Again, I do not believe in this mythical God or any of the other mythical Gods that all followers claim are true. I only provide the scriptures to prove what is actually stated in Scripture. Judge for yourself!
Notice something rather profound about the Scriptures I am about to post. Notice the two post at the top of this blog regarding all evil being of God and that none have free will. If man has no free will and ALL is OF God, to include Evil (if Evil has happened, have I (god) not done it?) then God couldn’t justly or righteously punish men for all those things for which HE has done. Therefore, those scriptures fit with the following and ALL men would be saved….if God is just and righteous.
First, Check This ONE out!!!!
“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that brings good tidings, that publish peace; that brings GOOD TIDINGS of GOOD [not like Bush and the Christian Party of Family Values that bring infinite acts of eternal terrorism and war], that publishes SALVATION … The LORD hath made bare His holy arm in the eyes of ALL THE NATIONS, and ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH SHALL SEE THE SALVATION OF OUR GOD” (Isa. 52:7 & 10). Wow, did you catch that one? ALL!!!
Now for more Scriptural PROOF that God will save ALL MEN:
“For THIS is GOOD AND ACCEPTABLE in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have ALL men…(WHAT? Did it say ALL)… ALL men to be saved…” (I Tim. 2:3-4).
Some will tell you the word “WILL” is improperly translated and what it should be is the word “Desires“. With such a comment, they think the argument is over and therefore their God will NOT save ALL men. HOWEVER, I have no problem with them wanting to change the translations because GOD also stated “my Desires WILL be done” and “my pleasures will be done” and of course “my will be done”.
Another Witness?
“For God has concluded them all [both the Israelites and the Gentiles—see verses 25-31] in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon ALL. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God? How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? Or who has first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Rom. 11:32-36).
Another Witness?
“I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL men unto me” (John 12:32).
Again, he stated he would draw ALL men unto him. Not some men, not 5 percent, not only those that believe. ALL!! It doesn’t state he will NOT draw all men unto him…does it? Of course not. Either he will draw ALL men or he Will NOT. Scriptures say he WILL!
“For even as, in Adam, all are dying, thus also, in Christ, shall all be vivified” (I Cor. 15:22).
Again, notice the use of the word ALL. He didn’t say just those that believe will be vivified or only 5 percent. He made it very clear…shall ALL. If you don’t like it, tell it to God. Apparently they are his words.
“To wit that God was in Christ, reconciling THE WORLD unto Himself, NOT imputing THEIR TRESPASSES [SINS] AGAINST THEM” (II Cor. 5:19)
Wow, as if the word ALL was not strong enough. God seems to want to make it clear and say THE WORLD….is that clear enough? Those that believe say God will NOT impute their trespasses.
“The Lamb of God, which takes away the SIN OF THE WORLD” (John 1:29).
“And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our’s only, but also for THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD” (I John 2:2).
OH MY, God had the nerve to clarify it more!! Now he stated THE WHOLE WORLD! Yet some will still DENY this word of their very own God. They prefer to preach the false doctrine that a Moral God of Love will torture his children with fire for eternity. Wow.
Some will say, NO, it is impossible, God will not save the world. But what does God say?
With men this is impossible; but with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE” (Matt. 19:25-26).
Now, I am going to provide you another scripture that demonstrates that being saved is not exclusive to those that believe. Shocking, isn’t it?
“This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation. For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God Who is the Saviour of ALL MEN specially [specially does not mean ‘exclusively’] of those that believe” (I Tim. 4:10).
Holy Crap, did you get that?
“Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name [that name is JESUS] under heaven given among men, whereby we MUST be saved” (Acts 4:12). MUST? If God the ALL Mighty says it MUST happen, if I believed in him my money would be on him.
Think about this:
“That in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together in one ALL in Christ, both which are IN HEAVEN, and which are ON EARTH, IN HIM” (Eph. 1:10). And so here is our Scripture which clearly states that “ALL” in both heaven and earth will become “ONE IN Christ.” Now they are no longer just given life in Christ, but now they are SAVED, they are “one in Christ!”
Let’s read it again. A verse this important and all encompassing cannot be over emphasized:
“That in the dispensation of the fullness of times He might gather together IN ONE [just as in harvest time] ALL IN Christ, BOTH WHICH ARE IN HEAVEN, AND WHICH ARE ON EARTH; IN HIM.”
Next book, Phil. 2:9-11:
“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE should bow, of [those] in heaven, and those in earth, and those under [all who have died] the earth: And that EVERY TONGUE should confess that Jesus Christ IS LORD to the glory of God the Father.”
Must be important if God gives a SECOND WITNESS:
“I HAVE SWORN BY myself, the word is gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto Me EVERY KNEE shall bow, EVERY TONGUE shall swear” (Isaiah 45:23).
Must be REAL important if God gives us a THIRD WITNESS:
“For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, EVERY KNEE shall bow to me, and EVERY TONGUE shall confess to God” (Rom. 14:11).
It is futile to say that I Cor. 15: 22 means only the all who are “in” Christ will be saved, even though the order of words is clear in all translations. It is not “all IN Christ” that is spoken of in this verse, but rather “in Christ ALL” that is spoken of. But later, after resurrection, after judgment, “in the dispensation of the fullness of times,” we learn that, indeed, it is “ALL in Christ” and now the “ALL” is EVERYONE IN HEAVENS AND ON THE EARTH—ALL OF GOD’S CREATURES!
By the way, for all those ultra-stubborn ones who say that, yes, all will bow their knees, and if they don’t God will break their knees and force them to confess that “Jesus is LORD,” let me present this Scripture:
“…no man CAN SAY that Jesus is the Lord BUT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT” (I Cor. 12:3b).
Now then, when “ALL” in both heaven and earth are gathered into one “IN Christ,” absolutely no one is left out. This is also in perfect harmony with other Scriptures regarding the salvation of everyone in both the heavens and the earth, and even those dead and six feet UNDER the earth.
TO BE “IN CHRIST” IS SALVATION
What does it mean to be “IN Christ” seeing that ALL IN HEAVEN AND EARTH WILL BE “IN Christ?”
“Therefore if any man be IN Christ, he is a NEW CREATURE: old things are passed away; behold, ALL things are become new.”
How many will be reconciled “IN Christ?”
“To wit, that God was IN Christ, reconciling THE WORLD unto Himself, NOT IMPUTING THEIR TREPASSES UNTO THEM…” (II Cor. 5:17 & 19).
Of course, how could it be otherwise? Jesus doesn’t make just “some” new creatures from the old, no, He makes “ALL THINGS … NEW.” And we all know this verse:
“There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION to them which are IN Christ Jesus…”
How many will be IN Christ? We read it: “ALL.” There is coming the time when there will be no more condemnation IN ANYONE ANYWHERE! Praise God and BELIEVE IT!
Take a look at my post regarding the Book of Revelation and see that Chapter one and Verse one make it clear that it is a book of symbols. Not Literal Fire burning Literal flesh. Note, the Angel “signified” it ….signified means to “put into symbols”. Christian read the book of revelations, see symbol after symbol in verse after verse and the moment they get the the verses on hell fire and the second death…it magically is LITERAL? No, we are not buying that lie!
“Behold the Lamb of God, which TAKES AWAY THE SIN OF THE WORLD (John 1:29). Either he takes away the sins of the world or is Doesn’t. God’s word apparently says he DOES!
“And God shall wipe away ALL TEARS from their eyes and there shall be NO MORE DEATH [not a first death, nor a second death, nor a spiritual death, nor any ‘death’ whatsoever, ‘the last enemy being ABOLISHED isDEATH,’ (I Cor. 15:26)], neither SORROW, nor CRYING, neither shall there be a ANY MORE PAIN: for the former things ARE PASSED AWAY” (Rev. 21:4)
How can there be eternal torture if there is no more pain? Again supporting what I have stated about this Hell Fire of eternal pain being a lie and showing that everyone will be saved.
“And He that sat upon the throne said, ‘BEHOLD! I MAKE ALL THINGS NEW“(Verse 5)!
ALL THINGS NEW!
43 Comments
November 23, 2008 at 8:52 pm
You are pretty adept at seeing what you expect to see.
How about that part of Holy Scripture that says (paraphrase) “You might see it but you won’t be able to understand it.”
November 23, 2008 at 9:59 pm
mssc54….and of course you believe that wouldn’t apply to you. it could only apply to me or someone else…right? remember, how scripture says the many and the few? just so happens, i am the few that see it like I do and you are the many. you can play all the games you want with scripture. i prefer to use the facts and not imagine that it must be someone else.
if you want to follow a “father” that promises to torture billions of his kids with fire, then feel free. i am sure you think that is moral. if you want to worship and praise someone that drowned babies and the unborn child in his flood….and you want to think it is moral…then feel free.
I just tell it like it is.
Peace
December 2, 2008 at 4:46 pm
notice that someone stated i was adept at seeing what i want to see. so they obviously make that judgment of me and we must assume that they are so perfect that they don’t see what they want to see. seems they should judge themselves as taught in the bible. but then again, based on the scriptures I have supplied, they are not ready to actually see what is in front of their noses. it is hard to take what you have been taught to believe all your life and then realize how foolish you are and suddenly have to accept the truth of what is before you. therefore, most people just point the finger at others. because they are so sure they can NOT be wrong. mommy and daddy told them it was true….from birth…..they wouldn’t lie…surely they had proof for what they told me was true…..just like the muslim mommy and daddy that taught their child…it must be true.
the truth often hurts
December 5, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Origen, one of the greatest theologians of early Christianity, held exactly the beliefs that truelogic outlines in this post. Origen was a huge influence on many of the saints and pillars of the early Church, including Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus. He believed that eventually even the devils would find salvation through Christ.
For this belief–admittedly among others–Origen was posthumously anathematized at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. We wouldn’t want to go off the deep end with the whole brotherly love thing now, would we?
December 5, 2008 at 4:07 pm
thanks for your comment Aaron.
peace
December 11, 2008 at 7:39 am
you can truly see who is a work here ( the enermy satan ). As he decieves many and does not want people to turn to God .it is also stated in the bible that God will judge all men in the last days. He will save all those who truly repent of there sins. Whether you believe God or not you should not be so discourteous of the name of the lord and to those that believe. God bless you !
December 11, 2008 at 10:04 am
tessa, i take it you know satan well. the bible tells us that if you sin, “you are of the devil”. since you likely sin and would admit it like most christians should. you are of the devil. if you go to church, then you should realize that Satan’s throne is in the church, according to scripture. so you would know satan much better than others.
you seems to want to make a judgement that i wouldn’t want anyone to turn to god. seems you are poor at making judgments as I couldn’t care less if you go to god or not. however, i care that people tell the truth and not be hypocrites. most christians i know are hypocrites and then tell other that they should believe like them or burn in hell….because they say the bible says this is so. that is a LIE.
maybe your god of love plans to show his mercy for his children by torturing them with fire for eternity just for the “great” sin of not believing. the god of the christians holy bible, doesn’t not say anything remotely like that. so, they lie.
Also, you don’t seem to know much about this god and deceiving. the scripture makes it clear that God deceives and God sends LYING spirits to deceive. do you not read the word of your very own god?
you don’t get it, you can’t even repent of your own “free will” it is not of you….read your bible.
