{"id":15837,"date":"2022-03-12T09:52:00","date_gmt":"2022-03-12T14:52:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=15837"},"modified":"2022-03-28T08:15:22","modified_gmt":"2022-03-28T12:15:22","slug":"3551-3600","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.kyroot.com\/?page_id=15837","title":{"rendered":"3551-3600"},"content":{"rendered":"

(3551) The Bible tells parents to beat their children<\/strong><\/p>\n

Despite attempts by Christian apologists to insist that the Bible does not recommend that children should be physically beaten as a form of punishment, the truth it that it does, and repeatedly so in the Book of Proverbs. This represents an embarrassment for the faith in current times when even the lessor practice of spanking is losing favor as a tool of discipline. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/talesoftimesforgotten.com\/2022\/03\/12\/does-the-bible-really-say-you-should-beat-your-children\/<\/a><\/p>\n

The Book of Proverbs, a work of wisdom literature that is included in the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh (i.e., what Christians call the \u201cOld Testament\u201d), contains several verses that explicitly tell parents that they should punish their children for their misbehavior by beating them with a wooden rod. Some amateur hermeneuticists have tried to explain away these verses by inventing some rather ingenious new interpretations for them, but, philologically speaking, these interpretations all fall flat. The Book of Proverbs very clearly supports beating children.<\/p>\n

The Book of Proverbs contains several notable verses advocating corporal punishment on children who have misbehaved. The most famous such verse is probably Proverbs 13:24, which reads as follows (as\u00a0translated in the NRSV<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\u201cThose who spare the rod hate their children,
\nbut those who love them are diligent to discipline them.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are, however, other examples of verses in the text advocating corporal punishment, such as Proverbs 22:15, which reads as follows (as translated in the NRSV<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\u201cFolly is bound up in the heart of a boy,
\nbut the rod of discipline drives it far away.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here is Proverbs 23:13\u201314 (as translated in the NRSV<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\u201cDo not withhold discipline from your children;
\nif you beat them with a rod, they will not die.
\nIf you beat them with the rod,
\nyou will save their lives from Sheol [i.e., the underworld].\u201d<\/p>\n

And here is Proverbs 29:15 (as translated in the NRSV<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\u201cThe rod and reproof give wisdom,
\nbut a mother is disgraced by a neglected child.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Hebrew word that is translated as \u201crod\u201d in all of these verses is \u05e9\u05b5\u05c1\u05d1\u05b6\u05d8 <\/span><\/span>(\u0161\u0113be\u1e6d<\/em>). Many interpreters have tried to claim that this word refers to a shepherd\u2019s rod that is used to gently guide the sheep in the direction the shepherd wants them to go. These interpreters therefore maintain that the Book of Proverbs is not saying that parents should beat their children, but rather that parents should guide their children with moral instruction.<\/p>\n

It is true that the word\u00a0\u0161\u0113be\u1e6d\u00a0<\/em>can refer to a shepherd\u2019s staff in some contexts, but that is emphatically\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0how the word is used in any of the verses cited above. In all the verses used above, the word\u00a0\u0161\u0113be\u1e6d\u00a0<\/em>refers to a wooden rod that is used to beat someone across the back as a form as corporal punishment.<\/p>\n

This is most abundantly clear in Proverbs 23:13\u201314, where the word is used with the verb \u201c\u05ea\u05b7\u05db\u05b6\u05bc\u05a5\u05e0\u05bc\u05d5\u05bc\u201d <\/span><\/span>(\u1e6fak-ken-n\u016b<\/em>), a form of the verb \u05e0\u05b8\u05db\u05b8\u05d4 <\/span><\/span>(n\u0101k\u0101h<\/em>), which can only mean \u201cto beat\u201d or \u201chit.\u201d There is simply no reasonable way to construe this verse other than as a direction to beat children.<\/p>\n

The word\u00a0\u0161\u0113be\u1e6d<\/em>\u00a0is used a total of eight times in the Book of Proverbs and, every time it is used in Proverbs, even when it is not in the context of talking about children, it is clearly used in reference to corporal punishment. For instance, Proverbs 26:3 reads as follows (as\u00a0translated in the NRSV<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\u201cA whip for the horse, a bridle for the donkey,
\nand a rod [\u0161\u0113be\u1e6d<\/em>] for the back of fools.\u201d<\/p>\n

Notice what the first two items on the list have in common; both are tools that are used for imposing corporal punishment. The inclusion of the \u0161\u0113be\u1e6d\u00a0<\/em>on this list\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0makes sense if the\u00a0\u0161\u0113be\u1e6d<\/em>\u00a0in question is also a tool for imposing corporal punishment.<\/p>\n

On top of this, the specific reference to a fool\u2019s \u201cback\u201d only makes sense if we interpret the\u00a0\u0161\u0113be\u1e6d<\/em>\u00a0as a rod that is used to beat the fool\u2019s back. If the\u00a0\u0161\u0113be\u1e6d\u00a0<\/em>were simply a shepherd\u2019s staff meant to guide the fool gently in the right direction, it would not make much sense to specify that his \u201cback\u201d is the part of his body that is receiving this guidance.<\/p>\n

This is another example where the Bible is losing its relevance for modern life. Civilization evolves and becomes better, fairer, and generally more compassionate over time while the Bible is stuck in a crude, somewhat unenlightened period of human history. What could have been at least some mild evidence for divine intervention would have been biblical guidance that would have foreseen the future and discouraged the use of corporal <\/a>punishment.<\/p>\n

(35<\/strong>52<\/strong>) <\/strong>Twenty-two options for god(s)<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is a general theory that if a god or a group of gods exist and that it or they are influencing world events, personal lives, and inspiring messages of holy texts, that there would be a general unity of belief regarding this reality. Instead, we have the following 22 viable options for people to embrace whatever they choose to believe. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/onlysky.media\/jhmckenna\/22-options-on-god-find-yours-here\/<\/a><\/p>\n

1) Polytheists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0say there are many Gods, even into the thousands. Adore all the Gods or as many as you can. Polytheists say, since there is not\u00a0one<\/em>\u00a0of anything, why would there be just one God? For the polytheist, any arguments for one God may be used to argue for many Gods. Polytheism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

2) Henotheists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0admit many Gods too, but you may have time to adore only one, and that\u2019s okay because these are not jealous Gods.\u00a0Henotheism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

3) Kat-henotheists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0also acknowledge many Gods, but you may adore only one God at a time, moving from one God to another God at different periods of your life. Kat-henotheism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

4) Dystheists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0say there are many Gods, or one God, and not one of them is entirely good. Adore with caution.\u00a0Dystheism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

5) Dualists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0acknowledge two equally powerful Gods, one very Good and the other very Evil. Adore the good God.\u00a0The need for two Gods rests upon the world\u2019s oscillation between beauty and ugliness, delight and dread, kindness and cruelty, irises and Ebola viruses. The existence of an evil God exonerates the good God from any responsibility for evil or bad events, or animal and human suffering. For instance, a bloody world of predators and prey would seem to taint a good God\u2019s reputation for goodness; so why not blame an evil God for the theater of violence we see among animals and humans? In a family of Dualists you may hear the following exchange:\u00a0Child<\/em>: \u2018Mommy, did the God of Compassion create the talon, the fang, the claw? Did the God of Love create the malarial mosquito?\u2019\u00a0Mommy<\/em>: \u2018No, sweetie, the other God, the God of Cruelty made all those things.\u2019 Religions with a devil belief\u2014Christianity and Islam\u2014can come close to Dualism when they enlarge the power of the devil, as was done for 300 years during Europe\u2019s \u2018satanic panic\u2019 witchcraze\u20141400s, 1500s, 1600s. Dualism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

