"How the New Testament Writers Used Prophecy," An Excerpt from "Why I Became an Atheist" pp. 353-59.

Heads up! I'm fairly excited for my upcoming 9,000 worded paper, "Did Virgin Mary Give Birth to the Son of God?" It's to appear on my page at the Secular Web within a couple of weeks. [The following essay was first published in December 2023] 

"How the New Testament Writers Used Prophecy" by John W. Loftus. 

One of the major things claimed by the New Testament in support of Jesus’ life and mission is that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Luke 24:26–27; Acts 3:17–24). If God cannot predict the future as time moves farther and farther into the distance, as I questioned earlier, then neither can any prophet who claims to speak for God. As we will see with regard to the virgin birth of Jesus, none of the Old Testament passages in the original Hebrew prophetically applied singularly and specifically to Jesus. [In chapter 18, "Was Jesus Born of a Virgin in Bethlehem?"]. Early Christian preachers simply went into the Old Testament looking for verses that would support their view of Jesus. They took these Old Testament verses out of context and applied them to Jesus in order to support their views of his life and mission.9

Robert Conner Shared THIS!

LINK. It's pretty depressing for reasonable people in the U.S. as many readers will probably agree. For my part, I'm considering living in a different country for awhile. ;-) No, seriously!

Bertrand Russell’s Celestial Teapot Is More Credible than the Christian God

The quest for solid god-evidence has yielded nothing

There’s been a cartoon floating around on Facebook for a while, depicting a Christian woman asking a man, “What’s it like being an atheist?” He replies, “Do you think Zeus is real?” Her answer is “No”—to which he answers, “Like that.”  Zeus is one of thousands of gods that have been invented by human beings, and embraced with varying degrees of enthusiasm. It has been so easy to jump to the god-conclusion; in the Book of Acts, chapter 28, we find the story of the apostle Paul arriving on Malta. As he was lighting a fire, a viper landed on his hand, which he shook off into the fire. But the locals were amazed: “They were expecting him to swell up or drop dead, but after they had waited a long time and saw that nothing unusual had happened to him, they changed their minds and began to say that he was a god.” (v. 6)

The Blasphemy of Heliocentrism

The Pareto distribution of bible verse citations

If you’ve listened to many church sermons, you may have noticed that they often cite verses from the church’s preferred translation of the bible, or allude to verses indirectly. If you were to write down all these verses, over time you’d build up quite the list. But you might need a lot of sermons before you could reconstruct an entire bible that way. That’s because many verses in the bible sound a bit problematic to modern ears, and don’t feature in a lot of sermons. Instead you might notice that your pastor is like a long-time touring musical act, well past its hitmaking heyday, which keeps on playing its hits. What people liked in the past, they can probably like again. A cynical or perhaps realistic observer might note that the most important skill for any church pastor is fundraising (“No bucks, no Buck Rogers”), and some bible verses work better than other verses for separating the marks I mean congregants from their money. Among the more successful pastors - in terms of attracting congregants and extracting money from them - we have Joel Osteen, whose preaching style, or so I’ve read, leans heavily into “uplifting” and away from “challenging.” Thus we wouldn’t expect to see successful pastors like Osteen engaging seriously and frequently with bible difficulties, as these seem to be bad for business.

The Oblivious Devout Keep Christianity Chugging Along

But its god, like thousands of others, will end up on the scrapheap of history

Many years ago I was the pastor of a small church in a small town in Massachusetts. I did the baptisms, marriages, and funerals. When a middle-aged woman in the congregation died, I officiated at the funeral, then at the burial. It was a beautiful day, sunny with a scattering of clouds. I so vividly recall that a sister of the deceased proclaimed, “She’s up there already, pushing the clouds around.” I was struck by the naivete of this comment. Was she just joking? I don’t think so. Here was a woman who apparently accepted the concept of the cosmos embodied in the Bible: we’re down here, and god is up there—somewhere—on his throne above the clouds. And because of this close proximity, the Christian god can keep a close watch on everyone and everything. He knows how many hairs are on our heads, he monitors all of the words we utter, and even knows what every human is thinking (how else would prayer work?) There are Bible verses to back up all of these ideas about god. 
 
