How Many Independent Sources for the Empty Tomb Story? One?

Christian: Regardless of the uncertain Q, we still have multiple (4) independent gospels (written at different times/places by different authors). If it could be conclusively demonstrated that a) Q actually existed, and b) Matthew and Luke used it, you might have a point. …And we can’t forget about John’s gospel, which is not one of the synoptics, thus not dependent upon either Mark or our hypothetical Q. Then there’s I Peter (ca. 60s-ca. 90s AD), which also references Jesus’ resurrection.

Gary: Independent Gospels??? No. We know that the authors of Matthew and Luke borrowed extensively from Mark. Mark and Luke also borrowed from another common source (Q?). So to say that the authors of Matthew and Luke were INDEPENDENT is false. What about the Gospel of John? Most scholars believe that the Gospel of John was written near the end of the first century. If the Gospel of Mark had been in circulation from circa 65-75 CE as most scholars believe (or the 50’s or even the 40’s, as evangelicals claim), then it is highly probable that the author of John had heard the Jesus Story in a public reading of the Gospel of Mark in his local church. So to say that the author of John is INDEPENDENT is a stretch. A significant percentage (circa 50%) of scholars doubt the independence of John, according to NT scholar Raymond Brown.

So we come down to Mark, the other source used by the authors of Matthew and Luke (Q?), and Paul. However, Paul and Q give us ZERO details about the crucifixion, burial, and alleged resurrection appearances of Jesus other than that found in First Corinthians 15, which isn’t much. No description of what Jesus looked like. No description of when and where the appearances occurred. No description of what Jesus said. No description of what he did (in ANY of the appearances listed). Just a list of alleged eyewitnesses which Paul “received” from an unnamed source.

So in reality we have one source (Mark) for a detailed account of the alleged resurrection of Jesus, and in the original version of this Gospel, this author has no appearances!!! …And as for the empty tomb of Arimathea, never mentioned anywhere in Paul’s epistles…he could have made it up! Then the later Gospels’ authors further embellished this fictional rock tomb tale.

A great world religion was built on this flimsy, uncorroborated “evidence”??? My, my, my…

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Advertisement

If Ex-Anglicans Have Nightmares About Hell, Just Imagine What Ex-Fundamentalists Experience

A reader of this blog: Hi Gary, I enjoyed reading about your experience and I look forward to reading some of the books you recommended. Whenever I find myself falling back into superstitious fear, I try to remind myself that assuming that X event happened as a result of magic/god, because I can’t find any other explanation, is simply the Dunning-Kruger effect at work.

I was brought up Anglican which wasn’t very “fire and brimstone” and I don’t recall Hell ever being mentioned. However there was never any denial of Hell. They just let you fill in the gaps yourself. A bit like giving someone a gun and letting them find the bullets themselves. I never really attended church but I had my own very intense version of Christianity in my head, where Hell and avoiding it was the main theme. Eventually I had a complete mental breakdown and it kind of jolted me out of it, or perhaps put me into “denial” because I was so sure I was going to Hell and couldn’t handle it. I’m gradually coming out of it but I’m still very scared. I find reading alternative explanations very helpful. Just because I don’t understand a magician’s tricks doesn’t make him magic, as tempted as I may be to assume that.

I’m not sure if there is a god or not, but if it’s the Christian god then it can’t be good. I know I’m not a particularly nice person, but I would never wish eternal punishment on anyone. It really gets to me the way people who consider themselves to be nice kind people (and who often actually ARE nice kind people) are ok with Hell. Its just so wrong. Whether there is a god or not I can’t pretend to agree with that. It just bothers me so much that there are Christians and Muslims (those are the only two I know enough about to comment on) who go round thinking “all these people are going to be punished forever” and are ok with it. To me it seems like the most evil thing imaginable.

I’m 28 years old and I’ve only really been experiencing the whole “one day I won’t exist” fear. That’s ok, that’s a fear I’m working through. Its progressive, it doesn’t get my thoughts “stuck” like the fear of Hell does. I’ve been aware of death since I was 3 years old and its taken me all these years to actually begin to process it in a logical way. It’s not right. My father is an ex-Christian too and he has had a similar experience. He’s in his 50s and he’s still processing it.

Anyway that’s my story, I just felt like sharing it. I think I will read “Misquoting Jesus”. I find the idea of there being nothing out there comforting and the idea of a god terrifying.

