An Introduction Part Two: In Accordance With Prophecy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Introduction Part One: Who I Am

An Introduction Part One: Who I Am

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

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

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

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

Why was Paul taking a Road Trip?

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

Is Acts a good historical reference in this regard?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strike one.

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

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

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

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

Strike Two.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strike Three.

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

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

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

Strike Four.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Atheists Should Be Evangelistic?

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

Should Atheists Evangelize?. There we read:

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

Then later we read these words from Shattering Sterotypes:

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

Why Not?

Rick Warren and The Purpose Driven Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul and Visions

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

Did Paul see a physical Jesus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s see:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crusades, Inquisitions and Witch Hunts

"Pope John Paul II asked for the descendants of the multitudes who were hurt, enslaved, subjugated, stolen from, and killed by Catholics to please forgive the Catholic Church, i.e., after two thousand years of stepping on peoples' toes had helped produce the biggest church the world has ever seen. A joke by comedian Emo Philips provides the most apt analogy to the Pope's "forgive us" speech. Emo said, "When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me."

E.T.B.

Continued...

Name: Catia
Title of Article: Christian Reconstructionism and Christian persecutions of others
Religious Belief: Deist
Age: 26-50

comments: Hello,

I am a writer currently working on a novel where the atrocities of the church and the growing threat of the reconstructionists will be the subject. I wish to make the horrors of the inquisition, the crusades and the witch trials more than a statistic. To that end I have been searching the net looking for a list of the names of the people murdered by the church, but without success. If you have any links that would be helpful it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your wonderful articles,I think I have read almost all of them.

Catia

From: Edward T. Babinski
To: Catia

Dear Catia,

I wish you success on the completion of your novel (have you read Sinclair Lewis's classic novel about the fascist take over of America, "It Can't Happen Here?") Per your inquiry, I do not have a list of the most famous people whom Catholics and/or Protestants persecuted or murdered throughout history, but rest assured most of them were fellow Christians of whose beliefs other Christians (those in power) did not approve.

I do have a LENGTHY list of quotations concerning major "embarrassing" events in Christian history that I continue to update as time allows, and that I can share with you, beginning with the Age of Costantine, to the Thirty Years War in Europe, right up to the Civil War which was America's "Holy War" as even evangelical historians like Mark Noll of Wheaton College in his most recent book, have recognized. If you wish me to send you that list of quotations as an attachment, please let me know.

Also, I like to view things in an even larger perspective and note that diseases and natural disasters continue to kill far more people than all human wars combined, whether religiously based or politically based (not to mention the effects of future climate changes when the oceans may rise and flood out hundreds of millions of people living along the world's coastlines). I would like people to view things in that perspective, and perhaps bring us all a bit closer together fighting diseases and trying to foresee and prepare in advance for natural disasters, including "big ones" from space. Of course a very big disaster from space like a nearby nova, or black hole, or star passing near our own, or flare from the sun, could be unpreventable and wipe out all life on earth since we're all still stuck on our cradle planet, sitting ducks in space.

Seeking names of victims of crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts?
Any list of names concerning the Catholic atrocities you mentioned, Crusades, Inquisition, witch hunts, would probably be in Latin, and probably be in the Vatican archives. John Paul II had assigned a commission I believe, near the end of his pontificate, to list all of the church's atrocities over the centuries. Too bad you don't have access to that information, though I believe that project was eventually scrapped as the pontiff's health declined:

POPE JOHN PAUL II APOLOGIZES AFTER TWO THOUSAND YEARS OF CATHOLIC ATROCITIES
The Catholic Church is the single largest Christian denomination in the world, equal to (or larger than) all Protestant denominations combined. Not surprising considering the Catholic Church's two millennia of political power brokering, heresy snuffing, book banning, Jew hating, witch burning, female subjugating, gay bashing, war mongering, divine-right-of-kings-defending, slave owning, serf commanding, wealth stealing vigor.

But the real topper came in March of the year 2000 when Pope John Paul II asked for the descendants of the multitudes who were hurt, enslaved, subjugated, stolen from, and killed by Catholics to please forgive the Catholic Church, i.e., after two thousand years of stepping on peoples' toes had helped produce the biggest church the world has ever seen. A joke by comedian Emo Philips provides the most apt analogy to the Pope's "forgive us" speech. Emo said, "When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just stole one and asked him to forgive me."
Yes, two thousand years later.

E.T.B.
____________________________

POPE'S MEA CULPA
Over two years have passed since Pope John Paul II launched his great apology drive for the past "errors" of the Roman Catholic Church. One more reconfirmation of the new course took place in March 2000, when he celebrated public penitence in St. Peter's Basilica. Meeting with harsh criticism since the beginning, the papal apology has meantime developed somewhat more precise outlines. "We ask forgiveness for divisions between Christians," the Pope said, "for the use of violence in the name of truth, and for the diffidence and hostility against followers of other religions." According to a document by the Vatican's international theological commission, the historical sins are classified into seven categories, including divisions within Christianity, proselytizing by force, the inquisition, anti-Jewish prejudices, sins against minorities, women and human rights.