But human discoveries about the cosmos have moved us far beyond these naivetes.

Christian Scholarship Led me to Reject Christianity

[First Published in Nov. 2006] One of the reasons I have rejected Christianity is that I studied the Bible. That's right. I studied the Bible. As I did so, I didn't just read works published by Zondervan or InterVarsity Press. I read the works by Christian scholars from a wide variety of scholarly sources. I didn't read atheist works about the Bible so much as I mainly read scholarly Christian literature. What Christian scholars wrote led me to reject Christianity. For those of you who read my first self-published book in a "Letter to Dr. James Strauss" you know some of the books I read, and almost every book I mentioned (and there were plenty I didn't) was written by a Christian, or someone within the Christian tradition.

Now as we approach the Christmas season, Let's see what Christian scholarship says about the infancy birth narratives. Raymond Brown is the author of the massive 752 page book titled, Birth of the Messiah (updated 1999), and "Gospel Infancy Narrative Research from 1976 to 1986" (CBQ 48: 469–83, 661–80). Here are four points about the contents of Matthew and Luke that Brown mentioned in the Anchor Bible Dictionary (1996) ["Infancy Narratives in the NT Gospels"] (emphasis is mine):

(1) [Brown discusses the agreements between Matthew and Luke’s gospels, but those are obvious and not part of my point]

(2) Matthew and Luke disagree on the following significant points. In chap. 1, the Lucan story of John the Baptist (annunciation to Zechariah by Gabriel, birth, naming, growth) is absent from Matthew. According to Matthew, Jesus’ family live at Bethlehem at the time of the conception and have a house there (2:11); in Luke, they live at Nazareth. In Matthew, Joseph is the chief figure receiving the annunciation, while in Luke, Mary is the chief figure throughout. The Lucan visitation of Mary to Elizabeth and the Magnificat and Benedictus canticles are absent from Matthew. At the time of the annunciation, Mary is detectably pregnant in Matthew, while the annunciation takes place before conception in Luke. In chap. 2 in each gospel, the basic birth and postbirth stories are totally different to the point that the two are not plausibly reconcilable. Matthew describes the star, the magi coming to Herod at Jerusalem and to the family house at Bethlehem, the magi’s avoidance of Herod’s plot, the flight to Egypt, Herod’s slaughter of Bethlehem children, the return from Egypt, and the going to Nazareth for fear of Archelaus. Luke describes the census, birth at a stable(?) in Bethlehem because there was no room at the inn, angels revealing the birth to shepherds, the purification of Mary and the presentation of Jesus in the temple, the roles of Simeon and Anna, and a peaceful return of the family to Nazareth.

(3) None of the significant information found in the infancy narrative of either gospel is attested clearly elsewhere in the NT. In particular, the following items are found only in the infancy narratives. (a) The virginal conception of Jesus, although a minority of scholars have sought to find it implicitly in Gal 4:4 (which lacks reference to a male role), or in Mark 6:3 (son of Mary, not of Joseph), or in John 1:13 (“He who was born . . . not of the will of man”—a very minor textual reading attested in no Gk ms). (b) Jesus’ birth at Bethlehem, although some scholars find it implicitly in John 7:42 by irony. (c) Herodian knowledge of Jesus’ birth and the claim that he was a king. Rather, in Matt 14:1–2, Herod’s son seems to know nothing of Jesus. (d) Wide knowledge of Jesus’ birth, since all Jerusalem was startled (Matt 2:3), and the children of Bethlehem were killed in search of him. Rather, in Matt 13:54–55, no one seems to know of marvelous origins for Jesus. (e) John the Baptist was a relative of Jesus and recognized him before birth (Luke 1:41, 44). Rather, later John the Baptist seems to have no previous knowledge of Jesus and to be puzzled by him (Luke 7:19; John 1:33).

