Steven Carr's Blog

William Lane Craig on why children should be killed for their own good

2011-10-27T21:04:00.000-07:00

Craig continues with his systematic campaign of saying why children should be killed.

It is now for their own good.

Craig in Oxford

'If you believe in the salvation, as I do, of children, who die, what that meant is that the death of these children meant their salvation. People look at this [genocide] and think life ends at the grave but in fact this was the salvation of these children, who were far better dead…than being raised in this Canaanite culture. '

The omniscience of William Lane Craig

2011-10-26T02:10:00.000-07:00

Richard Dawkins is scared to debate William Lane Craig.

Who wouldn't be?

William Lane Craig's proof of the existence of Yahweh starts 'Everything that begins to exist has a cause'.

How does Craig know that everything that begins to exist has a cause?

Easy. Craig knows about literally everything. No wonder Dawkins can't compete. Does he know about literally everything?

Scientists are spending 5 billion dollars in Cern trying to find out about the origin of the Universe.

All those years of education and not one of them has the common sense to ring William Lane Craig , who can tell them about everything that ever began to exist....

William Lane Craig in why murder is morally obligatory

2011-10-24T08:33:00.000-07:00

William Lane Craig, channelling the late Osama bin Laden, has gone public with a claim that murder is morally obligatory if his god commands it, and it is not even murder if the killing is because a god commands it.

CRAIG
Rather, since our moral duties are determined by God’s commands, it is commanding someone to do something which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been murder.

The act was morally obligatory for the Israeli soldiers in virtue of God’s command, even though, had they undertaken it on their on initiative, it would have been wrong.

On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.

Professor Larry Hurtado on Christian worship of Jesus

2011-09-20T23:44:00.000-07:00

Professor Larry Hurtado has an interesting article on early Christian veneration of Jesus.

Professor Hurtado writes ' It is one thing to imagine the deification of a human hero in a setting in which that was entirely expected and had multiple precedents. It is quite another in a religious culture that forbids it! It’s the latter setting in which Jesus-devotion erupted.'

One wonders why Jews did not forbid Christians worshipping Jesus in the middle of Jerusalem. Why were they not killed as idolators?

And what did the Romans think about this 'deification of a human hero' - somebody they had crucified as a potential troublemaker?

A reported letter in Acts 23 says 'Claudius Lysias,

To His Excellency, Governor Felix:

Greetings.

This man was seized by the Jews and they were about to kill him, but I came with my troops and rescued him, for I had learned that he is a Roman citizen. I wanted to know why they were accusing him, so I brought him to their Sanhedrin. I found that the accusation had to do with questions about their law, but there was no charge against him that deserved death or imprisonment.'

The Christians were venerating a human, and the dispute had to do 'with questions about their law'?

And the Romans were too dumb to realise that Paul was a follower of somebody they had killed as a potential troublemaker, and who Paul was claiming was still alive and leading their movement?

Where is the elephant in the room? Where did Jesus go in disputes between Christians/Jews/Romans? It is as though he had never been!

William Lane Craig and his Scooby Doo God

2011-09-10T23:31:00.000-07:00

In the cartoon series , Scooby Doo, the villain would always have succeeded in his plans, if it wasn't for meddling kids.

The famous Christian apologist, William Lane Craig, thinks his God is like a villain in a cartoon series. A few children can easily wreck his plans.

I quote Craig in Slaughter of the Canaanites God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.

Craig's solution is for his alleged god to have all the children killed.

Then they wouldn't be able to wreck his plans.

No wonder Christians consider William Lane Craig a suitable person to debate Richard Dawkins, Polly Toynbee or Stephen Law. There is no answer to Craig's logic. How can you argue with somebody whose solution to children being in God's way is to kill the children?

English Bishops save the world

2011-09-02T14:45:00.000-07:00

Perhaps you remember the scene in Father Ted, when assembled clergy, unable to think of anything useful to do, decide to hold a mass.

Well, English Bishops are not to be outdone when it comes to spectacularly useless feats.