6) Monotheists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0declare there has only ever been one\u00a0God. Adore that God. One God is a simpler idea than many Gods and preferable for that reason. Seven or eight distinct (and opposing) monotheistic religions claim this God and define God in many different ways, with many different hues. Each successive monotheism throughout history (seven or eight of them) purports to supersede previous monotheisms by offering new revelations in new holy books inspired by the one God. Monotheism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us (though not as ancient as polytheism).<\/p>\n

7) Trinitarians<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0affirm one God in three \u2018persons\u2019: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Ghost. Adore each person of the Trinity. God the Father is the Creator. God the Son came to earth in human form as Jesus and died on a cross for human sins. God the Holy Ghost \u2018proceeds\u2019 from God the Father and God the Son and sends messages to humanity through prophets and comforts believers on earth. Other monotheists suspect this isn\u2019t mono-theism, but Christianity vigorously defends the oneness of three. Trinitarianism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us among Christians.<\/p>\n

8) Pantheists<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>state that God is identical to the many things of the physical-material world. The universe is God. You may adore God in your reverence for the universe. This is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

9) Pan-en-theists<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>claim that God is within the many things of the material world but distinct from the many things of the material world. God is both\u00a0immanent<\/em>\u00a0to the material world and\u00a0transcendent<\/em>\u00a0to it\u2014God is within the material world and God is above it too. Adore this God in your esteem for the material world, or adore this God as something transcendent to the material world. Pan-en-theism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

10) Deists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0insist there is a God who created the universe but thereafter took no interest in it. You do not adore this God because this God cares nothing about you or little about you, either because he doesn\u2019t know you exist, or because he cares about you as much as he cares about the life of an oyster (with due apologies to\u00a0The World Parliament of Insects, Mollusks, & Affiliated Clam Culture<\/em>).\u00a0Deism is about 300 years old. The name \u2018deism\u2019 is seldom used nowadays but the belief behind it still exists, and many people who believe in God believe in a \u2018distant\u2019 God who does not really attend to what we are doing on planet earth.<\/p>\n

11) Taoists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0say there\u2019s no God but there is an impersonal Force called the Tao (pronounced\u00a0Dow<\/em>) that pervades the universe and may be tapped into and utilized by humans (similar to \u2018The Force\u2019 in\u00a0Star<\/em>\u00a0Wars).\u00a0<\/em>Adoration is not necessary. Taoism is an ancient Chinese view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

12) Extra-Terrestrialists<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>say that what humans have been calling \u2018Gods\u2019 are actually non-supernatural galactic beings visiting earth from outer space and using modest ingredients to un-miraculously originate life on our planet; these beings have been monitoring human developments ever since. Adore when met. Extra-Terrestrialism dates to the 1940s or so, and there are numerous \u2018UFO religions\u2019 nowadays.<\/p>\n

13) Monists<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>proclaim there is only one item in existence: God. God is everything, everything is God, and everything is only one thing, namely God. Variety is an illusion and all the words we have for the many apparent existent things are superfluous. Thin the dictionary to the letter \u2018g\u2019 and the word \u2018God.\u2019 (Pantheism is different from monism in that pantheism admits the existence of many things.)\u00a0Monism is an ancient view, coming out of India, and it\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

14) Anatheists<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>say God cannot be rendered into any image or concept because the God that can be conceived is not the real God. The real God is unknowable and certainly beyond a human\u2019s brain to grasp. Adore this unknown and unknowable God. God is above human ideation and human words. All religions are flawed in that they cannot \u2018apprehend\u2019 God. Mystics in various religions make these kinds of claims and say they experience God\u00a0immediately<\/em>\u00a0(\u2018without mediation\u2019). That is, mystics claim to experience God without the mediation of religion, without holy saints, without holy buildings, or holy worship, or holy bells, books and candles, and even without thoughts and words. Mystics claim an\u00a0ineffable<\/em>\u00a0experience of God, and a few mystics who are capable write inch-thick books describing it (!)\u2014some of which are true works of literary art, studied by Ph.D.s university literature departments.\u00a0Anatheism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

15) Apotheosis-ists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(Euhemerists)<\/a>\u00a0say Gods were once humans who at some point achieved apotheosis, elevation to divinity.\u00a0Adore the worthy ones. This idea was widespread in the polytheisms of antiquity. Heretical versions of Christianity claimed this of Jesus in ancient times. Some forms of Buddhism are here, and Mormonism is here with the notion that God was once a human like us.\u00a0The concept of Apotheosis (human elevation to divinity)is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

16) Misotheists<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>follow Prometheus and hate all Gods because Gods are completely overbearing, pompous, fat-witted despots; and religion is a malignant cancer upon society. Adoration is inapt.\u00a0Misotheism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us. In modern times it appeared in a few 20th-century communist nations that outlawed and suppressed religion, and it appears in strident anti-theists.<\/p>\n

17) Atheists<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>find no\u00a0persuasive\u00a0arguments or\u00a0persuasive\u00a0evidence for God and no convincing idea of God on offer in six thousand years; and they say therefore, there must be no Gods. Some Buddhists are here. The Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism is an atheist (showing that even a \u2018religion\u2019 can be atheistic). Atheism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

18) Agnostics<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>means \u2018not knowing\u2019 and though these people remain unconvinced by every argument for God\u2019s existence they prefer to withhold judgment as to whether God exists, saying \u2018I don\u2019t know if there\u2019s a God\u2019\u2014because they are also not totally convinced by atheist arguments against God. But remember that agnostics are not any kind of believer in God and do not hedge their bet by attending religious services or by praying, just in case there\u2019s a God. So, agnosticism is a species of unbelief. Agnosticism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us\u2014though the term itself (agnostic) was invented in 19th-century England.<\/p>\n

19) Skeptics<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0doubt everything, not only avowals about God, but also\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0claims to all knowledge. Skeptics say we can doubt\u00a0everything<\/em>\u00a0except mathematical conclusions and current reports about our own current state of consciousness (\u2018I am sad right now\u2019). A Skeptic might say, \u2018You claim to know God exists but you don\u2019t even know if Charlemagne existed.\u2019\u00a0Skepticism is an ancient view that\u2019s still with us.<\/p>\n

