Author: Gary

In Antiquity, Legends Took Centuries to Develop: Therefore, the Gospels Are Historically Reliable

Gary11 Comments

Christian: Historically speaking, it takes several generations for that level of myth and legend to accrue to a historical figure. …Historical research shows that significant legends arise two to three generations after the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Academic historians agree that there are non-historical anecdotes in the biographies of Alexander. Roman historian AN Sherwin-White argued that one generation was too quick for legend to accrue that would corrupt the main message of Jesus’ life presented in the gospels.

Thus a mere 30 years–when eyewitnesses who could expose them were still living–is not nearly enough time for that kind of myth and legend to accrue to the stories about Jesus.

Gary: Nonsense. Thousands of people today believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a ped_p_il_ cabal operating out of a pizza parlor in the suburbs of Washington D.C.. Legends (baseless rumors) develop today within days or even hours! The idea that this same phenomenon did not occur in the first century; that legends (baseless rumors) could only develop centuries after a person’s death, is a modern Christian delusion (wishful thinking).

Even the Bible suggests that first century people were gullible regarding rumors and legends.

“And he [Jesus] called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal… And they departed and went through the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was happening, and he was perplexed, because it was said by some that John had been raised from the dead, by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen. Herod said, “John I beheaded, but who is this about whom I hear such things?” And he sought to see him.” –Luke 9

Rumors galore about Jesus! In the first century! And Jesus wasn’t even dead yet! Just imagine how fantastical the rumors and legends became after his death!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Advertisement

Tough Questions Christians Don’t Want To Answer

Gary5 Comments

In my experience, most online Christian scholars/apologists will not answer questions which seriously threaten their worldview. Here are a few of them that I have posed:

1. Even most non-Christian theists (Jews, Muslims, etc. ) believe there are multiple, plausible, natural explanations for the Resurrection of Jesus belief. Can you admit that there are multiple *plausible*, natural explanations for the early Christian belief that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead?

2. Many scholars (some would say a very large majority of them if one excludes evangelicals) believe that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses or the associates of eyewitnesses. You may disagree, but can you admit that it is possible and plausible that the Gospels are not historically reliable accounts?

3. Do you perceive the presence of the resurrected Jesus within you and are you 100% certain that this presence is Jesus?

4. How old were you when you first believed in the resurrected Jesus as your Lord and Savior? (How old were you when you first believed in resurrecting corpses?)

Dear Reader: Do you have any “tough questions” to add to this list? If so, leave them in a comment below.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Did Jesus Even Exist?

Gary17 Comments

Greg (Jesus mythicist): It’s true that there are some poor cases made for [Jesus] mythicism. But there are no good cases made for the historicity of Jesus made by scholars, either. Recently, I heard a scholar that I like talking about how the later gospel authors were trying to deal with things Jesus said. But the assumption was that Mark wrote what Jesus actually said and not something invented or borrowed from another source.

I was on the fence while waiting for Ehrman to come out with “Did Jesus Exist?” The arguments threw me over to mythicism for Jesus. Ehrman’s independent Gospel sources are Mark, Q, M, L, sayings source, passion narratives, protoThomas. We have Mark. The others are constructed under the assumption that there was a real Jesus with other writings about him, so they are rather circular. Even if they exist, they may have been misattributed to Jesus. I think one of the M sources was the Epistle of James as the source for many of the things Jesus said in Matthew, so maybe part of the sayings source or Q. MacDonald says the passion narrative draws on the Homeric epics.

I went through the authentic Pauline epistles for everything Paul says about Jesus and it appears that everything Paul knew about Jesus plausibly came from somewhere in the OT. These are from the OT books Paul quotes from the most:

https://www.debunking-chris…

If Paul’s Jesus was someone he “found” in the OT, then there is no reason to think that the person Mark put in the first century was real. I often hear even atheist Bible scholars refer to “Paul’s Eucharist account” in 1 Corinthians 11 as being from Paul. Here is my argument that the passage is part of a larger interpolation: https://www.debunking-chris… It has a ten word verbatim phrase in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24, a six word verbatim phrase in Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25, and each pair has different three word verbatim phrases.

