What is My Motivation in Debunking Christianity?

WarrenL asked me the following two questions:

As I understand it you spent a good portion of your life assenting to Christianity and now with your book and regular articles it appears you plan to spend a good portion of it debunking Christianity.
(1) What is your motivation for this?
(2) It seems that religion will always be a part of our culture. Do you see any good or value in Christianity?

Question #1: My motivation for debunking Christianity on the web is pretty much the same as any Christian apologist, except I don’t do it to glorify God, and I’m not taking anyone to heaven with me. Christian apologists want to know that their beliefs are true, and one good way to do that is to get in the ring and argue for them. In doing so, they learn things and find better arguments to defend what they believe. This describes me too. Some want to make a name for themselves, some want the satisfaction of winning an intellectual contest (the competitive urge), while others want to gain some respect from their perceived peers, and still others promote themselves to make some money off what they write. So the motivations of us all are multifaceted.

I personally like an intellectual challenge. Can I describe what I believe in a way that makes some sense to those who disagree? That’s quite a challenge, and I like to try since our control beliefs are so diametrically opposed to each other.

I am a teacher, so I’m also against people believing in wrongheaded Christian ideas that I tend to think are based upon ignorance, although that’s the stuff that maddens me, since many apologists don’t seem ignorant at all! What is it, I ask myself, that makes us believe different things where each side has this strong tendency to think the other side is just plain ignorant? This is where discussing and debating these things intrigues me to the utmost, and so I try again to explain why I see things differently. In the process I get a better glimpse of what it takes to cross that great divide between us, and I test my own explanations of why I see things the way I do. How can we each be so sure the other is wrong? That intrigues me like nothing else I know.

I also believe that life it better from my perspective, having been a former Christian myself. I can be more...well...human. Church people are stuffy people who are so judgmental. I only realized how much this is true after leaving, although I thought it was true while still in the church. There is a life to be lived to the fullest, and Christians are afraid to do this...and once in a while to step out of bounds. I love the freedom to live like I want to without the fear of hell or the judgment of other Christians. Don’t get me wrong here, I still am every bit the honest and good person I was before (without the so-called help of the Holy Spirit), but I no longer feel guilty for what I think about, whereas Christians always seem to struggle with thoughts of hate, greed, lust, and the like. I don't have to anymore, for the most part. I only have to be concerned with what I actually do, not what I think about. I no longer have to give of my hard earned money to fund a church building in hopes God will multiply it back to me, I don’t have to worry about what Ms. Peabody thinks if I go play pool at the bars, and I no longer have to waste so much of my time attending church, reading the Bible, praying, and evangelizing, and the overwhelming guilt that used to come when I failed in these things. If I see a pretty girl I can imagine what she looks like naked if I want to, and comment on her looks to the guys, so long as I do nothing about it, since I’m a very happily married man. I can drink and get buzzed if I want to. If someone does get in my face I don’t have to be a mild mannered man, but I can tell him to get the fuck away from me, and I can say it like I mean it. I can waste away my time watching TV without guilt if I want to. I can drive over the speed limit if I want to without fear of God's judgment, although I don't speed hardly ever. I also love the freedom to think for myself without feeling like I must justify everything I believe in the Bible (have you recently tried to come up with a view of hell from the Bible that passes the moral test?). And I love the fact that my thinking is not hamstrung by fear of being cast into hell, hence I'm a freethinker. I also love being good to people just because I want to, and not because I have to, and I am. Even as an atheist I have reasons to be good without God.

Consider the medieval monks, for instance. They lived ascetic lives on the bare bones of existence, spending their lives reading a Biblical text that was false, rather than living the fullest life possible. Consider modern day Catholic priests, who live life without knowing the warmth of an intimate embrace in the arms of a woman, and the joys of being a father and a grandfather. Lacking this intimacy some of them have resorted to the crime of molesting altar boys, and have received prison sentences and the disgrace of it all. Consider the fundamentalist Baptist minister who never may know what it’s like to have a few drinks and get buzzed (or if he does, he will feel guilty for this). Consider the many nights Christians spend evangelizing others, when those same nights might be better spent with their families or friends (and as a result many a man lost his family while he was out winning the world). Consider the time many Christians spend reading the Bible, when they could enjoy the great novels of their day. Consider the joy one might have in alleviating the person who is suffering for the pure joy of it, rather than doing it for some false heavenly reward. Consider the money that was spent in building great cathedrals and temples to this false sense of ultimate reality that could be better spent on the needs of people, or with what is leftover a cruise in the Bahamas.

I also want to help people who are struggling with their Christian faith to know there are others out there like me. As I was thinking my way out of Christianity I did it alone with my books. I read things. Then I thought about them. And I read some other things. But I struggled, and struggled. I didn’t seek out anyone to talk to about my doubts, because most all of the people I knew were Christians, and I didn’t want to be branded as a heretic, or shunned, nor did I want to create doubt in anyone else, since I wasn’t sure what I would end up believing at the end of the tunnel, so to speak. So my book and this Blog are to help people discuss these things. It’s to let them know there is light at the end of the tunnel, and that others like me have come out of the tunnel and we’re okay. It’s okay to doubt. You’ll be fine. In fact, I believe it’s better over here.

I also believe there are inherent dangers with religious beliefs. They don’t always materialize, but they do have their impact in various ways. There are political reasons, which I don’t touch on here much at all. There is a large voting block of evangelical Christians in America that help elect our local and state and national governmental officials. This large block of evangelical Christians also participate in letter campaigns to change public policy in ways I don’t approve of. Atheists generally think Christian theism inhibits scientific progress, creates class struggles, sexism, homophobia, racism, mass neurosis, intolerance and environmental disasters. There are some dispensationalist Christians in America who believe the Jews are somehow still in God’s plan. So they defend Israel no matter what they do, which fans the flames of war between the militant Muslims and the US.

Christian inclusivist scholar, Charles Kimball, argues that certain tendencies within religions cause evil. “Religious structures and doctrines can be used almost like weapons.” (p. 32). Religion becomes evil, according to Kimball, whenever religion: 1) has absolute truth claims; 2) demands blind obedience; 3) tries to establish the ideal society; 4) utilizes the end justifies any means when defending their group identity; or 5) when they see themselves in a holy war. He says, “A strong case can be made that the history of Christianity contains considerably more violence and destruction than that of most other major religions.” (p. 27) [When Religion Becomes Evil (Harper, 2002)].

According to Bertrand Russell, “one of the most interesting and harmful delusions to which men and nations can be subjected is that of imagining themselves special instruments of the Divine Will.” “Cromwell was persuaded that he was the Divinely appointed instrument of justice for suppressing Catholics and malignants. Andrew Jackson was the agent of Manifest Destiny in freeing North America from the incubus of Sabbath-breaking Spaniards.” Of course, such a political program “assumes a knowledge of the Divine purposes to which no rational man can lay claim, and that in the execution of them it justifies a ruthless cruelty which would be condemned if our program had a merely mundane origin. It is good to know that God is on our side, but a little confusing when you find the enemy equally convinced of the opposite.” “Belief in a Divine mission is one of the many factors of certainty that have afflicted the human race.” “Most of the greatest evils that man has afflicted upon man have come through people feeling quite certain about something which, in fact, was false.” [“Ideas That Have Harmed Mankind,” Unpopular Essays (Schuster, 1950), pp. 146-165)].

As far as the second question of WarrenL goes, yes I do see some good in Christianity. It has saved marriages headed for divorce (although it can create an oppressive family structure where the wife is dominated and must obey her husband). It has changed rebellious teenagers who were hell bent on doing drugs, sex, and crime (but there are other down-to-earth reasons why they should change). It offers a heavenly comfort (even if it is a false one) in believing that God can help Christians and will bring them to heaven (although it also requires believing that our neighbors, friends, mother, father, siblings, and cousins might spend forever in hell, however conceived). Christianity inspires kindness to needy people and motivates them to give to help others out but see this.

However, I just don’t see where a Christian society is a better one. And even if Christianity was the main motivator in starting most all early American universities, most all of our hospitals and many food kitchens, and the like, these things still would have been started anyway, if for no reason other than necessity. It just so happened that Christianity has reigned in America for a couple of centuries, that’s all. Besides, these things were probably not started by Christian churches out of altruism, or any desire for a better society, but as a way for those churches to convert people. After all, who are most vulnerable to the Christian message? The sick (hospitals), the poor (food kitchens) and young people leaving home for the first time to enter the world as adults (universities). Most of the earlier universities were all started to train preachers who would evangelize.

Christians have a false and irrational hope, but just don’t know it. They are simply deluded into thinking their lives have some grand ultimate purpose. So who’s better off? Someone who lives a life of delusion, doing things because they think it will matter for eternity, along with the daily guilt for not having lived up to those standards, or someone who lives with his or her feet planted squarely on the ground with the only reality that is to be had? Atheists have offered suggestions why people turn to religion. Sigmund Freud claimed that religion is an expression of the longing for a father figure. Ludwig Feuerbach claimed that God didn’t make man in his image, but rather we made God in our image. Karl Marx taught that religion is the opium of the working class people. It is funded and pushed by the rich class in order to numb the working class from trying to right the injustices put on them by the rich class. Religion keeps the working class focused on a hope of bliss in the hereafter. Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that religion endures because weak people need it. For Jean Paul Sartre, God represented a threat to authentic morality. If God is autonomous, in the Calvinistic sense, then human beings cannot be responsible for themselves. He argued that the rejection of God makes morality and freedom possible, for only then can people take responsibility for their own choices.

