(5001) God, the extortionist

Christianity disgorged the hideous concept that all human babies are born into sin, and right out of the womb they are hell-bound UNLESS they find Jesus, accept, and worship him. Imagine the injustice of punishing someone for the simple act of being born. Only a diseased human brain could conjure up such a deplorable concept. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1gxbn66/christian_hell/

“We are all born into sin…”

LOL, no one is born into sin. That’s a complete myth. Frankly, it’s one of the most deplorable and insidious aspects of Christianity. Christians do everything they can to convince people that they are drowning in a sea of horrible, worthless, unworthy shameful sin and aren’t fit for anything but everlasting burning hell if they don’t accept the Jesus life jacket to pull them out of the water. And then Christians convince people that they should be super-duper grateful and super-duper happy for being rescued from these imaginary personal failings via the Jesus life jacket.

When a choice like this is backed up by fear and physical threats of violence it’s called extortion. Usually extortion has money involved in the choice but in the Christian world their god is demanding his subjects honor, love and worship him or he’ll send you down the East River wearing cement boots to live with the fishes. There is little difference between the demands of the Mafia godfather and that of the Christian god, and as far as I know extortion is illegal where I live.

The work-around to keep babies who died from going to hell was to baptize them before they died, so that this torture path could be removed from their afterlife. Imagine a god so cruel as to send a baby to eternal torture but who would relent his grotesque plan if a human sprinkled some water on the baby. This is too astronomically ludicrous to have come from the mind of an omnipotent deity.

(5002) Mark, Luke, and Matthew missed Cana wedding

There is a prominent section in the Gospel of John (2:1-12) chronicling a wedding that took place in Cana, attended by Jesus and his mother. It was documented as being the place where Jesus performed his first miracle, changing water into wine. It would be presumed that all of his disciples (who were recruited in the first chapter) were present, plus many others attending the ceremony. Despite this exposure, for inexplicable reasons, the persons who wrote the first three gospels, Mark, Luke, and Matthew failed to write about it.

The gospel of John was written in approximately 90 CE or later, meaning that many Christians lived and died without ever hearing or reading about the wedding miracle. If, as many Christians claim, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of the gospels, why did ‘He’ wait so long to inspire a person to write about Jesus’ first and very public miracle?

What should be inferred as the most likely truth is that the Cana wedding was a fabrication by the author of John. This author wrote about it at least 60 years after it allegedly happened, making it very unlikely that he attended the ceremony, or that anyone else alive at the time had attended. So all he could have gone on was a word-of-mouth tradition- a tradition that would have existed also when the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and Matthew were written.

To make matters even more improbable, the synoptic gospels have Jesus being baptized and then immediately going into the wilderness for 40 days to be tempted by the devil. But in John, Jesus is in Cana on the third day after baptism.

Based on these observations, it is highly probable that the story of Cana wedding is 100% fiction, leading an objective reader to have serious doubts about everything else written in John’s gospel.

(5003) God and the Seven Deadly Sins

The seven deadly sins (also known as the capital vices or cardinal sins) function as a grouping classification of major vices within the teachings of Christianity. Based on the Bible, the case can be made that God exhibits all of these sins. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1gywc43/god_encompasses_the_7_cardinal_sins_and/

God encompasses the 7 cardinal sins and therefore is fallible.

The argument that God might be fallible or imperfect often stems from a critical interpretation of theological and scriptural accounts, as well as philosophical debates on the nature of divine omnipotence and morality. Below is a detailed exploration of how the seven deadly sins—lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride—might be attributed to God within certain contexts, primarily from the perspective of the Abrahamic traditions. Each point represents a challenge raised by critics, skeptics, or philosophers rather than a definitive theological stance.

1. 1. 1. Lust

Lust is generally understood as excessive or unrestrained desire. Critics argue that God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) could reflect a divine obsession with procreation and control over human sexuality. Additionally, the frequent depiction of God as a “jealous God” who desires exclusive worship (Exodus 34:14) might imply a form of spiritual lust for adoration.

Jealousy of Worship: In Exodus 34:14, God declares Himself a “jealous God,” demanding exclusive worship. This jealousy can be interpreted as spiritual lust, as it reflects a deep craving for human affection and loyalty.

Adam and Eve’s Fall: The prohibition of the Tree of Knowledge (Genesis 2:16-17) might signify an attempt to control human independence, analogous to a possessive lover preventing their partner’s growth.

Relational Analogies: The Bible frequently describes God’s relationship with humanity in terms of a marriage covenant, wherein infidelity (idolatry) is met with severe punishment (e.g., Hosea 2). This can be seen as an obsessive fixation on fidelity.

2. Gluttony

Gluttony is excessive indulgence or consumption. Some interpretations suggest that God’s acceptance of sacrifices, particularly burnt offerings (Leviticus 1), could be viewed as indulgent. Furthermore, God’s provision of manna and quail to the Israelites (Exodus 16) could be interpreted as fostering reliance on divine abundance, bordering on gluttony in certain readings.

Burnt Offerings: The constant demand for sacrificial offerings (e.g., Leviticus 1) can be viewed as an appetite for ritualistic devotion. The aroma of burnt offerings is described as “pleasing to the Lord” (Genesis 8:21), suggesting a sensory indulgence.

Divine Feasts: The detailed instructions for sacrificial meals, particularly in the context of the Tabernacle or Temple, could symbolize a divine preoccupation with consumption.

Flood Narrative: In the story of Noah (Genesis 6-9), God destroys nearly all life but promises never to do so again after receiving Noah’s burnt offering. This action might suggest a form of appeasement through indulgence in sacrificial rituals.

3. Greed

God’s demand for exclusive worship and offerings (Malachi 3:10) can be interpreted as greed. The destruction of those who worship other gods (e.g., the Canaanites in Deuteronomy 20) could reinforce this perspective, portraying God as insatiable in His demand for loyalty.

Exclusive Worship: God commands that no other gods be worshiped (Exodus 20:3-5). This demand for exclusivity can be interpreted as a form of greed for human allegiance.

Tithes and Offerings: In Malachi 3:10, God challenges His people to “bring the whole tithe” into the storehouse, implying a desire for material tribute.

Promised Land Conquest: God commands the Israelites to conquer Canaan (Deuteronomy 7), taking land and wealth from its inhabitants. This divine orchestration of conquest could be seen as greed for dominion over the earth.

4. Sloth

The accusation of sloth could arise from the perceived delegation of responsibilities to humans and angels. For example, God often allows human intermediaries or natural processes to enact His will rather than intervening directly. The problem of evil—why God allows suffering and does not always act to prevent it—is often framed as divine inaction or sloth.

Problem of Evil: The allowance of suffering, injustice, and natural disasters without intervention is often cited as evidence of divine sloth. If God is omnipotent and benevolent, why permit evil rather than actively preventing it?

Delegation to Humans: God frequently assigns humans to execute His will (e.g., Moses leading the Israelites, prophets delivering messages). This delegation could be interpreted as avoidance of direct involvement.

Rest on the Seventh Day: After six days of creation, God rests (Genesis 2:2). While this is often viewed symbolically, critics might argue it represents divine withdrawal or fatigue.

5. Wrath

The most commonly attributed sin is wrath, evident in numerous biblical accounts such as the Flood (Genesis 6-9), the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), and the plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7-12). Critics argue that these actions demonstrate excessive and punitive anger.

The Flood: In Genesis 6-9, God annihilates nearly all life on Earth due to humanity’s wickedness. This action, critics argue, exemplifies excessive and indiscriminate wrath.

Sodom and Gomorrah: The destruction of these cities (Genesis 19) reflects extreme retribution, with no room for mercy apart from Lot’s family.

Plagues of Egypt: The ten plagues (Exodus 7-12) demonstrate escalating acts of violence, culminating in the death of Egyptian firstborns. Critics argue these actions reflect uncontrolled anger rather than measured justice.

6. Envy

God’s jealousy, explicitly mentioned in Exodus 20:5 and elsewhere, can be interpreted as envy, especially when directed against other gods or human allegiances. Critics argue that an omnipotent being would have no need for such feelings, implying fallibility.

Jealous God: In Exodus 20:5, God states, “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” This jealousy is directed at worshipers who turn to other gods, implying envy of their attention and devotion.

Golden Calf Incident: In Exodus 32, God reacts furiously to the Israelites’ worship of a golden calf, threatening to destroy them. This reaction suggests envy toward their diverted worship.

God vs. Other Deities: Throughout the Old Testament, God frequently asserts His supremacy over other gods (e.g., Elijah’s confrontation on Mount Carmel, 1 Kings 18). This competitive stance could be interpreted as envy of rival deities.

7. Pride

God’s declarations of His power and glory, such as “I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5), have been interpreted as prideful. Critics suggest that an all-powerful being boasting about its greatness indicates insecurity or ego.

Declarations of Supremacy: Statements such as “I am the Lord, and there is no other” (Isaiah 45:5) highlight an insistence on His unparalleled greatness. Critics argue that such declarations reflect a need for recognition and validation.

Punishing the Proud: God frequently punishes those who display pride (e.g., King Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4). This could be interpreted as an unwillingness to tolerate competition or challenge.

Demand for Worship: The consistent demand for praise and adoration (e.g., Psalm 150) might indicate a preoccupation with self-glorification, akin to hubris.

God admits to the existence of other gods and is therefore fallible or “not perfect” arises from certain passages in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) where God appears to acknowledge the presence of other deities. This can be analyzed within the historical, theological, and literary contexts of ancient Israelite religion.

A god invented by humans would likely exhibit the principal ‘sins’ of mankind. A real god would not. Take note that Yahweh lands in the first category.

(5004) Religions reflect human opinion about God

There is too much flexibility of belief among the sects of each religion to conclude that any of them reflect the instructions of an actual omnipotent deity. Instead of religions telling us what God thinks of us, rather, they are a measure of how humans think about God. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1gyurrh/religion_reflect_human_opinion_about_god_rather/

Religions reflect human opinion about God rather than God’s opinion about humans.

If an omnipotent deity desired a relationship with humans, it would be (1) obvious who this deity is, and (2) very clear what this deity expects of humans. There would be effectively only one religion, and only one denomination of that religion. If there exists no omnipotent deity, then the landscape of religion would look precisely as it appears today.

(5005) Atheist countries thrive

If Christianity is true, then those countries with the most Christians should be enjoying better outcomes on every scale of societal health. Alternatively, countries turning away from Christianity should be suffering. The following discusses the 10 countries with the least engagement with Christianity- China, Czech Republic, Japan, Sweden, Estonia, Hong Kong, United Kingdom, Belgium, Australia, and South Korea. They are all doing just fine:

https://www.southwestjournal.com/world/most-atheist-countries/

Ever wondered where God’s been ghosted the most? Picture a world where ancient temples double as coffee shops and Christmas is more about family feasts than midnight mass. Welcome to the fascinating realm of the world’s most secular nations, where traditional faith has taken a backseat to modern skepticism.

From China’s staggering 91% non-religious population to Estonia’s churches-turned-concert-venues, these countries are rewriting the rules of spirituality. They’re proving that you can preserve cultural heritage while embracing secular thinking – and maybe even throwing an ancient festival or two into the mix, minus the religious undertones.

China – The World’s Largest Atheist Nation

At the forefront of global secularism stands China, boasting the highest proportion of atheists worldwide. With a staggering 91% of its population identifying as atheist or non-religious – and 67% being convinced atheists – the nation represents a unique case study in widespread secular thought.

This massive shift away from traditional religious beliefs isn’t just a recent phenomenon. China’s secular mindset has deep roots in Confucian philosophy, which historically emphasized practical ethics over supernatural beliefs. The Communist Party’s official promotion of atheism since 1949 has further cemented this trajectory.

Today’s modern China showcases how rapid economic development and urbanization can accelerate secular attitudes. In major cities like Beijing and Shanghai, you’ll find a population far more concerned with material progress than spiritual matters.

Czech Republic – Europe’s Secular Heartland

Unlike their Central and Eastern European neighbors, the Czech Republic stands out as Europe’s most religiously skeptical nation, where a whopping 72% of adults don’t identify with any faith tradition. What’s even more striking? A quarter of Czechs proudly embrace the atheist label – making them true champions of secular thinking in Central Europe.

This isn’t just a modern trend, either. The Czechs have been blazing their own path away from organized religion for generations. Today’s numbers tell a fascinating story: 84% support legal abortion, and 65% back same-sex marriage – making them one of Europe’s most secular countries.

But here’s the kicker – while most Czechs might skip Sunday service (55% never attend religious services), they haven’t completely abandoned supernatural thinking. A surprising 65% still believe in at least one mystical concept, from fate to souls. Talk about keeping things interesting!

Japan – Where Ancient Meets Atheist

In the land of cherry blossoms and bullet trains, Japan presents a fascinating paradox of spirituality and secularism. With 64-65% of its population identifying as atheist or agnostic, Japan stands as one of the most secular countries in Asia, representing over 81 million non-believers.

What makes Japan unique is how seamlessly it blends traditional spiritual customs with modern secular life. You’ll find Japanese people participating in Shinto ceremonies or Buddhist rituals while maintaining fundamentally non-religious worldviews – a phenomenon often called “practical atheism.”

This secular shift gained momentum during Japan’s post-war economic miracle, when rapid industrialization and modernization reshaped social values. Today’s Japanese society embodies this duality perfectly – where ancient shrines stand in the shadows of towering skyscrapers, and most citizens approach religion as cultural tradition rather than spiritual truth.

Sweden – The Progressive Secular Pioneer

Sweden stands as a beacon of secular progress, where an astounding 46-85% of the population identifies as atheist or agnostic. That’s roughly 4-7.6 million Swedes who’ve traded traditional faith for a more rationalist worldview.

The shift from Sweden’s Lutheran roots to most secular countries in 2024 didn’t happen overnight. Decades of progressive social policies, comprehensive education, and a robust welfare system have shaped a society where religious belief takes a backseat to practical humanism.

Modern Swedish culture perfectly embodies this secular spirit. While historic churches dot the landscape, they’re more likely to host concerts than congregations. You’ll find Swedes celebrating traditional Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter, but with a distinctly secular twist – focusing on family gatherings and cultural traditions rather than religious observance.

Estonia – The Baltic Beacon of Non-Belief

Estonia stands out as a fascinating case in Europe’s secular landscape, where the most secular countries show that 49% of the population claims no religious belief, with 11% specifically identifying as atheists. In this tiny Baltic nation, you’ll find churches transformed into concert venues and medieval monasteries serving as hip cafes – a perfect metaphor for the country’s evolution from religious tradition to modern secular thinking.

The roots of Estonian secularism run deep, shaped by centuries of foreign religious influence and decades of Soviet-era atheism. But unlike other post-Soviet states that embraced religion after independence, Estonians doubled down on their secular identity. Today’s Estonia ranks consistently among the worst countries for atheists, boasting some of Europe’s most progressive social policies.

But here’s what makes Estonia truly unique – while most Estonians might skip Sunday services, they’ve managed to preserve their rich cultural heritage without the religious undertones. It’s a place where ancient pagan festivals coexist with cutting-edge digital innovation, creating a distinctly Estonian brand of secular society.

Hong Kong – Where East Meets Secular West

In the bustling metropolis of Hong Kong, secularism thrives amid the city’s iconic skyline, where 66% of residents identify as atheists or non-believers. This former British colony has cultivated a unique secular identity, blending Eastern philosophical traditions with top 50 atheist countries with Western-style modernization.

Hong Kong’s secular mindset isn’t just about rejecting religious beliefs – it’s woven into the fabric of daily life. While traditional temples still dot the urban landscape, they’re more likely to see tourists than worshippers. Nearly 55% of Hong Kongers identify as non-religious, preferring pragmatic approaches to life over spiritual ones.

What makes Hong Kong’s secular story fascinating is how it emerged from the intersection of Chinese cultural heritage and British colonial influence. Today, you’ll find professionals rushing past ancient temples to reach gleaming office towers – a perfect metaphor for Hong Kong’s secular evolution in our modern world.

United Kingdom – Where Traditional Faith Meets Modern Skepticism

The United Kingdom has emerged as a stronghold of secular thinking, where 31-44% of Brits – that’s roughly 18.7-26.5 million people – identify as atheist or agnostic. This dramatic shift from the nation’s deeply Christian roots tells a fascinating story of cultural evolution.

In today’s British society, you’re more likely to find historic cathedrals serving as tourist attractions than packed Sunday services. While secular nations in 2022 show 69% of Brits now identify as non-religious, they haven’t completely abandoned their cultural ties to Christianity – just ask anyone about their Christmas pudding traditions!

The UK’s transformation into a secular society hasn’t happened in isolation. Immigration, multiculturalism, and rapid urbanization have all played their part in reshaping British attitudes toward religion. From bustling London boroughs to quiet Scottish highlands, you’ll find a uniquely British brand of secularism that manages to honor tradition while embracing modern skepticism.

Belgium – Where Secular Values Reign Supreme

In the heart of Europe, Belgium stands as a testament to successful secularization, with 42-43% of its population – approximately 4.3-4.4 million people – identifying as atheist or agnostic. Despite its deep Catholic roots, modern Belgium has evolved into one of the safest countries for atheists, earning its spot near the top of international secular rankings.

This transformation didn’t happen overnight. As one of the continent’s most progressive nations, Belgium has consistently ranked among the world’s most secular countries. Here, you’ll find historic Gothic cathedrals repurposed as cultural centers and museums – a perfect metaphor for the country’s journey from religious tradition to secular modernity.