(4) None of the events that might have been “public” find attestation in contemporary history. (a) There is no convincing astronomical evidence identifiable with a star that rose in the East, moved westward, and came to rest over Bethlehem. In Matthew’s story this would have happened before the death of Herod the Great (4 b.c. or [Martin 1980] 1 b.c.). There have been attempts to identify the star with the supernova recorded by the Chinese records in March/April 5 b.c., or with a comet (Halley’s in 12–11 b.c.), or with a planetary conjunction (Jupiter and Saturn in 7 b.c.; Jupiter and Venus in 3 b.c. [Martin 1980]). (b) Even though the Jewish historian Josephus amply documents the brutality in the final years of Herod the Great, neither he nor any other record mentions a massacre of children at Bethlehem. Macrobius’ frequently cited pun (Sat. 2.4.11) on Herod’s ferocity toward his sons is not applicable to the Bethlehem massacre. (c) A census of the whole world (Roman provinces?) under Caesar Augustus never happened, although there were three Augustan censuses of Roman citizens. It is not unlikely that Luke 2:1 should be taken as a free description of Augustus’ empire-cataloguing tendencies. (d) Luke’s implication that Quirinius was governor of Syria and conducted a “first census” (2:2) before Herod’s death (1:5) has no confirmation. Quirinius became legate of Syria in a.d. 6 and at that time conducted a census of Judea, which was coming under direct Roman administration because Archelaus had been deposed (Brown 1977: 547–56; Benoit DBSup 9: 704–15). (e) Although this item differs somewhat from the immediately preceding one, Luke’s idea that the two parents were purified (“their purification according to the Law of Moses”: 2:22) is not supported by a study of Jewish law, whence the attempts of early textual copyists and of modern scholars to substitute “her” for “their” or to interpret the “their” to refer to other than the parents.

A review of the implication of nos. 1–4 explains why the historicity of the infancy narratives has been questioned by so many scholars, even by those who do not a priori rule out the miraculous. Despite efforts stemming from preconceptions of biblical inerrancy or of Marian piety, it is exceedingly doubtful that both accounts can be considered historical. If only one is thought to be historical, the choice usually falls on Luke, sometimes with the contention that “Those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the word” (Luke 1:2) includes Mary who was present at the beginning of Jesus’ life. See Fitzmyer Luke I–IX AB, 294, 298, for the more plausible interpretation that it refers to the disciples-apostles who were eyewitnesses from the beginning of Jesus’ public life (Acts 1:21–22) and were engaged in a preaching ministry of the Word. There is no NT or early Christian claim that Mary was the source of the infancy material, and inaccuracies about the census and purification may mean that Luke’s infancy account cannot be judged globally as more historical than that of Matthew.

--------------------------------
[For Richard Carrier's assessment of the date of the Nativity in Luke see here.]

The Role of the Bible in Damaging Christian Faith

Maybe that’s why the devout avoid reading it

Mark Twain once stated the dilemma: “It is not the things which I do not understand in the Bible which trouble me, but the things which I do understand.” How many of the laity throughout Christendom have made this same troubling discovery? And Twain was also right when he said that “faith is believing in something you know ain’t true.” How many of the faithful just shut their eyes, close their minds, stifle curiosity—and decide to trust what their clergy teach about god? Very few of the clergy, from the pulpit on a Sunday morning, will give this assignment: “Please, every one of you, read the gospel of Mark—all of it—this week. Read it carefully, critically, and write down the questions about it that occur to you. Be brave, even the toughest questions are welcome.”

Dr. Richard C. Miller Joins Our Manifesto

[In light of Dr. Miller stating on Facebook that he's taking a break due to the horrible way he's been treated for his research and scholarship, I'm reposting this tribute by Dr. Hector Avalos, first published Oct. 2016].

I am happy to report the addition of Dr. Richard C. Miller to our Manifesto for Secular Scriptural and Religious Studies.

Having begun with just two of us (myself and Dr. André Gagné of Concordia University in Montreal) in 2015, our Manifesto now has 20 signatories. It's a relatively small number, but just 15 years ago I would be hard pressed to name a single biblical scholar who was openly secular, atheist or agnostic.