20) Freethinkers<\/a>\/Humanists<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>may\u00a0be atheists, agnostics or skeptics or even heretical believers in God but they prefer a positive self-designation, a positive label, and not a negative label for themselves.\u00a0Freethinkers<\/strong>\u00a0arose a few hundred years ago in Europe to face the restraints placed on thought by religious dogma, which even today in certain parts of the world religion cudgels free thought and free speech.\u00a0Humanists<\/strong>, also a few hundred years old, affirm that all sense of value, worth, purpose, morality, goodness, and creativity comes solely from humanity, with no Gods to offer anything.\u00a0Whatever goodness is found (even in the religions) is really\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0a product of human creativity and human goodness. For instance, by this view, no God ever gave humanity a moral rule because\u00a0humans<\/em>\u00a0made the moral rules. The Humanist and the Freethinker often refuse to call themselves atheists (though they typically don\u2019t believe in Gods) because they say no one should be required to label themselves based on dissent to other people\u2019s beliefs. Theists (God believers) would seem to require that all people label themselves based on whether we all agree or disagree with theism, and if we disagree, then we should label ourselves \u2018atheist\u2019 (i.e., not theists). Humanists and Freethinkers say, \u2018No thanks. We feel no need to label ourselves based on our rejection of your beliefs. We also reject astrology but we don\u2019t feel any need to label ourselves as\u00a0a-astrologists<\/em>. We don\u2019t believe in faeries either and we don\u2019t label ourselves\u00a0a-faerie-ists<\/em>. And by the way, we don\u2019t like the label\u00a0unbeliever<\/em>\u00a0either, because everyone believes and disbelieves a lot of things and no one needs to label themselves an\u00a0unbeliever<\/em>\u00a0because they disbelieve something. You ask if we\u00a0believe<\/em>\u00a0in God? Yes, we\u00a0believe<\/em>\u00a0God is a recurring character in world mythologies.\u2019\u00a0 The terms Freethinker and Humanist are about 400 years old.<\/p>\n

21) Indifferentists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0or\u00a0Apatheists<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0are completely unconcerned about religion or God. They see religion as irrelevant to their life and of trivial importance. They would almost rather discuss anything than talk about religion. This is growing in our somewhat \u2018post-religious\u2019 Western world. It\u2019s most common among young people age 30 and below. Ask them if they\u2019ve ever thought about whether a God exists and they might say,\u00a0 \u2018I never gave it any thought.\u2019<\/p>\n

22) Ignostics<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>advise us to give up the word \u2018God\u2019 and rub it from the world\u2019s lexicons and never utter it again. Why? Because we have established over many thousands of years that we do not know what the word \u2018God\u2019 signifies, as indisputably displayed in humanity\u2019s profound disagreements about God, evinced in this very roster of twenty-two. If a Martian from outer space were to land on Earth and ask the human race what God is, the Martian would hear only a cacophony of\u00a0discordant<\/em>\u00a0voices\u2014proof enough that humans don\u2019t know what they\u2019re talking about when they talk about \u2018God.\u2019 Ask an Ignostic\u00a0\u2018Do you believe in God?\u2019\u00a0and the reply comes: \u2018I don\u2019t know what you mean by the question.\u2019 Ignosticism is a 21st-century coinage combining two words: agnostic and ignorant.<\/p>\n

It is fairly certain that in a world under the influence of an actual supernatural being, particularly an omnipotent one as espoused by Christianity, that there would be fewer than 22 views of the existence of such beings. It would be a much smaller number that could approach unity, especially if that god is imminently involved in peoples\u2019 lives, as the Christian god is claimed to be. The plethora of forms of god-belief is evidence that no gods exist, or that if they do, they\u2019re leaving us <\/a>alone.<\/p>\n

(3553) Christ dies with the death of miracles<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christianity is doomed. It will fall because it is built on a crumbling foundation formed by its claims of miracles. As humans come to realize that miracles are literally impossible, and we move into a post-miraculous world, Christianity will become another dead mythology that no longer belongs in any discussion of factual history. The following is an excerpt from John E. Remsburg\u2019s book THE CHRIST A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidences of His Existence:<\/p>\n

Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of
\nwhose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist.<\/p>\n

From the beginning to the end of this Christ’s earthly career he
\nis represented by his alleged biographers as a supernatural being endowed with superhuman powers. He is conceived without a natural father: “Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:<\/p>\n

When, as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. i, 18).<\/p>\n

His ministry is a succession of miracles. With a few loaves and
\nfishes he feeds a multitude:<\/p>\n

“And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed and brake
\nthe loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took up twelve baskets full of the fragments, and of the fishes. And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men” (Mark vi, 41-44).<\/p>\n

He walks for miles upon the waters of the sea:<\/p>\n

“And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the multitudes away. And when he had sent the multitudes away, he went up into a mountain apart to
\npray; and when the evening was come, he was there alone. But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves; for the wind was contrary. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them,
\nwalking on the sea” (Matt. xiv, 22-25).<\/p>\n

He bids a raging tempest cease and it obeys him:<\/p>\n

“And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full…. And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm”
\n(Mark, iv, 37-39).<\/p>\n

He withers with a curse the barren fig tree:<\/p>\n

“And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee, henceforth, forever. And presently the fig tree withered away” (Matt. xxi, 19).<\/p>\n

He casts out devils:<\/p>\n

“And in the synagogue there was a man, which had a spirit of an unclean devil…. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the devil had thrown him in the midst, he came out of him and hurt him not” (Luke iv, 33, 35).<\/p>\n

He cures the incurable:<\/p>\n

“And as he entered into a certain village, there met him ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off; and
\nthey lifted up their voices, and said, Jesus, Master, have mercy on us. And when he saw them, he said unto them, Go show yourselves unto the priests. And it came to pass, that, as they went, they were cleansed” (Luke xvii, 12-14).<\/p>\n

He restores to life a widow’s only son:<\/p>\n

“And when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow; and much people of the city were with her. And when the Lord saw her, he had compassion on her, and said unto her, Weep not. And he came and touched the bier; and they that bore him stood still. And he said, Young man, I say unto thee, Arise. And he that was dead sat up, and began to speak. And he
\ndelivered him to his mother” (Luke vii, 12-15).<\/p>\n

He revivifies the decaying corpse of Lazarus:<\/p>\n

“Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead…. Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already…. And when he had thus
\nspoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth. And he that was dead came forth” (John xi, 14-44).<\/p>\n

At his crucifixion nature is convulsed, and the inanimate dust of the grave is transformed into living beings who walk the streets of Jerusalem:<\/p>\n

“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints, which slept, arose and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many” (Matt. xxvii, 50-53).<\/p>\n

He rises from the dead:<\/p>\n

“And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock; and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed…. And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door…. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail”
\n(Matt. xxvii, 59, 60; xxviii, 2, 9).<\/p>\n

He ascends bodily into heaven:<\/p>\n

“And he led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven” (Luke xxiv, 50, 51).<\/p>\n

These and a hundred other miracles make up to a great extent this so-called Gospel History of Christ. To disprove the existence of these miracles is to disprove the existence of this Christ.<\/p>\n

Canon Farrar makes this frank admission: “If miracles be incredible, Christianity is false. If Christ wrought no miracles, then the Gospels are untrustworthy” (Witness of History to Christ, p. 25).<\/p>\n

Dean Mansel thus acknowledges the consequences of the successful denial of miracles: “The whole system of Christian belief with its evidences, … all Christianity in short, so far as it has any title to that name, so far as it has any special relation to the person or the teaching of Christ, is overthrown” (Aids to Faith, p. 3).<\/p>\n

Dr. Westcott says: “The essence of Christianity lies in a miracle; and if it can be shown that a miracle is either impossible or incredible, all further inquiry into the details of its history is superfluous” (Gospel of the Resurrection, p. 34).<\/p>\n