The Pope's Mea Culpa successfully avoids too close contact with the historical truth. Nothing was for example heard again of the conference, scheduled for October 1999, and proudly announced by the historical-theological commission of the Vatican, for which allegedly 50 renowned historians had been invited to scrutinize the bloody work of the Inquisition in Spain. But the Pope's project to square accounts with history before the new millennium dawns is not just superficial, it is pure hypocrisy. While crocodile tears are shed about the victims of the Holocaust, John Paul does not hesitate to beatify his predecessor Pius XII who collaborated with German, Italian and Croatian fascists during World War II and rescued them after their defeat.

But the Vatican's soft spot for mass murderers does not end there. The recent case of Father Athanase Seroma, shows how little the papal Mea Culpa is worth. Father Athanase Seroma played a leading role in the 1994 genocide that devastated Rwanda and is currently hiding under the name Don Anastasio Sumba Bura in northern Italy. According to many eyewitnesses, he organized the Nyange genocide. The African Human Rights group that produced a 22-page report about the events in Nyange in which Father Seroma, among other priests, had been involved, found that several of them are now living in Italy. The African Human Rights group asked the Pope more than half a year ago to launch an inquiry into the matter, but never received a reply. Maybe, decades later, a new pope may appear with a new apology!

Sanal Edamaruku, ed., Rationalist International, Bulletin #33, March 16, 2000

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Another suggestion, if you can't track down the Vatican folks who were involved in the above project...

Go to amazon.com and find some scholars who have books published by university presses like Oxford and Cambridge, Yale, and Harvard, or check the websites of each unviersity press, and search it for the above events you listed, Crusades, Inquisition, Witch Hunts, then plug in the name of the professor who wrote each book into google (put their name in quotation marks for an exact match of both first and last names in that order) followed by the word: university, and you should be able to find their university home pages with their email addresses. Then ask them about where to find a list of names.

Homosexuality, The Bible vs. Nature

Homosexuality and trans-sexuality in the Bible vs. Nature... is Homosexuality "totally unnatural and against God's order of things"?

How many folks know that King James (who commissioned the King James Bible and to whom it was dedicated) loved men and had sex with them? At the age of thirteen James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esme Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esme to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.
-Edward T. Babinski

"I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else," James announced to his councilors, "and more than you who are here assembled." He compared his love for the earl to Jesus's affection for the "beloved disciple" John. "Jesus Christ did the same," the king said, "and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."

With such pronouncements King James seemed to reach a new level of outrage, especially when he compounded his offense, in the view of many, by heaping Buckingham with costly jewels, lands, and lucrative offices.
-Royal Panoply, Brief Lives Of The English Monarchs
Carrolly Erickson, History Book Club
From King James was Gay

Sue Rochford writes: Just because there is more than one meaning to a single word does not mean that you can exclude one meaning. In basic English the word know/knew has more than one meaning. I can know understand/comprehend) or I can know (be acquainted with) one referring to a situation the other to a person.

Any excuse/attempt to try to justify homosexuality will in the end fall flat on it's face, homesexuality is totally unnatural and against God's order of things.

What Sue seems to be overlooking, is that Homosexuality is not totally unnatural and against God's order of things.

Today, while composing an entry for my other blog on ocean species, I learned of yet another species that breaks "the rules"... I must admit as a heterosexual, it makes me uncomfortable. However, I suppose learning to accept those realities in nature is all part of increasing in intellectual and emotional maturity.

Bivalves
Clam-Shaped Venus Clams (Veneridae)

Northern Quahog (hard-shelled clam) Mercenaria mercenaria (Linnaeus)
Description: (4 1/2 inches) Heavy, rounded, somewhat inflated shell. Concentric ridges on surface smooth near the center and stronger near the lower edge. Elevated beak. Strong lateral and cardinal teeth on hinge. Lunule and pallial sinus.
Color: Dull gray exterior, occasionally with purple zigzag markings. Dull gray interior, often with some purple near the pallial sinus.
Habitat: Lives in sounds and mouths of estuaries near the ocean. Commonly found on sound and ocean beaches.
Range: Canada to Texas.
Notes: Also known as the littleneck clam, cherrystone and chowder clam. A large commercial fishery in North Carolina waters, it has potential for mariculture. Nearly all individuals are male the first year, then about half become females. It was a favorite food of early Native Americans, who made beads from this shell's purple edge and used them as money, called "wampum." A form of this species with purple zigzag markings once given the subspecies name Mercenaria mercenaria notata Say, but this clam is a naturally occuring genetic color form of the northern quahog. The purple zigzag patterns occurs in a number of other species in the family Veneridae. Specimens with these markings were once specifically bred by clam growers to identify their stock from monhatchery-bred clams. Clams with these markings may still occasionally be found.
Source: Seashells of North Carolina
North Carolina Sea Grant College Program

And from How Shelled Creatures Reproduce

"Starfish may reproduce either sexually or asexually. When asexual reproduction takes place, the animal breaks itself into two pieces."
Star Fish and Reproduction

asexual reproduction
"Many plants and 'lower animals' reproduce both sexually and asexually"

"With reproduction, molluscs have external fertilization (with broadcast spawning where eggs and sperm are shed into and mix in the water column) and internal fertilization. Some species do it one way, others another. Some species are monoecious (both sexes in one organism); others are dioecious (male and female in separate organisms). I think they're very complicated!"
-Terri K. Hathaway
Marine Education Specialist, North Carolina Sea Grant

Here's a study on sexual behavior from Cornell University...