Belgian secularism comes with a distinctly pragmatic flavor. While religious freedom is constitutionally protected, public life operates firmly on secular principles. From pioneering euthanasia laws to same-sex marriage rights, Belgium continues to lead the charge in progressive, secular governance.

Australia – The Land Down Under Secularism

Down under, Australia has emerged as a secular powerhouse, where roughly 24-25% of the population – that’s nearly 5 million Aussies – have embraced atheism or agnosticism. What started as a British colony steeped in Anglican tradition has bloomed into one of the Pacific’s most religiously skeptical nations.

In today’s multicultural Australia, you’ll find former churches converted into trendy cafes and art galleries – a perfect snapshot of the country’s secular evolution. From bustling Sydney to laid-back Perth, about 70% of Australians rarely darken a church door except for weddings or funerals.

But here’s what makes Aussie secularism unique: it comes with a distinctly relaxed attitude. While most Australians might skip Sunday services, they’ve maintained their characteristic “live and let live” philosophy, creating a secular society that’s both progressive and remarkably chill about personal beliefs.

South Korea – Where Tech Meets Secular Thinking

In the land of K-pop and cutting-edge technology, South Korea has undergone a remarkable secular transformation. With top twenty atheist countries showing 30-52% of its population – roughly 14.5-25.2 million people – identifying as atheist or agnostic, modern South Korea stands as a testament to how rapid development can reshape religious attitudes.

The nation’s journey from traditional Buddhist and Confucian roots to secular modernity mirrors its dramatic economic rise. In bustling Seoul’s neon-lit streets, you’ll find ancient temples sharing space with sleek tech campuses, perfectly capturing Korea’s secular evolution.

What makes Korean secularism fascinating is its practical approach. While many Koreans maintain cultural ties to traditional practices, they approach them more as cultural heritage than religious doctrine. It’s a place where age-old ancestral rites coexist with ultramodern digital lifestyles, creating a uniquely Korean flavor of secular society.

This represents a test of the truth of Christianity on a global scale. A country with a high percentage of Christians should be remarkably healthier than one with a low percentage, with God rewarding his faithful followers with answered prayers, insights, assistance, and wisdom. But if Christianity is not true, then it is likely that there would be no discernible difference- as is observed.

(5006) Jesus quotes- separating fact from fiction

The long quest to determine the true teachings of Jesus, assuming he was a real person, continues to this day. The following is a further effort to set the ground rules for this effort. As can be seen- there are large portions of the gospels that can be confidently shelved as being nothing more than inventions of the authors themselves:

https://andrewspringer.medium.com/how-we-know-what-jesus-actually-said-and-whats-made-up-057c718e7d63

There are certainly seeds of truth about Jesus’s life and teachings buried beneath the treacherous top soil of the corrupted New Testament. Our job — as seekers of Jesus’s true, original message — is to help dig up those seeds up and replant them.

As such, scholars who study the historical Jesus have developed five handy questions to help us judge if saying or story about Jesus is authentic:

1. 1. Does it appear in more than one early, independent source?
   2. Is it distinctive enough that it likely wasn’t just “made up”?
   3. Does it fit with what we know about first century Palestinian Jewish life and culture?
   4. Is it embarrassing? i.e., does it create problems early Christians had to resolve?
   5. Is it easy to remember and pass on?

Answer yes to most or all five of these questions, and there’s a strong argument to be made that a passage is authentic. (5)

#1. Does it appear in more than one early, independent source?

When a saying or story appears in multiple, independent sources, scholars believe it’s more likely to be authentic. This is called multiple independent attestation.

For example, the Greatest Commandment explicitly appears in all three Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke), while appearing in fractured, indirect forms in Paul’s letters and the Gospel of John. Furthermore, it appears in the letters of John and James. (6) This strong attestation suggests the authenticity of Jesus’s commandment to love God and love our neighbors.

Conversely, Jesus’s “I am” statements in John (“I am the bread of life,” “I am the way, the truth and the life”) appear only in that later gospel and nowhere else in early Christian literature. This suggests it is unlikely Jesus himself said these; it is more likely a later addition of some of his followers. (7)

#2. Is it distinctive enough that it likely wasn’t just “made up”?

If a saying differs from both traditional Jewish teaching and early Christian theology, it’s more likely to be authentic. For example, Jesus’ teaching that “the sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind for the sabbath” (Mk 2:27) challenged Jewish law in a way early Christians weren’t likely to invent. The early church wasn’t particularly interested in critiquing Jewish law, making this kind of radical statement that would have ruffled the feathers of Jewish leaders unlikely to be just made up.

In contrast, a statement like, “go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” at the end of Matthew (28:19) perfectly aligns with early church practices and Trinitarian theology that was developed in the centuries after Jesus’s death. It’s highly unlikely Jesus would have ever said anything like this.

#3. Does it fit with what we know about first century Palestinian Jewish life and culture?

Sayings that fit the historical and cultural context of first century Palestine are more likely authentic. Jesus’ parables about farming, fishing, and domestic life in Galilee ring true to his context. However, Jesus gives several detailed prophecies of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem that would “come true” some 30 years after his death. (8) It is much more likely, given the improbability of the destruction of temple, that someone added these later than Jesus having the ability to “see” into the future.

#4. Is it embarrassing? Does it create problems early Christians had to resolve?

This is similar to #2. If a saying or story or event could have embarrassed the early church, it’s more likely authentic because its unlikely early Christians would have made up an embarrassing story or detail. This is called the criterion of embarrassment.

The classic example of this is Jesus’s relationship with John the Baptist. Typically, the baptizer is more holy or more authoritative than the person getting baptized. This remains true today. Scholars believe the story of Jesus being baptized by John must have been well-known enough to need an explanation because all four Gospels go out of their way to explain this (embarrassing) detail. (9)

Compare that with the stories of Jesus’s birth — the infancy narratives — found in Matthew and Luke. With their miraculous virgin birth stories and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, both seem designed more to glorify Jesus. (10) It is the exact opposite of embarrassment! For that and other reasons, these stories are likely fabricated.

#5. Is it easy to remember and pass on?

Jesus taught orally in Aramaic, so it makes sense that authentic sayings likely have features that made them easy to remember and repeat. Verses and stories that are short and punchy, and/or have a parallel structure, surprise twist, or a memorable image are more likely to be authentic.

For example, Jesus’s saying, “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom” has these features and is likely authentic. (11)

Jesus’s long farewell discourse in John 14–17 is the precise opposite of this. It lacks the brief, punchy, memorable style characteristic of oral tradition and instead reflects sophisticated Greek philosophy. Therefore, scholars believe it is very likely inauthentic.

Using these questions as a guide, scholars generally agree these types of saying are unlikely to be authentic:

• • Long theological discourses about Jesus’ divine nature;
  • Detailed predictions of his death and resurrection;
  • Statements that sound more like early church doctrine;
  • Teachings that seem to address later church conflicts;
  • and stories that fulfill Old Testament prophecies too perfectly.

Why It Matters

When I meet “Christians” who have no interest in this information, quite honestly I’m puzzled. If you’re going to “give your life to Christ,” why wouldn’t you want to know — at least to the best of our ability — what Jesus himself actually thought, taught, and practiced? It’s infinitely more important than what Paul thought of Jesus, or what whoever wrote John thought of Jesus.

Understanding what Jesus did and taught is crucial to distinguishing between the religion of Jesus rather than the religion about Jesus.

When we strip away the stories and sayings of Jesus that are likely to be inauthentic, and instead focus on those more likely to be authentic, we see that Jesus emphasized God’s love, challenged religious and social authorities, and called for radical transformation of both individuals and society.

Jesus was not concerned about where you would spend eternity. That’s an invention of his later followers. Rather, Jesus was deeply concerned with how we treat each other — particularly the poor and marginalized — and the transformed world that emerges when his followers bring more love into the world.

And that’s the difference between living the religion of Jesus — instead of the religion about Jesus.

Although we will never know for sure what Jesus did, or thought, or stated, it is possible to develop probabilities that can inform our perceptions. The best guess is that he probably was a unique person who was trying to usher in a new manifestation of the Jewish faith, in an effort to encourage God to help deliver the Jewish people from their harsh Roman occupation. The miracles, the resurrection, and the ascension, among other trappings were add-ons that were invented to embellish the story, which then eventually became so foreign to observant Jews as to jettison the movement into a new faith altogether.

(5007) How Jesus failed to convince Jews

In the following, Bart Ehrman explains why Jesus was rejected by the Jews as being the messiah, just as Christians would reject someone claiming to be the second-coming of Jesus if he also failed to meet their expectations:

https://ehrmanblog.org/the-jewish-messiah/

I am trying to show that Mark portrayed Jesus as the Son of God (meaning:  the one who was in a particularly close relationship with God who was chosen by God to mediate his will on earth) and the messiah.  But he was the Son of God/Messiah whom no one understood.  Even his disciples.

What though would it mean for first century Jews to think of someone as the messiah?

Some serious background is necessary.  As I pointed out in my previous post, the word Messiah is a Hebrew term (the Greek equivalent is “Christ”) which meant “anointed one.”  Why would you call someone the anointed one?

In Jewish circles the term goes back to a kind of royal ideology (i.e., understandings of the kingship) from centuries before Jesus.  In the Old Testament, it was first and foremost the king of Israel who was thought to be the “anointed one.”  That’s because at the king’s coronation ceremony, he had, as part of the ritual, oil poured on his head to show that he was the one who stood under God’s special favor.   He was thus the messiah, the anointed one.

In one of our early narratives about kingship, we are told …

In one of our early narratives about kingship, we are told that the second king of Israel, David was promised by God that he would *always*, forever, have a descendent sitting on the throne of Israel (2 Sam 7:14-16).  And for years it was believed that this would be true, that there would always be a Davidic king, an “anointed one,” on the throne.  For over four hundred years, in fact, it was true.  Descendants of David ruled from Jerusalem over all that time, as God’s anointed ones.

But then in the sixth century BCE, disaster struck.  The Babylonians invaded Judea, destroyed Jerusalem, burned the Temple, and removed the Davidic king from the throne.

What were thinkers in Judea to think of that?  God had promised that there would always be a king, an anointed one from the line of David on the throne.  And now there simply wasn’t one.   Some thinkers came to believe that this was a merely temporary state of affairs, a blip in the divine plan.  God would still fulfill his promise to David and his people, by restoring a king to the throne of Israel.  There would be a future anointed one.  I.e., there would be yet again a messiah.

The idea of a messiah then developed into the notion of a *future* king from David’s line who would rule Israel.  This figure was not to be divine, except insofar as God would make him his “son” just as he had made David, and Solomon, and other kings his son.  People expecting a messiah, then, were expecting a future warrior-king who would drive out the enemies and set up the Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem.

By the days of Jesus, some 600 years after the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem, different Jewish groups and individuals had different understandings of what this future ruler of Israel would be.  My guess is that most Jews were not looking forward to a messiah at all, just as most Jews today aren’t.  But some were.  And their expectations (as attested in our surviving sources) were diverse.

Some, probably the majority of those expecting a messiah, thought he would be the traditional warrior-politician-king, a human elevated by God to rule over his people.  Others maintained that the future messiah would be a great and powerful priest who would rule God’s people by giving them the true interpretation of the law.  Yet others thought that the messiah would be more of a cosmic figure, a divine being come on the clouds of heaven to destroy everyone and everything that was opposed to God in order to set up a new scheme of things, a new kingdom here on earth.

Even though these were different kinds of expectation, they had some things in common.  Most important, they all saw the messiah as a figure of grandeur and power who would overthrow the enemies of the Jews and establish Israel as a sovereign state in the land, ruling over the people as God’s empowered representative on earth.

With that background, it is easy to see why after the death of Jesus, it was so difficult to convince Jews that he was the messiah.  He was just the *opposite* of what the messiah was supposed to be, virtually by definition.  Rather than a powerful figure who destroyed God’s enemies, Jesus was a lower class peasant who got on the wrong side of the law and was *squashed* by God’s enemies.  The Romans unceremoniously arrested, tried, convicted, tortured, humiliated, and crucified him.  THAT’S the messiah???

In the past I’ve tried to explain to my students how most first-century Jews would react to the claim that Jesus was the messiah.  It would be like my trying to convince you that David Koresh is the Lord of the Universe.  David Koresh???  The Branch Davidian?  The guy at Waco who was abusing kids and stockpiling arms, the guy the FBI killed in a raid on his compound?  You’re telling me that *he’s* the Lord of the Universe??  What are you, CRAZY???

That’s pretty much what most Jews thought about the Christian claim that Jesus was the messiah.  (I always used to get in trouble when I’d use this analogy.  At the end of the year I’d have two or three students write on their course evaluations that they couldn’t believe that Ehrman thought that David Koresh was the Lord of the Universe.   Ai yai yai….)

It’s no surprise then that Christians did not have lots and lots of Jewish converts to their belief in Jesus.  In my next post I’ll be explaining why Christians did believe that Jesus was the messiah – a belief that I think goes back to the Jesus’ own lifetime.  In fact, I think that Jesus himself thought he was the messiah.

 Christians would likewise reject a person claiming to be Jesus’ second coming if he failed to meet any of the expectations that Christians hold for a returned Jesus. After this rejection, a new religion could form around this person, but there would be very few Christians who would join in.

(5008) Jesus was likely a cult leader

The following explains why Jesus was likely a cult leader:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1h2mij3/jesus_was_likely_a_cult_leader/

Jesus was likely a cult leader

Cults are precursors to religions, which then develop when devoted followers attempt to continue the faith after the cult leader dies, and then subsequently the religion splinters into various factions. Christianity followed this formula. If it had been a true religion governed by an omnipotent deity, it would have remained cohesive, under the deity’s unlimited powers, with all Christians following the same script.

(5009) Human immortality would kill religion

When distilling religions to their core, what remains is a fear of death, a fear of non-existence. This existential dread is what fueled the invention of thousands of religions, as humanity was unable to courageously confront the finality of death. In the following, it is speculated that if and when a cure for aging is discovered, and humans have a chance to live eternally, the belief in religion will fade away.

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1gzpizy/if_the_human_species_became_immortal_would/

If the human species became immortal would everyone become an atheist?

Science has intruded on religious belief by falsifying the various creation myths and by demonstrating the natural causes of many phenomena previously believed to be supernatural in nature. And one final intrusion is possible if science achieves a means to enable human immortality. In that way, ironically, science becomes the ‘religion’ that actually provides for eternal life.

(5010) Brevity of Josephus on Jesus is telling

Sometime what someone omits is more revealing that what is said. This is the case with the late First Century historian Josephus in how he documented the life of Jesus (assuming that these mentions were not interpolations- for which a good argument can be made). The brief mention of Jesus in this case does more to damage Christianity than to bolster it. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1h42zjl/the_buried_lede_problem_what_josephus_tells_us/

While Josephus is often cited as evidence for Jesus’s historicity, the very brevity of his mentions actually tells us something more interesting – that a prominent 1st century Jewish historian viewed Jesus as just another historical figure rather than the divine Messiah. This is particularly evident when compared to how extensively he covers other historical figures and events he considered significant.

When discussing historical evidence for Jesus outside the Bible, scholars often turn to Flavius Josephus. His writings are particularly valuable because he was a near-contemporary Jewish historian writing about Jesus in the 1st century. While his brief mentions help support the historicity of Jesus, the way he writes about Jesus – particularly how little space he dedicates to him in his massive 20-volume history – actually gives us a fascinating window into how educated 1st century Jews viewed Jesus’s messianic claims.

For context: Josephus’s Antiquities of the Jews is a massive 20-volume work chronicling Jewish history from creation to 66 CE. Throughout this work, he provides extensive, detailed coverage of figures he considers significant. He writes at length about Herod the Great, exploring his political maneuvers, architectural projects, and complex relationships. He dedicates substantial space to high priests, political leaders, and major conflicts like the Maccabean Revolt.

Yet when it comes to Jesus, he essentially writes in this style:

“The Jews were expelled from Rome by Emperor Tiberius.

Around this time lived Jesus, who some called Christ. He performed surprising deeds and gained followers. Pilate had him crucified, but his followers claimed he rose from the dead and was the promised Messiah.

Pilate then misappropriated funds from the Temple treasury, causing public outrage…”

The contrast between Josephus’s extensive treatment of other figures and events versus his brief mentions of Jesus is striking. If Josephus truly believed Jesus was the Messiah, this would be like discovering definitive proof of alien life and mentioning it in passing between discussing local weather patterns and city council meetings.

Some argue that Josephus’s Roman audience might explain why his mentions of Jesus are so brief. However, this reasoning falls short for several reasons. Josephus frequently gives detailed attention to figures and events that might not have been inherently interesting to Roman readers, such as Jewish high priests and internal conflicts. As a historian, his role was to document what he viewed as significant. If Josephus believed Jesus was the Messiah—the ultimate fulfillment of Jewish prophecy and a divine figure—this would transcend audience preferences and demand significant attention. His neutrality and brevity suggest instead that he saw Jesus as a minor figure in a turbulent time, worthy of mention but not central to the narrative he was constructing.

To understand how jarring this writing style would be for someone who actually believed Jesus was the divine Messiah, imagine:

• • An American historian writing “Some colonists were upset about taxes. George Washington led some battles and became president. Britain had trouble with India…”
  • A Muslim historian writing “There were tribal conflicts in Arabia. Muhammad received divine revelations and gained some followers. Trade in the Mediterranean improved…”

Or imagine writing a historical timeline like this:

“August 2001 – A ceasefire is negotiated to end the War of the Peters in Sudan.