I can be discourteous or out right nasty towards your god if i want or satan. there are many soldiers in this country that DIED for me to have the right of freedom of speech and the right to think as i want. so maybe you think i should or shouldn’t not, is just your opinion. i think you shouldn’t believe in a fantasy and call it god but it is only my opinion. you have the freedom to believe whatever you want.
the bible makes it clear, “every tongue shall confess that jesus christ is lord”. what happens when we confess such a thing? exactly, you are saved. you really don’t read or understand your bible because maybe it is satan that has got you. satan has made you believe your father above, the god of love, mercy, compassion and morals, will TORTURE billions in fire. What don’t you understand about love? Love doesn’t involve torture, mercy doesn’t involve torture, compassion doesn’t involve torture….MORALS dont’ involve torture, unless of course you support bush and cheney torture rules (they are christians as well….funny, isn’t it)
December 11, 2008 at 9:20 am
Read Ephesians Chapter 1. The All things (ta panta) in the greek are to be gathered up into Christ. God indeed is to be “all in all” as 1cor 15:23-28 says. God will save EVERY MAN but every man in his own order. There is an order to things. The overcomer the rest of the church and then the world. I wish CHristians would come to this biblical truth, I thank God everyday that he has shown me this and that IT IS WRITTEN AND CANNOT BE BROKEN THANK GOD! Do research on the greek word “aion” and its noun for “aionian” and you will see why Universal Reconciliation was “orthodoxy” for the first 400 years of the early church. Its only logical though. GOd declared the end from the beginning he sees and knows the future and Christians try to tell people he created knowing full well that he would have to torture 95% of his creation. I do not serve such a god. And i thank God that all will come into a real knowledge of the truth. I can list TONS of universalist passages, but i will not. This is what i study this is what i love. I recommend Dr. Stephen Jones website and free e-books you can read off his website.
http://www.Gods-kingdom-ministries.org
December 11, 2008 at 10:10 am
thanks for your posts. first off, i don’t believe in any of the many gods or the many versions of gods that men invent. you, like many others, clearly believe your form of god is the right one. of course, you think you are right. the jews think they are, the mormons, the hindus, the muslims and on and on. they are all so much in love with their version of god and truth. i wish you the best in your version of god.
the greek word aion is a word that I know well and have researched. i will put up a post on that in due time….to include the lie of hell, the lie of the trinity and more. i don’t know anything about the universalist believe system or many of the other cults. The only cult I actually study is the christian cult.
cult |kəlt|
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object
my love is reading history of religion and the study of the bible. i kind of read it for myself and dont’ follow others like a universalist or any other way. religion is a very dangerous thing and in my opinion, enslaves the minds of people. it is true sad and i truly feel sorry for them.
peace
February 2, 2009 at 12:02 am
I didn’t intend to create such a long comment, but it happened anyway. In the event you decide not to publish this comment because of length, I will have it posted at my blog and it can be linked as a trackback.
Again, I do not believe in this mythical God or any of the other mythical Gods that all followers claim are true. I only provide the scriptures to prove what is actually stated in Scripture. Judge for yourself!
Notice something rather profound about the Scriptures I am about to post. Notice the two post at the top of this blog regarding all evil being of God and that none have free will. If man has no free will and ALL is OF God, to include Evil (if Evil has happened, have I (god) not done it?) then God couldn’t justly or righteously punish men for all those things for which HE has done. Therefore, those scriptures fit with the following and ALL men would be saved….if God is just and righteous.
I see what you are saying but I don’t believe you are being honest with yourself. For a site that prides itself on logic, I am disappointed. You are constructing arguments on Scripture, but not using the true meaning of any of them that I have seen so far. Just to highlight the beginning of your argument that all will be saved.
First, Check This ONE out!!!!
“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that brings good tidings, that publish peace; that brings GOOD TIDINGS of GOOD [not like Bush and the Christian Party of Family Values that bring infinite acts of eternal terrorism and war], that publishes SALVATION … The LORD hath made bare His holy arm in the eyes of ALL THE NATIONS, and ALL THE ENDS OF THE EARTH SHALL SEE THE SALVATION OF OUR GOD” (Isa. 52:7 & 10). Wow, did you catch that one? ALL!!!
If you spent more than a couple of minutes with the verse and looked at what the words actually mean you would find something interesting. The point of this verse is not that all will be saved, it is that all see God’s salvation. Seeing isn’t believing or possessing, but that is the claim that you are making here.
Now for more Scriptural PROOF that God will save ALL MEN:
“For THIS is GOOD AND ACCEPTABLE in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have ALL men…(WHAT? Did it say ALL)… ALL men to be saved…” (I Tim. 2:3-4).
Some will tell you the word “WILL” is improperly translated and what it should be is the word “Desires“. With such a comment, they think the argument is over and therefore their God will NOT save ALL men. HOWEVER, I have no problem with them wanting to change the translations because GOD also stated “my Desires WILL be done” and “my pleasures will be done” and of course “my will be done”.
This one is funny, because you actually acknowledge the weakness of the verses you have picked for this argument, but attempt to bolster them with more naked assertions. If God’s desire or will is always done, why would He instruct people to pray for His will to be done on earth as it is in heaven? Apparently there is a difference between the two and God doesn’t see His desires carried out here on earth like He would want them to be. You can claim that this means He is not all powerful if you want, but I would advise you that having the capacity to act doesn’t imply the necessity to act. In fact, if God were required to exercise His power based on our opinions, he wouldn’t be the God of the Bible anymore.
Another Witness?
“For God has concluded them all [both the Israelites and the Gentiles—see verses 25-31] in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon ALL. O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God? How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been His counselor? Or who has first given to Him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen” (Rom. 11:32-36).
Again you are asserting that this passage says all will be saved and I can’t figure out how. Verse 25, which you mention, talks about the “fullness” of the Gentiles, but that word in no way implies all of anything except the capacity or load limit of a vessel or a complete set. The word for all in verse 32 typically denotes all of a set or group, which fits the rest of the context but not your argument. For instance, the same word is used in Matthew3:5, “Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him.” Do you really think this means that every person in Jerusalem and Judea came out to see Jesus? In some verses, this word isn’t even translated as all. As a matter of fact, that same Greek word appears in the next verse you cite, John 12:32. Then you have 1 Cor. 15:22 there are two sets of people identified. There are all (pas) who are “in Adam,” which would be all of humanity and there are all (pas) who are “in Christ.” It is the second set of all that will be vivified. Just in case you are wondering, this term is common to the New Testament, particularly in Paul’s writings. Note Romans 6:3-11 tells us who is in Christ, but I will just quote part of it here:
3Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?. . .11In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Same thing shows up in Romans 8:1-2:
1Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.
There is a defined set (pas) of all those who are in Christ Jesus that are properly referred to in 1 Cor. 15:22 that are separate from the set (pas) of all those who are in Adam which is indeed everyone.
I would go on with this, but I hope you are getting the gist and I hate to be a bore. But I would like to extend the fun to your use of the phrase “the whole word” since it is along the same vein. In 2 Cor. 5:19, the Greek word translated this way iskosmos , which is familiar enough to most anyone thanks to science. But you have again missed the point of this verse, because it specifically points to this reconciliation occurring “in Christ,” which again specifies who the reconciliation applies to and how it is made.
Let me also shed some light on 1 John 2:2. If you were given a gift, but you refused to take it, would you posses it or not? 1 John 2:2 isn’t the complete thought. Look at what it really says:
2He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
3We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands. 4The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But if anyone obeys his word, God’s love is truly made complete in him. This is how we know we are in him: 6Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did.
Did you see the end of verse 5? There is that idea of being “in Christ” again. And John is even so bold as to tell us how to know if we are indeed “in Christ” or not. Let me encourage you with some words from Christ that apply to this matter.
37And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, 38nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. 39You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, 40yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:37-40)
If you would like for me to address the other verses you have mentioned in your post, I would be glad to do so, but this is getting awful long already. I found that your argument is constructed wholly of this type of assertions, so this should be sufficient to demonstrate the problems in the logic.
Thanks for the time and space.
Shalom,
Jeff
February 2, 2009 at 12:34 am
many people claim that others are not being honest with themselves or true to what scripture “actually” intends to say. like they know what it intends to day better than others. funny thing is, there are around 600 denominations of the christian religion alone and they all think they have the true meaning. then there are many other religions based on the same god and same book and they all think they have it right. then there are many other religions based on other gods or even on beings from outer space and guess what? they all think they have it right and interpret whatever words or signs correctly and that you are not being honest with yourself.
you are welcome to address any verse you want and to give your version of what your mythical god might intend for his word to say. your version is just as good as all the other million.
i get the biggest kick out of a god that killed babies in a flood and people calling him moral and good. a god that promises to torture billions and they call him compassionate. a god that created evil and if evil happens it is him that does it. and they call him good. a god that watches as a child is molested, hears the cries and then decides to do nothing to stop it. they call him merciful and a loving father….now that is a riot. so we should praise this god? wow. i personally would never praise any being that tortures, children, kills babies, or causes a child to be molested by the the wicked he claims to have created for the evil day.
enjoy your version of your myth because i do enjoy helping teens see just how crazy it is to praise such evil and how immoral it all is.
February 2, 2009 at 1:01 am
check out my post on the scriptural proof that evil is of god. i guess i am not using scripture correctly there either? oh well, like i stated before, everyone likes to invent their own interpretation ad then call it their own version of religion. of course based on one of the many versions of the bible that have been edited throughout time to include or exclude things the church wants or doesn’t want to be known or exposed.
“With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew.”
— Bailey Smith, Christian Coalition
everyone has an opinion and bailey smith thinks he is right on how he interprets the word of god too.
“AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
— Reverend Jerry Falwell
yeah, he had his opinion and he too thinks he speaks for god. seems everyone does it.
“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good — Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty. We are called by God to conquer this country.”
— Randall Terry founder of Operation Rescue and a Christian….can you feel the love? yeah, he interprets the bible yet another way…maybe different than you.
“The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.”
— Reverend Pat Robertson
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.”
— Ann Coulter, conservative author
yeah, again, they interpret what is right and wrong based on their view of god. isn’t religion so loving?
“God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ‘Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’”
— Ann Coulter, on Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01 another christian on a christian news show.
“I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Almighty Creator. By fighting the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.”
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
“The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life.”
— Adolf Hitler, Berlin, 1933, first radio address after coming to power
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . We need believing people.”
— Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933
“I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
— Adolf Hitler, to Gen. Gerhard Engel, 1941. Here are more of his quotes.
Yes, even hitler interpreted the things a bit different.
i know, you are the one that has it right and everyone else has it wrong. i am glad you came around to show us all how you have it correct and we have it wrong. however, you can’t even prove your version of god or any version of god. you can’t prove any of the claims about your god like virgin births, or hell or heaven or healing or any supernatual powers. you can’t even provide one shred of evidence but you now want to make a claim that you have the interpretation correct and everyone else must be wrong as they do not agree with your version.
this is common throughout time. even in the days when we had slaves and the christian attempted to claim it was ok according to the bible. or women not having the right to vote was supported by the bible or when they used to burn witches and of course, they interpreted the bible correctly to allow them to do such evil things. yes, they thought, like you, that they interpreted it correctly and anyone that didn’t believe like them must have it wrong.
just something to think about
February 2, 2009 at 12:14 am
[...] or publish something that was damaging to his argument. The post I was responding to is entitled “Scriptural Proof that God WILL save ALL Men.” [...]
February 2, 2009 at 12:35 am
someone should reply to the post about scriptural proof that evil is of God, done by god and created by god. now that is a good one to expose many of the versions of the christian god. even the gods that jesus copied that came before him were not so evil.
February 2, 2009 at 2:00 am
I am not one to bang my head against an immovable object. I addressed your arguments in a post with logic and got back a textbook litany of logical fallacies (how is that for ironic). In just these last 3 comments you have chosen to demonstrate the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem (both the abusive and circumstantial varieties). You decided to deride and belittle me instead of addressing any of the arguments or assertions that I made. I used a Greek dictionary to point out what the words really mean as opposed to what the English word in the translation you picked says it means(in some cases you even obfuscated the plain English text). I didn’t offer you my opinions, I offered you straightforward facts based on language and logic and you responded with a bunch of quotes from anyone but me and attempted to lump me into that same crowd (another common logical fallacy). If you wish to actually talk in a logical manner, I would be glad to go through your “logical” attempt at proving that God is evil. But based on the current response, my interest level is low.