Homosexual behavior has been observed in barnyard animals (bulls, cows, stallions, donkeys, cats, rams goats, pigs), 18 species in captivity (including rats, antelope, elephants, hyenas, monkeys, apes, rabbits, lions, porcupines, hamsters, mice, porpoises). For example, two female macaque monkeys were observed giving each other orgasms. Homosexual behavior has also been observed in several species in the wild-- anolis lizards, mountain sheep, seagulls, langurs, bonobo chimpanzees.

See book on reserve in the library, starting p.99, for info and photos on homosexuality in bonobos:
De Waal, F. (1997). Bonobo: The forgotten ape. Berkeley: University of California Press. Weinrich, J. D. (1982). Is homosexuality biological natural? In W. Paul, J. D. Weinrich, J. C. Gonsiorek, & M. E. Hotvedt (Eds.), Homosexuality: Social, psychological, and biological issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Animals exhibit "gay" behavior
None of this is surprising to field biologists, but many omit or gloss over homosexual behavior in their scientific reports.

Yahoo! Answers - homosexual behaviour?
Also bonobos participate in homosexual behavior, as well as orgies and prostitution. There is such a thing as lesbian seagulls, ...

"All vertebrate embryos are inherently female. We all start life as females. It takes some kind of added effect—such as a hormone at the right moment during development—to transform the growing embryo into a male. But, left to its own devices, the embryo will naturally become female."
Michael Crichton, Jurassic Park

Cytoplasm versus nucleus in heredity
In all vertebrates, the mitochondria (or, shall we 'say, mightochondria?) are derived exclusively from the mother; to be precise, from the maternal cytoplasm comprising the ovum.[20] There is reason[1],[15] to believe that what is true of mitochondria is true of all organelles, the paternal contribution being just half of the zygocytic nucleus. And since such a nucleus itself is substitutable, one can say that inheritance is essentially a cytoplasmic affair, a maternal endowment supplemented by the paternal (hemi) nuclear contribution. The fact that cytoplasmic inheritance does not allow the application of Mendelian laws is no reason for denigrating it as non-Mendelian inheritance worthy only of passing mention."The basic embryonic plan of all mammals is inherently feminine."[26] Is this fundamental embryologic truth traceable to the supremacy that the zygocytic maternal cytoplasm has over the half-maternal, half-paternal nucleus, a state of cytoplasmic dominance from which hereditary transmission can have no escape?
Journal of Postgraduate Medicine

Was the Wickedness of Sodom Homosexuality?
Many theologians feel not, rather, tend to believe it was the wretched treatment of strangers.

The meaning of the word knew and know according to the Concordance, does not typically mean sexual relations as many have implied when interpreting the events that are recorded to have taken place in Sodom.

Try reading each of the following verses, but strictly using the sexual context of know and knew.

knew
See also FOREKNEW; KNEWEST
Genesis 3:7 and they k* that they were naked....................... 3045
Genesis 4:1 Adam k* Eve his wife; and she............. 3045
Genesis 4:17 Cain k* his wife; and she conceived...... 3045
Genesis 4:25 Adam k* his wife again; and she.......... 3045
Genesis 8:11 Noah k* that the waters were abated................... 3045
Genesis 9:24 k*what his younger son had done ......................... 3045
Genesis 28:16 Lord is in this place: and I k* it not.................. 3045
Genesis 31:32 k* not that Rachel had stolen them ..................... 3045
Genesis 37:33 he k* it, and said, It is my son's..... 5234
Genesis 38:9 Onan k* that the seed should not......................... 3045
Genesis 38:16 he k* not that she was his daughter..................... 3045
Genesis 38:26 son. And he k* her no more.............. 3045
Genesis 39:6 he k* not ought he had, save the......................... 3045
Genesis 42:7 saw his brethren, and he k* them........ 5234
Genesis 42:8 Joseph k* his brethren, but they k*..... 5234
Genesis 42:23 they k* not that Joseph understood...................... 3045
Exodus 1:8 over Egypt, which k* not Joseph............................ 3045
know
See also FOREKNOW; KNEW; KNOWEST; KNOWETH; KNOWING; KNOWN.
Genesis 3: 5 God doth k* that in the day ye eat....................... 3045
Genesis 3:22 as one of us, to k* good and evil........................ 3045
Genesis 4: 9 I k* not: Am I my bother's keeper?....................... 3045
Genesis 12:11 I k*that thou art a fair woman to....................... 3045
Genesis 15:8 shall I k* that I shall inherit it?...................... 3045
Genesis 15:13 K* of a surety that thy seed shall...................... 3045
Genesis 18:19 For I k* him, that he will command...................... 3045
Genesis 18:21 come unto me; and if not, I will k*..................... 3045
Genesis 19:5 out unto us, that we may k* them......................... 3045
Genesis 20:6 Yea, I k* that thou didst this, in the................... 3045
Genesis 20:7 k* thou that thou shalt surely die....................... 3045
Genesis 22:12 for now I k* that thou fearest God...................... 3045
Genesis 24:14 I k* that thou hast shown kindness...................... 3045
Genesis 27: 2 old, I k* not the day of my death:...................... 3045
Genesis 29: 5 K* ye Laban the son of Nahor?........................... 3045
Genesis 29: 5 And they said, We k* him................................ 3045
Genesis 31: 6 And ye k* that with all my power I...................... 3045
Genesis 37:32 k* now whether it be thy son's coat.... 5234
Genesis 42:33 shall I k* that ye are true men......................... 3045
Genesis 42:34 then shall I k* that ye are no spies.................... 3045
Genesis 43: 7 we certainly k* that he would say....................... 3045
Genesis 44:27 k* that my wife bare me two sons:....................... 3045
Genesis 48:19 and said, I k* it, my son, I k* it...................... 3045
Exodus 3: 7 taskmasters; for I k* their sorrows....................... 3045