Gary: I believe the evidence for the existence of Jesus is very, very weak. I’ve discussed this with Bart Ehrman, who believes in the historicity of Jesus. I asked him if it was possible that the author of Mark invented Jesus. Ehrman pointed to the fact that Mark could not have been the only source for the Jesus’ story. Why do Matthew and Luke have shared data that does not appear in Mark? Q??

Did Paul invent a Jesus character and then the Gospel authors “fleshed out” this fictional character decades later? Maybe. Did Josephus, Tacitus, and others simply repeat hearsay about the origins of Christianity? Could be.

The fact that there are no contemporary Jewish or Roman references to Jesus is strong evidence to me that the Jesus of the Gospels did not exist. If the Gospels are correct, Jesus raised more people from the dead and performed more miracles than all the Jewish prophets of the Old Testament combined. He turned Palestine on its head. But nope, no non-Christian contemporary says a peep about him.

However…as a university educated person I trust consensus expert opinion on ALL issues. To do otherwise promotes the philosophy of uneducated conspiracy theorists: each individual is the final arbiter of truth. The consensus position of historians is that Jesus existed. So I accept the existence of a first century apocalyptic preacher named Jesus as fact, even though I reject the historicity of the Jesus of the Gospels.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

.

End of post.

The Resurrection of Jesus: Who Needs Historical Evidence When You Have the Testimony of the Holy Spirit?

Gary3 Comments

Christian apologist: First century Jews believed in a general resurrection of all the righteous dead. No first century Jew would ever have believed in the bodily resurrection of one individual unless they had seen his resurrected body with their own eyes! The fact that thousands of first century Jews did believe in the resurrected Jesus is powerful evidence that the Resurrection was a real historical event.

Gary: According to Paul, some Jews in Asia Minor came to believe that Jesus had been resurrected from the dead and converted to Christianity. Had they seen the resurrected body of Jesus to believe this claim? No. They simply took Paul’s word for it (and “searched the Scriptures”). Therefore, if Paul is telling us the truth, this is evidence that first century Jews could be convinced to believe that one individual had been bodily resurrected *without* ever seeing a resurrected body!

Christian apologist: Their acceptance of Christ as Lord wasn’t just a matter of them “taking Paul’s word” regarding the resurrection. They experienced the move of the Spirit. They received the Spirit–not just some emotional reaction.

Gary: Yes, yes, yes. Now we are getting somewhere! The true reason why early Christians (and many Christians today) believed was not because of objective evidence. It was because of their subjective experiences with a ghost (spirit). This is why discussing historical evidence with Christians is usually a waste of time. At the end of the day, Christians will always pull out their subjective mystical experiences [the testimony of the Holy Spirit] as evidence for this ancient tale’s validity. Question: Are subjective personal perceptions of a ghost (spirit) reliable evidence for universal truth claims? No!

No amount of objective evidence will ever convince you that Jesus is still dead, my Christian friend, as long as you believe that his spirit lives somewhere within you, “moving” you to believe that his dead corpse was reanimated and transformed 20 centuries ago. Such thinking is irrational and delusional. It is impossible to have a rational conversation with you. Good bye.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

50 Evangelical Apologists Were Asked: Do You Perceive the Inner Presence of Jesus? None Responded!

Gary4 Comments

I have said before on this blog that the evangelical Christian belief in “the testimony of the Holy Spirit”—that true believers can perceive the presence of the resurrected Jesus living within them—is the Achilles Heel of evangelical apologetics. Now I have proof!

Evangelical apologists do NOT want to discuss this belief with counter apologists and other skeptics. They absolutely do not want to discuss this topic when debating the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Why? They know that it reveals their unmistakable bias: If they believe that they can feel the presence of the ghost/spirit of Jesus living within them, how can this not affect their objectivity when reviewing the historical evidence for the alleged resurrection of this same man? Evangelical apologists know that if they admit that they can perceive the presence of a ghost/spirit living within them, the entire world will see them for what they are: irrational and hopelessly superstitious!

I recently emailed more than 50 evangelical scholars, theologians, and apologists and asked them this one question:

Dear _______. Hello. I am conducting a survey among evangelical scholars, theologians, and apologists regarding the belief in the inner presence of Christ. Here is the question: Do you perceive the presence of Jesus within you, yes or no? Thank you.

Not one single response has been received!