February 2, 2009 at 2:51 pm
You are welcome to your opinion. You are welcome to call a being that kills babies, moral. If you believe in the bible as the inspired word of God, FACT is he killed babies and aborted others in his flood. Fact is, his word said he created evil, and if evil happens, he did it and he created the wicked for the evil day. Those are facts printed in the bible. Of course since God is not real, it is all a fallacy. I am not belittling you at all. Just because i point out some facts about your God doesn’t mean i belittle you any more than your words towards me belittle me. I also use Greek text to determine the true meaning. Again, of course you feel you are right. I provide my facts, you provide your facts. Yet, you provide not one fact or shred of evidence to even prove any of the claims of your God. yet you want to spend time attempting to pretend you know what your version of God meant. Ironic. Once you learn logic, feel free to come back.
FACT, YOUR god murdered babies by drowning. FACT, according to the bible, YOUR god created evil, causes evil, and created the wicked to do evil. Yet ironically, you call him moral, good and praise him. Fact, no moral father would ever torture their child with fire but your heavenly father will do it and you call him Good. Ironic. Pure logic, pure facts and you just can’t handle it. Yet it is easier for you to blame me as being wrong, hard headed, or belittling you in order to attempt to not discuss such simple, logical statements. Again, read my post on the evil of your God. I even use greek text to help explain some of it. It is the same text that i provide to hundreds of teens each month and it is the same text that gets them to discuss God’s in school with friends and cause me to get numerous emails.
I don’t pretend to know what version of God you pretend is real and i don’t really care. You and NONE of those that follow any of the other Gods can provide one shred of evidence for your claims. NOT ONE! I prefer to use FACTS when we use logic. Mother Goose isn’t part of logic and therefore, when you are allowed to just make things up, you can’t call it logic and certainly not factual. enjoy your myth
February 2, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Let me try then by starting with a simple FACT and see how far we can get.
The substantially unanimous verdict of contemporary critical scholars is that Jesus’ disciples at least believed that Jesus was alive, resurrected from the dead. Reginald Fuller refers to the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection as “one of the indisputable facts of history.” Upon what was their claim based? Fuller continues that it is clear that the disciples had real experiences, characterized as appearances or visions of the risen Jesus. Whether these are explained naturally or supernaturally, this experience “is a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree.”
-sourced from http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/dialog_rexperience/dialog_rexperiences.htm
In fact, since I don’t wish to reinvent the wheel, you are welcome to check the full article there and others that he has written. He is very much someone who works with facts and logic. It is up to you. I am not making anything up. I am working from the best attested book in all of ancient literature with reason and logic as my allies. You can continue to dismiss it if you wish, but it is unreasonable to say you are being logical in doing so.
February 2, 2009 at 7:53 pm
What simple FACT did you state? Did you prove Jesus is a God or that any of the other Gods are NOT real? NO. Did you provide a shred of evidence to prove Heaven, hell, virgin birth, healing, rising from the dead, torture of billions by fire, eternal rewards, devils, demons, angels or any of the many other claims made by religion? FACT is you didn’t.
Let me help you with some terms:
Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
True: in accordance with fact or reality
Reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them
Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement
Idealism: the practice of forming or pursuing ideals, esp. unrealistically
Notional: existing only in theory or as a suggestion or idea
Superstition: excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural being
Myth: a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or socialphenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
Cults: a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object
Now, you can claim Jesus was real. Yet historians…true historians..have said there is no evidence that such a man as Jesus lived and it is remarkable that such a man with such GREAT things attributed to him has no real record of his life. Do you feel that logic starting to tickle your mind? As a matter of fact, there are saviors born before Jesus…long before Jesus. LIke Krishna and Mythra and others that happen to share the exact same stories as Jesus. Logic tells us that Jesus is a copy of the Gods before him. Let us look at some of the FACT of Gods before Jesus and see if more logic is triggered.
Let us just take Horus as an example of a God coming before Jesus and worshiped long before Jesus came into the picture. Worshiped in Egypt.
These are all facts about Horus and one will notice the Jesus story is much the same if not exactly the same.
Conception by a virgin
The only begotten son of the God Osiris
Mother is Meri (jesus mother Miriam a.k.a. mary)
Foster father Seb (Jo-Seph)
Birth location, in a cave
Annunciation: by an angel to his mother
Birth date dec 21 and some saying dec. 25th
Birth announcement by angles
Birth witnessed by shepherds
Birth later witnessed by three wise men or deities
Death threat during infancy with child being hidden to save it’s life
Age of rite of passage 12 years old
No data between the ages of 12 to 30
Baptized in river and the fate of the baptizer was …Beheaded.
Horus resisted temptation by his arch rival Sut also known as set and was the precursor for the Hebrew Satan.
12 followers or disciples
walked on water
raised someone from the grave
transfigured….on a mountain
key address was Sermon on the Mount
death by Crucifixion, Accompanied by two thieves
Burial in a tomb, resurrected after three days, resurrection announced by a woman.
Now the story of the God named Krishna and his birth dates around 3100 BC …..years before Christ!
Krishna:
Born to a Virgin
His birth occurs while his foster father is to pay taxes to the king
King tried to kill Krishna by ordering the slaughter of all mals born on the same day
The virgin mother is told by an angel: “In thy delivery, O favored among women, all nations shall have cause to rejoice”
The nativity of Krishna is heralded by a star
Born in a cave to indicate lower class birth
The cave was mysteriously illumninated.
The foster father was warned by an angle to flee from the king by crossing the river with the infant Krishna
Krishna began speaking to his mother shortly after birth
Krishna performs miracles in Mathura
Krishna is the second person of the Hindu Trinity
Krishna was crucified and wounded by an arrow
At noon on the day of crucifixion the sun darkened
Krishna descended into hell, raised the dead and brought back two boys from hell.
What about the God Mithras born on Dec, 25 in a cave. We was a savior and had a sacred meal with is followers. Within this myth that awaited actualization. He died and resurrected, performed miracles and there are actually many, many parallels to jesus and all this before the birth of jesus.
We can go through the history of religion and find many parallels to jesus and this is with god’s that are virgin born and came before jesus was ever dreamed in one’s head. Amazing, isn’t it?
Those are some FACTS that a logical mind will look at and say it is rather simple to conclude that Jesus is no more real than any other God out there or before him or after him.
Now, let us apply a little more logic. I am a person that used to be a “christian”. Raised in it, believed it and studied it in college. I am now a person that doesn’t believe in any of the Gods. I do not hate God as there is no god to hate. I am not threaten with eternal torture from your god of love and mercy so I do not fear anything for NOT believing. I do not believe in some eternal reward so I do not take that bribe in order to get me to believe. So from a point of objectivity, i am far more objective than a mind that believes in God. I have nothing to lose and a believer has everything to lose and as a matter of fact, they are required to believe. Which is logically more objective?
Now, i can give you link after link and then say this is a fact and you should read my link and therefore i have proven my opinion. No, i am not going to attempt to do such a lame act. I can tell you to go read it and therefore just because of that link it must be true. don’t be silly. I provided you with some FACTS. I explained them. I even defined a few words for you that you don’t seem to understand.
Now, you still think it is logical and moral to worship a God that drowned BABIES in his great flood and that promises to torture billions, to include children, by burning their flesh. Logical? Don’t be absurd. This is a FACT according to the bible. GOD….YOUR GOD drowned/murdered Babies through a torturous event. WOW and you call it logical to worship him? you think it is moral and good? You do not have the capacity for logical thinking….clearly another FACT.
I can go as far as saying you have not attempting to have a personal relationship with all the other Gods in this world and therefore there is now way you can know they are not real or the one true God. Logically, that would make sense but you would likely make some excuse. However, your excuse would be no different than the many excuses made by millions for other Gods.
more Gods?
“The Jesus story incorporated elements from the tales of other deities recorded in this widespread area of the ancient world, including several of the following world saviors, most or all of whom predate the Christian myth. It isn’t suggested that all of these characters were used in the creation of the Christian myth, since some of them are found in parts of the world purportedly unknown at the time; but it is certain that a fair number of these deities were utilized–so we find the same tales around the world about a variety of godmen and sons of God, many of whom also had virgin births or were of divine origin; were born on or near December 25th (the winter solstice—very pagan) in a cave or underground, were baptized, worked miracles and marvels, held high morals, were compassionate, worked for humanity and healed the sick, were the basis of soul-salvation and/or were called “Savior, Redeemer, Deliverer”; had Eucharists, vanquished darkness (because after the winter solstice the days grow longer and longer, until the summer solstice), were hung on trees or were crucified, and were resurrected and returned to heaven. The list of these savior and sons of God includes:”
· Adad and Marduk of Assyria, who was considered “the Word”(Logos)
· Adonis, Aesclepius, Apollo (who was resurrected at the vernal equinox as the lamb), Dionysus, Heracles (you know him as Hercules) and Zeus of Greece
· Alcides or Thebes, divine redeemer born of a virgin around 1200BC
· Attis ofPhrygia
· Baal or Bel of Babylon/Phoenicia
· Balder and Frey of Scandinavia
· Bali of Afghanistan
· Beddru of Japan
· Buddha and Krishna of India
· Chu Chulainn of Ireland
· Codom and Deva Tat of Siam
· Crite of Chaldea
· Dahzbog of the Slavs
· Dumuzi of Sumeria
· Fo-hi, Lau-Kiun, Tien, and Chan-Ti of China, whose birth was attended by heavenly music, angels and shepherds
· Hermes of Egypt/Greece, who was born of the Virgin Maia and called “the Logos” because he was the Messenger or Words of the Heavenly Father, Zeus
· Hesus of the Druids and Gauls
· Horus, Osiris and Serapis of Egypt
· Indra of Tibet/India
· Ieo of China, who was “the great prophet, lawgiver and savior” with 70 disciples
· Issa/Isa of Arabia, who was born of the Virgin Mary and was the “Divine Word” of the ancient Arabian Nasara/Nazarenes around 400BC
· Jao of Nepal
· Jupiter/Jove of Rome
· Mithra of Persia/India
· Odin/Wodin/Woden/Wotan of the Scandinavians, who was “wounded with a spear”
· Prometheus of Caucasus/Greece
· Quetzalcoatl of Mexico
· Quirinius of Rome
· Salivahana of southern India, who was a “divine child, born of a virgin, and was the son of a carpenter,” himself also being called “the Carpenter,” and whose name or title means “cross-borne”(“Salvation”)
· Tammuz of Syria, the savior god worshipped in Jerusalem
· Thor of the Gauls
· Universal Monarch of the Sibyls
· Wittoba of the Bilingonese/Telingonese
· Zalmoxis of Thrace, the savior who “promised eternal life to guests at his sacramental Las Supper. Then he went into the underwold, and rose again on the third day”
· Zarathustra/Zoroaster of Persia
· Zoar of the Bonzes
This is not a complete list, but I think you get the idea. It should also be noted that, as with Jesus, a number of these characters have been thought of in the past as being historical persons, but today almost none of them are considered as such.
yes, the guy that believes in scientology believes in his space god just as much as you believe in yours and he has the same “proof” to provide evidence of his God. the same goes for any other god. They all give the same stories you do.
so feel free to worship your God whom said “i create evil” ” if evil happens have i not done it” “i create the wicked for the evil day” i create the waster to destroy” a god that is everywhere and hears all things and when a child is MOLESTED, it is your God that watches it take place and YOUR God that hears the cries and YOUR god that allows it to continue and YOU call him love, mercy, compassionate, moral and good and YOU worship such a being that would allow such a thing to happen. Any father that would allow such things to happen to his child in this world would logically be put in prison and in my opinion, should NOT be worshiped. try that on for logic
February 2, 2009 at 11:37 pm
Apparently your reading comprehension is in the same class as your logic. I have tried to be patient and meet you on your terms. I stated a simple fact. The disciples all at least believed that Jesus was alive, resurrected from the dead. Reginald Fuller refers to the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection as “one of the indisputable facts of history.”
