To better facilitate what I want to do, I’ve created a new website for the blog, as a platform for my ideas and discussion.  Please update your browsers to this address:

http://www.coffeeshopatheist.com/blog/

Thank You

-Patrick

I am.

I’m angry at being duped by religion, personally.  I’m angry at the harm it caused me.  And now, on behalf of myself, and others who have the intellectual honesty to see the detriments of religion, I fight it.  I war and rail and discuss and scream against it.  I have legitimate greviances against religion.  There are hours and days and moments of my life I spent learning and examining the intricacies of the scripture beyond a literary understanding, or a cultural understanding, but so that I would assure my place in Heaven.  There are verses memorized, which lie as dormant serpents in my mind, ready to be applied, for by (Psalm 119:11) hiding the word in your heart you may not sin against the Lord.  There were friendships, lives, adventures, maturation, endeavors I will never know because of the time I wasted.  Sure, there were opportunities to be gained, but many times these opportunities were stifled.

I’m angry for others that are being hurt.  I’m angry that children are indoctrinated to mythology without a choice.  I’m angry that people are dying because of faith healing.  And that is what makes me right in my anger. I’m angry because I care about my fellow humans, not because I have no joy or passion or atheism leads to nihilism.  I’m angry because I have the moral compunction to want to fight injustice when I see it perpetuated by those in power upon those without the intellectual capability or disposition to realize their indoctrination into mental slavery.

And so I am angry.  And I am angry that because of my legitimate grievances with a flawed fictional system, people think I am bitter or unhappy, or that something is flawed in atheism.  So what if atheists are angry? That doesn’t make it wrong.  I’m sure the witches strapped to wood in New England a few centuries ago were angry, or the ones burned alive today in Africa.  This makes the fact that witchcraft is fantasy and does not exist no less valid.  I’m angry at religious people who distance themselves from people like the Westboro baptist Church, Harold Camping, or Anders Breivik, in a religion that values the individual revelation of the holy spirit, that has verses that can be swung any sort of way, instead of taking a step back and realizing that when you are interpreting a 2000+ year old document with contradictions and inconsistencies, merged with invisible beings and inaudible voices for your sense of truth, it presents a problem.

Greta Christina, who is coming to visit us here at USC in the spring, summarizes nicely.  If you want to actually educate yourself on why atheists are rightly angry, take a look at this video. (NSFW Language)

Faith.  The word that has been used and abused by billions throughout the centuries.  It can have good, bad, or evil connotations, depending on who you talk to.  Today I want to examine the word from a few angles, to clear up some misconceptions that people like to use, and to make a point.  I fear I may step on a great many toes today, but I will seek to not misrepresent anything, only point out the flaws that necessarily exist, but are often overlooked.  Before we proceed, we must establish a coherent, unchanging, clear definition of faith, which is slightly impossible with so many definitions floating around from other people.

Faith: Working Definition(s)

faith (noun) (from Dictionary.com)

Mincing the Definition

It is often said to me that I (as an atheist) take things on faith.  This is true, in the sense of faith(1) but no longer in the sense of faith(2).  I have faith(1) that this chair will not collapse below me as I sit, which is based on a reasoned, emperical evaluation of prior evidence to support this idea.  I can observe the chair’s materials, its construction, examine the physics of the mass-weight ratio, the orientation, the material construction. I could, if need be, present a mathematical proof to a journal on why the chair will hold me up.  This means that if I use the word faith(1) here, it is definition 1; i could just as easily say I have a belief founded in evidence that the chair will hold me up.

This is not the same as faith(2) which is used in theistic circles to mean belief in the absence of evidence; they are completely contradictory terms in this case, and mean nothing like the same thing.  When discussing religious matters, this misuse of the term is known as the straw-man fallacy, which basically ignores the case of an opponent and attacks a distorted version of their case.  By switching out the definition for faith(2) with “reasonable hope,” you are being at least patently ignorant, and at worst intellectually dishonest.  Also, in this article I am addressing the second, biblical definition of faith, not the first.  As I said previously, faith(2) acts as a substitutionary reason for belief in something, so faith(2) satisfies 1Peter 3:15b “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” In the next section I seek to provide a basis for equating biblical faith to the definition given by faith(2).

Examples of faith(2)

In Hebrews, following verse 1, is an area called by many evangelists the “Hall of Faith,” a list of heroes of sorts to the Jews the letter was intended for.  One such story mentioned is that of Abraham in verses 17-18.  By faith, Abraham followed through with God’s command to sacrifice his only son, having been told to by a voice speaking to him (presumably within his head).  Abraham invented a story when asked by his child what was to be sacrificed; “The lord will provide a sacrifice,” hoping beyond hope.  Even considering this story I am met with the vestiges of hoping in my own life to have faith like Abraham.  But let us step back:

Is it a universally beneficial trait to listen to voices in your head that tell you to slit the throat of your son on the altar, with no observable evidence that this voice is anything more than a hallucination?  Schizophrenia often results in audible hallucinations, and can result in self-destructive or otherwise violent behavior that does not typically characterize the normal mode of operation of a person.  And yet this is held up as the pinnacle of human spiritual development.

A second example, that is a “preemptive strike against critical thinking” as Matt Dillahunty put it, is that of “doubting Thomas.”  The story is told in John 20 (NASB):

²⁴ But Thomas, one of the twelve, called ^[d]Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. ²⁵ So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.”

^26[e]After eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been^[f]shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be with you.” ²⁷ Then He *said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.”²⁸ Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” ²⁹ Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

Here we have a story whose moral is incredibly clear: It is better, more admirable, to trust the message of the Resurrection in spite of the lack of evidence for it.  This highlights the problem I find inherent to Christianity: It makes a virtue out of accepting stories without evidence as factual occurrence.  Many go so far as to willfully ignore evidence to suit their own views.  There is a word for this, and it is nearly the same as faith(2): Gullibility.

Gullibility:credulousness: tendency to believe too readily and therefore to be easily deceived

Dangers of Faith(2)

Few like to be called gullible, and rightly so.  We learned the dangers of gullibility on the playground, when people told us our hands were bigger than our face, or in the cafeteria, when others insisted that it was not, in fact a word.  We paid a price in the laughter of our peers, when we found, scrutinizing the pages of Meriam-Webster, the word was there all along.  Many more have been suckered into pyramid schemes, the lies of faith healers or mystics; of televangelists promising wealth if you sow your seed into their ministry.

Many more will say that they could never have been suckered in to such obvious hoaxes; that they live absent gullibility.  And yet they are willing to accept, based merely on flimsy non-eyewitness testimony, that a man rose from the dead?  As George Carlin (NSFW) said, “When it comes to bull, big-time, major league bull, you have to stand in awe at the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims: religion; no contest.”  What evidence is there for these claims, that any one God is real, whether it is Allah, Jesus, or Yahweh? Even for Thor or Apollo or the great bear spirit.  There is none.  What evidence there is points to the fact that religions are man-made: Stories, fables, guidelines and laws that benefited the story inventors in some way or another.  The bible contains nothing about calculus, electricity, or any evidence of divine authorship rather than a desert-tribe story collection.  Yet there are verses that dissuade normal agriculture and textile techniques that we have known for centuries to be vastly superior.  Ever heard of cotton-polyester blend? God hadn’t.

Conclusion

So, everyone is left with a choice.  Your beliefs about the workings of the universe can be founded in empirical, reliable, observable facts, or you can substitute evidence for  faith(2).  In no other realm but religion do we ignore observable facts.  If we are told our house is burning, we go to see it.  If we are told a loved one is dead, dying, or stricken with illness, we want to be with them.  If a political system is failing, we look to the candidates, see where the money went, and what went wrong.  But when it comes to the most important questions: Who are we? Where did we come from? What happens after we die?  We are admonished by our pastors, our friends and neighbors, by the writers of the gospels, the epistles, the torah, to accept as fact fantastical stories on words alone.  No thinking person in their right mind would ever dream of believing that their mother was murdered by President Obama, or that I can levitate, without proof; and yet many millions of Americans believe that a man rose from the dead, in spite of evidence of forgery, heresy, and with no contemporary records of him even existing at all.