Gary: I experienced the same intense fear of Hell when I first deconverted from Christianity almost 10 years ago. It took me years (and this blog) to finally get over that fear. It is so sad that millions of little children all over the world are still being brainwashed to believe that if they reject Jesus’ and his “love” he will sentence them to eternal punishment in a place of horrific torment and anguish. A place called Hell. Let us all hope that one day children will react to stories about Jesus, Hell, and the Devil with the same amusement and indifference that they do to stories about Zeus, the Underworld, and the Ferryman.

.Charon, the Ferryman over the River Styx in Greek mythology

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Occam’s Razor: The Simplest Explanation Is Always Magic!

Lee: You [Gary] do not understand the premise behind Occam’s Razor. This principle basically states that the simplest explanations are generally better than complex ones. Is it simpler, or more complex, to assume that:

a) The disciples, first-century Palestinian Messianic Jews, went so far off book from what they had been taught for literally centuries, that when Jesus got killed, they first fled in fear and hid, but only later, remembering his cryptic prophecies about his resurrection, when they saw the empty tomb, contrary to what any other Messianic Jew would do, decided that he’d been bodily resurrected (the first and only messianic claimant in history anyone ever claimed had been raised from the dead) even though someone had actually stolen his body. * Or perhaps they assumed that he’d been raised from the dead temporarily before ascending to heaven. Then our deluded yet still intrepid band went about the cities and towns of the Roman Empire proclaiming that Jesus had, in fact, ben bodily raised from the dead, and was in fact, king of the world, rather than Caesar or Herod, reining in heaven as the “Second Adam,” the “True Human Being,” before his return to earth.

b) contrary to Messianic Jewish expectations of an embodied, very alive Messiah making war on Rome then ruling as king from Jerusalem, when Jesus got killed, these Jews for whom YHWH’s kingdom was to come on earth, after Jesus’ execution, mass-hallucinated a series of “heavenly visions” which they mistook for the very human but also very dead Jesus.

c) that, contrary to scripture, Mary Magdalen was a prostitute, able to (apparently) seduce a band of professional Roman centurions into abandoning their post outside Jesus’ tomb so that, for some unknown reason she could steal his body and hide it somewhere?

d) contrary to all of their assumptions and expectations, Jesus really was raised from the dead.

Tell me Gary, which one of these scenarios is built upon the least number of assumptions?

Gary: —It is not “the simpler explanation” that Occam’s Razor nudges us to accept. No, it asks us instead to create and prefer explanations that involve the fewest unsupported elements possible. When we look to construct an explanation for an event, we want to weave together the fewest number of unsupported elements.

The use of the word “simplicity” [in Occam’s Razor] may be misleading; by “simplicity” we don’t mean illogical or absurd simplicity, such as saying, “It was just magic,” but rather a logical hypothesis which makes the fewest assumptions, or posits the fewest number of necessary explanatory entities (e.g., things, beings, causal mechanisms) or sub-hypotheses. So:

• fewest assumptions OR
• fewest number of necessary elements

Used correctly, then, Occam’s Razor can help people sift through claims. It’s not an automatic disqualifier to a claim, but it does guide us very well.

Maybe that last bit explains why those who can’t think critically rarely seem to understand exactly what Occam’s Razor is — or how it’s meant to be used. A lot of people make a lot of critical mistakes with it.

And yes, Occam’s Razor used correctly does, indeed, knock [Christianity’s] claims out of the water. The myth of the resurrection contains elements we know Christians can’t support. So we dismiss that claim out of hand until they can. That’s exactly what everyone should do. Indeed, it’s what growing numbers of people do do.

The simplest explanation of all is magic!

https://onlysky.media/ccassidy/beliefs-vs-behavior-evangelicals-redefinition-of-occams-razor/

And that, dear Reader, is what Lee wants us to accept as the simplest, most plausible explanation for the early Christian Resurrection Belief: MAGIC!

When Elizabeth Montgomery (Bewitched) wiggled her nose and one of her relatives suddenly popped into her living room, the simplest explanation for that amazing phenomenon is MAGIC! The explanation that the film crew took two different shots of the living room, one without the actors and one with them, and then spliced the two shots together is not the simplest explanation and therefore should be excluded!

Silly.

Lee is confusing “simplest explanation” with “simplest supported explanation”. There is no support for MAGIC. Don’t let Christians like Lee bamboozle you into believing that MAGIC is the simplest explanation for anything!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

It Is A Tragedy That Atheists Die For Nothing

Evangelical Christian seminarian, candidate for masters in theology: Hey Gary, I appreciate you looking out for me by sending me one of your blog articles on how the Catholic Church doesn’t believe that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. It’s funny because I think we are on the same side of wanting people to be rational and diligent about finding the truth. There are very little who are more naturally skeptical or curious than I am, and I have landed on Jesus as truth through much exploration. (I know you hardly will believe me since, if you’re anything like me, you assume that anyone who doesn’t think like you must have not done enough research. Guilty).