Your definition of fact: “Fact: a thing that is indisputably the case”
Can you see the correlation? I didn’t ask you to affirm that Jesus was real or raised from the dead or anything of the sort. I asked you to agree that those men believed that such was the case. Period. End of discussion. They believed it so much that they produced 27 books based on their interactions with him (we know them as the New Testament). There are other historical records as well. Apparently you don’t consider the New Testament accurate or believable, but that is your problem. It is the most well attested book in ancient literature as I have stated. There are more copies of the text in closer historical proximity(within 100 years in some cases) to the date of the events it describes than any other ancient book. In fact, it would be fair to say there are more than all the other ancient books put together. It has been proven correct in its facts over and over again. Sample: for years all of academia thought that Pontius Pilate was a fiction who never existed, yet archaeological evidence has indeed proved that he existed and was the governor of Judea. If you are not willing to handle one simple fact and say yes or no, then discussion is pointless and I will not waste my time.
You also said, Now, you can claim Jesus was real. Yet historians…true historians..have said there is no evidence that such a man as Jesus lived and it is remarkable that such a man with such GREAT things attributed to him has no real record of his life. Do you feel that logic starting to tickle your mind?
Yet, you didn’t name any historians to back up your claim. You simply stated it was so and so it is. I gave you the reference for where I pulled my statement from so you could investigate it for yourself. But that might challenge your worldview and your house of cards I must guess, so you didn’t check it out. You proceeded to launch on a diatribe that totally avoids the point of the fact that I stated (which was in plain sight with the word “fact” attached to it twice. If this is the level of debate you wish to engage in, I am not going to bother posting another word here. You can rest easy once again, although it appears from reading here that you don’t rest easy at all. I pray that you find the One who is seeking you.
February 3, 2009 at 12:49 pm
I have tired to be patient and meet you on your own terms but apparently your reading comprehension is in the same class as your logic. My definition of FACT comes from the dictionary. You do know what that is…don’t you. You may not like it, but that is how it is defined. Reginald’s opinion is not fact. The story of your Jesus and those interactions are like the stories of Krishna and others that came before Jesus. Even having a mother Mary…shocking? Not at all. Apparently you think the new testament is accurate or believable, but that is your problem. I guess the Muslims have a nice story for why their version is true. Kind of like you….logical? Of course. Did you see the recent news the Zues was born on a mountain and they found evidence that show he as a God that people worshiped. However, just because they found evidence that he was a God that people worshiped, doesn’t mean he was real.
Historical evidence of Jesus? Funny, you can’t prove your God and you can’t prove any of the claims Christians make about their God like the virgin birth, rising from the dead, satan, demons, angels, hell, heaven and then you say I didn’t provide any proof for there not being historical evidence for a jesus? logical? absurd. You make a claim and provide not a shred of evidence to prove your God and then you try to pretend that i can’t make a claim as well and not provide evidence? that is funny. Obviously, you have not read much about the historical evidence of jesus, other than your religious slanted views.
Let me give you a little to think about and then you can get off your lazy but and try to research on your own with a critical mind and objectivity, which you clearly do not have when you are REQUIRED to believe….OR ELSE your LOVING God will torture you with fire.
There is no historical reference to Jesus’ life, death or the crucifixion―nothing at all. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence 1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:
Apollonius Persius Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus Paterculus Valerius Maximus
Pausanias
According to Remsburg, “Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.” Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles; increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. In other words, the only information of the life of Jesus comes from Christian believers.
Logic would dictate that if all the miracles which Jesus performed or surrounded him:
1. Being born of a virgin mother;
2. Three Magi following the brightest star forever to see the demigod;
3. The slaying of the innocent babies;
4. Raising the dead, healing the blind and lame;
4. Having the sky turn to blackness when Jesus died;
5. Earthquakes in the region;
6. The dead Jewish saints coming out of their graves going to Jerusalem; and
7. The Resurrection.
that at least one of these world headline news events would have at least a small mention by at least one of the foregoing historian and writers. But, NO, they are totally silent!
Then again, we seem to want to avoid the FACT that the bible has your God drowning BABIES and causing the abortion of others in his flood. You seem to want to avoid the FACT that your bible would tell us God sees all and knows all and appointed a time for every matter and every event and that means molesting children (‘if evil happens, have I (god) not caused it?”). Yet you want to avoid the fact that you worship a being that causes the molesting of children, watches it happens, hears the cries and lets it continue throughout history. “yet all is of God”. pathetic. Now, why would anyone trust a person like you that has such vile moral sickness to worship a molesting and baby torturing god and calling him good and moral.
You have other issues to deal with if you actually worship such a being and think he is good.
February 2, 2009 at 11:56 pm
One last mention, in regards to your assertion that
“Yet historians…true historians..have said there is no evidence that such a man as Jesus lived and it is remarkable that such a man with such GREAT things attributed to him has no real record of his life.”
Historian Michael Grant termed the hypothesis that Jesus never lived an “extreme view.” He charges that it transgresses the basics of historiography: “if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.” Grant summarizes, after referring to Wells as an example: “modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory.” These positions have been “annihilated” by the best scholars because the critics “have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.”
There I gave you another claim with a name attached. You can decide if you want to check him out before or after you insult his intelligence as well.
February 3, 2009 at 12:49 pm
There is no historical reference to Jesus’ life, death or the crucifixion―nothing at all. John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence 1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:
Apollonius Persius Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus Paterculus Valerius Maximus
Pausanias
According to Remsburg, “Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.” Nor, we may add, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles; increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. In other words, the only information of the life of Jesus comes from Christian believers.
Logic would dictate that if all the miracles which Jesus performed or surrounded him:
1. Being born of a virgin mother;
2. Three Magi following the brightest star forever to see the demigod;
3. The slaying of the innocent babies;
4. Raising the dead, healing the blind and lame;
4. Having the sky turn to blackness when Jesus died;
5. Earthquakes in the region;
6. The dead Jewish saints coming out of their graves going to Jerusalem; and
7. The Resurrection.
that at least one of these world headline news events would have at least a small mention by at least one of the foregoing historian and writers. But, NO, they are totally silent!
Only Christian writers wrote about this. Do you think they were biased? Were the stories true or did these writers just continue the myth? Were they trying to promote a new religion, based upon Paul using the Jesus’ myth?
And so the fiction continues to this day. Christian apologist Josh McDowell, in his book, Evidence That Demands a Verdict is a book full of falsehoods, which attempts to masquerade as “documented historical fact” and rumors are passed off as “Bible Truth.” McDowell had to revise his thesis several times before publishing it. It seems some of his “Evidence” was not of good report. His arguments were weak, at best. So many Christians, especially pastors and ministers will make the claim that Jesus was either a “liar, lunatic or lord. Unfortunately that list ignores the most likely possibility ―”Fictional Character.”
Pastors today, quote that statement whenever they talk to a person who disbelieves in Jesus. Once I remember that my wife’s pastor made the same assertion, “Was Jesus a fraud, a liar, a lunatic?” Isn’t it strange that they all forget that even Jesus’ direct family thought Jesus was mad? And Mary, his mother never thought of him as “devine.”
ABC News, and Peter Jennngs could not go far enough in their presentation a few years ago of the Historical Jesus. Jennings presentation did not convince his audience without any benefit of doubt that Jesus existed, other than in mythical form. Dr. James Kennedy, of Orlando, Fla. (The famous Presbyterian minister who several Doctorate degrees in Theology and former aid to Billy Grahams) also, could not come up with any real evidence on his TV show to refute Peter Jennings…or others from Oxford University on the lack of historical evidence.
Evangelical Christians will not accept real proof, for they feel the professors at Oxford and anywhere else who claim Jesus did not exist are liberals or an atheist of sorts.
The reasoning of the Jew is that given the complete lack of historical evidence for Jesus he most probably did not exist. Christians have said, ‘OK…let’s see how consistent you are in the application of that reasoning.” They will then ask the Jew to provide for him historical evidence for the existence of selected characters in the Hebrew Scriptures.
In the above scenario, the Christian hasn’t denied anything hence hasn’t compromised their position, but only tries to show that the argument of the Jew compromises his position or commits him to a logical fallacy. Consider these 2 claims – either:
1. The Jew is able to provide historical evidence for the existence of those selected characters in his Bible. OR,
2. The Jew is unable to provide historical evidence for the existence of those selected characters in his Bible.
If (1) then the Jew’s position remains strong.
If (2) then the Jew must concede that by the self same reasoning he applied to Jesus those selected characters also most probably did not exist.
Ah, but Christians forget that they have already agreed with the Hebrew Bible that the episodes, which are told in Hebrew Bible, actually happened. That is why an interpreted version of the Hebrew Bible is located at the front of their bible for reference and authority. So the Hebrew Bible is immune to certain counter arguments that their Bible is still subject to. In other words, Jews do not have to defend their Bible because Christianity has already said it is Holy. It cannot be partly Holy – if so, which parts are holy and which parts are fiction? And who decides? No, it is all Holy, from God.
Those 21 great writers of the Greco-Roman world, whose combined work would fill a library did not write or allude to any thesis that god became man, walked the earth, died and was resurrected, and etc. There is not a single third party historical witness for confirmation, and not one single mention of a god walking the earth in any of the volumes of the combined work from the great writers of the period.
Again, I restate the obvious, yet in this mass of literature, “aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.” Nor, do any of these authors make note of the Disciples or Apostles; increasing the embarrassment from the silence of history concerning the foundation of Christianity. In other words, the only information on the life of Jesus comes from Christian believers.
This alone should make anyone think twice before swallowing―hook, line and sinker―the Christian dead-man god myth.
February 3, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence gets obscured by tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus.
ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus got written well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness’ own knowledge.
THE BIBLE GOSPELS
The most “authoritative” accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical Gospels of the Bible. Note that these Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves, but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the most influential of them all: Irenaeus of Lyon who lived in the middle of the second century. Many heretical gospels existed by that time, but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number; according to Romer, “like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man’s estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures– the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John (see Against the Heresies). The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith. Most of the other claimed gospel writings were burned, destroyed, or lost.” [Romer]
Elaine Pagels writes: “Although the gospels of the New Testament– like those discovered at Nag Hammadi– are attributed to Jesus’ followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them.” [Pagels, 1995]
Not only do we not know who wrote them, consider that none of the Gospels existed during the alleged life of Jesus, nor do the unknown authors make the claim to have met an earthly Jesus. Add to this that none of the original gospel manuscripts exist; we only have copies of copies.
The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! Elaine Pagels writes that “the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark…” [Pagels, 1995]
OTHER NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS
Even in antiquity people like Origen and Eusebius raised doubts about the authenticity of other books in the New Testament such as Hebrews, James, John 2 & 3, Peter 2, Jude, and Revelation. Martin Luther rejected the Epistle of James calling it worthless and an “epistle of straw” and questioned Jude, Hebrews and the Apocalypse in Revelation. Nevertheless, all New Testament writings came well after the alleged death of Jesus from unknown authors (with the possible exception of Paul, although still after the alleged death).
Epistles of Paul: Paul’s biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul’s writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus’ life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.