Defending Visions: Matthew Responds to Jason: Part One

During my participation on this blog I can expect Christian apologists to reply to posts that we write on here. The Christians at the blog "Triablogue" are an example of this. After reading a response to something I wrote some time back, a fellow from Triablogue named Steve wrote a response. After I read his response to what I wrote, I responded to him and, subsequently, I decided that I wasn't going to write any responses to Triablogue's contributors because I really didn't see that much point to it. That didn't mean that I wouldn't and doesn't mean I will not make an exception from time to time. I will make exceptions when I feel they are warranted. Well, such an exception I feel is warranted right now but I hope this response to Jason will serve to illustrate why I made a personal rule after having read a post from Steve. I fear it's more of same with Jason.

To begin with- I told John Loftus that I planned on writing a post on visions. I also told John that I would write a review of his book. I submitted my post on visions. It was a fellow blogger, Daniel who believed that the folks from Triablogue were curiously silent. I didn't believe for a second that they would be and a response would be soon underway. The response came from a fellow named Jason Engwer. Jason correctly attributed the post to me but mistakenly thought that I wondered why no one answered it. I regret Daniel's optimism, but I know Christian apologists better than that. They will always have a response to something written by a Skeptic, be it me, Ed, John, or someone else. To write the perfect critique, to make the perfect argument, or to propose the perfect theory, or what-have-you, that will leave Christians speechless, that they will not even attempt to rebut is a pleasant thought to me, but it's absurd. Christians will always have a response and will always attempt one because that is a moral calling for many Christians, especially apologists.

I got the impression from reading Jason's response that he may have misread what I wrote. I wrote to Daniel (not Jason) that I wish Jason had read my post more carefully. Jason wrongly interpreted that as a suggestion by me for him. He is mistaken: I did not intend for it to be a suggestion, or else I would've made the suggestion to him, in a post addressed to him. I don't like making unsolicited suggestions. To do so, I consider to be rude, arrogant, and presumptuous. Jason, in turn, made an unsolicited suggestion to me which I found offensive. I say to Jason: I didn't intend to make a formal suggestion to you to read what I write more carefully. I was expressing a frustrated wish of mine to a fellow skeptic. That was not meant as a formal suggestion to you Jason. I don't like making unsolicited suggestions to people and I would appreciate that you not make unsolicited suggestions to me. If you or anyone else does, my response will be quite vulgar. I usually tell people making unsolicited suggestions to me to "blow it out their asses." Does that sound rude and offensive to anyone? Well, believe it or not but I feel that unsolicited advice and unsought suggestions are just as rude and offensive. Let's go on, shall we?

First of all, I am aware of the objections made by Christians regarding the hypothesis of visions. I am well aware that Dr. William Lane Craig has objected to visions. I recalled a year back or two, rereading a debate between Craig and Gerd Ludemann, in which Craig responded that a hypothesis of visions, or hallucinations, or what-have-you, do not explain the empty tomb. I have known of this objection for some time. Since my original post was not meant as a full-fledged defense of visions (because of my concern for space constraints on this blog), I declined to defend my hypothesis against objections. I have thought carefully through many of the objections and I intend to answer the objections to the best of my ability. I had planned a three-part response but I believe that more space may be needed. I can understand that Jason may have felt that my post wasn't satisfactory, but I am rather offended at what struck me as accusations that my thinking is uninformed and rather sloppy.

Believe it or not, I am well aware of objections made to the hypothesis of visions from a number of sources. Christians critique it with objections like 1.) it doesnt explain the empty tomb, 2.) it doesn't explain the diversity of appearances in the resurrection narratives and the 1st Corinthians: 15 creed, 3.) it doesn't account for a distinction between visions and appearances in the New Testament, and 4.) it doesn't explain how the disciples came to believe that Jesus rose from the dead, especially given that Jewish eschatology held that no one would rise from the dead before the general resurrection. I have known about these objections for some time, and I have been working diligently on answering them to the best of my ability. I leave will leave it to readers to judge for themselves whether I have made my case.

I used the social-science work of Bruce Maline and Richard Rohrbaugh in my post. Jason links to a guest essay hosted at Tekton Apologetics. Believe it or not, but I am aware of the essay. Does Jason know that this same Christian ministry hosts a "Scholarly Diplomacy Series" in which I am currently having discussions with Mr. Holding about Peter Kirby's work and that of Robert M Price? As such, I know of quite a number of guest essays, and of the one written by "Wildcat", I fully intend to respond to it point-by-point as best I can. I ask for patience. Jason writes as though I have never heard any of the rebuttal arguments made in that essay or elsewhere. I say to Jason: let's not jump to any false conclusions. My initial post wasn't intended to be a defense of visions and so it's necessarily incomplete. Please be patient.

