The Religious Condition (rough draft) part 02

Read more »

The Religious Condition (rough draft) part 01

Over the next few weeks, I'll be posting a rough draft of my upcoming book (in about 10-15 parts) that should be out early next year. I would appreciate comments, corrections (grammatical and other), and evaluations. I don't have much time to get involved in the discussion of comments on this blog, but I'll definitely read all of them. If it's boring, say so!

Read more »

Deconversion in Stages

Conversion is rarely brought on by a slow, gradual process of thinking and seeking before finding, though it is not unheard of. Many times it is instant, powerful, emotional, and life-changing. Disbelief may come in an equally powerful traumatic and disillusioning moment, or it may come from the gradual and slow erosion of wave after wave. For me, deconversion was not a decision, but a realization.

I received Jesus at age fourteen in 1990 while seeking the meaning of life. I had a very long talk with a born-again side of the family who assured me that I can have a relationship with God, that God still healed and raised the dead today, that tongue-speaking and prophecy were supernatural signs of God's involvement in the lives of believers, that God answers prayer and guides our lives, that Satan is real, that evolution is false, that we are in the end times, that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, etc. In other words, I was taught everything a fundamentalist Pentecostal Christian believes today.

I became completely "on fire" and "radical" for Jesus by giving up any sense of the mundane. Life had one purpose, and that was to bring people to Jesus before the tribulation hit. I immersed myself in Bible study, prayer, worship, church involvement, study, and evangelism. People prophesied to me that I was going to be in a Christian metal band witnessing to Satanists. I had received a very "supernatural" experience followed by the gift of tongues and turned my high school into a missionary ground.

Being told not to date because God would supernaturally choose a wife for me, I had a very disillusioning experience in which I believed God had spoken and confirmed that I was to be with a girl who eventually cheated on me and abandoned her faith. I questioned whether or not God was really guiding, speaking, and protecting me. In 1993, my favorite televangelist Benny Hinn was exposed on Inside Edition among other things for airing unverified healings. I wondered why God had not said anything to me about that all those years I was praising him for healing through Hinn. At the very same time, Hank Hanegraaff (The Bible Answer Man) wrote a book exposing the false teachings of many of my favorite teachers, including playing excerpts of Hinn cursing Hanegraaff's children. This eye-opening critique caused me to abandon my entire theological system and wonder if in fact the Holy Spirit was teaching those past years and if God was in fact healing anyone at all.

I realized as well as I played bass in the worship band at church that almost everything that counted for the supernatural was exaggerated. "Manifestations" and "spiritual gifts" were nothing more than people falling down, giving false prophecies, and no one was ever healed. As I took this Inside Edition and Hanegraaff information to fellow believers they all (without exception) refused to look at any of it. Satan was attacking God's anointed. The anti-intellectual lifestyle and willful ignorance of the church floored me, given how cocky we all were that we were right about everything.

By 1994, the most influential example in my life for ministry was a pastor at Sanctuary church in California and the vocalist of a Christian thrash metal band called Vengeance Rising named Roger Martinez. His songs were filled with Bible verses, he preached hard from the stage, had more than fifty teaching tapes available, and was intense in his message that God can free you from addictions and give you life. He sent me a letter saying he was now an atheist who had joined the Church of Satan, slept with girls on tour, was a heavy drug user, and nearly killed himself. He threatened all of the Christian leaders in his life and demanded that his band be pulled from the stores. He was bitter that despite years of promises, God was not supernaturally healing him of his addictions. This crushed me. Another band I really enjoyed at the time was a Christian metal band called Tourniquet. Their former guitarist Gary Lenaire has recently walked away from Christianity and has written a book called An Infidel Manifesto: Why True Believers Walk Away. It has the endorsement of Michael Shermer from SKEPTIC and can be found here:

http://www.aninfidelmanifesto.com/home.htm

The temptation here is for many to say I have put my trust in man and am being letting down by man, but this ignores the fact that there is no truth behind what these men are claiming - namely guidance, healing, deliverance, miracles, and other evidences of God working in people's lives that I now had to deny.

Not to be outdone, at age seventeen, in the middle of ministering and preparing for my calling, I was struck with mononucleosis and chronic fatigue that devastated my health and kept me immobilized for almost a year. Despite all of the prayers, visiting Benny Hinn crusades, being anointed with oil, worshipping, confessing, reading healing verses, and everything else imaginable, I was not healed. What followed was another episode with a girl who agreed God was giving us signs to be together, but did not work out.

As each disillusionment hit one after another, I spent my time in bed worshipping, praying, and studying. In 1995 I got a job at Family Christian Stores and began studying every theology, apologetics, and church history book I could find. I also began an interest in philosophy. It was during this time that I found how little Christianity could be supported and how little was agreed upon among the broad theological and historical perspective. A growing mount of questions to be dealt with and inconsistencies in Scripture arose.

I was introduced to the Internet in 1996 and in a last desperate attempt to save my faith looked up Josh McDowell apologetics. What came up was a skeptical criticism of his books Evidence That Demands a Verdict. The arguments floored me and all of my stereotypes of skeptics being scared, ignorant, and unresponsive washed away. It was the Christians who were afraid to look at their arguments. I printed out 600 pages that night and took it all to my pastor saying, "If I don't find response to this I can no longer be a Christian." It was then I was introduced to James Randi, SKEPTIC, Skeptical Inquirer, and Free Inquiry. More and more I found the skeptics more thoughtful, articulate, reasonable, and convincing than what seemed more and more to be damage control arguments taking leave of common sense from Christian apologetics and mindless and ignorant superstition among my Christian friends.

I gained the nickname "Dr. Doubt" and was told my anxiety was my own fault for trusting in intellect, listening to atheists, and lacking faith. "Forget that stuff, read your Bible, and have faith" was the most common answer. Many even opposed studying theology and apologetics as a waste of time. My pastor told me to keep studying and I'd find answers to my 600 pages of arguments. By the end of 1996 I fell into a complete emotional breakdown facing the trauma of being sick, having no hope, and having to endure life without a God who I believed intimately loved me and who I depended upon emotionally. In a fit of anger at his silence I told him I no longer believed and began writing an essay to my Christian friends and family explaining why I was now leaving the Christian subculture behind and quitting the worship band.

I tearfully wrote a 30-page essay giving all of my arguments and reasons for walking away, asking for response. The arguments were very basic and not well put together, but were enough that no one responded. It is now ten years later and still no one who has ever asked to see it has responded to it. Instead, I was demonized and told not to cause others in the church to fall. Instead of helping me, they defended against me emotionally and protected a belief system they couldn't defend intellectually. That lack of response was all the evidence I needed that there was no integrity to Christian truth claims.

Due to the utter dependence on church, God, and the Bible, leaving these things behind and trying to live without them left me in vertigo. I was a wreck in every area of my life and had a hard time making even the most basic decisions. Many times between 1997 and 2003 I tried more attempts at returning to God only to be met with the same lack of substance. I learned much about liberal Christianity and Unitarianism at the time. I tried to keep some definition of some God alive to avoid pure nihilism and naturalism. In 1999, I had what seemed to be a very supernatural encounter with God and gave my life back to him, but soon after realized the encounter was not from God.

In 2003 I had yet another dialogue begin in my head which I believed was the voice of God reasoning with me to believe he existed without having to be intellectually dishonest. In other words, I didn't have to be a fundamentalist or evangelical, but a person who was led by the voice of God. This began a new wave of Christian involvement for me. I took another crack at apologetics and spent a lot of time listening to Ravi Zacharias, R.C. Sproul, and other apologists as well as reading all I could on hearing God's voice and being led by him. These many books mirrored my experience and I was certain with their endorsement that I was in fact being led by God.

Almost immediately I had an influx of visions, prophecies, impressions, tuggings, and opportunities that all seemed right on. I became involved with a Christian coffeehouse where I was offered $40K a year to pastor after six months of training. I was about to move to Tampa to start a band when a week beforehand I was introduced to a woman and immediately heard God tell me to stay and partner with her in this ministry. One thing led to another and we both had supernatural confirmations that we were to be married, as did many others give prophecies about it. She wanted her unbelieving ex however. So I spent months trying to intercede for her, break curses off of her, and do all I could to get her to stop "living in sin." She rejected me, left the ministry admittedly because she was tired of hearing God tell her he placed me in her life (even going to a friend's house crying and saying, "Tell God to stop talking to me about Paul" with her hands over her ears). My health collapsed (the chronic fatigue turned to fibromyalgia and I had to get on disability in 2001), I lost my job, was about to lose my apartment, this woman left the ministry, and now I was told the coffeehouse wouldn't need a pastor. God was completely silent now. I obeyed God and was left devastated.

This was the "Dark Night of the Soul" I was told. A time in which God is silent and leaves your soul to be tormented and purged. Like Job, he lets everything fall apart. He wants you to learn to trust his voice, not your senses, situation, or intellect. I needed to learn to obey God and take insane steps of faith in obedience to God to prove myself. Then the sense of his presence would return and he could put me in ministry. Because you find no comfort in God in this time, all of your addictions surface to be dealt with. during this time in 2004, a woman auditioning as a vocalist for a musical project I was starting invited me over to listen to her demos. She seduced me by continually begging me to have sex with her. After hours of resisting, I gave in. After the sexual encounter she said, "gotcha, pastor." She then went to the ministry to brag about it to the leadership. I was the seventh guy that month she seduced. She was an ex-stripper who was there because she complained of having demons around her her entire life.

The woman who had left the ministry before had returned and spread lies about me because she was tired of people trying to convince her to marry me. When I called a meeting with her, another person, and the new "pastor" in the ministry I was silenced and screamed at so loudly that the entire building emptied out. This pastor (my cousin) believed himself to an apostle, a prophet, and wanted all authority. The founder needed him to bring in revenue and would not discipline him. As they fought, a split was inevitable with prophets on each side prophesying against each other as well as unethical financial practices and fraud, so I was walked out. In July of 2004 I moved to Arkansas, put this all behind, and was to start a band with a former member of the Christian metal band Living Sacrifice.

While in Arkansas, it was clear there would be no band. I asked God what I was in Arkansas for and he said to heal me and bring me back to this woman after the church splits. People prophesied to me that this was the case and confirmed it as well. Sure enough, the church split, the pastor left, and I received a phone call of apology asking me to come back and pastor. This woman I thought I was to marry called me and said "my eyes are really opened now, can I come visit you?" The night previous a woman praying for us in California said, "God showed me her eyes are open now and you're going to be a very happy man this winter." I heard God say to sell everything I owned, buy a ring, go back to Chicago and propose, and she would say yes. I sent this to her parents and asked them to pray about it. Her mom said, "She definitely respects you and see's herself with you, come back and date her for a few months and we'll give you a blessing at Christmas." I prayed and asked God to guard me or to speak to any prophetic person in my life if this was in any way not of him. Instead of a warning me not to do it, I heard, "I am healing you for what I am calling you to do." Within that month, every symptom of fibromyalgia wore off and I was completely healthy. With this sign, I sold all of my possessions and returned home to marry this woman. This was the absurd faith God wanted to see from me, not looking at circumstances, but trusting his promises.

