jesus was born. It would seem that they should have been more careful. But current-day people are aided by this mistake, so as to expose the entire enterprise as a pious scam.
(4649) Religions that judge are disingenuous
Any religion (Christianity is a prime example) that states that people will be judged and either rewarded or punished in an afterlife is overlooking an obvious problem with this theology. Humans are mostly products of forces that are almost exclusively outside of their control- free will, the component that expresses what theology purports to measure, is a faint whisper in the overall tapestry of our lives. We are pawns on a chessboard being moved by unseen players. The following was taken from:
https://new.exchristian.net/2023/12/the-blame-game-or-shit-happens.html
We, like all the other life forms on the planet, are just part of nature. Our personalities, abilities, desires, etc., are all the result of a long string of natural processes that reach back hundreds of millions of years. No one chooses who they are born to, when they are born or how they are raised. We do not select our race, height, intelligence or talents. We have no say in being born rich or poor; in an educated culture or an illiterate one; or what language we first speak. In none of these areas — and many more — are there decisions we have the power to make. We have no free will about any of it. All we can do is strive to survive and hopefully thrive in whatever situation we are born into.
For Christianity to state that only those who believe in Jesus will be saved and that those who don’t will burn in hell is a travesty of logic, fairness, and compassion. It is a theology that could work only under laboratory conditions where everyone is born in the same situation, with similar parents, background, childhood religious training, intelligence, and lifespan.
In the real world, Christianity cannot and does not work. It rewards good luck and punishes bad luck.
(4650) Gospel anachronisms
One of the clues that the gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses in foreign lands is that these authors made a lot of mistakes by inserting items that were not consistent with the time and place of Jesus. The following was taken from:
Historian Robert Price has noted several instances where the Evangelists accidentally added elements to their stories that never could have occurred during the time they are depicting. Here are just a few of them: The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery (John 8:1-11), one of the most beloved passages from the Bible, is a beautiful and truly timeless story of forgiveness (“Let he who is without sin throw the first stone”), with just the perfect dash of sex to spice it up.
But it is completely fictitious. It was obviously written during the time when the early Jewish Christians had begun trying to decide which parts of the traditional Jewish law they would keep and which they would let go. As Price notes, no one in Jesus’ time would ask Jesus whether we should obey the Torah or not! Compliance with Mosaic Law was not an optional suggested serving of ethical advice. It was rigorously enforced; after all, that was what public stoning was for.
Speaking of stones, we could call the apostle Simon Peter “Rocky,” since that is what his nickname Cephas (in Greek Petros) meant. Matthew has Jesus making a pun when he tells Peter “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matt. 16:18). Though if this had happened in reality, Peter would have scratched his head and asked, “Say, Jesus – what’s a church?” since churches hadn’t been invented yet, and wouldn’t be developed until many decades later. Matthew gets ahead of his story (10:38) when he has Jesus tell his disciples, “He who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me” – an odd thing for him to say, since no one is supposed to have any idea that he is going to be arrested and crucified later on.
But his disciples apparently let it go without any confusion or alarm – just as they do in John, when Jesus again blabs the end of the book: “Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again” (John 10:17). Incidentally, there’s another odd thing about Jesus’ speech here in Matthew that often goes unnoticed.
Ostensibly, he is giving instructions to his twelve apostles to go out and start preaching, which they immediately do in the next chapter (Matt. 11:1). And one chapter later they are all together with Jesus again (Matt. 12:1, Mark 6:30) and perfectly fine. None of which would seem out of place, if Jesus hadn’t just told them that they were going out to be persecuted (10:22-23). But that pales in comparison to what else he says before they set out: “For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the son of man comes.” (Matt. 10:23)
The son of man is Jesus, of course, and his coming spells the end of the world (see Mark 13:24-27 for details: the sun and moon darkening, the stars all falling, etc.). Modern day believers rationalize this failed prophecy by saying that Jesus was really talking to all of us in the audience, but his disciples would’ve had no way of knowing this message wasn’t really directed at them. Besides, once you start rationalizing this much aren’t you already as good as admitting the Gospel is nothing more than fictitious window dressing? (And does anyone really think that Christian missionaries haven’t gone through all the cities of Israel yet?) And if Jesus really did say it, why didn’t the world end around the year 30? No matter how one tries to twist this verse into something else, the fact remains that this prophecy of Jesus just doesn’t hold up. Doesn’t that make him a false prophet?
These types of errors should not exist in the text provided by an omnipotent god for the salvation of future human beings. But they are well-explained by the fact that the Bible was written by fallible men.
Follow this link to #4651