Did Isaac Consummate His Marriage With Rebecca When She Was Three Years Old?

There are some pretty sick accusations against the Judeo-Christian god of the Old Testament (infanticide, genocide, etc.) but this has to be the sickest (and I just found out about it today):

“In Biblical times people were married at a very young age. Girls were usually betrothed before they reached puberty – majority of the time the marriage would have consummated when the girl reached puberty, and that was usually between the ages of 8, 9 or older,(Note: when a girl reached puberty prior to the 20th century, she was considered to be an adult in most cultures/societies). In this article I will mostly quote Scholarly sources to prove that marriage in ancient Israelite times took place at a very young age, sometimes the girls who were married off were pre-pubescent. There was no law against a pre-pubescent girl being married off. Actually as you will read further, you will come to realise that the Mishnah gave approval for a Man to have intercourse to a betrothed girl, any-time after the age of three years old.

[Question: How old was Rebecca at the time of her marriage to Isaac?]

Rabbi Solomon Itzhak [prominent Jewish scholar] in his comment on Genesis, says that Rebecca, when she was married to Isaac, was but three Years of Age. His words run thus, ‘When Abraham was come from Mount Moria, he received the joyful News of Rebecca. Isaac was at that Time Thirty seven years old; and then did Sarah die. The time, from birth of Isaac to the death of Sarah, was Thirty seven Years, And Sarah was Ninety Years old when Isaac was born; and One Hundred and Twenty Seven Years old when she died: As it is said in Gen 23:1 . Sarah was one hundred and twenty-seven years old. Behold, the Age of Isaac was Thirty Seven Years, at the Time of the Birth of Rebecca. And when he had waited for her three Years, till she was fit for marriage, he took her to wife.”

According to this Account, Rebecca was a very notable Girl at three years of age. But that a girl of three Years old is fit for marriage, is maintained very plainly in the Jewish writings; particularly, in Emek Hamelech, in the following passage, ‘our blessed sags, of blessed memory, say, that a female is not fit for marriage, ‘till she is arrived at the Age of three years and one day.’The Talmud supports these Sages here, in the part entitled Avoda Sara. And the Sanhedrin says, A daughter, who is of the age of three years and one day, is, by being bedded with a Man, lawfully married.” [1]

Source: here

Sick, sick, sick. And Christians accuse Mohammad and Joseph Smith of being sick pedophiles and perverts! If the Judeo-Christian god, Yahweh, exists he is one sick bastard. How could any “moral” being or person condone a grown man sexually penetrating a three year old little girl?

I am so sick I could vomit.

Of course Christian apologists will argue furiously that the math used to calculate Rebecca’s age to three years old at the time of her marriage to Isaac is incorrect. But even if Rebecca was 9 or 12 it would still be abhorent in my opinion. However, the fact of the matter is that Jewish law even during the intertestamental time allowed for intercourse with a betrothed female child after she had reached the age of three years and one day::

“The Talmud teaches that a girl of ‘three years and one day’ could be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse.” [9]

Source: here

Good god!!! Any modern person who worships Yahweh might as well be worshipping a pedophile.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Advertisement

Does Josephus’ Brief Statement That Jesus Was a Miracle Worker Confirm the Miracle Stories in the Gospels?

Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works-a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles.

-Josephus, first century Jewish historian

It amazes me the logic used by even the brightest minds in Christianity regarding alleged evidence for the historicity of the (tall) tales found in the Gospels. Here is the issue in question: Just because first century Jewish historian Josephus made a very brief mention about Jesus as a miracle worker and healer, does that confirm every fantastical miracle claim story in the Gospels? Of course not. Miracle workers and healers came a dime a dozen in Antiquity. So including Jesus in this category does nothing to confirm his status as God, King of the Cosmos.

I can’t prove it but I suspect that first century Christian story tellers and authors knew this. They knew that to convince first century Jews, Romans, and Greeks that Jesus of Nazareth was the Creator, the Savior of all humankind, God Incarnate, they needed stories of Jesus performing BIG miracles! So they invented big miracles…walking on water, feeding thousands of people with a few loaves of Wonder Bread, raising people (and himself) from the dead…so that you might believe!

Here is an example of one modern, very intelligent Christian Bible scholar, apologist, and blog author trying to use this silly logic to convince himself and other Christians that Jesus’ reputation as a healer and miracle worker is sufficient evidence to believe in feats of water walking, turning water into wine, corpse regeneration, etc..

Joel Edmund Anderson: https://www.joeledmundanderson.com/im-back-lets-look-at-the-sign-of-jonah-matthew-161-4-and-1238-45-and-mark-811-13/

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Why does Jesus Need Apologists?