September 2001 – Approximately 2,977 people are killed after two airplanes crash into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York and one crashes into the Pentagon in Washington D.C.

October 2001 – 3G wireless technology first becomes available when it is adopted by Japanese telecommunications company NTT Docomo.”

The very structure of Josephus’s writing – treating Jesus as just another minor entry in a vast historical narrative – suggests he viewed Christianity as simply another movement to document, not as the earth-shattering divine revelation it would have been if he actually believed the claims about Jesus being the Messiah.

Interestingly, this same brevity actually strengthens the case for a historical Jesus. If someone were fabricating or embellishing, they’d likely make it a much bigger deal. The very fact that Josephus treats Jesus’s existence as just another historical footnote – as mundane as any other political or social movement of the time – suggests he’s simply recording what he understood to be historical facts. After all, why would anyone bother to fabricate something so unremarkable?

Sometimes it’s not just what a historian says, but how much space and emphasis they give to a topic that reveals their true perspective.

Like any good historical source, Josephus tells us as much by what he doesn’t emphasize as by what he does. The “buried lede” here isn’t just that Jesus existed – it’s that a prominent 1st century Jewish historian saw him as just another figure in a turbulent time, worthy of mention but not of any special reverence.

This isn’t in and of itself an argument against Jesus’s historicity – if anything, the mundane nature of the mentions suggests Josephus was simply recording what he knew to be historical facts while remaining skeptical of the grander theological claims.

Christian apologists would do well for their case to admit that the Jesus mentions in Josephus’ work were interpolations. It is better that he bypassed mention of Jesus than to treat him as an insignificant historical figure.

(5011) God either doesn’t care or doesn’t exist

The existence of open-minded non-believers drives a stake into the heart of Christian theology, because it morphs such persons into ‘demons’ deserving of eternal punishment in hell. Something is very wrong with this picture. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1h4zfc8/if_god_existed_and_wanted_me_to_believe_it_could/

If God existed and wanted me to believe, it could do so. It choosing not to indicates it either does not care or does not exist.

Classical Theism

Christian apologists squirm when confronting this line of reasoning. The usual fallback is that the Bible plus the universe itself is sufficient evidence for God, and therefore there is no excuse. But what we have learned about the Bible, and of the universe, including the fact that prayers don’t work and miracles don’t happen creates a difficult landscape for any objective mind to see as evidence for Yahweh. In truth, the Christian god exhibits a cruel indifference or, much more probably, a state of non-existence. Christians must choose between these two options.

(5012) Christianity’s slow growth belies miracles

The slow growth of Christianity for the first three centuries suggests that the miracles claimed by the scriptures did not occur. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1h5jzt5/growth_of_christianity_isnt_consistent_with/

The growth of Christianity isn’t consistent with the miracle claims which suggests that miracles likely didn’t happen .

In addition, the three hours of darkness at the time of the crucifixion should have alerted the entire world that something usual was happening. Christianity should have enjoyed explosive growth immediately after CE 30 and should have likewise converted most of the occupying Roman authorities in the area. Instead, it languished for decades, waiting for the eyewitnesses (who could have refuted the claims) to die out, so that myth-making could fuel renewed growth. Christianity’s initial slow growth is evidence against the miracle claims.

(5013) Debunking messianic claims in the Old Testament

There are easy conclusions to be made about the disingenuous way that New Testament authors claimed that several Old Testament passages were prophecies of Jesus. Under careful inspection, they all melt away. The following is an essay by John Loftus:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2023/12/how-new-testament-writers-used-prophecy.html#more

“How the New Testament Writers Used Prophecy” by John W. Loftus.

One of the major things claimed by the New Testament in support of Jesus’ life and mission is that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Luke 24:26–27; Acts 3:17–24). If God cannot predict the future as time moves farther and farther into the distance, as I questioned earlier, then neither can any prophet who claims to speak for God. As we will see with regard to the virgin birth of Jesus, none of the Old Testament passages in the original Hebrew prophetically applied singularly and specifically to Jesus. [In chapter 18, “Was Jesus Born of a Virgin in Bethlehem?”]. Early Christian preachers simply went into the Old Testament looking for verses that would support their view of Jesus. They took these Old Testament verses out of context and applied them to Jesus in order to support their views of his life and mission.9

In an important work on this subject Catholic scholar Joseph A. Fitzmyer did an exhaustive study of how the Messiah was understood by the Jews in the Old Testament. Fitzmyer claims that “one cannot foist a later Christian meaning on a passage that was supposed to have a distinctive religious sense in guiding the Jewish people of old.”10  So when examining every potentially prophetic Messianic passage in the  Old Testament, except perhaps for a couple of passages in the book of Daniel (a book which was “finally redacted c.a. 165 BC”), Fitzmyer rightly argues that the Christian writers interpreted these passages anachronistically due to hindsight understandings of who they concluded Jesus to be.

Many of the claimed prophecies came from the book of Psalms, believed by Christians to be “Messianic” (i.e., Psalms 2, 8, 16, 22, 34, 35, 40, 41, 45, 68, 69, 89, 102, 109, 110, and 118). But in their original contexts these Psalms are simply devotional prayers. Among other things we find prayers for help in distress, for forgiveness, and for wisdom, and so on. They declare praise to God, and they express hope that their enemies will be defeated. There is nothing about them, when reading them devotionally, that indicates they are predicting anything at all! For there to be a prediction there must be a prophecy, and there are none in the Psalms. With no prediction comes no fulfillment. Yet the New Testament writers quoted from them and claimed they predicted several things in the life, death, and resurrection of their Messiah, Jesus.

Consider Psalm 2:

1 Why do the nations conspire,
and the peoples plot in vain?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the Lord and his anointed, saying,
3 “Let us burst their bonds asunder,
and cast their cords from us.”

4 He who sits in the heavens laughs;
the Lord has them in derision.
5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath,
and terrify them in his fury, saying,
6 “I have set my king
on Zion, my holy hill.”

7 I will tell of the decree of the Lord:
He said to me, “You are my son,
today I have begotten you.
8 Ask of me, and I will make the nations your heritage,
and the ends of the earth your possession.
9 You shall break them with a rod of iron,
and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”

10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
with trembling 12 kiss his feet,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way;
for his wrath is quickly kindled.
12 Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Psalm 2, according to Christians, expresses the hope for the Messiah, the anointed one, who was none other than Jesus whom the kings and rulers “conspired against,” according to the apostles Peter and John (Acts 4:23–31; see also Acts 13:32; Heb. 1:5; 5:5; Rev. 2:27; 19:15). However, this Psalm has some verbal similarities to King Hezekiah’s prayer in Isaiah 37:16–20, where Hezekiah prays for deliverance from Sennacherib, the king of Assyria, as he approaches to attack Jerusalem.

New Testament scholar I. Howard Marshall admits that “in its original context this Psalm 2 is generally understood as an address to the king to reassure him in the face of enemy attack.”11  In it Yahweh declares the king as his “son.” Kings were regularly thought to be sons of God who dispense God’s justice. Why should this be a problem? Marshall goes on to tell us that “by the time the psalms were gathered together as a collection, this and similar references to ‘the Anointed One’ were seen as referring to the future ruler of Israel, the Messiah, and not to ordinary kings.”12 Fine, but what he’s doing is allowing subsequent misinterpretations of this text to determine what the text originally said, as is done with many of these so-called prophecies. No one would allow that in today’s world if it came from Nostradamus, so why is there this double standard when it comes to the Bible? The same exegetical skills are required. Why should we take seriously what subsequent generations thought when the original context is as Marshall admitted? Even so, any Jew writing about his hope for a future Messiah could have said these same hopeful things. A hope is not a prediction. Fitzmyer concludes, “Psalm 2 is not ‘messianic’ in any sense. . . . There is not even a hint of a ‘messianic’ connotation of the term or of a remote future, when a Messiah might appear.”13

 Consider Psalm 110:

1 Yahweh says to my lord: “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”

2 Yahweh will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying, “Rule in the midst of your enemies!”

3 Your troops will be willing on your day of battle. Arrayed in holy splendor, your young men will come to you like dew from the morning’s womb.

4 Yahweh has sworn and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”

5 The Lord is at your right hand;
he will crush kings on the day of his wrath.

6 He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead
and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.

7 He will drink from a brook along the way,
and so he will lift his head high.

This Psalm is the Old Testament passage most quoted in the New Testament, where it’s claimed Yahweh is speaking to David’s Lord, Jesus, who is to sit at Yahweh’s right hand until his enemies are made as a footstool for his feet (Mark 12:36; Matt. 22:44; Acts 2:34–35; Heb. 1:3; 10:13). Evangelical scholar Craig Blomberg opines, “Despite many who would disagree, this seems to be a case of straightforward prediction and fulfillment.”14

But let’s look closer. Jesus said this Psalm was written by David, but then Jesus also misunderstood who wrote the Pentateuch, as I argued in chapter 14 of this book. So should that settle it? I think not. Psalms 2 and 110 were most likely to be read at the coronation of Jewish kings. They expressed hopes that any king might have had with regard to overcoming his enemies. If David did write it, it’s obvious he would have done so upon the coronation of his son Solomon, whom he subsequently called his “lord.” He would have said this because of Solomon’s new status, which placed him as a ruler even above the aged David himself. But David probably didn’t write this Psalm, if we’re to believe he was on his deathbed when Solomon was crowned his successor (1 Kings 1–2:12). Given that he was bedridden and that pseudonymity is so common in the Bible, it’s more likely that someone else wrote it later. In no other place does David hope for a Messiah. All Messianic hopes and dreams were based upon David and a restored dynasty after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians!

This Psalm clearly speaks of troops on the day of battle and the crushing of kings and nations. In this context it’s clearly speaking about going to war with other nations, literally. Most every nation wanted to rule the known world, so why not express these hopes and dreams for Solomon the new king? Did Jesus literally go to battle against other nations? Since he didn’t, Psalm 110 does not refer to him. Subsequent generations of readers, who were looking for the restoration of Israel in all her Davidic glory after the destruction of Jerusalem, believed it was a Messianic Psalm. And self-appointed Messiahs were almost a dime a dozen, so they would have claimed this Psalm applied to them. As S. E. Gillingham tells us regarding this Psalm, “Within the religio-political context it could hardly refer to any eschatological ideal in the distant future.”15

The other so-called Messianic Psalms do not predict anything at all. They are prayers to be interpreted within the range of the writers’ experiences alone. Any extrapolation of them to Jesus is reading Jesus into the text, which is not justified by the text itself. That’s considered eisegesis, not exegesis. After discussing several of the key “Messianic Psalms,” Fitzmyer concludes, “The attempt to interpret these Psalms anachronistically in a ‘messianic’ sense is misguided.”16

It is more probable that the New Testament writers were influenced by the Old Testament in the construction of their stories about Jesus. In other words, they shaped their stories about Jesus by making his life fit some of these details. That explains Luke’s concoction of a census in order to get Mary to Bethlehem so Jesus could be born there according to “prophecy” (Mic. 5:2; Matt. 2:6), as we will see later.

When it comes to the “Suffering Servant” of Isaiah 53, in the context of Post-Exilic Judaism, the servant was not a redeemer Messianic king at all. The suffering servant is identified with the people of Israel themselves (see Isa. 41:8–9; 42:18–24; 43:10; 44:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; and especially 49:3), who had suffered through the horrifying destruction of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians in 722 BCE and the southern kingdom by the Babylonians in 587 BCE. So Fitzmyer correctly argues there is no room here to see a Messiah as a ruler of the age of salvation. In fact, he tells us, “there is no passage in the book of Isaiah that mentions a ‘Messiah’ in the narrow sense, and all attempts to speak of Isaiah’s ‘messianic prophecies’ are stillborn.”17 He claims that the Servant Song of Isaiah 53 “has no messianic connotation” per se.18 He goes on to say: “The idea of a suffering Messiah . . . is found nowhere in the Old Testament or in any Jewish literature prior to or contemporaneous with the New Testament. It is a Christian conception that goes beyond the Jewish messianic tradition.”19 So even according to Christian scholarship in the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Isaiah’s servant is “almost certainly to be identified with Israel.”20 The identification of Isaiah’s servant with Jesus was based upon the Christian recasting of Isaiah 52–53 in light of the apocryphal book The Wisdom of Solomon (chapters 1–6).

For a specific look at how the New Testament writers wrote their stories based upon the Old Testament, notice that Matthew 21:2 has Jesus requesting both a donkey and also a colt to ride into Jerusalem, based upon a misunderstanding of Zechariah 9:9, which reads: “Rejoice . . . your king comes to you . . . gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Zechariah’s prophecy is an example of Hebraic parallelism in which the second line retells the point of the first line. There is only one animal in Zechariah, but Matthew thinks he means there is a donkey and also a colt, so he wrote his story based upon this misunderstanding in order to fit prophecy. The Gospels of Mark (11:1) and Luke (19:30) both say it was a “colt.” John’s Gospel (12:14–15) says it was a “donkey,” and then he misquoted Zechariah 9:9 as saying, “your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.” This surely looks like an example where the Gospel writers tried to construct a story in the life of Jesus based on this Old Testament text. The problem is that they messed up because they couldn’t get it straight. How many others did they mess up? Why should we trust them after noticing something like this? In speaking of Matthew’s handling of this “incident,” biblical scholar Robert Miller warns us that it should “raise a serious question about Matthew’s competence as an interpreter of Hebrew scripture.”21

How Matthew’s Gospel uses the Old Testament is a case in point for us. Since we’ll discuss some examples in later chapters, let’s just look at three of them. First, after the birth of Jesus, Matthew 2:14–15 tells us: “Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son.’” According to the conservative Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures: “This is a reference to Hosea 11:1, which does not seem to be a prophecy in the sense of a prediction. Hosea was writing of God’s calling Israel out of Egypt into the Exodus. Matthew, however, gave new understanding to these words. Matthew viewed this experience as the Messiah being identified with the nation.”22 Okay then, with no prediction comes no fulfillment. We can therefore disregard Matthew’s “new understanding” of Hosea 11:1. Craig Blomberg simply calls this “an example of pure typology.”23 But typology is all in the eyes of the beholder. Contextually, there is simply no way on grammatical-historical lines that Hosea 11:1 could be used as evidence of the nature or mission of Jesus in Matthew 2:15. It just isn’t there. Matthew uses the verse so loosely that it would show evidence of nothing at all to us today were we the ones weighing the claims of another Messiah.

Second, Matthew 2:17–18 sees Jeremiah 31:15 as fulfilled when Herod the king ordered all boys in Bethlehem two years old and younger to be killed. Then we read that what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.” But Jeremiah’s mourning is for those who will be cast into Babylonian captivity. The claim in Matthew 2:17–18 that Jeremiah’ s words apply to Herod’s killing young boys under the age of two is simply, well, fraudulent. Craig Blomberg also calls this an example of “typology,” saying: “The text in Jeremiah is not a prediction, nor does it even use the future tense.”24 So once again, with no prediction comes no fulfillment.

Third, after Joseph was warned in a dream to leave Bethlehem, Matthew 2:22–23 tells us that, “Joseph left for the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: ‘He [Jesus] shall be called a Nazarene.’” The Bible Knowledge Commentary tells us:

“The words ‘He will be called a Nazarene,’ were not directly spoken by any Old Testament prophet, though several prophecies come close to this expression. Isaiah said the Messiah would be ‘from [Jesse’s] roots’ like ‘a Branch’ (Isa. 11:1). ‘Branch’ is the Hebrew word nezer, which has consonants like those in the word ‘Nazarene’ and which carry the idea of having an insignificant beginning.”25

Blomberg disagrees by telling us that “no Old Testament text ever declares that anyone will be called a Nazarene! Nor does any known apocryphal or pseudepigraphal text include such a statement. . . . It is also difficult to imagine Matthew thinking of Jesus as a Nazarite even figuratively, since his ministry was otherwise so far removed from the asceticism of the literal Nazarite.”26 So it’s hard to understand if there was a prophecy and what it might have meant. It certainly didn’t specifically say that the Messiah would be from the town of Nazareth. That’s a clear misreading of the text. So again, with no prediction comes no fulfillment. Even if the Messiah was to be a “branch” from David, to the Old Testament reader this would have meant he would be from David’s bloodline, not that he would live in Nazareth, and there were plenty of people from David’s bloodline by then.

James D. G. Dunn informs us that Matthew’s use of the sayings of Jesus is similar to the way he used the Old Testament in that “the texts used were often significantly different in sense from the original. It was evidently quite an acceptable procedure in Matthew’s time to incorporate the interpretation into the saying itself by modifying the form of the saying.”27

After analyzing the infancy prophecies in Matthew’s Gospel, Robert Miller sums up what we find: (1) “He attributes meanings to the prophets that they did not intend”; (2) “He interprets their words in ways that are impossible in their own contexts”; (3) “He relates prophecies to events that never happened”; and (4) “He invents a prophecy that did not exist.”28

No wonder professor C. F. D. Moule argues that Matthew’s use of the Old Testament “to our critical eyes, [is] manifestly forced and artificial and unconvincing.”29 And if this is the case, then with S. V. McCastland we can legitimately ask how Matthew distorts his other sources when writing his Gospel: “What we have observed about the liberties Matthew took with passages of Scripture he quoted suggests that he may have done the same thing with his more contemporary sources of the life and saying of Jesus.”30 Why not then be skeptical of his whole Gospel? Randel Helms agrees that the way the New Testament writers used the Old Testament “involved interpretive methods that to modern ears seem bizarre.”31

Today we think this way of interpreting the Old Testament is wrong. Evangelical scholar Richard N. Longenecker argues that “Christians today are committed to the apostolic faith and doctrine of the New Testament, but not necessarily to the apostolic exegetical practices as detailed for us in the New Testament.”32 Paul Copan admits this: “We should not seek to imitate the Jewish methods of interpretation” (midrash, pesher, and allegory) common within first century Judaism. Otherwise we open ourselves to an arbitrary approach that has no controls to guide it.”33 Of course we shouldn’t! But the question is why Christians accept the results of the New Testament writers when they also must reject their hermeneutical method? If we were to judge their hermeneutics by ours, they wouldn’t measure up—that is, we would be laughed at by our contemporaries if we employed the same methods in scholarly studies—try it and see!