When I returned to Chicago, she avoided me. As I prayed, God said, "Don't worry, she'll call you in December and you will be invited to her parents house for Christmas and be received. You will know when to buy the ring. She will help you look for an apartment. Don't worry son, I'm right here with you. But don't trust what you are about to see." Sure enough her friend called and told me she was spending time with her ex. I thanked God for warning me not to look at the circumstance, but to trust him. I said, "Lord, will you confirm this through my friend in California again?" Not an hour later she called. Her first words were, "I've been praying for you and God said not to worry, she'll call you." Amazed at God's love and guidance, I awaited her call.

She called on Christmas day to tell me she is begging God that I not be her husband and that she can "feel me praying" against her. She didn't want to see me, talk to me, or befriend me. She was not at all impressed with me sending her a Christmas gift and was clear that I wouldn't be invited over for Christmas. Despite hearing from God that her eyes are open, that she wants me, that she is no longer with her ex, that she would invite me over to her parents house and say yes to a proposal, and despite getting the "confirmations" of other prophecies, none was true. I hung up the phone numb and disillusioned. My life was ruined.

I wrote her an apology, admitted I was wrong, and told her to forget it ever happened. I went to work at a seasonal job at the Christian bookstore that day and a man walked in claiming to be a prophet after we struck up conversation. Not only that, he went to her church. He assured me I did not miss God and that she was rebelling against God purposely, but that I had a big calling to reach thousands of youth and that she was still my wife. I should mention that the most common prophecies I received were all big money, big ministry, health, and supernatural visitations coming "soon" upon my life. She met with me one last time to tell me she wasn't interested and admitted she was trying to make me hate her and trying to shut God up. I wondered if the prophet was right.

In breakdown and not able to handle my life, I tried to look at the emerging church, Christian existentialism, and mysticism, but all I felt was nihilistic despair. Everything I believed since giving my life back to God in 2003 was wrong - about God's guidance, God choosing mates, the dark night - everything. I ended up homeless and living in my car. I slept on park benches and stayed up all night in forests praying and begging God to speak, guide, or do anything but remain silent in my disillusionment. He remained silent. "I obeyed you! What happened? Speak to me! Help me understand!" Silence. I lost my family after very hurtful arguments and many times stopped myself from suicide at the last minute. On Thanksgiving of 2005 after a heated argument with my mom I called friends to say goodbye and was going to end my life that night.

One friend, a virtual stranger, rescued me with his love and his friendship by inviting me to Philadelphia, giving me his bed, and giving me love and understanding in a way that no other Christian friend did. While others were covering their own false prophecies and trying to blame me in one way or another for the state of my life to protect their beliefs, my friend believed God could be found in the act of love itself and not in any religion or subculture. His name is Aaron Weiss, the vocalist in a band called mewithoutYou found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57lFaky5HrQ

After my time in Philadelphia I went down to Florida and encountered more hardships in establishing myself. I walked into the bay wanting to drown myself in the middle of the night at the beach but couldn't do it. I looked up at the sky and knew praying would be a waste of time. I was angry to still be alive. I was invited to Arkansas to become part of a ministry there and it was at that time, in February of 2006, that I realized I no longer believed. I was still hoping for some last minute sign or surprise visit from God. One night after praying I said to myself, "You can waste your time begging God to show up, or you can get up and learn to live without him. The only other option is suicide. That night I decided to learn to live without God. Reality was not providing me God or any supernatural help in my existence. I was living, by default, just as an atheist would. Based on that realization, I called myself a provisional atheist as opposed to a philosophical atheist. Philosophically, it is possible some God exists.

After a long year of more homelessness and job opportunities falling through, I finally got my own place again in September of 2006 and dedicated the next year to recovering from and moving on from my first thirty years of life. The result was a massive autobiography detailing year by year every belief, decision, experience, and influence that led me to where I was.

Life is still not easy for me as I recover from the damage to my health and nervous system the past few years have caused, but I have never been more sober and at peace with the world as it is. My history makes perfect sense if there was no God there to begin with rather than qualifying to death all of the various reasons "things didn't work out" while continuing to believe and set myself up for more devastation. I am in no way bitter with Christianity or out to "attack" it. I have too much life to look forward to than to be sitting around angry about a false belief system. I still have many Christian friends who I discuss these matters with. I am in a wonderful relationship with a beautiful woman who has also escaped a horrible history in fundamentalism. Since then, the woman I believed God was giving me as a wife has contacted me saying she knew the whole time it was from God but was afraid of love due to past abuse. She wanted me to keep my ears open for God's voice again. I tried to talk her out of it and explain simply why none of this was true. She has since walked away from Christianity, finding our story as a last hope that maybe God was involved in her life.

I have turned my attention towards editing my autobiography for publication and writing on various issues surrounding evangelical and fundamentalist psychology, beliefs, and culture. If any of you have knowledge on finding a good editor or self-publishing company, please contact me.

For a fuller yet still condensed version of this story with many more details than I could give here, I have a series of videos on YouTube you can watch called "From Belief To Unbelief by Paul Harrison" The first one is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTl69LlU5YA

Thank you for sitting through an extraordinarily long post.

Haberdashery

What do you call Parachuting Attorneys?
Skeet.

On another discussion, I saw a reference to the article by Dr. Montgomery regarding the application of legal principles to the claimed testimony of the authors of the New Testament Books. Mr. Packham has written an ample reply. (Read them if you are aching to read a Christian apologetic that makes reference to books with titles such as Wigmore on Evidence.)

As I was re-reading this article, it struck me that applying our legal system--specifically the American legal system of admitting evidence into the proofs, in order to substantiate the plausibility of the facts within the books of the New Testament does not help their reliability.

I understand the inclination to use the same method we see on TV, with its apparent deeply probing questions, and presentation of countering facts, and clever cross-examination, all with the result of bring forth the truth of what really happened before the credits roll in an hour or so. But the reality is that the way we allow testimony in a trial is not really designed to determine truth of ancient historical facts, nor was the New Testament designed to be 21st Century testimony in a trial.

It is like using a glove for a sock. Technically you probably can, but neither your foot, nor the glove will appreciate the effort.

The Glove

We initially look at the system being used—the American Judicial system.

We recognize that there comes a point of time in which two (or more) people cannot agree as to what happened, who is at fault, and/or how to allocate justice. Society created a system by which it attempted to resolve this problem in a manner that it hopes is the most fair to all involved. Part of that is digging out the most basic question of all—what happened?

First we make the trier-of-fact (either a judge or jury) as neutral to the outcome as possible. We do not allow the jury to get a “split” of any sums it awards. We keep family members and friends from being jurors or judges in cases their loved ones are involved. We attempt to remove (as much as humanly possible) any bias or prejudice from the person who must make the ultimate decision.

We recognize that a friend will have a natural inclination to find in favor of their friend.

Who were the neutral, unbiased individuals monitoring what was placed in the books of the New Testament? At what point did a person neither committed toward Christianity, nor against it, make the decision that a portion of a book, or a story or even a sentence either should or should not be included?

I want to be clear, I am not requiring that such an event should ever have taken place in the creation of the canon. But if we are using the legal system to make this determination, we need to recognize how the system works, including the method it uses to answer the simple question—what happened? And that method involves a decision-making performed by a person uncommitted to whether the events actually occurred or not.

Without that, we are not really using the legal system as an arbiter of the facts. I was surprised to see Dr. Montgomery confuse this fact. In his article he claims the Jewish religious leaders performed the tacit act of cross-examination (more on this later.) But then he states, “Such an audience eminently satisfies Given’s description of ‘both a cross-examiner and a tribunal.’” No, it does not! The cross-examiner is NOT neutral. The cross-examiner and the neutral tribunal, in our system is never the same. (It is possible that Dr. Montgomery was referring to those converted as the “neutral” and the religious leaders as the “cross-examiner” but this is not at all clear.)

Secondly, the practice strives to use only the best evidence available. This is the area of focus of Dr. Montgomery’s article and Mr. Peckham’s response. They discuss concepts such as hearsay, and ancient documents. Very good examples of what I mean by using the best evidence.

We are concerned, due to the fallibility of human memory, when a person testifies about what another person said. “Hearsay,” extremely simply stated, is a witness testifying as to what another person said. It looks like:

Witness: Joe told me—
Counsel: Objection! Hearsay.
Court: Sustained.

If we want to hear what Joe saw, we will bring in Joe to testify. How many times have we had the conversation where we thought someone said something that they claim they never did? I am certain my wife told me she would love for me to buy a big-screen television, yet oddly she makes the claim she never said such a thing!

We are concerned that the witness, even inadvertently, may introduce their own perception and alteration into what Joe said. We know the telephone game. One person whispers a statement to another and it passes around a circle of 20. We then hear how the statement is muddled and mixed up by the end. A picture of hearsay in action.

There are exceptions to the hearsay rule. Boring, everyday statements will slip through. “Joe said, ‘Hi,’” while technically hearsay, it is silly to exclude such trivial testimony. An exception, though, that highlights our concern for the best evidence is called “the Excited Utterance.” It is a statement that a person makes relating to a startling event, while under the excitement of the event, like this:

Witness: Joe staggered into my house, holding his chest with blood spurting between his fingers and exclaimed, “John shot me!”
Counsel: Objection! Hearsay.
Court: No, the exclamation was made during an exciting event, and clearly Joe was still in an excited state. Overruled.

The concept of denying hearsay evidence is the fear of introducing an element of dishonesty. The exceptions allow for situations in which it is hardly likely dishonesty would have a chance to occur. We doubt that Joe would be shot, and take a moment to reflect, “Now, I know I was shot by Sally, but it would be great to pin this on John, so I will rush in and blame it on John.”

We have all seen people’s immediate reactions to startling events. Their first reaction is genuine. There is no time for reflection. That is where the difficulty creeps in.

What if Joe says it the next day at the hospital? Is he still under the shock of the event? What about the next week? The next year. At some point, the court says, “Wait a minute. Joe is no longer in the state of shock.” We begin to question this exception to hearsay (and this is important) when the person has had an opportunity to pause and reflect upon what they would say.

We recognize that the next day, Joe might be more inclined to pin it on Sally, rather than John. Or he may not want to pin it on anyone. That time to pause and reflect causes a greater likelihood of dishonesty to occur. Therefore, we no longer want to hear what a witness says Joe said, we want Joe himself.

Think about the time to pause and reflect (and modify) between the events claimed, and the time it was written down concerning the books of the New Testament! In the article, this time is not even mentioned, but within a trial, it is extremely significant.

Mark: So Peter told me that Jesus said—
Counsel: Objection! Hearsay.
Court: How close to the time of the event did Peter tell you about it?
Mark: Oh, about 10 years.
Court: Sustained.