Epistle of James: Although the epistle identifies a James as the letter writer, but which James? Many claim him as the gospel disciple but the gospels mention several different James. Which one? Or maybe this James has nothing to do with any of the gospel James. Perhaps this writer comes from any one of innumerable James outside the gospels. James served as a common name in the first centuries and we simply have no way to tell who this James refers to. More to the point, the Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account. [1]
Epistles of John: The epistles of John, the Gospel of John, and Revelation appear so different in style and content that they could hardly have the same author. Some suggest that these writings of John come from the work of a group of scholars in Asia Minor who followed a “John” or they came from the work of church fathers who aimed to further the interests of the Church. Or they could have simply come from people also named John (a very common name). No one knows. Also note that nowhere in the body of the three epistles of “John” does it mention a John. In any case, the epistles of John say nothing about seeing an earthly Jesus. Not only do we not know who wrote these epistles, they can only serve as hearsay accounts. [2]
Epistles of Peter: Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery (for some examples, see the introduction to 2 Peter in the full edition of The New Jerusalem Bible, 1985, and [3]). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an unknown author also named Peter (a common name) or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church.
Of the remaining books and letters in the Bible, there occurs no other stretched claims or eyewitness accounts for a historical Jesus and needs no mention of them here for this deliberation.
As for the existence of original New Testament documents, none exist. No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionalbe originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus. [Pritchard; Graham] According to Hugh Schonfield, “It would be impossible to find any manuscript of the New Testament older than the late third century, and we actually have copies from the fourth and fifth. [Schonfield]
LYING FOR THE CHURCH
The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since the fathers of the Church possessed the texts and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.
Take, for example, Eusebius who served as an ecclesiastical church historian and bishop. He had great influence in the early Church and he openly advocated the use of fraud and deception in furthering the interests of the Church [Remsberg]. The first mention of Jesus by Josephus came from Eusebius (none of the earlier church fathers mention Josephus’ Jesus). It comes to no surprise why many scholars think that Eusebius interpolated his writings. In his Ecclesiastical History, he writes, “We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.” (Vol. 8, chapter 2). In his Praeparatio Evangelica, he includes a chapter titled, “How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived” (book 12, chapter 32).
The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, people had to take it as “truth.” St. Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century even wrote: “We should always be disposed to believe that which appears to us to be white is really black, if the hierarchy of the church so decides.”
The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus, who determined the inclusion of the four (now canonical) gospels, wrote his infamous book, “Against the Heresies.” According to Romer, “Irenaeus’ great book not only became the yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what Christianity was not it also, in a curious inverted way, became a definition of the orthodox faith.” [Romer] The early Church burned many heretics, along with their sacred texts. If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings got burnt along with them because of their heretical nature. We will never know.
In attempting to salvage the Bible the respected revisionist and scholar, Bruce Metzger has written extensively on the problems of the New Testament. In his book, “The Text of the New Testament– Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger addresses: Errors arising from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from faulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgement; Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations. [Metzger]
With such intransigence from the Church and the admitting to lying for its cause, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations, how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute, much less using extraneous texts that support a Church’s intolerant and biased position, as reliable evidence?
GNOSTIC GOSPELS
In 1945, an Arab made an archeological discovery in Upper Egypt of several ancient papyrus books. They have since referred to it as The Nag Hammadi texts. They contained fifty-two heretical books written in Coptic script which include gospels of Thomas, Philip, James, John, Thomas, and many others. Archeologists have dated them at around 350-400 C.E. They represent copies from previous copies. None of the original texts exist and scholars argue about a possible date of the originals. Some of them think that they can hardly have dates later than 120-150 C.E. Others have put it closer to 140 C.E. [Pagels, 1979]
Other Gnostic gospels such as the Gospel of Judas, found near the Egyptian site of the Nag Hammadi texts, shows a diverse pattern of story telling, always a mark of myth. The Judas gospel tells of Judas Iscariot as Jesus’ most loyal disciple, just opposite that of the canonical gospel stories. Note that the text does not claim that Judas Iscariot wrote it. The Judas gospel, a copy written in Coptic, dates to around the third-to fourth-century. The original Greek version probably dates to between 130 and 170 C.E., around the same tine as the Nag Hammadi texts. Irenaeus first mentions this gospel in Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies) written around 180 C.E., so we know that this represented a heretical gospel.
Since these Gnostic texts could only have its unknown authors writing well after the alleged life of Jesus, they cannot serve as historical evidence of Jesus anymore than the canonical versions. Again, we only have “heretical” hearsay.
NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES
Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.
Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus’ short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus’ birth in 37 C.E., well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.
Pliny the Younger, a Roman official, got born in 62 C.E. His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of the range of eyewitness accounts.
Tacitus, the Roman historian’s birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a “Christus” in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus’ mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.
Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E. mentions a “Chrestus,” a common name. Apologists assume that “Chrestus” means “Christ” (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant “Christ,” it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius’ birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.
Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu (a common name in Jewish literature) in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Jesus, according to Gerald Massey actually depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus. [Massey] Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud got written between the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion! At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian and pagan legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.
Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their “evidence” of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 – 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 – 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? – circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 – 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 – 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 – ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? – 215 C.E.), Origen (185 – 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? – 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? – 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.
As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn’t matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus’ existence, and nothing more.
Oh, seems the evidence against is far, far more logical than the evidence for your God.
Again, YOU worship a being that MURDERED babies through torture!!! According to the bible. You worship a being that aborted babies from the womb of a mother through drowning. You call him love and good and moral. Logically, and FACTUALLY, torture and killing of babies is NEVER, NEVER love, moral or good. It is sick and vile!!!
February 3, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Seems i provided with more than a claim now. yet you still don’t supply a shred of evidence that your God is real. you don’t provide a shred of evidence that any other god is NOT real. ironic, isn’t it?
Again, you are required to believe, you must believe or else you will be tortured. also, if you don’t believe you will not receive your great reward of eternal life…according to the bible and the mind of christians. That is NOT an objective position to form an opinion. Additionally, if you have been raised in a society that believes and have parents that taught you your form of god is real then you have been brainwashed from birth. You believe it like you believed in santa…your parents abused their power to manipulate your mind at an impressionable age. the only difference, you were told that santa was not real at some point or figured it out because it was not pressed past a certain point or age.
Some of us have minds that need to continue to believe in these myths. A recent study stated it was about control. Other studies believe it is believed because the minds of some have a protection mechanism that will not allow them to see the truth. Imagine having believed this all your life. Those you trusted told you it is true all your life. You feel there is something much more wonderful after you die and blah..blah. Don’t feel bad, your mind is only protecting you from a complete breakdown should you actually allow yourself to see the truth. part of evolution..maybe
February 3, 2009 at 3:10 pm
ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS
That would be inaccurate. Two books of the New Testament were written by eyewitnesses who spent extensive time with Christ. As to the assertion that he isn’t a historical person who really lived, it is so far-fetched to be laughable. You can go to http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/crj_summarycritique/crj_summarycritique.htm to read this article, but since you don’t seem to mind making long comments(and don’t want to bother checking out links either) I will paste the text here as well complete with endnotes documenting the research.
Seldom have recent scholars questioned or denied the historical existence of Jesus. Of the very few who have done so, G. A. Wells is probably the best known. In this article, I will outline and then respond to some of his major tenets.
Before turning to this topic, I will first note that the vast majority of scholars, both conservative and liberal alike, generally disdain radical theses that question the very existence of Jesus. For example, theologian Rudolf Bultmann asserted, “By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived.” [i]
Historian Michael Grant termed the hypothesis that Jesus never lived an “extreme view.” He charges that it transgresses the basics of historiography: “if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.” Grant summarizes, after referring to Wells as an example: “modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory.” These positions have been “annihilated” by the best scholars because the critics “have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.” [ii]
Digressing to a personal story, a potential publisher once asked me to contact a reviewer. An influential New Testament scholar at a secular university, he had voted to publish my manuscript, but only if I deleted the section dealing with Well’s hypotheses. He said that Well’s suppositions were virtually devoid of serious historical content. He only relented after I convinced him that Wells still had some popular appeal.
Wells is aware of these attitudes towards his works. He acknowledges that “nearly all commentators who mention the matter at all, [set] aside doubts about Jesus’ historicity as ridiculous.” [iii] He adds, “the view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity . . . is today almost universally rejected.” [iv] He concludes the matter: “serious students of the New Testament today regard the existence of Jesus as an unassailable fact” (HEJ 223). Even Michael Martin, one of Wells’ few scholarly supporters, draws the rather restrained conclusion that “Wells’ thesis is controversial and not widely accepted . . . .” [v]
Of course Wells would be correct to note that scholarly opinions are not formulated by an academic head count. So the essential question concerns why many scholars find Well’s position to be so fatally flawed. Why is he so frequently ignored?
This is the focus of this essay. It is my contention that Well’s theses are a seedbed of informal logical errors, especially begging the question and special pleading. He must simply bend over backwards at many places in order to maintain his contentions. Rather than critique his overall proposal, which I have done elsewhere, [vi] I will attempt a different approach here. I will list and discuss several of these unsupportable claims throughout his works. Most of these problems have the potential to seriously undermine or disprove his theses. In fact, in several places, Wells even admits the serious consequences for his view if he is mistaken.
Wells’ Thesis
Briefly, Wells postulates four layers in early Christianity (with some overlap), starting with Paul’s eight authentic letters written in the 50s and 60s AD. [vii] But Paul knew exceptionally little about the historical Jesus, ignoring both where and when Jesus lived. The second level consists of post-Pauline epistles like Ephesians, Hebrews, I Peter, and Clement of Rome’s letter, all dating perhaps 80-105 AD. The third layer is composed of the pastoral epistles and Ignatius’ letters, dated around 110 AD. The fourth level contains the canonical gospels, dated from 90 or 100 AD to some later time in the second century, perhaps decades later.
For Wells, historical claims about Jesus generally did not begin to accumulate until the third layer. Before 90 AD, Jesus remained an undated, mysterious figure about whom virtually nothing was known or reported (DJE, 47, 65; HEJ, 217-220).
Wells thinks that Jesus either never existed or, if he did, he had very little influence in his own time. The stories about him developed much later, over time. In sum, “Jesus is not linked with a recognizable historical situation in any document (Christian, Jewish or pagan) that can be proved to have originated before about AD 100″ (DJE, 215).
A Critique of Wells’ Hypotheses
Wells’ ideas are wide open to criticism at a variety of junctures. Rather than attempt the more systematic approach I have employed in earlier writings, I will list problems that indicate significant flaws. At several places which he admits are integral, Wells resorts to almost any explanation, no matter how incredible, in order to disallow apparent textual meanings. If these texts are taken at face value, he realizes his thesis is in deep trouble. So Wells must disallow all time references to Jesus being a contemporary of New Testament persons.
(1) Wells’ late-dating the earliest gospel (Mark) to 90-100 AD and the others to well into the second century certainly helps his thesis by divorcing Jesus from the early sources. For example, it allows him to remove Pilate’s connection with Jesus until at least 90 AD (DJE, 47, 65; HEJ, 10-11). But these dates are opposed by virtually every other scholar writing on this subject, whether liberal or conservative. Even critical scholars usually date these four books from 65-100 AD. So Wells dates Mark about two or three decades earlier than almost everyone else, including those same scholars he cites so positively.
Though we definitely cannot respond in detail here, just a brief line of reasoning will be mentioned. Most of the Book of Acts is devoted to the careers of Peter and Paul, with many chapters centering in Jerusalem. The deaths of Stephen (7:54-60) and the apostle James (12:1-2) are recorded, and the book ends with Paul under house arrest in Rome (28:14-31). Yet nothing is mentioned about the deaths of Paul and Peter (mid-60s AD), or James, the Lord’s brother (about 62 AD). Further, the Jewish War with the Romans beginning in 66 and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 are also absent. These five events are not arbitrary; each is absolutely central to the book’s key persons and geography, making them absolutely integral to the theme.