A miracle, in the orthodox sense of the term, is impossible
\nand incredible. To accept a miracle is to reject a demonstrated
\ntruth. The world is governed, not by chance, not by caprice, not by special providences, but by the laws of nature; and if there be one truth which the scientist and the philosopher have established, it is this: THE LAWS OF NATURE ARE IMMUTABLE. If the laws of Nature are immutable, they cannot be suspended; for if they could be suspended, even by a god, they would not be immutable. A single suspension of these laws would prove their mutability. Now these alleged miracles
\nof Christ required a suspension of Nature’s laws; and the suspension of these laws being impossible the miracles were impossible, and not performed. If these miracles were not performed, then the existence of this supernatural and miracle-performing Christ, except as a creature of the human imagination, is incredible and impossible.<\/p>\n

Alluding to Christ’s miracles, M. Renan, a reverential admirer of Jesus of Nazareth, says: “Observation, which has never been once falsified, teaches us that miracles never happen but in times and countries in which they are believed, and before persons disposed to believe them. No miracle ever occurred in the presence of men capable of testing its miraculous character….. It is not, then, in the name of this or that philosophy, but in the name of universal experience, that we banish miracles from history” (Life of Jesus, p. 29).<\/p>\n

Christianity arose in what was preeminently a miracle-working age. Everything was attested by miracles, because nearly everybody believed in miracles and demanded them. Every religious teacher was a worker of miracles; and however trifling the miracle might be when wrought, in this atmosphere of unbounded credulity, the breath of exaggeration soon expanded it into marvelous proportions.<\/p>\n

To show more clearly the character of the age which Christ
\nillustrates, let us take another example, the Pythagorean teacher, Apollonius of Tyana, a contemporary of the Galilean. According to his biographers–and they are as worthy of credence as the Evangelists–his career, particularly in the miraculous events attending it, bore a remarkable resemblance to that of Christ. Like Christ, he was a divine
\nincarnation; like Christ his miraculous conception was announced before his birth; like Christ he possessed in childhood the wisdom of a sage; like Christ he is said to have led a blameless life; like Christ his moral teachings were declared to be the best the world had known; like Christ he remained a celibate; like Christ he was averse to riches; like Christ he purified the religious temples; like Christ he predicted future events; like Christ he performed miracles, cast out devils, healed the sick, and restored the dead to life; like Christ he died, rose from the grave, ascended to heaven, and was worshiped as a god.<\/p>\n

The Christian rejects the miraculous in Apollonius because it is
\nincredible; the Rationalist rejects the miraculous in Christ for
\nthe same reason. In proof of the human character of the religion of Apollonius and the divine character of that of Christ it may be urged that the former has perished, while the latter has survived. But this, if it proves anything, proves too much. If the survival of Christianity proves its divinity, then the survival of the miracle-attested faiths of Buddhism and Mohammedanism, its powerful and nourishing rivals, must
\nprove their divinity also. The religion of Apollonius languished and died because the conditions for its development were unfavorable; while the religions of Buddha, Christ, and Mohammed lived and thrived because of the propitious circumstances which favored their development.<\/p>\n

With the advancement of knowledge the belief in the supernatural is disappearing. Those freed from Ignorance, and her dark sister, Superstition, know that miracles are myths. In the words of Matthew Arnold, “Miracles are doomed; they will drop out like fairies and witchcraft, from among the matter which serious people believe” (Literature and Dogma).<\/p>\n

In a world without television, cameras, and cell phones, the concept of miracles could seem more possible, but we are living in a hyper-documented existence today that could detect even faint signals of any miraculous phenomena. That we don\u2019t see this causes us to ask the following question- what is more likely- that the natural order of the universe was overturned in the ancient past, or that people made up stories of the same? If the consensus lands on the latter, then Christianity is <\/a>dead.<\/p>\n

(3554)Apostles disappear without a trace<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christian tradition has it that all of Jesus\u2019 apostles died as martyrs, but there is a big problem with that claim- although they all must have died by approximately CE 70, and almost all of the New Testament was written after that time, there is no scriptural mention of these executions except for Stephen, the replacement for Judas (not an original apostle). Additionally, the time and place of these alleged martrydoms was a period of great tolerance for various forms of religious belief. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.gutenberg.org\/cache\/epub\/46986\/pg46986.txt<\/a><\/p>\n

What became of the Twelve Apostles?<\/p>\n

The New Testament, a portion of which is admitted to have been written as late as the latter part of the first century and nearly all of which was really written in the second century, is silent regarding them. Christian martyrology records their fates as follows:<\/p>\n

St. Peter was crucified, at his own request head downward, and buried in the Vatican at Rome.<\/p>\n

St. Andrew, after having been scourged seven times upon his naked body, was crucified by the proconsul of Achaia.<\/p>\n

St. James was beheaded by Herod Antipas in Palestine.<\/p>\n

St. John was “thrown into a cauldron of boiling oil” by Domitian, but God “delivered him.”<\/p>\n

St. Philip was scourged and crucified or hanged by the magistrates of Hierapolis.<\/p>\n

St. Bartholomew was put to death by a Roman governor in Armenia.<\/p>\n

St. Matthew suffered martyrdom at Naddabar in Ethiopia.<\/p>\n

St. Thomas was shot to death with arrows by the Brahmans in India.<\/p>\n

St. James the Less was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple at Jerusalem and dispatched with a club where he fell.<\/p>\n

St. Simon was “crucified and buried” in Britain.<\/p>\n

St. Jude was “cruelly put to death” by the Magi of Persia.<\/p>\n

St. Matthias, the successor of Judas Iscariot, if Christian traditionis to be credited, was put to death three times, crucified, stoned, and beheaded.<\/p>\n

Nothing can be more incredible than these so-called traditions regarding the martyrdom of the Twelve Apostles, the most of them occurring in an empire where all religious sects enjoyed as perfect religious freedom as the different sects do in America today. Whatever opinion may be entertained respecting the existence of Jesus, the Twelve Apostles belong to the realm of mythology, and their alleged martyrdoms are pure inventions. Had these men really existed Christian history at least would contain some reliable notice of them, yet all the stories relating to them, like the story of Peter at Rome, and John at Ephesus, are self-evident fictions. In the significant words of the eminent Dutch theologians, Dr. Kuenen, Dr. Oort and Dr. Hooykaas,<\/p>\n

“All the Apostles disappear without a trace.”<\/p>\n

It is suspicious that stories of apostleship martyrdom escaped the attention of New Testament authors, but then suddenly appeared centuries late. Adding to the suspicion is that these stories were good marketing tools for the faith. And a corollary is to question why God\/Jesus would not protect his closest followers so that they could continue to evangelize the <\/a>world.<\/p>\n

(3555) Tax collector identity<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christian apologists have tried to smooth out an apparent contradiction between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew regarding the name of the tax collector who became one of Jesus\u2019 disciples. As explained in the following, this problem is not resolvable:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AcademicBiblical\/comments\/tcp88z\/questions_about_the_case_for_christ_claims\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Consider too, that the traditional claim of Matthew’s identity has problems as well. In Mark, the tax collectors name is Levi. In Matthew it is Matthew. There’s no textual reason to think the tax collector had two names or if he did, why, that wasn’t communicated by the author of Matthew. Matthew could have simply referred to the tax collector, Matthew, also called Levi. It’s just as plausible that IF Jesus recruited a tax collector, named Levi, he abandoned the movement, but Matthew\u2019s author liked the story so much that he substituted the name of an apostle for that of an apostate. More importantly, why does an eyewitness copy the story of his own calling from that of a non eyewitness? Matthew doesn’t tell the story that must have changed his life in his own words?<\/p>\n