Worse we have hearsay within hearsay:

Mark: Jesus was baptized—
Counsel: Objection! Where did you learn that information?
Mark: Peter.
Counsel: Was Peter present?
Mark: Oh, no! Peter must have heard it from someone else.
Counsel: It is hearsay for Mark to say what Peter said, and even if it was not, it is hearsay for Peter to say what some unknown person said.
Court: Sustained.

Simply put—we want to hear it from the horse’s mouth. We don’t want testimony of what the witness hears someone else say happened. We want the actual eyewitness.

Bringing us to the Gospel accounts. We immediately see that, even if Christian conservative theological scholars are correct that the Gospel of Mark was information provided by Peter; using American rules of evidence, it is entirely hearsay and must be excluded. (Again, I am not making the argument we should use such rules to determine historicity—it is the Christian legal apologist that claims legal reasoning results in a verdict for the Christian faith.)

The Gospel of Luke must also be deemed inadmissible, as it is hearsay. (Luke 1:2). (Curiously, Dr. Montgomery dismisses Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger as being “secondary at best” yet does not explain why the Gospel of Luke is exempted from such treatment under the same strict application of the law.)

While traditionally, it is claimed that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness (the disciple) the book itself makes no such claim. In fact, the only statements would indicate that it was hearsay. (John 19:35; John 21:24)

The Gospel of Matthew likewise makes no claim to be an eyewitness, and Dr. Montgomery fails to even mention the fact that the author relies upon the Gospel of Mark in telling the story. That is hearsay (Matthew saying what Mark said) of hearsay (Mark saying what Peter said) of hearsay (Peter hearing of events such as the Baptism)!

Even if we make the leap, and assume the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, events are recorded that would necessarily come through hearsay evidence. Neither Matthew nor Luke was at the scene with the Magi or the Shepherds. John could not observe Pilate speaking privately to Jesus.

We start to see that using the legal system as our barometer does not help the Christian claim.

We sequester witnesses. This means only one witness can testify at a time and the other witnesses cannot hear what is being said. We want people to testify as to exactly what they remember they saw and not be influenced by other testimony.

Imagine Witness No. 2 who is fairly certain that the blue car went through a yellow light. But as he is sitting in a courtroom, Witness No. 1 states with resounding conviction, “That blue car went through a Red Light. A Red light, I tell you!”

Now Witness 2 begins to question their own memory. Did that light turn red, perhaps? Witness 1 seemed so certain. And it seems as if testifying differently is sorta calling Witness 1 a liar. So instead of Witness 2 testifying, “The blue car went through the yellow light,” they are far more likely to quantify their testimony, “As far as I recall the blue light went through the light as it was yellow, turning red. But it is possible it was already red before it went through.”

No longer are we getting the best eyewitness evidence. Even the witness, being as honest as possible, is starting to filter their own testimony.

Neither article addresses the problem of Witnesses 2 and 3 (Matthew and Luke) clearly being aware of Witness 1 (Mark). Did Matthew believe that the temple cleansing happened at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry, but since Mark put it at the end, Matthew did as well? And what about Matthew and Luke modifying what Mark had to say? Are they correcting the other witness’ testimony?

We lose the independent testimony that the judicial system holds in high esteem.

A brief side note on “ancient documents.” At times, on Internet debates, I have seen the statement, “The Bible is accepted as evidence in a court of Law!” That is most likely true. (Although how a fact within the Bible could be relevant to a court case escapes me.)

When talking on this issue, we have to be careful to differentiate between “admitted as evidence” and “accepted as true.” The defendant could testify that they were abducted by aliens on the night of the crime, and therefore could not possibly be guilty. That testimony would be admitted. Simply because the rules of evidence allow it in, does not make aliens a reality!

The rules of evidence provide direction as to what can or cannot be provided to the trier-of-fact. They neither endorse, nor renounce that evidence. As the Bible is more than 20 years old, and of common knowledge, most courts would allow it in evidence if it was relevant in some way.

See, trials are designed to determine what happened in the immediate past. An accused is entitled to a speedy trial, to prevent evidence from deteriorating, or becoming lost. The reason that we allow documents more than 20 years old, is that they would have little bearing on events that occurred last year. We are focused on the immediate past, not ancient history.

In the same way, if relevant, we would allow the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, and the Communist Manifesto. When viewed in that light, is it all that remarkable that some court would mark “Exhibit One” on a Bible?

The third aspect of our glove—the American Judicial system—is that it is adversarial. It is designed and intended to bring out the truth by placing people on polar opposites, and have them argue for their position, and against their opponent.

We expect and pattern the system expecting that a witness will be cross-examined by a skeptic, that evidence will be presented against the other person’s position, that the litigants will provide argument directly contrary to the other’s position in order for the neutral to decide which is more plausible.

Where was the cross-examination of the authors of the New Testament?

Dr. Montgomery appears to recognize the fatal flaw in the application of the judicial system, by the lack of such a cross-examination, acknowledging that they were never literally placed in a witness chair. To avoid this, he asserts there was the “functional equivalent” of cross-examination by virtue of the Jewish religious leaders that would have confronted the Disciples.

Of course the one thing we do not have is a single scrap, or independent verification of any such “cross-examination.” Josephus lists the various sects among the Jews, and seems to be completely unaware of this group known as “Christians.” Pliny the Younger has to torture them to even discover who they are, and what they believe. Tacitus makes a passing mention of them as being scapegoats, but no statements as to the validity of their claims.

Where is this cross-examination? We would need to answer some very key questions, which frankly we have no information on:

1) When, in relation to the events, was the testimony stated?
2) To Whom?
3) Where?
4) Was a person contrary to the position present?
5) Did this person have means, opportunity and motive to respond?

Dr. Montgomery relies upon the Book of Acts to claim that it was within 2 months that the testimony was provided, and then to people who had the opportunity to respond. However, Acts was written long after these events happened. What we really need is a person who was aware as to whether the events of Acts happened at the time the Book was written.

If I write of events that happened in World War II, we need someone both aware of my book AND aware as to the reality of these events. One is not enough.

Where are these “functional equivalent” cross-examiners when Christianity was being spread through Corinth and Ephesus and Rome? Every time a missionary told of Jesus rising from the grave, was there a nearby Jewish leader who was aware of the events in Judea in order to “functionally” cross-examine the missionary?

The forest that is missed for the trees, in this allegation of “functional equivalent” of cross-examination is that trials are closed environments! We carefully limit the evidence provided to the tribunal by giving each side a full opportunity to examine each witness, but that is it. It is not a public forum or a free-for-all or a bar room discussion!

If Paul stood up and eloquently spoke out, stirring the emotions of a crowd, utilizing careful rhetoric, timing, humor and persuasive speech—the crowd is not sitting back saying, “Well, O.K. But let’s hear what he says when the Jewish leaders perform the ‘equivalent’ of cross-examination.”

Which brings us to…

The Foot

Is what the disciples and apostles were claimed to be doing both in spreading the Gospel, and writing the books the same as testimony?

We go to a party, and a friend begins to tell of a fish he caught. While we may suspect it was not quite that big, do we subject them to intensive cross-examination? Of course not! We recognize it for what it is—a fish story.

Or a person making a business presentation. Your child tells you of their day in school. Your teenage daughter tells you that she was out late with her boyfriend because of a flat tire. (O.K. That last one you might want to cross-examine!) Every day we have situations in which people communicate in a fashion that is not designed, nor intended to be testimony in a court.

Assuming the disciples were proclaiming events that happened in the recent past; it is placed in the form of persuasive speech—not testimony of disinterested answers about what one sees. When one agues persuasively, certain facts can be overlooked, inflections and emphasis made on specific events. It is far different than merely recalling facts.

What facts did they use? Jesus stated that those specific people would not receive a sign. (Mark 8:12) Or at best, just the sign of Jonah. (Mt. 12:39; Luke 11:29) Did the apostles refer to Jesus’ miracles? According to a book written many decades after the event, they did! (Acts 2:22) Which is it—was Jesus wrong and signs were received by the people or was the author of Acts wrong and signs were not received by the people? Careful cross-examination would be necessary.

Paul’s letters are replete with discourse over doctrinal issues. While mention is made of a few factual events, most is addressed to concerns regarding spiritual principles. If factual issues, such as the events of Jesus’ miracles, and the statements made by Jesus had already been testified and “cross-examined,” why wouldn’t Paul utilize them in his arguments?

It is as if Paul’s letters are the closing arguments, in which he never uses the testimony of the trial!

Further, assume that these disciples (or their close associates) wrote down the Gospels many years later. Were these intended to be the equivalent of testimony?

We can only speculate the intended audience of the Gospels. Were they documents designed to tell the story to non-believers and explain this phenomena surrounding the person of Jesus? Were they tales written to Christian communities to solidify the oral traditions?

I do not propose within this blog entry to even brush the alternatives that scholars have proposed regarding the writers, intentions or the audiences. However, within each of those possibilities, the type and depth of the quality of “testimony” of the Gospel changes.

For a most simple example—if the Gospels were written to non-believers, the writers would refer to common events in order to “place” or put markers within the story. In essence, give it a time and geography by which the non-believer would be familiar with the setting. However, if the Gospels were written to believers, they may not be as inclined to utilize such markers, as the believers were already convinced of the reality of Jesus. The believer would be far more concerned with what Jesus said and did, than where and when.

A different emphasis would appear, depending on the intended audience. (As we have both items within the Gospels, this is a matter of some dispute.)

Were the authors intending to write a defense of the reality of Jesus, or was the reality presumed? That would reflect different testimony.

Further, as pointed out, the gospels were written decades after the event. The authors may have forgotten, modified, been influenced by other oral traditions, obtained bad information through different witnesses, etc. How much was unintentional? How much was deliberate?

Frankly, to treat the Gospels as testimony is to treat them as static documents, complied at one time, and not provide the depth and interaction that we can now see. They are not simple, “This happened at noon. This happened at one. This happened at two.” There is a great more to them than that.

The Fit

Even with all that, if we apply the Legal system to the testimony of the disciples (with or without “functional equivalent” of cross-examination) it still fails!

We attempt to convince either a singular person (judge), a majority (civil) or a unanimous (criminal) tribunal. Christianity was present to the public at large, and not a singular tribunal.

From the very onset to today, Christianity has failed to convince a majority! It has offered its testimony. It has presented its case. And it has failed to convince its tribunal that the events of the First Century accorded as recorded in the Gospels. Why, in light of that simple fact, would one want to subject the disciple’s claims to our current legal system?

They did not convince a majority of Jews. They did not convince a majority of gentiles. Even taking the unverified claims of the book of Acts, Christianity for all its testimony was only convincing a few.

Now, one can justify that with the allegation that Christianity itself proclaims that only a few would believe. (Matt. 22:14) Find and good--then why use a methodology that requires a majority?