The Bishop of Oxford is, wait for it , visiting churches

The strange thing is that the BBC, to which I pay my licence fee, apparently thinks it is worth spending money to cover the story 'Bishop visits church'.

How can 'Bishop visits churches' be a)news and b) something even an English Bishop can not realise is hardly going to save the world

Just how irrelevant can the Church of England make itself before it begins to appear that they are masters of irony?

Bishop Nick Baines on why Christian values are the best

2011-09-01T23:58:00.000-07:00

Bishop Nick Baines has an interesting article about how the Christian set of values (NB not Jewish, or Muslim) are the best

'David Bentley Hart’s argument – backed up with copious historical analysis and evidence – is essentially that the pre-Christian world actually saw human life as expendable and cheap. What he terms ‘the Christian revolution’ brought about a ‘universal’ valuing of human life, of mercy and justice that did not hold sway beforehand.'

Bishop Baines probably had no idea about the beliefs of William Lane Craig, the person his same blog post championed as somebody atheists were scared to debate over arguments and evidence.

I quote William Lane Craig

‘God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. The killing of the Canaanite children not only served to prevent assimilation to Canaanite identity but also served as a shattering, tangible illustration of Israel’s being set exclusively apart for God.’

Craig’s solution is for his alleged god to have all the children killed.

Then they wouldn’t be able to wreck his plans.

Perhaps Christian Bishops should not be so quick to claim that Christians preach the value of life while the very people they themslves champion as defenders of Christianity have no problems with the idea that whole tribes of men, women and children can be killed to further the plans of their god.

Maurice Casey and healing blind people

2011-07-12T02:40:00.000-07:00

On page 270 of his book 'Jesus of Nazareth' ,Professor Maurice Casey of the University of Nottingham writes 'Jesus’ use of saliva will have encouraged the man, who will have heard and felt Jesus’ spitting in his eyes, and who will also have been aware of the healing properties ascribed to saliva. The saliva will also have removed dirt and dried secretions from the eyelids. '

As well as being an expert on reading Aramaic documents he has not seen, Maurice Casey is also an expert on curing cataracts. Apparently, you can cure blind people quite easily.

One thing you can do is spit on their eyes. Saliva removes dirt and dried secretions.

Washing your face is certainly something a blind person can try. Make sure your hands are clean before washing your face though , or there is a danger that you might just be adding to the dirt and dried secretions on your eyelids.

How much are the University of Nottingham going to charge students for this kind of scholarship?

From 2012, you will have to pay 9000 pounds to be able to claim that your Professor is the renowned Maurice Casey.

Save your money.

Professor Maurice Casey and Arguments from Silence

2011-07-11T08:08:00.000-07:00

Stephanie Louise Fisher has kindly posted a big chunk of Maurice Casey's writings so that people can confirm just how greatly mainstream Biblical scholars rely on arguments from silence, which they deploy as though no ink need be wasted justifying an argument from silence.

Who can the doubt the validity of arguments from silence, when renowned scholars deploy them routinely?

'On pages 208-9 of Is John’s Gospel True?, Casey wrote (and obviously this is only part of his argument),
“The Lazarus story is a Johannine composition from beginning to end (n.15. see pp. 55-7). The narrator tells us that many of `the Jews’ believed in Jesus because of this miracle (11.45). The reaction of the chief priests and the Pharisees is remarkable. They convened a sanhedrin and said, `What are we doing? – for this man is doing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy our place and people’ (11.47-8). Widespread faith in Jesus would not have given the Romans cause to do this. This is an extraordinary perception, formed by the Neronian persecution, which showed genuine Roman hostility to Christianity, and by the destruction of Jerusalem after the Roman war of 66-70CE.

Some Jews attributed this to failure to observe the Torah, and Christians did not observe it. From this perspective, everyone having faith in Jesus could indeed lead to the destruction of the place and the people. This perspective has however no place in the Judaism of 30 C.E.. It leads through the prophecy of Caiaphas to the decision to have Jesus put to death. This is also profoundly ironical. Jesus has been presented as the Resurrection and the Life, and the source of life to those who believe in him. His gift of life to Lazarus is now presented as the reason why the chief priests and Pharisees seek to have him put to death.