I wonder why…

Here is the list of evangelical apologists I contacted. I obtained the names from two websites. I could not find the contact information for some of them. Some of the people on these lists are dead, so unless there is a miracle, I won’t be hearing from them. Some names appear on both lists:

  1. Greg Bahnsen
  2. Greg Beale
  3. Jeremy Begbie
  4. Henri Blocher
  5. F. F. Bruce
  6. Edward Carnell
  7. Don Carson
  8. Gordon Fee
  9. John Frame
  10. Timothy George
  11. Marc Goodacre
  12. Stanley Grenz
  13. Wayne Grudem
  14. Colin Gunton
  15. Richard Hays
  16. Carl Henry
  17. Michael Horton
  18. Tim Keller
  19. George E. Ladd
  20. Peter Leithart
  21. John MacArthur
  22. George Marsden
  23. I. Howard Marshall
  24. Bruce McCormack
  25. Alister McGrath
  26. Scot McKnight
  27. Al Mohler
  28. John Warwick Montgomery
  29. Doug Moo
  30. Leon Morris
  31. Richard Mouw
  32. Nancy Murphy
  33. Roger Nicole
  34. Mark Noll
  35. Harold Ockenga
  36. J. I. Packer
  37. Rene Padilla
  38. Eugene Peterson
  39. John Piper
  40. Alvin Plantinga
  41. Vern Poythress
  42. Phil Ryken
  43. Charles Ryrie
  44. Fred Sanders
  45. Francis Schaeffer
  46. Ron Sider
  47. Jamie Smith
  48. R. C. Sproul
  49. John Stott
  50. Carl Trueman
  51. Cornelius Van Til
  52. Kevin Vanhoozer
  53. John Walvoord
  54. David Wells
  55. Dallas Willard
  56. Doug Wilson
  57. Ben Witherington
  58. Nicholas Wolterstorff
  59. Tom Wright
  60. Ravi Zacharias

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Did Early Christians Believe Heaven Was In Another Dimension?

Gary2 Comments

“Early Christians, trying to make sense of accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth and the writings of his first followers in the 1st century, formulated their views of the afterlife in this Greek and Roman philosophical context. Plato provided the idea of souls ascending into heaven, but the texts that would become the Christian scriptures (the New Testament) emphasized a physical, bodily resurrection – most importantly in their claim that Christianity’s founder was himself resurrected in the body and ascended physically to heaven. If Jesus dwelled in heaven, with New Testament texts indicating his followers would join him there, the radical hope of Christianity needed not a Platonic realm of rational thought, but a physical place – a material heaven. Aristotle’s view of the universe, with its outermost sphere of the stars, gave Christians the conceptual framework to locate heaven on a map.

Yet the creation account in Genesis introduces confusion because it speaks of the heavens in two different ways. First, it describes God creating the heavens and Earth. But then it goes on to describe God creating a ‘firmament’ by dividing waters below from waters above. Reconciling the discrepancy was Basil of Caesarea, the 4th-century Cappadocian writer and bishop. The first of these heavens was the starry heaven and the dwelling of the virtuous dead, Basil explained, whereas the second was only the airy heaven, or sky.

Basil’s arguments pushed heaven from the clouds to the stars, but the final step in the invention of heaven went even further, placing the Christian heaven in a location beyond the stars.”

Source: here.

Gary: “Basil’s arguments pushed heaven from the clouds to the stars.”

There is evidence in the Book of Acts that confirms that “in the clouds” was the original Christian location for heaven:

“When he had said this, as they were watching, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. While he was going and they were gazing up toward heaven, suddenly two men in white robes stood by them.”

Yes, dear Readers, the historical evidence clearly indicates that early Christians believed that heaven was located in the clouds. And the earliest Christians believed it was a real physical place. They did not believe it was a void or other dimension. A few centuries later, Christians pushed heaven out to the stars, and eventually out beyond the stars. The idea that heaven is NOT beyond the stars came about after Copernicus discovered heliocentricity, shattering into pieces Christianity’s established cosmic view. But once again, Greek philosophy stepped in to save the day! To spare Christians having to find a new physical location for heaven, sophisticated Christians chose a bullet-proof, unfalsifiable new concept:

“Heaven is in another dimension!”

