Five Hundred People Today Claim to See a Resurrected Corpse. What Evidence Would You Require to Believe Them?

Why Didn't Josephus Mention Jesus' Resurrection Appearance to Five Hundred  People? – Escaping Christian Fundamentalism

Many conservative Christians are shocked and appalled that the alleged eyewitness testimony of over 500 people in first century Palestine is not sufficient evidence for skeptics to believe in the resurrection of Jesus. Yet, would these same Christians believe the claim of five hundred mostly poor and uneducated people today who claim that they had seen a resurrected corpse? I doubt it.

Why do most modern, educated Christians scoff at the fantastical supernatural claims and eyewitness testimony of poor, uneducated villagers in India and Africa, not bothering to spend even five seconds investigating these claims, but expect the world to accept as fact the alleged eyewitness testimony of five hundred mostly poor and uneducated first century Middle Eastern peasants?

It just does not make sense.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Jesus Loves You, Gary. Stop Running From God!

Catholic print picture Jesus with open arms 8" x 10" ready to be framed |  eBay

Conservative Christian apologist:

“[Gary said:] If the historical evidence for the Resurrection is so good, why do you and so many other Christian’s so frequently doubt??

Because God has so ordained the world as to make it possible to reject Him. We can deceive ourselves into believing a lie. Just as you have done. Allow me to share with you one of my favorite quotes from J.L. Schellenberg’s book, Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason: “It is just mistaken to suppose that there are no moral tests involved in acknowledging a fact which we know for certain, as opposed to one which we judge to be merely probable. If the acknowledgement is a painful one, showing our failures and defects to the world, there are no limits to the ingenuity with which we will persuade ourselves that we do not know it after all, or will distract ourselves from paying attention to it.” – Penelhum, Cornell University Press p. 178 Here is another relevant quote from a different book: “For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

God loves you, Gary. I really recommend you stop running and hiding from Him. I know it’s scary but it’s for your own good. You can be forgiven. You are accepted and can be restored. Please stop running.

Gary:

Because God has so ordained the world as to make it possible to reject Him. We can deceive ourselves into believing a lie. Just as you have done.”

Or maybe the reason why you and so many other Christians so frequently doubt is because common sense tells you that the Christian supernatural tale is just too far-fetched to be true. Trust that intuition, Simon!  It is your educated brain telling you that you are being deceived by an ancient cult.  An ancient cult which tells you to “test the spirits”…but don’t you DARE test the “Spirit” you are commanded to worship and obey as your “lord and master”.

Test the spirit, Simon!  Come on.  Do it!  Test Jesus the resurrected Christ and see if he responds.  Tell him to give you an unmistakable sign; a sign that could not be due to chance.  Ask Jesus to levitate your coffee table off of the ground for 30 seconds, just in your presence.  No one else.  Guess what?  He won’t do it.  And do you know why he won’t do it?  It’s not because he doesn’t like being “tested”.  It is because he is dead.  Jesus is dead, Simon.  Stop listening to the delusions in your head.  Christianity is a superstitious delusion.

51 Rustic Coffee Tables That Redefine Shabby Chic

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Why Do Christian Apologists Appeal to So Many Assumptions?

The Brain Rewards Assumptions - HR Daily Advisor

Conservative Christian apologist:

Let’s think through what a generic creator god must have in order to be worthy of worship. In order to a god to be worthy of worship, it must be maximally great. If it’s maximally great then it can’t be dependent on anything else. If it’s maximally great, then everything else must depend on the maximally great being for it’s existence (which explains why it’s a creator god). If it’s maximally great then it must be perfectly loving. If it’s perfectly loving then it’s perfectly just. If it’s perfectly just, then it must dish out righteous punishment in the form that I describe in these blogs:

https://www.nechristianapologetics.com/post/is-death-an-appropriate-punishment-for-sin https://www.nechristianapologetics.com/post/why-god-punishes-us-when-we-refuse-to-forgive

But if it is perfectly loving, then it wants to be reconciled to the creatures who have separated themselves from it. And that’s where Jesus comes in. Because in order for a god like that to forgive, someone has to die for the reasons I explain in this blog:

https://www.nechristianapologetics.com/post/forgiving-sins-requires-someone-to-die