In conclusion, it appeared to me that the claims of the events of the First Century are mistreated in the attempts to use modern legal rules of Evidence in order to substantiate their existence. Honestly, it seems like a standard apologetic in which the claimant attempts to bolster the factual claims by making it look as if such claims were offered in a court today, they would preponderate.

They would not. It is not their fault—neither the system nor the claims themselves were intended to.

I'm less than convinced

My line of work affords me the opportunity to convince a variety of people to do various actions. I am acutely aware of motivating factors, and how they impact situations. We realize that we must interact with these motivations, because ignoring them will only bring doom.

It is fascinating to me, communicating with so many different people on so many different levels, as to what one person finds extremely significant, another finds completely irrelevant.

As deconversion stories abound, we see people, due to the variety available in humanity, question their long-held belief for various reasons. This should not surprise us, given the make-up of humanity.

I find it even more intriguing how others will criticize the deconvert for doing it “incorrectly.” As if there is only one proper way in which one can deconvert!

So what is that proper way? What steps must I follow to deconvert? Why is it that the way in which you are convinced; I must be convinced?

This is a deviation from my normal blog entry. No Bible verses. Only little cry for methodology. No hermeneutics. Never fear—I will be back in full form and function.

As I said, I am actively involved in convincing other people.

I convince clients. Perhaps they want to pursue a course of action that is not beneficial to their case. Perhaps they do not fully understand the implication or costs involved in a certain action. Perhaps they believe the practice of law is similar to what is on TV.

And in our discussion, we talk about motives. One of the first questions asked in a new divorce matter is whether there is a new love interest on the part of a spouse. Such a factor will have a huge motivating force. (Those with love interests tend to want to resolve the divorce quickly, even to the point of financial detriment.) Mothers tend to be motivated by maternal instincts; Fathers by finance. The most common tactic in the book is the man fighting for custody to scare the mother, and the female fighting for higher child support to scare the father.

I have seen clients motivated by greed, jealousy, revenge, money, principle, fear, anger, business direction, spouses, friends, parents, children and just about every facet in-between. And each must be deal with at their motivating factor. If a person is motivated by principle, there is no sense convincing them of the unnecessary cost of a matter.

I convince judges. Here’s a great feeling—going into court prepared to the hilt to argue a legal issue. And hear the Judge say, “I don’t find that very important. What I would like to see is some argument on this other legal issue.” One that frankly my position is not nearly as strong. What can I do? Argue with the judge as to what is more important? Or convince him that I will prevail on both the weaker issue, and then attempt to persuade him that the legal issue I originally wanted to argue is clearly the crux of the matter.

And each judge is different. Some follow the letter of the law, some the spirit. Some want the case to go away, regardless of how it is done. Some favor oral argument, some despise it. As we practice, we learn what the judge desires, and what persuades him or her.

I convince jurors. At times, the most difficult of all. We are presented with a mixed cross-section of the community, and are given only a morning to question them. Within that morning, we attempt to learn what they will find important, and what they will ignore. Then, with that little information, we spend the next few days using that data in the hopes to gain or prevent millions of dollars, or decades in prison.

Talking to jurors after a trial is always enlightening. Very often they will say, “You spent way too much time on this point” or “We were surprised you did not talk about this point.”

We think to ourselves, “I have been a trial lawyer for 15 years. My opponent has as well. We have each done 100’s of trials. The Judge has seen 100’s more. Clearly we thought these points were important, or those were not based upon our experience. Had we anticipated the jury would think completely differently, obviously we would have focused our attention otherwise.”

See, at that moment, with those few people, what all our experience(s) informed us was meaningless. To them certain items were persuasive and others were irrelevant. Because each jury has a different make-up; a different motivation.

If each of us look in our lives, we use different methods, different words to persuade different people—based upon our relationship, or their personality, or what they are interested in at that moment.

Why should deconversion be any different?

I read deconversion stories. I read them as a Christian (upon learning such a thing existed!) wondering what would make a person want to stop believing in something as obvious as a God. I read them while deconverting, to attempt to understand what I was going through, what to expect and what to avoid. I read them now because I find the story of the human race continues to enthrall me.

One concept that sticks out, almost universally, is the desire to investigate alternative forms of information. Either we were always reading Christian books, and discovered scholars in fields other than our particular form of Christianity, or creationists discovering scientific fields or historians reading secular history. Does this always lead to deconversion? Of course not! But I cannot think of a single deconvert that does not mention graduated levels of study of a broader spectrum during the process.

But what led a person to investigate originally? Perhaps for some, it was an incident or a tragedy that made them begin to question how God works. Or, for others, a personal struggle that brought them to the point of looking for answers. Perhaps a purely academic endeavor or an interest in debating the topic.

In every other aspect of our lives, humanity’s motivations are too varied to contain in a limited number of boxes—so, too, with deconversion.

Which brings me to the odd question: What makes a deconversion legitimate? Is a deconvert more justified in her action because she decided to engage in a study of the origin of Christianity, as compared to a homosexual that decided to investigate why God made him that way? Or is a scientist that discovers the viability of evolution a more suitable deconvert than a questioning parent who loses a child to disease?

There are two items that strike me as particularly humorous in this regard. First, for a religion that prides itself on faith, it certainly has a fascination and worshipful awe for intellectualism. “Thinking” one’s way out of Christianity is demanded, but “believing” one’s way into it is required. Second, since all deconverts have an equal degree of heathenicity, does it really matter by what method we started or traveled this path? “You were never saved in the first place” is equally tattooed to the homosexual deconvert, the scholarly deconvert, the scientific deconvert, or the {fill in the blank} convert.

So…you tell me. What is the “proper” way in which one becomes a deconvert?

What is disappointing about this discussion is how small the Christian God becomes. Even as humans we figured out that people are different. That their needs, wants and desires are different. Consequently, and certainly not surprisingly, what persuades them is different. To some, a series of books that is complied over the course of few centuries which contain amazing stories is enough. For others, in observing the world about them, they need more.

We are often told “Who are you to ask ‘Why?’ of God?” (“Often.” Heh heh. There’s an understatement!) Who am I? I am a person with different motives than you. I am a person that cannot sleep with “ultimate purpose” as a response to the Problem of Evil. I am a person that is not convinced a series of books with possible, not plausible, resolutions to contradictions qualifies as spectacular. I, like numerous other humans, am looking for more evidence that convinces me.

You, as a human, can figure it out. If you were selling me a car, or trying to date me, or persuade me to not see a Movie, you would understand that you must first learn what motives me. What persuades me. What is convincing to me. And your God cannot figure that out?

So many times we are told, “THIS is what God claims must convince you. THIS is what is persuasive.” And yet it turns out the “THIS” is exactly what persuades the person making the claim. Can’t God do better? Can’t God actually persuade someone else with evidence that convinces them and does NOT convince you?

Because we see that happen in life all the time.

If my deconversion does not meet your standard, if it was deficient and ineffective in some way, please; I ask you. Provide me with the “proper” way in which one can be a legitimate deconvert.

Debunking Christianity - Women Speak Out!

Because blogs like"Debunking Christianity" are thick with male participants, some might wonder what women have written about the topic, especially women who once were conservative Christians. Below is an assortment of books, memoirs and autobiographies by women who have debunked Christianity, particularly conservative Christianity (both Protestant and Catholic). (I would also like to express my gratitude toward one female debunker in particular, Sharon Mooney--former member of the fundamentalistic inerrantist "Worldwide Church of God" sect, who left it for deism, and produced this website that features a variety of freethought articles.)

Below is a table of contents listing 21 former conservative Christian women along with their works that debunk conservative Christianity and/or their conservative Christian experience. After the initial list a longer section follows that features weblinks and additional data on each individual, as well as some MISCELLANEOUS information related to women and Christianity.

Read more »

Green vs Engwer: Defending Visions

Green Answers Engwer: The Argument over Visions

On this blog, I have put forth an essay series on the visionary origins of Christianity. I have decided to make it a five-part series, beginning with an essay on visions and four subsequent posts defending objections to my visions. Jason Engwer of Triablouge has seen fit to compose a rebuttal of what I have written on the subject of visions. In what follows will be a point-by-point rebuttal to what Mr. Engwer has written.

Read more »

Answering Objections to Visions: Part Four

Defending Visions: Part Four

This will probably be my final post on the subject of visions in this series. I want to concentrate on answering one final objection to the kind of visionary hypotheses of Christian origins that I happen to advocate. This argument concerns the disciples' expectations of Jesus. I wish to address the argument of an online Christian apologist, Robert Turkel, who uses the writing name "James Patrick Holding". But before I proceed to answer his argument, I want to make some preliminary comments. First of all, I have been wrestling with hesitancy in writing this post. It's not due to a lack of confidence in my reply to Mr. Holding's argument. Rather, it's because I am opening a can of worms or so I fear. The fact of the matter is that I am taking quite a risk in replying to Mr. Holding's argument. For some reason I have never been able to fully understand, I believe that Mr. Holding has an obession with always having the last word in a debate or exchange with someone. Just as bad is what I consider to be Mr. Holding's overconfidence. It's not enough to simply think that he may have done a good job in answering an argument; rather, I have seen him brag about destroying an argument. Likewise, it's not enough that Mr. Holding simply think that he has answered someone; rather, I have seen him act as though he gave someone a good intellectual flogging. It's this egotism of his that makes me wince.

I try a different approach. I try and let readers decide for themselves whether I have answered my critics or I have successfully argued a point. Sometimes I might come across as more confident than my argument warrants. For this apologize to readers. I want to be able to articulate my arguments and let readers decide for themselves if I have met my stated burdens. Having said this, I will adopt this tone for these posts. I simply leave it to readers to evaluate my arguments and see if they hold water. The exception I am willing to make is if I feel that a rude, cocky, and all-around obnoxious spin-doctor needs a douse of humility or perhaps a dose of his/her own medicine then I will drop the niceties and turn quite confrontational myself. So I write this essay in response to Mr. Holding and I will leave it to readers to judge whether I am successful or not; I simply trust the intelligence of readers. I doubt that Mr. Holding's readers will read this open-mindedly or in its entirety to see if I, perhaps, have a good argument. I suspect that many of Mr. Holding's readers have gotten to the point where they see him as a faultless guru who simply cannot be wrong and will only read what he has quoted in terms of rebutting my arguments without having to see anything written by me. As much as I regret this, I have come to accept that many Christians only want their doubts quenched and will only read rebuttals to atheists and skeptics like myself, only, ever, with the intention of seeing us refuted, stomped on, intellectually flogged (and perhaps even bullied into salvation, hopefully).

I will state my argument here and perhaps only write one rebuttal to what Mr. Holding has written if he responds to me (I have no doubt that he will and I predict it as utterly inevitable that he will. I don't believe he can pass up an offer to respond to what he admitted is a rising star in biblical academia). I really lack any desire to drag out any exchange with him ad infinitum but I am not always sure where to draw the line. Where do I simply stop, having said my piece, and then move on? I don't want to get into a prolonged exchange with him because I dread that it will only charge his ego. I believe Mr. Holding's is overconfident as it is and I regret the thought of having contributed to that and I fear that a prolonged exchange like this will likewise bolster his ego. This is the last thing I want to do! Having aired these concerns, here into the murky waters we go....