“Prove that wrong, you stupid skeptics.”

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Evidence that Greek Philosophy Radically Changed Early Christianity

Gary6 Comments

Plato

“During the first 100 years of Christian history, the church taught some form of millenarianism, or chiliasm (from the Greek word for “1,000”), the belief that the Parousia would bring about a 1,000-year kingdom of fellowship, justice, peace, and abundance here on earth. 

… But apocalyptic zeal waned because the End never came and the pressure of persecution was intermittent. Moreover, in the aftermath of apocalyptic outbreaks, more responsible and well-connected members of the church pursued a policy of accommodation, insisting that Christians were not hostile to Rome and downplaying both the apocalyptic and millennial dimensions of their tradition. Christian missionaries converted large numbers of Roman citizens, and worldly success and the failure of apocalyptic expectation reduced Christian antagonism toward the empire.

…About AD 200, apocalyptic expectations [the Second Coming of Jesus] seem to have reached unusual levels. Montanism spread outside Asia Minor and found converts throughout the Roman Empire, including Tertullian, a North African lawyer and theologian. Apocalyptic prophets, some including bishops, roused their flocks with visions of the imminent End and led them into the desert to meet Christ returning on the clouds. In response to these disastrous errors, a non-apocalyptic version of millennialism, the “sabbatical millennium,” emerged. This argument, recorded about AD 110 in the Epistle of Barnabas, held that because God had created the world in six days and rested on the seventh (Genesis 1) and because 1,000 years is a day in God’s sight (Psalm 89/90), the world must labour 6,000 years before the sabbatical millennium of peace, abundance, and joyful rest for the Lord’s weary would begin. It offered a quiescent alternative to the radical millennialism of the apocalyptic prophets, and it would become more plausible with the passing of each failed apocalyptic episode.

…The influence of Greek thought [Greek philosophy] upon Christian theology offered church leaders an alternative to the millenarian worldview. The theology of Origen, the great 3rd-century Alexandrian Christian thinker, emphasized the manifestation of the kingdom in the soul of the believer rather than in the world, a significant shift from the historical toward the metaphysical or the spiritual. The association of apocalyptic millenarianism with the Montanist heresy and other troubling antiauthoritarian beliefs and practices discredited it, especially among the clerical supporters of the “monarchical episcopacy” of the 3rd century, who laid the groundwork for the revolutionary notion in Christianity of a sacred empire. This strain of antimillennial political theology climaxed with the conversion of Constantine the Great and the adoption of Christianity as the favoured, and eventually sole, religion of the empire. The theologians of the imperial period either ignored millennial doctrines or in some cases—e.g., Eusebius, Jerome, Ambrose, and Augustine—violently attacked them as carnal, Judaizing, and crude forms of belief.

Source:https://www.britannica.com/topic/eschatology/The-early-church

Gary: And Christian apologists continue to use Greek philosophy to make Christianity appear respectable to the non-Christian world!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Did the Disciples Have Trouble Distinguishing Between Ghosts and Real People?

Gary1 Comment

When the disciples saw him [Jesus] walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. –Matthew 14:26

I don’t know about you, but if I see someone walking on the top of a lake my first thought is not that I am seeing a ghost. My first thought is that the water must be really shallow in that part of the lake or that there is a submerged object under the feet of the person. If your first thought is…GHOST…you are probably a very superstitious, gullible person with limited education.

Now, to be clear, I don’t believe that the scene above in Matthew chapter 14 ever happened. I believe that the Gospel authors invented this scene for theological purposes. It is an allegory about always trusting God, even in the toughest of times…or something like that. Human beings cannot walk on water. (It’s a scientific fact!)

Later in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 28, the disciples allegedly see Jesus again after his resurrection:

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. 17 And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted.

If what they saw was the flesh and blood body of the man they had lived with 24/7 for the previous three years, a man that they could touch and worship, why would they doubt?

Ghost??

In later Gospels, Luke and John, the resurrected Jesus becomes much more fleshy. He even insists that he is not a ghost! He asks the disciples to touch him. He eats broiled fish! Ghosts don’t eat broiled fish, I guess.