Compare Mark 2:14 with Matthew 9:9:<\/p>\n

As he was walking along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax booth, and he said to him, \u201cFollow me.\u201d And he got up and followed him.<\/p>\n

As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man called Matthew sitting at the tax booth; and he said to him, \u201cFollow me.\u201d And he got up and followed him.<\/p>\n

Why not include the fact that Matthew was the son of Alphaeus if Levi and Matthew are the same person?<\/p>\n

Christians have often referred to this disciple as having both names, Levi and Matthew, but the logic behind this claim is weak. Given the fact that the author of Matthew was copying Mark, it appears more likely that he didn\u2019t like the name of Levi and substituted a name that he felt more comfortable <\/a>with.<\/p>\n

(3556) Inventing genocide<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sometimes a fictional story is invented to resolve an observation that has no other form of explanation. Such is the story in the Book of Joshua where the author documents a genocide of the Canaanite people, who were mysteriously absent from the population despite being prominent in ancient scripture. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskBibleScholars\/comments\/tb7nn1\/why_does_the_bible_describe_genocides_that_never\/<\/a><\/p>\n

One explanation is that by the seventh century BCE there were no Canaanites left in Israel. The older stories must have talked a lot about these so-called Canaanites, but no such group existed by the time\u00a0Joshua<\/em>\u00a0was being written. Therefore the author of feels the need to explain where they all went.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s Robert Alter on the topic:<\/p>\n

This gruesome story is intended as an explanation of a circumstance observed by audiences of the book in the seventh century and later\u2014that by then a non-Israelite Canaanite population was only vestigially in evidence. Where, one might wonder, did all these peoples\u2014seven in the traditional enumeration repeatedly invoked here\u2014go? Joshua\u2019s answer is that they were wiped out in the conquest, as Deuteronomy had enjoined. But the narrative of the genocide is a cover-up as well as an explanation. If the Canaanites seem to have disappeared, it was not because they were extirpated but because they had been assimilated by the Israelites, who had come to exercise political dominion over large portions of the land. There is good reason to assume that the Canaanites intermarried with the Israelites (a taboo for the Deuteronomist), had all kinds of social and economic intercourse with them, and shared with them many of their religious practices as well as many elements of their theology.<\/p>\n

In fact, some modern scholars no longer want to use the term Canaanite because of how vague it has turned out to be. Here\u2019s Mark S. Smith on that topic:<\/p>\n

At this point the field can probably do little better than categorize Ugaritic, Amorite, and Canaanite material all under the rubric of West Semitic… In the end, perhaps we should drop the term \u201cCanaanite\u201d as a modern category of analysis and just pay attention to its ancient uses.<\/p>\n

This is because the farther you go back the more indistinguishable these groups become. Canaanites were Israelites and vice versa. But in the minds of the author of\u00a0Joshua<\/em>\u00a0and his audience, they were a separate peoples whose disappearance needed to be accounted for.<\/p>\n

A modern-day equivalent is the purported genocide of the Nephites by the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon. This story was invented to explain why, although the lighter-skinned Jewish tribes had crossed into the Americas, only the dark-skinned Lamanites were there when the 15th<\/sup> Century explorers landed. When a group of people are missing, the best way to explain it is to say they were wiped out in <\/a>battle.<\/p>\n

(3557) Jesus never overturned the tables<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is so much consensus, from both religious and secular sources, that the story of Jesus overturning the tables at the temple is historical that a simple demonstration that it is most likely fictional is rather shocking. That is what is presented below:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.rationalrevolution.net\/blog\/?p=40<\/a><\/p>\n

I believe that the relationship between the temple cleansing scene in Mark and Hosea 9 is the single most important finding presented in\u00a0Deciphering the Gospels<\/em>. This is a simple and clear case of literary dependence that has significant implications on our understanding of how the Gospels were written, the historical validity of the Gospel narrative, and the validity of mainstream biblical scholarship. What I find so compelling about this particular issue is how concise, clear, and demonstrable it is. This isn\u2019t a case of vague interpretation or debatable positions that have no ultimate resolution, etc., this is a clear demonstrable evidence-based answer to a problem.<\/p>\n

So first let\u2019s review the case I put forward in Deciphering the Gospels:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe now arrive at one of the most important scenes for establishing our understanding of the Gospel called Mark and the other canonical Gospels. The reason that this scene is so important is because it is so widely believed to be historically true and it is seen as the justification for the Crucifixion. This scene is widely believed to be historically true because it exists in all four canonical Gospels, and it is not supernatural, so it is seemingly plausible. As we shall see throughout this book, however, the case against the historical validity of the temple-cleansing scene based on the literary evidence alone is overwhelming. So let\u2019s start by looking at the literary allusion used to craft this scene.<\/p>\n

Mark 11:
\n12 The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. 13\u00a0Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs.<\/strong>\u00a014 Then he said to the tree, \u201cMay no one ever eat fruit from you again.\u201d And his disciples heard him say it.
\n15\u00a0On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there<\/strong>. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves, 16 and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. 17 And as he taught them, he said, \u201cIs it not written:
\n\u201c\u2018My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations\u2019? But you have made it \u2018a den of robbers.\u2019\u201d
\n18 The chief priests and the teachers of the law heard this and began looking for a way to kill him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed at his teaching.
\n19 When evening came, they went out of the city.
\n20\u00a0In the morning, as they went along, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots.<\/strong>\u00a021 Peter remembered and said to Jesus, \u201cRabbi, look! The fig tree you cursed has withered!\u201d<\/p>\n

This scene is clearly based on a passage from the book of Hosea, shown below:<\/p>\n

Hosea 9:
\n1 Do not rejoice, O Israel; do not be jubilant like the other nations. For you have been unfaithful to your God; \u2026
\n7 The days of punishment are coming, the days of reckoning are at hand. Let Israel know this. Because your sins are so many and your hostility so great, the prophet is considered a fool, the inspired man a maniac.
\n8\u00a0The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim, yet snares await him on all his paths, and hostility in the house of his God.<\/em>
\n9 They have sunk deep into corruption, as in the days of Gibeah. God will remember their wickedness and punish them for their sins.
\n10 \u2018When I found Israel, it was like finding grapes in the desert;\u00a0when I saw your fathers, it was like seeing the early fruit on the fig tree.<\/strong>\u00a0But when they came to Baal Peor, they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol and became as vile as the thing they loved.
\n11 Ephraim\u2019s glory will fly away like a bird\u2014no birth, no pregnancy, no conception.
\n12 Even if they rear children, I will bereave them of every one. Woe to them when I turn away from them!
\n13 I have seen Ephraim, like Tyre, planted in a pleasant place. But Ephraim will bring out their children to the slayer.\u201d
\n14 Give them, O LORD\u2014what will you give them? Give them wombs that miscarry and breasts that are dry.
\n15 \u201cBecause of all their wickedness in Gilgal, I hated them there.\u00a0Because of their sinful deeds, I will drive them out of my house.<\/strong>\u00a0I will no longer love them; all their leaders are rebellious.
\n16\u00a0Ephraim is blighted, their root is withered, they yield no fruit.<\/strong>\u00a0Even if they bear children, I will slay their cherished offspring.\u2019
\n17 My God will reject them because they have not obeyed him;<\/p>\n