I want to everone to know that I have no philosophical objections to accepting an empty tomb or that many disciples of Jesus believed that he appeared to him. I differentiate between core historical facts on one hand and secondary details on the other hand. I am willing to grant that the empty tomb may indeed be a core historical fact as are the postmortem appearances of Jesus. That doesn't mean that I believe that the secondary details are reliable or authentic. In fact, I consider the New Testament to be errant and the gospel resurrection narratives to be quite inconsistent, especially in terms of secondary details, despite whatever core historical facts there may be underlying the stories.

With this said, I wanted to state that I don't accept the resurrection narratives as fully historical descriptions intending to narrate what actually happened. I consider a number of narratives such as the guard story, Jesus eating fish, offering himself to be touched, and overcoming the doubts of disciples to be apologetics, especially against heresies like docetism and whatever other else heretics like the Gnostics taught. In a "Part Two" I will respond to specific points raised by Jason, even if I have to quote him point-by-point.

Matthew

"Die for a Lie" won't Fly

One of the arguments that Jesus was physically resurrected is that he appeared to his Disciples, and they believed it to the point they died for it. If it were a “hoax” they would not have “died for a lie.” For many Christians, this is the anchor of the argument for a resurrection. We can discuss empty tombs, and swoon theories and wrong tomb theories, but many keep coming back to the fact that the disciples believed it to the point of dying and cannot get around it.

It is not as strong an argument as Christians believe, and few have actually researched the area. In order to explain why the argument is frail, we must understand what exactly is being claimed first.

The claim is composed of five elements. It requires:

1) A group of individuals;
2) Specifically named;
3) Who saw a physically resurrected Jesus;
4) Willingly dying for this belief; (key issue)
5) And not for any other reason.

In the back of our mind, it must be remembered that the events surrounding the early church were not recorded contemporaneously, but after they had happened. These are not daily reports, nor newspaper headlines. Paul recorded certain events, then the Gospels were written, and finally Acts was written.

Whether one holds that these were written only a few years, or many decades after the event, either situation provides ample opportunity to add, remove, or modify events with just the flick of a pen. We should keep a careful and cautious eye investigating these events.

The longer the period of time from the happening to the writing, the better the opportunity to introduce legend, or hyperbole, or myth. Many Christians do not accept books written after 100 CE as being too late. Too far after the event. This argument has the same problem.

Let’s review each element.

Group of Individuals Certainly a most significant force of this argument is that not one, or two, but many of those persons claimed to have seen a physical resurrected Jesus.

If all we had were one or two disciples, it is very possible they saw a vision, had a dream, and deluded themselves. One? Very possible. 12? Not so likely, is how the argument goes.

In fact, we can tragically recall the events of Heaven’s Gate, in which one person, Marshall Applewhite became convinced there was a spaceship traveling behind the Hale-Bopp Comet. We all agree this man was delusional (he had a history of mental instability), yet was firmly convinced of an untruth. So convinced, he not only died for this belief, but managed to convince 37 others to die as well.

Equally, one disciple could possibly convince other disciples of seeing a physically resurrected Jesus. In order to make this case powerful, the proponent would like to state every disciple, each from their various beliefs and walks of life, uniformly confirms as to what they saw. In short—they need a group.

And is that what we see? Well….not exactly. During Jesus’ life he had many followers. But primarily he had Twelve Disciples. Of the Twelve, he displayed a preference for Peter, James and John. (Mark 14:33) Traditionally, even of these three, John was slightly closer. (Jn. 21:20)

But following the resurrection, it is Peter that assumes the leadership role among the Disciples. He preaches the first sermon. Although he is walking with John, it is Peter that heals the cripple on the way to the temple. (Acts 3:6) John, the beloved disciple, receives cursory mention, and then is heard no more. In fact, when counting separate instances in the Acts of the Apostles, John Mark is referred to as many times as John the Disciple, and John the Baptist is referred to more! What happens to John is not recorded in Acts.

Philip, another disciple, also receives cursory mention. Assuming he was one of the Seven (Acts 6:5) a story is recounted about his witnessing to an Ethiopian eunuch. (Acts 8) What happens further to Philip is not recorded.

Peter is the most talked about disciple in the early church. The first part of Acts is replete with his tales. By Herod (died 44 CE) his tales start to peter out (sorry) and he is only mentioned once more in the Council of Jerusalem. (Acts. 15:7) What happens to Peter is not recorded.

The rest of Acts focuses on Paul’s ministry.

The only disciple noted as killed is James, the brother of John (Acts 12:2) and even then it is merely an introduction into a story about Peter. More on James in a bit.

The inspired Bible does not record all Twelve of one accord. It does not mention what each one did separately. It does not indicate they were not “dying for a lie.” While referred to as a group, the events recorded as history do not include information as to their death.

The concept of an entire group is not laid out specifically in the Bible, and must be read, in between the lines. The Bible does not provide us very much information at all for this argument. It begins to smell of speculation.

Specifically Named. There are other people recorded as having seen Jesus physically appear after his resurrection, but are not specifically named. Without even knowing who they are, attempting to lay any claim as to their mode or reason for death becomes mere speculation.