Listen finally to Robert W. Funk and Robert M. Price's motivations:

Robert W. Funk in his book, Honest to Jesus (p. 19) wrote: “As I look around me, I am distressed by those who are enslaved by a Christ imposed upon them by a narrow and rigid legacy. There are millions of Americans who are the victims of a mythical Jesus conjured up by modern evangelists to whip their followers into a frenzy of guilt and remorse—and cash contributions. I agonize over their slavery in contrast to my freedom. I have a residual hankering to free my fellow human beings from this bondage. Liberation from fear and ignorance is always a worthy cause. In the last analysis, however, it is because I occasionally glimpse an unknown Jesus lurking in and behind Christian legend and piety that I persist in my efforts to find my way through the mythical and legendary debris of the Christian tradition. And it is the lure of this glimpse that I detect in other questers and that I share with them.”

Robert M. Price: “We are viewed as insidious villains seeking to undermine the belief of the faithful, trying to push them off the heavenly path and into Satan’s arms. But this is not how we view ourselves at all. We find ourselves entering the field as the champions and zealots for a straightforward and accurate understanding of the Bible as an ancient text. In our opinion, it is the fundamentalist, the apologist for Christian supernaturalism, who is propagating false and misleading views of the Bible among the general populace. We are not content to know better and to shake our heads at the foolishness of the untutored masses. We want the Bible to be appreciated for what it is, not for what it is not. And it is not a supernatural oracle book filled with infallible dogmas and wild tales that must be believed at the risk of eternal peril.” [The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (Prometheus, 2005), p. 15].

I hope this helps explain.

To read Part II of why I am debunking Christianity see here.

Genesis, Immortality and Failed Prophecies

Got on a Roll here about failed prophecy, 120 year mortality and failed curses.
Originally I posted in the closest related thread, where John Loftus enquires on the power of God to foresee and predict future outcomes -- I feel Genesis gives ample evidence, that Jehovah cannot predict his own behavior, much less, how then to predict anything about his future interactions with man (in the longterm)? Will man even be alive in future centuries, (as with the flood) for God to predict any future?

Gn:6:6: And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. (KJV)

Some excerpts:
Gn:6:3: And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (KJV)

Make that 122 years...

Jeanne Calment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 1965, with no living heirs, Jeanne Calment signed a deal, common in France, ...
Jeanne Calment: from Van Gogh's time to ours, 122 extraordinary years.

France's Jeanne Calment, world's oldest woman, dead at 121
No wonder Jeanne Calment, at 122 the world's oldest person until her death Monday, said she was "never bored."

Jeanne Calment
Jeanne Calment AKA Jeanne Louise Calment.
Born: 21-Feb-1875 Birthplace: Arles, France
Died: 4-Aug-1997
Cause of death: Natural Causes

120 years means 120 years --especially when God says so.
Right? No.

Ask yourself why does Sarah live to be 127?
Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon said nobody back then lived beyond around age 50.

Exaggerated Ages of the Biblical Patriarchs
It is certain that one cannot build up a chronology on the spans of years attributed to the Patriarchs, nor regard it as factual that Abraham was seventy-five years old when he left Harran and a hundred when Isaac was born and that Jacob was a hundred and thirty when he went into Egypt, for the evidence from the skeletons in the Jericho tombs shows that the expectations of life at this period was short. Many individuals seem to have died before they were thirty-five, and few seem to have reached the age of fifty.
- Dr. Kathleen Kenyon (the eminent excavator of the city-mound of Jericho)

There's some blatant contradictions in Genesis. Maybe several stories from different sources, spliced together? For instance, Genesis retells the same story about Sarah and two important national leaders... one is Pharoah in Genesis 12, who wishes to have Sarah, and basically the same story is retold in Genesis 20 where Abimelech, King of Gerar wishes to have Sarah, and Abraham lies to both of them that Sarah is his sister -- but she's grossly aged by the time of the second account, obviously aged, since between the two accounts, Genesis 18:12, we read where Sarah laughs "After I am waxed old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women". It is too absurd to think a king would wish to take such an elderly woman to wife, as is implied, "Gn:21:1: And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken. [...] 21:5: And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him.[...] 21:7: And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age. (KJV)

However:
Gn:23:1: And Sarah was an hundred and seven and twenty years old: these were the years of the life of Sarah.
Gn:6:3: And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. (KJV)

Ed Babinski: Other aspects also hint of artifice: In Gen. 6:3 God "allows" man 120 year to live. Subsequently Moses, the supposed author of that passage, goes on to live exactly 120 years. (Yet in Ps. 90:10 we are told that man lives only 70 years, ah, there's that "seven" again.) Joseph went to Egypt, and lo, lived to be the ideal Egyptian age of 110 years, then Joshua retrieves Joseph's bones from Egypt and also lives 110 years. Lastly, compare how awkwardly the author of Gen. 11:10-26 and Gen. 25:8 juxtaposes the scene at Abraham's death with the age of his distant relative, Shem, as though he had no idea that people still lived so long as Shem. For the author states that Abraham died "at a good old age, an old man, after a full life," while Shem, Abraham's 7X great grandfather lived to SEE his 7X great grandson die "at a good old age, an old man, after a full life!" For Shem was, if we take Gen. 11:10-26 literally, alive and 565 years old when Abraham died at a mere 175 years of age.

IN OTHER WORDS, the Good Lord just didn't fulfil on his promise, now did he?
Sort of like that promise to make snake eat dust...

Gn:3:14: And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: (KJV)

and that doesn't happen, so Isaiah comes along centuries later, prophecying:

Is:65:25: The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord. (KJV)

in the "future kingdom"... because it failed fulfilment in Genesis.

I also had elaborated further... while some of the hardest contractions were taking place during the birth of my child, I was *laughing*. Literally. The miracles of modern medicine and a little thing called an epideral. I was paralysed from the waist down and not feeling a thing. Genesis and its curses seemed like a joke at that hour, and I was laughing right up nearly to the point I saw my baby in the doctor's arms.
It was a personal event that places the curse of woman's multiplied sorrows in childbirth into the category of a failed prophecy. I've even heard some Christians imply that these advances in medical science are evidence of "God's mercy". As for "mercy" --if that god of Genesis had ever wanted to show woman "mercy", he'd simply removed his curse and saved medical science the trouble by reducing the intense pain (and life threatening conditions) that's involved with childbirth. After delivering three babies, I can vouch that the pain and dangers in childbirth are still as severe as they ever were... "bedecking their god in stolen plummage".

That's not all. When I was a Christian, seeking proof of an inerrant Bible, I was *amazed* to learn some snakes have vestigial limbs (Photos included there). There's nothing to be amazed at after all. It's possible Jehovah had a bad habit of putting legs on snakes, removing legs, putting them back on again, then gave the snake legs again, only to remove them again in Genesis for "sin"(?).
From the above link: "The West Bank fossils may be snakes whose limbs re-evolved, making them "real snakes, just extinct real snakes" with legs, Greene said. Greene postulates that if animals like the West Bank fossils could re-evolve limbs, then other animals that have certain genes they never lost but whose "triggers" are dormant could re-evolve those traits. Maybe humans will end up with tails again." In fact, that's happened already on occasion.

ED BABINSKI: It is not true that "snakes are the only vertebrates without legs." Besides snakes (which are reptiles without legs), there are species of long snake-like AMPHIBIANS that also lack legs. (Kind of like long snake-like newts without legs.)
There are also some species of reptiles and amphibians with long snake-like bodies and TINY LEGS. (Were they only "half cursed" according to the Bible?)
Of course those snake-like amphibians aren't even mentioned in the Bible.
"Curse on the Serpent" in Genesis Bites the Dust, On JP Holding's Is Genesis Wrong About Snakes Eating Dirt?
"Moreover, some snakes live in lakes or even oceans, and could hardly be described as "dust eaters." Others live high in the branches of tree-canopied rain forests, and seldom if ever rub their bellies on the ground and "eat dust." Besides, virtually all animals "eat" or swallow "dust" or dirt, either voluntarily or accidentally. So, Bob's "apologetical belief" that the Scriptures must jive with modern herpetological science is based on selectively emphasizing only some herpetological observations, ignoring others, viz., stretching the meaning of an obvious literary put down to mean something "scientific sounding," i.e., "tastes" the air."
--
Further question, is the "tree of life" in Genesis, which after reading in context, very much like a physical (not spiritual) immortality?
Gn:3:22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (KJV) An ongoing supplement in the monthly diet? ...
Rv:2:7: ...I give to eat of the tree of life...
Rv:22:2: ...the tree of life... yielded her fruit every month...
Rv:22:14: ...that they may have right to the tree of life...

No spiritual immortality was implied or given to Adam, and upon sinning he is told:
Gn:3:19: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (KJV)

However...
Mk:12:25: For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. (KJV)
Mk:12:27: He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. (KJV)

And indeed, some of the Jews held no such belief:
Acts:23:8: For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. (KJV)

So, when Jehovah gives his word that he shall fulfil ... rather, he's often given to a change of mind (or at least, change of heart -Gn:6:6).

Let's do better

Simply framing a coherent sentence that provides a possible response to a problem is not enough. We can do better than that. I see a sad tendency (on both sides of the fence, but primarily on the Christian) to “toss out” any conceivable rejoinder to an issue, followed by a sense of satisfaction that the argument was rebutted, succeeded by surprise that the opponent didn’t “bite.”

Frankly, if the Bible is the sole divine revelation, from the sole source of Truth, I am disappointed that Christians would be willing to reduce the standard of its viability down to “any possibility” rather than what is more likely.

I get the chance to see this almost every day. One side of a question will present their evidence, and appear to have a strong position. And then we hear the rest of the story from the opposition, and learn that things are not as clear as originally stated.

But once in a while, it becomes evident that there is no defense to the accusation, and the attorney is simply “grasping at straws.” Claiming anything, saying everything, all in the hopes of somehow stumbling on enough words to convince the judge or jury that, if they talk enough, there must be something worthwhile said which warrants a defense.

Yet in this debate—should that be enough? Any possibility? We never accept that in real life, why would we accept it in what should be the most perfect example of truth available on earth?