We can see in the Gospel text that the cursing of the fig tree, the driving out of people from the temple (house of God), and the hostility toward Jesus are all related elements that are drawn from Hosea 9. All of these elements and the order in which they are presented in the Gospel called Mark are necessary to make the association between Hosea 9 and the narrative.<\/p>\n

Most important, however, is that if we accept the fact that the Markan narrative is actually a literary allusion, then it means this scene is not based on any real event that ever took place. It means that \u201cJesus\u201d never cursed a fig tree, and \u201cJesus\u201d never threw anyone out of the temple. None of this actually ever happened; this isn\u2019t a historical event. The scene is merely a literary allusion, yet every other Gospel contains the temple-cleansing scene. If the cleansing of the temple comes from Hosea 9, not from a real-world event, then the fact that it exists in all of the other Gospels means that all of the other Gospels, including John, had to have ultimately gotten the scene from Mark, as we will explore in chapter 3.
\nthat is most widely believed to be true, even by secular New Testament scholars. The fact that this scene is based on a literary allusion has not been recognized even by top theologians and Bible scholars.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2013 R. G. Price; Deciphering the Gospels; pp 21-23<\/p>\n

If the author of Mark used a scripture in Hosea as a template for his \u2018biography\u2019 of Jesus, then it means that the entire gospel is suspect and cannot be relied upon to be historical. What makes this case even worse for Christianity is that the temple cleansing story was seen to be firmly rooted in history because it painted Jesus in an unflattering light- against what otherwise was a unanimously flattering portrayal. If Mark copied Hosea, it brings into question\u00a0 whether Jesus was even a real <\/a>person.<\/p>\n

(3558) Demons suddenly appear in the gospels<\/strong><\/p>\n

Something changes dramatically when one reads the Bible and then starts in to the gospels- all of a sudden there are demons popping up everywhere and they need to be cast out of their victims. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we read of anyone who is casting out demons.<\/p>\n

There are several explanation for this:<\/p>\n

(1) Demons did not inhabit people until Jesus appeared on earth.<\/p>\n

(2) Demons existed in Old Testament times, but no one had the authority to cast them out until Jesus came around.<\/p>\n

(3) Demons are mythical and only became objects of religious fantasy when Greek and pagan influences infiltrated the gospels.<\/p>\n

Considering (1) above, it is possible but highly improbable that demons would have sequestered themselves off-planet until they became angered by Jesus\u2019 earthly presence. Supposedly, they had been around for a long time beforehand as part of Satan\u2019s army after the heavenly rebellion. So why would they not have been motivated to mess up the lives of the Israelites?<\/p>\n

Considering (2) above, it would seem unlikely that, even if no one possessed the authority to command demons, their existence would have been felt and therefore they would have been discussed in scripture as a perennial affliction.<\/p>\n

Considering (3) above, Occam’s Razor tells us that this it the correct <\/a>explanation.<\/p>\n

(3559) Double jeopardy<\/strong><\/p>\n

There exists a theological contradiction in the Bible regarding the process by which justice is meted out. For certain transgressions, punishment is applied both in this life and the next, representing a form of double jeopardy. It raises the question of why an earthly punishment is not sufficient in the eyes of God. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateReligion\/comments\/teldc7\/religions_double_jeopardy_problem\/<\/a><\/p>\n

There is a contradiction at the heart of some eschatological religions \u2013 or, at least, their interpretations \u2013 that I think can only be solved by recognizing that it is necessary to have a secular ethical system. The contradiction is this: an eschatological religion is one that has in it the claim that judgment and justice will be meted out at death, and yet some of them also call for a punitive justice system to be installed on Earth. Let\u2019s call it the \u2018Double Jeopardy Contradiction\u2019. My argument is that only by separating religious and worldly conception of justice can this contradiction be resolved.<\/p>\n

It is worth creating some examples, to demonstrate this Double Jeopardy Contradiction. The simplest examples are to point out the times that there are solely religious commands, and a worldly punishment prescribed. Exodus 31:15 says that someone working on the Sabbath should be put to death; Leviticus 21:13 says that the act of homosexuality should also be punished by death; Leviticus 24:16 punishes blasphemy with stoning to death; Heresy, in Deuteronomy 17:7 follows much the same path.<\/p>\n

The Double Jeopardy Contradiction alludes to two ideas not yet established: that a guilty person is being punished twice, and that this is a contradiction at some point in the theology. The Double Jeopardy element, I think, is simple to establish; eschatological religions have the just punishment (or reward) for your actions saved up for the afterlife. Whatever you do will be justly met after death. That\u2019s the entirety of your just punishment. Another parenthetical point I just want to sign post, but not get into, is the idea of the infinite punishment somehow being just; short of a tyrannical dictate of \u2018because I say so\u2019, it\u2019s difficult to see how you could even imagine defending an infinite response to a worldly transgression. But, on top of this damnation, the transgressor also gets the biggest punishment humanity can mete out: stoning to death.<\/p>\n

Once this Double Jeopardy is laid out \u2013 that the transgressor received the worst punishment that can be given in human form, a slow and painful death; and then given a further fully just punishment in spiritual form in the afterlife \u2013 the contradiction starts to lay itself out: if the spiritual punishment is full and just, then the commanded bodily punishment must push the total punishment received over the just level. And so God\u2019s commands and acts, taken together, exceed that of a just response. Which is to say that it\u2019s unjust to have both punishments.<\/p>\n

To be punished both before and after death is a macabre facet of Christian theology that renders it highly unlikely to be the product of a benevolent god; a god who, being infinitely intelligent, would understand that humans are inherently flawed and cannot be expected to be perfect in any sense. Nevertheless, if punishment is needed, it should\u00a0 be applied only once, and a real god would know <\/a>that.<\/p>\n

(3560) Omitted verses<\/strong><\/p>\n

The fidelity of the Bible is in question because there are many verses that were included in the King James Version that have been deleted from the New Living Translation and the New International Version. The reason for these omissions, other than simply wanting to remove them to improve Christianity\u2019s image, is that they don\u2019t appear in some of the older manuscripts that were unavailable to the King James Bible translators. The following lists some of these omissions:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/truthunedited.com\/study\/bible-verses-removed-from-nlt-niv-versions\/<\/a><\/p>\n

\"BIBLE<\/p>\n

What must be asked is how a book ghost-written by an omnipotent god, and fully in his purview as his central communication to humankind, could end up with disputed verses. Did God inspire the original authors and then removed himself from the stage, allowing human errors to dilute his \u2018perfect\u2019 message? No, this appears to be a human effort from the very <\/a>start.<\/p>\n

(3561) Where is Satan located?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christians put up a defense shield if you ask them where God or Jesus is located. They will not answer this is any geographical sense, because they know that if they do, they are running into trouble trying to maintain the concept of God\u2019s omnipotence. Pinning God to a certain location would preclude him from being able to control the entire universe in real time as well as being able to hear and answer prayers, some of which need an immediate response.<\/p>\n