So I would urge you to examine whether your faith(2) in God merits you altering every area of your life, realizing that he probably doesn’t exist.

I have been a nonbeliever in any god for around 6 months now, and as each day passes, I find myself more outspoken than the day prior. This has led me to several interactions with men and women who formerly called me “Brother” or “Sister,” but who now call me an enemy of god.  And yet, I will not be silenced, and am only all the more encouraged by the majority of people I meet, and yet I have yet to articulate both the reasons for my speaking, nor the differences in my approaches.

There are two principle reasons I speak out, and are a direct result of my personal experience.  The first, primary reason I speak out is because of the newfound joy I have found in atheism.  In searching for something that well-articulates this perspective, I came upon a website that speaks of telling the world of your conversion experience.  In evangelical circles this concept is extremely commonplace, and I have heard hundreds of articulations of the basic idea that “If you found freedom in Jesus, and are really excited, you should want to tell everyone!”  And I am! I’m excited because of the mental shackles that no longer weigh my mind.

Several days ago I was discussing the process of becoming a freethinker with a friend (who has joined me from their previous theistic beginnings).  As an assistant in this journey, they continually thank me for helping; I simply replied “I did nothing to remove the chains; I simply pointed them out to you. You took off the chains yourself.”

In the book of Acts (written sometime about 70 years after the fact), there was a quote by Peter and John that has been used by countless millions of Christians since.

“So they called the two apostles back in and told them that they must never, for any reason, teach anything about the name of Jesus. Peter and John answered, ‘Do you think God wants us to obey you or to obey him? We cannot keep quiet about what we have seen and heard.’”Acts 4:18-20 CEV

That is where I rest; I cannot keep quiet about what I have seen or heard, about the new-found freedom of using science, psychology, the cosmos, and reality to answer reality’s questions, rather than relying on a befuddled interpretation of centuries-old religious mythology.  And yet in the onslaught of reality, religions refuse to give up ground.  I’ve gone to many churches where pastors pray publicly, going directly against the admonition of Jesus not to pray in public.  I have seen leadership by women, going against Paul’s admonition to teach or to have any authority.  Slavery is ended, despite the bible’s callous support in the old testament, and noncontradictory endorsement in the New.  I see the truth of evolution pushed back in schools, retarding our progression as a country and a species.  I see a new form of bigotry against the homosexual populations of the world, that was was as unjustified as the racism of the 1960s; and yet here we are, fighting against the religious on every corner.  Freedoms are squashed, and I refuse to sit idly by.

As Christians, men and women across the world are taught that they are little more than dirt before a holy God.  And yet this is the same God that created them, knowing they would fail.  Many would seek to absolve god of this crime, but if a parent put a gun in plain reach of a 1 year old, would we ever be tempted to defend that parent when the child kills itself? No.  And God deserves no such empathy.  The Christian view of our original sin is that we are entirely evil, just for being born, and that no goodness whatsoever dwells in us.  Yet, by trusting an invisible figure, we are absolved, as long as we remain guilty over our sin, and seek repentance over the pain we cause Jesus.  This cycle of Sin-Guilt-Shame-Repentance is pure evil, that destroys.  For those that can compartmentalize, it is somewhat successful, as it was for me at times; but still my human nature would get the better of me and I would find myself in a sin that hurt no one again.

And now I am free from that.  I no longer have to rationalize for god, in his defense.  I no longer have to ignore the old testament and say that those rules were for bygone times.  I no longer have to defend the genocides called down by god from up high. I no longer have to defend the irrational ‘judgement’ of a god who punishes infinitely for a finite crime, and whose sense of ‘Justice’ is appeased by a bloody human sacrifice.  I no longer have to defend the fact that God made the choice of who would be saved, and who would perish.  I must no longer defend any of the acts committed in God’s name over the centuries, from the Holocaust to the Westboro baptist Church.  I no longer have to defend irrational homophobia, fear of dancing, fear of sex, fear of rational examination.  I no longer have to trust anything on ‘Faith,’ the substitution of believing something extra hard for the evidence of the thing itself even being true.  I’m no longer bound by association to others that have the same claims of hearing a voice in their head as I do, with conflicting results.

I am free, I am whole, and I want to tell everyone.  This is the primary reason, that though I do not believe in any gods, I still talk about him.  I will quit caring for the intellectual freedom of your mind the moment you stop caring for the eternal salvation of my soul.  This blog has created tens of conversations with people who need to reach out, and I am daily reassured that there is an overwhelming need for people like me to come forward about our experience.

The second reason I am public is that I always want to be keen to the fact that, because I was wrong once before, I may very well be wrong again.  The ultimate cause of my paradigm shift was the moment I entertained this thought for more than a fleeting moment: “I may be wrong.”  This is the crux of reason, the first step in human discourse, and is necessary for any discourse to be at all possible.  Although I hold my views firmly, there is always more to learn.  When my views were first challenged in 2005, I read for months, and yet missed so much.  In the months since my deconversion, I have learned more than I ever dreamt possible.  And nearly every day, I learn that one of my suppositions was completely false.

Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. -Cato the Elder

The reason the fools are unable to learn is they must first admit that to become wise, they should be able to admit their wrongness.  I’m sure many reading this will argue that I am unwilling to answer such criticism, but the length of my responses to any critique of my opinions should assuage that notion.  I am, very possibly, wrong, and I seek to determine where I might be incorrect, and where I might be true.  Furthermore, I’m human. I make mistakes, and I need people to call me out on those mistakes.  I regret losing one of those voices, over what I saw as a minor point, and yet he has served well to make me realize my faults.

When I Use Discussion or Debate

 These men are known in the modern religious circles as the Four Horsemen of the Atheist Apocalypse. And they don’t always agree. They argue and discuss both with each other, and with others outside their atheistic sphere of clout and influence in order to attempt to persuade others to their side, or at least to encourage a critical evaluation of one’s beliefs.  Several of them have engaged in debates with preeminent religious apologists, or open-floor discussions with religious leaders about their views.  Often in debate, especially against esteemed debaters such as William Lane Craig, these men come out looking inferior as debaters, and yet the strength of their arguments is incredibly difficult to ignore.

To that end, one of the primary methodologies I have employed to date has been that of reasoned, calm, discussion with my former Christian brothers and sisters over coffee, food, and beer.  I fight against ideas, and the best way to fight an idea is to sit down.  I absolutely love creating dialogue, in person and on facebook.  If at all possible, I seek primarily to create open discussion about these topics by any and all means.  I’m still trying to determine just how to create discussion here on my blog, and through discussions with others, I plan to begin having an open-forum discussion at the Russell House Starbucks on these issues.

These discussions do not often degenerate to debate, or begin as such, but I am fairly prepared to debate these subjects.  I’ve become increasingly aware of the logical fallacies employed by religious, and am firm in my commitment to truth.  Debate generally takes on a different approach than discussion, and I would only resort to this as a method for memetic propagation in the rare case that the person with whom I dialogue is versed in discourse of that sort.  Thus, I find myself in discussion more; and yet I welcome the opportunity to hash out ideas in a more formal environment.  I am still learning how to create successful dialogue, and it is often because I am tempted too soon to engage in the other form of discourse available to me: Ridicule.

When I Use Ridicule

The gentleman on the right is none other than Thomas Jefferson, framer of the Declaration of the Independence, and devout Deist.  He created a version of the new testament, known as the Jefferson bible, which excluded any references to the supernatural, savior, or godlike nature of Jesus, and kept the moral teachings.  He is also quoted as saying

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.