But here’s the thing. The blog post that you sent me in the mail is a bit of a shocker. I would think that someone who is after truth would know that everything that you mentioned in the blog about Matthew and Mark and Q and M and L is taught day one at the top baptist seminaries in the world. It’s called the synoptic problem. And while most scholars (even conservative, evangelical scholars) believe in Markan priority, there has been a large exodus of scholars of all stripes from the postulation of Q. This is not settled science.

And I’m sure you have a list of “contradictions” in the gospels that you could show me, and I’ve heard them all. I took New Testament from Bart Ehrman before I went to seminary, and trust me, Dr. Ehrman seemed to have a lot more to hide than my seminary professors. He only taught what he thought; my seminary professors taught all sorts of different views on everything.

All this to say, I’ve found that true intellectual honesty and humility leads me to radical skepticism. But we can’t live that way. Can I be sure that when I wake up in the morning there is not an assassin who’s job it is to slit my throat as soon as I open my eyes. No. But I open them anyway. We all do. There are just certain things that we must do in faith if we are to survive.

After I’ve weighed the evidence (and, of course, your personal experience knows that I have to add the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit), I have decided to hang my hat on the truth of the testimony of Scripture. We all will die, but it’s a tragedy when people die for nothing. I will die for the one who loved me and gave himself for me… oh, and on the third day rose again.

I pray you’ll return. I just hope that in your journey for truth, you will be truly rational and understand the weaknesses of ALL scholarship whether conservative or liberal.

Gary: Thank you very much for your reply. Would you kindly explain your statement “I have to add the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit”? How strong is the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit in revealing the veracity of the resurrection of Jesus compared to the strength of the historical evidence for this alleged event, in your view? Thank you.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Why Doesn’t Moses’ Law Say Anything About Infant Salvation?

How many Christians name Leviticus as their favorite book in the Bible? None, I will bet. Why? Because Leviticus is a boring collection of meticulously detailed rules and regulations for every facet of ancient Hebrew life. There are long lists of what a God-fearing Hebrew could and could not eat. Detailed rules about how to sacrifice a proper offering. Rules about sex. There are even rules about menstruation! The ancient Hebrew knew exactly what he could and could not do to remain in the good graces of Yahweh.

However, not one word is said about how Hebrew parents could be assured of the eternal security/salvation of their infants and young children if they died. Isn’t that odd? Wouldn’t you think that the most important issue for any Hebrew parent would be to know the means by which Yahweh would “eternally save” their children if their infants and toddlers died young?

Nope. Not one word.

Why? I think there is a very obvious answer: ancient Hebrews did not believe in an afterlife. You followed Moses’ Law in this life to be blessed in this life. There was no expectation of an afterlife.

Evangelicals and some other Christian groups point to King David’s comments after the death of his child to claim that ancient Hebrews did believe in an afterlife:

[David] said, “While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept, for I said, ‘Who knows whether the Lord will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’ ²³ But now he is dead. Why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me.” –II Samuel 12:22-23

Did David mean that he would eventually join his infant son in Heaven (or Paradise)? Or was David saying that he would join his son in the grave? Who knows, but the second interpretation certainly fits with a worldview that does not include an afterlife. (It is interesting to note that the evangelical teaching of the salvation of all infants and children who die before the Age of Accountability is built upon this one vague Old Testament passage!)

In summary, the evidence strongly indicates that the ancient Hebrews did not believe in an afterlife. They worshipped and obeyed Yahweh to be blessed in this life, not to attain eternal life in an afterlife. The concept of an afterlife did not develop until the exile in Babylon or thereafter. Christian apologists will say that the delayed appearance of the concept of an afterlife in the Old Testament is an example of progressive revelation. I say it is apologetic BS. Heaven and Hell are pagan concepts adopted from the nations who conquered and dominated the Holy Land after the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, nations and cultures who did believe in an afterlife.

The absence of any means for the eternal salvation of dying infants in Moses’ Law is strong evidence that belief in an afterlife did not exist in ancient Judaism.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Luther Was Not Born Again?

Sir,

Regarding the name of your blog “Luther was not born again,” do you intend to make that as a factual statement, a parody, a catchy title or what? If you do indeed hold that it is factually accurate that Luther wasn’t born again (didn’t believe in Jesus’ deity, resurrection or what have you), how do you reach that conclusion? Please cite the document(s) that shows he didn’t believe those things because I am genuinely interested in this question now. Did he ever explicitly affirm those doctrines or did he ever explicitly deny those doctrines? It seems that if he never did either, then we can’t answer this question due to lack of evidence.