1.) Holding's Argument Against "Visions" and "Hallucinations"

Mr. Holding's chief argument against the hypothesis of visionary origins was stated in response to atheist philosopher Keith Parsons. Readers will recall that Parsons contributed a chapter to the skeptical anthology The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave, writing a rebuttal to the arguments against theories of hallucinations by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. I have to state here that I do not agree with Parson's rebuttal actually. I believe that Parson is not familiar with the relevant social-science literature on visionary experiences involving A.S.C. and I don't particularly think that his rebuttal arguments for Kreeft and Tacelli are particularly effective (this may well make a good post one of these days on here!) Holding states his main thesis as follows:

"Here is why I regard the hallucination theory as completely untenable: As noted in the link above, "expectation plays the coordinating role in collective hallucinations". The critical problem here is that the disciples were not expecting a resurrection; any hallucination of Jesus would be interpreted as, if anything, his "guardian angel" (an exact twin), but not as a ghost of Jesus himself, nor especially as Jesus resurrected."

In this statement, Holding linked to a response he wrote to Bible skeptic Farrell Till of The Skeptical Review. Holding's argument is that the disciples would not have been expecting a resurrection, at least not as defined by Jews at the time of Jesus. The core of Holding's argument is that the Greek word "anastasis" when employed in reference to the resurrection referred to what conservative theologian N.T. Wright termed a "tranphysical" body. This is a glorified, immortal, imperishable, body of flesh that rose from the dead. Holding argues that no Jew would have been expecting anyone resurrected in this kind of body and, hence, it would've taken an actual transphysical body to convince the original disciples of Jesus that this is precisely what Jesus had.

Naturally, I am skeptical of this argument. The chief basis for my skepticism has to do with the very Greek word "anastasis" itself. I am not an expert in biblical Greek and the last thing I want to do is leave any readers with the impression that I am so I will offer what I consider to be a potential argument against Holding's argument here. I honestly don't know if my argument will succeed-that remains to be seen. At the very least though, if my argument has any substance at all, what I do want readers to do, especially if they're convinced that Holding is really onto something here, is to pause and think. At the very least, I hope that my argument here, if it doesn't answer Holding's argument in its entirety, can at least take the wind out of Holding's sails. In other words, I hope that my argument can at least have the effect of cancelling out the effectiveness of Holding's argument. Perhaps we can reach a stalemate and conclude that the expert opinion of a Greek scholar is needed to settle the question once and for all.

2.) "Anastasis" and the Resurrection

Holding argues that the Greek word "anastasis" specifically refers to the resurrection, that is a risen body of immortal, imperishable, glorified flesh! Holding writes: "The only word that is term-specific to resurrection is the noun form of anistemi -- and that is anastasis." If this is the case, then whenever, "anastasis" refers to the resurrection, any other raising of the dead, if by "raising of the dead" one means a resuscitation, like that of Lazarus, then it must be described by some noun other than "anastasis". Let's look at some examples here:

"Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,
6 but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 As you go, proclaim the good news, 'The kingdom of heaven has come near.'
8 Cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. You received without payment; give without payment...."

The Greek word here is a verb form of "egeiro". It is spoken in in terms of raising people from the dead. Holding might argue that because a verb form of the Greek word "anastasis" was not employed, it couldn't have been referring to the resurrection, that is the raising of a glorified, immortal, imperishable, body of flesh. The phrase "raise the dead" pairs the Greek words "egeiro" and "nekros" not "anastasis" and "nekros", so it couldn't have been referring to the resurrection but rather a resuscitation.

In Matthew 11:5, these same words are used in referring the the "raising of the dead" in Matthew 10:5. It would seem that they folks have been resuscitated and the verb form of the Greek word "egeiro" is used here. In Matthew 14:2, these word pairs are used again, to describe Herod's belief that John the Baptist had risen from the dead. He mistakenly thought that Jesus was John the Baptist. Likewise, in Mark 6:16. However, in some passages, when Jesus speaks of his own "rising from the dead"- the Greek word used is "anastasis" and it's verb forms are employed. Consider Jesus' prediction in Matthew 20: 19. Here Jesus says "They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!" Here the Greek word is "anistemi".In Matthew 17: 9, Jesus tells his disciples "Don't tell anyone what you have seen until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." Here the Greek words "anistemi" and "nekros" are used in conjunction with each other.

So, it would appear here, then, that there are two Greek verbs in use here "anistemi" and the verb form of "egeiro" used in conjunction with "nekros". I have to be careful to point out that I am not an expert in Greek but I am willing to make a prediction that I believe that my studies of Greek will bear out. Here goes: "Anistemi" is a verb form of "anastasis", correct? If "anastasis" as a noun, specifically means "resurrection" in the sense of a glorified, immortal, imperishable, body of risen flesh, then I am predicting that whenever the Greek verb form "anistemi" is used in conjunction with "nekros" it can only refer to whatever "anastasis" refers to as a noun. If "anastasis" refers to a resurrection in the sense of a glorified, immortal, imperishable body of risen flesh, then whenever "anistemi" is used as a verb in referring to people being raised from the dead, it can only refer to the actual act, of raising someone from the dead in this kind of body. "Anistemi" when used in any other sense can refer to any "rising" or any sort, whether from sleep, from a chair, or the sun, but whenever it's used in conjunction with "nekros", Christians would have to argue, then, that it can only refer to the action (denoted by the verb) of raising someone in the sense that "anastasis" demands.

Likwise, whenever "egeiro" is used, it can be "to raise" in any sense, but whenever its verb form is used in conjunction with "nekros" it, logically, can only refer to people raised from the dead as in a resuscitation, never a resurrection, never a transphysical body. I believe that this is the logical outcome of Holding's argument here! Now, here is my prediction. My prediction is that the Greek verb form for "egeiro" will never be used to describe the rising of Jesus, whether by itself, or in conjunction with "nekros". If Jesus was risen in a body of glorified, immortal, imperishable flesh, then the only word that will ever be used of Jesus to describe his risen, glorified body, is "anistemi". How might my prediction bear out? I believe that if I am right about this, then these following examples should bear out my prediction:

Jesus predicts his future suffering, his death, his resurrection, and his future meeting with the disciples in Galilee in Mark 14: 28 "But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee". Here the Greek verb employed is a form of"egeiro" not "anistemi"! In luke 9:22, Jesus predicts of himself: "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life!". Once again, the Greek verb here is of "egeiro" not "anistemi"! Again, the author of John's gospel, apparently writing in retrospect regarding the words of Jesus, had this to say about Jesus' resurrection: "John 2:22 When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said to them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said."

Here the Greek word is "egerthe", not "anistemi"and worse of all, it's paired with "nekros!" If Jesus had a risen, glorified, immortal body of flesh, why isn't the Greek word "anistemi" used in conjunction with "nekros"? This would better fit the meaning carried by the noun-form of the word "anastasis". It gets much worse. Perhaps St. Paul is the most damning of all. He constantly uses the Greek verb form of "egeiro" in conjunction with "nekros". Here are some examples I have seen used before.

"Romans 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." So, the Greek verb "egeiro" is used in conjunction with "nekros". Why not "anistemi" since this would convey whatever meaning "anastasis" had? Likewise, verse 9 also has the same thing: "egeiro" paired with "nekros" in reference to Christ's resurrection. In 1st Corinthians 15, we find this very strange reference to Jesus rising from the dead:

"But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection from the dead?"

This should be enough to make one's head spin! Paul is using the Greek word "egeiro" in conjunction with "nekros" and not "anistemi". Why though? Why use the same Greek verb used of people resuscitated like those resusciated by the disciples in the above verses? Why does Jesus use "anistemi" sometimes and yet the verb form of "egeiro" at other times? It would appear that Jesus in one case is saying that he will "rise" in the same way as those whom he had his disciples raise from the dead and these same people, whom Jesus had used as examples to John the Baptist, in efforts to answer his doubts about the Messiahship of Jesus. But why would Paul ever use "egeiro" to speak of Jesus being raise from the dead when "anistemi" would've accurately carried the meaning of "anastasis".

If Holding's argument is that "anastasis" can only refer to the raising of a transphysical body of flesh from the dead, then "the resurrection of Christ" which uses the word "anastasis" as a noun, should mean the same thing as "Jesus raised from the dead" in which "anistemi" would be the verb form used in conjunction with "nekros" to mean dead. "Egeiro" should never be used in conjunction with "nekros" to describe Jesus rising from the dead.

As for Holding's argument that no Jew would've been expecting any individual to rise from the dead before the general resurrection, I have to say that I cannot agree with that. In luke 9:18-19, we read the following:

"Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were were him, he asked them, 'Who do the crowds say that I am?' They replied 'Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life'". The Greek word used here in verse 19 is "anistemi". Now, if it was believed that no one would rise from the dead prior to the general resurrection, why is it that some believed that one of the prophets came back to life and that this "raising" was described by the Greek word "anistemi"? How could anyone get the impression that one of the prophets had come back to life before the general resurrection? If they believed that one of the prophets from long ago was resuscitated, why? Why would God resuscitate a prophet temporarily, only to have that prophet die and then raise him up, transphysically, at the general resurrection from the dead? Finally, if people could become convinced that a prophet from long ago had risen from the dead before the general resurrection, without any one of those prophets from old actually rising from the dead to convince them, how hard would it be to convince the disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead, without requiring that Jesus actually rose from the dead? The disciples of Jesus strike me as being no more literate or educated as many people who believed that Jesus was a risen prophet from old, so if they could become convinced that one of the prophets had risen from the dead before the general resurrection, I don't imagine that it was very difficult at all for Jesus' disciples to believe that he could be risen from the dead prior to any general resurrection.

Here is a question for Christians. If the same words for Jesus' resurrection is used of the "raising-from-the-dead" of all of these people, then whatever Jesus meant by it in reference to his own alleged resurrection would probably have to be the same as what it meant for other people who rose from the dead. If Christians accept the authenticity of these passages and that the disciples really did do these "resuscitations" (Christians do not think of these as genuine resurrections because the body in which they were raised were not glorified, immortal, imperishable, and incorruptible), then wouldn't there be at least a historical precedent in terms of expectation? For Pete's sake, it was the actual disciples bringing these people "back to life"! If the Greek words are the same in referring both to the activity of the disciples and the resurrection prediction of Jesus, then, by all means the disciples should have been expecting Jesus to have been raised from the dead! If the disciples were merely performing resuscitations, at the very least, they should have been expecting Jesus to have been resuscitated. If not, why not?

3.) The disciples would've been expecting an angel and not Jesus.