Imagine coming home and seeing your son, baseball bat in hand, a broken window, and a ball rolling around the living room floor. An obvious portrayal of the previous moments comes quickly to mind.

Upon being accused, your son assures you that the neighborhood bully, in order to defame your son’s innocence, had just picked up the ball, and thrown it through the window. You barely missed him. Deciding to pursue the matter, you confront the accused’s parents. They assure you that their son had been doing homework at the time, and couldn’t possibly be guilty.

Upon presenting those facts to your son, he claims those parents were lying to protect their son.

On and on you go, and every rabbit trail, every fact dug up, your son has an explanation—a possibility—to interpret away his own guilt. Would you buy it? Would you confidently state, “There is no WAY my son hit that ball through a window, because of the potential that some tortured manufacture of facts could be contrived to demonstrate his innocence”?

Or would you confidently state that there is always the slim chance of his innocence, the far greater likelihood is that he discovered windows make poor outfielders.

The clearest example of this is in the debate on inerrancy. An inerrantist will hold to any possible resolution of any contradiction, as if this would satisfy inerrancy. Resolutions that are bent, twisted and contorted to fit that particular moment, and just as quickly discarded in the next discussion.

Honestly? No body except other inerrantists are buying it. We understand their natural bias to manufacture a resolution. We see it in action by claims of people doing unbelievable things, and allegations of recording history in an unlikely fashion. Inerrantists would never accept these claims in a newspaper, but accept it to keep their Bible error-free. We see the double standard. What is ridiculed in the Qur’an is revered in the Bible. A great example of this is David’s Census.

(To save bandwith, the three accounts of this event are at 2 Samuel 24:1-25, 1 Chronicles 21:1-28 and 1 Chronicles 27:24. Please read at your leisure)

Having read such, I have a few questions. The first few are multiple choice to make it easy. (“A”= 2 Sam., “B”= 1 Chron. 21 and “C”=1 Chron. 27)

1. When did God get angry?
A. Before the census
B. God never gets angry.
C. Because of the census

2. Who incited David to take the Census?
A. God
B. Satan
C. Nobody.

3. What human mandated the census?
A. David
B. David
C. Joab.

4. Who protested against the census?
A. Joab and his captains.
B. Joab.
C. Nobody, Joab just did the census.

5. What was wrong with taking a census?
A. Nothing, God mandated it in Numbers 26:2
B. Nothing, God required it for taxes in Exodus 30:12
C. Nothing, they just did one in the preceding 23 verses!

6. How long did it take to do the census?
A. Nine months, 20 days.
B. Not recorded
C. Didn’t complete the census

7. Who all was counted?
A. All tribes
B. All tribes except Levi and Benjamin
C. Didn’t complete the census.

8. What was the number of the census?
A. 1.3 Million
B. 1.57 Million (with LESS tribes counted!)
C. Number was deliberately not recorded.

9. What stopped the census?
A. Done counting
B. Done counting
C. Wrath of God, census not completed.

10. Who took the blame for doing the census?
A. David
B. David
C. Not recorded, but apparently Joab. (COULDN’T be David. 1 Kings 15:5)

11. What was the first threat of punishment of God?
A. 7 years of famine
B. 3 years of famine
C. No threat, it just came!

12. What is the name of the Jebusite where the angel stopped?
A. Araunah
B. Ornan
C. Umm…What Jebusite? They should all be killed on sight. Deut. 20:17

13. What did the Jebusite do when he saw the Angel of Death?
A. Doesn’t say the Jebusite saw the Angel.
B. Just kept working, just kept working…
C. Excuse me? Jebusite? Didn’t David award Joab his position because he fought and killed the Jebusites? 1 Chron. 11:6

14. What did David buy from the Jebusite?
A. The Threshing floor and the oxen.
B. “the place” (just the floor?)
C. Are you crazy? THERE IS NO @#%%@ JEBUSITE! David would have killed him!

15. How much did David pay the Jebusite?
A. 50 shekels of silver
B. 600 shekels of gold
C. I’m telling you-- There is no Jebusite!

The test you cannot fail—all answers and no answers are correct. REGARDLESS of what you circled, you get 100% right! Depending on which particular passage you read is which answer you will provide.

We are not done. For the Essay portion of our quiz-- In your apologetic, discuss the theological implications of God getting so angry He desires to kill 70,000 people, but His nature of Justice mandates someone has to sin first. Also discuss the punishment of David’s sin being 100,000-200,000 OTHER people have to die. Also discuss Satan’s limitation of “tempting” others unless God allows it. Or (in the alternative) discuss the ramifications of Satan and God working together to allow God to kill 70,000 people for David’s sin.

If, in your apologetic, you claim that God and Satan worked together, discuss other areas in which the two entities worked together, and why each of the authors failed to mention the involvement of the entity’s enemy.

If, in your apologetic, you claim David was prideful and wanted to do the census, please give other examples (with citations) as to David’s pride, and explain why 2 Samuel states God was angry first. You should also address why this sin was not listed in David’s transgressions in 1 Kings.

If, in your apologetic, you claim that David bought more than the house, explain your use of the Hebrew word for “place” and why that entails an entire mountain.

If, in your apologetic, you address the differing numbers of the census, please provide archeological verification that in 1000 B.C. there were more than 50,000 people in the land encompassing Canaan. You should also address the ability of a nation with a possible standing army of at least 1.3 Million, as compared to other nations at that time, and why this military strength is non-existent in archeological records.

You may need to discuss the concept of “rounding” especially in light of all of 1 Chron. 27.

I have raised David’s Census to inerrantists. To give an example of the possibilities proferred, in an attempt to maintain inerrancy:

Israel’s sin angered God enough for Him to release Satanic temptation on David.

A unique resolution of this predicament. Note the precipitating cause: God getting Angry. In every other situation (that I am aware) if God is angry at Israel he sent an army to invade, pestilence, famine, floods, a whole variety of items with which to punish them. Why go through the charade of releasing Satan to make David sin, so God can punish Israel? Quite an indirect route for what should have been a simple 1-2 step. Israel Sins, God sends punishment.

This also creates the conflict in David taking responsibility for the sin of the census.

Is Satan beholden to God, in that he cannot act without God allowing it? Why did Satan want David to sin? Again, remember the precipitating cause, God’s anger. We assume Satan is this no-good, mean, rotten entity that wants everyone to sin at every chance. We forget the painted picture of a clever entity. If God was prohibiting Satan from tempting David, then got Angry, and then allowed Satan to tempt David, is it not likely Satan would have wondered why? And perhaps declined. Let God do his own dirty work.

And again, why the charade? If God could incite David to sin by himself (as 2 Sam. states) and God desired it, why involve Satan at all? If David wanted to do it himself (for pride) why was God angry FIRST and why not let David just do it.

The only apologetic that seems to work is to have God and Satan BOTH desiring David to sin. And this makes God and Satan having a mutual goal. Can we identify other mutual goals of God/Satan?

Obviously God incited David, but not directly. Satan was God’s instrument in this case. He has always used Satan this way. Satan is always pressuring/petitioning God for authorizations to both tempt and destroy mankind

Again, the problem that this was not Satan asking God to do it, but God wanting it done since he was angry. Further, the word used for incite, “cuwth” is the same word used when God did it in 2 Sam. As when Satan did it in 1 Chron. Most apologists say that God’s involvement was indirect, but Satan’s involvement was direct. The problem is that it is the same word. Are we re-defining the word because it warrants re-definition, or are we re-defining the word because we need to resolve a conflict? I go for the simpler explanation – cuwth means the same when it is used in the same situation with the same types of entities.

David delegated the task to Joab, so both were involved.

O.K., but why would the Author of 1 Chron. 27 leave out the important figure here, the King? ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that Joab protested the Census? Even more importantly, when (if it was the same author) 6 Chapters earlier he was more than happy to lay the blame on David and absolve Joab?

Where I do not buy this apologetic, is the claim that this is inspired Scripture. Between human authors, it seems feasible to have missed out important figures, like God, Satan and David. But if God had his hand in it, why are these most important facts missing?

And while we are on that, let’s talk about 2 Samuel missing Satan, and 1 Chronicles missing God in the story. Most apologists say that BOTH were involved, and this is not necessarily contradictory, as 2 Samuel just failed to mention Satan and 1 Chronicles failed to mention God. Can I say, “Huh?”

First (in explaining away “incite”) we have Satan chomping at the bit to get David to sin. But 2 Samuel fails to mention that important fact. Then we have God getting angry and “releasing” Satan. But 1 Chronicles 21 fails to mention that fact. So we say “incite” means two different things. (1 Chronicles 27 fails to mention EITHER of them!)

Now that we have demonstrated how diametrically opposed Satan and God are, we then claim that the authors failed to mention the involvement of these two enemies!

Facts that apologists feel are important to align the passages, the authors did not!

Look at this analogy. (I know it is not perfect. It is designed to point out that leaving out important details is unacceptable.)

Imagine this week you read in Newsweek that Pres. Bush ordered a sniper to kill Tony Blair. You then pick up Time which says Osama bin Laden ordered a sniper to kill Tony Blair. US News & World Report simply says a sniper killed Tony Blair. Would you look at those three reports and think, “Oh, these are complimentary. Clearly Bush had Osama in his control and then allowed bin Laden to hire a sniper”?

OR would you more likely determine that somebody screwed up in the News department in each of these magazines? I find it fascinating that apologists hold the inspired word of God to a lesser standard than they do to a Newspaper or a Magazine. What one would NEVER accept in a news agency, one GLADLY accepts in the Bible. I would think the word of God could be held to a greater standard and still sustain the test. Apparently not.

David’s sin was to disobey God’s voice speaking through his conscience.