After the anointing story, things get worse and worse. At 12.9-11, many were leaving `the Jews’ and believing in Jesus, and consequently the chief priests took counsel to kill Lazarus. This begins a set of statements, according to which Lazarus was exceptionally important.

If this were true, we would not be able to explain the omission of Lazarus from the synoptic Gospels.

(Another argument from silence - Carr)

Secondly, the plot is incredible. Killing someone raised from the dead is not a feasible Jewish reaction to such a miracle, and the plot is never mentioned again.

(Yep, another argument from silence - Carr)

It either worked or it did not. It is difficult to see how the plot against Lazarus could fail, when that against Jesus succeeded. Nonetheless, it is not acted upon , yet Lazarus does not reappear in the early chapters of Acts.

(Another argument from silence - Carr)

Nor does he appear again in the fourth Gospel, surviving an unsuccessful plot.

(Another argument from silence - Carr)

Finally, in the Judaism of Jesus’ time, having faith in Jesus did not mean `leaving’ in any reasonable sense. The fourth evangelist has imposed on the Judaism of Jesus’ time the situation of his own, when Jews converted to Jesus did indeed leave the Jewish community.

But the narrator has not yet finished. Verse 12.12 slides into the old tradition of 12.13-15. More trouble begins at verse 16, where the disciples are to `remember’ what they had not previously known. It becomes serious in verses 17-19, where the crowd bear witness that Jesus had raised Lazarus, so the Pharisees declare, `the world has gone after him.’ Lazarus, however, is heard of no more. The Johannine narrative is thus internally incoherent, as well as inconsistent with synoptics. The decisive incoherence is that the story of Lazarus just stops. With so many Jews `leaving’ because of the raising of Lazarus, with the crowd who saw this miracle bearing witness to it, with a crowd meeting because they have heard of this sign, with a plot against Lazarus’ life, Lazarus was such an important figure that his further presence, and his fate, were bound to have been recorded.

(Another argument from silence - Carr)

But they are not recorded.

(Another argument from silence - Carr)

Why not? The only possible explanation emerges from the absence of Lazarus from the synoptic Gospels.

(Another argument from silence - Carr)

His fate is not recorded because he never was an important figure.

(Another argument from silence - Carr)

He does not turn up in Acts, and he neither wrote nor figures in any epistle, for the same reason.

(Another argument from silence - Carr)

This also tells us something about the way in which this Gospel has been written. The profound and real feeling that Jesus brought life and `the Jews’ brought death (cf. 16.2) to the Johannine community is presented in story mode. Hence the stress on the love of Jesus for Lazarus, as even `the Jews’ notice (11.36), and for Martha and Mary (11.5), for Jesus loves his disciples. Hence also the narrative precedents for Jesus’ own resurrection, especially the difference in the graveclothes, for Lazarus came forth bound (11.44), whereas Jesus left the graveclothes behind and vanished, a difference great enough for a disciple whom Jesus loved to come to faith (20.7-8) Such factors have quite overridden the historical inconsistincies which we can see.”

Of course, Casey would not be Casey if he did not trash his own arguments. Casey writes ''The Synoptic Gospels are very short, so there is nothing inherently wrong in suggesting that some authentic traditions have been omitted from them and survived elswhere.'

Casey neatly trashes his claim 'If this were true, we would not be able to explain the omission of Lazarus from the synoptic Gospels.'

Maurice Casey and arguments from silence

2011-07-08T01:17:00.000-07:00

Do professional Bible scholars like Professor Maurice Casey have logical arguments?

On page 209 of 'Is John's Gospel True?' , Professor Maurice Casey concludes that Lazarus was not an important figure. 'His fate is not recorded because he was not an important figure.He does not turn up in Acts and he neither wrote nor figures in any epistle for the same reason’.