At some point, in discussion, I may resort to ridicule.  I use this weapon lightly, and often as a last resort when I face people who are unable to engage in the former two.  The principle reason I believe ridicule is a tenable position is that it is merited.  There may come a point in discussion, when to realize the utter delusion of ones beliefs, they must be laid bare, as the emperor was bare with his new clothes on.  In my own intellectual journey towards deconversion, I encountered this position on multiple occasions, and it always left me completely frustrated.  Though returning now, I see that there was no other course of action. Though you may feel attacked by remarks like these, they are meant for your good.  Cognitive dissonance is the first step of deconversion, and if that cannot be arrived at through careful, engaged, respectful discussion, I will inevitably resort to a respectful satirization of truth.  The fact that many religions satirize all others except their own tells me how useful a weapon it is, and if you don’t want to listen to what I have to say, don’t be angry when I point out that you have no clothes on.

Community

First off, this is one of the biggest things that is growing for the secular community.  With Pastafarians, Secular Coalition of the Midlands, and various ways to meet other secularists, I have high hopes for this area.  That said, most churches (in the southeast at least) do it better.  They provide venues for community, bible studies, trips, choirs, small groups, and what have you.  At midtown, I experienced something called a Lifegroup: A group of believers you live life alongside.  I.e. a group of best friends.  At midtown, there was a constant emphasis to ‘call out’ one another in order to share the burdens of others, and help them through it.

This sort of small-scale community is vital to human relationships.  We are by our nature selfish and egotistical, and often are unable to see the glaring shortcomings of our own human nature.  Christians call this our sin nature; i call it an evolutionary mismatch, but the fact is that we do stupid shit. I do stupid shit, you do stupid shit, and we need people to slap us in the face when we do stupid shit. This is the process of maturing, and what is so often lacking in our generation.

I learned invaluable lessons being in that small group about how to positively encourage people in their problems, how to address issues, and how to see with much more clarity my own shortcomings.  We all need to keep our egos in check; we are not perfect, and the only way to become who we want to be is in light of that reality.

Forgiveness

Continuing the idea that we often overstep our boundaries and violate the rights of others, we must acknowledge the need for forgiveness in relationships.  Christianity takes the view and position that the ultimate source of forgiveness should come from the sacrifice of Jesus, who by his nature was guilty of nothing yet forgave everything.  This results in a constant emphasis on an attitude of humility towards others, even when they wrong us.  It also highlights the concept of forgiveness without wrong, forgiving others when they attack even if we are guilty of no trespass.  This is one ultimate sign of maturity that I would never have grasped without seeing it modeled and explained repeatedly by my peers and mentors.

When a friendship or relationship finds its basis in forgiveness, or ones manner is wrested in the humility of realization that we make mistakes and are never perfect for more than brief periods of time, the friendship enjoys a health that would never be otherwise possible.  I know the relationship with my current girlfriend would be nowhere near what it is today without having been grounded in forgiveness, from the mundane to the major, and I am daily reminded of that necessity.  There is a need in relationship to always attempt to be the first to forgive, to erase wrongs perpetrated, to recognize our propensity towards self.  In my relationships now, I seek to be the first to forgive, to identify my own faults however small they are.  This enables a much faster recovery time after a fight or any sort of disparaging encounter.

This grounding I will always be amazed at, and it may be years before i understand my own psychological development that led me to the maturity I now possess.  I can rest assured that a constant reminder of the need for forgiveness first, regardless of the wrong perpetuated, and grounded in the reality that we are all mistaken at one time or another, was an amazing gift given to me by the church.  I now, however, realize that forgiveness operates as a framework, not because a mythological son of god died to forgive, but because basic human nature and interaction functions better if we forgive.

Service and Giving

While I no longer believe that it is moral to tie giving, caretaking, and kindness to belief in a mythological figure, I admit there is plenty of good in the world perpetuated by the Church.  At Passion ’05, we collected money to donate to dig wells for clean water in africa.  At Midtown, we had Homeless for the Homeless, where we slept outside to raise awareness and created a homeless bazzar, with clothing donations, free food, haircuts, job training and recruitment, mental evaluations.  Midtown has also taken donations to free girls in india from the sex slave trade there, and bring them up in a Christian world.  While I love being a part of that, I now question the brainwashing that those children might undergo.  They are freed from physical slavery into the mental bondage of guilt created by sin nature, faith based irrationality, and a plethora of other failings.  But they are certainly better off than they were.

Through my time at midtown I learned about serving, about giving my tithe and being free from addiction to money; I learned that money is not the greatest thing, and that our lives, our wealth, our time, are often very well served serving others.  I would not be nearly as caring and empathetic towards the broken, the ones that are truly helpless, without meeting their needs.

I think many churches should take the advice given in James more seriously with their ordering of things.

James 2:¹⁴ What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? ¹⁵ Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. ¹⁶ If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?¹⁷ In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Martin Luther hated James (and indeed there is much debate on its inclusion as a canonical work since it was obviously not authored by James, but that is another post) because of its teachings of works over grace.  And yet this is a beautiful piece of advice.  Fix the physical needs first.  Do things; Work.  Despite a perpetuation of mental slavery, I support churches that help, that follow the word given here in James.

Musicianship and Leadership

My final point is more of a personal story, but I think it is worth noting.  I experience leaps and bounds in my exposure to beautiful, well written music, from centuries past as well as recently because of my time as a believer.  There are few avenues as uniformly beneficial to young talent as that which is provided by youth groups across the nation, filled with concertgoers that are generally eager and interested in the music being played.  There are no bars or rock joints that could find the same level of involvement; one must fill a concert hall before that is to be enjoyed.  You have the fanbase without worrying about the fan-building, giving confidence and outlets for young talent.

I was a product of this.  Though I never made it ‘big time’ (despite my prayers to the contrary), I learned a ton.  My musical ego was shattered, molded and shaped into that of a much more humble player, willing to contribute silence over shredding.  I understood how to engage an audience. I met players with diverse styles, and would not be in the place pursing bluegrass that I am without the help of those musicians.

I was give opportunities to lead: Bible studies, retreats, outings.  I was the president of FCA, despite what i would have desired to the contrary.  Churches across the world give opportunities for this to happen, on large or small scales.  Opportunities to lead for both men and women allow us to see things from a perspective we would never otherwise see;  These leadership opportunities forged abilities that i would have never otherwise had.  This brings me to my final point:

Thanks

Thank you to all along the way that have helped me in my journey, given me an opportunity to think and learn and succeed.  Thank you Dustin, Luda, Adam, Clash, Bailey, and the rest of the pastoral staff for remaining relevant, and for putting community and helping one another first.  Thank you Tom, Dan, Asian Jeff, and Travis for showing me beautiful musicianship and allowing me to be a part of your projects.  Thank you Jay for being a friend, mentor, and showing me how to be a man in many ways.  Thank you Steve Krooswyk and Benjamin Beaver, for bearing with me, training me in goodness, and pursuing me even now, after I am no longer in the fold.

Thank you Spring Valley Baptist, Emily, Rick, Joe, David, Gloria, Melanie, Sharon, and everyone i’m sure i forgot for accepting me as an outsider and loving me as best you could.  Thank you Steven Justice, Robbie Scholes, Melanie Baker, Steve Turner, and everyone at Shandon for helping me develop the skills of kindness, empathy, and discussion, teaching me to drive a short bus, and being there for me when i needed it.  Thank you to Jack Easterby, Adrian Despres, and Wes Church for helping me learn how to lead.  Thank you Kent, Johnathan, KBax, Brad, Stephanie, Katie, Tara, Heather, and others that helped bear with me as i learned to lead, though i did by no means a perfect job of it.