Where does it state that God was speaking to David through his conscience? The point is that NOWHERE does it state that taking a census is wrong. Since census taking was not only performed before, but ORDERED by Mosaic Law (for taxes) if it is considered a grave sin in this situation, don’t you think it would be important to point out why? More on how grave of a sin later.

The number “7” (or the number “3”) is reputed to be a copyist error.

Oh, good. A copyist error. Then can anyone show me the copies that had a “3” rather than a “7?” What? There AREN’T ANY? Then how can I possibly say this is a “copyist” error? And which one (2 Sam. Or 1 Chron.) was the “copyist error?” I wonder if apologists ever get tired of trying to explain these situations for God.

Question: How many OTHER copyist errors are in the bible? Apparently there is at least one. (This one.) Since all the copies say “7,” than we can have other portions of the Bible that all the copies say the same thing, yet be a copyist error, right? Since we can’t tell? If this is a copyist error, and I claim that John 3:16 is a copyist error, how can you possibly argue against it?

There seems to have been two different numeric formats involved here, one of them rounding off numbers.

How can I tell the difference between a “rounding” and a copyist error, by the by? The rounding just does not fly. This was a CENSUS. This was not estimation. This was not a guess. This was not an approximation. Joab spent the most part of a year, going through all the land, and he comes back to his King with a “round” number?

And how can we “round” these numbers to get to these two figures (1.3 Million vs 1.57 Million)? Look:

2 Sam. 1 Chron.
Israel – 800,000 1.1 Million
Judah – 470,000 500,000

I get how 1 Chron. Would round up 470,000 to 500,000. (Again, as to the why is questionable) But how can the same “rounding” author round 800,000 to 1.1 Million? That doesn’t make any sense MAYBE if he had rounded to 1 Million, I could see it (although that is a factor of 20%, which would be significant.) But no.

Further, one should address the capabilities of a nation in 1000 BC with a possible army of 1.3 Million men. To say they would be a world-power is underestimating the capabilities.

Worse, if you are claiming consistency with 1 Chron 27, then there were MORE than 1.57 (or 1.3, I can’t tell which) Million men in this possibly army.

They would have decimated any army that came against them. Yet there are NO archeological remnants of such a world-power. Odd.

The Jebusite had a name in each language. Conversion to Judaism was possible. That’s probably why this Jebusite had both a Hebrew name and a Jebusite name.

Bit of circular reasoning here. We know he converted to Judaism because he had two names. He had two names because he converted to Judaism. What other converts from condemned nations had two names?

First of all, God ordered the elimination (Joshua NIV uses the word “extermination”) of the Jebusites. David was FIGHTING the Jebusites. (And apparently not winning with a 1.57 Million army!) Deut. 20:17 does not allow the possibility of “conversion.”

Let’s talk about our Jebusite. Many apologists gloss over this name variation, as little import. But is it?

This Jebusite was allowed to live. This makes him singular, if not unique. He owned land near the principal city, good real estate. He was loyal to King David. As pointed out, he could see angels. He owned land worth 600 shekels of gold (according to the apologetic) which some apologists claim would be the size of a mountain. This was one significant Jebusite! In fact, Solomon’s temple was eventually built on his land (according to some apologists). We do know how significant Solomon’s temple was.

Yet they couldn’t get this guy’s Name straight?

Part of my problem with the apologetic of this entire passage, is what is important to resolve a contradiction in one verse is immediately disregarded and contradicted to resolve a contradiction in the next verse. How can this guy be so important, on one hand, yet get his name wrong on the next?

This verse is a copyist error. The next is NOT a copyist error, but a “rounding.”

Why, oh why do Christians (and I was as to blame) hold the bible to such a slight standard? A standard we would not accept in a third-grader’s homework?

The Bathsheba-Uriah ordeal was David’s only major sin. Why wasn’t the census a major sin? Because God was primarily angry at Israel, not at David, who sinned principally because Satan put extra pressure on him.

Again, if God was mad, why involve Satan-->David-->Joab?

Who said Uriah was David’s only major sin? (1 Kings only mentions Uriah, not Bathsheba.) In fact, if one measures sin by the punishment, this sin was far, far worse. The Third worst individual sin ever recorded. And somehow the author of 1 Kings missed it. Wonder how.

According to the punishment due on Uriah, there should have been 2 deaths (David and Bathsheba) at the most. According to the punishment on the Census, there should have been 100,000-200,000 deaths! While 1 Kings may have downplayed the census, it is truly bizarre to have missed it.

He paid 50 shekels of silver for the threshing floor and oxen, and then six hundred shekels of gold for the entire land.

Again, the facts that one author missed, but the other caught seem completely out of place. Imagine your spouse comes home and says that they bought a radio. Would you think it significant that they missed the fact the radio is in a new car?

As I stated, according to some, 600 shekels of gold would be the equivalent of buying a mountain! The very mountain of the Great Temple! 2 Sam. and 1 Chron. 27 Missed that? The purchase of the land for the Temple? The precipitating cause for where the Temple was to exist?

Now, I propose the following resolution for David’s Census:

There was a legend about a census during Kind David’s reign that resulted in a punishment on the people. At various times, and various places the legend modified, based upon who was telling it. Three different authors wrote it down. Being human, and hearing the legends from humans, they wrote different accounts.

Which is more likely? Human error on these accounts, or a tortured, twisted explanation that bends and turns according to the necessity of that exact clause at that exact moment, which, not surprisingly, happens to coincide with the bias of the person making the proposal.

If it weren’t in the Bible, every person would agree it was “human error” every time. That is why simply coughing out some words that would align one part of one clause of one story, while disregarding the more likely probability of human error is not persuasive.

Predictive Prophecy and Biblical Authority.

Predictive prophecy is used as a support to Biblical authority. In order to predict the future God must have foreknowledge. Can he predict the future, especially of free-willed human beings? What is the basis of God’s foreknowledge?

Philosophical Considerations.
What would be the basis of God knowing the future? That is, how is it logically possible for God to know with absolute certainty that a specific kind of event performed by a free-willed human being would take place?

1) Theological determinism. God simply determines what happens. This is the position of Calvinism. God decrees every event in human history. If God does this then it’s no problem at all for God to foreknow and to predict the future. There are three excellent books that take issue with Calvinism from a traditional Christian understanding: Grace Unlimited and The Grace of God, the Will of Man, both edited by Clark Pinnock, and What the Bible Says About God The Ruler, by Jack Cottrell. An excellent debate on the subject can be found in Basinger & Basinger, eds, Predestination and Free Will.

Suffice it to say that if theological determinism is true, then God cannot be a good God because he decrees all of the evil we experience in human history. All of it. No belief in “God’s inscrutable ways” can absolve God of this guilt. And no alternative definition of human freedom can absolve God of this guilt, either. God not only eternally decrees all of our actions; he also decrees that we want to do those very actions. Yet this God blames us alone for doing these actions and will cast billions of our mothers, siblings, children and friends into hell for his own personal glory. Which means he uses human beings for his own selfish ends. But who would ever think it’s praiseworthy to decree all of the human suffering we have experienced and then to cast billions of us in hell forever? There is no reason why this same God couldn’t have decreed that all of us obeyed him and decreed we’d all be in heaven with him. Furthermore, if God told us to do good things and yet decrees that we should do evil things, then he’s lying to us. He’s telling us that he wants us to do something good, but behind the scenes he’s decreeing that we do the exact opposite. That makes him a liar, plain and simple. Consequently, there is nothing God says in the Bible that we can trust him to do. Those Calvinists who defend such a God are participating in what I call Logical Gerrymandering. See also here,here, and here.

2) God is outside of time so he sees everything as present. If this were so, God would have no problems with predicting the future because it is not actually in the future. He’s merely seeing the present from his perspective. Stephen T. Davis, in his book, Logic and the Nature of God (Eerdmans, 1983), argues against this view by claiming that such a timeless being is “probably incoherent.” If God created this universe, then there was a time when it didn’t yet exist, and then there was a later time when it did exist. So he argues: “it is not clear how a timelessly eternal being can be the creator of this temporal universe.” It would also make 2005 B.C and 2005 A.D. simultaneous in God’s eyes. But they are not simultaneous in human historical space and time. Davis argues, “We have on hand no acceptable concept of atemporal causation, i.e., of what it is for a timeless cause to produce a temporal effect.” (pp. 8-24).

From the timeless view of God come the doctrines of God’s immutability (that he cannot change), and impassibility (God cannot suffer). How is that possible?

The notion of a timeless God can be traced to Greek philosophers. Plato argued that God must be an eternally perfect being. And since any change in an eternally perfect being must be a change for the worst, God cannot change. Aristotle argued that all of God’s potentialities are completely actualized. Therefore, God cannot change because he cannot have unactualized potentialities. Christian thinkers like Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas brought these concepts to the Bible. Boethius: “God lives in an everlasting present.” According to Aquinas God has no past, present or future since everything is “simultaneously whole” for him.

But Plato’s argument, for instance, “is straightforwardly fallacious, because it rests on a false dichotomy. It rests on the assumption that all change is either for the better or for the worst, an assumption that is simply false.” We want a watch to reflect the correct time, and so it must change with the time of day. The watch that stays the same all day long, and didn’t change, would be imperfect. Likewise, “when God began to create the universe he changed, beginning to do something that previously he had not done.” Such a change implies no imperfection in God. [(From William Hasker, in The Openness of God, IVP, 1994, pp. 132-133). See also Thomas Morris, Our Idea of God, and the late Ronald Nash, in The Concept of God].

The whole notion that God doesn’t change seems to imply that God never has a new thought, or idea, since everything is an eternal NOW, and there is nothing he can learn. This is woodenly static. God would not be person, but a block of ice, a thing. To say he does nothing NEW, thinks nothing NEW, feels nothing NEW, basically means he does nothing, thinks nothing, feels nothing, for it’s all been done. What would it mean for a person not to take risks, not to plan (for it’s already been planned), or to think (thinking involves weighing temporal alternatives, does it not?). But if God cannot have a new thought then he cannot think--he is analogous to block of ice.