According to Christians, Jesus is the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Creator and Lord of the universe. So why does Jesus need Bible scholars, theologians, and apologists? I just don’t get it. If I or any other person on the planet has a question or doubt about the claims within the Christian holy book, the Bible, why can’t we simply ask Jesus? Why bother asking fallible mortals such as scholars, theologians, and apologists???? If omniscient, omnipresent Lord Jesus exists, isn’t he the ultimate search engine? Who needs Google?

If Jesus is omnipresent, then he is sitting right next to me on the sofa as I type these very words. So why can’t I turn to Lord Jesus and ask him any question on my mind and get an immediate answer? What about, “Hey Lord Jesus, how did you get out of your sealed tomb? After regenerating your bloated, putrefying corpse, did you pop out of sight after wiggling your nose like Bewitched? Or, did you ask the angel Gabriel to beam you up to a mother ship hovering in the skies above Jerusalem like Captain Kirk would say to Scottie? No, you probably just “said the words and it was so”, right? No nose twitching or transporter beams for Lord Jesus!

Hey Lord Jesus, since you are sitting right next to me, would it be too much trouble for you to pop into view for a couple of minutes to have a brief chat? It would do “miracles” in convincing me of the historicity of the Resurrection and every other far-fetched fantastical claim in the Bible. Just five minutes is all I ask. If you do so, I have no doubt that I will become a believer. So what do you say, Jesus?

(Silence…)

(Crickets chirping…)

Oh, that’s right…you don’t like being “tested”, do you? Why is that, Jesus? During your human lifetime you repeatedly used your magical powers to convince people of your identity. So why not now? Why not now, Jesus!

Could it possibly be because…you’re dead?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

The Creator of Our Universe Was a First Century Hippie? Really?

Think about this: A small group of long-haired, sandal-wearing, peace-niks shows up in your town preaching that “the end is near”, to sell all your possessions, and to join them in non-stop worship and praise of their leader, Bob, a carpenter by trade from Appalachia. Why? Bob claims to be the creator of the universe. Bob also claims to possess unlimited supernatural powers. When asked to demonstrate these powers to you personally, you are repeatedly told: “Bob does not like to be tested!”

However, Bob’s disciples can tell you many amazing miracles which Bob has (allegedly) performed all over the country. In a field in upstate New York, Bob fed several thousands people out of one pizza box. His closest followers swear they all saw Bob walk across the surface of Lake Michigan. A female follower from rural Alabama swears Bob raised her son from the dead during his funeral procession to the cemetery! One female disciple, (allegedly, but not confirmed) a former prostitute, washes Bob’s feet with expensive perfume using her own hair!

Most people in the towns this group passes through believe that these “Bob followers” are complete nut jobs. But invariably a few people, most of them poorly educated, emotionally vulnerable, and economically disadvantaged, believe the claims are true, sell everything they have, purchase an old VW van….and take off following their “savior”, Bob.

And religious nut jobs have been repeating this same pattern of behavior for at least…2,000 years!

Oy vey!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Skeptics Need to Explain The Origin of The Resurrection Belief

“The skeptic has to offer a plausible hypothesis of why the disciples of Jesus used the language of resurrection.” —Christian apologist

No. Skeptics do not need to provide possible hypotheses for the origin of the Resurrection Belief any more than we need to provide possible hypotheses for the origin of every other ghost sighting in human history. Superstitious people with wild, hysterical imaginations are capable of concocting the most fantastical of tales. “Resurrection” was not invented by the first Christians. It was an established belief in the mother religion (Judaism). Christians simply gave it a new twist. This is the typical point of origin of most sects and cults.

Only brainwashed Christians are incapable of seeing this fact. Everyone else in the world, theists and non-theists, get it. That is what YOU need to explain, dear apologist. Why is it that only Christians (with very few exceptions) assume that a literal resurrection is the only plausible explanation for the Resurrection Belief?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

There Are No Adequate Natural Explanations for the Resurrection

Only a literal corpse reanimation (resurrection) can adequately explain why a few hundred first century country bumpkins came to believe that their executed cult leader had appeared to them from the dead, proving to the entire world that he truly was Almighty God, Lord and Creator of the Cosmos.

Lee, Christian: Ockham’s Razor only eliminates a supernatural explanation [for the Resurrection Belief] if an adequate natural explanation can be offered; to date, none of the natural explanations (no burial; body stolen; wrong tomb; some kind of “spiritual” as opposed to bodily resurrection; etc.) have proved adequate to explain all of the historically documented evidence surrounding Jesus’ resurrection.

Gary: Adequate to whom???