Thank you to Paul, Neil, Austin, Bethany, Megan, Amber Lizzy, Jennifer, and Brother Lyndon at Plesant View; i was not the man i needed to be, but everything you did shaped me into who i am now.  Thank you to Lauren, Paige, and the other women of integrity i dated that helped me be a kinder, stronger man, as well as realize who i really was.  Thank you to Joseph, Nathan, and the others who continue to teach and dialogue about my journey.  Thank you to all the people that read this blog out of respect for me, in I’m sure the earnest hope that I will ‘find the light.’  Though I disagree, I respect your love, your commitment, and your earnest desire for my best.  I hope to continue to provide a dialogue about which we can learn, and that as humans we can come together in unity towards a better place for us all.

Thank You.

It has been some time since I last wrote, and I apologize for that.  Some have asked me if I was reconsidering my views; I am not.  At any rate it would be necessary for god to completely alter history and create new sources to corroborate the events of 2000 years ago for me to believe in Christ again, as well as provide a reality-based theological origin for original sin, since assuming there is no original sin precludes the need for the sacrifice of Christ.  Today I want to examine the evidence for Christ from extrabiblical sources.  Often, apologists attest to the passing mention of a “Christus” or “Yeshua” outside of the gospels by several scholars, but these descriptions are often one-sided.  To their detriment, I chose to read the other side of the story about these writings and realize the utter uselessness of their testimony when verifying the claims about the divinity of Christ posed in the gospels.  I now judge the merit of essays or writings of apologists based on the author’s integrity in reporting the weakness of the testimony, and if they don’t mention these I don’t dare trust what they might say.

At this point, I must make an analogy to help you understand what I believe is true about Jesus.  Saint Nicholas, who lived in the late second century, was a real person.  There are multiple separate attestations of his existence and he was most probably a giving person, who distributed wealth anonymously.  However, whenever someone is perceived as “larger than life,” mythology and imagination have an opportunity to overtake the human mind.  The mythology surrounding Nicholas was already in the realm of fantastical before his life was even over, and the legend of Santa Claus was born out of that.  Parents routinely lie to their children (in the same way that the mythology of God is propagated) about the mythical nature of this real man.  All that to say, I believe there may have been an individual named Yeshua that was a teaching prophet around the time of 0f 0 A.D. (C.E.; doesn’t matter).  I do, however, disbelieve that he was born of a virgin, believed he was the son of god, cured people of blindness through spitting in their faces, fed tens of thousands of people (hundreds by many reconings), or resurrected from the dead.  I say this because I think that things which attest to the human Jesus and not to the divine Jesus help to show the mythology surrounding this man.

The Talmud

The first source for extrabiblical proof of Jesus I want to examine is the Talmud, a collection of Jewish history and writings from Rabbis and Scribes.  It provides a wealth of knowledge about the Jewish tradition and records.  First it is interesting to note that much of Jesus’ purported teaching is directly from the Talmud, and is not at all contrary to the Pharasees’ teachings at the time.

In the writings of the Talmud, there are as many as 5 references to different Yeshuas, scattered throughout the centuries.  Sanhedrin 43a refers to a Sorcerer with 5 disciples that enticed jews to apostasy, and his disciples were killed.  In another iteration of this manuscript, the hanging of Yeshua (called Ben-Stada) on the eve of passover was added (Florence manuscript 1177 CE).  This reference is most commonly used to be proof of Jesus, but this raises multiple questions.  Why was this Yeshua hanged, and not Crucified? Why were only 5 disciples listed, when the gospels clearly attest to 12 disciples? Why is he called a sorcerer, and not a heretic?  The Jewish community was reasonably incensed throughout the gospels, but such acts of blasphemy would have been recorded correctly, rather than as a sorcerer.  Furthermore, the gospels attest to the crucifixion on the day of passover, and not on the eve (Last Supper).  Well, of course, that is ignoring John, who says (19:14) the crucifixion took place on the day of preparation of the passover.  At any rate Crucifixion is not hanging, so I put this account of the talmud up as proof of a possible historical Yeshua that made no claims of divinity, was not crucified, did not resurrect, and was otherwise unimportant.

Josephus

One of the biggest go-to’s of the Christian apologist is Josephus. Josephus was a Hellenistic Jew born in 37 AD who became a very good military tactician. He fought for the Jews in the first Jewish Roman war, from 66-73 AD. After the Jews lost, he was recruited as a general for the Romans, and subsequently fought against the Jews for the roman army. This action created an immense hatred for him within Jewish circles.

After his military career, he set out to write an accounting of the Jewish history for a largely Roman audience. To that end, he has extensive commentary and provides historical corroboration for many events alluded to in the bible, as well as the Talmud. For example, Josephus’ writings are what helped identify the discrepancy in the gospels of Jesus’ birth year because of the nonparallel existence of Herod the Great and Quirinius. Here, however, we are talking about Jesus. There are two references to Jesus in Josephus’ writings. The Testimonium Flavium, named because of its significance as a ‘contemporary jewish source’ reads:

Antiquities 18:3:3
At that time lived Jesus, a holy man, if a man he may be called, for he performed wonderful works, and taught men and they joyfully received the truth. And he was followed by many Jews and many Greeks. He was the messiah. And our leaders denounced him. When Pilate caused him to be crucified, those who loved him before did not deny him. For he appeared to them after having risen from death on the third day. The holy prophets had, moreover, predicted of him these and many other wonders. The race of Christians takes its name from him, and still exists at the present time.

You would be hard pressed to find a modern scholar not willing to admit that the italicized portions were not added after the fact.  It is nearly unanimous, in a way that many things are not, that the italicized portions were added after the fact.  Some scholars go as far as to believe that the entire section is spurious.  Another argument for a completely spurious insertion is based on the fact that the following paragraph only makes sense if the entire 3rd paragraph is removed (referring to ‘another sad calamity’).  This is evident from the text, and very little of the language follows josephus’ normal writing.  He was a Jew, to be sure, and reveals no information in any of his writing that he was a Christian of any sort.  I personally think he may have made passing mention of a character, but that a majority of the text was not made by him.  At any rate this passage proves nothing more than the mythological nature of Jesus, where zealous copyists are willing to lie to propagate an untruth.

The other passage is much shorter in its mention of Jesus, and it is mainly about a James’ execution (I say a James because it is unclear if this is the James the brother of Jesus or just another James).  From Antiquities 20:9

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, (23) who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

This James’ execution differs from the execution mentioned by the historian Hegesippus.  Apologists cannot have it both ways.  The emphasis of the story is not on James or Jesus, but on Ananus the crazy high priest.  The portion referring to james as the ‘brother of christ’ makes no sense in the passage, in light of the passing mention of both James and Jesus.   One piece of evidence for interpolation is the fact that in the original Greek, Josephus used the phrase “whose name is James” to indicate that there were no other indicative facts of which James it may be.  He uses this language often elsewhere when he seeks to provide no additional details.  The passage itself is written with the same text as that of the gospels, and in light of the previous interpolation, most likely a Christian addition.

In my opinion, the forgery of such mentions of Jesus does more to allude to the mythological nature of Christ than his historicity.  The talmud barely mentions him, and there is very little detail that lines up with the Jesus of the Gospels.  One of the big steps of my deconversion was the re-examination of these facts; There is very meager extrabiblical evidence for the mythological jesus (one that raised from the dead), and certainly not enough evidence to stake your entire life on.  Josh McDowell makes no mention of the spurious nature of the Josephus passages, and to his detriment.  I feel that sometimes the historicity of Jesus is often based on a lie, or at least a lack of honesty about the true nature of these passages.  I have no reason to trust a god that must rely on falsification of documents for proof of his existence.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and god shows a distinct lack of ability in the evidence department.