(What I’m saying will not make much sense unless you actually read the links I’ve provided) Please remember that we are talking about your eternal salvation here. So, this is kinda important. As in, it’s the single most important thing in your life. Since I believe Christianity is true, it would be extremely wrong and evil for me not to tell you these things. Especially seeing as you reached out to me. Which I take to be a sign from God to me and you that this is important. And that, I think, would be especially true if you were a child, by the way… If you want scholarly consensus then you need to come up with a way to explain the following things that have the consensus of New Testament scholars concerning Jesus of Nazareth:

1) Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea,

2) the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb by some of his female followers,

3) the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups,

and 4) the original disciples’ coming sincerely to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite their strong predisposition to the contrary

Your hallucination/delusion/vivid dream hypothesis explains (3) and, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, can only very weakly explain (4). The resurrection hypothesis powerfully explains (2), (3) and (4). Therefore, your hypothesis is weaker than the resurrection hypothesis in the following ways: Explanatory Scope, Explanatory Power, and even Plausibility (since you believe it’s “very possible” that there is some kind of creator god, it wouldn’t have any trouble doing a resurrection) (1) obviously being explained by Jesus’ existence. Which has scholarly consensus so I suspect that you have no problem with that.

If the best explanation of those other three facts that have scholarly consensus is the resurrection, then how do we explain the fact that the resurrection hypothesis doesn’t have scholarly consensus (even though the resurrection hypothesis does have a strong minority position)? It’s best explained by scholars having an irrational predisposition against the supernatural. They come at it from the position that it’s actually NOT “very possible that the universe was created by an intelligent being”. This “intelligent being”, in this case, is some kind of “generic creator god”. That scholarly opinion is, globally speaking, a stark minority.

Gary:

 “It’s best explained by scholars having an irrational predisposition against the supernatural.”


That might be true if only atheist scholars held that view.  But why do most Roman Catholic scholars doubt the eyewitness authorship of the Gospels?  Why does NT Wright say that he has no idea who wrote the gospels nor when they were written?  That’s a big problem for your supposition that the scholarly consensus is based on a bias against the supernatural. 

Conservative Christian Apologist:

It’s true that I believe the gospels were written by the people they’re traditionally attributed to (even though I don’t think it makes a difference if they weren’t). It doesn’t make a difference if the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. It makes no difference. I believe that they were but it doesn’t matter. People don’t have to believe that the people who are traditionally thought to have written the books of the Bible actually wrote them in order to be a Christian. People don’t have to believe that Matthew was written by anyone named Matthew to be a Christian or to believe that what he/she wrote is reliable.

Gary:

I was only refuting your claim that the scholarly consensus regarding the non-eyewitness authorship of the Gospels is based on a bias against the supernatural.  The fact that Roman Catholic scholars, who very much believe in the supernatural, and the fact that Protestant scholar NT Wright says that no one knows who wrote the Gospels nor when they were written, completely demolishes your unsupported claim that the scholarly consensus on the non-eyewitness authorship of the Gospels is based on a bias against the supernatural.  Can you be honest and admit that?


At the beginning of this I wrote, “it’s true that I believe the gospels were written by the people they’re traditionally attributed to (even though I don’t think it makes a difference if they weren’t).” It doesn’t make a difference if the gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. It makes no difference. I believe that they were but it doesn’t matter.”


It makes a HUGE difference if the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or the close associates of eyewitnesses—as the scholarly consensus believes!  If the Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses, one or more generations removed from the events they describe, we cannot be certain of their historical accuracy.  I know that conservative Christians have all sorts of assumptions about first century Jews and their strict policies of maintaining the accuracy of oral traditions, but this is nothing more than an assumption based on the habits of the Temple scribes.  The majority of the early Christians were not Temple scribes but “unlearned” country bumpkins (peasants).  The entire Christian belief system is based on assumption after assumption.  Bottom line:  Christians cannot point to the Gospels as undisputed eyewitness accounts.  They may contain some eyewitness information, but since we do not know the authors, NO ONE can be sure what parts are historical and what parts are non-historical.  You and other conservative Christians can continue to believe that these four books are historically reliable, but the undisputed fact is that the historical reliability of the Gospels is DISPUTED!  Disputed eyewitness testimony is not strong evidence for any claim, but it is TERRIBLE evidence for extra-ordinary claims like virgin births, water-walking, and corpse reanimations.