So how could the author of Acts not mention these last five events, which dwarf many of the other items in the book? By far the best solution is that none of these things had yet occurred. These absences argue very strongly for an early date, before the mid-60s.
Since Luke was written prior to Acts, [viii] but after Mark and Matthew, we may then date all five books before 65 AD. Even if we are too early by ten or so years, this is still a serious challenge to Wells. If the majority of contemporary scholars is right, then Wells would still be crucially wrong by about 25 years on each book. This would indicate that facts regarding the historical Jesus circulated at a much earlier date than he asserts. The more Wells is mistaken on these dates, the closer our historical information gets to Jesus.
(2) Wells realizes that if Paul’s reference to “James the Lord’s brother” (Gal. 1:19) means that he met with Jesus’ sibling, then this alone is very troubling to his thesis (HEJ, 167-174; DJE, 21). But here we perceive Wells’ special pleading at its very best. Rather than admit Paul’s straightforward meaning, he suggests that there was a zealous group in the early church who were not relatives but were called “the brethren of the Lord”!
Very surprisingly, Wells even admits the severity of his plight:
If Paul means blood brother of a historical Jesus, then it would suffice to establish–against my view–that Jesus had really lived in the first half of the first century. Furthermore, I must admit that this interpretation of Paul’s words does seem the immediate and obvious one. Here, then, is a case where what seems to be the plain sense of a text . . . would weigh very heavily indeed against my view of Christian origins. (HEJ, 167)
But there are several reasons that Paul was referring to Jesus’ brother. As Wells states, this is the normal way to understand this passage. Second, in I Corinthians 9:5, the Lord’s brothers refer to individuals who are authoritative enough to be compared to Peter and the apostles, not to some obscure group of believers. Third, all four gospels refer to Jesus’ physical brothers. [ix] James is even specified as one of them (Mk. 6:3; Matt. 13:55-56). Whatever date is assigned to these books, they plainly understood the tradition in a way that disagrees with Wells. Fourth, we will discuss below Jewish historian Josephus, who also calls James the brother of Jesus. [x] But Josephus would hardly be referring to a sectarian group of believers known within the church! Fifth, there is no historical evidence to support Wells’ specific contention concerning James.
So this leaves Wells to face his own critique stated above. That he is clearly wrong about James weighs heavily against his entire thesis concerning the historical Jesus, just like he admits.
(3) Paul appears to refer to those who were physically present with Jesus, calling them the twelve (I Corinthians 15:4) and the apostles (15:7). As with James, Wells fully realizes that if this is so, then his thesis suffers at another key point: “If these words were really written by Paul, then it looks as though he was aware that Jesus chose twelve disciples; and if Paul in this respect corroborates what the gospels say, then it would be reasonable to infer that he also knows the principle facts of Jesus’ life . . . .” (DJE, 124). But Wells contends that “apostle” does not mean a physical companion of Jesus (HEJ, 227, note 14). Further, “the twelve” was interpolated into Paul’s epistle (DJE, 124), even without textual evidence for this conclusion! Again, Wells recognizes a crucial passage, and once again, the sense of special pleading is apparent. He is willing to say virtually anything to avoid a clear text opposing his view, even if he has to ignore the contrary evidence and hold that it was added, relying on little more than his own assertion.
(4) Wells’ treatment of the many nonbiblical references to Jesus is also quite problematic. He downplays those presenting difficulties for his position (Thallus, Tacitus), and suggests late dates for others, again in contrast to the wide majority of scholars (Thallus [perhaps second century AD!], Polycarp [135 AD!], Papias [140 AD]). Yet, he provides few reasons why these dates should be preferred (DJE, 10-15, 78, 139; HEJ, 15-18).
The most important problem for Wells’ treatment is Josephus’ testimony. In order to dismiss this important Jewish documentation, Wells resorts to questioning both of Josephus’ references to Jesus. Not only does he disallow them as interpolated comments, but he asserts that this is also “widely admitted” by scholars (HEJ, 18; DJE, 10-11). But he is so wide of the mark here that one is tempted to question his research altogether.
While virtually everyone thinks that portions of Josephus’ longer statement in Antiquities 18:3 has been added, the majority also think that a fair amount still came from Josephus. Princeton Seminary’s James Charlesworth strongly concludes: “We can now be as certain as historical research will presently allow that Josephus did refer to Jesus.” [xi] John Drane adds that “most scholars have no doubts about the authenticity”of the passage’s nucleus. [xii] Written about 93-94 AD, Josephus’ statement, among other claims, clearly links Jesus to his disciples and connects his crucifixion to Pilate. It is independent of the gospels, according to Wells’ dating.
Josephus’ second statement refers to James as the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ (Antiquities 20:9). This also hurts Well’s thesis significantly, because it likewise links Jesus to a first century person who was known to Paul and other apostles. [xiii] In spite of Wells’ dismissal (without citing a single scholar who agrees–HEJ, 18), Yamauchi concludes, “Few scholars have questioned the genuineness of this passage.” [xiv]
Thus it is no wonder that Wells would dearly like to squelch Josephus’ two references to Jesus. Both clearly place Jesus in a specific first century context connected with the apostles and Pilate, cannot be derived from the gospels on Wells’ dating, and come from a non-Christian. Wells even notes that such independent data would be of “great value” (DJE, 14). So it is exceptionally instructive, not just that Wells dismisses both, but that he clearly wishes his readers to think that contemporary scholarship is firmly on his side when it very clearly is nowhere close. Charlesworth specifically refers to Wells’ treatment of Josephus, saying that, “Many solid arguments can be presented against such distortions and polemics.” [xv]
Other problems abound with Wells’ thesis that attempts to disconnect Jesus from a first century AD context. For example, he tries to dismiss Paul’s dating the resurrection appearances to the third day after Jesus’ death in I Corinthians 15:4 (DJE, 31). While Wells readily admits that many like Peter and Paul claimed to be witnesses of resurrection appearances, this fails to connect Jesus to the first century (DJE, 32; HEJ, 43-44)! While earlier he compares Christianity to ancient mythology (DJE, 182-193), he later criticizes such efforts (HEJ, 218-219). Further, he regularly stumbles when attempting to summarize recent scholarship. But Wells recognizes his lack of specialization, as a self-proclaimed “amateur” (DJE, 2), having taught German.
The entire subject of the resurrection is also troublesome for Wells. Responding to my debate with atheist Antony Flew, [xvi] noting that Flew did not do well, Wells wrote a response that repeats his tiered thesis. [xvii] Still he struggles, trying to explain the resurrection by the same discredited methods discussed here. Although he notes the repetition during the debate (4), this did not keep him from repeatedly misunderstanding my arguments (especially 23-36).
Conclusion
Why do scholars reject Wells’ thesis? Because it cuts out Christianity’s heart and even critics refuse to face this (DJE, 205)? I have argued that there is another reason. One does not impress scholars by maintaining a thesis at all costs, consistently resorting to extraordinary means to overlook any bit of data that would disprove one’s view. Even ally Martin realizes that Wells’ arguments may sometimes seem “ad hoc and arbitrary.” [xviii]
But at several points, this is clearly what Wells does. He often admits that a natural textual reading devastates his theories. Then he dismisses every historical reference linking Jesus to the first century, making some bizarre moves in the process. This most obviously occurs in his treatments of James, Jesus’ disciples, and Josephus. Along with dating the gospels decades later than almost everyone, these and other factors combine to produce the sense of ad hoc argumentation. But it all seriously undermines his system, as well as eroding his credibility.
Wells appears to declare virtually anything rather than admitting Jesus’ historicity. Yet, one by one, his house of cards collapses. This is precisely why the vast majority of scholars reject Well’s claims: he fails to deal adequately with the historical data.
Endnotes
[i]. “The Story of the Synoptic Gospels,” Form Criticism, trans. Frederick Grant (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 60.
[ii]. Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (New York: Macmillan, 1977), 199-200.
[iii]. Did Jesus Exist?, Revised edition (London: Pemberton, 1978, 1986), 213 (abbreviated in text as DJE).
[iv]. The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Buffalo: Prometheus, 1988), 218 (abbreviated in text as HEJ).
[v]. The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991), 67.
[vi]. See Gary R. Habermas, The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (Joplin: College Press, 1996), Chapter 2, which also critiques Martin’s treatment.
[vii]. Wells identifies these as Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, Philemon, and probably Colossians (HEJ, 19-22).
[viii]. Compare Luke 1:1-3 with Acts 1:1.
[ix]. Matthew 12:46-47; Mark 3:31-32; Luke 8:19-20; John 7:5.
[x]. Antiquities 20:9.
[xi]. Jesus Within Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 96.
[xii]. Introducing the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986), 138.
[xiii]. Galatians 1:19; I Corinthians 9:5; Acts 15:1-20.
[xiv]. “Josephus and the Scriptures,” Fides et Historia, Vol. 13 (1980), 53.
[xv]. Charlesworth, 98. For further details, see 90-98; Yamauchi, 42-63; Drane, 138; and Habermas, 43-44, 192-196.
[xvi]. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?, ed. Terry Miethe (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1987).
[xvii]. A Resurrection Debate (London: Rationalist Press, 1988), 3-4, 44-46.
[xviii]. 55.
February 3, 2009 at 6:03 pm
thanks for sharing your myth with us. i have no problem clinking on links and often do. i like to read both sides. i am not threaten with torture if i don’t believe. i guess if there was this great bully that drowned babies and promises to burn my flesh and i was told that from birth, i might believe like you as well. oh wait, i was told those things from birth and even went to christian schools and even out of my own choice, went to a christian college.
so if you try to take all the evidence and put it together then you can see why your god is no more real than any others. look at all the gods before your god for which your god copied. look at the egyptian hell that came long before the chrsitain hell and notice it was copied. notice that adam and eve and many others in the old testament were not told about a hell of torture. it magically appeared later…. notice that you can not back up any of your claims about this god…hell, virgin birth, satan, demons, angels, blah..blah..blah. logically, putting it all together would give us a good idea of what is true and what is false.
again, you are required to believe. so believe. i do not care. i just happen to get many people and mostly teens to see my point of view. I use pamphlets to communicate the evil of God and the gods before jesus and more. i put them in teen books in the large book stores and even put them in christian books stores inside books. teen magazines are a great place to put pamphlets and coffee shops. sometimes they accidently get left at the YMCA and schools and churches. as you can imagine, i get many emails from parents but the good ones are from the kids that GET IT and want help to discuss it with others and parents. I could promise you that i win far more “souls” over to the truth than you win over to your baby killing god.
peace
February 3, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I am not required to believe anything. I choose to believe what I believe after I have checked out all of the alternatives. I find it amusing that you feel the need to “evangelize” people so steadfastly to nonbelief. If someone believes in a “nonexistant” being, how is it of any concern to you. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.
February 3, 2009 at 8:46 pm
It is a concern for me when people like you teach kids and others that your God is good and moral and yet YOUR God MURDERED babies and most all life in a torturous, slow drowning. It is your God that created evil, and “operates all in all”. If evil happens, your God apparently says he did it. So when a child is molested, it is your God that did it, caused it, watched it, heard it, and let it continue. It is sick to teach kids this is moral behavior. Yeah, that does concern me a bit and it should concern everyone.
Now, the other thing that concerns me is that kids are lied too about all the various Gods and lead to believe in supernatural things that are not supported with a shred of evidence. It is mental child abuse and not moral.