Millions of non-Christians all over the world, theists and non-theists, believe that there are multiple, very adequate natural explanations for the origination of the Resurrection (of Jesus) Belief. You know this, Lee! I have presented several hypothetical natural explanations to you—multiple times! Yet you and your fellow Christian apologists persist in claiming that no “adequate” natural explanation exists. Here is the big question for you, Lee: Who gave Christian apologists the final say on this matter??? Why do you and your fellow Christian apologists get the final say regarding which explanations for the early Christian Resurrection Belief are adequate and which are not?

Who died and made you God?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Do Christian Apologists Misuse Occam’s Razor?

Christian apologist: The literal resurrection of Jesus requires the fewest number of assumptions compared to the multi-step hypothetical, very improbable, natural explanations for the origin of the Resurrection Belief posited by skeptics. Therefore, using the principle of Occam’s Razor, the Resurrection is more probable than any of these natural explanations. And in regards to the origin of the universe, wouldn’t Friar Occam posit that the most likely scenario, predicated on the fewest number of assumptions, is that God directly created our space-time universe, rather than the complex, multi-step theories of atheistic scientists?

Gary: Before we proceed discussing this topic, my Christian friend, would you kindly answer these two questions:

–Would you agree that a supernatural explanation is always the most parsimonious (the most frugal; requiring the fewest assumptions and steps) explanation for any odd event?

–If a natural explanation exists to explain the origin of the Resurrection Belief, even if that natural explanation involves multiple steps, involving multiple very rare natural events, making this cumulative natural explanation very improbable, at what point is a supernatural explanation more probable for the origin of this belief than the very rare, very improbable, but still possible multi-step cumulative natural explanation?

Christian apologist: In regards to the first question: No, I wouldn’t. In regards to the second question: I’m no logician, but I would have to follow logic and reason, even if it conflicted with my worldview.

Regarding the Resurrection:  As I understand Occam’s Razor, the very beginning, the premise. Because a cumulative, natural explanation of the resurrection involves multiple unnecessary assumptions.

Regarding the origin of the universe: Thus, Occam’s Razor seems to me to imply that the best solution which explains the existence of mind, reason, consciousness and personhood is the supernatural explanation. Because it involves the least number of assumptions.

Your hypothetical “possibly supernatural god” creating multiple universes each of which evolve beings who then use machines to create more universes is certainly built upon a number of unnecessary assumptions. One God creating our space-time universe (including humans and human consciousness and reason) ex nihilo is all that is necessary. Your hypothetical situation is forced to posit an infinite number of assumptions, all in order to escape having the Judaeo-Christian god create it from nothing. Basically your version has too many unnecessary steps, whereas mine doesn’t. In my scenario one God is all that’s needed to do what your scenario needs possibly billions of beings (the original, first of whom may have been divine) to do.

Gary: Is it possible that you are misusing the accepted modern usage of Occam’s Razor? It is certainly possible that the Catholic friar (Occam) who conceived of the principle now known as Occam’s Razor intended to apply it to all odd events, but this is not the modern usage of this principle, at least not by the educated class of our society. The proper usage of Occam’s Razor in the modern world is just as the caption above states:

The answer that requires the fewest assumptions is GENERALLY the correct one.

You are instead using the following variation:

The answer that requires the fewest assumptions is ALWAYS the correct one.

You are not using the principles of good critical thinking if you insist on using your antiquated version of Occam’s Razor. Your arguments based on this alternative interpretation are foolish and naive to modern educated people, my Christian friend. And you never really answered my question about the Resurrection. Telling! You won’t answer it because you know your answer will appear foolish to educated non-Christians. An improbable natural explanation is always more probable than a supernatural explanation—in the real world—but maybe not in yours.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

If Skeptics Can’t Disprove A Miracle, Then It Is True!

It’s a miracle!

Gary: You stated that if your pastor tells you that he saw Jesus last night you would believe him. That is gullible, Lee.

Lee, Christian: No, it isn’t Gary. The definition [of “gullible”] was “easily duped”.

My believing my pastor is very different from my believing some random person off the street whom I’ve never met who claims he just saw the Blessed Virgin. If someone I know to be honest, rational and not prone to seeing things tells me in all seriousness that they’ve just seen the Virgin, I’d at least have to take their claim seriously. Again, based upon the fact that I know them to be honest and not prone to making such claims. Materialism paints you into a corner; anytime a miracle is claimed you have to try to explain it away. But some miracles can’t be explained away.

Gary: You are once again failing to use good critical thinking skills, my Christian friend. First, let’s define “miracle”. Just because an event is odd, rare, or has remarkable timing (you prayed to Jesus five minutes earlier), does not necessarily mean that it is a miracle (a supernatural act). Odd things happen!!! Really, really, really odd but very natural events do occur. There is MASSIVE evidence of this fact. Google it if you don’t believe me.