Bust of Epicurus - Wikipedia Common License

Epicurus, the great Greek philosopher who is falsely credited with the phrase “Eat, Drink and Be Merry,” advocated a much more reserved pursuit of pleasure.  His philosophy resided in two main tenets, that pleasure is the absence of suffering, thus good, and that pain is the greatest evil, to be avoided.  He also posed the problem of evil, but that is another post entirely.  He weighed the options in opposition to hedonism, considering three factors: Intensity (how much), Duration (how long), and Purity (the pleasure accompanied by the pain).  For this reason, things such as orgies and superfluous drunkenness or other temporal pursuits were not considered the ultimate pleasure: they arose from the pain of desire (and therefore were not pure), and they could result in far more pain (emotional, spiritual, hangover) than for the amount of pleasure.  Too much sex, or overindulgence in any area, leads to pain and dissatisfaction with the temporal joys presented by such things.  He somewhat advocated a doctrine similar to that of the Buddha of the alleviation of desires, to allow for a greater experience of joy and pleasure.

Epicurus, however, did not deny the pain of desire of sex, and it is laughable to deny this reality in light of increasing research in sexual psychology.  Our psychological evolution, as well as our evolutionary adaptation of parental investment have created in humans an extremely strong desire to reproduce, in order to allow our genetic material to propagate to the next generation, manifest in markedly different ways between the sexes.  Because males have much less to lose in terms of the ability to produce resources (pregnancy costs resources), they have a much more liberal attitude towards having multiple sexual partners.  This is one of the reasons for the typical ‘macho man’ stereotype.  In contrast, because females (in stone age cultures) often needed the protection and resource support of a male to help raise a child such that her genes would propagate (think pregnant woman/young child eaten by tiger = no genes passed on).  This results in a (stereotypically reinforced) aversion in women towards having multiple sexual partners.  This further manifests by men becoming aroused visually, considering the mating strength of a female from a naturalistic perspective.  Women are generally more aroused by a clear, strong emotional connection, which is biological insurance against a man leaving her pregnant without resources.

These principles find their way, albeit in a much more simplistic and ignorant manner, into the bible and teachings of both Christ and the Church.  By placing laws in place that to some extent protect marriage in the old testament, it ensured the genetic propagation of the israelites.  We see the manifestation of parental investment theory in verses where, because a man cannot know whether a child is his alone or not, non-virgin marriages are to be annuled, and the woman killed, or in the case of sexual infidelity.  This is all based in our psychology: a man has no way of knowing if the kid is his, and by investing resources to raise a kid that isn’t his, he is effectively propagating another man’s genes.  We also see an open approach to polygamy, a common practice when one male had enough resources to keep multiple wives pregnant at the same time.  From an investment theory standpoint, this is okay, although it is generally unacceptable by modern standards.  Different times call for different moral standards, such as the ancient greeks veneration of homosexual pedophilia.  From a genetic perspective, polygamy worked, but that is besides the point.

This overbearing approach towards sex and virginity is ratified and strengthened by Jesus’ statement that equates the thought crime of lust with adultery.  Up until Jesus day, sin was action, rather than thoughtcrime, but upon Jesus’ pronouncement, even a consideration that is natural to mankind is seen as an affront to God.  Ironic because God is ultimately responsible for our creation (if He existed).  Here is where I think reality and iron-age religious mythology break apart: in Freuds estimation, sexual epression is ultimately doomed to failure or worse, and results in a host of other manifest psychological and physiological problems, such as depression and an inability to perform healthy sexual operations.  By forcing a guilt-repentance-restoration cycle onto the already problematic sexuality of a youth, it results in additional sexual baggage that can take years to sort out.  In the time of the bible, there was not a diverse choice on sexual partners, nor was there such a high age for marriage, many marriages occurring well before the time of puberty.  This is all well and good, but not so much for the modern trigger-happy teenager with no target to practice on.

I believe many of the teachings of the bible, Freudian as well as Epicurian philosophy, were on the right track; that sex is something that is not meant to be indulged to a gluttonous level.  Pornography hurts people, and that is true from both sides of the story.  After a conversation with my old pastor and friend Dustin Willis, we reached a common conclusion.  Our stone-age-bred brains and psychologies are mismatched to the current deluge of lust that is available to our eyes today, and by succumbing to that lust, we can cause pain.  There are various prescriptions for the alleviation of this pain, but at the end of the day, is it wrong?  Is pornography wrong?

There is no clear answer, but from an Epicurian perspective, as well as a personal one, I think that an overindulgence into anything sexual can cause more pain than pleasure.  There is beautiful pleasure that is pure in raising a child, and propagating your genes, yet if we give ourselves over completely to pornography, bad stuff happens.  By suspending normal sexual interaction in favor of cheap gratification, the male mind is often given over to, to borrow biblical language, “every manner of evil.”  It has every possibility of becoming an addiction, which is unsafe and harmful to normal reproduction.  It also places impossible demands on the level of physical beauty necessary for males to become sexually aroused, and adds to the sexualization of women that is occurring before our eyes.  For both sexes, it adds performance anxiety, girls required to do increasingly unique things to satisfy, and men having an impossible standard of time and performance level drilled in.

The Evangelical answer is to abstain with everything in us and using the help from god, overcome our sinful human nature.  My old church gives a very good overview for those that are interested in this version.  My solution involves things that parallel prayer and meditation, using my mental abilities to understand my sexual desire.  In some cases this results in a release, but often not.  I don’t add the extra layer of guilt that religion does, as I think of the pain as superfluous, and evil (from an Epicurian perspective).  The guilt of upsetting a holy father does little in the way of presenting a solution, and certainly if psychology has taught us anything, it is that the repression and ignorance of natural desires, whether that be food or sex, is destructive.  I therefore hold contempt for the prevailing religious view that our natural sexual instincts are inherently evil.  Therefore I do much to consider when it is right or wrong to engage in any sort of activity in that realm.

And yet, porn is here to stay.  Even PETA (Not Safe For Work NSFW Link) wants to capitalize on the male urge to reproduce. It is not going away, and so we must deal with it from a psychological perspective.  Porn can be detrimental, when we do it to an extent that it alters our perception of reality.  Is it always wrong all the time to look at?  I cannot respond with certainty, because it is absolutely natural for both men and women to have sexual desires, and satiate these in some way.  Is it wrong to have these sexual desires, like the bible says? No. Absolutely not.  It is as morally reprehinsible to have a desire for sex, as well as to carry out that desire, as it is to eat to stifle our hunger.  However, when we begin to hurt ourselves and others because of an altered psychological state, it may be time for some accountability, and to cut the computer cord, and find freedom.

Just going to leave this here. There is beauty in music. I hope to be able to write songs that change minds someday.

Hey yo
There was once a time
When everybody believed in at least some form of god
And religion ruled the world
It was called the ‘Dark Ages’

Look
They act like I set out to be famous
Talking out the anus
Then go on to describe my lyrics as heinous
Its funny how threatening music is ain’t it
To the typical mono-theistical hypocritical ignoramus
I gives a damn what your name is
For all intents and purposes you can remain nameless
Or have the same name as
Jesus, Buddha, Zeus, or Muhammad
Worshiping every star in the sky plus Haley’s comet
(Why don’t you believe in God?)
Why don’t you believe in Ra?
(huh?)
Why don’t you turn to the east daily and pray to Allah?
(I don’t know)
I’m just a guy speaking the facts
If you don’t like it you can leave through the back
Creationism is a joke and I’ll leave it at that
Look at these so-called down brothers
Hell I might as well be looking at their grandmothers
Thats where they get it from anyways
Just brain washed by the fear and the whip like mini slaves

(Its cause they scare of the truth)
Yeah that’s why they attack us
Try to make up crap about us
(Because they scare of the truth)
Trying to go song for song
When they jealous of us all along
(Its cause they scare of the truth)
Man they don’t want it with us
Bottom line is they just wanna be us
(Its cause they’re scare of the truth)
Take your mediocre songs and your kindergarten blogs and stuff