I defy someone to come up with one statement in the Old Testament that is specifically fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today’s historical-grammatical hermeneutical method. It cannot be done.34

On the nature of Old Testament fulfilled prophecy, one option for Christians is that God foreknew what methods of interpretation would exist at the time of Jesus, so when God prophesied of Jesus, he knew in advance which hermeneutical principles would force people of that day to the conclusion that Jesus was the Messiah. A particularly problematic New Testament interpretation might be incorrect based upon the grammatical-historical method yet still be a confirmation that Jesus was its intended object for New Testament–era people. But I’ve already philosophically argued against this. We don’t have a clue how God could foreknow these things. My claim is far more reasonable, that the New Testament writers were simply wrong in many of their interpretations. Hence, the Messiah hasn’t come yet, or no Messiah exists at all.

—————-

9. Randel McCraw Helms shows some of what I’m writing about in The Bible against Itself: Why the Bible Seems to Contradict Itself (Altadena, CA: Millennium Press, 2006), pp. 81–99.

10. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), p. ix.

11. I. Howard Marshall, “Acts,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G.K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), p. 552.

12. Ibid.

13. Fitzmyer, The One Who Is to Come, p. 20.

14. Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew” in Beale and Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 84.

15. S. E. Gillingham, “The Messiah in the Psalms,” King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John Day (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) pp. 22–23.

16. Fitzmyer, The One Who is to Come, p. 25.

17. Ibid., pp. 42–43.

18. Ibid., p. 141.

19. Ibid., p. 142.

20. John R. Miles, “Lamb,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 4:132.

21. Robert J. Miller, Born Divine: The Births of Jesus and Other Sons of God (Santa Rosa: CA: Poleridge Press, 2002), p. 160.

22. John F. Zuck and Roy B. Walvoord, eds., The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), see Matthew 2:14–15.

23. Craig L. Blomberg, “Matthew,” p. 8.

24. Ibid., p. 10.

25. Zuck and Walvoord, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, see Matthew 2:22–23.

26. Blomberg, “Matthew,” p. 10. Blomberg basically says he can’t say for sure one way or another about this text.

27. James D. G. Dunn, The Living Word (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987), pp. 115–22.

28. Miller, Born Divine, p. 173.

29. C. F. D. Moule, The Origin of Christology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 129.

30. S. V. McCasland, “Matthew Twists the Scriptures,” in The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Texts? ed. G. K. Beale (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1994), p. 149.

31. Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988), p.131.

32. Richard N. Longenecker, quoted in Beale, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text?, p. 385. G. K. Beale disagrees. He claims the proposal that “the New Testament’s exegetical approach to the Old Testament is characteristically non-contextual is a substantial overstatement.” He is furthermore convinced that “there are no clear examples where they [the NT writers] have developed a meaning from the Old Testament which is inconsistent or contradictory to some aspect of the original Old Testament application” (p. 398). Even granting with Beale that there will be some “enigmatic passages,” most scholars disagree, and he has yet to prove his case.

33. Paul Copan, That’s Just Your Interpretation: Responding to Skeptics Who Challenge Your Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 2001), p. 194.

34. To see Christians argue about this and what it means for their faith, see Beale, The Right Doctrine from the Wrong Text? Phillip Barton Payne, for instance, claims it’s a fallacy to equate meaning with the human author’s intention, since ultimately “God is the author of Scripture” (p. 70). Hence, “our primary task is to understand God’s intention, not fundamentally the human author’s. After all, the Bible is God’s word” (p. 81). But that assumption is the one I’m testing and finding a lack of evidence for in this book. See  what George Bethune English (1787–1828) wrote about Old Testament prophecies in The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old, available for free online at http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/15968 (accessed December 28, 2011) [EDIT: See  “Case in Point Two: Why Should We Believe If the Jews Didn’t?].

Jesus was not predicted by any of the Old Testament scriptures. This doesn’t prove him to be a fraud, but it does eliminate a good measure of the evidence that Christian apologists use to position Jesus as God’s long-term plan for humanity’s salvation.

(5014) Review of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic god

Yahweh/Allah stands out as the predominant god worshiped in today’s world. The following essay questions his exclusivity and righteousness:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1h73d88/the_judeochristianislamic_god_one_among_many_gods/

The Judeo-Christian-Islamic God, often referred to as Yahweh or Allah, is traditionally depicted as the omnipotent, omniscient creator of all things, the singular and ultimate divine authority. However, through comparative religious analysis and critical examination of scriptural narratives, an alternative interpretation arises: the Abrahamic God is one of many divine beings competing for supremacy in a cosmic struggle for dominance. Further, His actions, as described in sacred texts, can be construed as malevolent under certain ethical and philosophical frameworks. This posts explores this thesis by analyzing the Abrahamic God’s exclusivist tendencies, His relationship with other gods, His actions in historical and theological contexts, and the suffering inflicted on humanity in His name.

The Existence of Other Divine Beings

The Hebrew Bible, often seen as the foundation of Judeo-Christian theology, provides glimpses into a polytheistic or henotheistic worldview. For example, Psalm 82 depicts God presiding over a “divine council” where He judges other gods for their failings: “God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods, He holds judgment.” This verse implies the existence of other deities, though Yahweh claims superiority over them.

Similarly, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (in its Dead Sea Scrolls version) states that the Most High apportioned nations to other gods but reserved Israel for Himself. This division of divine territories mirrors ancient Near Eastern cosmologies, where deities ruled over specific peoples or lands. The exclusivity of Yahweh’s covenant with Israel can thus be interpreted as a strategic move to consolidate worship and power among a particular group, positioning Him as one deity among many competitors.

The New Testament’s cosmic struggle expands this narrative. Passages such as Ephesians 6:12 describe battles against “principalities, powers, rulers of darkness, and spiritual wickedness in high places,” suggesting a world teeming with rival spiritual entities. In Islamic theology, the Quran acknowledges jinn and Iblis (Satan) as powerful supernatural beings who oppose Allah’s will, further underscoring the existence of a broader divine hierarchy and conflict.

Exclusivity and the Quest for Worship

The Abrahamic God’s demand for exclusive worship is a defining characteristic of His relationship with humanity. The First Commandment (“You shall have no other gods before me,” Exodus 20:3) explicitly acknowledges the presence of other gods but prohibits their worship. This exclusivity is reinforced through repeated injunctions against idolatry and harsh punishments for those who deviate, such as the mass slaughter following the golden calf incident (Exodus 32:27-28).

In comparison, polytheistic traditions often allow for shared worship or syncretism. For instance, Hinduism’s pantheon includes deities with overlapping domains, and ancient Greek city-states worshiped their own patron gods alongside the Olympians. Yahweh’s insistence on exclusive devotion can therefore be seen as a competitive strategy to consolidate His power base among humans, contrasting with the more inclusive approaches of other traditions.

This exclusivity extends into Christianity and Islam, both of which claim universal truth and salvation through adherence to their respective doctrines. Christianity’s Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) and Islam’s emphasis on submission to Allah (Quran 3:19) reflect concerted efforts to expand Yahweh’s domain beyond the Israelites, seeking global dominance over rival deities and belief systems. Such strategies resemble political campaigns for influence, casting the Abrahamic God as a contender in a cosmic struggle for supremacy.

Malevolence in Actions and Ethics

The actions attributed to the Abrahamic God in sacred texts often contradict modern ethical standards, leading some to question His benevolence. Critics have pointed to instances of mass violence, favoritism, and punitive measures as evidence of malevolence.

Examples of Violence and Punishment

1. 1. The Flood (Genesis 6-9): God’s decision to drown nearly all life on Earth as punishment for human wickedness reflects an extreme response, raising questions about proportionality and justice.
   2. The Canaanite Conquest (Joshua 6-11): Yahweh commands the Israelites to exterminate entire populations, including women and children, in the conquest of Canaan. These acts of genocide conflict with contemporary notions of morality and human rights.
   3. Eternal Punishment: In Christianity and Islam, the concept of eternal damnation for non-believers underscores a vindictive streak, punishing finite transgressions with infinite suffering.

Jealousy and Favoritism

In Exodus 34:14, Yahweh is described as a “jealous God,” a characteristic that aligns Him more with human emotions and insecurities than with a transcendent, all-loving deity. His favoritism toward Israel, to the exclusion and detriment of other nations, also raises ethical concerns. For instance, the plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7-12) punish an entire population for the actions of Pharaoh, a single individual.

Comparison with Other Deities

When contrasted with other gods, Yahweh’s actions often appear more punitive. For example:

• • Hindu deities like Krishna and Shiva, while capable of destruction, are also celebrated for their roles in creation, guidance, and liberation.
  • Greek gods, though morally ambiguous, rarely demand exclusive worship or impose eternal punishment.

From this perspective, Yahweh’s actions could be seen as those of a deity more concerned with maintaining control than promoting universal well-being, aligning Him with antagonistic figures like Mara in Buddhism (a tempter who traps beings in samsara) or asuras in Hinduism (beings who oppose cosmic order).

The Real-World Suffering Inflicted in God’s Name

Beyond scriptural narratives, the religions centered around the Abrahamic God have historically inflicted immense suffering on humanity. The enforcement of divine laws and the expansion of these faiths have often come at the cost of lives, cultures, and freedoms.

Violence and Oppression

1. 1. Crusades and Religious Wars: Christianity’s history includes the Crusades, a series of brutal wars to reclaim the Holy Land, which caused mass death and destruction.
   2. Inquisition and Witch Hunts: The Church’s persecution of heretics and suspected witches led to torture and execution on a wide scale, targeting marginalized communities.
   3. Jihad and Sectarian Conflict: Islamic conquests and internal sectarian violence have resulted in significant loss of life and the suppression of dissenting beliefs.
   4. Persecution of Jews: Judaism has often been the target of violence, but within its own history, exclusionary laws and divine mandates have justified harsh treatment of outsiders.

Cultural and Intellectual Suppression

1. 1. Censorship and Heresy: The suppression of scientific and philosophical advancements, such as during the Galileo affair, highlights the Abrahamic religions’ role in stifling intellectual progress.
   2. Colonialism and Forced Conversion: The spread of Christianity and Islam through colonial conquest destroyed indigenous cultures and imposed foreign religious systems.

Modern-Day Impacts

Even today, religious extremism inspired by Abrahamic teachings continues to cause suffering. Examples include terrorism, discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, and the subjugation of women under strict interpretations of religious law. These actions perpetuate cycles of oppression and conflict, often justified by appeals to divine authority.

Propaganda and the Shaping of Perception

If we interpret sacred texts as divine propaganda, they serve to portray Yahweh as the ultimate authority while discrediting rivals. The repeated assertion of Yahweh’s supremacy in the Bible and Quran can be viewed as part of a larger campaign to win human allegiance and diminish the influence of other deities.

For example, the plagues in Egypt target specific aspects of the Egyptian pantheon, demonstrating Yahweh’s power over rival gods. Similarly, Elijah’s confrontation with the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18) is staged as a dramatic display of Yahweh’s superiority. These narratives serve not only to inspire loyalty among followers but also to delegitimize alternative spiritual paths.

From a broader perspective, the Abrahamic God’s universalizing mission—culminating in Christianity and Islam—mirrors colonial expansion, where cultural and religious dominance is asserted through coercion, conversion, and the marginalization of competing traditions. This raises the question: is the Abrahamic God’s quest for supremacy inherently altruistic, or is it driven by a need for control?

Conclusion: The Abrahamic God as a Contender and a Tyrant

When viewed through a comparative and critical lens, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God emerges not as a singular, transcendent deity but as one among many divine beings competing for supremacy. His actions, characterized by exclusivity, violence, and propaganda, can be interpreted as those of a jealous and power-hungry entity rather than a universally benevolent creator.

Furthermore, the real-world suffering inflicted in His name—from wars and persecution to cultural and intellectual suppression—provides tangible evidence of the harm that can result from devotion to an exclusionary deity. This interpretation challenges traditional theological assumptions and invites reflection on the nature of divinity itself. If the Abrahamic God is indeed one of many contenders in a cosmic struggle, His portrayal as the ultimate moral authority becomes suspect. Moreover, when His actions are measured against ethical and spiritual ideals from other traditions, He may appear less as a benevolent savior and more as an oppressive force, hindering enlightenment and perpetuating conflict. Such a perspective invites humanity to question allegiance to any single divine figure and to explore broader, more inclusive understandings of the sacred.

What should be gleaned from this discussion is that Yahweh exhibits little of what would be expected of an omnipotent deity and much of what would be expected if Iron-Age Middle-Eastern people were to invent a god.

(5015) God and genetics

Christianity claims that Jesus was born of a virgin. It is known that virgins can give birth through an exceedingly-rare process called parthenogenesis, but such an occurrence will always produce a female. This implies that God had to manipulate the genetics in Mary’s womb to create a man- Jesus. The following essay claims that God is cruel, indifferent, or callous to allow genetic defects if he has the kind of molecular control exhibited in Jesus’ birth:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1h7g1jb/if_jesus_was_born_of_a_virgin_it_would_imply_gods/

If Jesus was born of a virgin, it would imply God’s precise knowledge and ability to manipulate DNA at the molecular and even atomic level. The fact that purely genetic disorders like cancer, birth defects and autoimmune diseases exist, makes God at best apathetic, and at worst cruel.

Genetic defects would not occur if the virgin birth was a historical reality and if God was caring about human life. So at least one of these propositions must false. They could also both be false. That is, God is unable to control human reproduction or manipulate genetics and, as well, he does nothing to alleviate human suffering. Of course, all of this is easily explained by the proposition that God does not exist.

(5016) Guilty until proven innocent

The following scripture turns upside down the common law axiom that a person is to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, a judicial requirement that exists in almost every country in the world. But in the Bible, a bride is considered guilty until she can be proven innocent:

Deuteronomy 22:13-21

If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the young woman’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.

Aside the from the guilt run-around, this scripture is also brutal in its degree of punishment- not only an execution, but also a very painful manner in which to dispatch it. Christians will run from this by saying ‘yeah, but that’s in the Old Testament.’ To which the easy rejoinder is ‘yes, but it’s in your bible.’ So the question is: Why would Yahweh allow this abomination to appear in his inspired scripture?

(5017) God’s three-body problem

The Bible tracks an evolution of God through three different bodies. If God is real, he has only one. The following was taken from:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1430CmWsMg5EvLbfOn4PSBcXvoytEpUrv/view?pli=1

For the three types of divine bodies, it might be tempting to see a linear (or evolutionary) development: the human-looking body in the older, prose story-telling tradition of Genesis; the superhuman divine body of the eighth-century prophetic tradition, as seen in Isaiah and the prose traditions surrounding Moses; and the cosmic divine body of the sixth-century prophetic reflections in Third Isaiah and Ezekiel. The divine bodies, however, do not stand in a linear development. The first two are traditional, while the third seems to have emerged later.

The first, natural “human” body of God is characteristically set in a family setting (Gen 18–19, Aqhat, Kirta). The Ugaritic examples suggest an older tradition for thistype of divine body. This body in some texts (Gen 18, Aqhat, Kirta) entailed an underlying model of divine–human relations involving the human host that welcomes divinities. The model of the human hosting divinities would seem to have roots in Israel’s family and clan religion. This model survived with the מלאך (malāk), which could appear to family members not only in the Hebrew Bible (Judg 6 and 13) but also later in the NT (see the annunciation to Mary in Luke 1:26–38). By comparison, YHWH does not appear in this way in biblical texts beyond the book of Genesis. The first type of divine body appearing in the family context (especially to Abraham and Jacob) probably originated in traditional story-telling and then developed in written literary production, as this scribal setting afforded new opportunities for probing about God and reality. As a result, the stories with the first body of God developed into some of the most intriguing and theologically densest narratives in the Bible. This may be the reason for what Hamori has suggestively called the “anthropomorphic realism” of the divine body in Gen 18 and 32.

The second, supersized body of God was likewise traditional. As noted above, the Ugaritic god Baal is a supersized figure in his heavenly palace on the god’s mountain in the Baal Cycle. This type of divine body has its roots in the context of ancient temples. In Isa 6, the prophet sees God in the Jerusalem temple. The meeting of Moses and others with God in Exod 24 and 33–34 likewise comes out of a temple worldview, as the temple/palace of the god was regarded as being located on the divine mountain. Recall that a temple excavated at ‘Ain Dara in northern Syria exhibits this idea of the supersized god, with three-meter-long footprints carved into the temple flooring. With the distance between the supersized foot- prints being about thirty feet, the deity was imagined as about sixty-five feet in height. Just as the first model assumes that humans hosted divinities in their homes, so the second model presupposes the notion of the deity as king giving an audience to his human subjects.