For instance, did you know that it is possible to flip a coin and have it land on heads twenty times in a row? Here are the chances of that happening:

The probability of flipping a coin and getting heads is 0.5 (assuming a fair coin with no bias towards heads or tails). The probability of getting 20 heads in a row is (0.5)^20, which is equal to approximately 0.00000095367 or 0.0001% (rounded to 5 decimal places).

How often have you seen a coin flip land twenty times in a row on heads, Lee? Never, I’m sure. Neither have I. And I will bet that 99.99999999% of people on earth have never seen a coin land on heads twenty times in a row. So if a coin does land on heads twenty times in a row, is that a “miracle”? Maybe, but not necessarily. It could be a supernatural act but it could also be a very, very rare natural event. Tossing heads twenty times in a row is not impossible statistically, just improbable.

The problem with miracle claims is that almost all Christian “miracle” claims today involve events which could be very rare statistical events. Cancer cures, recoveries from chronic illnesses, near death experiences could all be rare statistical events. These events have occurred multiple times in history. However, the reattachment of major limb amputations and beheadings and the reassembly of persons blown to bits by a bomb NEVER occur. These events cannot be explained by a rare but natural statistical event. If such events did occur, they would be miracles. But for some odd reason, Christians never report these miracles, do they?

So what about our hypothetical situation of your pastor claiming to have seen Jesus in the flesh last night? There are very few things in life that are 100% certain (except death and taxes). So with all this uncertainty, how do humans make decisions? Humans learn to make decisions based on probability. Uneducated or poorly educated people tend to base most of their probability decisions on personal experience and hearsay. Educated people, on the other hand, base their probability decisions on a combination of factors: personal experience, hearsay (the experiences of people they trust and respect), but more importantly, consensus expert opinion. For example, most educated people do not get out of their cars to personally inspect every bridge we intend to drive over. Why? We routinely drive over bridges in our technologically advanced country without inspecting them because we have the personal experience that most bridges in our country are safe AND we trust consensus expert opinion on the safety of bridges in our country. We have the ability to research the statistics regarding the safety of bridges/the failure rate of bridges in our country. We can also read what engineering experts say about the safety of bridges in our country. That is how educated people make probability decisions.

So let’s evaluate your pastor’s (hypothetical) claim that he saw the resurrected Jesus last night using good critical thinking skills. To do this we must evaluate the probability that dead people appearing in the flesh to living people. Here are the questions we should ask ourselves about this claim if using good critical thinking skills:

—How frequently do otherwise sane, respectable, honest, trustworthy people experience hallucinations or delusions?

—How frequently do otherwise sane, respectable, honest, trustworthy people lie?

—How frequently do educated human beings in the West claim to see and touch back from the dead people?

—With billions of cellphones and other recording devices covering practically every square inch of the planet, how many recordings have been made of appearances by dead people?

—What does the latest medical research say about the possibility of regenerating brain-dead bodies (bringing a brain dead person back to life)?

If we ask ourselves these five questions using good critical thinking skills we come to the conclusion that it is far more probable that your pastor is mistaken (or lying) than that he really did see a walking, talking dead person.

I strongly encourage you, Lee, and all other Christians, to examine the fantastical claims of your religion using this same process. Notice that nowhere in this use of critical thinking skills do I assume that miracles are impossible. Miracles are not impossible, but they are statistically improbable.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Where Are All The Episcopalian, Presbyterian, And Lutheran Miracles?

Christian apologists use the argument that since thousands if not millions of people claim to experience miracles each and every year they must be true, at least some of them. “They can’t all be false!” They often quote Pentecostal NT scholar Craig Keener’s two volume book “Miracles” as the gospel on the subject of miracles. I have read this work, cover to cover. In it, almost ALL miracle claims, and there are hundreds, are made by Pentecostals living in Third World countries in which the percentage of people with a university education is low.

My question: Where are all the Episcopalian, Presbyterian, and Lutheran miracles? Why are almost all miracles claims made by Roman Catholics and Pentecostals?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End.

Atheism Is Just As Much A Religion As Christianity

Christian: Atheism is as much a religion as their counterpart!

Atheist Alliance: Let’s spell this out, atheists have no beliefs in common, no gods of any kind, nothing they worship, no scripture, no shared values, and no dogma. They have no clergy, no schools, and no sacred buildings. The only thing all atheists share is a lack of belief in gods.

Gary: And most telling of all: Atheists in the United States do not receive tax breaks from the IRS like Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims (see above linked article for details). A-theism is no more a religion than a-unicornism and a-leprechaunism. We don’t believe in gods. Period.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.