Except for a passage in Acts that was once cited to me as evidence, I am not all that sure that this would've been the case with Jesus' disciples. Consider the resuscitations that the disciples are believed by Christians to have performed. I ask Christians this: why did no one think that these people who had come back to life (mentioned in the above verses as being raised by the disciples as proof for John the Baptist) were still dead and that they were seeing angels of these dead people instead? In other words, why weren't people expecting the angels of the deceased rather than conclude that the deceased had been raised to life? Consider the confession of Peter to Jesus that he was the Christ and Son of God. Jesus asked who the crowds thought that he was. One of the answers is that people believe that Jesus was actually one of the prophets of old that came back to life. Why didn't the crowds, instead, believe that Jesus was simply the angel of one of the prophets who had died long ago? (I am quite sure that the crowds thougt that one of the Hebrew prophets such as Isaiah or Jeremiah had come back to life and that the crowds were Jewish)

Also, consider the fact that when Herod had John the Baptist beheaded, he concluded that Jesus was John the Baptist who had risen from the dead and that's the reason these miraculous powers were at work in him! Why didn't Herod conclude that Jesus was simply an angel of John the Baptist? Consider the dead raised in the great earthquake following the crucifixion of Jesus. According to Matthew, after Jesus died, there was an earthquake, the tombs were broken open and the dead were raised. Matthew's gospel doesn't add anything in the way of people thinking that they had seen the angels of those who had died, so even Mr. Holding cannot say with complete certainty that this was an expectation of all Jewish people.

4.) The disciples would've been expecting Jesus to directly ascend into heaven.

I have read Mr. Holding argue this in his response to Farrell Till. If I am to accept that Jesus really was buried by Joseph of Arimathea and that this tomb was subsequently found empty, I would probably have to accept that this was, in fact, the original belief of the disciples of Jesus. I would probably have to conclude that the appearances stories came later, perhaps as a anti-Docetic apologetic or an apologetic against would-be critics who might've alleged that the disciples were hallucinating the whole thing. At any rate, I really do not accept the resurrection stories as original but later creations of the evangelists who wrote the gospels. As I have written elsewhere on the subject, I believe that any distinction between visions on one hand and appearances on the other hand would've evolved later as an apologetic by the early Church, against possibly Gnostics such as the Docetics, or even against critics who might've alleged that the disciples were hallucinating or that the visions were self-induced. I believe, then, that the earliest disciples would've believed that Jesus had directly ascended into heaven and only after the distinction between visions and appearances was concieved of by the early Church, would the need to place such a distinction in its historical context arise, thereby creating a gap between the empty tomb and the ascension for apologetic purposes.

In conclusion, I have to say that I really do not buy into Holding's argument. I am not saying that I believe I have actually refuted Holding's argument; only that I might have a potentially powerful rebuttal. I believe that my future studies of New Testament criticism and biblical Greek will bear this suspicion of mine out. But if I do have an argument here, it's my sincere hope that Mr. Holding will not put too much emphasis on his own argument and will offer it as a potential argument. Mr. Holding is not an expert in Greek and I am glad that he acknowledges that he isn't (although from the way that he constantly makes usage of Greek words without referencing his sources, or qualifying his understanding of Greek, you'd never know that he didn't think of himself as an expert in Greek or someone who has mastered it). I am not at all an expert in Greek and I don't pretend to be and I usually go out of my way to qualify my understanding of Greek in my writings, although sometimes I might fall short of it and give a mistaken impression that I know for more than I do. I am sorry if anyone has gotten this impression because, frankly, it was never intended.

Matthew

Answering Objections to Visions: Part Three

Answering Objections-Part Three

In my previous essays, I did my best to answer the objections raised to the hypothesis of visions that I advocate for Christian origins. My previous essays, however, do not exhausively answer all the objections that are usually raised and so more essays are needed. In this essay, I will address an objection raised by William Lane Craig, in his book Assessing the New Testament Evidence for Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus.

This objection is that the New Testament differentiates between visions on one hand and appearances on the other hand. Any hypothesis or theory of visions (which I argue for) or hallucinations (which I do not argue for), or what-have-you, doesn't explicate this difference and so any visionary hypothesis cannot in principle account for appearances because they do not fit the nature of a vision. In fact, Bill Craig, goes as far as to say that he believes that this is a fatal flaw to the vision hypothesis, like the one that I advocate. More than this, he explicitly challenges skeptics to explain the difference. While I willingly accept such a challenge, I hope that such a challenge is not stated with the intention of forcing a conversion among skeptics. I regret that Bill Craig is wasting his breath if he thinks a skeptic like me would gladly and cheerfully convert if I could not meet such a challenge. I have already spoken elsewhere what the personal consequences for me would be if I came to conclude the Christian gospel was valid: I would take my own life; I would see no reason to delay the inevitability of Hell. Never-the-less I enjoy a challenge and the more confrontational it is, the more I love to rise to the challenge, especially if answering it means putting confrontational Christian apologists in their places and just shutting them up! Craig puts forth this distinction in his book Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, as follows:

"On the difference between visions and appearances of Christ, see the discussion by Grass, Ostergeschehen, pp. 189-207. Although Grass discounts most of the visions recorded in Acts as legendary, he nevertheless concludes, primarily on the basis of Paul's testimony, that the Easter appearances took place within a community that enjoyed visions, revelations, and estatic experiences (I Cor. 12-14; II Cor. 12: 1-5; Gal. 2:1; Acts 16:9). The community recognized, however, that the appearances of Christ were restricted to a small circle designated as witnesses and that even to them Jesus did not continually re-appear, but appeared only at the beginning of their new life.

"One cannot follow Grass, however, when he attempts to draw the essential distrinction between an appearance of Christ and a vision as being solely in content, viz.., in an appearance Christ was seen as exalted (Ibid., pp. 229-32) This is undoubtedly true, but surely a vision could be of the exalted Christ, too; indeed how could a Christian believer have a vision of the unexalted Christ? Both the vision of Stephen and the book of Revelation show that the visions of the exalted Lord which were not appearances were possible for the early Church. It is of no matter whether Stephen's vision be an unhistorical embellishment as Grass thinks; the point is that the church of Luke's day was prepared to accept that Stephen saw a vision of Christ. Grass' argument that Revelation is not a vision but a picture story because of the many portraits of Christ seems to presuppose that visions must be monotone. At any rate, the point is Revelation presents itself as a vision, thus showing again that the church did not object out of hand visions of the exalted Christ.

"Nor can it be said that the distinguishing element in an appearance as opposed to a vision was the comissioning, for appearances were known which lacked this element (the 500 brethren). What then distinguished an appearance from a vision? It seems to me that the most natural answer to this question is that an appearance involved extra-mental phenomena, something's actually appearing, whereas a visions, even if caused by God, was purely in the mind. Certainly this seems to be the way in which the New Testament concieves of the distinction. Visions, even veridical visions sent by God, are exclusively mental phenomena, whereas Jesus's appearances always involve an extra-mental appearing in the real, external world. The resistance to this conclusion among contemporary critics seem largely due to a philosophico-theological rejection of the physicalism of the gospels. On this basis, Grass superimposes the form of heavenly visions onto the resurrection appearances, and contemporary scholarship has followed him in this. (See Alsup, Stories, pp. 32, 54.) But if this is done, then-apart from it's being exegetically unjustified- it seems to me impossible to differentiate a vision and appearance, which the early church clearly did. It might be said that a vision, in modern parlance, a subjective vision, that is, a self-induced visionary seeing, but that an appearance is an objective vision, that is, a visionary seeing induced by God.

"This distinction, however, will not help to solve the problem, for so-called objective visions were experienced in the church and these were not ranked as appearances. For example, Peter's vision in Acts 10: 9-17 was certainly "objective" , for it was caused by God (10: 28), but it was not in the same class of phenomena as the appearances of Jesus. More the point, Stephen's vision of Jesus was probably "objective"- Luke does not want us to take it as a self-induced hallucination-, but this was not an appearance of Jesus. But what is the difference between what Stephen saw and what Paul experienced, such that the latter could be called an appearance of Jesus ( Acts 9: 17; contrast the vision to Ananias himself in 9:10 which was not an appearance)? What is the difference between Paul's opportunity on the Damascus road "to see the Just One to hear a voice from his mouth" (22: 14) and his subsequent appearance in the temple when he fell into a trance and saw Jesus speaking to him (22:17)? It is of no help to speak of subjective vs. objective visions, for the mind of the Jewish/Christian believer, all genuine visions were "objective"-anything else would be just an illusion. It seems to me, therefore, despite the modern antipathy to "physicalism," that the difference between a visions and an appearance of Jesus was that only in the latter did he actually appear in the external world. The support for this view is two-fold: 1.) exegetically this is consistently the difference between the two; 2.) if one rejects this view, then the distinction between an appearance and a vision which was made in the early church threatens to dissolve." ( William Lane Craig, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus footnote pgs. 68-69)"

First of all, I am not all that convinced that such a distinction really exists or that it is as strong as some Christians make it out to be. Furthermore, if I was to accept that such a distinction did exist, I would have to conclude that such a distinction is no accident nor did it arise because of divine revelation. I would conclude that such a distinction evolved in the Christian community for apologetical purposes. The scope of this essay, therefore, is to illustrate why I am not convinced that the distinction is that strong and subsequently to show precisely how such a distinction originated as a matter of apologetics in early Christianity. I believe that if such a distinction exists, then its origins as an apologetic is precisely what critics like myself would come to expect on the basis that the visionary hypothesis of Christian origins is valid. In other words, I believe that the visionary hypothesis that I am advocating actually can be made to predict that such a distinction may evolve in the early Christian communities as an apologetic, especially against heretics and critics. So let me first deal with the two answers I have proposed, that 1.) such a distinction might not exist or be as strong as Christians claim it to be and 2.) that granting such a distinction exists, it originated as apologetics against heretics and critics.

First of all, I want to make a qualifying remark about this essay. I want to state my main counter-theses in order to answer Craig's thesis and then defend my theses with arguments against his objections to them. This essay is not meant to be an extensive defense of my arguments nor an extenisve survey of historical and textual evidence for my counter-theses. I simply wish to state Craig's thesis and my arguments in terms of a counter-thesis, thereby answering Craig's objections to my counter-theses. An extensive review of historical and textual evidence will be forthcoming in a later essay or essay series and will commence as soon as I feel I have completed my analysis of arguments for and against my theses in greater detail which will take some time.