(Questions)
How could you god be jealous if he was the only one?
How would we be his children with Jesus his only son?
There’s just too many holes but I’ll leave you with this
If God was omni-benevolent how could evil exist?
Let me break it down even further
Say I had a pound of salt
And I asked you with in it to find sugar (okay)
Where would it come from?
If there was zero percent sugar content then logically you’d never find none
Teaching logic to theists you can forget it
Cause not matter how far you dumb it down they just don’t get it
So I’ll swear to God (which one?)
I don’t care pick one
Ba’al, Apophis, Anubus, hell how bout Krishna
That I’ll do whatever it takes to spread truth
And to challenge everything that your God said do
My tongue is like the hammer of Thor
Nailing your deity to a cross and asking for more
I’m Greydon Square

(Its cause they scare of the truth)
Yeah that’s why they attack us
Try to make up crap about us
(Cause they scare of the truth)
Try to go song for song
When they jealous of us all along
(Its cause they scare of the truth)
Man they don’t wanna with us
Bottom line is they just wanna be us
(Its cause they’re scare of the truth)
Take your mediocre songs and your kindergarten blogs and stuff

When you understand why you reject all other gods
You’ll understand why I reject yours
Stephen F Roberts said that and I take it to heart
Think about when I debate theists and take ‘em apart
I’m a child of one lesser god
No superstitious bologna
Or moody temperamental invisible homies
If it exists then show me
Not a book written by man
With letters and words written by hand
(But the bibles Gods inspired word)
Prove it
Until you can prove the bible was divinely inspired then its useless
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
If you don’t believe me ask your Reverend
To cite precedent where faith wasn’t involved
Until he does we just gonna stop listen to ya’ll
Cause you talking in circles
We’ll listen when you talk with a purpose
And that’s real

(Its cause they scare of the truth)
Yeah that’s why they attack us
Try to make up Crap about us
(Cause they scare of the truth)
Try to go song for song
When they jealous of us all along
(Its cause they scare of the truth)
Man they don’t wanna with us
Bottom line is they just wanna be us
(Its cause they’re scare of the truth)
Take your mediocre songs and your kindergarten blogs and stuff

(Its cause they scare of the truth)
Yeah that’s why they attack us
Try to make up Crap about us
(Cause they scare of the truth)
Try to go song for song
When they jealous of us all along
(Its cause they scare of the truth)
Man they don’t wanna with us
Bottom line is they just wanna be us
(Its cause they’re scare of the truth)
Take your mediocre songs and your kindergarten blogs and stuff

Dedicated to you Candice
Zachariah 13:3 King James of course
And it shall come to pass
That when any shall yet prophesy
Then his father and his mother that begat him shall say to him
Thou shall not live
For thou speaketh lies in the name of the LORD
And his father and his mother that begat him
Shall thrust him through when he prophesies.

Only problem with that is
My father’s dead and my mother wants nothing to do with me
I’m glad I crated my own family
I’d be dead by now

I am honored to have attracted the attention of a friend’s brother, who is currently pursuing his master’s degree in apologetics at Southeastern Theological Seminary. For those that don’t know, apologetics is the study of the systematic proof of the Christian faith, using historical, scientific, and philosophical arguments. When you see Christian debates, the person on the Christian side is an apologist.  I have indented his response to my previous blog post, and given some time and thought to address his claim.  Understand that I am not perfect, but I link my sources when I am able; I encourage you to check them out.

Joseph,

Thank you so much for your well thought out, considerate, and reasoned post. To that end i feel i need to clarify a few things. First, my main point was that extraordinary evidence is necessary to believe the claim that the gospel version of Jesus was an accurate portrayal of the Son of God, and i do not believe that 3rd to 4th hand accounts of non-eyewitness testimony with glaring inconsistencies about even basic details surrounding jesus should be admissible as the extraordinary evidence required to believe something like jesus being the only son of god. I have only here looked at a minutae of the gospels, but i plan to examine the rest of the gospels, as well as extrabiblical evidence (which i look forward to your addressing).

“No one knows who wrote any of the gospels”
1) This sentence may just be the header of this paragraph to introduce the your main idea but technically it is wrong.
a) the people who wrote them know (even if they may not be the Apostles)
b) it is more accurate to say “I do not believe that the gospels were written by the Apostles they are normally attributed too.”
The importance in how you word this has to do with posture. It is too concrete to say this because it precludes the possibility (given that the statement is true) that we may one day discover who wrote the gospels. Maybe I’m just being nit-picky though.

1) My posture is in response to the books’ titles: no one (today) actually knows who wrote the books that have the supposed authors in the name. I will be more accurate that at least one person who lived 2000 years ago knows the name of one of the gospels, but it is technically true that to our knowledge, no one knows for certainty the authors of all the gospels. The writer of mark may know who wrote his, but gives no allusion to knowing the writer of matthew. I personally believe that the publishers of the bible set the stage for my loaded statement, by continuing with the name ascribed by tradition rather than changing the names of the gospels to “Unknown Gospel #1-4.” Also, i did not learn this information at any point during my 10 years as a christian, and there is no effort to try to point this out. It is widely known that these are not eyewitness testimony, yet pastors across the nation perpetuate a lie that they are, or that the authors are those ascribed. Bear in mind my target audience are people like me (like I was), who are not aware of these historical problems, therefore i feel i need to be straightforward to dismantle the pseudohistorical ideas that may be firmly lodged in people’s minds.

“The books of the bible… were ascribed literally hundreds of years after their writing. The earliest mention of Mark and Matthew was from Papias at 130CE…” (btw I don’t see any reason to say “CE” when it is still the case that the birth of Jesus, no matter who he was, splits time.. so I will be using “AD”)
2) The earliest mention was “130 CE”?
a) Papias was quoting/mentioning something that we today call the Gospels.
b) Ignatius of Antioch was quoting the gospels before this, since he died in ~110AD. See his seven letters to the churches regarding the full humanity and deity of Christ.
c) Polycarp was quoting Matthew, Mark ,and Luke before 110AD as well (including other books of the NT)
d) Since both Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch were quoting before Papias, your sentence skews the evidence.
e) Both Ignatius and Polycarp considered the gospels to be scripture and were not bothered by the authorship (probably because Polycarp was a disciple of John, and knew who the writers were).

2) a) I believe you misunderstood my point. I realize many people were quoting the gospels and using them as truth well before 130, and this led to their eventual establishment as canonical. However, my purpose with a majority of this passage was to evidentially support my claim that the authors are unknown to us today. When i say “Matthew and Mark” here, i refer not to the unknown gospels but to their actual names: Ascription here is meant to be taken as it is defined, to be given over to the authorship of someone. I am sorry you missed my point and i will try to write more clearly in later posts.

b) I do not disagree that the early church fathers quoted the unknown gospels here mentioned (henceforth i will call them by their traditional names), but this does not do anything for their credibility either; they still remain 3rd and 4th hand hearsay accounts that contradict one another in strong ways.  Disjoining the gospel accounts from their traditional authors and showing their 3rd and 4th hand nature (in addition to their later dating) help substantiate my objection to them as reliable historical documentation.

3) In regards to who wrote the gospels, it does not matter. I believe a strong case can be made that the gospels were written by those whom they are usually ascribed to but let’s first consider what happens if they are not written by them. This would not mean that the books themselves are wrong; it would mean tradition about the books is wrong. Since the idea of biblical inerrancy is in no way hindered by tradition getting something wrong, it would not logically follow that wrong ascription to a book’s authorship makes that book invalid. For instance, we are not sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Since the book of Hebrews seems to be from Paul, Luke, Appollos, or Peter (or some combination of that); and, more importantly, theologically in line with early church beliefs, the early church accepted it. Also, Paul had a copy of it with his letters and it follows the format of the books of Luke. Luke wrote in classic Greek for the first four lines of each of his books Luke, Acts, and Hebrews.