Dear Reader: These very sincere, mostly uneducated, mostly poor people were very superstitious. They believed in the existence of ghosts! Even if these stories are not historical, the authors of the Gospels clearly indicate that first century people sincerely believed in ghosts. Breaking news: Ghosts aren’t real! Educated people do not believe in ghosts. Educated people should not believe in the Resurrection.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Why Does God Need Bible Scholars To Explain What He Really Meant To Say?

Gary21 Comments

Christian apologist: CS Lewis dealt with this kind of infantile, wooden literalism [used by skeptics to criticize the Bible] in Mere Christianity in this case the imagery used to describe heaven and the afterlife (harps; crowns; gold; etc.) and people who argued against heaven by saying that they didn’t want to spend an eternity playing harps. Lewis answers by saying:

“The answer to such people is that if they cannot understand books written for grown-ups, they should not talk about them.”

Lewis closed his argument by saying:

“People who take these symbols literally might as well think that when Christ told us to be like doves, He meant that we were to lay eggs.”

Gary: “Jesus told His disciples, “In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also” (John 14:2-3).”

I suppose we non-theologians, non-scholars should also stop believing that Jesus is preparing a mansion/home/room for each of us in heaven. In fact, maybe heaven isn’t even a real physical place. Silly us. Maybe heaven is simply a state of mind in another dimension.

This is what modern scholarship has done to the lay person’s faith in the Bible. We cannot trust any claim of fact in the Bible, even in regards to something as simple as the characteristics of heaven, without checking with the local Bible scholar first to make sure we aren’t being fools for believing that the Bible literally means what it says. Good Christians should stop reading the Bible, and in its place, read books by scholars who know what God really meant to say but didn’t say it clearly enough for the average Joe and Jane.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

No, Dear Christian Theologian. Science Does Not Have Dogmas

Gary2 Comments

Roger Olson, evangelical theologian and blogger: Let me be absolutely clear: I do believe there are “dogmas of science.” I do not claim that ALL scientists believe in those dogmas. What I do believe, and have experienced, is that EVERY discipline of study and professional research and practice has SOME underlying assumptions that are not generally allowed to be challenged. Thomas Kuhn demonstrated this phenomenon in his groundbreaking book of philosophical science “The Nature of Scientific Revolutions.”

So here is a specific example. Watch the following Youtube video “Physicist Michio Kaku on the shift in the UFO phenomenon.” Now, set aside, bracket out, whatever you think of Joe Rogan. That’s irrelevant. What’s relevant here is what one of the world’s leading scientists says at about 14:53. (But I urge you to watch the entire video for context.)

What is relevant is what one of the world’s leading physicists says. When Rogan asks him what he used to believe about UFOs he refers to the “giggle factor” among scientists and how belief in UFOs was “the ‘third rail’ in your scientific reputation.” I assume you know what “giggle factor” and “third rail” refer to. Kaku goes on to suggest that there may be laws of nature we do not yet know and even that they might contradict our current laws of nature.

Gary: First we must agree on our definition of “dogma”. Here is the dictionary definition:

dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

incontrovertible: not able to be denied or disputed.

Therefore, a dogma is a principle or belief that cannot be challenged. It is accepted as fact without question. The Doctrine of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ is a dogma. It cannot be challenged. The evangelical theologian who tries will be fired on the spot. Neither the Law of Gravity, the Theory of Evolution, nor any other principle in science meets this definition.

I’m not a scientist, but I am a physician whose training was based upon the scientific method and respect for expert consensus opinion. I and most university educated people believe that the scientific method is the best method so far in human experience for evaluating the truths of our universe. Yes, there are assumptions in science, but there are no “dogmas” by the definition above. Even the “Law” of gravity can be overturned if new evidence surfaces to disprove it. No law or theory is off limits to revision in science. Even the “law of gravity” is just a theory. And no, in science, “theory” is not synonymous with “opinion”, as Creationists often claim. Once something reaches the status of theory it is considered fact until proven otherwise.

The scientific method by definition can only evaluate the natural world. The scientific method does not claim to have jurisdiction in the metaphysical. The scientific method cannot disprove the existence of gods, angels, and devils. Can the scientific method be used to evaluate UFO claims? I don’t see why not, if that UFO consists of matter. If that UFO is a supernatural being, using supernatural means of travel, then, no. Science, using the scientific method, cannot evaluate that claim.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.