So the apologetic approach is to say that God is everywhere or is in some other dimension that allows him instant access to every cubic millimeter of the universe.<\/p>\n

This might satisfy that problem, but what about Satan? Where is he located? They would be loathe to think that he, like God, occupies the entire universe. But if they concede that Satan is confined to a certain location, then how could he have any measurable power at all? How could he see what is happening in Sydney if he\u2019s in New York? And really, how could Satan bother you unless he is physically in your room?<\/p>\n

Christian apologetics are creative, if not logical. So what they might try to submit is the idea that Satan has an army of demons that he sends out on special missions. These demons supposedly can wreak havoc by commandeering peoples\u2019 minds. And because religious fantasy has no bounds, they can claim that there are enough demons to blanket our planet and get into everybody\u2019s business, so the fact that Satan, unlike God, is pinned to a certain location, his \u2018employees\u2019 are essentially everywhere doing his dirty work.<\/p>\n

But still, even with his army of demons spread out over the entire planet, Satan is still at a competitive disadvantage to God who, all by himself, can control everything without having to resort to educating and training angels and hoping that they competently follow his instructions to carry out his mission. In game play, it is an impossible situation for Satan. He sends out a demon to possess someone but when the demon arrives, God is there (because he\u2019s everywhere)… and how does it go when a demon goes up against God?<\/p>\n

So although Christianity tries to characterize Satan as a formidable opponent to God, he is hopelessly pinned down in his little isolated place while trying to compete with an omnipresent god. It is not a fair <\/a>fight.<\/p>\n

(3562) Paul was not a Christian<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christian apologetics usually considers Paul to be the original Christian or someone who advocated that Jesus had started a new religion that was a departure from Judaism. This is not true. As explained below, Paul was merely introducing a modification of Judaism that would offer Gentiles some of the blessings of the Jewish god:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/old.reddit.com\/r\/AcademicBiblical\/comments\/eke9rh\/what_modern_christian_teachings_commonly_taken\/<\/a><\/p>\n

So to make a long story relatively short (but still a long comment!), Paul emphatically positions himself as a Jew. Christian was not a category for Paul and he was not trying to start or spread a new ‘religion’ to everyone. He was a Jewish teacher of gentiles (e.g., Gal 1.15-16; 2.7-8). He offered gentiles access to the power, blessings, and rescue of a foreign deity (i.e., the Jewish god) because, according to Paul, the actions of a powerful subordinate of that deity (i.e., Christ) had made it possible for gentiles to be included in the deity’s coming kingdom as faithful subjects. For Paul, Christ was the leader sent by the Jewish god to enact the final stages of his plan for the rescue of Israel. Like some other Jewish writers of the time, Paul claimed that one stage of that plan was the inclusion or gathering of the nations – and Paul represents himself as an agent God and Christ had sent to help bring about that stage of the plan. In other words, Paul’s message or “gospel” was fundamentally Jewish and ethnically specific. Gentiles could be included in the Jewish god’s rescue as gentiles, but it was the ancestral or ethnic promises to the Jews\/Israelites to which Paul claimed he was offering gentiles access.<\/p>\n

Think about Galatians. Paul’s competitors are other Jewish teachers of gentiles who likewise thought Christ was the leader sent by God to finalize his plan. But these teachers taught that gentiles who wanted to be included needed to keep the Jewish law because, after all, they were supposed to be subjects of the Jewish god (see Acts 15.1, 5 for other examples of such teachers). They apparently had other pretty simple, powerful, and ethnically specific arguments: e.g., if God’s promises that involve the nations being included were given to Abraham and his descendants (as Genesis says, repeatedly), then don’t these gentiles need to be like Abraham and his descendants and keep the Jewish law? This is how other Jewish writings of the time imagined Abraham’s ‘faith’; i.e., it was faithfulness to the Jewish law and being circumcised (e.g., Sirach 44.19-21; 1 Macc 2.52 in context of its lawkeeping message). Passages from Genesis (e.g., 26.5) even seemed to go in this direction. This wasn’t about the other Jewish teachers saying that gentiles needed to keep the law to “earn” salvation, but about what it looks like to be faithful subjects of the Jewish god.<\/p>\n

Had Paul considered himself a Christian spreading a new religion separated from Judaism, he would have had a simple response. Something like: ‘No, you foolish Galatians, we are done with all that Jewish stuff. God has done something so new in Christ that Judaism, the law, and all that is irrelevant. Who cares about being descendants of Abraham, God has done something universal now!’<\/p>\n

But this is precisely how Paul does not respond. Instead he presumes ethnically specific Jewish schemes like his competitors, but interprets them differently. Gentiles still gain access to the Jewish god’s promises to Abraham through Christ. In fact, Paul has a myth about how, through Christ, gentiles become descendants of Abraham so they can inherit the ethnically specific promises to him and his descendants (Gal 3.15-29; see also Romans 4). It’s just that Paul (like some other Jewish teachers of his time) did not think gentiles needed to keep the ethnic customs (i.e., law) of the Jews to be included in Abrahamic descent and God’s promises. Christ had made it possible for Abraham to have two different kinds of descendants (e.g., Rom 4.11-12): those who keep the law (Jews) and those who do not (gentiles). And this is quite literally what Paul says the purpose of Christ’s death was: not to start a new, non-Jewish religion that brings salvation to everyone, but to allow the blessings of Abraham to come to gentiles (see Gal 3.13-14) so they could receive the promises\u00a0pneuma<\/em>\u00a0(i.e., “spirit”) and thus come to master their passions and live in ways required by the Jewish god and inherit his kingdom (see Gal 5.16-24).<\/p>\n

As you can see, this is not some irrelevant issue of semantics, but gets at the core of how Paul presents what he is up to and how he depicts the significance of Christ. Paul’s difference from some of his fellow Jews wasn’t that he had converted to become a Christian, but that he thought their god had already sent his eschatological leader and that said leader was Jesus. This did not make Paul no-longer-Jewish. According to Paul, it made him a Jew who knew the truth about God’s plan. And it seems that other Jewish teachers likewise thought Jesus was God’s\u00a0Christos<\/em>\u00a0even if they differed from Paul about what that means for how gentiles relate to the Jewish god after Christ. And none of them were “Christians.”<\/p>\n

One final point – this helps explain why Paul, as best we can tell, continued to think that Jewish followers of Jesus should keep the Jewish law. This is presumed at points in Paul’s letters, but not elaborated upon for a simple reason: Paul is explicit that he writes to gentiles, and when he writes about Jews it tends to be in ways that are about demonstrating his expertise in the Jewish god’s plans so he can market himself as the legitimate teacher of gentiles about the Jewish god’s plans for them. While Acts is not a useful independent source for learning about Paul, interestingly it gets this part of Paul right. See Acts 21.17-26. He expects Jews to continue keeping the Jewish law.<\/p>\n