Why is it that I think that such a distinction might not really exist or be as strong as some apologists make it out to be? It seems to me that if such a distinction exists, it seems to originate with the canonical gospels themselves. Going earlier into the New Testament corpus, especially the written works of apostles such as St. Paul, such a distinction doesn't seem to exist. In 1st Corinthians 15: 3-7, it has been argued that Paul is passing on a creed to the Corinthians, one that he recieved. The creed has a list of appearances of the risen Jesus to various people. Jesus died according to the Scriptures, was buried, rose from the dead according to the Scriptures, appeared to Peter, then to the Twelve, to more than 500 people, to James, to the disciples, and finally to Paul who came into the fold rather late. The Greek word for "appear" in this creed is ophthe. Is this significant? I believe that is is. In another letter, generally regarded as authentically Pauline by many New Testament critical scholars, is the letter to the Galatian Christian Church. In it, Paul recounts how he was converted by God. Paul uses a word for God revealing Christ to Paul, and the Greek word is not ophthe but a word meaning "revelation" Is this significant? I believe that it is. From what I understand, this Greek word in Galatians is used normally to denote visions. It is the same word used in the canonical New Testament book of "Revelation". The significance of these Greek words can now be understood. I take it that Paul had a visionary experience on the road to Damascus as the word suggests in Galatians. If one accepts both 1st Corinthians 15 and the creed as authentically Pauline, and furthermore, as perfectly compatible and harmonizable with what is written in Galatians, then one has to conclude that the Greek word meaning "revelation" in Galatians is describing the same exact experience as the Greek word ophthe in 1st Corinthians 15.

Futhermore, Paul uses the same Greek word ophthe to describe the appearance of Jesus to others in the 1st Corinthians 15 creed. To me, this means one of two things: that since both Greek words ophthe and the one meaning "revelation" are both used to describe Paul's Damascus experience, that it was necessarily a vision. I take this to mean that Paul had a visionary experience on the road to Damascus and that the Greek word for ophthe in this context necessarily means a visionary experience. I also conclude that it's prima facie likely that since the same Greek word ophthe is used to describe the appearance of the risen Jesus to others, then others had visionary experiences involving altered-states-of-conciousness as well. Thus I conclude that such a distinction is either weak or nonexistent. True, I am willing to grant that the Greek word ophthe can be more than a visionary experience of some sort, but I believe that additional textual indicators must exist to modify it in such a way to make it mean that more than a mere visionary experience happened. There would have to be textual indicators/modifiers to show something physically and tangeably happened that could not be otherwise if it was an actual phyiscal and tangeable encounter with the risen Jesus who ate fish and drank in front of the disciples, something no visionary experience, whether to a singular person or collectively to a group of people at a time, could cause. I don't believe that any such textual indicators or modifiers exist in the 1st Corinthians 15 creed or in the letter to the Galatians. I, therefore conclude that it's prima facie likely that all of the postmortem appearances of Jesus were, in fact, originally visionary experiences involving altered-states-of-conciousness and nothing more.

Let me grant for the sake of discussion that there really was a distinction in the early Christian Churches between visions and appearances. Does such a distinction destroy the visionary hypothesis that I advocate? Not at all. In fact, I believe that my visionary hypothesis can be made to predict that such an distinction would arise as an apologetic against heresy and criticism, especially those of Gnostics and other heretics who share a heresy in early Christian times, the heresy known as "Docetism". This was a heresy that Jesus didn't have an actual body of flesh and blood, only that he appeared to have one. For this essay, I had originally planned to use Charles Talbert's work Luke and the Gnostics but I have since learned from very recent e-mail correspondence with Dr. Talbert, that he considers this work (an expansion of his doctoral dissertation) to be "woefully outdated" and has recommended to me a very recently updated book of his Reading Luke which was published by him in 2002 and contains his updated views on the subject. I have yet to purchase this book and fully read it and so I cannot at this time incorporate his recent work into my essay. However, I do believe that however outdated Talbert's original work on the subject was, Craig's critique of Talbert's argument, that Luke's narrative served as an anti-Docetic apologetic, fails. Let me quote Craig at length and provide my own critique of his rebuttal at various points.

"Actually, there are postive reasons to think that the physicalism of the gospels is not an anti-Docetic apologetic: (1) As we have seen, for a Jew the very terms 'resurrection' entailed a physical resurrection of the dead man in the tomb. The notion of a 'spiritual resurrection' was not merely unknown; it was a contradiction in terms. Therefore, in saying that Jesus was raised and appeared, the early believers must have understood this in physical terms."

How was a "spiritual resurrection" a contradiction in terms? While I don't necessarily adhere to the theory that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus had a spiritually resurrected body, I don't see anything as particular refuting it. The best case for the spiritual resurrection, in my judgement, has been provided by historian Richard Carrier in his essay "The Spiritual Body of Christ and the Legend of the Empty Tomb". I think that Carrier has a very interesting case but I lack the scholarly knowledge to know for absolutely sure (such as a good knowlege of Greek). I am aware of some criticisms of Carrier's arguments and I believe that any produced by such folks like Michael Licona deserve serious consideration ( I find it hard to take seriously the apologetics of Robert Turkel; am I to suppose that Turkel, who thought that the Greek word for "rise", anestemi, was used "twice for emphasis" in the gospels knows more about Greek than Richard Carrier? Am I to believe that Turkel is a better intellect than Carrier? Yeah, right! If I am to accept that, why not little green men on Mars?)

I really don't buy into most of the critiques I have seen of the "spiritual resurrection". I believe that it's a mistake made by both advocates and critics of this theory of Christian origins, to see it as a matter of "physical vs. spiritual". I believe that New Testament scholars like Robert Gundry have amply shown that the Greek word for body, soma was always and necessarily a physical substance (see his work Soma in Biblical Theology). I believe that it's better to view the argument over the "spiritual resurrection" in terms of "flesh vs. a lack of flesh". If the earliest Christians really did believe that Jesus was spiritually resurrected, I don't believe the earliest Christians would've seen Jesus' body as being nonphysical. This, I consider to be an erroneous view. Rather, I believe that if the earliest Christians would've seen Jesus as being spiritually resurrected, I believe that they would've seen the body as a physical body, just one lacking flesh (because it was made of the same heavenly substance as the sun, moon, and stars were; these were also soma lacking in flesh!). If the concept of a "spiritual resurrection" really is the best way to see Paul's discussion of the resurrection in 1st Corinthians 15: 37-50, the distinction between "natural bodies" on one hand and "spiritual bodies" on the other hand, would best be understood as a distinction between bodies (soma) containing flesh (the natural, earthly bodies) and bodies (soma) lacking flesh. All are physical but not all contain flesh. I have to repeat again; I don't necessarily advocate the theory of Christian origins that Carrier proposes. I think it's an interesting theory and I don't ultimately know how to evaluate it simply for the reason that I am not, yet, a New Testament scholar myself.

I leave the argument about a "spiritual resurrection" as an open question that I would like to investigate in graduate school when I have more scholarly resources and knowledge to do so. For the time being, I would also like to say that I have no problem accepting that the earliest Christians believed Jesus to be raised with a body of flesh and I am willing to accept this as a core historical fact and that the "spiritual resurrection" was not something believed by anyone. Even accepting this, I don't exactly think that Craig has succeeded in rebutting the contention that the resurrection narratives of Luke and John were anti-Docetic narratives. He can try and try as he may wish but I hope to show that he hasn't proven his case.

"It was Docetism which was the response to this physicalism, not the other way around. The physical resurrection is thus primitve and prior, Docetism being the later reaction of theological and philosophical reflection."

This is fine; I have no qualms with this. I can accept that the earliest Christians, such as Jesus' immediate disciples believed Jesus to have been resurrected in a body of flesh. I can accept as a core historical fact that many of Jesus' disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them in a risen body of flesh and that the visionary experiences involving altered-states-of-consciousness that they had were visions of a risen Jesus with a fleshly body. I can see Docetism as emerging as a response to this and thus the resurrection narratives serving as rebuttal to this heresy and reinforcing the earlier, yet mistaken view of the earliest disciples. It doesn't mean I accept for a moment that Jesus really did appear to his disciples and ate fish in front of them on the eve of Easter in Jerusalem as Luke's gospel says. I have no problem with a belief in a risen Jesus of bodily flesh being primitive and prior to Docetism.

I believe that the point to remember is that the Greek word for "appear" in the 1st Corinthians 15 creed only means that the groups who believed that they saw Jesus, believed that Jesus simply appeared to them. Docetism would argue, later, that Jesus only appeared to have a body of flesh. The disciples mistook the apparent body of flesh for the real thing and were thus fooled into thinking Jesus had a risen body of flesh. The key point of the Docetists was that Jesus didn't have a body of flesh but only appeared to have a body of flesh. In other words, the Docetists argued, true, that Jesus didn't have a body of flesh, but argued more importantly, that Jesus only appeared to have one. No doubt that the disciples of Jesus mistook an apparent body of flesh for the real thing, but the argument of Docetists here was simple: appearances are decieving and the disciples were victims of this misunderstanding.

"(2) Moreover, had purely 'spiritual appearances' been original, then it is difficult to see how the physical appearances could have developed. For (a) the offense of Docetism would then be removed, since the Christians, too, believed in purely spiritual appearances, and (b) the doctrine of physical appearances would have been counter-productive as an apologetic, both to Jews and to pagans; to Jews because they did not accept an individual resurrection within history and to pagans because their belief in the immortality of the soul could not accomodate the crudity of physical resurrection. The church therefore have retained its purely spiritual appearances."

Once again, I believe that it's best to see any doctrine of a "spiritual resurrection" as involving a physical body yet lacking flesh. I don't believe that there would've been any denial of physicality. The point would've been that the earliest Christians, if the theory of a "spiritual resurrection" is valid, would've believed that Jesus' risen body lacked flesh. But if Jesus was believed to have had a spiritual body, then the threat of Docetism would've been removed and the necessity of anti-Docetic apologetics would've been superflous, right? Does Craig have a good point here? I am not sure that he does. I tend to agree that the earliest Christians, if they believed in a "spiritual resurrection", might have agreed with Docetists about the risen Jesus, but Docetists went further and denied that Jesus had really suffered death on the cross (something no early Christian would've been able to accept) and that Jesus never had been born or incarnated in a body of flesh (something Christians would've found insulting and offensive).

We have to keep in mind, then, that the offense of Docetism wouldn't necessarily have been removed, because Docetists weren't just denying that Jesus had a risen body of flesh- they were denying Jesus ever had any body of flesh during his whole existence on earth. Naturally, Christians would see the need to combat it. Some Christians might've been content with rebutting Docetism up to the point of Jesus' physical death as it was seen as necessary for atonement purposes, while others would probably have gone all the way to the point of completely wiping Docetism out altogether, for they would've believed Jesus to have been vindicated by God and therefore, raised from the dead in a body of flesh.

Does Craig's second objection fly here too? Would the anti-Docetic apologetic be offensive to both Jews and pagans? That depends on whom the audience of the gospels were. Craig tends to think here (lest I am mistaken) that the gospels were written as tools to help win over skeptics. I believe that the gospels were written by Christians and for Christians and no one else. If I am right, what would it matter what Jews or pagans thought? The gospels were written by Christians and for Christians and so any anti-Docetic apologetics would be to reinforce the faith of Christian believers, not to silence skeptics be they Jews or pagans or to convince them of the errors of their ways (I'm sure Craig would love it if it were; I am sure that Craig would love nothing more than to have some undeniable proof that Jesus rose from the dead to give to modern 21st century skeptics like me, so he could drag us kicking and screaming into the faith).