So it is of great concern that children are lead to believe such beings are good. this idea of some greater power has lead to the torture of humans in the name of a moral god and like george bush, he believed god supported is killing of muslims based on lies. he actually believed his god..the same god you follow agreed with him. WOW. No, he has not proof of his god agreeing with him. Just like you have no proof. just like the muslim has no proof. just like the buddhist has no proof. or the hindu or the scientologist and guess what, they would claim they have check out the other options and decided it was the right choice. shock? no…logically, this would tell us there is something more at play in this decision making process. EVERY single one of those that believed in other gods in the past and that believe in other gods today would speak your words and believe like you say you believe and believe it is their version of god that is real and NO other.
why should we be concerned? the church has supported slavery and was against the rights of women to vote. the church burned and tortured those they believed were witches or against God or that worshiped other Gods and even your bible tells us what to do to those that believe in other gods. Intolerance and hate should be of concern.
The evidence against your christian god is far greater than the evidence of many other gods being real. i have provided a huge list of reason for why your god is not real. you have yet to provide one shred of evidence to support your version of god or any of your claims about your god.
look at the christian party of family values that elected george bush and re-elected him after they know of the lies and the torture. just like jesus would do? what a joke. the christian party supported war, torture and it was all based on lies and against people that happen to believe in another form of a god. yeah, that should concern anyone. just like the christian Hitler went after another religious belief system that wasn’t like his and killed millions. that should concern everyone.
so lets teach our kids that christians like war, and torture and support it. lets teach them they will kill you if you have a different god and if you might be a witch. teach them it is good and moral because you did it in the name of your baby killing god….which is moral? sounds like the attackers of 9/11 that did it in the name of their god and get rewards. what a joke.
those beliefs cause death, killing, torture…today and in the past. PROVEN FACT
i am for peace and i am for the end of superstition that controls the minds of the weak and causes them to crash planes into buildings, enslave people, remove the rights of gays or women or minorities. the party of religious values have done so much to ruin our country it is absurd. we fought for our freedom against an empire that was all about god and the church and i am for keeping state and church separate.
peace out dude
February 3, 2009 at 8:57 pm
I recently put up a post that discusses how christians in general will do anything to avoid discussing the evil of their God. I have a post up about the scriptural evidence that evil is of god and done by god and caused by god. the scriptures support this view completely. yet christians will work hard in an attempt to avoid discussing any of this. there is a reason for them to avoid it. they know it is true based on scripture and it brings a conflict their brains can not handle. the god they love, worship, admire, praise is the same being that causes the death of babies, the molestation of children, the rape of women, the earthquakes, the floods, the famine, and any other kind of vile or sick thing one can imagine. You like all the others are a good example of a person that will avoid the topic. i brought it up several times to prove my point. you avoided it at ever turn. because you know it is true and you can’t deal with it.
Because of this obvious conflict with your moral god and the admission of your “moral” god that he does these things…i have decided to work on my pamphlet for teens and expose this truth and how vile it is for anyone to worship some cult that praises a being for murdering babies, burning human flesh and causing all other evils on earth. who in their right mind would actually believe this being is love and moral after knowing exactly what this being does and has done. no moral person would do it.
February 4, 2009 at 12:05 am
You are an incredible hypocrite. More so that any Christian I have ever seen accused of such. You say that God is an illusion or a fairy tale and doesn’t exist and then seek to blame a non-existent being for all of the evil in the world. You can’t have it both ways. Either He is real and is responsible for all of the things you want to pin on him, or He doesn’t exist as you charge and this is all a colossal joke. He can’t be non-existent and responsible for this great evil you have assigned to him.
And I have news for you. The God of the Universe doesn’t answer to me or to you.
You have come close to this passage in some of your writings that I have seen, but you haven’t tried to deal with it. Romans 9:19-24:
19One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ ” 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
So which is it? Is the God of the Bible real? If He is, then this passage says you are not in a position to be his judge and jury as you have tried to be. If He isn’t real and you don’t think he is real, then blaming Him for all of the evil in the world is illogical, irrational and ignorant. You might as well assign it to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or the flying spaghetti monster.
If Jesus Christ is who He claimed to be and rose from the dead, and I have good reason to believe that He is and He did based on historical, factual evidence that you are unwilling to consider with any objectivity, then God is indeed real and His actions that you classify as evil are not in your purveyance to judge, nor are they in mine.
Personally, I think your handling of the Scriptures for your proof of God as the creator and author of evil are just as sloppy as the ones in this thread, and since you don’t debate logically here either, I am not inclined to take the time to go through them. We are finite beings looking at an infinite being in a limited field of vision that He has revealed to us and you are making your judgments as if you were on His level. Evil exists in this world because God allowed men the opportunity and the choice to rebel against His will and desires, so that they might also freely choose to love Him and serve Him, not because of fear of punishment but because of a genuine appreciation and love for who He is and what He was willing to do for us. Adam blew it first, and you and I have followed his pattern. If you want to say that God created evil, you can make that case, because He has allowed it for reasons I can’t fully comprehend as the best of possible options available to accomplish His purpose.
You claim Hitler was a Christian and try to lay blame on His “Christianity” for the evil that he perpetrated. You haven’t done your research there either. The following is a list of quotes taken from a book about Hitler.
The book Hitler’s Secret Conversations: 1941-1944, published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. (1953), contains definitive proof of Hitler’s real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, Hitler’s Table Talk: 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity [is] the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St. Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
Evil is the result of people choosing to rebel against the God who made them and gave them life. You have spouted hate and vitriol at me in just a few posts and I have not returned the favor. This post probably opens with the meanest thing I have said to this point. Maybe if nothing else, you can stop claiming that Hitler was a Catholic and a Christian. Hitler made it plain he wanted nothing to do with the faith. Wouldn’t you be mad if someone claimed you are a Christian because you were raised that way?
February 4, 2009 at 12:52 am
oh…it seems you lost all logic. calling me a hypocrite because i say what god did? notice, i say “according to the bible”. NOT according to what i believe. i do not believe in god. oh..i guess you haven’t figured that out either. if your apparent god wants to write a book and claim to create evil then i can use his words to say this is what he does. you don’t like it…talk to god. i didn’t write “his” book. I do not believe the book is his word but if you want to believe in this god and claim it is his word then you better get used to me pointing out exactly what your god claims.
there would be no evil if god didn’t create it and god said he created it. god created satan for a purpose and that was also evil. satan didn’t fall and do what god didn’t want him to do…god even made it clear that he created satan from the beginning for his purpose. ouch…sorry but yet another fact from your version of god and his apparent words.
i do not need to say god did evil or causes evil. you must think all these things happen and it is not according to gods will? seems you now don’t want to believe what this god said if it exposes something you don’t like. now that is hypocrisy.
i have proven through several scriptures that according to the bible it is god that is responsible for everything. he even says it is him that does evil and created it and the wicked men to do evil.
i do not hate you silly man. i hate no one. just because you don’t like the truth and what i say doesn’t mean i hate you or anyone. i love all life but i guess you think you know me better than i know me and those close to me know me…amazing the things you think you know but don’t.
you praise a god and worship a god that admittedly killed babies and told others to kill babies. have you not read your bible? oh….you only want to hear the good things. thank you god for the food on my table but never mind the children all around the world that will die for lack of something as simple as clean water….thanks for not giving them water? oh..you are so much more special that god gives you food and water and watches the other children die for lack of food and water? praise you.
FACT: You god killed babies in his flood. FACT: your god the father promises to burn the flesh of billions for eternity in fire. FACT: your god said if evil happens, he has done it and he created evil. …..oh…let me remind you…this is according to your bible that you believe is the inspired word or word of god. NOT my belief. I know your god is not real just like all the other gods he copied are not real.
if you don’t like it then i would suggest you pray to your god and see if he can change it. my bet is he will likely ignore your prayer like he does the prayer of a child being abused night after night. why? because he is only a part of your imagination.
so dont’ take it as hate against you because it has nothing to do with hate for an individual. i do hate the evil that comes from your god and the belief of gods in general. that is the only hate i have. hate for lies, hate for killing, murder, abuse and all of those things your “perfect” god watches take places if he is all powerful and all knowing.
peace to you and i hope one day you will do something good with your life. like jesus would have done. I do not believe jesus would spend his time blogging when he could be out there helping those in need. but then again, you are special…right? you don’t actually have to do what jesus woudl do if you don’t want to….Hypocrite
February 4, 2009 at 1:00 am
hitler made it clear he was christian and it is NOT your right to say he is or is not. that would be between him and god..wouldn’t it? oh, maybe you think you have that right. maybe hitler was sick…obviously. maybe he had a split personality and one side loved god and one side didn’t. well, don’t be silly. even if hitler didn’t believe it, he caused others to believe it and he used it to control others. a nation of christians killed jews because apparently god directed it.
FACT is that according to the bible, it would be true that it is GOD that willed all things. as you know, god stated it is all according to his will. not hitlers and not yours. sorry…that is what the bible says. god created the wicked (hitler was wicked) for the evil day.
so even if hitler was not a christian, God said it is God that created hitler and appointed a time for hitler to do what he did. remember, god is the potter and hitler is the clay. ouch…did you get it?
February 4, 2009 at 12:12 am
I found another quote of Hitler’s from the book that you might want to start using for your arguments.
9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
Sounds like this would fit better with your arguments against Christianity.
February 4, 2009 at 12:39 am
nice quote but it does nothing to take away from the fact that he claimed to be christian, his nation was claimed to be christian and those that followed him even thought he was sent by god. notice, you don’t have any proof for your version of god. wonder why? facts are facts and you don’t have any. that is the bottom line. god created hitler. god…according to his word….planned all things and it is all according to his will. ooops…that means hitler too. oh no…did you notice god said he appointed a time for every matter and every event? ooops..that means hitler killing jews. that is your god. did you want to forget that your god killed babies in his flood…ooops..
you are just one sick individual that praises a being that murdered babies. just a fact you don’t like. if you don’t like it…talk to your good….oh..yeah…he isn’t here. kind of like all the other gods.
February 4, 2009 at 12:55 am
“Those who control what young people are taught, and what they experience — what they see, hear, think, and believe — will determine the future course for the nation.”
— James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family
this is just more evidence that the church knows exactly how to brainwash children. tell them lies from birth and if possible dont’ let them get too much of an education that allows them to think critically and you can keep them enslaved with your belief.
just like some of the religious cults controls women and children and even have sex with children. because they use God to control them. sick
February 4, 2009 at 12:51 am
I just gave you a half dozen quotes from Hitler’s own mouth denouncing Christianity and you still claim he is a Christian? And then you accuse me of being sick? I suppose you must be a Christian as well. I remember you mentioning a religious background earlier. Since you can never denounce the religion enough to no longer be considered a Christian, I will just call you brother.
And did you miss my discussion about evil in the comment previous to that or was it too hard to understand. God created Hitler, but He didn’t dictate Hitler’s actions. Hitler did what he did with much the same motivation that you display here. He despised God and His people the Jews, whom he sought to exterminate to get back at God. At least get your facts straight and be angry at the right person. And again, if God doesn’t exist, you are directing all of your anger at the wind. I pity you and pray that you can find peace.
Shalom and farewell.
February 4, 2009 at 1:20 am
You have deliberately misconstrued God’s will. You make it sound as if God’s will is never thwarted or disobeyed by humanity. If that is the case, then explain these verses from Scripture:
If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own. – John 7:17
Are you shocked that people can choose to do God’s will or to not do it?
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. Romans 12:1-2
Again a choice to conform to the pattern of the world or the pattern of God’s will.
But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
1 Corinthians 15:20-28
Did you notice the future tense of the verb in 28? God has willingly limited Himself to allow man the freedom to act. Man has by and large chosen to rebel and is fully responsible for the evil that has resulted. I would go on, but you don’t show much desire to listen anyway, so I won’t bore you with more.