4) The Inferential View. God just figures out from the range of options which choices we will make. He does this because he knows who we are completely and thoroughly as the “ultimate psychoanalyst.” He can take us in our present state and absolutely with certainty know what we will do next, and next, and next, and so on, and so on. He knows the future because he deduces it from who he knows us to be now. This option actually means, however, that what we do is somehow "programmed" into us. The determinist claims that it's all in the genes and environment, so this viewpoint commits the believer to the same position as the determinist. If God can predict future human actions 500 years from now, based upon what he knows about people living today, then we are merely environmentally and genetically programmed rats. There is no human freedom.

5) The Innate View. God just has comprehensive knowledge of the future. He just “sees it” because he is omniscient. But this isn’t an explanation at all! When I asked Dr. William Lane Craig in class how it is that God has foreknowledge, Craig, who would normally have elaborate arguments and defenses for his views, merely said, as if this is all that needed to be said, "It's innate, God just has it." What? How? This answer actually triggered my mind, and in time led me to reject God’s foreknowledge of future human free-willed choices.

From these philosophical considerations, I just don’t see any real basis for believing that a good God can have absolute and certain foreknowledge of future truly free-willed human actions. Therefore, along with a great many recent Christian philosophers, I do not believe God can predict the future of human history with certainty. God cannot offer prophecies of the future because any prophecy, especially more than 50 years in the future, will depend upon human free actions. And since I also reject theological determinism, then there is no basis for predestination either, whether due to God’s supposed foreknowledge of what we will do, or in God’s decrees.

Do the Ends Justify the Means?

The apostle Paul may have something to tell us about the ethics of evangelism. If eternal souls are at stake, is the "lesser evil" of deception not worth comitting in order to prevent the "greater evil" of an eternal suffering?

1 Cor. 9:19-24 (NIV)
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings. 24Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.

Is Paul saying here to misrepresent ones heritage and beliefs, if necessary, so that under false pretenses, more trust would be garnered, and more souls "won"? How much clearer does it get than "by all possible means"? A little clearer:

Phil 1:15-18 (NIV)
15It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16The latter do so in love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. (emphasis mine)

Whether from pretense or transparency, the important thing is the Gospel. Pretty clear. The ends justify the means...at least, according to Paul here.

Why Didn't God Get it Right?

When I decided to start Ionian Spirit, it took me some time to learn the general know-how of building and running a discussion board. I'd had some forum experience, but not as an administrator. Well, as soon as I opened the account, I was one, the Chief Administrator.

The creator of a message board is always Member no.: 1, the Root Administrator, as the rank is called. Though on some boards, multiple people can be added to the Root Admin group, the member #1 position still differs from all other administrators on the board in that the rank is unique by design. As "the" Root Admin, I am in complete control of the board and the software that runs it. I can design or modify any segment of the board from the ground up. I determine the settings of every facet of operation...whether or not we have flood control on posts and for whom and how long, time limits on editing posts, the size and type of avatars that can be uploaded, the number of emoticons one can use per post and per row, the management of permissions and forum access masks for members/groups, etc, etc. I can create any type of group or forum category or sub-category I choose, and give that group the on-board powers I see fit. I can change member account information, reset passwords and post count, even monitor and read personal messages and emails sent between members if I care to. At will, I can edit, suspend, ban, or IP ban any member or guest who comes to my board. Should a member get disorderly and I ban him or her from the forums, and that person is technically savvy and knows how to get past an IP ban, I have the power to IP ban entire ranges of IPs. For instance, I could IP ban anyone trying to get online from, say, Australia or Russia if I really wanted to. I can view anyone's IP and find out their ISP, even if they are guests to the site and have never registered. My fellow admins, non-root admins, have almost all of these same powers except the ability to change my personal account settings and access to certain advanced member monitoring options. I don't have but a few forum administrators. The ones I have are people I trust and who's opinions on running the board I value. They have plenty of say in what goes on in the forums, but if I wanted to, I could demote and ban all other admins and mods, and totally change things at any time. If someone didn't like it, nothing could be done about it because I am in charge and am the one who ultimately calls the shots. As far as the software limitations will take me, you could say I am the "god" of my forums.

No, I am not some narcissistic cyber-control freak. I am just making a comparison. The above is simply a countermodel of the Christian God, the alleged creator of the universe and his administrational powers over it. God is the "root admin" of the cosmos in it's entirety. No aspect of it is hidden from him, nor beyond his control. All power originates from him, no exceptions. He calls all the shots, and nothing can happen in this gigantic "forum" of his without his abiding consent.

Having said that, why does evil exist in God's universe? Why didn't God get it right? The problem may be an old one, but a sufficient answer has never slid off the tongue of a theist. Our illustration has effectively eliminated the many weak explanations often used in an effort to justify the existence of evil (i.e. "God allows freewill.", "God wants us to learn from our mistakes and make us stronger.", etc.). In addition to being poor excuses that do not stand up to the scrutiny of reason, these excuses are eliminated by reason of the fact that God must have created the universe you see before you the way he intended it to be. We have no reason to believe he would allow it to be taken in a direction that was contrary to his merciful, divine will, yet we observe a hostile, unforgiving universe of pain and disharmony, a place where people are buried alive and hard-working fathers are crippled in terrible car accidents.

So when it comes to the idea of an all-powerful god who runs the entire universe, he has no limitations, unlike those restrictions imposed upon me by the Invision Board software. God is the chief administrator of all that exists, yet his theistic servants would have us believe that god was incapable of setting up a system where women are never raped, children are not molested, where murderers are not to be found, and where predators are not forced to consume their helpless prey to stay alive?! I will never apologize for thinking that if an almighty creator existed, he was fully aware and fully capable of preventing the creation of an evil angel, who tricked a gullible woman into eating bad fruit, thereby, plunging the whole human race into decay!

In my forum, things that run contrary to the way my admins and I intend them are changed to accommodate our wishes. How can the same not also be said of the creator of the universe, an infinitely more powerful being with no limitations whatsoever? I cannot rationally assume that the creator of the universe created or allowed the formation of something that was not ideally his will.

Bottom line is, no special pleading can be made for justifying the existence of death and suffering in God's world...that is, unless he expressly wanted it to be so. I have to believe that any creator of the universe would be perfectly capable of fashioning the ideal soul-making environment just as he planned it from the very start. To suggest otherwise is logical lunacy. So again I ask, Why didn't God get it right?

(JH)

An Introduction Part Two: In Accordance With Prophecy

Something I find rather fun to do is, while engaged in conversation with colleague, end every declarative statement with the phrase, “In accordance with prophecy.” For example, “Hey, Charles, what are your plans for the evening?” “Well, Johnny, I’m going to fix some dinner and then watch the telly…in accordance with prophecy!” Sound ridiculous? It is. And yet, listening to certain “enlightened” evangelical preachers, one can only, logically, come to the conclusion that there are those out there who actually speak in this manner and those, more alarmingly, that believe in their predictions without a second thought, and some might even say without a first one either. Prophecy, especially of the Messianic or End Times varieties, plays a large role in the pontifications of many evangelical preachers, such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and is more than a little significant in the role of recruiting more members of the “flock.” This should not come as a surprise for all religions, and especially the most important aspects of Christianity, are rooted in the “fulfillment” of certain obscure and ambiguously worded prophecies—the birth, ministry, death, resurrection and impending second coming of Jesus are all supposedly in accordance with various prophecies in the Scriptures.

However, what happens when a prophecy found in the perfect and inerrant Bible is proven to be false? What then does that say about the other prophecies? Can they, too, be false? Do the prophecies of the birth and resurrection of Jesus allow other essential elements of Christianity to remain true? That is, if the birth and resurrection prophecies are indeed taken as truth, can Mary’s virginity or even some of the spoken words of Jesus be simultaneously taken as truth without being contradictory? If any of the fundamental and critical aspects of Christianity can be brought into doubt or even refuted entirely, where then does Christianity as a whole stand?

To delve into these questions, in this particular piece (we shall examine the resurrection and prophecies made by Jesus in future articles) let us look first to the question of the birth of Jesus, assuming for now that he did indeed exist historically, and how the virginity of Mary hinges on whether or not Jesus is human or divine, and vice versa. We will leave alone, at this juncture, the theories that the stories of the Biblical Jesus are Christian retellings of Pagan mythology much like the Old Testament’s Noah story was essentially a “rehash” of the ancient Gilgamesh epic. For now, for the sake of this piece, let us assume that the story is an original. We are going to deal first with the Gospel of Matthew, the first gospel we encounter in the canonical text. Matthew 1: 18-19 makes it very clear that Mary was “found to be with child” before she and Joseph “came together.” Reading this with a Literalist’s eyes, one can conclude that Mary was indeed a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception. Reading further, we encounter, in Matthew 1:22-23, the problematic birth prophecy from Isaiah 7:14. The text states that, “…the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” There is some debate as to the translation of “virgin,” as it usually simply meant “young woman” in Hebrew, but we will discuss textual translation errors at a later date. For now, let us look at what we know of how Jesus was supposed to be:

1) He was to be born of a virgin.
2) He was to be a direct descendant in the line of King David.

In the Gospel of Luke, specifically Luke 2:4, we learn that Joseph, for all intents and purposes Jesus’ Biblical “stepfather,” “belonged to the house and line of David.” That is quite clear. Joseph is a direct descendant of King David. The Messiah will be of that line. Joseph’s son is Jesus. No problem, correct? Actually, no, Houston, we do indeed have a problem. The gospels of Matthew and Luke give genealogies of Joseph, albeit two completely contradicting ones (see Matthew 1:17 and Luke 3:23-38), both showing that Joseph is indeed in the “house and line of David.” There have been several apologists who have tried to reconcile the errors by stating that the lineage given was that of Mary and not Joseph, which fails for two reasons:

1) Mary is not mentioned in either of the passages at all.
2) It is highly unlikely for the writers of a very male-dominated culture and society to have mentioned a woman’s genealogy. Lineage was always traced from the father.