While the first two bodies were traditional to the region from at least the Late Bronze Age onward, this does not appear to be the case with the third body. Drawing on Mesopotamian astronomical writings and iconography, Baruch Halper and Christoph Uehlinger and Suzanne Müller Trufaut suggest that Mesopotamian ideas about the universe issued in a new and corresponding Israelite view. In Ezek 1 and Gen 1, a heavenly vault or dome (often translated as “firmament”) enclosed the earth and the sky (Ezek 1:22, 23, 25, 26; Gen 1:6–8, 14–15, 17, 20). Whereas the second divine body’s abode is on top of the divine mountain (e.g., Exod 24:9–11), in Ezek 1 the enthronement of the third body was considerably higher, at or above the heavenly vault. Uehlinger and Müller Trufaut have identified this vault in Neo-Assyrian seal impressions. On these seals, Mesopotamian genies (called kusarikku) support the heavenly firmament; above it is part of the anthropomorphic deity. According to the CAD, the operative term for firmament is burūmû (burummû): “when the gods in their assembly created [ibnû] the […] and fashioned the firmament.” The gods who control this firmament are likewise cosmic in scope. Of the god Assur, “the creator of himself,” it is said that his “figure was exalted in the Abyss … living in the [pur]e starlit heave[ns] [bu-ru-ú-me].” Marduk is said to be the one “who holds the ends of the firmament.”

A further nuance may be involved for Akkadian burūmû (burummû): what the CAD translates as “firmament” is understood by Wayne Horowitz as “the level of the stars of the sky or the night sky in first millennium texts.” He further notes the “mathematical-geometrical understandings” that came to be introduced into Mesopotamian cosmology in the Neo-Assyrian period. Mesopotamian texts in this period also identify multiple spheres as the homes of various gods. Like the heavenly homes of the gods in these Mesopotamian texts, God’s third body in Ezek 1 (and perhaps implicit in God’s location in Gen 1) is located at the cosmic level of the firmament. The new cosmology in the two biblical texts represents a spatial adjustment of the older traditional supersized divine body from its enthronement on the god’s mountain to the new Mesopotamian theory locating the god on the firmament.

A god has only one body (or none) but a god who had gone through three bodies is a god that doesn’t exist.

(5018) Jesus is to blame for discord

If Jesus was God himself as claimed by Christians, then he would have known that (1) he would be crucified and resurrected, and (2) that there would be at least a two thousand year period before he would return, meaning that billions of people would be born and live out their lives during this time, each one of them living under an ominous threat of going to hell if they didn’t accept him as their savior.

Given (1) and (2), why did Jesus not write anything down? We know from Luke 2:41-52 that Jesus was able to read scripture at age 12: Verses 46-47: ‘After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers.’ Therefore given his precociousness and the fact that he was God himself, it would be a sound assumption that he was capable of writing scripture himself, and also capable of ensuring that such a work would have been immaculately preserved for future people to read.

So- there must be an answer to this question, because as it played out, nothing was written down for at least 40 years and, even then, the gospels were authored in foreign lands and in foreign languages by unknown non-eyewitnesses. This led to multiple contradictions and controversial and often violent disagreements among Christians ever since. And apart from the lack of written guidance, Jesus should have been able to keep his followers from splitting off so violently into various factions.

Thus, if Jesus is God, he is directly to blame for the lack of unity of belief that has prevailed over the past twenty centuries. The missing ‘Gospel of Jesus’ is a gigantic hole in Christian apologetics. This is not the work of an omnipotent deity, but it aligns perfectly with the expected result of a project made up by humans harboring disparate agendas.

(5019) Three reasons to be an atheist

Everybody has their reasons for why they believe or disbelieve in the un-provable claims of Christianity. In the following, a person lists three reasons (among many others) why she is an atheist:

https://www.reddit.com/r/exchristian/comments/1hb2c9s/3_reasons_i_am_an_atheist_by_alyssadgrenfell_on/

“Three reasons, among many, that I am an atheist. For years, I was conditioned to believe that good feelings, like joy or a burning in my bosom were direct messages from god.

Emotions were packaged as proof. But in reality, those revelations were just in my own mind. Once I stepped back, I realized that using emotions as a compass for truth was not the best idea. I couldn’t keep pretending that warm fuzzies equaled irrefutable evidence.

Next, I think with a critical lens,

It’s clear that religion is a reflection of society’s flaws. It’s riddled with the same nasty biases and power dynamics as any other social structure. Sexism, racism, homophobia and chosen people nonsense are all just a reflection of human prejudice disguised as holy doctrine.

If god is meant to be the same yesterday, today and forever, then why do his doctrines evolve with society?

Finally,

Religion asks so much of our time and our money and our resources and says that our reward and our proof will be in heaven.

It seems awfully convenient that proof that religion is not made up is going to come after we die.

Ultimately, I don’t want to dream of a reward in heaven. I want to live my life for the here and now.”

Religion is like a rainbow, as you try to approach it and discover its secrets, it continues to dance away and fade into obscurity. It is not tangible, it is not probable, it is not to be trusted. A real god making real promises and threats wouldn’t leave humans in such a state of ambiguity- that is, any god worth his salt.

(5020) Problems with crediting prophecy

Christian apologists often point to purported fulfilled prophecy as evidence for the truth of Christianity. The following essay explains why everybody should be skeptical of these claims:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hc1qma/there_are_some_serious_problems_with_using/

I’m not sure how anyone could convince me of a certain religion by appealing to prophecy alone.

Prophecy is often cited as evidence, and I can see why. Prescience and perpetual motion are perhaps, the two most “impossible” things we can imagine. It doesn’t surprise me that prophecy and perpetual motion machines have long histories of being beloved by con artists.

More to the point, here are some of my biggest issues with prophecy as a means of proof.

It’s always possible to improve upon a prophecy. I’ve never heard a prophecy that I couldn’t make more accurate by adding more information. If I can add simple things to a prophecy like names, dates, times, locations, colors, numbers, etc., it becomes suspicious that this so-called “divine” prophecy came from an all-knowing being. Prophecy uses vagueness to its advantage. If it were too specific, it could risk being disproven.

Self-fulfillment. I will often hear people cite the immense length of time between prophecy and fulfillment as if that makes the prophecy more impressive. It actually does the opposite. Increasing the time between prophecy and “fulfillment” simply gives religious followers more time to self-fulfill. If prophecies are written down, younger generations can simply read the prophecy and act accordingly. If I give a waiter my order for a medium rare steak, and he comes back with a medium rare steak, did he fulfill prophecy? No, he simply followed an order. Since religious adherents both know and want prophecy to be fulfilled, they could simply do it themselves. If mere humans can self-fulfill prophecy, it’s hardly divine.

Lack of falsification and waiting forever. If a religious person claims that a prophecy has been fulfilled and is then later convinced that, hold on, actually, they jumped the gun and are incorrect, they can just push the date back further. Since prophecy is often intentionally vague with timelines, a sufficiently devout religious person can just say oops, it hasn’t happened yet. But by golly, it will. It’s not uncommon for religious people to cite long wait times as being “good” for their faith.

Prophecy as history. Though I won’t claim this for all supposed prophecies, a prophecy can be written after the event. As in, the religious followers can observe history, and then write that they knew it was going to happen. On a similar note, prophecy can be “written in” after the fact. For instance, the real history of an event can simply be altered in writing in order to match an existing prophecy.

The only prophecies that would provide substantial evidence for a religion would be ones that are very specific as to what will happen and when, and, further, if the predicted event is beyond the ability of humans to fulfill it on their own. For instance, if a prophecy says that a large earthquake will hit in Alaska, U.S. on May 20, 2026, and it happens, that would be significant. Such an event cannot be predicted nor fulfilled by humans. But if it prophecized that a young woman will be elected president of a certain country, then this is non-spectacular, because believers in the prophecy would be incentivized to vote for a woman in a future election, in an effort to fulfill it. The ‘prophecies’ in the Bible fall into the second category.

(5021) Angels came after Babylonian exile

It is a telling marker of a human-created theology when major changes occur over time and in coordination with historical events. One of the manifestations of this process with Judeo-Christianity is the timing of when angels begin to appear in the scriptures. The are absent in everything written before the Babylonian exile, but then appear frequently afterwards. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hd00ha/the_belief_in_angels_is_akin_to_the_belief_in/

Henotheistic religions acknowledge the supremacy of one main deity while also recognizing the existence of other divine beings with distinct roles or powers. Belief systems that include angels position these entities as subordinate to a supreme deity but still attribute to them specific functions and influences over human affairs. The belief in angels in Abrahamic religions comes probably because of influence from Zoroastrianism. That’s why shrewish texts before the Babylonian exile don’t have a detailed angelic hierarchy.

If angels are a real thing, it should have been a well-populated concern of the early biblical scriptures. In other words, we should have seen angels interacting with Adam, Moses, and Abraham. Analogously, we should have seen detailed references of heaven and hell before the New Testament. The Bible is a work of humans who came up with new ideas along the way.

(5022) Debunking responses to the problem of evil

The burden for apologists to explain why so much evil exists when God is supposedly benevolent, omnipotent, and intimately engaged in human affairs has dogged Christianity since its inception. The following debunks the four most common approaches:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Antitheism/comments/1hb90ai/debunking_every_response_to_the_problem_of_evil/

Free Will Defense

In Scenario 1, a bank robbery leads to a violent crime spree: two tellers are shot, a pregnant woman is killed, and hostages are traumatized. The police mount a dangerous high-speed chase and intense standoff, risking lives and spending immense resources. The suspect is eventually incapacitated by a sniper, treated for injuries, and sentenced to life in prison. The cost includes death, injury, psychological damage, property loss, and substantial taxpayer expenses.

In Scenario 2, a man enters a bank intending to commit a crime, but a divine force instantly transports him to prison, bypassing all potential harm, danger, and costs. No one is hurt, no property is damaged, and no resources are used. If the ultimate outcome is the same — the suspect losing his free will by being imprisoned — how is the first scenario more “loving” than the second? Humans limit free will all the time to prevent harm, so why wouldn’t a loving God intervene in the same way, especially when He could do so without causing any suffering?

Arguing for the free will defense would mean that you would rather prefer scenario 1 to happen. And if you sincerely think that scenario 1 is the preferable one that’s just silly.

If God could intervene without causing suffering, as shown in Scenario 2, yet chooses not to, then allowing tragedy can’t be justified by preserving free will — the suspect loses it either way. Thus, the free will defense fails to explain why a loving God wouldn’t prevent avoidable suffering when intervention need not conflict with human freedom’s overall existence.

God Works In Mysterious Ways

The “God works in mysterious” theodicy is very silly. This theodicy entertains the problem of divine incomprehensibility in order to argue that God is all good.

It can be debunked with a single question; if God’s ways are truly incomprehensible, how do you know they are good? At that point saying God is either good or evil is pure speculation and baseless assumption. And you cannot use logic to argue that it’s somehow necessary for him to be good, as he’s beyond logic.

I’m also going to cover the “But only God’s goodness is incomprehensible!!”

If “only God’s goodness is incomprehensible,” then calling Him “good” is meaningless. If His goodness doesn’t resemble anything humans understand as good, the word “good” becomes an empty label.

And why would only His goodness be incomprehensible? Why not His power, justice, or knowledge? Selectively declaring His goodness beyond understanding conveniently shields God from moral criticism while keeping His other traits conveniently clear. If His “goodness” could look like what humans define as evil, claiming He’s good isn’t a defense — it’s a baseless assertion.

Greater Good Argument

The “Greater Good Argument” as I have titled it states that every evil is going to be offset by a greater good and the reason this is not apparent to us is because God knows more/better.

To argue for this theodicy you have to accept the premise that ANY and EVERY evil in the world is necessary/there’s just the perfect amount of it in the world and removing even a little tiny bit of evil more would make the world worse. This is obviously a very silly thing to argue for.

There are a lot of examples I can point to that make it evident that not all evil is necessary. But I already know the counterargument I’m going to get; “But God knows better than you!!!!!”

This is basically the “God works in mysterious ways” dressed up in fancy clothing when you dig into it. And as I have already debunked that, I will not be doing it again.

Original Sin

The Original Sin theodicy argues that human suffering is a result of humanity’s inherited sinfulness from Adam and Eve’s disobedience. However, this view fails on multiple fronts. First, punishing descendants for actions committed by distant ancestors contradicts basic moral principles of justice. We don’t punish children for their parents’ crimes, and holding future generations accountable for Adam and Eve’s choice violates the idea of individual responsibility.

If God values free will, it’s unjust to have humans born into a state of sin they never chose. Additionally, if God is omniscient, He would have known Adam and Eve would fall. Creating them with a flawed nature seems counterproductive, and if the Fall was necessary for some greater good, this only restates the issues with the “Greater Good” theodicy.

The setup in Eden also appears arbitrary and manipulative. Placing a forbidden tree knowing they would fail seems like a setup rather than a fair test. Furthermore, if Jesus’ sacrifice is meant to undo original sin, the persistence of suffering raises moral concerns, especially since salvation depends on belief — making it a lottery based on geography and upbringing.

Finally, creating beings with the potential for catastrophic failure and allowing endless suffering contradicts the notion of an omnibenevolent and merciful God. A loving parent wouldn’t let their child suffer endlessly from a preventable mistake, especially one set up by the parent.

Ultimately, the Original Sin theodicy is incompatible with justice, fairness, free will, and love.

There is no explanation needed for evil if one assumes the absence of a god- it is simply an unavoidable outcome of an unguided biological and physical evolution of the universe.

(5023) Religion thrives on stupidity

It is easy to see that religions’ most reliable marks are people who are either not inherently intelligent or else those those who deliberately shut down their analytical skills when it comes to their faith. The following was taken from:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2024/12/the-lethal-combination-of-evil-and.html#more

Allow me to begin with a long quote:

“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”

These are the words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a Christian theologian who was murdered by the Nazis in 1945. This quote is included in an essay on Daily Kos by Anakai, which John Loftus posted on this blog, with thanks to Robert Conner who brought it to his attention. Anakai wrote in response to our recent presidential election: “So I’ve had a few weeks now to ruminate on recent events – kept my own counsel, tried (and largely succeeded) to contain my white-hot anger, resentment and disgust while keeping foul language around the house at a minimum.”

We are indeed confronting evil and stupidity on massive levels, much of which can be blamed on religion. I’ve noted here before the special brand of stupidity displayed by Mike Pence, who doesn’t believe in evolution. He has stated that when he dies, he’ll ask his god if evolution is true or not. This is stupidity fueled by aggressive ignorance. Lazy Pence seems not to have studied evolution at any serious level, nor does he appreciate the scope of the Cosmos. Does he really imagine that a creator deity who supervises hundreds of billions of galaxies will take the time to have a chat with him to correct his blatant, prideful ignorance?

Stupidity was also a factor when a devout Catholic woman, at a Christmas eve party, ten days after the murder of twenty children and six adults at a school in Connecticut (14 December 2012), referenced the massacre: “God must have wanted more angels.” That too is a special brand of stupidity—but that’s a specialty of the Catholic church, which has convinced its gullible followers that communion wafers and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus during the “miracle of the mass.” Such magic potions are more appropriate in fairy tales!

Religion thrives on stupidity, and Bonhoeffer was right that combating it is much harder than confronting evil.

Critical thinking is lethal to Christianity and that is why most pastors discourage aggressive reading and analysis of scripture, simply because it invariably raises more questions than can be successfully answered. Staying dumb and happy is what they want you to be.

(5024) Ancient mythic origins of the Christmas story

The Christmas story (or stories) as told in the Bible have their origin in ancient myths. The following presents an except of a discussion between Valerie Tarico and biblical scholar Dr. Tony Nugent:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/search?q=Christmas+Virgin+birth+mary+joseph&m=1

Valerie Tarico interviews Dr. Tony Nugent, scholar of world religions. Dr. Nugent is a symbologist, an expert in ancient symbols. He taught at Seattle University for fifteen years in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies and is an ordained Presbyterian minister.

Most Americans know how Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25: The Emperor Constantine chose the date because it was winter solstice in the Julian Calendar, the birthday of dying and rising gods like Mithra and Sol. Some people also know that our delightful melange of Christmas festivities originated in ancient Norse, Sumerian, Roman and Druid traditions – or, in the case of Rudolph, on Madison Avenue.

But where does the Christmas story itself come from: Jesus in the manger, the angels and wise men?

The familiar Christmas story, including the virgin conception and birth of Jesus, is found in the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Scholars have pointed out that these stories are somewhat disconnected from other parts of these Gospels and the rest of the New Testament. In fact, by the time he is a young boy in the temple, Jesus’s parents seem to have forgotten the virgin birth. They act surprised by his odd behavior. There is never any other mention in the New Testament of these incredible events! These stories seem to be an afterthought, written later than the rest of the gospels that contain them.

To make matters more interesting, the stories themselves have inconsistencies and ambiguities – contradictory genealogies, for example. Our Christmas story (singular) is actually a composite. Or consider the idea that Mary is a virgin. The Greek writer of Matthew quotes Isaiah as saying: “a parthenos shall conceive and bear a child.” The Hebrew word in Isaiah is “almah,” which means simply “young woman.” But the Greek word parthenos can mean either a virgin or a young woman, and it got translated as “virgin.” Modern Bible translations have corrected this, but it is a central part of the Christmas story.