“Let’s think through what a generic creator god must have in order to be worthy of worship. In order to a god to be worthy of worship, it must be maximally great. If it’s maximally great then it can’t be dependent on anything else. If it’s maximally great, then everything else must depend on the maximally great being for it’s existence (which explains why it’s a creator god). If it’s maximally great then it must be perfectly loving. If it’s perfectly loving then it’s perfectly just. If it’s perfectly just, then it must dish out righteous punishment in the form that I describe in these blogs:”


Wow.  This statement is full of assumptions.  First, how do you know that the Creator God wants to be worshipped?  Due to the massive human and animal suffering on the earth, it is entirely possible that the Creator God doesn’t give a rat’s behind what we think of him or if we worship him (or her, or they, or it).  This is again the BIG problem with Christian apologetics:  so many assumptions!  Why does the Creator have to be maximally great?  It is entirely possible that the Creator god is simply a lesser god who had the power to create, but not the power to control his creation.  Since when are maximally great rulers maximally loving??  That is non-sensical.  Was Alexander the Great maximally loving?  No, but he conquered every nation in his path.  It is entirely possible that the Creator God is maximally powerful and not loving; maximally loving but has limited power; has limited power and is not loving; or he is dead.  You cannot prove which of these is correct.  You are making assumption, after assumption, all in a disparate effort to shoehorn your first century peasant god into the evidence for the Creator God.


“Please remember that we are talking about your eternal salvation here. So, this is kinda important. As in, it’s the single most important thing in your life. Since I believe Christianity is true, it would be extremely wrong and evil for me not to tell you these things. Especially seeing as you reached out to me. Which I take to be a sign from God to me and you that this is important. And that, I think, would be especially true if you were a child, by the way…”


That is exactly what a Muslim apologist would say to you.  Why don’t you worry about the Muslim hell, you “infidel”??  You don’t worry about the Muslim hell for the same reason that I do not worry about the Christian hell (or the Muslim hell):  lack of good evidence for the belief system which teaches the existence of this place of punishment; in fact, it is very bad evidence.  It is entirely possible, my friend, that it is blind chance that has brought me to you to open your eyes to your superstitious delusions.


“If you want scholarly consensus then you need to come up with a way to explain the following things that have the consensus of New Testament scholars concerning Jesus of Nazareth:  1) Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea, 2) the discovery of Jesus’ empty tomb by some of his female followers, 3) the post-mortem appearances of Jesus to various individuals and groups, and 4) the original disciples’ coming sincerely to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite their strong predisposition to the contrary”


Wrong.  I have studied the evidence for the Resurrection claim extensively and no scholar that I know of (not even conservative evangelical scholars) claim that the scholarly consensus believes that Joseph of Arimathea buried Jesus.  A majority of scholars believe that Jesus was buried in a rock tomb, but whose tomb it was is not a consensus position.  There is no consensus of scholars that Jesus’ empty tomb was found by women, only that an empty tomb was found.  The majority of scholars believe that some of Jesus’ followers BELIEVED that Jesus had appeared to them, in some fashion, but there is DEFINITELY no scholarly consensus which states that it is an historical fact that the resurrected Jesus appeared bodily to his followers after his execution.  That is a gross misstatement of scholarship, my friend.


“the original disciples’ coming sincerely to believe that God had raised Jesus from the dead despite their strong predisposition to the contrary”


Conservative Christians often make this claim.  However, just because someone dramatically and abruptly changes their entire worldview is NOT proof that the new belief is true.  If that were correct, then we should all become Hare Krishnas!  And the fact that thousands of Christians have been willing to be tortured and die for their beliefs is not sufficient reason to believe that a first century corpse really did come back from the dead.  Human beings are capable of believing all kinds of crazy things and being willing to die for those crazy beliefs.  For evidence, just look at all the fundamentalist Muslim suicide bombers.  


And, no, I do not believe that the disciples were lying.  I believe that the original resurrection sighting claims were genuine and honest.  However, honest, rational people can be misled by illusions, mistaken identity sightings, vivid dreams, delusions, and hallucinations.  You may believe that a supernatural resurrection is more probable than an illusion, but most non-Christians, including most Muslims, Jews, and people of other religions, suspect that the original sightings were cases of illusions, mistaken identity, etc..  So you can’t blame disbelief of the disciples’ resurrection claims on lack of belief in the supernatural.  Plenty of theists doubt the resurrection claims.  They doubt the resurrection claims because they know that even genuine eyewitnesses can get carried away in their religious fervor and see and hear things that are not there.  Intense human emotions often distort reality.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Silly Atheist! Consensus Expert Opinion is Not Sufficient Reason to Reject the Eyewitness Authorship of the Gospels

Expert opinion stock illustration. Illustration of uppercase - 109271511

Christian blogger and apologist:

I appreciate you weighing in on my blog post [posting a comment]. You make a good point that stands if the evidence holds up: “If the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or associates of eyewitnesses, then do we still have good reason to trust the reliability of the gospel accounts including the resurrection of Jesus Christ?” That looks to be the point you are making. Feel free to correct me if that does not represent what you are saying.