So now we have the understanding, if we read as Literalists, that Joseph is unquestionably of the “house and line of David.” How, then, can Jesus also be of the same line if Joseph did not have any part in his conception? Either Jesus is not the Messiah, or Mary was not a virgin. The two elements as understood and believed by Christians cannot logical coexist. For if Joseph is a descendant of David, and Jesus as the Messiah is also supposed to be a direct descendant, that implies that Joseph is a biological father. An adopted son may be allowed to inherit from a father and even carry on the family name, but his blood will never be the same—that is, he will never be able to draw a direct line to the same ancestors as his stepfather. If Mary was indeed a virgin, and if the “father” was indeed the holy spirit as stated clearly in Matthew, then Jesus can NOT be the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Scriptures because Mary is NOT of the “house and line of David.” The divinity of Jesus and the virginity of Mary, when looked at literally and with the prophecies stated, do not stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps one can say that the Isaiah prophecy does not relate to Jesus at all. If I were to believe Jesus was indeed perfect and without sin and able to know all through his Father, I would think the same thing, for the rest of that passage of Isaiah states that “he will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right…” (Isaiah 7:15-16) It seems highly unlikely that Jesus, the only one ever born who was perfect and lived without any sins, would ever have a period where right and wrong would be a question.

In closing, it is apparent that upon careful examination, several fundamental elements of the Christian faith do not stand up to outside critiques, or even, in some cases, to several passages in the same book. In the case of the “virginal birth” and the accompanying prophecies, it is obvious that the two critical parts of the faith of Christianity can not logically coexist. But then, logic is not what religion is based upon. If the very concept of who and what Jesus truly was can be called into question so easily, how can the rest of the faith stand up? And, further, how can Literalists keep ignoring such blatant facts when we use their own techniques—i.e. reading the texts literally—against them and how, if we noticed the errors and inconsistencies so easily, can so many people be completely fooled? The short answer on the latter half of that second question is early indoctrination and, I promise, we shall get to that topic in time.

When next we meet, we shall examine the elements of the resurrection of Jesus—what the Bible says, what Jesus himself has to say about it, what apologists say, what other non-Christians say, and, of course, what I say. Until then, be well everyone.

An Introduction Part One: Who I Am

An Introduction Part One: Who I Am

I once happened to find myself wandering through a New York City bookstore one afternoon when I stumbled across a section called “Christian Fiction.” Imagine my surprise when I found no trace of a Bible! Is not the term “Christian Fiction” something of a redundancy, an oxymoronic play of words? For is not all of Christianity, and thereby the Bible, just fiction, fantastical stories from the minds of over-imaginative primates struggling to grasp the answers to their surroundings, the very keys to the universe they are a part of, bottled and sold still by a corrupt ad hypocritical regime of the “Holier-Than-Thous” and bought and consumed still by those so afraid to think for themselves, those individuals for whom logic and reason is so easily overridden by the briberies of a paradise after this life in exchange for servitude and a “pick and choose” application of archaic, sometimes contradictory, and often oppressive, laws and edicts?

Were it that I were still able to curl up in my mother’s arms and believe her tales of Santa Claus with visions of sugarplums still dancing in my head, to be childlike and impressionable and susceptible to every early indoctrination, then, and only then, would I know truly what it is to be called “Christian,” for did not Jesus himself allegedly say that, “Unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 18:3) Not at all those who call themselves “Christians,” however, are ignorant and hypocritical. Quite the contrary, while they may be misguided, there are a great many who accept the differences in others while simultaneously understanding that the Scripture on which their faith is based upon is something allegorical and figurative, rather than a literal and historical account of what has been, is, and ever shall be. I have been invited here to present a series of dissertations against those we shall the “Literalists.” These are the men and women of the Christian faith (which sect, pick one!) who claim the Bible is perfectly true, historically accurate, and “straight from God’s brain to [their] hands,” to quote one Bartholomew J. Simpson.

Throughout the course of what I hope will be several weeks, I shall be providing various commentaries and arguments on topics ranging from how religion in general, and Christianity in specific, is inherently divisive, to the incompatibility of an omniscient God with a truly free will, from how the Virgin Mary was likely anything but to the historical and even blatant textual inaccuracies in the whole of the Bible, particularly, for the sake of this website, in the New Testament, from “Tastes great!” to “Less filling!” Be forewarned: I will ramble at times. I will draw examples from sports, from history, from television shows, from hypothetical situations to argue my points. I will be sarcastic at times, yet serious, firm, and yet fair. I will draw upon such sources as the Bible itself, Gnostic texts, alternative texts such as those by Timothy Freke, scholarly texts such as those by Shelby Spong, and philosophical texts such as those by David Hume, Friedrich Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle, and Martin Smith. For the other side of the argument, I will address those with stronger arguments such as C.S. Lewis and Father William O’Malley, the latter of which was a mentor of mine in high school and college, and those with weaker but more forceful arguments such as Jerry Falwell and Lee Strobel, the latter of which uses his “journalistic skills” and takes the notion that since no one ever recovered Jesus’ body, that is proof of the Resurrection. That’s some fine detective work there, Mr. Strobel. Perhaps Jesus is hanging out with Hoffa sipping lattes somewhere in the Southwest then?

My purpose here is not to prove that Christianity is wrong per se, but rather that it simply is not correct. There is a difference. Christianity, the spirit of it, the core of it all, is something I find to be very real. There is a certain beauty and comfort in the belief that after all of the hardships of life, there is a better place for us all. Where Christianity crosses the line is where it begins to dictate who gets that better place and how they get there. Despite the messages of inclusiveness, once you define yourself and your fellow believers as possessing criteria A, B, and C, you automatically by extension create an “Other,” those who possess criteria D through Z, i.e. those who do not belong. This divisiveness is at the heart of every religion, no matter what benignity it clothes itself in disguise. This is an attack, for lack of a less militaristic word, on the Literalists to, quite simply, show them the errancy of inerrancy. So, hang on tight and bear with me as I lose my “blogging virginity” here and I promise to do my best to create an open dialogue with those from both sides of the fence, and everywhere in between. All comments, questions, challenges, love and hate mail are always welcome. Now kindly read on to Part Two, which can be read here..

Why was Paul taking a Road Trip?

We know of Paul’s miraculous conversion on the way to Damascus. But does the reason claimed for why he was headed there make sense?

Is Acts a good historical reference in this regard?

The first thing to note is that Paul himself never refers to receiving any letter or authority from the high priest, in his description of his own testimony. (Gal. 1:17; 2 Cor. 11:32) While this does not exclude the possibility of it occurring, I prefer it come from the horse’s mouth, as it were. In fact, if one studies what Paul said in his letters compared to what the Gospel writers wrote, or what Acts records, it is amazing the different contrast. According to Acts, after Damascus Paul went to Jerusalem within a short period of time. (Acts 9:27) According to Paul, Barnabas did not introduce him until 17 years later!

We don’t have Paul telling us anything about this mission from the High Pries (although with his bragging of how much he was attuned to Judaism, one would think an intimate connection with the High priest would warrant at least a mention.)

Paul claims to be like a Pharisee. (Phil. 3:5) [And another side note. Odd that Paul does not specifically claim to be a Pharisee, but rather, “in regard to the law; a Pharisee.” Yet the author, in Acts. 23:6, states Paul claims to be an actual Pharisee. Further, the author records in Acts 23:6 Paul claims to be “a son of a Pharisee” yet in Phil. 3:5 Paul simply claims to be a son of a Hebrew.]

Pharisees believed that oral tradition could be considered in addition to the Torah. The Sadducees did not. Even the Bible records conflict between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. (Mt. 22:34; Acts 23:7). The High priest at the time of Paul was a Sadducee. (Acts 5:17)

What was Paul, a Pharisee, doing in cohorts with the high priest, a Sadducee? Christians, in reading of the early Church persecutions recorded in Acts, presume that the two groups would be united in a “common enemy” being Christianity. Yet that is NOT what we see. Acts itself records the Pharisees tending to side with the Christians! (Acts. 5:34; 23:9) The Christians, by being a liberal sect of Christianity, and maintaining a resurrection, would find sympathy among the Pharisees.

Would a Pharisee align themselves with a Sadducee? Not likely. Possible? Yes. Probable? Not hardly.

Strike one.

Now look at the political climate. Damascus was not part of the Roman Empire. Perhaps I did not state that strong enough. King Aretas was the ruler of the Nabataean. We know the story of John the Baptist exposing Herod Antipas for marrying his own niece. What is not discussed, is that in order to do so, Antipas divorced his wife, who was Nabataean. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. This infuriated King Aretas.

This King hated the ruler of Judea, and felt he was totally independent of the Roman Empire. He would have despised any High priest attempting to exert control over any of the king’s citizens. A systematic persecution of the Christians in King Aretas’ control would not exist. The thought would be “Bad for the Jews? Good for the King.”

This is as ludicrous as President Bush giving an order to the head of the FBI to arrest citizens in North Korea. The North Korean government would laugh as such an attempt. The FBI has no authority to act in a foreign country.

The idea of the High Priest interfering in Damascus is all but insane. However, the Roman Empire felt that Damascus was technically always under Roman Rule. The Author of Acts, writing in the late First Century, may have presumed it always was, and that the High Priest would have some authority. The author would be wrong.

Strike Two.