The argument for silence cuts both ways—if one can speculate that these unknown persons are some that died, it is just as credible to speculate they are not. The problem with silence is that it doesn’t tell us anything.

Remember, this is not the silence of “the Bible says it, but history does not record it, so it still could have happened. Just because History is silent doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.” No, here we have history AND the Bible not recording it. The silence has graduated to nobody stating it, but it still could be true.

In fact, to some extent, these unknowns hurt this claim. Paul, writing first about them, claims Christ appeared to more than five hundred at the same time. (1 Cor. 15:6) Matthew admits that some actually saw this resurrected person but doubted. (Mt. 28:17) Doubted about whether it was he, whether he had died, or whether it was a vision or not is unclear. The author of Acts, writing last, concedes within a few months of this appearance, there were only 120. (Acts 1:15)

Simple math tells us 500 seeing –120 believers = 380 believers that doubted! In other words, on this argument, 3 out of 4 believers would not die for the lie—they did not believe in a physical resurrection!

As we shall see, we have problems enough confirming what happened to the few actually named, let alone starting to guess over people we do not know, as to how they possibly died, and the possible reasons why.

The Gospels record various women having seen Jesus. Their deaths are unknown and unrecorded. Paul, of course, does not even mention their existence. While they are named, I do not recall ever seeing their deaths as being reason to prove the resurrection of Christ, and will not address them.

We have exactly twelve named individuals—the eleven disciples and James, the brother of Jesus. Again, Paul gives us James as a witness, but the Gospels do not. (As a side note, I am presuming “The Twelve” is a title in 1 Cor. 15:5, and does not include Judas. If Paul was including Judas, that becomes an interesting story, but committing suicide does not help this particular argument any.)

We know we are looking for the events surrounding twelve individual men’s death. The searching narrows.

Saw a physically resurrected Jesus You may have noticed I did not include Paul in the list of named individuals. That is because Paul saw Jesus in a vision, not within the 40 days prior to Jesus’ ascension. Paul’s vision (or the vision of any other) does not confirm or deny a physical resurrection and provides us no new information on the subject.

Proponents of this argument occasionally indicate Paul as one of those that wouldn’t “die for a lie.” They forget what they are arguing. This is a claim that Jesus physically resurrected, with a body that walked, talked, ate fish and touched people. That people saw this body, and because of the miraculous implications, went to their death. It is not a claim about what visions people have at a later time.

If Jesus died, and his soul was taken to heaven (a spiritual resurrection) Paul could still have a vision of Jesus. If Jesus died, and physically re-animated, and then ascended to heaven, Paul could still have a vision of Jesus. Paul’s vision provides no information that mandates a physically resurrected Jesus.

Paul, in recounting his interaction with Jesus, refers to it as “God’s son revealed in me.” (Gal. 1:16) Paul indicates that Jesus appeared to him, just like Jesus appeared to the other apostles. (1 Cor. 15:8) [Is Paul arguing that Jesus appeared as a vision to the other apostles? Hmm….]

But Acts makes it very clear this is a vision. Paul is recorded as only seeing a flash of light and hearing only a voice. (Acts 9:4; 22:7; ) Paul records later seeing Jesus in a vision. (Acts. 18:9; 22:17; 23:11) Paul tells King Agrippa this is a vision. Acts 26:19

Paul speaks of getting information directly from Jesus. (1 Cor. 11:23. 2 Cor. 12:9) Every encounter of Paul with Jesus is in the form of a vision. This does not even remotely promote a physical resurrection.

I wonder if any Christian that claims Paul is helpful in this regard consistently maintains that method. We have visions of the Virgin Mary today. Is this evidence that not only Jesus, but also Mary was physically resurrected from the dead? Of course not!

This is belief that Mary, living in heaven, occasionally graces us with a ghastly apparition, or a ghostly appearance left on the incidental grilled cheese sandwich. It has absolutely, positively nothing to do with her physically resurrecting. (Although it is confirmation of a spiritual resurrection, perhaps.)

Any visions, or appearances of a spiritual Jesus do not qualify for this particular argument. While they may be interesting in other discussions—not here

Why they died The crux of the matter.

You can die. You can be a Christian. You can even die because you are a Christian. You can be a martyr. But all that does not mean you had a choice as to whether to “die for a lie.”

In order for this argument to work, the proponent would need to demonstrate that the disciple (or James) had an opportunity to avoid death by claiming, “It is a hoax,” and did not take it. Simply dying because they are a Christian, (while making them a martyr) is not enough for this argument.

Let me use a few examples to emphasize this point. Imagine I decided to go on a killing rampage. I decide, for whatever inexplicable reason, that I will kill all Christians whose name starts with “X.” The extent of depth of the person’s belief, whether they actually saw Jesus or not, makes no difference on my violence. They will die, because they are Christians, and even be martyrs, but they had no choice in the matter. It was my picking out Christians, not what they believe.

Or another. Tacitus recounts Nero blaming Christians for the burning of Rome (64 C.E.) and then persecuting them. Whether the Christians recanted, or did not would not make a whit of difference. They were being the “fall-guy” for the blame of a crime. Traditionally Peter was killed during this persecution. How would that provide him an opportunity to absolve himself, and avoid dying for a lie?