I did read the article in the link you posted and I did see a few points, but mostly what I saw was assertions that “the gospels cannot be early” or “the majority of scholarship says the gospel cannot have been written early.” First, an assertion is not an argument, it is merely an assertion. Simply saying that “the majority of scholarship says the gospels cannot have been written early” does not make it so. One must provide reasons that the gospels were written later.

On the other hand, let me give you a very short article that gives a brief argument for an early date for the gospels. https://www.str.org/w/a-short-argument-for-early-dating-of-the-gospels Basically, it is an argument for an early date of the gospels based upon the death of Paul. Since almost every scholar believes that Mark was written first, and that John was written last, and that Matthew and Luke were written between those two (and have much in common among them), one can look at the end of Acts and notice that Paul’s death is not mentioned, which would put Acts at around the 63ish date. If Acts is at 63, then Luke (which was written before Acts, by Luke) must be earlier than even 63, which would also put Matthew and Luke (and certainly Mark) must earlier. Now, just because a document is early does not mean it is reliable, but it is a better reason to think it is reliable than not unless there are reasons given to question its reliability.

Another Point: Even if the gospels were written late and/or were not written by eyewitnesses or close associates, that does not, necessarily, mean that the gospel accounts are false. It simply means they are late and not written by eyewitnesses. We can look at some of the writings of Paul, for example, that predate even some of the gospels, and still can infer that Christ is risen from those documents. The resurrection still exists in the literature before the gospels and before 70AD, and even around the 30sAD (1 Corinthians 15:3-8, for example, many believe to be an early hymn (or confession) which proclaims Christ risen just a few years after the event itself. So, even if the gospels were destroyed, you’d still have to deal with the other writings of the New Testament, especially Paul.

Final Point: Even if one could show Christianity to have difficulties as you’ve mentioned above, that still does not negate the difficulties that atheism, for example, has. The questions I ask about atheism stands even if there is a poor case for Christianity to be true. Again, every worldview has difficulties, the question is, which worldview are we willing to live with (with it’s difficulties) the most? Here are the questions I posted above:

1. How does, literally, everything come from, literally, nothing (“nothing” in the philosophical sense contra Hawkings’ “nothing” of some quantum vacuum)?

2. How do moral values that look objective come from “nothing” which is non-moral? Or, how does a purely naturalistic universe produce Real, Objective moral values such as, “It’s wrong to torture children for the fun of it” (which most people can “see” as objectively wrong at all times).

3.How does the atheist explain that we can “see” that torturing children for the fun of it is objectively wrong and that we can “see” that helping an old lady across the street is objectively right?

4.How does an unguided, blind, nothingness in the universe bring about such beauty (rose, mountain, ocean, newborn, etc.) and complexity (cell, solar system, photosynthesis, etc.)?

5.How does conscious life (mostly humans, but the animals as well) come from that which is non-conscious (nothing)?

6.How does philosophical naturalism (atheism, etc.) adequately explain this irrepressible human desire to be “religious”? Religion has been found in every culture that has ever existed. Where does this belief in the transcendent or this seeking for that which is not seen come from?

Gary:

Thank you for taking the time to so thoroughly respond to my comment.

Let me first address the excellent philosophical questions at the end of your comment. My answer to all your questions is: I don’t know. But I must ask this question: Just because a particular worldview claims to have all the answers for life’s biggest and hardest questions, does that necessarily make that worldview true? No. And the converse: If a worldview does not claim to know all the answers, does that necessarily make that worldview false? I would suggest that it does not.

I am not afraid to admit that my worldview does not have the answers to all of life’s questions.

You said: “Simply saying that “the majority of scholarship says the gospels cannot have been written early” does not make it so. One must provide reasons that the gospels were written later.”