Thanks,
Mike

Gary: Every once in a while a get a comment like this, asking why I chose Lutherwasnotbornagain.com as the URL for my blog. Here is the story:

When I first started blogging in approximately 2013, I was a conservative LCMS Lutheran. I loved being a conservative Lutheran! I truly believed that I had found “true Christianity”: the faith and teachings of the original apostles!

I had been raised a fundamentalist Baptist (my father was an independent, fundamentalist, pre-millennial Baptist pastor). However, as a Baptist (evangelical) I was frustrated and often discouraged by my frequent doubts regarding my eternal salvation. I had prayed and asked Jesus to be my Lord and Savior at the age of nine. But I frequently worried. Had I truly repented of all my sins? Had I truly dedicated every fiber of my being to Christ?? Why don’t I feel saved at times?? My eternal salvation depended entirely upon my decision to repent and believe. If I had not truly repented and truly believed, then I am bound for an eternity in Hell! It was a real emotional roller coaster.

I then found Lutheranism. In Lutheranism, your feelings regarding your salvation are irrelevant. Humans don’t decide to be saved as evangelicalism teaches. God decides. God can decide to save you at the time his Word is spoken at your infant baptism. God can decide to save you when you are an adult and hear the Word of God preached. God can decide to save you when you are reading the Bible (His Word). It is the mystical power of God’s Word that saves, not human decisions based on human intellect and reasoning. And water baptism is the tangible seal; the objective proof that God gives confirming one’s salvation. What a relief!

I was so enthralled with Lutheran Christianity that I wanted to share it with everyone! In particular, I wanted to share it with evangelicals! I wanted other evangelical Christians to find the sense of security and peace regarding their eternal salvation that I had found. Many, many evangelicals struggle with the same doubts I struggled with. One Southern Baptist pastor once stated on his blog that he had repeated the born again experience over five thousand times in his childhood and teenage years due to his doubts and fears of not truly being saved!

I wanted to start a blog to reach these “suffering” evangelicals!

But what catchy blog title or URL could I use to attract evangelical Christians to my blog? I came up with this idea: I was taught growing up as an evangelical that Martin Luther was one of the greatest Christians of all times. But I was also told that Martin Luther did not believe that his (Catholic) infant baptism had saved him. Evangelical pastors claimed that Martin Luther had undergone a born again experience as an adult (an adult “decision for Christ”) and it was this adult born again experience upon which Luther based his eternal security, not his infant baptism. Evangelical pastors claim that modern Lutheranism has distorted Luther’s teachings on salvation: Contrary to what modern Lutheranism teaches, Luther taught that salvation only occurs in an adult born again decision for Christ!

This is total baloney!

If you read Luther’s own writings he very clearly states that whenever he had doubts about his eternal salvation, he pulled out his (infant) baptism certificate for assurance and waved it in the face of the Devil! Martin Luther never claimed to be born again in an adult born again experience!

So that is what I decided to call my blog: Luther Was Not Born Again!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Apologists Are Wrong! First Century People Did Interpret Their Dreams as Reality!

Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream, saying, “Arise, take the young Child and His mother, flee to Egypt, and stay there until I bring you word; for Herod will seek the young Child to destroy Him.” When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, ¹⁵ and was there until the death of Herod –Gospel of Matthew

How many of us today would pack up the family and move to a foreign country in the middle of the night just because an extraterrestrial had just appeared to us in a vivid dream and told us to do it?

No one!

First century people were obviously very gullible, ignorant, and superstitious.

Modern Christian apologists tell us that first century peoples could tell the difference between a vision/dream and reality, and therefore it is impossible that the Resurrection Belief developed due to one person’s vivid dream (vision). Really? Again, how many people today would move their family to a foreign country in the middle of the night based on a dream?? Come on, Christians! Face the facts. We are not dealing with educated, enlightened, rational people here.

In Acts chapter 26, Paul in his own words, states that his Jesus appearance experience occurred in a “heavenly vision” (vivid dream). In First Corinthians 15, Paul uses the same Greek verb (ophthe) to describe Jesus’ appearances to Cephas, the Twelve, James, and the Five Hundred that he uses for his own Jesus appearance. Therefore, it is entirely possible that ALL the Jesus appearances listed in the Early Creed involved vivid dreams (and/or group illusions: groups seeing a cloud, bright light, or shadow and interpreting it as an appearance of a heavenly visitor). And, it is also entirely possible that the first “appearance” of Jesus really did occur to Peter: in his head!