Moreover, I think that Craig is grossly mistaken here. The Jews would not have accepted an individual resurrection? How does Craig know this? I don't doubt that a number of Jews wouldn't have accepted any individual resurrections before the general resurrection, but Craig is really stretching if he seriously believes that this would apply universally without any possible exception whatsoever across the board when it comes to all first century Jews.

"(3) Besides, Docetism was mainly aimed at denying the reality of the incarnation of Christ (1 Jn. 4: 2-3; II Jn. 7), not the physical resurrection. Docetists were not so interested in denying the physical resurrection as in denying that the divine Son perished on the cross; hence, some held that the Spirit deserted the human Jesus at the crucifixion, leaving the human Jesus to die and be physically raised (Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.26. 1). An anti-Docetic aimed at proving a physical resurrection therefore misses the point entirely."

I disagree. I believe that the incarnation, crucifxion, and resurrection were points of denial for Docetists. Suppose that Craig is right and the Docetists were mainly denying the incarnation and not so much the resurrection and it the narratives could hardly serve as an anti-Docetic apologetic. Even if the Docetists didn't so much deny that Jesus had a risen body of flesh, there were other Gnostic groups that did. I would at least accept that the narratives were written as some kind of apologetic against those who denied that Jesus had a risen body of flesh, even if it wasn't really the Docetists. There were four general groups, such as the Docetists, Adoptionists, Separationists, and Patripassiantists, but these categories were not so clean-cut and rigid; there was variation and spectrum within the groups.

"(4) The demonstrations of corporeality and continuity in the gospels, as well as the other physical appearances, do not seem to have been redactional additions of Luke or John ( it is thus incorrect to speak, for example, of "Luke's apologetic against Gnosticism"), but were part of the traditions recieved by the evangelists. Docetisim, however, was a later theological development, attested to in John's letters. Therefore, the gospel accounts of the physical resurrection tend to ante-date the rise and threat of Docetisim."

And how did Craig determine this? I want to know how this is any more than Craig's pontifical "say-so". Why does Craig think that the demonstrations of corporeality and continuity in the gospels are not "redactional additions"? I know for a fact that Craig accepts the Markan priority of the gospels and seems to accept that Matthew and Luke used Mark in their composition. If Luke can redact Mark's gospel and change a prediction (coming from Mark's "young man") of Jesus appearing in Galilee to a prediction of Jesus back when he was in Galilee (as Luke makes the women seem to remember Jesus' words) why can't Luke go beyond the traditions that he had in Mark (and Q?) and go onto write an apologetic against docetism, incorporating corporeality and making such narratives continuous with the rest of the narratives he composed in his gospel? How does Craig know that Jesus eating fish in front of his disciples and inviting them to touch him and showing himself to doubting Thomas were part of the traditions recieved by the evangelists? How does Craig know this?

One last point: Craig repeats himself by saying that Docetism was a later theological development, this time adding the qualifying phrase "attested to in John's letters". I don't necessarily think that Docetism originated at the time of its first mention in John's letters. I believe that Docetism was alive and well before John wrote his letters. I want to be careful here and say that I am not going to attach a precise date as to the origin of Docetism. I really don't know when it originated but I don't think it originated after Luke wrote his gospel and necessarily before John wrote his. I suspect Craig wants more than anything for this to be the case so he can make his work of trying to get modern skeptics to accept the resurrection and get them saved a lot easier. I think that perhaps Docetism originated sometime shortly after 70 C.E. and the gospels have an increasing tendency towards a more corporeal and fleshly Jesus, starting without any resurrection appearances in Mark, one which the disciples see Jesus but don't touch him in Matthew, to Jesus eating fish and inviting contact in Luke and finally a full-blown anti-Docetic apologetic in John's gospel. This may reflect various stages at which Docetism grew in strength and became a threat. Perhaps when Mark wrote his gospel, it wasn't percieved to be that much of a threat (if any) and perhaps was in its nascental stages and evolving more and more during the writing of Matthew and Luke to the point where John's opening prologue was specifically shooting down Docetism as were the letters attributed to John.

"Moreover, not even all later Gnostics denied the physical resurrection ( cf. Gospel of Philip, Letters of James, and Epistle of Rheginus). It is interesting that even in the ending of Mark there is actually a switch away from material proofs of the resurrection to a verbal rebuke by Jesus for the disciples' unbelief."

I am pleased to hear Craig say this! Not all later Gnostics denied the physical resurrection! I also believe that not all early Gnostics denied it either nor had all of them accepted it. I believe that there was a bit of variety among different sects of Gnosticism and perhaps stretching over time. Now it's question time again, boys and girls: how does Craig know that Mark's ending is meant to be a switch away from material proofs of the resurrection?

"(5) The demonstrations themselves do not evince the rigorousness of an apologetic against Docetism. In both Luke and John it is not said that either the disciples or Thomas actually accepted Jesus' invitation to touch him and prove that he was not a Spirit. Contrast the statements of Ignatius that the disciples did physically touch Jesus (Ignatius Ad Smyrnaeans 3.2; cf. Epistula Apostolorum 11-12). As Schnackenburg has said, if an anti-Docetic apology were involved in the gospel accounts, more would have to have been done than Jesus' merely showing the wounds."

I beg Craig's pardon? Eating fish in front of the disciples "does not evince the rigorousness of an apologetic against Docetism"? Was it not Craig who made this stink about the distinction between visions and appearances in the first place? How rigorous does "rigorous" have to be? Does Jesus have to take a stainless steel stake and pound it through his right hand, have his disciples verify that it penetrated by getting blood from Jesus' hand onto their hands, only to have Jesus take the stake out and have his disciples watch his hand heal itself in front of them as though Jesus is a mutant with superhuman powers like the comic book character "Wolverine" in Marvel's The Uncanny X-Men May I suggest something for readers here? May I suggest that not all anti-Docetic apologetics need be the same in terms of rigor and intensity? Docetism, I believe, just like every other heresy, started out small and grew with time. Not every apologetic designed to answer heresies like Docetism need be as rigorous as the next. Luke's apologetic is not as rigorous as would, say, John's because Docetism needn't have been considered as dangerous a heresy in Luke's time as it would've been in John's time. In fact, it may well have been in its nascental and infant stages at the time of Mark's writing which might be why Mark doesn't have any resurrection narratives designed to illustrate that Jesus really did have a body of flesh. From Mark to Matthew, Docetism might have grown somewhat and may have started to become a threat in Luke's time with it evolving to the point of a dangerous heresy in John's time. Ignatius, writing later, wants to assert that the disciples did phyiscally touch Jesus because such a level of rigorousness and seriousness would be needed to combat Docetism in his time, whereas in earlier times it probably wasn't that strong and, hence, not that big a threat and not commanding that much in terms of resources to combat it.

"(6) The incidental, off-hand character of the physicality of Jesus' resurrection appearances in most of the accounts shows that the physicalism was a natural assumption or presupposition of the accounts, not an apologetic point consciously being made. For example, the women's grasping Jesus' feet is not a polemical point, but just their response of worship. Similarly, Jesus says, 'Do not hold me,' though Mary is not explictly said to have done so; this is no conscious effort to prove a physical resurrection. The appearances on the mountain and by the Sea of Tiberias just naturally presuppose a phyiscal Jesus; no points are trying to be scored against Docetism."

Fleshly physicalism may have been a natural assumption to begin with for the earliest Christians but that needn't mean that it wasn't in need of defending by the time that the gospels were pinned. Indeed, not every minor little detail need be polemically against Docetism. These may have just been the kind of details that many Christians believe Jesus would've done had he a risen body of flesh, regardless of how much of a threat Docetism was in their minds. But the eating of fish, the showing of wounds, and Jesus preparing breakfast for his disciples are the exact sort of feats that would be expected to count aginst Docetism. Depending on the composition and the various stages in the evolution of heresies like Docetism, we can expect there to be varying accounts of anti-Docetic apologetics, with varying degrees of physical interaction and corporeality, depending on how widespread and serious the threat of Docetism or any other antiflesh heresy that existed in New Testament times was. Some accounts will not have much physical action performed by Jesus while others will have Jesus doing a lot of physical feats that a mere vision could not do. Now we come to the finale of Craig's rebuttal here...

"Together these considerations strongly suggest that the physical appearance were not as apologetic to Docetism, but always part of the church's tradition; there seems to be no good historical reason to doubt that Jesus did, in fact, show his disciples that he had been physically raised from the dead." ( Craig, William Lane, Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus pgs. 330-338)"

Craig would seriously love to think this, wouldn't he? Anything to convince a modern skeptic to become a Christian. Unfortunately, it is Craig who is mistaken here, not Talbert or anyone else. These considerations, I hope to have shown, are flawed and do not make Craig's case as strong as he would like to think that they do. Craig hasn't shown how they were always part of the Church's tradition and hasn't answered Talbert's original arguments. In conclusion, though, I want to say that the fleshly corporeality of the resurrection narratives introduce a Jesus who physically interacts with the world and is no mere vision and that there is a extra-mental phenomenon at work behind the scenes. But the gospels were not written to convince post-Enlightenment skeptics like me but I believe were designed to answer those who would deny that Jesus had risen in the flesh.

The most important part is not so much that heretics at all did deny that Jesus had a body of flesh at any point of time in his earthly existence, but that he appeared to have one but really didn't. The emphasis was on appearances and this was the big point behind Gnosticism. Those blessed with the spiritual knowledge of the Gnostics knew better. The disciples believed Jesus appeared to them and Jesus did but Jesus fooled them into thinking he had a body of flesh. Jesus only appeared to have had one and the Gnostics had this sacred knowledge that Jesus didn't inhibit a body of flesh. Even if it wasn't the Docetics per se who posed a heretical threat to the earliest Christians, there were some antiflesh heretics who would need to be seriously dealt and rebutted.

This, I believe, might adequately account for the distinction between visions on one hand, and appearances on the other. Supposing that Craig is right about the distinction, I am convinced that any such distinction was apologetic in origin. This was the best way I believe that the Christians of Luke and John's community combated heretics. What's more, it also kept the lid on heretics and not only rebutted their antiflesh heresy but also prevented them from claiming any pedigree in the Church as the true disciples of Jesus and their discipleship going back to inner circle of Jesus himself. Any true Christian, any true disciples of Jesus, would have had to talk with him, to walk with him, to touch him, to have eaten with him and to have drink with him. Thus Jesus had a body of flesh after his death and rose to the heavens in it. Only the original apostolic circle was really in a position to claim any kind of pedigree and legitimacy as to being heirs of Jesus and being his disciples, because only they walked, talked, and ate with Jesus, saw him crucified, and saw him risen from the dead, and ascend into the heavens. This, I believe, explains the witness motif of Luke's gospel: to be an apostle, you have to had been appointed by those who were witnesses to Jesus' fleshly corporeality.

Thus, I believe that Craig's third objection may be answered.

Matthew