Dr. Miller first came to my attention with an excellent article, “Mark's Empty Tomb and Other Translation Fables in Classical Antiquity” in The Journal of Biblical Literature (2010), the flagship peer-reviewed journal of the Society of Biblical Literature. Dr. Miller clearly showed parallels between Greco-Roman resurrection/empty tomb stories and those in the Gospels.

He subsequently published a book on Resurrection and Reception in Early Christianity (2014), which renders him one of the most authoritative scholars of resurrection stories in early Christianity.

Johno Pearce on the triumph of the feels, low information people, messaging, and why Trump won.

This needs a wider reading from Johno Pearce on the triumph of the feels, low information people, messaging, and why Trump won. [From "Only Sky" which asks you to subscribe with an email] LINK

This one by Dale McGown [also on "Only Sky"] is deserving of a wider reading too, about temporary dictatorships: LINK

How Much Horrendous Suffering Can Christian Theology Tolerate?

The survival of the church depends on the devout not noticing

During my recent stay in London, I visited The Wiener Holocaust Library, which is an easy walk north of The British Museum. For a long time I have been following it on Twitter and—more recently—on Facebook, and wanted to see it in person. I have always been stunned that there are holocaust-deniers, because the evidence for this crime against humanity is massive. The Nazis themselves kept detailed records, confident that their elimination of Jews was an important contribution to the world, and they could hardly cover up the stark realities of the concentration camps. On this, see especially Martin Gilbert’s book, Atlas of the Holocaust (1993, 254 pages). Moreover, there is an abundance of survivor memoirs.

Bernie Sanders On the Democratic Loss

What do you think about this?

David Fitzgerald’s Toolkit for Dismantling Christianity

Religions Thrive on Fantasy, Deceit, and the Failure of Curiosity 

One of the biggest examples of deceit is this practice of Bible editors: printing the words of Jesus in red. Mainstream Bible scholars know the problem here: none of the Jesus-script in the gospels can be verified. The red print amounts to a claim that is not justified by any evidence. The gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus; their authors do not identify their sources; they never cite contemporaneous documentation (letters, diaries, transcripts) that would give us confidence that we’re reading real words of Jesus. Apparently, Bible editors couldn’t care less. Fundamentalist/evangelical editors insist that the Jesus-script was divinely inspired, so the red print is entirely in order. But then they have to write books, articles, doctoral dissertations to explain away the awful Jesus-script, e.g., the hate-your-family verse (Luke 14:26); I didn’t come to bring peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34-36); drinking Jesus’ flesh and drinking his blood are magic potions for achieving eternal life (John 6:53-57). There are so many of these.

Breaking the Grip of Indoctrination

Brainwashing is a disaster  

It is a common feature of religions that their devout followers are confident that they’ve “got it right.” Because, of course, their leaders have convinced them that they are exclusive custodians of the truth, and there are severe penalties for disagreeing or disbelieving. Since there have been thousands of religions making such claims, we can be sure they’re all pretense and nonsense. On occasion over the years, I have asked a few devout Christian friends to read/critique various chapters of the books I’ve written: I genuinely wanted their perspectives. But they usually refused, because they didn’t want to read anything that might put their faith in jeopardy (which was a big clue that they have major doubts that they don’t want to think about). One Catholic woman did agree to read one of my chapters on the gospels. Her primary reaction was shock: she didn’t know that Jesus was expected to come back. Another was angry to learn that there is Jesus-script demanding hatred of family—and even life itself—for anyone who wants to be his disciple. Several Catholics have told me they were not encouraged to read the Bible, so I was hardly surprised.

Franky Schaeffer's Warning: The Theocrats Are Coming!

Don't believe me? Then listen to Schaeffer. Heed his warning Christians. He's the son of Francis Schaeffer, the philosopher/theologian who wrote "The Christian Manifesto" in 1980. That book and others helped ignite the recent modern American desire for theocracy, democracy be damned!

The High Vulnerability of Christian Belief

Why do its faithful followers fail to notice?