Why in the freaking blue blazes would the high priest commit to paper anything with Paul? It has been pointed out that it was written to the synagogues, not to the local government. So what? Who are the local citizenry going to complain about being arrested? We are talking about a political/police type action. If the letters said, “Kick ‘em out of the church” I would heartily agree that King Aretas would not care. These were letters to physically remove people, and even have them killed! This is not some local religious issue over whether communion should be served from the left or the right.

How, exactly, was Paul supposed to do this? Did he bring cages? Shackles? How many could he capture? If it were too many, there would be uproar. Maybe I better say it again—The High Priest had as much authority here as a Wichita Dog Catcher has in Berlin, Germany. I.e.—none.

What could possibly be in that letter? I am open to suggestions, here.

An introduction to Paul? Not hardly. Every record says that the persecuted and the persecutors knew Paul. (Acts 9:21; 9:13; Gal. 1:23; Acts 9:26) Why would Paul need introducing? He wouldn’t.

A mandate to persecute Christians? According to the author of Acts, the Jews were ready and willing to kill Paul upon his conversion. Would they need a mandate or order to do so?

Paul: I want you guys to persecute Christians.
Jewish Leaders: Naw. We are too busy. Big bar-b-q planed for this week.
Paul: A-ha! I have a letter from the Chief Priest that says you have to!
Jewish Leaders: Well. O.K. But we aren’t happy about it.

This sorta quashes the theory that Christians were persecuted. Why would the Jewish Leaders need a letter to do what Acts implies they were willing to do several days later?

Such a letter from the High Priest would be political suicide. It would directly tie him into attempting to exert control in a county that was hostile to Roman influence. King Aretas would be furious. The Emperor would be angry. The implications of even putting this in writing is frightening.

Why would a letter be necessary? If the Jews in Damascus were willing to persecute Christians, and Paul was the “High Persecutor” would a bit of writing be necessary?

It is all but inconceivable that a High Priest would put in writing something unnecessary, and would result in his death if discovered. There is no need; only problems.

Strike Three.

Who, exactly, was it that wanted Paul killed after his conversion? The answers seem to be all over the board.

An obvious reading of Acts 9:23 is that the “Jews” conspired to kill him. But Paul says in 2 Cor. 11:32 that it was the governor of Damascus that wanted to arrest him. Nothing about any Jews. (And one should note that in 11:24-26 Paul distinguishes the actions of Jews against him and Gentiles. So if it WAS the Jews in Damascus, wouldn’t Paul state so?)

A further oddity is that the author of Acts records Ananias (the healer of Paul’s blindness) as being a Disciple. (Acts 9:10) Yet the author records Paul saying that Ananias was a devout observer of the Law and respected by all the Jews. (Acts 22:12) Which was he? Could one be a Christian AND respected by the Jews? Then would the Jews have persecuted Christians? Or Paul?

Strike Four.

In order to maintain historicity in Acts one would have to maintain that a Pharisee aligned with a Sadducee (unlikely) to write a letter (dangerous, fatal and unnecessary) to perform an act that was either not occurring at all, or occurring regularly anyway.

In conclusion—Acts is not history. It does not conform to what Paul wrote. It does not conform to what we see in history. If a person is going to accept any explanation, no matter how contrived and contorted, to make it fit, I can do nothing about it. And what I see is a bias toward a proposition, and an insistence on maintaining it regardless of the probabilities.

That’s O.K, but I do not see a neutral jury buying it.

Why Not Believe? Reasons Why Atheists Don't Believe in Gods.

Atheist Austin Cline offers a brief but good overview of why atheists do not believe in gods, here.

Multiple Gods and Religious Traditions:
It is difficult to credit any one religion as being True or any one god as being True when there have been so many throughout human history. None appears to have any greater claim to being more credible or reliable than any other. Why Christianity and not Judaism? Why Islam and not Hinduism? Why monotheism and not polytheism? Every position has had its defenders, all as ardent as those in other traditions. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

Contradictory Characteristics in Gods:
Theists often claim that their gods are perfect beings; they describe gods, however, in contradictory and incoherent ways. Numerous characteristics are attributed to their gods, some of which are impossible and some combinations of which are impossible. As described, it's unlikely or impossible for these gods to exist. This doesn't mean that no god could possibly exist, just that the ones theists claim to believe in don't.

Religion in Self-Contradictory:
No religion is perfectly consistent when it comes to doctrines, ideas, and history. Every ideology, philosophy, and cultural tradition has inconsistencies and contradictions, so this shouldn't be surprising — but other ideologies and traditions aren't alleged to be divinely created or divinely sanctioned systems for following the wishes of a god. The state of religion in the world today is more consistent with the premise that they are man-made institutions.

Gods Are Too Similar to Believers:
A few cultures, like ancient Greece, have postulated gods which appear to be as natural as human beings, but in general gods are supernatural. This means that they are fundamentally different from human beings or anything on earth. Despite this, however, theists consistently describe their gods in ways that make the supernatural appear almost mundane. Gods share so many characteristics with humans that it has been argued that gods were made in the image of man.

Gods Just Don't Matter:
Theism means believing in the existence of at least one god, not that one necessarily cares much about any gods. In practice, though, theists typically place a great deal of importance on their god and insist that it and what it wants are the most important things a person can be concerned with. Depending upon the nature of a god, however, this isn't necessarily true. It's not obvious that the existence or desires of gods should matter to us.

Gods and Believers Behave Immorally:
In most religions, gods are supposed to be the source of all morality. For most believers, their religion represents an institution for promoting perfect morality. In reality, though, religions are responsible for widespread immorality and gods have characteristics or histories which make them worse than the most vile human serial killer. No one would tolerate such behavior on the part of a person, but when with a god it all becomes laudable — even an example to follow.

Evil in the World:
Closely associated with taking action that should be considered immoral is the fact that there is so much evil in the world today. If there are any gods, why don't they act to eliminate it? The absence of substantive action against evil would be consistent with the existence of evil or at least indifferent gods, which is not impossible, but few people believe in such gods. Most claim that their gods are loving and powerful; the suffering on Earth makes their existence implausible.

Faith is Unreliable:
A common characteristic of both theism and religion is their reliance on faith: belief in the existence of god and in the truth of religious doctrines is neither founded upon nor defended by logic, reason, evidence, or science. Instead, people are supposed to have faith — a position they wouldn’t consciously adopt with just about any other issue. Faith, though, is an unreliable guide to reality or means for acquiring knowledge.

Life is Material, not Supernatural:
Most religions say that life is much more than the flesh and matter we see around us. In addition, there is supposed to be some sort of spiritual or supernatural realm behind it all and that our "true selves" is spiritual, not material. All evidence, though, points to life being a purely natural phenomenon. All evidence indicates that who we really are — our selves — is material and dependent upon the workings of the brain. If this is so, religious and theistic doctrines are wrong.

There is No Good Reason to Bother Believing:
Perhaps the most important and common reason for not believing in any gods and for not following any religions is the absence of any good reason for doing so. All of the above are decent reasons for not believing and are common reasons for questioning — and eventually leaving — whatever theistic and religious beliefs a person might have had in the past.

Once a person gets beyond the bias in favor of belief, though, they can realize something critical: the burden of support lies with those claiming that belief is rational and/or necessary. Believers fail to meet this burden, however, and as a consequence fail to provide any really good reasons to accept their claims. As a consequence, those who don't already believe and/or who are not biased in favor of belief aren't given a reason to start.

Given the fact that the burden of support lies first and foremost with those making the positive the claim — the theistic, religious believers — then non-believers don't necessarily need reasons not to believe. They are helpful, to be sure, but they aren't particularly necessary. Instead, what is required are reasons to believe.

The question "Why don't you believe?" is a request for justification from the nonbeliever; the response "I haven't seen any good reason to bother believing" returns the need for justification back to the believer where it belongs. Too often, believers fail to realize that their position is the one which needs defending and perhaps this can help them begin to understand that.

-----------------

Of course, I add The Religion That a Person Adopts is Determined Almost Entirely by the Faith He or She is Exposed To, that's why I have proposed The Outsider Test for faith...

Atheists Should Be Evangelistic?

I ran across this question at Daylight Atheism, and the answer given is "yes we should."

Should Atheists Evangelize?. There we read:

I have been oscillating between two sides, considering all the arguments each has to offer, and it is now time for me to take a firm stand and declare my position. I believe that atheists should evangelize, but not in the sense of bothering strangers on the street or going house-to-house and ringing doorbells. Instead, we should write letters to the editor and contribute guest editorials in newspapers and magazines. We should participate in public debates and maintain pro-atheism websites explaining ourselves to the world. We should, wherever possible, appear on TV and radio shows. We should regularly write to our elected representatives. And we should publicly take on theists practicing the more annoying forms of evangelism. By their actions, they have made themselves fair game for rebuttal; and many people no doubt would be glad to see a knowledgeable atheist confront an obnoxious streetcorner preacher. All these actions serve to spread our message and inform people of our existence without intruding directly into their lives, which is what I believe we should aim for.

Then later we read these words from Shattering Sterotypes:

The first thing I strongly recommend is that all atheists who have not already done so step forward and announce their nonbelief to friends, family and acquaintances, if their situation at all permits it. While I would not ask any atheist to speak out if there was good reason to believe that real harm would follow from doing so, atheists who remain in the closet about their nonbelief are indirectly harming not just themselves but all atheists.

Why Not?

Rick Warren and The Purpose Driven Life

Rick Warren is the author of The Purpose Driven Life, The Purpose Driven Church and leads the Purpose Driven Network of churches, which is a global coalition of congregations in 162 countries. More than 400,000 ministers and priests have been trained worldwide, and almost 157,000 church leaders subscribe to his weekly newsletter Ministry Toolbox. His book, The Purpose Driven Life, has sold 25 million copies. Rick Warren is very influential among Evangelical people, and as pastor of the Saddleback Church, the author of best sellers he is very influential in church circles. So you may want to check these sites out: The Purpose Driven Life site, Rick Warren’s Bio, The Saddleback Church site, and this is an index of sites Rick is involved in.