That’s a lot of added complications. If the rest of the New Testament doesn’t refer to these stories or need them, then how did we end up with them? Where do they come from?

One part of the answer comes from Hellenistic culture. (It is no accident all New Testament books written in Greek.) In this tradition, when a man did something extraordinary there was the assumption that he did this because he was different, either divine or semi-divine. They would make up a story about how he came to be divine. Almost all Greek heroes were said to be born of a human woman and a god–even Alexander the Great, Augustus and Pythagoras. The father typically was Zeus or Apollo. The god would come and sleep with the woman, pretending to be the husband or as a bolt of lightning, or some such. Greek mythology also shows up in the book of Genesis: the gods lusting after the women and coming down and mating with them.

Why were they added to the Christian story?

Jewish Christians – the first Christians didn’t believe in the virgin birth. They believed that Joseph was the biological father of Jesus. Part of their Christology was “adoptionism”–they thought Jesus was adopted as the unique son of God at some time later in life. There were disagreements about when – Mark suggests the baptism, Paul suggests the resurrection.
Over time, gentile Christianity replaced Jewish Christianity. There were Jewish-Roman Wars. The Jewish Christians were marginalized and oppressed. The Gentile branch became dominant. Eventually we get the gospel of John which pushes the sonship of Jesus back to the beginning of time. This writer is at the other end of the spectrum from the Jewish Christians. But Matthew and Luke think that the Sonship of Jesus began at birth. And they want to tell a story that reinforces this point. Matthew and Luke are the source of the Christmas story as most of us learned it.

Why didn’t the writers do a better job of cleaning the contradictions?

They did, some. This is called the “orthodox corruption of scripture.” (Bart Ehrman article , book) . But it appears that these birth stories were added toward the end, so scripture got frozen before they could get integrated.

I was raised that the bible was the literally perfect, “inerrant” word of God, essentially dictated by God to the writers. What you are saying about the Christmas story sure calls into question this point of view.

Which Bible?! There are thousands of manuscript variations. Most biblical stories are probably fiction, not non-fiction. They are mythology in the deepest sense of the word. But we need to get beyond issue of whether biblical reports happened in the historical, physical sense to understand what they mean spiritually and mythically.

Ok. Back to Christmas. Of all the images from the Christmas story, the one that people fall in love with most is angels. The Christmas story is full of angels, beings of light. Is this because of the solstice tradition?

Actually it comes from the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish scriptures that were eventually adopted into the Christian Bible as the Old Testament. It also comes from the Jewish literature written between the Old and New Testaments that didn’t get into the biblical canon. Some of these are even quoted in the New Testament, for example Enoch, from the 2nd Century BC. It’s all about angels.

What are angels in these stories? Who are they?

The Bible calls them the sons of God, the Divine Council. The word used for God in parts of the Hebrew Bible, Elohim, is plural implying a family of deities. Angels are the lesser gods of the deposed pantheon of ancient Israel. They are under the rulership of Yahweh. Together with Yahweh they are part of Elohim, a plural word that we translate “God” in the book of Genesis. Elohim/God says “Let us make humans in our image.” Christians understand this to refer to the trinity, but that is a later interpretation. These angels came from the ancient pantheons of Mesopotamia and Egypt. Many of these gods come from stars. There is a strong astral dimension. “Heavenly Hosts” are stars.

The Luke story focuses on one angel specifically: Gabriel. Is he the archangel? Gabriel is the Angel of the Lord. He is one of two angels who are named in the Jewish canon and the Christian canon outside of the apocrypha: Gabriel and Michael. They are the angels of mercy and judgment. Gabriel means “Strong One of El.” He is first named in Daniel.

If you go into an Eastern Orthodox church you have two icons on the north and south. Michael is on the North to fight with Satan who lives there. Gabriel is on the south. He is more like what the angels originally were, which is messengers of the gods. That is what angel means. The idea that God has a special messenger is exactly what we read about in the Middle Eastern mythologies. Each of the earlier gods has his own special messenger. Enki, who becomes Yaweh, has Isimud. The goddess Inana has Ninshubur. Each high god will have an envoy or assistant, who is a lesser god. The angel of the lord is the same thing. The distinction between angels and gods came later.

Is he a star person? Or one of those semi-divine descendents of gods and women?

He is one of the gods who would come down to earth.

Why do you say that?

The offspring of the gods mating with women are called Gaborim–from the same root as Gabriel. In the second century, Gabriel appears in the Epistula Apostolorum. It talks about Jesus and these secret teachings that he gave to his apostles after the resurrection. One of the secrets is that he is actually Gabriel. After Gabriel took on flesh and united with Mary, then he becomes Jesus. The idea that Christ was an angel was extremely popular in the early church. Later we find this really strict separation between humans and angels; between gods and angels. (more)

We have time for just one more favorite Christmas story: The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi.

The Magi are astrologers. They are Zoroastrian priests. Just to the east of the Roman Empire was the Persian Empire, which was Zoroastrian. They see this star at its rising (the better translations don’t say in the East). The astrologers paid a lot of attention to this. It is likely that what this refers to was a heliacal rising, which is the first time that a star appears over the horizon during the course of a year. They thought this was a sign of the Jewish messiah. Scholars speculate that they would have been living in Babylon, where there were lots of Jewish merchants. The Jews had been there from the time of the Jewish exile from Babylonia. We have cuneiform records from them.

Are you assuming that this story is historical?

Think of it as a frog and pond. The pond is real, the frog is not. They are fictional stories in a real setting. They don’t always get the details of the setting right, but they are fictional characters in real places. The Magi follow their star from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. The author has in mind a real star that would be in front of you in this situation. There are two candidates, Canopus or Alpha Centauri. Those two stars are visible for approx 6 mo of year, Canopus from about the fall equinox to spring equinox and Alpha Centauri from about November to May.

Remember what I said about the Heavenly Host being stars? The star in Matthew and the angel in Luke are two variants of the same mythology.

My former fundamentalist head is spinning. Is there anything else you’d like to say in closing?

We need to be able to appreciate these stories as myths, rather than literal histories. When you understand where they come from, then you can understand their spiritual significance for the writers and for us.

That sounds like another interview. Thank you.

It is embarrassing that so many people today perceive these ancients myths as actual historical events. It would seem that Christians even in the First Century would have understood the symbolic nature of these themes.

(5025) Christian credibility undermined by its roots

In theory, a true religion would stand out independently from any human mythology or prior religions. Christianity does not enjoy this attribute, but was instead built atop previous religious traditions, thereby undermining its credibility. Judaism, itself, is not an original faith, and therefore is damaged by this same problem. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hfcpzp/no_religion_can_be_true_considering_its_roots/

The credibility of Christianity, and by extension its Judaic roots, is undermined when considering the historical and cultural evolution of its beliefs and practices. Judaism, from which Christianity emerges, is not a uniquely original faith but heavily influenced by its neighbors and conquerors. Early Israelite religion closely resembled Canaanite belief, with shared deities like El, the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon, who is linguistically and conceptually linked to Elohim, a key name for God in the Hebrew Bible. Additionally, Asherah, El’s consort in Canaanite belief, appears in early Israelite worship, with archaeological evidence—such as inscriptions—suggesting that Yahweh (the Israelite deity) was worshipped alongside Asherah. The divine council structure in Canaanite mythology, where a chief god presides over lesser deities, is also reflected in biblical texts like Psalm 82, which describes God judging among other gods.

This early form of Israelite religion was not monotheistic but monolatrous, acknowledging the existence of other deities while focusing worship on Yahweh. This changed significantly during the Babylonian exile, a period marked by profound Persian influence under Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrian dualism introduced ideas like the cosmic struggle between good and evil, heaven and hell, and a more developed angelology, all of which began to shape post-exilic Judaism. The exile also marked a shift from monolatry to strict monotheism, as Judaism redefined its identity in response to external pressures. Christianity inherited and further adapted these evolved ideas, layering on doctrines shaped by Greco-Roman thought.

Given that all these religious systems, including Judaism and Christianity, can be traced back to animism and shamanistic traditions—practices with no empirical backing—their claims to divine authority become highly questionable. If religions borrow heavily from one another and are influenced by societal evolution rather than divine revelation, how can they claim exclusive truth? While proponents point to religious texts and eyewitness testimonies, these sources often lack corroboration, consistency, or objectivity, as they are written and interpreted by adherents rather than neutral observers. The historical and cultural bricolage of Judaism and Christianity, rooted in Canaanite and later influences, casts significant doubt on their originality and claims of divine origins.

Christianity would have been much more believable if it had originated as a completely separate religion from Judaism or any other faith tradition, thereby releasing it from the mythological baggage of prior human-created theologies.

(5026) Miracles always eventually evaporate

An objective look at the world should result in the conclusion that miracles do not happen, even when we think that they have. Christianity is chock-full of claimed miracles, such that if they were all debunked, virtually no one would continue in the faith. The following discusses why miracle claims should be scrutinized to the fullest:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1h841i8/every_single_miracle_when_thoroughly_investigated/

Every single miracle when thoroughly investigated arrives at the very same conclusion…

The Power of Belief

Even when miracles are debunked, their persuasive power often remains intact for believers. This is because faith isn’t grounded solely in evidence—it’s deeply emotional and existential. Belief in miracles serves as a source of hope, meaning, and connection to something greater, which can outweigh rational scrutiny.

The Irony of Investigation

Interestingly, the act of investigating a miracle can sometimes strengthen believers’ resolve. When a miracle is questioned or debunked, it can feel like a test of faith, making some believers double down on their convictions. The idea that miracles are “beyond human understanding” can become a shield against scrutiny.

The Broader Perspective

This recurring pattern — where investigation often reveals non-miraculous causes — highlights the tension between faith and reason. Yet, it also speaks to a human need to find meaning in the inexplicable. While many miracles might crumble under investigation, their emotional and spiritual resonance often endures, reflecting the profound role they play in human culture and belief systems.

Given the pervasiveness of recording devices, it would seem that if we lived in a universe that had miracles (events where the laws of science are violated) we should be aware of them by now. Instead, we just have anecdotes that fail to meet the rigorous standards of scientific evidence.

(5027) What Hitchens might have said

On December 16, 2024, at the Abundant Life (Christian) School in Madison, Wisconsin, United States, a 15 year-old girl opened fire in a study hall, killing two persons, injuring 6, and then killing herself. In the following, the poster imagines how the British author and journalist Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) might have commented on this tragedy:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1hhgw6y/what_hitchens_may_have_said/

I miss Christopher Hitchens. The world is worse without him. I found myself curious about what he might say upon hearing the news of the shooting at the Christian school in Wisconsin. To cope, I’ve written the following passage, as an homage to his panache and wit.

“One might expect that a deity described as omnipotent, omniscient, and deeply invested in the affairs of His creation would at least keep His own premises under competent supervision. If God cannot—or will not—protect a school bearing His name, where His followers gather to praise His virtues and beg His favor, then we must ask: Is He absent, indifferent, or simply not on the job?

It would seem that divine protection is as unreliable as a superstition’s last gasp when tested against the cold, indifferent reality of the world. Prayers offered in desperate whispers were met not with celestial aid, but with the grim silence of an unfeeling universe. The faithful might claim this is part of a mysterious plan—though one wonders what kind of cosmic architect designs a blueprint that includes the slaughter of children in classrooms dedicated to His glory.

Perhaps it’s time to dispense with the comforting fiction that an invisible protector watches over us and instead place our faith in human reason, compassion, and action—things that, unlike divine intervention, have at least a traceable record of showing up when it matters.”

This shooting is particularly poignant because many Christians had argued that school shootings were the result of God being ‘taken out’ of the public schools. This counter-example came slamming hard against their agenda. The world simply doesn’t work in the magical fashion that they imagine or wish for.

(5028) Jesus sinned five times

Standard Christian theology claims that Jesus led a sinless life- this attribute allegedly being necessary for him to be a suitable sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Unfortunately, the scriptures themselves do not back up this assertion. Below are listed five (and plausibly seven) times that Jesus sinned:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hh1ngg/5_sins_of_jesus_of_the_bible/

Thesis Statement

• • Jesus was not sinless. Here are 5 times where Jesus sinned.
  • Definition of sin = Transgression of the law
  • Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. 1 John 3:4.

Calling gentile woman dog. Racism

• • He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” Matthew 15:24-27
  • Here, Jesus called a Canaanite woman a dog.
  • Isn’t this the sin of racism?
  • Even if Jesus helped at the end, it does not change the fact that Jesus called her a dog.
  • Law broken = And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:39

Hiding revelation from certain people.

• • He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, “‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven! Mark 4:11-12
  • Here, Jesus was intentionally talking in parables to hide the message from certain people.
  • Jesus was also a prophet in the Bible. As a messenger of God, he is supposed pass the message on. Not doing so is a sin against humanity.
  • “Those on the outside” also include Christians of today because the Bible is filled with parables.
  • Deceiving people is a sin. Being good to certain people over other is also a sin.
  • Law broken = And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:39

Killing an innocent tree that is just following what it was created to do.

• • Early in the morning, as Jesus was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, “May you never bear fruit again!” Immediately the tree withered. Matthew 21:18-19
  • Jesus was hungry & went to the fig tree to find fruits to eat.
  • But because it is not the season, he got angry & curses/ killed the innocent tree that he (God) was supposed to have created.
  • Law broken = When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls. Deuteronomy 20:19-20

Rude to mother.

• • When the wine was gone, Jesus’ mother said to him, “They have no more wine.” “Woman, why do you involve me?” Jesus replied. “My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” John 2:3-5.
  • Calling his mother in that manner is disrespectful & rude especially in Asia & Middle East.
  • Jesus himself is from the Middle East.
  • In Leviticus 20:9, Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. It is pretty extreme but it is there in the Bible.
  • Jesus did not curse his mother but being disrespectful to your mother is still a sin.
  • Law broken = Honor your father and mother”—which is the first commandment with a promise— “so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth. Ephesians 6:2-3

Flipping out tables in anger.

• • In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” John 2:14-16
  • Jesus got angry, flip the tables & drive out the merchant.
  • Even for the right reason, it looks like an over-reaction especially since Christian always say that God is love & love your enemy.
  • Law broken = And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself. Matthew 22:39

Jesus being sinless is at the core of Christianity & Crucifixion.

However, as demonstrated, Jesus did commit a few sin, just like any normal human would.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZiKijwlqHw

Bonus

• • Jesus lied to his brother about going to the festival in John 7:8-10
  • Jesus lied regarding his 2nd coming (Parousia) in Matthew 16:28.

Jesus was not sinless- that is, if the scriptures are accurate in portraying his words and actions. Christians must pick- (1) are the scriptures accurate?, or (2) was Jesus sinless? You can’t have both.

(5029) No one asked Jesus to sacrifice himself

What is commonly overlooked in the Christian story is that nobody asked for God to send his son to die on a cross for man’s sins. Up until the First Century, nobody thought such a thing was even necessary. The following exposes a compelling analogy:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1hgva8w/jesus_died_for_your_sins/

Jesus died for your sins…

Christianity works only when one takes their critical thinking skills and buries them in the sand. Because any open-minded, well-reasoned scrutiny causes its theology to evaporate in thin air.

(5030) Jesus uses whataboutism

In John 8, a story is told (this was not original to the gospel, but is an interpolation added in the 5^th Century) about a woman caught in adultery. Jesus saves her from being stoned by pointing out the sins of the bystanders. Although this event is often extolled by Christian theologians as a demonstration of divine genius, it otherwise can be seen as a logical fallacy. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hj7fa7/the_fact_jesus_used_whataboutism_logical_fallacy/

The fact Jesus used “Whataboutism” (logical fallacy) proves His fallibility and imperfection.

It is hard to separate facts from fiction when discussing Jesus. The Gospel of John, itself, is a nearly total work of fiction, and then having this story added to it in the 5^th Century adds another layer of illegitimacy. But what can be taken from this story is that displays a lack of wisdom as should be the essence of an omnipotent deity who, if it existed, would likely not want to see his ‘son’ use faulty logic within the pages of his holy message to humankind.

(5031) Being fully God and fully human is a contradiction

Standard Christian theology states that Jesus was simultaneously fully God and fully human. The following discusses why this concept is erroneous:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1h7raqf/being_fully_god_and_fully_human_is_a/

Being fully God and fully human is a contradiction in terms.

P3. Jesus was without sin. Humans are described as having a measure of sin as a default attribute. So again, not comparable to any human in existence.

C1. Jesus is described as being fully human. This may extend to his physical attributes, but his experience was far removed from the human one. His existence included access to magic, being able to see the future and absolute knowledge that he would both return to life and return to heaven. It is not comparable to the experience of anyone in recorded history.

C2. The “sacrifice” of Jesus is less meaningful than that of any other human. Fear of death is lessened by absolute certainty of resurrection. By the rules stated in the bible, he did not experience hell, being without sin, nor did he have reason to fear hell.

C3. The story of Christ and his sacrifice is ultimately disingenuous.

That has always been the biggest takeaway for me. A soldier throwing himself on a live grenade to save his platoon mates is a real sacrifice. He doesn’t get to come back. His family loses a brother, a son, a dad. He does it without knowing what, if anything, will happen after he dies, and if he is Christian he must expect an eternity of torment in hell, if only out of probability, knowing how difficult it is to get in to heaven.

Jesus, on the other hand, took a long weekend at Easter. He did not die, but rather experienced something no human can experience, and if he believed the prophecies, he knew it. I don’t dispute that it was an inconvenience, but so is waiting at the DMV. The argument that he didn’t deserve it as he was without sin suggests that bad things that happen to people are some kind of divine retribution all by themselves. Tell that to a 4 year old dying of thirst.