3) Tradition does not diminish their importance, but a common tactic in mythology is to ascribe authorship to people close to the scene. I believe by dismantling the (still perpetuated) myth that the gospel writers speak from a first person perspective is incredibly necessary to dismantling their credibility. I am for finding out the truth, but moreso i am for others finding out the truth, therefore I have a fair amount of work to do in laypeople who do not know these things. Even you in this post ascribe the gospel according to luke as well as acts to “Luke,” as though he actually wrote it. How can i convince people if even scholars like yourself are unwilling to concede, knowing that luke did not actually write his gospel, instead knowing it is an unknown author. If it is unimportant, why do both the church at large and yourself cling to this incorrect idea of the writers being who tradition has ascribed?

“Matthew used “hebrew sayings” to write his gospel (which gets him into trouble for inventing details).”
4) Please clarify. I do not see how this is an argument or what it is trying to assert.

4) Matthew writes using the old testament as reference, resulting in greatly altered testimony about (possible) events. By fitting his narrative to prophecy rather than reality, we are forced to examine his (very human) motives for writing and inventing stories that simply did not happen (such as the mass murder by herod, the escape to egypt to parallel moses, etc)

5) In regards to which gospel came first; this too does not matter. Sure it may be interesting but nothing about which came first changes whether or not it is true. Once again, if tradition over what came first is wrong, then Biblical inerrancy is not bothered. Only if the books themselves claim to come one before the other would this have an impact on inerrancy. (Which I assume is the ultimate underlying problem in this entire blog post) (Also I would encourage you to look more into “Q”… you’ll find that the “Q” theory was born out of a vacuum (the first “Quest for the Historical Jesus” I believe) to which there is no evidence for believing such a document existed. The a priori assumption that the gospels had to have come from a single source is what drove those critics to postulate the “Q” document. I would argue that the single source the documents come from is the collective experience of the Apostles from Jesus.)

5) You are a master’s student. I expect you know the academic dishonesty and repercussions of plagiarism. It does in fact matter which came first, since we have blatant plagiarism in both matthew and luke. By them doing this, they provide no corroboration to the testimony given in Mark; they are merely adding another layer to the hearsay.  For historical documentation, corroborating, independent sources are necessary.  Plagairism significantly discredits their ability to serve as independent sources.

The two-source hypothesis is due to the almost-plagairism present between the two works. If it were based on tradition or direction from the apostles (which i do not believe it is) there would not be as many inconsistencies between the two (many of which you are having to address here).

“It is clear from inconsistencies within the texts that none of the gospels present eyewitness accounts.”
6) Levi and Matthew are one and the same person. One is the Hebrew name and the other is the Greek name. It was common among the Jewish people to have one for each language. This is one of the reasons we see a lot of name changing in the gospels, because people had already accepted it as a cultural norm. (Simon called Peter… Saul -> Paul… Dydimus -> Thomas)

6) I am dense and wrong here. I misread one of my sources, inferring something incorrectly. My source used this fact as corroboration for a non-matthew authorship because it was nearly a word-for-word copy of mark, rather than a new writing about the call. It is not difficult to expect that the account of one’s personal call to discipleship would not be a verbatim copy of another’s work.

7) I don’t see the problem between Matthew and Zechariah. When I read them they said the same thing. Explain please.

7)Zechariah 9:9

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass.

It’s fairly easy to confuse the last two lines, which “Matthew” apparently did. His account has jesus riding two animals simultaneuously:

Matthew 21:1-7

As they approached Jerusalem…Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.” …(quote Zech 9:9) … The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.

This represents deliberate alteration of Mark, and further invalidates the testimony of “matthew.” This goes back to 4) because of matthew’s use of the old testament to invent his mythology.  Also it’s physically impossible to ride two things at once. except in movies sometimes.

8: In regards to the Mat/Luke genealogy. “Luke’s genealogy moves backward, from Jesus to Adam; Matthew’s moves forward from Abraham to Joseph. Luke’s entire section from Joseph to David differs starkly from that given in Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke’s is seen as Mary’s genealogy, and Matthew’s represents Joseph’s. Thus the royal is passed through Jesus’s legal father and His physical decent from David is established by Mary’s lineage.” – taken from John MacArthur

8: Geneaologies: Allow me to refer you to one of my sources; Basically, there are tons of problems. Matthew makes stuff up. Period. (as a quick retort what happened to the 12 or so generations that don’t line up between the two. If each person had a kid at 25, we’re talking 4 centuries of difference.

9) The virgin birth. I understand how people could think it was a mistranslation that “young woman” changed to “virgin” is misusing the text but let’s consider arguments on the other side.
a) It hardly serves as prophecy to say that a young woman will give birth since they do that all the time.
b) What does make it peculiar is that only the woman is mentioned (also see Gen 3 where God says “the seed of the woman”). These two combined are slight nuances to virginity since it was not common to call it the “woman’s seed” (usually seed is reserved for the man).
c) If the woman were married, her husband would have been talked about (in the prophecy). Since he is not, we assume that she is either not married or married and a virgin.
d) Once again, the misinterpretation of a prophecy here does not mean that therefore Jesus was not born of a virgin.

9) These are all conjecture on your part to try and fit the evidence to a preconception; and yes it does matter. Deliberate alteration of the story to fulfil a non-prophecy discredits the historicity of jesus significantly. Matthew wrote with an agenda, rather than reporting accurately. This calls into serious doubt his trustworthiness. Furthermore, there is no connotation of “Virgin” in the original hebrew. The word is used to describe the young occupants of a harem in Song of Solomon, and I don’t believe the occupants of a harem are typically virgins. This is a complete fabrication of birth on the part of matthew and luke.  My point is not that the virgin birth happened or not, my point is that there was no prophecy for it yet matthew goes out of his way to explicitly define the events from a greek mistranslation.  Matthew is not a historical document, nor Luke.  This is corroborated by the section I quoted from mark in which Jesus’ mother had no idea what Jesus was saying.

10) May I warn you adamantly that parallelisms with anything do not change the truth of the thing being discussed? What does a parallel mean?
a) Someone thought it was a cool idea and used it elsewhere
b) It could also mean that people were translating such passages in Isaiah as “virgin” long before Jesus was born and were eager to find the messiah (however misguided). In their eagerness they create other religions that try to fit the prophecy of the OT.
c) One thing it definitely does not mean is that all parallels are therefore fabrications.

10) Parallelism supports the Jesus Myth Theory. While this is not widely accepted, I think it has some merit. It is clear matthew makes things up to fit his preconceived notions and agenda, and borrowing from other mythologies seems plausible to me. I am not saying that because it parallels a myth, it is a fabrication; i am saying that because we know next to nothing about who jesus really was because of the unreliability of the sources, it is interesting to note that the myths about him also happen to mirror other gods. Remember how everyone believes Jesus was born on december 25? He wasn’t; it was stolen from an already celebrated holiday. same thing: New God Same Myth. Revision 2.0

11) “in Matthew, Joe and Mary are from Bethlehem when they heard the annunciation, while in Luke’s account they lived in Nazareth”. Matthew does not say where they were when the annunciation took place. They are in Bethlehem when Jesus is born, both Mat and Luke testify to this.

11) The thing to note is that in matthew, rather than returning to bethlehem (that now seems to be their home town) because of the new ruler, they go to Nazareth in Gallilee.  However the two records have completely contradictory accounts of their progression back to a nonexistant town.

12) By now I have written a great deal. I could talk about your take on Nazareth and many other things but I will stop for now to make one last point. Many of the problems you seem to have lead you to odd conclusions. For instance, your stance on tradition being wrong somehow leads you to think that the gospels are wrong. Your stance against Christianity leads you to accept Atheism, when clearly you did not rule out the existence of God, but that if you did rule out any God it was only the version of Christianity. My primary obstacle with your arguments are your conclusions (and some details); they do not follow from your premises.
Hopefully future posts will not be as long, but I hope you can see that I took your post seriously and tried to thoughtfully work through what you have written. Peace.