No. That is not correct. I am not a scholar. I am not expert. Our culture does not require me to research every issue under the sun in order to hold a position on those issues. That would be impossible for any one human to do. Our culture believes that it is perfectly acceptable for me to defer to expert consensus opinion on all these issues. I am allowed to appeal to consensus expert opinion on all issues about which I am not an expert. For instance, if someone wants to debate me on whether or not the earth is flat, I do not need to do my own research. I can appeal to consensus expert opinion. And the same is true regarding climate change. I do not need to do my own research on this issue. I can appeal to consensus expert opinion. And the same is true with the Covid pandemic. I do not need to spend months on the internet studying to make up my own mind if Covid is true or a hoax. I can simply appeal to consensus expert opinion. That is what educated people do in our culture.

So, no. I do not need to look at your research or anyone else’s research on the dating and authorship of the Gospels. I can simply appeal to consensus expert opinion. The fact that you have spent many hours examining the evidence does not make you an expert. Your non-expert opinion is of no more value than my non-expert opinion. Even if you were a Bible scholar and held the minority position on the authorship and the dating of the Gospels, I would still be justified by the standards of our culture to ignore your opinion.

Trust consensus expert opinion on ALL issues, my friend.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

The Weakest Link in the Christian Apologist’s Defense of the Resurrection

38,413 Resurrection Stock Photos, Pictures & Royalty-Free Images - iStock

Christian Apologist:

I would argue that the gospels are in fact very close to the facts and were either written by eyewitnesses or people who personally knew (and received their information from) eyewitnesses. Having carefully surveyed the evidence, I am persuaded that the traditional authorship of the gospels (that is, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) is probably correct. The gospel accounts are not the product of decades of oral tradition, but rather of eyewitness memory. The case for this can be made robustly by pointing to the numerous points of detail in the four gospels that can be cross-checked and corroborated historically (for a detailed defense of this, see my previous articles on the subject).

Gary:

Your statement points to probably the weakest link in the Christian argument for the historicity of the Resurrection: The view that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or by their close associates. This view is a minority position in modern New Testament scholarship. In reality, only evangelical and fundamentalist Protestant scholars hold this position. Even most Roman Catholic scholars, who very much believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the supernatural, and miracles, reject the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels. See this link:
https://lutherwasnotbornagaincom.wordpress.com/2016/11/08/majority-of-scholars-agree-the-gospels-were-not-written-by-eyewitnesses/

Imagine a defense attorney appearing in court, presenting a case using minority expert opinion as a defense. The prosecution would rip his case to shreds when they demonstrate to the court that the defense attorney’s “experts” are considered to be outliers…fringe.

Using fringe expert opinion in defense of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is just as preposterous and irrational as someone today using fringe expert opinion to reject the expert consensus that Covid-19 is real (it is not a hoax) and that the vaccines against it are safe and effective.

Siding with fringe experts on any issue is not wise, folks. Most people who do so, do it simply because they like the fringe expert’s conclusions, not because the fringe expert has proven the majority opinion false.

The overwhelming majority of New Testament scholars doubt the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels. Most scholars believe that the Gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses living one or more generations removed from the alleged events they describe. Therefore, no one, let me repeat, no one should believe in virginal conceptions, water walking, or corpse reanimations based on such questionably reliable historical sources.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post

Were the Original Appearances of Jesus Based on Ghost Sightings?

Walking with Christ: Do you know the way to Emmaus? | United Methodist News  Service

Christian: I am stirred to comment on the extraordinary events surrounding Jesus’ resurrection. Jesus taught a seven mile long Bible study with two of his disciples on the road to Emmaus and they did not recognize Him. Only when He blessed the supper and in the breaking of the bread did they suddenly recognize Him. Why then? I surmise that they saw the nail prints in His wrists. Oh its You!

Then again why did everyone have a hard time recognizing Him? Everyone close to Him did not recognize Him afterwards. There are prophecies that speak of His visage marred more than any man. Another speaks of His beard ripped out. Imagine that alone. Jesus was tortured horribly.

Could it be that Jesus still bears the scars of His sufferings? A clue to that is a verse in Revelations that speaks of a Lamb as if it was slain.
I remember Charles Wesley words ‘five bleeding wounds He bears, received on Calvary…forgive him, O forgive they cry, don’t let that ransomed sinner die”.

I think there may be more than five scar wounds that He still bears.

No one recognized Him because He still bears the scars of His suffering for us” is a thought that has gripped my heart recently. Oh that I may know Him.