February 4, 2009 at 10:34 am
I do not know God’s will and neither do you. If you claim you do, then you lie. Unless you can prove you know God’s will. Fact is, the bible tells us “yet all is of god” and it tells us “god operates all in all”. To operate means to CONTROL the FUNCTION. Those are pretty clear words. Of course people can choose but not freely if the bible is correct. You like to think you are above god and the bible speaks of that too. If you think you can do anything that god has not appointed a time for or that is not part of god’s will then you believe you have some power that can override god’s will. according to the bible, you will die when god had planned it. You are one of these people that fools themselves into believing it was man that decided to sin and god had nothing to do with it. Your god must really be stupid or blind. Because if you think an ALL powerful being put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the garden and didn’t already know exactly what would happen, then you are not too sharp and have little faith in the power of your god.
A choice? Ha ha…not possible if everything is according to the will of god and “yet all is of god”. You believe you have a choice but your choice is not more than the choice a computer has to make a decision. The computer is presented with input and it makes a programmed choice but the outcome is determined for it. That is the extent of your “choice” if the bible is true.
However, we all know that the bible is not God’s word and we all know that it is NOT the inspired word of any of the versions or denominations of the christian god. Unless you have proof otherwise then you would just be lying.
So, lets make it clear, your choice is no more of a choice of free will than the choice that a computer has to not do what it is programmed to do.
“…Who works [‘operates’] ALL THINGS after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:11).
“For OF Him, and THROUGH Him, and TO Him, are ALL THINGS…” (Rom. 11:36).
“And ALL THINGS are of God…” (II Cor. 5:;18).
“O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself. It is not in man that walks to direct his steps” (Jer. 10:23).
“…has not the Potter [God] the right… to make… one [vessel] for DISHONOR?” (Rom. 9:19-25).
I guess you think All is not of God, and you think God is not the potter that controls the clay and i guess you are calling the word of god a lie because you know the way of yourself and you feel it is your that walks to direct your steps.
Funny how you pick the things in the bible to believe and apply to life and the ones you don’t like, you just call god a liar. I am sure he is impressed with your will that is done and not his. Wow!
Jesus said that he could do NOTHING but for the father. YOU say you can do what you want and the father doesn’t will it. It if funny that again you claim to have some power that Jesus Christ, the SON of the almighty God didn’t have. That is AMAZING. You think you have power that jesus christ didn’t have. Jesus christ stated he could do NOTHING but for the father. You are so proud and God spoke of that as well.
As a matter of FACT: Jesus demonstrated to the disciples that they didn’t make the choice and it was not according to their will but it was all according to GODS will. Don’t you know the story? Jesus stated to the disciples that they would deny him. The disciples thought they had the free will choice to say NO we will NEVER deny you lord. Jesus said, yes, you will deny me. Again, they repeated…impossible, we would never deny you, no matter what because we have that free will choice to say we will not. What happened? That is right, they denied him. why did they deny him? because the bible teaches us that it is God that determines what will happen and jesus was attempting to teach them this was the case.
You go ahead and think you have power that God didn’t give you and that is above what Jesus could do. Apparently, your god will deal with you for that pride and for attempting to wrongly teach his word.
Guess what, Christ is not the ONLY savior raised from the dead. there is this funny story…it just so happens there were other saviors that were born BEFORE Jesus that also were raised from the dead…..so the story goes. You christ should have been a little more original.
Hey, i suggest you pray for the little kids that WILL die tonight and ask your god to end the hunger in the world. He is a loving father, you claim to believe in him and the bible tells us he will do what you ask in his name if you believe. you need only the faith the size of a mustard seed. so go ahead and end world hunger. Unless you don’t really believe in your god or unless your god doesn’t really have the power to end it. we have had world hunger since the beginning of time. people have asked god to end it. i can promise you that there are christians that are dying of hunger and babies and children and they are asking god thinking it is there only hope. I promise you, God will not end it. Because your savior is no more powerful than krishna, horus, mythra and many others that happened to have their story coped by Jesus Christ….your version of god that you can not prove …not even remotely
February 4, 2009 at 12:39 pm
You asked how I can claim to know God’s will, so I will tell you.
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. – Romans 12:1-2
Unlike you, I take Him at His word. I believe that He exists and I actually believe He will do what He has promised. He has proven Himself trustworthy in history and in my life. I am truly sorry that someone has hurt you so badly that you cannot see Him. You are right to a point, no one can understand God unless He reveals Himself to them (John 6:44 is one example of this statement) and I don’t pretend to understand how that works or why it is. You think I am arrogant enough to presume to speak for God or to dictate to Him who He is or has to be? Heaven forbid! The only one arrogant in this conversation who presumes to “know” the mind of God is you. And in total irony, you rail and rant against a being you say doesn’t exist. I can’t imagine that this is healthy for you either physically or emotionally. Scripture also says that, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
You have to clear that hurdle before you can go anywhere with God. Do you believe He exists? If not, then why waste your time on Him? The only reason I have spent as much time here in this conversation as I have is that you are created in His image and loved by Him and for that reason I love you as well. I don’t know if I will keep posting, because I do have a lot of things to do other than hang around and talk to someone who impugns my beliefs and faith and even God. You have the evidence you need available to you at any time, with or without me pointing it out to you. What you do with it, isn’t my decision and isn’t my responsibility either. Shalom.
February 4, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Apparently, you don’t take him at his word. “If evil happens, have I (GOD) not done it?”
Also, the scripture you provided in NO way proves you know God’s will. Not even close but then again, you seem to think you are above others. “do not conform to the patterns of this world”. Yet you follow exactly the patterns of this world. You are here blogging with me and instead, you could be out doing more of what God/Jesus requested and which is clearly not the pattern of this world.
Matthew 5:42 “Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.”
I ask you to give all your money to the poor and then go to a place where there are children dying now for lack of water, food and medication. Sale all your possessions and give to the poor and needy. That would include your computer for which you use to “conform to the patter of this world”. Yes, those worldly things you have….you know, like the extra clothes, the computers, the tv, the car and all the other worldly things we all know you have. You know, the pattern of the world….ouch. Kind of hurts.
Don’t do it just because I asked you, but do it because your God asked you:
Matthew 19:21
Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Mark 10:21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. “One thing you lack,” he said. “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
Luke 6:30
“Give to everyone that asketh thee; and from him that taketh away thy goods ask not again.”
Just because a dying child doesn’t come to you personally and ask, doesn’t mean he is not asking for your help. You see they need it and yet you are here blogging. “CONFORMING to the patterns of this world”. Ouch! Hypocrite!
Luke 12:33
“Sell your possessions and give to the poor.”
Luke 14:33
“Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.”
Now, i get many christians that claim that jesus was not speaking to them. Funny, most all of them will say this. However, this is the clear teaching of jesus and i would guess his word is supposed to be an example of how you should be and how he asked you to be and taught you to be. Instead, you are here blogging with me. Just like very other hypocrite christian I have encountered.
I get that comment from others that they are truly sorry that someone hurt me. I just have to laugh each time I hear it. I love how they need to make some excuse for why I say what I say because the truth is they know it is logical and true. You can’t handle that no one has hurt me, ever. You can’t handle that I live in complete peace and have what I would consider a rather nice life and family. If it makes you feel better to think I was hurt or something, then please continue to lie to yourself. you have been lying to yourself for years, so keep conforming to this world. Oooops….if you are conforming to the pattern of this world i would guess you can’t know the will of your god. interesting, isn’t it?
Oh, let me see. I was a Christians and I made all the silly claims you did and I actually believed he was real at one time. Then your excuse is that i must have been hurt and now i can’t see him. Great excuse but then again you lack any shred of evidence to prove any of it and logically it points to you only needing an excuse because you can’t deal with the truth.
I do not need to presume to know the word of God. According to your kind, he wrote a book and spelled it out clearly. Tell me, when God said he created evil, is that not true? His word apparently said he did. I didn’t change it or write it. when god says the if evil happens that he has done it….doesn’t that clearly mean he did it? When god said he flooded the earth and killed most all life…does that mean he didn’t do it. It is sad that your mind is working overtime to attempt to justify your lies that you have been told all your life and that you now live.
Scripture says you don’t have faith of your own self. It is a gift of God. again, it is something you don’t decide to have, god has to give it to you. read your bible. you dont’ just say one day, i believe. NOT according to the bible. It is a “gift from god” and “NOT of yourself”. Wow…isn’t that interesting how you are fooled again to believing it is your will that decides to believe.
You can’t understand the truth unless it is revealed to you. Wow…did you just notice what i did. I made an empty statement, claim it is true and yet have nothing to back it up. Just like your statement that i can’t know god unless he reveals himself to me. Also,,,,,did you catch that…you just admitted that you can’t have faith unless it is of god. because you can’t have faith if god doesn’t reveal himself so you can believe. Ouch..again. do you see how easy it is to poke hole after hole in your myth and belief system? I bet those that believed in Krishna and other saviors that your god copied and came long before him said the same things you say today. imagine.
Let us try another one. You have to clear a hurder before you can go anywhere and know the truth.
I do not waste my time on “him” i use my time on the subject of religion. it is no different than christians wasting their time peaching against cults or other superstitions they do not agree with. they don’t believe in these cults, they just feel they are damaging or harmful to others and to their own belief system. is that too logical for you? you make giant leaps in opinion and dont’ bother to think it all through.
So, why spend time discussing religion? Let me see….i thought i covered most of this with you. Maybe you don’t bother to read any of it. Religion has a history of causing people to do very evil things and call it good in the name of god. you know…witch hunts, slaves, equal rights for women, ….hey, do you remember 9/11. yeah, that was another religious thing. Hey, do you remember the war in iraq? yeah, the one that basically handed us our current economy? the one that the christian president stated god agreed with him and so many christians followed?
Basically, your religion is yet another lie. It is wrong to lie. so i am against it. your lie causes others to lie and causes wars because it gets liked minded idiots to follow the lead christian to war that kills. i do not call it a waste of time trying to save lives and end suffering.
i would think someone that pretends to follow jesus would try to be more like him and save lives and end suffering.
well, when you pretend i guess you need to spend your time on your worldly computer blogging to people like me as children die because you will not sell your computer and help end suffering. pathetic and pure hypocrisy.
peace to you
February 4, 2009 at 9:26 pm
good reason to claim you are a virgin if you are pregnant and not yet married it is a fact that many people claimed this as true when they happened to get knocked up and were not married:
Luke 2:4-5
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child.
so the evidence for one to lie about having a virgin birth is strong. the evidence for a real virgin birth is non-existent.
i like how the evidence keeps building against your god as it would against all gods.
February 4, 2009 at 1:48 pm
True, I have struggled with this belief for most of my life. You posts have helped me see what I refused to see in the past. I can not deny the words and scriptures you posted. Especially the ones about the evil of God. I read this post and it makes sense to me that a loving God would no torture his children for the act of not believing in him. I would understand punishment if we harmed others but torturing us for not believing is far too extreme. Even if he tortured us for harming another person, an eternity of punishment would not be just. I believe there is some God out there and thank you for helping me think about it logically. I checked many of the scriptures you posted about evil being of God. I didn’t want to believe it but you were honest in your post and you provide the scriptures to prove what you were saying. Why would God cause evil? Can you explain why this to me or help me understand it?
February 4, 2009 at 1:55 pm
thanks for the comment, again. look, there may be a god. however, i can promise you that an all powerful being with great intelligence would NEVER torture his creation. just like NO father would burn his child. it is a christian invention. look at the egyptian hell that came many, many, many years before the christian hell. notice it is a copy. notice the other saviours like krishna, horus, mythra and several others taht came before jesus. notice he is a copy. christian spend so much time thinking about the torture and promise of reward and no time actually doing the good things jesus spoke of. it is sad. if they spent time doing, this world would be a great place. we can explain why god causes evil if we want to try. i can do that if you send me an email. but lets be honest to ourselves and realize that this version of god is no more real than any other god. no magical after life or virgins in the sky. sorry