My conclusion is that the gospels present an unreliable historical account of the man named jesus, who was supposed to be the son of God and the central figure of worship for the creator of the universe, or at least a member of the trinity of that god. I formerly believed based on historical, scientific evidence for the integrity of the scriptures, and my new conclusion is that the Jesus figure perpetuated by the gospels and corroborated by church tradition did not exist (not that a man named Jesus did not, but the mythological one did not).  A historical Jesus may have, but the mythology surrounding him is just that: myth.  My conclusions are based on Occam’s razor; and the much more straightforward solution to the inconsistencies throughout the new testament are that it was a cleverly invented myth that was plagiarised from various accounts and oral traditions.

I have previously examined Islam, Mormon, Judaism, Scientology, and many other religions, and found them lacking in historical, scientific, and philosophical basis, but as of now i am trying to dissuade people from a religion that teaches original sin, hell, and the absolution of morality through propitiation.  I studied extensively in my time as a christian, and considered seminary for exactly what you are doing now. Living in the bible belt, my primary audience are christians.  I do not seek to rule out Deistic or undefinable gods, because this is patently absurd, but as we were born atheists I believe the burden of proof is on those bringing the claim that there is an invisible entity with direct contact to the human race.  This post is merely the tip of the iceberg, and I plan to share my knowledge for a fair amount of time.  Please explain your definition of God in the statement below so i can rule it out:

Your stance against Christianity leads you to accept Atheism, when clearly you did not rule out the existence of God, but that if you did rule out any God it was only the version of Christianity.

I was a christian for 10 years, and my life since becoming an atheist is much more difficult in many ways.  I no longer have a church family, my parents theological support, and my girlfriend disagrees with me as well.  People regularly consider me lesser for my views, and it is no secret that atheists are the most mistrusted minority in the US.  I clung to my faith for several years as truth eroded my belief in God.  Please do not make assumptions about my stance; I have done no such thing to you.  I was familiar with many of your points before I wrote this response, while in other instances I encountered the perspective along my more recent journey.  I considered your point of view for 10 years, with my faith gradually waning due to reality’s flood of truth.  I would ask you to be as respectful of my current view as i am of yours.

Also the above statement makes it seem as though i must rule out all gods to be an atheist.  Do you believe Christianity is not the one true religion? Why on earth are you following it? If I said there is a flying spaghetti monster who is invisible and undetectable, the burden of proof is on me to prove this exists. Please understand that the burden of proof is on you, and if you seek to redefine God, then understand that that is presenting a straw man of my arguments.  You define your god; I will dismantle it.

If the christian god existed, he should have done a better job. If the best he can do is provide a few inconsistent, plagairised, hearsay accounts about his son that is the determining factor for eternal punishment, i’d say that that god, if he exists, is far to unimpressive to exist, let alone worship.  I would urge you to consider this possibility with equal weight to your faith.

Last week, I examined one of the final straws in my Christian deconversion, the Historicity of the Martyrdom of the Apostles.  Today, I will take a step up the ladder and examine the man called Jesus of Nazareth, and focus on the reliability we can have of the most important figure in Christianity: The Christ. I will not in this blog examine the old testament, but will assume for now that it was prophesied that a figure of the lineage of david would arise to give new direction to the Hebrew people when they were under duress, a figure many Jews at the wailing wall believe still has not come.

Carl Sagan, reiterating Laplace (the french mathematician that made life so much easier), held the belief that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I believe in this respect, the idea of Jesus Christ as projected by the gospels and the Christian faith, did not exist. This is not to say that a historical, real, living person named Jesus existed and talked to people, and had stories about him did not exist, but that the stories that were projected are mythological, inaccurate, and do not meet the burden of proof to validate the extraordinary claim that the man Jesus was the son of god who espoused harmonizing teaching about the old testament, performed many miracles, and was sacrificed to save humanity (the elect) from sin.

The Gosepls

No one knows who wrote any of the gospels. The books of the bible known as the Gospel of “Matthew, Mark, Luke, John” were ascribed literally hundreds of years after their writing. The earliest mention of Mark and Matthew was from Papias at 130CE, in which he describes the first bit of legend, that Mark wrote down everything for Peter, and Matthew used “hebrew sayings” to write his gospel (which gets him into trouble for inventing details). The gospel of luke got its namesake from Irenaeus around 180 CE, as did John. The gospel accounts were understood by the early church to be from jesus’ closest disciples, but it was not until much later that these names were agreed upon. There are no records within the gospels of who actually wrote the accounts, and the gospel of luke is addressed to an unknown person, with no historical reference for the man known as Theopolis.

Early church legend supposed that matthew and luke came first, that mark followed, due to their inclusion of Geneaologies. We now know that this is not the case, but the legend stood. The three synoptic gospels began with Mark at a minimum of 70CE (around 40 years after Jesus’ supposed crucifixion). Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily (read: Plagairised) from mark, and the going theory is that they had another work known as “Q” on which to base their additional assertions, and most date these books to around 90-100CE (60+ years after the supposed resurrection).

It is clear from inconsistencies within the texts that none of the gospels present eyewitness accounts. For example, in Mark 2 (corroborated by Luke 5), Levi was called to become a disciple, while in Matthew 9, the disciple’s name was Matthew. An eyewitness, especially one attested as the author, would not get the name here wrong. Matthew 21 also has Jesus riding in on 2 donkeys, based on a mistranslation of Zechariah 9. Mistranslation, mythology, and legend in Matthew (who pushes a strong Jewish agenda as shown in his disreverence for the Romans throughout) cause several errors to be present.

One of the most notable misinterpretations centers around the town of Nazareth where Jesus grew up. Either the “Q” document or both Matthew and Luke (or all of them) mistakenly mistranslated the old testament prophecy in Isaiah that refers to the “Branch,” because the town of Nazareth didn’t exist. This is not the only thing that breaks down the historicity of the nativity.

• The Geneaologies in Matthew and Luke are incompatible.  This is obviously a fill-in that each author wanted to include to fulfill prophecy, but by diverging, they prove that neither author knows the actual geneaology.
• The Virgin Birth is a mistranslation of Isaiah into the Greek, which interprets the word “Maiden” as “Virgin” (or young woman).  The idea of a virgin birth is not the fulfillment of prophecy, but closely parallels mythology surrounding Horus, Dionysus, Mithras, and several other common mythological deities.
• in Matthew, Joe and Mary are from Bethlehem when they heard the annunciation, while in Luke’s account they lived in Nazareth (which again, didn’t exist).
• There is absolutely no evidence for a mass herod-induced murder.  Josephus, who hated herod’s guts, records nothing of this, while details many other events that paint herod as a diabolical character.
• Because of these contradictions matthew has the travel plans of Bethlehem->Egypt->Nazareth, while Luke’s is Nazareth->Bethlehem->Jerusalem->Nazareth.  These two series of events are incompatible, and attempts to unify the two result in not enough time to get back to jerusalem to observe the purification set down in leviticus 12.
• Quirinius’ census from historical documents took place in the year AD 6.  Quirinius was governor of Syria for 6 years, from 6-12 CE, based on Josephus accounts as well as other roman documents.  Herod the great died in 4 BCE (the herod Jesus went to was Herod Jr.).  Therefore, Jesus was born both before 4 BCE and after 6CE.  Which is the same as me being born when the world trade centers were destroyed when Barack Obama was President.
• John, meanwhile, says in 8:57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” putting his birthday at around 20 BCE.  Luke also states that jesus was 30 when he began to preach during the 15th reign of Tiberious.  Thus his birthdate was around 1 BCE.