How many Southern Baptists drive by Catholic Churches on the way their own churches? And vice versa? Does it never cross their minds that there are major differences in their versions of Christianity? They can’t both be right. Yet these believers trust the priests and ministers who have taught them since their earliest years. When we broaden the perspective, it’s obvious that the problem becomes more extreme: there have been thousands of different religions—and all of them teach as absolute truths their own ideas about god(s). Religions push the importance of taking it all on faith. “Please don’t think about it: you must trust that your priest or minister has a firm grasp of the absolute truth.”

See, Al Gore Told You So.

Hurricanes have been in the news lately, thanks to the United States getting whacked by hurricanes Helene and Milton in quick succession. The two hurricanes followed intersecting tracks, with some areas of the U.S. state of Florida getting grazed or hit by both storms.

Milton near peak intensity just north of the Yucatán Peninsula on October 7, image from Wikimedia Commons

‘It’s mindblowing’: US meteorologists face death threats as hurricane conspiracies surge

Fact, we're dealing with angry, utterly stupid people. Say it isn't so! LINK.

Will Humanity Ever Escape the Grip of Religion?

It’s unlikely—we seem to be cursed with it forever

There are now more than eight billion humans on the planet, and a significant portion of this total has been indoctrinated by hundreds of different religions. The great irony, of course, is that these religions have never been able to agree about god(s). The supreme irony is that there are thousands of different Christian brands, and they differ significantly in their beliefs about god. This alone is evidence that religion is guesswork, which makes the fanatical attachment to it puzzling indeed. What can we do to escape this curse?

"Crying Won't Help You, Praying Won't Do You No Good"

Here's the discussion with regard to Milton and Trump's Mar-a-Lago. [For the record I hope there's minimal loss of life as possible and that the rescuse operations are as successful as possible. No god can help us, no prayers, only people who care.

Here's A Link To My Debate On Horrendous Suffering with Don McIntosh

My debate with Dr. Don McIntosh (M.S., M.Div., Dr.Apol.) on horrendous suffering is now found in one helpful shareable link below. McIntosh is the Editor-in-Chief of the "Trinity Journal of Natural & Philosophical Theology," from which our papers can be found. LINK.

"How to Be an Honest Life-Long Seeker of the Truth" by John W. Loftus

This excerpt is from my book How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, published by Pitchstone Publishing in 2015. LINK. You'll be taken to a website maintained by my publisher. Click around to see other essays written by other authors. I'm happy to be one of them.

The Stupidity Factor in the Survival of Religion

And the major role of ignorance as well

Mike Pence has declared that he doesn’t believe in evolution, but has also said that, when he dies, he’ll asked god if evolution is fact or fiction. This represents a special brand of stupidity, fortified by colossal ignorance. The literature on evolution is vast—is Pence just unaware of it, and can’t be bothered by curiosity? And does he really imagine that a creator deity with billions of galaxies under supervision will take the time to sit down for a chat with him about stuff he should have learned about before he died? Of course, when such a prominent Christian voices his rejection of evolution, this gives permission to the devout to embrace the stupidity and ignorance. I personally witnessed another special brand of stupidity a few years ago—I’ve told this story before, but it’s worth repeating: ten days after the Sandy Hook school massacre in December 2012 (20 kids and 6 adults murdered), a devout Catholic woman offered this explanation: “God must have wanted more angels.” Not even the pope is stupid enough to say such a thing—although the stupidity level at the Vatican is incredibly high.

About the Vice-Presidential Debate Last Night

This is a good commentary on the debate last night between JD Vance and Tim Waltz. LINK to Huffington Post.

Reasonable People Cannot Believe!

Let's grant that every miracle in the Bible took place as reported. That supposed fact doesn't mean we should believe those miracles actually took place. The rest of us need sufficient evidence before we can believe they did, and 2nd 3rd 4th handed uncorroborated hearsay just doesn't cut it.

When Theology Collides with Science and History

Deities and miracles vanish

For thousands of years, humans have been imagining and inventing gods. Once ideas about gods have been locked into human brains, fierce loyalties and certainties develop. People who claim privileged knowledge of the gods emerge—the priestly classes—and they do their best to enforce “correct” beliefs and behaviors. Today we call them clergy, and there are thousands of different brands, all of whom are confident of the “truths” they advocate. 
 
Just how many gods have been imagined?