So if his people find this Blog as a result of a web search, let me offer a sincere welcome to our humble Blog.

He's a pastor just like many of us have been. Maybe he would like to tell us he never has any doubts? The ministry creates doubts, since pastors in churches see about everything there is to see coming from church people. And many many times it's absolutely ugly. Sometimes pastors will even despise some people in his church, even as he must preach on something about love or forgiveness directly in front of the very people whom he despises. The ministry is a dangerous "calling," since ministers see the true nature of Christianity as it's lived by his(or her)parishoners. It's ugly. And yet a pastor's job is to be a cheerleader for the Christian faith and the church, when he knows it's not working much at all in the people he pastors.

I have been in the ministry, and I can tell you story after story of people in the church--I mean among the leaders too--who operated on the pleasure principle, even though they were well-respected at church. [As the biggest example of this, the BTK killer was a respected member of a Christian church before he was caught]. I know the parable of the tares and the wheat, but the closer I got to people in the church, I hardly ever saw wheat. I would usually respond to this situation by saying that Christianity doesn't necessarily make us better than non-Christians, it only makes us better than we would have been if we weren't Christians. But why doesn't Christianity make us better people than non-Christians--I mean noticeably different? Why?

From my experience whenever someone in the church did something good, it could be accounted for by some ulterior motives, or it was done out of guilt, or fear of hell.

Christianity is the one religion where it's claimed that God the Holy Spirit indwells within the Christian alone. No one else can claim that, according to Christians. God somehow takes up residence in a Christian's life. So why isn't there a difference between the behavior of Christians and that of non-Christians? At least this is what I saw as a pastor, and that's a unique perspective that no one but a pastor will ever know in quite the same way.

I myself wasn't ever able to live the life I knew I should out of gratitude for what I believed was God's saving act in Jesus. If someone responds by saying "John, you just never gave yourself completely over to God," I'd respond by saying that I did so with everything within me. And if that isn't good enough, then I cannot do it. And I'd turn around and ask the very same question of that person, "Have YOU given yourself completely over to God?"

I just found that the Christian life was impossible to live. The tension between the already and the not yet, the guilt for not doing enough, and the fallen examples of church leaders I had before me was too much. Jesus purportedly said his burden is easy...his yoke is light. But it was the heaviest burden I have ever experienced.

No wonder Christian people buy up Warren's books. They feel an intense need to get it together as a Christian. He offers them hope. But after reading his books they'll go looking for another fix, because the Christian life cannot be successfully lived, even knowing that his or her sins are completely forgiven.

Paul and Visions

Since visions have arisen as the current topic of choice, and my statement about Paul having a vision of Jesus, and not seeing him physically resurrected resulted in a comment, thought I would address it.

Did Paul see a physical Jesus?

First we need to look at Paul’s own writings. This was a man who thought people (arguably himself) could either in-body or out-of-body “project” to the Third Heaven and could hear things not permissible to tell. (2 Cor. 12:1-5)

If someone said that today, would it be thought of as a physical event, or a spiritual vision?

Paul stated he had so many exceedingly great revelations, he could even become conceited. (2 Cor. 12:7) If someone said that today, would it be a physical revelation, or a spiritual vision?

Paul believed that Jesus spoke directly to him in actual words. (2 Cor. 12:9; 1 Cor. 11:23; 1 Cor. 7:12. Acts 18:9) He did not receive a Gospel from men, but from revelation from Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:11) If someone told you that Jesus actually spoke to them in English words, would you think it actual, or a vision?

When did Paul get all this information from Jesus? Certainly not prior to his conversion. Apparently not at his conversion. Paul speaks of growing information, and learned experiences throughout the progression of his books. Paul was continually getting revelation, and quotes from Jesus. Now, is the Christian maintaining that Jesus physically re-appeared and discussed these things with Paul? Popping in and out on various occasions?

Why would we, when Paul himself admits in belief of possible “out-of-body” experiences in which a person can enter Paradise, and hear inexplicable things? Paul admits that his comings and goings are dictated by these revelations. (Gal 2:1) Was that a physical appearance?

If someone said that today, would we think the new information, the new revelations were spiritual visions, or Jesus physically appearing?

What does Paul say about his own conversion? Not much. He says he was persecuting the church of God, and then God revealed His son “in me.” (Gal 1:16) What little study I have done, indicates the Greek word apokalupto is an internal revelation, not external. In means exactly that—“in” as within the limits of space. Paul does not claim, here, that Jesus was externally revealed to him, but internally revealed in him. In fact, Christians today would use this same language, without even thinking of the implications of a physical appearance.

And (with one exception) that is it on what Paul writes about seeing Jesus. Now let’s look at what the author of Acts records.

[Side note: Why I doubt Acts as being historical. Acts. 9:1 has Paul asking the high priest for letters to the synagogues in Damascus to take prisoners back to Rome. A Pharisee, asking a Sadducee for a letter of authority in a city in which the high priest had no authority whatsoever. In fact, if found with the letter, it is very likely the high priest would be killed for trying to exert power outside his domain by the Romans. An unlikely request for an unnecessary letter that is only trouble.]

Does Paul see Jesus? Nope. He sees a light and hears a voice. (Acts 9:3) It should be noted that Paul did not recognize the voice; let alone any claim to recognize a face that wasn’t seen. The people with him did not see anyone.

God himself now says that Paul has a vision. (Acts. 9:12) A straight reading of the text would be that Paul saw a light, and later saw a vision of some sort.

But perhaps the author of Acts is adding their own bend to the story. Let’s see how the author records what Paul says happened. Nope, again we have a bright light and a voice. (Acts 22:6-7) No mention of Jesus.

Think on this for a moment. This is a fellow that has so many revelations; he has a problem with pride. He talks regularly of Jesus teaching him directly. Yet the one thing he does NOT say is “Jesus appeared to me on the road.” According to Acts, immediately after recounting his tale of seeing this light and hearing this voice Paul DOES refer to a later instance in which Jesus appeared to him. In a trance. (Acts. 22:18) If Paul deliberately and particularly refrains from stating he saw Jesus at this event, how can the Christian claim to know more than Paul?

When Paul tells the tale to King Agrippa (same thing. Lights. Voice. No Jesus) he refers to it as a vision. (Acts. 26:19)

If someone said this today, would you believe that Jesus actually physically appeared, or that this was a spiritual vision?

Taking all of this into account, if there was nothing more, we would be done. Paul speaks as if these were visions; Acts speaks as if these were visions.

So now we come to the lone applicant for a physical appearance—1 Cor. 15:8 Paul says Jesus appeared to Peter first (the Gospels say some women) and after that to Peter (the gospels have two unknown followers) then the Twelve (the Gospels only have eleven.) Paul records Jesus then appeared to over 500 (not in the Gospels) and then to James (not in the Gospels) and then to all the apostles (possibly in Matthew. You know—where some of them doubted.) Then, finally to Paul.

When? When did Jesus make this appearance to Paul? Before Paul’s conversion? This is extremely problematic, because it would mean that Paul saw Jesus post-mortem, and was not convinced. At Paul’s conversion? This is contrary to both what Paul says in Galatians, and what Acts records as having happened.

Yes, I know the Sunday School stories all have Jesus appearing in the flash of light. Just not what the authors record, even though the author immediately records events of Jesus appearing at a later time.

The only possible remaining time, is some period after the conversion event. Which starts to create problems. If Acts is going to be considered History, Paul records having visions of Jesus while in a trance. When Paul uses the word “appear” in 1 Cor. 15, he could easily be meaning that as in “appear in a vision.” Remember, this is the fellow that believes people can have auditory visions in the Third Heaven; it is not out of the realm of possibility, that he can hold to visual visions in this world.

We are always informed that “Scripture must interpret Scripture.” If every other verse points in one direction, and one points in another, we are to look at the anomaly and see how it fits to all of the other instances.

Every other verse points to Paul believing he had spiritual visions in Jesus. Spiritual Revelations. Spiritual conversations. Some while in a trance.

If, in 1 Cor. he says Jesus “appeared to him” and elsewhere these appearances are visions, the most natural conclusion is that Paul is talking about visions. In fact, in order to get the results desired, the Christian must abandon the normal claim of Scripture interpreting Scripture!

If the Christian is claiming Paul is stating a physical appearance, when did it occur, and why was it not recorded?

I have compared these visions to Virgin Mary appearances, and wondered why Christians hold Paul’s visions as actual, but not the Virgin Mary’s. I have been informed they are nothing alike.

Let’s see:

Most Christians hold that Jesus received a modified but partially recognizable physical body post resurrection. That he then went to heaven.

AFTER this, he appears to Paul, (at least sometimes as a vision, and while Paul is in a trance), imparts spiritual wisdom, and continues to pop in and out.

Most Christians hold that Mary died, went to Heaven, and receives a modified spiritual body of some sort. If a Christian resurrection is similar to Jesus’; this modified body is recognizable in some way with the former physical one.

AFTER this, Mary appears to people on earth, in an apparent recognizable physical form, imparts spiritual wisdom, and then continues to pop in and out.

How is that different than Paul’s experience? The only difference I see is bias.

We all have biases. I presume everyone in the world likes French Fries, for example, just because I do. Does not make bias “evil” or “wrong” but it is simply a part of humanity.

Because of how Christians are raised and taught, there is an inherent bias to presume that Paul felt a physical Jesus appeared to him. What one must be careful to do is recognize that bias, and refrain from using it as a methodology for what is a vision, and what is actual. Because many Christians are equally bias against the possibility of the Virgin Mary appearing in a physical form, and that people who hold to belief in such visions are genuine, honest, and sincere. But incorrect.

Using this same method, when applied to Paul, it would seem he was genuine, honest and sincere as well. And equally incorrect.