Gary: If you are correct that Jesus’ glorified, heavenly body retained the scars of his earthly life and death—and Paul was correct that believers will be raised in the same manner as Christ—what does that say for Christian soldiers blown to bits in battle or those Christians whose bodies have been severely mangled in auto accidents? Will they too spend eternity with scarred and disfigured “heavenly” bodies? Sounds awful. The streets of heaven will be a non-stop horror show.

A Super Battle is Coming in The Walking Dead Season 10 Finale Photos

I will bet that there is another reason why the earliest accounts of Jesus sightings involve his followers not recognizing him. The original “sightings” of Jesus involved illusions (shadows, bright lights, or other natural phenomena which the followers of Jesus mistook as appearances of their back-from-the-dead leader). In other words, the original Jesus sightings involved ghost sightings. Only in later Gospels did the authors attempt to “flesh out” these ghosts, giving Jesus the ability to be touched and to eat broiled fish.

These stories are clearly works of apologetics which evolved over time. These are NOT historically reliable accounts. No rational person should base his or her entire life and worldview on fantastical tall tales taken from historically unreliable ancient texts.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Do Bible Contradictions Matter?

Growing up a fundamentalist Protestant, I was shocked the day I was confronted with evidence that the Bible contains blatant errors. All my life I had been taught that “God will preserve his Word” and that “not one jot or tittle” of God’s Word would ever change.

That day,

That day the outer shell of my Christian worldview cracked. I didn’t deconvert immediately, but it definitely started the process.

But do contradictions in the Bible really make any difference? Isn’t it possible that when the Bible says that God will preserve his Word, it means that God’s core message to humankind will be preserved— unchanged—forever? Well, that is certainly what moderate and liberal Christians want us to believe it means.

Silly fundamentalists!

During the early days of my four month process of losing my faith (known in ex-Christian circles as “the deconversion process”), I came to accept that minor errors in the Bible aren’t really a big deal. So what, if one Gospel author states that there was one angel at the empty tomb of Jesus and another claims that there were two! Does the number of angels make any difference to the central message of the text? No! The number of angels at the tomb does not change the historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead! And as law enforcement will tell you, eyewitness stories always have some minor incongruencies. What matters is that the central details of the Bible story is correct, right? I felt so much better. My faith had been restored!

But then I started doing some digging.

I studied the evidence for the Exodus: hundreds of thousands, maybe even a couple million, Hebrews departed ancient Egypt en masse. Problem is, modern archaeology can’t find any evidence of this massive migration. None.

I thought to myself: It may not matter how many angels were at Jesus’ tomb but doesn’t it matter if the entire Exodus Story is fictional?? Isn’t it a BIG problem that Jesus seemed to have believed in the historicity of Moses, the Passover, and the Exodus? If the Exodus Story is fictional, what does that tell us about the alleged omniscience of Jesus, the eternal, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe??

And from there it all unraveled.

So you see, dear moderate and liberal Christians, the individual errors in the Bible probably don’t matter. But when you add them all up, you arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is not a reliable source of historical information. And if the Bible is not a reliable source of historical information, why believe its fantastical claims of talking donkeys, virginal conceptions, water-walking, and dead corpse reanimations?

The Bible’s contradictions do matter!

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Nurses Are Not Doctors

7 Ways Doctors Can Work Better with Nurses

Some people are hesitant to receive the Covid-19 vaccine because they read headlines that say “A significant percentage of health care workers refuse to receive the Covid-19 vaccine”.

This is misleading.

–96% of all doctors in the United States are fully vaccinated against Covid-19.

–88% of all nurses (RN’s) are vaccinated against Covid-19.

So who are all these “health care workers” who are not vaccinated? Well, the term “health care worker” includes a wide range of people including the people who draw your blood at the lab (phlebotomists), X-ray technicians, pharmacy technicians, etc.. Are you really going to make life and death decisions regarding your health based on what your phlebotomist tells you?

Come on, folks. Think rationally!

Just because a few nurses are interviewed on the nightly news who refuse to be vaccinated is not sufficient reason why you should not be vaccinated. The overwhelming majority of nurses support vaccination against Covid-19. But bottom line: Nurses are not doctors. Don’t get me wrong, nurses are extremely important. Health care would collapse without them. But nurses are not responsible for making health care decisions. Doctors make health care decisions, and to make those decisions, doctors must read and keep up to date on the latest research. Trust your health care decisions to doctors, not to nurses, phlebotomists, and X-ray technicians.

.

.

.

.

.

End of posts.