Apologists’ claim that no first century person would interpret a vivid dream as reality is proven false by the Gospels themselves!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Gary, It’s None of Your Business What We Christians Believe

Christian: You have all the right in the world to be an atheist/agnostic or whatever you are. Just as Christians have a right to be Christians, and all other religious people, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Sikhs, etc., are entitled to hold their beliefs.

What I don’t think you have a right to do is to be insulting, and actually pretty dogmatic: “Adults should not talk to imaginary friends….” Really? I’ll talk to anyone I want. Oh and lest you think I am some sort of under-educated kook, I have a doctorate in sociology from a Big Ten university. And I do talk (pray) to Jesus. And it’s really not any of your business. If you have to be insulting to make a point, maybe you should re-evaluate your premises.

Gary: I am an evangelist, spreading the good news of the non-reality of demons, devils, gods and other ghastly ghouls. Evangelists do not stop “preaching” just because some in the crowd find the message offensive.

Very educated Hindus (engineers, lawyers, doctors, judges) pray to a god with the head of an elephant. That is their right. However, I will bet that you will agree with me that praying to an elephant-headed deity is a waste of time and in reality…silly. Well, ditto praying to a 2,000 year dead Middle Eastern peasant.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

If Jesus Predicted He Would Rise From the Dead After Three Days, Why Wasn’t Anyone Waiting at the Tomb?

Robert Conner: Hi Gary. Steered here from the Debunking Christianity site where I’m an occasional contributor.

What’s the most amazing, jaw-dropping thing about the Resurrection?

No.

One.

Saw.

It.

Happen!

People saw Lazarus leave the tomb? Check. Son of the widow of Nain raised from the dead? Yep, in front of a crowd, right in the middle of the street! Jesus Himself? Nope. Sorry. Missed that one. Had a dental appointment. Or something.

Even after Jesus foretells his betrayal and resurrection three times in the earliest gospel, guess what? No. One. Shows. Up. And when the women find the tomb empty, they don’t know what to think, and when they tell the Eleven Amigos, they don’t believe the women. HUH?!

Nothing crazy going on there!

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.

Gary, I am Willing to Invest My Limited Time to Re-Convert You to Christianity

Christian: I have a question for you, and a deal to make. You have read all these book denigrating Christianity and religion in general. Have you read any that support it? CS Lewis, Josh McDowell? I would read one book you recommend if you will read one I do.

I just looked up McDowell because I couldn’t remember the name of the book I read years ago (Evidence That Demands a Verdict), and read what Wikipedia had to say (I figured if he had been a bad boy in any way they would have noted it), and saw this:
“ McDowell’s approach to apologetics falls under what Protestant theologians classify as “classical” and “evidential.” In either of these approaches to Christian apologetics, it is assumed that arguments defending the Christian faith can legitimately be directed to both believers and unbelievers because the human mind is viewed as able to comprehend certain truths about God. Presuppositional apologetics, on the other hand, questions this methodology by arguing that since unbelievers partially suppress and resist the truth about God (as Paul states in Romans 1:18–20), the problem of unbelief is also an ethical choice and not simply a lack of evidence.[10]

I also am a truth- seeker, I was before I became a Christian and still am. I most definitely prefer cold hard truth, but actually, the main problem I have with God has to do with the coldest, hardest truth there is – hell. Yet I am still here.

You want your readers to change their minds. Are you willing to change yours? If you had to choose, do you really think you would want to go back to being a Christian if you were convinced? Or is that thought repulsive to you. No answer there requested, just something for you to think about.

By the way, as a retired health professional with a degree in biology, one of my biggest questions had to do with evolution. Another “problem” that has been neatly, and soundly, settled in my mind. You probably hear this all the time, but I am praying for you. I am willing to invest my limited time on you- but only if we can have honest open debate. God bless.

Gary: Yes, I’ve read Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” and reviewed it on this blog. Did you know that Josh does not believe that the virgin birth prophecy in Isaiah chapter 7 originally had anything to do with Jesus? The fact is, I have read many books written by Christian scholars and apologists. See the list: here

However, I have found that no matter how many books I read, Christians are never satisfied. There is always one more book that I must read to be fully informed. It is funny to note that the one book Christians never tell me to read is the Bible! Isn’t that odd? I guess God’s message to humankind is just not clear enough to recommend.

I am open to discussing my beliefs, but only here on my blog in a public forum. I get too many emails to respond to each one individually in detail.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

End of post.