Imagine Peter leading a church service at that time, and Roman Soldiers bust in:

Soldier: All right. Who is in charge here?
*Everyone points to Peter*
Soldier: You, and your entire group here are charged with the crime of arson. You will be tried, found guilty, and executed, and not necessarily in that order.
Peter: But it is all a hoax. Jesus wasn’t physically resurrected. I don’t want to die for a lie.

Now, is the Soldier going to apologize for bothering Peter, and then leave, chuckling how he single-handedly eliminated Christianity? Of course not. He will proceed with his orders, and, regardless what Peter says, Peter will die. Yes, he is a martyr. Yes, he died for being a Christian.

But that does not address the crux of this argument—did he voluntarily assume a risk that by claiming it was a hoax could be avoided? According to Acts, the Disciples were the first vocal supporters of the new Christian Church. Any persecution that would focus on the leaders would center on these disciples. They could not “avoid” it by recanting. By then it is far too late.

King Herod, having killed one disciple, arrests Peter because it would please the people. (Acts 12:3) Whether Peter would have died or not at this point was dependant on what the people wanted, not what Peter would or would not say.

A more modern example would be the Salem Witch Trials. A young woman would be accused of being a witch. After various accusations, cross-examinations and times of imprisonment, she may “confess” to being a witch.

Does anyone believe this confession would be accurate—they really were a witch? Nope. It would be felt the confession was extracted out of them by violence. According to Christianity’s own claimed history, the methods of torture and persecution would be as bad. If someone even overheard Peter say it was a lie, would they record it as a truth? Not at all, in the same way, they would assume he was coerced into the statement.

Some of the accused women insisted they were not, nor ever were witches—yet they were still executed! When a persecution cycle begins, what the accused say will neither save them, nor damn them. They will be killed, regardless.

Some of the accused women offered up others, in the hope of saving themselves. It only brought in more martyrs and saved none. If 10 or 15 people all accused a disciple, regardless of whether that disciple decried it was all a hoax, they would still die.

According to Acts, the Disciples were at the forefront of the Christian movement. They would be well known, and acknowledged as the leaders of the church. If the persecution was as widespread, and involved literally the death of Christians, the Disciples would be singled out. They would be marked for death, despite any trial, any statements, anything they might claim. The person that argues, “would not die for a lie” forgets that the impetus of persecution, for whatever reason, would not stop simply because the Disciple recanted. That is not what persecution was about! It was about stopping the movement through threat and application of violence.

In order for this argument to be persuasive, the proponent would need to show how and what manner the named individuals died. We have no facts, no history, no Biblical support. It is here this argument crashes.

Before we briefly look at four specific examples, the last requirement—

Not for any other reason Although Christians may not like the materialistic side to it, there would have been a great deal of wealth and power as the leaders of this new movement. Perhaps they were in it up to their necks, before realizing it might mean their necks, and could not extract themselves from it in time.

We have twelve disciples and the brother of Jesus all from Galilee. Some had houses, some had family, but in a word—they had roots. After the Pentecost, the most natural place to begin this new movement was at home, in Galilee. But what do they do? Stay in Jerusalem. How are all twelve (not a one returns to Galilee) able to afford and survive this move? Even the family of Jesus comes along. Acts 1:12-14.

A simple question—what are they living on? They had either given up their jobs, or only worked part-time for three years. Funds must be low. The answer becomes apparent; they are living off the funds of the new converts.

People were selling their possessions, and giving to those in need. (Acts 2:45) As the Disciples had little or nothing, they needed the most!

Ever research First Century Economics? Not much is known, of course, but it seems that landowners tended to live in towns, and have managers work the tracts of agricultural land in the country. The landowners may have houses both in the country and the city. If one did not read Jesus’ penchant for the poor, in reading Acts it would seem that Christianity attracted the rich!

Acts 4:33 says the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of Jesus. Is it just coincidence that the very next sentence notes that all who possessed land and house(s) sold them and brought to the proceeds to the apostles’ feet? Barnabas is mentioned as having done so. (Acts 4:37) And, obviously, our very famous couple, Ananias and Sapphira. They provided a portion of the sale of their land, but lied about giving all of it. God killed them. Great fear spread through the church. (Acts 5:11)

One could apostatize, preach against Paul, and cause division in the church, and be forgiven. But lie about money? That was a capital offense, causing fear among the constituents. Proponents of this argument might need to face the fact that the reason the disciples and church was persecuted, and the reason what they said would not matter, is that it was a wealthy competitor to other religions.

Now for our examples:

James the Disciple Killed by Herod for reasons unknown. Acts 12:1 says Herod was “harassing the church” and killed James with a sword. We can speculate that James was given a chance to recant and save his life, but that is pure guesswork. Not in the text, not in the history.

This argument is supposed to validate the physical resurrection. How strong is it to be based on pure opinion? Further, Stephen’s death was exemplified as being a martyr’s. (Acts 7:59) If the author of Acts felt that James’ death was as well, would it have received more than a mention?

More importantly, it was not recorded that Herod couldn’t get James to break, so he went after Peter. He went after Peter for political reasons—because it would please the Jews. Herod wanted a public trial! Why hold a public trial, if James had held true to a physical resurrection? That would hurt Herod’s position. More likely Herod was to put on a “show” trial, and then execute Peter, without Peter even having a chance to say anything at all.