For what it is worth, I did not come up with this way of understanding Paul. It goes by various names in NT scholarship such as the ‘Radical New Perspective’ or ‘Paul within Judaism’ movement. The earlier, better-known exponents of it were Lloyd Gaston and John Gager. Stanley Stowers’s\u00a0A Rereading of Romans: Justice, Jews, and Gentiles<\/em>\u00a0(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994) became an influential refinement and presentation of this position, which has continued being developed by others. Paula Fredriksen’s new book,\u00a0Paul: The Pagans’ Apostle<\/em>\u00a0(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), and Matthew Thiessen’s,\u00a0Paul and the Gentile Problem<\/em>\u00a0(New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), are recent examples. Pamela Eisenbaum wrote a popular book that translates this approach for non-scholarly audiences:\u00a0Paul Was Not A Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle<\/em>\u00a0(HarperOne, 2009). Obviously all of us who advocate this general approach disagree with each other on various specifics, including some major issues. But these basic frameworks are shared: that Paul remained a Jew and Christian was not a category he worked with, that he wrote to gentiles, that his directives about not keeping the Jewish law were for gentiles and not Jewish followers of Jesus, and that he was trying to bring about the Jewish god’s plan for the rescue of Israel and envisioned gentile inclusion as a stage within that plan.<\/p>\n

Paul has been misappropriated by modern Christianity, and had this not happened, Christianity would never have become a separate religion. Believers in Jesus would be followers of Judaism, or at least one specific sect of that <\/a>faith.<\/p>\n

(3563) Justifying eternal punishment<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christianity has a huge vulnerability because most theologians surmise that the Bible promotes the concept that sinful people will be forced to endure an eternity of painful punishment in hell. This implies that suicide will not be possible there. So Christian apologists must develop a rationale for why this situation is just- that is, they must do something to undergird the concept that \u2018God is good.\u2019 The following debunks the two most utilized excuses:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/DebateAChristian\/comments\/te45er\/eternal_punishment_in_hell_is_unjust\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Eternal punishment in Hell is unjust. Typically in these sorts of discussions, the atheist will argue that a finite crime does not warrant infinite punishment. To this, the Christian usually responds in one of two ways. Let\u2019s address both:<\/p>\n

Christian Response #1: \u201cGod is infinite so the punishment must also be infinite\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to this line of reasoning, when we sin against God, we are sinning against an infinite being. And as such, the punishment for a crime against an infinite being must also be infinite. In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, \u201cthe higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin. It is more criminal to strike a head of state than a private citizen, and God is of infinite greatness. Therefore an infinite punishment is deserved for a sin committed against Him.\u201d<\/p>\n

My Objection to Response #1:<\/strong><\/p>\n

We should be skeptical of this claim that \u201cthe higher the person against whom it is committed, the graver the sin.\u201d While it\u2019s true that striking the head of state is worthy of greater punishment, this is only because this action could potentially destabilize a nation and all the lives therein. It is not due to some inherent greater worth<\/em>\u00a0that the head of state possesses. Rather, we have created laws to protect those in authority to prevent the breakdown of the social fabric. This, however, is not applicable in the case of God. Surely God does not need protecting, and sinning against him does nothing to disrupt his position or authority over us. Sinning against God alone harms no one but ourselves. And the proper response to that, it would seem, is not punishment \u2014 but accountability and healing.<\/p>\n

Christian Response #2: \u201cYou never stop sinning in Hell, so infinite punishment is warranted\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

This argument says that in hell, it\u2019s not as if you cease from sinning. You are still sinning against God in hell, so God (being just) must continue to punish that sin indefinitely.<\/p>\n

My Objection to Response #2:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The only reason people continue to sin in hell is because they are being kept alive. A non-existent person cannot sin. God could punish sinners with total annihilation and then the cycle of sin-punishment would end. Sin only persists in hell because God would rather keep sinners alive to torture them instead of simply removing them from existence.<\/p>\n

This points out an obvious flaw in Christian theology- a benevolent god would be content for sinful people to simply cease existing. The application of eternal punishment removes the mantra that \u2018God is good\u2019 and replaces it with \u2018God is evil.\u2019 This was an avoidable mistake, but it\u2019s too late for Christianity to fix <\/a>it.<\/p>\n

(3564) No literal, unbiased translation<\/strong><\/p>\n

The mechanics of translating the Bible involve in many cases nothing more that guesses as to what the original author intended. Because Christians believe that God inspired the scripture, this means that the translators are having to guess what God intended. This seems like an ineffective way for God to communicate with humankind. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/www.reddit.com\/r\/AskBibleScholars\/comments\/tf6rdr\/what_is_the_most_literaldirect_translation_of_the\/<\/a><\/p>\n

There is no such thing as an absolutely literal, unbiased translation. Every translator has bias and every translator must make difficult decisions. That\u2019s what the art\/science of text criticism is all about.<\/p>\n

For example, Song of Songs 1:5 says \u201cI am black (waw) beautiful.\u201d The conjunction waw can be translated in variety of ways, but most importantly for this example, it can be translated as \u201cand\u201d or \u201cbut.\u201d So is the woman speaker saying \u201cI\u2019m black and beautiful\u201d or \u201cI am black but beautiful\u201d? The translator must make a choice one way or the other.<\/p>\n

Take another example: In Gen 1, the \u201cruach\u201d of God hovers over the waters of creation. Ruach can be translated as wind, breath, or spirit. Which one of these did the author intend? There are decent arguments for each. Perhaps the author was purposely playing with the ambiguity?<\/p>\n

If you want an absolutely literal translation, it\u2019s going to be unreadable. There are some out there, like Young\u2019s Literal Translation, that attempt to be as literal as possible. David Bentley Hart produced a really wooden translation of the NT recently. These are extremely wooden sounding and still have their own degree of bias (like DBH claiming to be absolutely literal and unbiased but refusing to translate \u201cbaptidzo\u201d as \u201cdunk\u201d or \u201cplunge\u201d). I don\u2019t recommend either of them.<\/p>\n

Most of the scholarly community utilizes the NRSV (when not reading from the original languages, of course). It uses the most up-to-date manuscript evidence. It\u2019s translation committee is made up of people of various faith traditions. It tries to render a text accurately, while also trying to preserve the poetic beauty of the texts.<\/p>\n

Because language translations are inherently inaccurate, and the fact that the intrinsic meaning of words evolves in any given language, along with words that are added or discarded over time, it is a very inefficient process for God to inspire a book in an ancient language and then expect that it can be accurately translated into other, future, and evolving languages. Each step in this process dilutes the idea that was originally put into text and introduces more human bias and agenda. The final product reflects all of these defects and leaves modern humans guessing what the original author (or God) intended.<\/p>\n

How would a real god deal with this problem? It would probably provide (miraculously) books that cover every language, along with updates over time addressing evolving languages, ameliorating morals and ethics, and the emergence of new technologies. The Christian god seems to be OK with large and growing <\/a>ambiguities.<\/p>\n

(3565) Prayer defects<\/strong><\/p>\n

Christianity extols the practice of prayer. It is a central uniting theme of the faith, heavily promoted (and hugely over-promised) by Jesus himself. But a simple analysis of prayer in conjunction with Christian dogma reveals that there are some serious problems. The following was taken from:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/onlysky.media\/bseidensticker\/the-last-thing-ukraine-needs-is-prayer\/<\/a><\/p>\n

If you\u2019ve puzzled at all about how prayer is supposed to work, you\u2019ll have already thought of some of these problems.<\/p>\n