What Most Anti-Vaxers Don’t Understand

Anti vaccination concept. Woman fist with no vax written. Anti vaccination concept. Woman fist with no vax written. anti vaccination stock pictures, royalty-free photos & images

If a world-renowned doctor tells you that a particular medication or medical treatment is not good for you, should you believe him or her?

Answer: It depends.

When a world-renowned medical expert holds an opinion on a matter within his (or her) field of expertise, his opinion should be taken seriously. However, if you then learn that 95% of all experts in the same field of medicine believe that this particular expert is wrong on this issue, who should you believe?

Did you know that if you do a “google search” on the internet, randomly selecting any topic in medicine, you will probably find one or even several doctors who hold a very controversial position on that topic; a position that is contrary to the position of the overwhelming majority of other medical experts? So, is this small group of experts correct or is the overwhelming majority of experts correct? How would you know?

Many people today believe that if they spend a couple hours on the internet, they themselves can decide which group of experts is correct on complex medical issues. But is that really intelligent? We are talking about experts who have graduated from a university, then attended medical school or graduate school, and then have spent years conducting research in their specialized field of study! What makes you think that you can judge which group of highly educated and specialized experts is correct? Are you a specialist in this particular medical field? Are you a doctor? Did you graduate from college with a degree in science? Did you even attend college?? Surprisingly, many anti-vaxer bloggers on the internet, acting as if they are authorities on Covid and vaccines, don’t even have a college education.  These bloggers are asking readers to trust their health and their very lives to someone with a high school education!  How outrageous.

“But the majority of experts can be wrong!” I have heard many anti-vaxers say. Sure. The majority of experts can be wrong—once in a great while—and the small minority of experts can occasionally be right.

Let’s look at this topic using an analogy: If you decide to place a very large bet in a horse race, choosing to bet on a long shot when you are not an expert in race horses, that is a very, very risky bet! The odds heavily favor you losing your bet! Even if there are a couple of racing “pros” who advise you to bet on the long shot and against the heavily favored horse, is that a wise bet? What do these experts know that all the other experts don’t? If you are just betting a couple of bucks, go ahead. Live on the wild side! Have some fun! But if you are betting everything you have, you are risking financial ruin! Wouldn’t such a long shot bet be foolish?

Yet that is exactly what you are doing with your very life when refusing to be vaccinated against Covid-19! The overwhelming majority of medical experts believe that the Covid-19 virus is real, that it is deadly, and that the vaccines against it are safe and effective against coming down with severe illness, being hospitalized, and dying. A recent study demonstrated that 96% of all physicians in the United States have been fully vaccinated against Covid. That percentage represents an overwhelming majority of medical experts who by their own actions endorse being vaccinated against this deadly disease. Betting that this overwhelming majority of medical experts is wrong; that they have been fooled by the drug/vaccine industry; and betting that the 4% of doctors who aren’t vaccinated (for whatever reason) are correct is like betting on a very, very long shot horse. It’s like betting on a long shot horse with odds worse than 1:20! That is a very risky bet, folks. Unless you have insider information about this long shot horse and insider information about all the horses your horse is running against, this is a DUMB bet! Again, if you just bet a couple of dollars on this long shot, so what. But if you bet your entire life savings (and your children’s life savings) on this long shot, you are being very, very foolish.

Don’t be a fool, dear friend! Go with the odds. Bet with the 96% of medical experts who themselves have been vaccinated against Covid; who themselves have bet on the life-saving benefits of being vaccinated against a disease that has now killed more Americans than the 1918 Spanish flu!

Losing this bet could cost you more than your life savings. It could cost you your life! Get vaccinated today!

Courier Journal reporters show how not to bet on horse races
True. But should you bet your life on a long shot? No. The odds are that you are going to lose and the consequences of losing are horrific.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

A Pandemic of Stupidity

Vintage 1918 Flu Pandemic Signs Print Small Poster Replicas image 0

Within weeks, the United States will reach a tragic milestone: More people will have died from the Covid-19 pandemic than died from the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic (675,000). Many of these Covid deaths were preventable. A vaccine, which was not available in 1918, is available in 2021. Yet millions of Americans today refuse to trust scientists and medical experts who overwhelmingly endorse the efficacy and safety of the vaccines, instead listening to Fox News and other right wing media pundits for their medical advice.

How stupid. What a bunch of idiots.

Science, the Scientific Method, and trust in consensus expert opinion are the foundations of an advanced, industrialized society.

What has happened to the once great United States of America???

.

.

.

.

End of post.