We can opine that James could have saved his life by recanting, but it is presuming the very argument the proponent is trying to make.

Per chance the next one will fair better.

James the Just The only named individual we obtain our information from an extra-Christian source, Josephus. Here, though, it would seem that James was killed for political reasons, and, again, had nothing to do with what he could, or would not say.

If you read the passage, without the identifier that James was the brother of Christ, there is nothing here to indicate James was a Christian, no Christian activity for which he would have been accused, nothing specific as to why he was even targeted. Without that identifier, we would not even be looking at this section!

Ananus, a Sadducee, decided to flex his political muscle, assembled a Sanhedrin without consulting the Pharisees, formed an accusation against James, and had him stoned. The Pharisees, upset over this breach of their law, have Ananus deposed.

There is nothing here about James being questioned, what James could or would have said, or even if James had said, “It was all a hoax” that Ananus would have let up. James was merely a safe pawn of a rival belief, which Ananus used to show he was boss by killing him.

Just like the other James, the only way to claim he voluntarily did not “die for a lie” is to read it into the story. Make it up.

Peter Really the best shot for martyrdom. Whoever wrote 2 Peter wanted to tie it into Peter himself, and writes as if it was prepared within a short time period prior to his death. (2 Peter 1:14) This demonstrates knowledge of his death, and a connection to bolster the validity of the book.

Whoever wrote John 21:18 presumes his audience has knowledge of the fact not only that Peter is dead, but how he died. (While it certainly could be read as crucifixion, it is not exactly clear.) Again, indication of general knowledge of Peter’s death

1 Clement 5:4 designates Peter as a martyr. Unfortunately, none of these accounts tell when, where, or the circumstances of Peter’s death. Yet again, we are left with speculation as to the ability of Peter to avoid death by virtue of any claim about the physical resurrection of Christ.

The problem with 1 Clement is that the author only lists Peter and Paul as martyrs. No James the Disciple. No James the Just. No Philip. No Simon. No Thaddaeus. After listing Paul, the next biggest names he can come up with are Danaids and Dircae. You remember them, of course, from….from…..well, no we don’t remember them.

Even placing 1 Clement as early as 95 CE, there should be more of these disciples well known for being martyrs. Yet strange silence.

The most famous of all—Peter—and as of the end of the First Century, we have no information as to how he died. More speculation.

And that is it for information within the Disciple’s lifetime. After this, it becomes information from someone who heard it from someone else. Dangerously introducing a high likelihood of myth making, and lack of reliability.

Bartholomew Those that have read the Gospel of Mark, with the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, know he is one of the Disciples. If one only read the Gospel of John, one would ask, “Who?” But, Mark, Matthew and Luke do not record a Nathaniel as a Disciple, but the Gospel of John does.

As always, the resolution proposed is that Bartholomew had two names, and the Gospel of John only knew him by Nathaniel. As that may be, the last individual record the Bible gives of Bartholomew is prior to the Pentecost. (Acts 1:13) Nothing is stated as to how he died.

Nothing in the Second Century. Nothing in the Third Century. Not until the very beginning of the Fourth Century do we hear the tale of Bartholomew’s ministry and death. Not until Eusebius records that Pantaeus heard from other converts that Bartholomew had preached in India. Sounds a bit like “I heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard a rumor about it.”

Even then, there ARE conflicting legends, as to his name, how he died, and where he preached. Since one legend claims he was flayed alive, he can be depicted as holding his own skin. Yuck.

These legends are too removed in time from the events to be of any value. If Christians today can see the usefulness of having a disciple die a horrible death in support of Christianity, it should be no surprise that others thought of it as well.

In reviewing these claims of how the Disciples would not die for a lie, we begin to see that the tales of how they did die did not emerge until more than 100 years after they lived. Far too long a time to develop a legend to be of any use. Of course I am assured this is not legend, but “Church Tradition.” What I see is a shifting of methodology: when it is convenient to be too late, it is considered invalid information, when convenient, it is “tradition.”

Don’t believe me? Look at the developing legend of Jesus. With Paul we start on bare-bone facts. A Jew that was betrayed, crucified, buried and resurrected. No ministry, no miracles, no sermons, no parables, no quotes of any kind (The Eucharist comes directly from Christ.) Mark begins to flesh out the tale, giving us one year of Jesus’ ministry. Matthew and Luke add even more, giving us birth narratives, resurrection stories and more sayings. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and Gospel of Thomas give us even more history and statements of Jesus. As time develops, we get more and more and more fantastic stories, and even of Letters back and forth between Jesus and a king!

The Christian often rejects anything dated after 100 CE as being “too late.” Too much time for legend to be written. No verification, since those that would have seen it are dead.

But when it comes to the disciples’ death, faced with the lack of information, the same Christian will claim that traditions would have been valid, even though they were not recorded for 200 years!

A bias is showing, here.

When faced with the question, “Would the Disciples die for a lie?” I reply, “When did they die, how did they die, and what were the circumstances of their death?” Upon review, we see that it is a guess, pure opinion that they had a chance to recant and save their lives.

History does not record it. The Bible does not record it. The church does not record it until so long after, it cannot be considered reliable. The proponent of this argument, through all the claims, and statements and cute catch phrases, is really saying, “I guess they wouldn’t die for a lie, but I have no facts to demonstrate otherwise.”