The absurdity of the death and resurrection of Christ is not something that takes a lot of thought to realize or is difficult to parse. The contradictions are grotesque. It’s absurd on its face, which shows how powerful myth is, especially to children who have not developed critical thinking skills. Religion is something that is completely personal, but a civilized society should not allow children to be terrified into believing it. At 18, tenets of religion should be made available to anyone who wants to join. Something tells me it wouldn’t be very popular.

Theologians should pare back their claim of Jesus’ humanity, to state that he experienced some but not all of what it is like to be human. The concept that he ‘became like us’ is a very murky one at best.

(5032) Doctrine of hell is harmful to mental health

The concept of the Christian hell has caused much anxiety among people for the past 2000 years. The disproportionate and wildly cruel promise of eternal torment for the victimless ‘crime’ of not believing in Jesus cannot be something that an omnipotent deity would enact, forge into scripture, or even permit his followers to have a belief in. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hkdirl/the_doctrine_of_hell_is_harmful_to_our_mental/

The Doctrine of Hell Is Harmful to Our Mental Health

Hell, as described in scripture, is one of the most salient reasons to conclude that Christianity is human-created, and has nothing to do with an infinitely intelligent and benevolent creator.

(5033) Unbelief as a choice

The Christian concept of afterlife punishment in hell clings to the concept that everyone knows the truth, but some consciously deny it for various reasons, and therefore these ‘rejectors’ are deserving of being sent to hell- ‘they send themselves to hell.’ What is not acknowledged by Christians is that unbelief is not a choice, it is simply a consequence of normal cognitive function- that is unbelief in Christianity is for some no different that unbelief in unicorns. When this is understood, sentencing unbelievers to hell becomes a wicked travesty of justice. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hku3oc/christians_and_muslims_claim_unbelievablers/

Religious people often argue that we “choose” to disbelieve because it conveniently lets them justify the idea of disbelievers burning in Hell forever. It’s a neat trick: by framing unbelief as a conscious choice, they can avoid confronting the fact that some of us genuinely do not find their doctrines convincing. Instead, they cling to this idea that we’re just “in denial” or “rejecting” the supposed truth, which absolves them of any responsibility for the horrifying concept of eternal torment—they can say we basically asked for it.

You can’t effectively argue against this, because no matter how sincerely you explain your disbelief, they’ll insist you’ve chosen to reject something that’s “obvious.” They’ll claim you’re only doing it for convenience, to avoid moral obligations, or just to sin freely. It’s an impossible back-and-forth, because they have the perfect built-in escape: you’re just lying about what you believe or don’t believe.

This way, they never have to grapple with the fact that you can’t force yourself to believe something that doesn’t ring true. They don’t have to question the morality of a system that punishes people eternally for not being convinced by certain claims. Instead, they reduce it all to a willful choice you’re making, which conveniently justifies Hell as your own fault. It’s a closed loop that keeps them feeling righteous and you perpetually “at fault,” no matter how honest you are.

If the Christian god exists, it has not given humanity enough evidence of its existence to make the claim that unbelief is a conscious rejection of the truth. This raises a reasonable accusation of Yahweh as deliberately hiding his existence so that he can send more people to hell.

(5034) Christians overplayed the messiah trope

The idea that the Jews were expecting a messiah to deliver them from the Roman rule and establish a kingdom on the earth was a minority opinion that was greatly amplified by the early Christians. And even those Jews who believed in this eschatology rightly rejected Jesus as being that messiah. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1hl38mj/were_there_any_jewish_groups_in_the_time_of_jesus/

Two things are important to remember here. One is that the Jewish sects having opinions about things like a messiah of any kind, the resurrection, eschatology, or theology in a modern sense, were a tiny minority of people. The other is that the life of average Jewish citizens rotated around keeping the commandments, hearing the Law read and discussed on a regular basis, and going to Temple feasts when feasible, but otherwise going about the business of farming, trading, working, raising their families, and hoping for the best. The later Christian focus on a long-awaited messiah, or of a military overthrow of Roman rule, were of limited interest to most people in the real world.

Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (2014), gives a balanced perspective on these things, even in that aftermath of the revolt of 66-73 CE. The early Rabbis who spent centuries creating Judaism as we now know it, were also a tiny minority who, like the Pharisees before them, succeeded with the wider population precisely because their focus was on reinforcing and deepening traditional practices, not floating pie-in-the-sky or revolution. When revolt came, most of the areas around Jerusalem surrendered quickly, leaving fighting only to the zealous minority who held the Temple, and later, Masada.

David B Levenson, Messianic Movements, in the Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd edition, goes through several would-be messiahs who appeared in the 1st century. The most successful among them gathered a few thousand adherents who expected some poorly-defined deliverance or salvation, and were soon scattered or killed by the Romans. A few thousand, out of a million (or so) is not really a large number.

Most First Century Jews were not expecting a messiah and those who did could easily see that Jesus, assuming he was more than just a fictional character, was not it.

(5035) Christianity’s male dominance is a problem

The fact that Christianity is represented almost exclusively by men- including Yahweh, Jesus, the disciples, prophets, biblical authors, angels, popes, and pastors/priests is an indication that it is not a religion formulated or guided by an omnipotent deity, who would most likely have designed in a gender balance for maximal effect. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hhabu0/a_fair_and_omniscient_god_would_be_represented_by/

Thesis: A fair and omniscient god would be represented by men and women equally.

When interacting with, or through humanity, a fair god would have no bias when choosing who to communicate with. Or who it would be represented by. This includes a gender bias.

An omniscient god would be aware that an over representation of male voices, perspectives, and leadership would create a dramatic power imbalance between men and women. Something that inevitably leads to widespread discrimination and oppression.

And a fair and all-knowing god would obviously have the power to mitigate this imbalance.

Any religion where male voices outweigh female voices is best explained as a product of human culture, or a god who is not fair and all-knowing.

The almost exclusive male presence in Christian history and hierarchy is evidence that it was invented by men, not a god.

(5036) Matthew makes 180-degree edit

It is well-established that that author of the Gospel of Matthew used the Gospel of Mark as his template, copying major portions of it. But there is one place where he engineered a wholesale reversal- the action of the women who initially discovered that Jesus’ tomb was empty:

Mark 16:8

Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

Matthew 28:8

So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples.

At least one of these scriptures is non-factual. Evidently the author of Matthew realized the problem with the ending of Mark’s gospel (Mark 16: 9-20 was added after Matthew’s gospel was written.). So this edit was made to take care of the problem, while at the same time, accentuating the issue of gospel fidelity.

(5037) God as a rock 100,000 years ago

The scale of time, evolution, and geography lays waste to any argument that Christianity presents a cogent or fair method for a god to ‘judge’ humanity. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1hno5sq/if_christians_were_born_100000years_ago_their_god/

If Christians were born 100,000-years ago their God would have been a large rock, not Jesus.

Christian rules for determining human salvation run into severe headwinds whenever even a modicum of objective thought is brought to the subject. It simply doesn’t work in the world as we have discovered it to be. Christian theology barely works only if young-earth-Adam-and-Eve history is true, and we now know FOR CERTAIN that it is not.

(5038) Prophets and revelation are unnecessary

There is a sound theory that if there was an actual omnipotent god who intended to interact and ultimately judge humans, that it would not use prophets to present its message nor reveal knowledge exclusively to special persons. It would be a more direct and universal communication. The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hpag55/prophets_are_unnecessary_and_revelation_is/

A universal, monotheistic, wise, and good natured God would have no need for prophets. Any message God delivered to a prophet could have been delivered to all of humanity, and God could deliver this message more effectively than any prophet. Individuals declaring themselves prophets is exactly what we’d expect in a universe in which God did not exist.

The existence of prophets is evidence against the existence of God.

Revelation falls into a similar category. It is incredibly suspicious that a God would grant visions and information to certain people and not others. There should be no distinction between “general” and “special” revelation.

Finally, the necessity of holy text is also suspicious. Religions are reliant upon their written word “getting out”, but a God would have no need for a book. There is no text that could perfectly preserve God’s word as well as he could himself. Any questions or mysteries could be confronted directly instead of consulting a text one may not even have access to.

In summary, prophets, holy books, and claims of special revelation are exactly what we’d expect to see in a world in which God (a universal, monotheistic, wise, and good God) did not exist.

If God’s mysterious ways begin to look suspiciously like not existing, it might be time to ask ourselves why we believe in this being in the first place.

Prophets and revelation are necessary to establish a god when one doesn’t actually exist. A real god would have no need for such a parochial, indirect, and inaccurate means of communication.

(5039) Every account of Jesus is hearsay

For what is touted as being the most critical matter of human life- where you will spend eternity- in a very good or a very bad place- the ‘instructions’ of Christianity are woefully insufficient. That all of this rides on hearsay is a slam dunk condemnation of ‘God’s plan.’ The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1ho71da/every_account_of_jesus_life_and_miracles_is_not/

Every account of Jesus life and miracles is not eyewitness testimony—they are all hearsay.

The Gospels, the primary sources for Jesus’ life and miracles, were written decades after the events they describe. None of the authors were direct eyewitnesses, and their accounts are based on oral traditions and secondhand sources. This makes them hearsay rather than reliable firsthand evidence.

Christianity’s foundational claims, such as the resurrection and Jesus’ miracles, rest entirely on unverifiable testimony. These claims cannot be considered credible evidence for the truth of the religion. A message as significant as salvation, tied to eternal consequences, should not depend on indirect and questionable evidence.

Most people throughout history have been born into religious or cultural contexts where they have no access to Christianity’s claims except through hearsay. This reliance on secondhand information makes the concept of universal accountability to these claims unjustifiable.

The reliance on hearsay undermines the credibility of Christianity’s central claims. Truth that is eternal and universal cannot rest on unverifiable stories written long after the events they describe.

If the story of Christianity is true, then Yahweh is playing a dangerous, disingenuous game with human life such that he, instead of being worshiped, should be condemned with overwhelming wrath.

(5040) A true god would create an inclusive religion

A religion that says you will be rewarded if you live a good life is an inclusive religion. That is, one that allows anyone, including non-followers of that religion, to enjoy a nice reward. But a religion like Christianity that says living a good life is not enough– you must believe in this improbable event– is an exclusive religion. And it can be confidently assumed that a real god would elect not be that ‘picky.’ The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hm04rx/christianity_is_an_exclusive_religion/

Let’s start by defining “exclusive” as something that is:

“limited to only one person or group of people“

That is, not everyone can be a part of the group, only some are welcome.

And within Christianity, the line which defines if someone is part of the group can be summed up with one question:

“Do you believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and rose from the dead to wash us from our sins?”

That is the determining factor, only people who believe in resurrections, and a very specific one at that, are welcome.

In order to go from “unwelcomed” to “welcomed” one must change their beliefs about a miracle, despite not everyone being able to force themselves to believe.

Some of us don’t believe because we genuinely think it is dishonest to claim someone rose from the dead when that is not what our everyday waking experiences leads us to believe. If graves were overturning in our actual lives, and not in a story book, the resurrection would be a non-issue. But when someone passes away in our real lives, we don’t experience resurrections.

So, let me ask a question:

I do not believe people rise from the dead. If I go outside right now and start speaking directly to God, can I access him? Or are only those who think a certain way able to access him?

Let’s imagine this conversation:

“God, I am here and present. I want to live up to my lives potential and I am asking you to help me do that. Help me to have a positive influence on the lives of those around me and work in and through me to be the best version of myself I can possibly be for the sake of my influence.”

My bet is that most would say unfortunately, this is not the proper way to access God.

When I am placed in a situation where some people are telling other people how they can and can’t access God, I feel dehumanized.

Humans have a built-in bias to create exclusive religions- for power, influence, and money. A true god would create an inclusive religion- that is a real god would be concerned about how you live your life, not what you believe or what rituals you perform.

(5041) Debunking needle and vaccine analogies

Christian apologists often use the fact that parents often choose to vaccinate their children against disease as an analogy for why God allows evil- in that the inflicted pain results in a greater good. The following reveals the weakness in this argument:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hr53nn/vaccine_and_needle_analogies_dont_really_work/

Vaccine and needle analogies don’t really work when addressing the Problem of Evil.

Christians put themselves into a box when they ‘made’ their god to be omnipotent. This decision has led to many dead-end theodicities that undermine their fundamental dogma.

(5042) Christianity contradicts Jewish bible

Christianity changed the balance between obedience and sacrifice that existed in pre-Jesus Judaism. The Old Testament scriptures placed more emphasis on personal behavior than in animal sacrifices. But Christianity reversed that theme by placing a supreme importance on sacrifice (Jesus on the cross). The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/1hqsqlm/christianity_fundamentally_contradicts_the_jewish/

My argument is essentially a syllogism: The Jewish Bible states that obedience is better than sacrifice. God prefers repentance and obedience when you do mess up as opposed to sacrifices. Some verses that prove this are 1 Samuel 15:22, Proverbs 21:3, Psalm 40:7, Psalm 21:3, etc (I can provide more if needed). Christianity states that sacrifice is better than obedience. I’m aware that’s a big simplification so I will elaborate. Christianity says that if you believe in Jesus, you will be saved. I will note this argument has nothing to do with sanctification.

I am not saying that Christians believe obedience to God is unimportant. My argument is that the primary thing you need to do to please God is believe in the sacrifice of Jesus. There are some verses that essentially say you can do no good in the eyes of God on your own (Romans 3:10-12, Romans 7, Colossians 2, etc). This is also the primary claim of Christianity bc as Paul says, if you could keep the law (be obedient), there’s no need for Jesus. This means that you can try to follow every commandment perfectly (obedience), but if you don’t believe in the sacrifice of Jesus, you cannot possibly please God. Therefore, the fundamental belief of Christianity (God cannot be pleased by a human without a sacrifice, Jesus or animal) is completely incompatible with the Jewish Bible.

This represents a critical disconnect between Judaism and Christianity. It is unlikely that Yahweh would de-emphasize the importance of sacrifice for hundreds of years only to later make it the central and most important criterion of his religion.

(5043) Nothing but problematic parts

Times have changed and the Bible has not evolved to reflect that. So, it contains a lot of things that don’t work well anymore. The following was taken from:

https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2024/12/rick-osheikh-on-problem-of-holy.html

I have said it before, the problem with the Bible and the Koran is that they do not just contain some problematic parts, they contain nothing but problematic parts. Every page, almost every paragraph, has to be justified and explained away with some contorted and very flexible logic. There is no systematic way for the apologist to account for all the problems. The apologist has to resort to a different sort of “rationale” to explain away every little and every big problem. One problem is explained as a parable, for another one they say God reveals his truths as he judges the people ready to receive them, and or another part they try to blame bad translation, etc. So they have hundreds of inconsistent and illogical ways of “explaining” things.

The non-believer on the other hand has a systematic and logical way to debunk these books: They are the product of particular people at particular points in time and space, things written by themselves and for themselves at different times and by different people, then later compiled into books. These people wrote things the way their particular culture saw them at the time, and those cultures were very different from today’s cultures. What looks bad to us in those books today looks bad because it is bad to us today, not because we are not understanding something, whereas it was not bad to those people back then and they understood it very well the way it was written. These book are obsolete now to say the least. Period.

An analogy would be to judge a 19^th Century person based on being a slave owner back when it was considered acceptable. The problem with the Bible is that it is a dated book. It no longer reflects the knowledge and values of current society.

(5044) Holes in apologist excuses for Canaanite massacre

A thorn in the side of Christian apologists is trying to explain how their perfectly benevolent god endorsed a wholesale massacre of the Canaanites- men, women, and children. The following explains how the two most used excuses for this travesty are laughable:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1htnxc2/trying_to_justify_the_canaanite_genocide_is_weird/

When discussing the Old Testament Israelite conquest of Canaan, I typically encounter two basic basic apologetics:

1. 1. It didn’t happen
   2. It’s a good thing.

Group one, The Frank Tureks, we’ll call them, often reduce OT to metaphor and propaganda. They say that it’s just wartime hyperbole. That didn’t actually happen and it would not be God’s will for it to happen. Obviously, this opens up a number of issues, as we now have to reevaluate God’s word by means of metaphor and hyperbole. Was Genesis a propaganda? Were the Gospels? Revelation? Why doesn’t the Bible give an accurate portrayal of events? How can we know what it really means until Frank Turek tells us? Additionally, if we’re willing to write off the Biblical account of the Israelite’s barbarity as wartime propaganda, we also have to suspect that the Canaanite accusations, of child sacrifice, learning of God and rejecting him, and basic degeneracy, are also propaganda. In fact, these accusations sound suspiciously like the type of dehumanizing propaganda cultures level on other cultures in order to justify invasion and genocide. Why would the Bible be any different?

Group two, The William Lane Craigs, are already trouble, because they’re in support of a genocidal deity, but let’s look at it from an internal critique. If, in fact, the Canaanites were sacrificing their children to Baal/Moloch, and that offense justified their annihilation, why would the Israelites kill the children who were going to be sacrificed? You see the silliness in that, right? Most people would agree that child sacrifice is wrong, but how is child genocide a solution? Craig puts forth a bold apologetic: All of the children killed by the Israelites went to heaven since they were not yet at the age of accountability, so all is well.

But Craig, hold on a minute. That means they were already going to heaven by being sacrificed to Baal/Moloch. The Canaanites were sending their infants to heaven already! The Canaanites, according to the (Protestant) Christian worldview, were doing the best possible thing you could do to an infant!

In short, trying to save face for Yahweh during the conquest of the Canaanites is a weird and ultimately suspicious hill to die on.

A modern-day person intent on determining whether to follow Judeo-Christianity should immediately end their investigation when they read of the Canaanite massacre. It should be game over, and they should move on to something else.

(5045) Reinterpretation of scripture predates Christianity

The practice (art?) of taking ancient scripture and interpreting it to represent a prediction of current events is very prevalent in the gospels. But even before the gospels were written, this dubious technique was in use in the Dead Sea Scrolls (150 BCE – 70CE). The following was taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1hsd5wg/how_and_when_were_verses_purportedly_containing/

Continued reinterpretation of seemingly unrelated verses can be traced for years before its use in the gospels. Here’s one example from the dead sea scrolls. I don’t think anyone would suggest that Deut 32 was referring to the kings of Greece, but you can see how you can turn anything into prophecy.

They have willfully rebelled, walking on the path of the wicked, about whom God says, “Their wine is serpent’s venom and the head of asps is cruel” (Deut 32:33). The serpents are the kings of the people and their wine is their paths, and the head of asps is the head of the kings of Greece, who came to wreak vengeance on them. (Cairo Damascus Document VIII 8–12)

Robert Miller’s “Helping Jesus Fulfill Prophecy” (where I also lifted this reference) is a good academic assessment of this practice in the gospels and early Christian theologians.

… [T]here are passages in the New Testament where authors have altered prophecies and proclaimed their fulfillments in Jesus or the church… their rationale for rewriting prophecies was probably similar to that of the Qumran authors: to help the ancient prophecies disclose their true meanings for God’s people in the present. The underlying theological motivation of the Qumran community’s interpretation of scripture was “to present the sect as the true heir of the biblical Israel and to demonstrate that its fortunes are anticipated in biblical texts.” As we will see, that was the same motivation for the New Testament authors’ presentation of the fulfillment of prophecy.

The Qumran community was a sect, and its members understood themselves to be very different from other Jews. Therefore, we should not assume that the sect’s beliefs and practices were representative of other versions of Jewish religion. However, there is good reason to think that other Jews shared the general approach to scriptural interpretation that we find in the DSS.

“It is only a short hop from Qumran to the sort of typological exegesis known from the New Testament and other early Christian writings, whereby parts of the Hebrew Bible are read as foreshadowing and prediction of the events of the Gospels.” Those similarities do not mean that the New Testament authors read the Qumran writings and were directly influenced by them. Rather, the evidence points to a diffuse set of shared Jewish assumptions about the nature of scripture in general and prophecy in particular, and to the desire to hear them speak directly to each generation.

There is no defense for manipulating ancient scripture in very creative ways to make a theological claim. Prophecies are valid only if they are very specific and can refer to one and only one event. None of the prophecies in the Bible meet this requirement. In truth, the Bible contains no evidence that a supernatural deity was laying hints of what was to come. The gospel authors were guilty of this practice, and it was a common staple of its time.

(5046) Origin of religion story

The following reveals a plausible scenario for how primitive people began to believe in gods and how that pervasive belief eventually led to a hierarchy of ‘priests’ who took advantage of the situation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/1hvc7ff/my_origin_of_religion_story/

The storm came without warning. One moment, the world outside the cave was calm, the twilight stretching shadows across the ground. The next, the sky roared with fury, and jagged spears of light tore through the heavens. A deafening crack of thunder echoed off the stone walls, causing the group of cave dwellers to huddle together, trembling in fear.

They were a small band, no more than fifteen in number, their survival dependent on their shared strength and unity. But now, under the wrath of the storm, their courage faltered. The older ones clutched the younger ones, their wide eyes darting to the entrance of the cave as if the storm might step inside like a vengeful beast.

All except one.

Among them sat Rana, a young man known for his calm demeanor and quick wit. While the others shivered and whimpered, he observed the storm with a peculiar fascination. The thunder, to him, was not a threat but a sound of power, raw and untamed. The fear in his companions, however, was tangible, a weight in the air heavier than the storm itself.

Another bolt of lightning lit up the cave, illuminating the wide, terrified eyes of the group. The following thunderclap made the children cry out, pressing their faces into their mothers’ sides. Rana stood, his presence drawing every eye in the cave. He raised his arms as if embracing the storm itself and spoke with a voice that cut through the chaos.

“Do not fear, my friends,” he began. “The noise is not the sound of anger. It is the voice of the Great Sky Beast.”

The others looked at him, bewildered. The storm’s fury continued outside, but Rana’s voice grew stronger, steadying their quaking hearts.

“Long ago, before we lived in this cave,” Rana continued, “the Great Sky Beast roamed the heavens. Its body is made of cloud, its breath is the wind, and its eyes flash with fire. The thunder is its call, deep and strong, to remind the earth below that it watches over us.”

One of the elders, an old man named Kor, frowned. “If it watches over us, why does it frighten us so?”

Rana smiled, kneeling by the group. “The Great Sky Beast frightens us because we do not yet understand it. But it is not here to harm us. The rain it brings washes the earth and fills the rivers. The light it flashes shows us the path in darkness. Its voice reminds us that we are small, but not forgotten.”

The group murmured amongst themselves. The children, who moments before had been inconsolable, now stared at Rana with wide, curious eyes. The adults began to relax, their tense shoulders lowering as they absorbed his words.

“How do you know this, Rana?” asked a woman, her voice cautious but hopeful.

“Because I have listened,” Rana replied. “The Great Sky Beast speaks not in words, but in its presence. When we listen and respect its power, it protects us.”

Another crash of thunder shook the cave, but this time, the group did not cry out. They glanced at Rana, who simply nodded, as though acknowledging the Sky Beast’s call. The fear that had gripped them began to fade, replaced by a tentative sense of awe.

For the rest of the night, Rana continued to weave tales of the Great Sky Beast—how it chased away the darkness, how its tears nourished the earth, and how its fire kept other dangers at bay. By morning, the storm had passed, leaving the ground glistening with rain and the air fresh and cool. The cave dwellers emerged, their fear replaced with a strange new feeling: reverence.

From that day forward, whenever the sky roared, they did not cower. Instead, they gathered together, retelling Rana’s stories and adding their own. Over time, the stories grew into rituals, and the rituals into a belief that bound them. The Great Sky Beast became a guardian spirit, a symbol of power, renewal, and protection.

Out of gratitude, the people began to bring gifts to Rana. Small tokens at first: the finest berries, well-crafted tools, or the softest animal skins. They believed Rana’s connection to the Great Sky Beast was special, that his words held power. Over time, his status among the group grew, and neighboring clans began to hear of the wise storyteller who calmed storms with his voice.

Curious and desperate to understand the storms themselves, these clans sought Rana out, bringing more elaborate gifts to gain his favor. They called him a seer, a chosen one of the Great Sky Beast. What began as simple gratitude turned into reverence, and reverence soon transformed into dependence. Rana’s role shifted from a calming presence to a leader of rituals and ceremonies meant to honor the Great Sky Beast.

As generations passed, others took Rana’s place, calling themselves priests of the Sky Beast. They expanded the rituals, claiming that the Great Sky Beast demanded more to keep its favor. Offerings of fruits and tools turned to sacrifices of goats and sheep. The priests assured the people that these sacrifices would ensure bountiful rains and protection from the storm’s wrath.

However, it became apparent that the priests themselves feasted on the best parts of the sacrifices. Whispers spread among the people, but fear of angering the Great Sky Beast kept them compliant. The priests’ power grew as they demanded not only animals but also tithes of labor and goods, all in the name of maintaining balance with the heavens.

Eventually, the offerings extended beyond livestock. The priests insisted on monetary contributions, promising that these would secure the people’s safety and prosperity. Over time, the once-unifying rituals became a means of control. The Sky Beast, once a source of awe and reverence, became a tool to instill fear and extract wealth.

What had begun as a tale to comfort frightened cave dwellers had evolved into an institution. The priests, now wealthy and powerful, guarded their status fiercely, perpetuating the belief in the Sky Beast’s demands. Few remembered the storm or Rana’s calming words. The stories had grown, shaped by generations, until they no longer resembled the simple comfort of one man’s imagination. Instead, they had become a system, one that enriched the few at the expense of the many.

Belief in gods is very easy to explain. The human brain developed before the architecture of the universe was understood, meaning that much of the interpretation was left up to imagination. A salve for fear was to posit a group of supernatural beings who could be enjoined for favors and protection. Eventually, these beliefs morphed into the highly ritualized religions of the present day.

(5047) Public health in Jesus’ time

The gospels paint a very sanitized version of First Century life. The following explains how the public health situation during that time is not well represented in scripture:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1hv8emv/how_healthy_was_jesus/

Dr. Richard Rohrbaugh (“The New Testament in Cross-Cultural Perspective,” pp. 28-29) explains that the nineteenth century romanticized the peasant way of life. We have been imprinted by Sunday school and Religious Education art and pictures from storybooks, Christmas cards, cartoons and movies. This continues in movies with robust Jesuses.

Scholars like Rohrbaugh also inform us that in the first century Galilee—Jesus’ place and time—birthrates were approximately forty per thousand per year, twice that in the United States presently, although death rates were even higher still. This means that in our modern world we have the curious phenomenon of far fewer births and a rapidly rising population.

In many peasant societies today, infant mortality rates have been estimated at 30 percent, and that amount was probably the same for first-century Syro-Palestine. One-third of all children died before reaching six years old. Your sixteenth birthday was bittersweet, because if you made it that age, 60 percent of your fellow villagers had died.

At twenty-six years old, 75 percent of your generation was in the grave. By age forty-five, 90 percent were gone. If you made it to 60 years old, you were incredibly fortunate, because only three percent of the total population got to be that old (read The Shape of the Past: Models of Antiquity by Thomas Carney, page 88)!

Given these facts, was 30-something Jesus a young man or an old man when he died? Consider that percent of his audience was younger than he was! And most of these people were looking forward to about ten years of life remaining. The average age of death for male peasants like Jesus was 27; the average age of death for female peasants like Mary, his mother, was 18. Therefore, Jesus died an old man.

At thirty years old, internal parasites, tooth decay, and bad eyesight afflicted the majority of peasants like Jesus and Mary. Parasites—carried by sheep, goats, and wild dogs—were everywhere. One-half of all the hair combs found at Qumran, Masada, and Murabbat were infected with lice and lice eggs, and this probably reflected conditions elsewhere (See “Death and Disease in Ancient Israel” by Joseph Zias, p. 148.).

Malnutrition was a constant problem in Galilean villages. We know this because of the high infant mortality rates, the age structure of the population, and pathological evidence from skeletal remains (See “The Social History of Palestine in the Herodian Period: The Land is Mine” by David A. Fiensy, p. 98).

From childhood, Galilean peasants would have suffered the debilitating results of protein deficiency. As much as one-fourth of a male Palestinian peasant’s caloric intake came from alcohol. Half of all calories came from bread.

Infectious disease was the most serious threat to life for ancients, the number one killer for people in Biblical times and a long time after. Ancient people had no way to control infection. We know for certain that infectious disease caused most peasant children to die (again, “Death and Disease in Ancient Israel” by Joseph Zias, p. 149).

What does all of this add up to? Consider the reality: poor housing, lack of sanitation, constant violence, unaffordable medical care, caloric deficiencies, and terrible dietary habits. You can’t arrive at the robust figure seen on the Shroud of Turin from such harsh data, surely.

The people who wrote the gospels decided to wash over the public health problems that they must have experienced. And if Jesus was God, he evidently performed just a few parlor tricks while wasting his unlimited powers to relieve the immense misery of his countrymen.

(5048) Book of Revelation is anti-Paul

Although it has long been understood that the person who wrote the Book of James (see 2:14-26) was highly critical of Paul’s faith-only salvation scheme, it is less understood that the author of the Book of Revelation was likely critical of him as well. The following Q&A is taken from:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/1hwvjrj/was_john_of_patmos_antipaul/

Q: A friend of mine who is an ancient historian (though not a new testament scholar) says that he always thought of Revelations as being in part opposed to Pauline/gentile Christianity, and that the “synagogues of satan” in particular are a reference to the gentile congregations Paul established. Is there any work around this?

A: This is exactly the position of Elaine Pagels.

Some excerpts from her book on Revelation: Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation

Writing around 90 CE, John expresses alarm at seeing God’s “holy people” increasingly infiltrated by outsiders who had no regard for Israel’s priority.

…

Those whom John says Jesus “hates” look very much like Gentile followers of Jesus converted through Paul’s teaching. Many commentators have pointed out that when we step back from John’s angry rhetoric, we can see that the very practices John denounces are those that Paul had recommended.

…

When converts in the Greek city of Corinth had asked Paul about meat offered in sacrifice at pagan temples, for example, Paul wrote back that since “we know no idol in the world really exists,” eating sacrificial meat could not do any harm. Perhaps as an afterthought, he added at the only possible harm might be to offend “the weak”—that is, people who don’t understand that pagan gods don’t exist and so regard such meat as “unclean”—perhaps including rigorous and observant Jews like John.

Putting a fine point on it, she also says:

The prophet John derisively calls by the biblical names of despised Gentile outsiders—Balaam and Jezebel—are likely to be Gentile converts to Paul’s teaching.

It is rather damaging to Christian apologetics to have competing theologies within the covers of the Bible. The Books of James and Revelation both reveal such a conflict with the teachings of the first evangelizer of the faith- Paul.

(5049) God, the scientist

The following essay conjectures that if there is a god who created the universe, assuming it is aware of life on our planet and based on the imperceptible influence it imparts, then it is leaving everything alone to see how it will play out- like a scientist who is running an experiment: The following is taken from a post that has since been deleted:

As an atheist, I do agree its impossible to prove a god either does or doesn’t exist.

But it is evident that there is no interaction between a god that exists outside our universe and our universe. If there was then it would be detectable as well as violate basically every physical law that we have observed so far.

So this excludes 99.99% of all religions, as they all postulate that god is presently interacting and imparting forces/energy on our universe (violating the law of conservative of energy/momentum and others). This would exclude the Abrahamic god, Hindu gods, etc.

I do agree it is suspicious that things came out as they are, to produce life on earth as we know it. It does seem like a near statistical impossibility for it to come about purely by random, but I do not jump to conclusions and say that there is a god like religious people did. There could by a myriad of other explanations.

It is my opinion that if a god did exist and created everything, he did so as sort of an experiment to see how conscious and intelligent beings would act in a harsh environment with limited resources. And in doing so he knows he must not interact with the experiment whatsoever or else that would skew the results of the experiment. This god is acting as an impartial unbiased scientist more than anything.

This is just conjecture and even then I believe it is unlikely, however if a god does exist I believe this is the most likely description based on what we observe.

God as a scientist makes more sense than God as an insecure being who craves worship and who intends torture those who refuse to do so.

(5050) Loving god would not allow violent conversions

Much of Christianity’s success was due to the crusades and inquisitions, which resulted in forceful and violent measures. The following makes the point that a loving god would not permit conversions at the point of a sword:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1hxrgen/a_loving_god_would_not_allow_his_word_to_be/

A loving God would not allow his word to be spread via the sword, the way Christianity has been spread.

So the same can probably be said about Islam and about various other religions, but I want to focus on Christianity here, because that’s the part of history that I am most familiar with.

So when we look at Christianity, the main reason why there’s over 2 billion Christians today on every continent and in every part of the world, is NOT primarily because loving and peaceful Christian missionaries spread the gospel across the world. But rather the primary way Christianity was spread across the world was via the sword and via forms of coercion.

Initially Christianity was a small sect that was spread peacefully and Christians often persecuted. But as time went on Roman Emperors started to adapt Christianity in large part due to political reasons. And when the late Roman Empire made Christianity its official state religion they started persecuting and oppressing Pagans and non-Christians. Pagan temples were closed or destroyed, non-Christian religious practices were suppressed or even prohibited, and non-Christians barred from holding public office. And under some Roman Emperors like Justinian I non-Christians were even forced to convert to Christianity.

Then in the Middle Ages the Charlemagne’s Conquests and Crusades spread Christianity even further across the world, with many being brutally forced to convert to Christianity and non-Christians being harshly persecuted and oppressed. And of course later European countries colonized Africa, Latin America, North America, Asia, and Oceania and often either outright forced people to convert or heavily suppressed non-Christian religions in an attempt to “Christianize” their colonial subjects. In fact colonialism and the invasion of countries across the world by European powers was often justified on the basis that “Christianization” was actually a good thing for those “barbarians” that the Europeans were colonizing.

Now of course there have also been many peaceful missionaries, but without a doubt one of the primary ways that Christianity was spread was via force and via coercion. A lot of people were killed, oppressed and brutalized for Christianity to become the world religion that it is today. So my argument then is, if Christianity was actually a religion of a loving and compassionate God surely such a God would not allow his religion to spread primarily via force and via violence. If there was a God who was loving omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent surely he would make sure that his word would be spread by peaceful and loving people, rather than by brutal colonizers and warmongers.

An omnipotent and loving god would be able to see this happening and would be able to stop it. So this leaves the following possibilities:

1) God is omnipotent, but not loving.

2) God is loving, but not omnipotent

3) God is neither omnipotent, nor loving

4) God does not exist.

Any Christian must accept either 1,2, or 3 above. Or else do a lot of explaining.

Follow this link to #5051