It is interesting how easily and naturally arguments from silence flow from the pens of mainstream /independent Biblical scholars. They use arguments from silence as naturally as breathing.

Casey’s whole sentence is predicated on the rather natural assumption that you expect important figures to appear in Epistles.

On page 38, of 'Jesus of Nazareth', Professor Maurice Casey writes about GA Wells as follows :-

'His (Paul's) epistles mention neither John the Baptist,... nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master. They give no indication of the time or place of Jesus's earthly existence. They never refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as his place of execution.'

How does Maurice Casey explain the way these things never figure in the Epistles?

'All this means is that Paul wrote epistles about the problems which he found in his (largely gentile) churches in the Graeco-Roman world, no an account of the life of Jesus, which the epistles take for granted. Consequently, they mention only a few main points, mostly when there was some point of controversy.'

So do mainstream Biblical scholars have a methodology which is not ad hoc?

It seems not, as Maurice Casey can use arguments from silence in one book as though they were so obviously correct, that it would be a sheer waste of time to try to gainsay them.

And in another book, he can heap venom on people who point out vast silences in the Epistles.

Later in 'Jesus of Nazareth', on page 513, Maurice Casey trashes the account of the resurrection of Lazarus, pointing out 'Lazarus is never mentioned in the synoptic Gospels, and he does not appear in John before the story of his resurrection.'

Another argument from silence! And another place where Casey regards arguments from silence as so powerful that he sees no need to waste ink on any possible objections.

But in case anybody has any doubts, Casey then wheels out his big gun - an argument from silence. 'Nor does he appear in the early chapters of Acts, as he surely would have done if this story had been true.'

So when Wells points out that the Epistles never mention important figures, and surely Lazarus would have been an important figure, then Casey produces a take-down move on Wells.

And when Casey wants to knock down the resurrection of Lazarus, he can think of no greater knock down blow than wheeling out arguments from silence - one of the most powerful arguments he can wield in his analysis of John's story about Lazarus.

There is no methodology, which is why Biblical scholars have crashed and burned when trying to find an historical Jesus.

Richard Dawkins talks about William Lane Craig (possible debate?)

2011-05-15T00:49:00.000-07:00

Richard Dawkins has spoken about William Lane Craig in the following terms.

'One of our commenters on another thread, stevencarrwork, posted a link to this article by the American theologian and Christian apologist William Lane Craig. I read it and found it so dumbfoundingly, staggeringly awful that I wanted to post it again. It is a stunning example of the theological mind at work. And remember, this is NOT an 'extremist', 'fundamentalist', 'picking on the worst case' example. My understanding is that William Lane Craig is a widely respected apologist for the Christian religion.

Read his article and rub your eyes to make sure you are not having a bad dream.'

I don't think those are the words of somebody hoping to debate Craig any time soon.

Richard Swinburne defends genocide

2011-03-31T00:03:00.000-07:00

Swinburne on Genocide is a fascinating article about how Oxford Professors of Religion have no problems with whole tribes of men, women and children being killed.

'God does not wrong the Canaanites . . . if he makes the gift of life shorter for some of them than for some other humans. If there is a God, he has made it abundantly clear that the 'gift' of life is a temporary one which he makes as long or short as he chooses. To use an analogy, I may lend you a book, saying, 'you can have this until I want it back'. I don't wrong you if I let other people use a book for a longer period than I let you use a book.'

Remember, when a child dies of malaria, it is just Swinburne's god taking his gift back.

When a tsunami wipes out 15,000 Japanese people who had done their utmost to prepare against Acts of God, it is no more than Swinburne's god taking his gift of life back.

Remember also that if Richard Swinburne gives you a present for Christmas, he will take it back from you on Boxing Day.

In the Christian world view, give to the poor, because it is only a gift, and you can always take it back.

The census 2011 - how many people should the Christian god kill?

2011-03-26T01:37:00.000-07:00

At the upcoming Unbelievable conference on apologetics, David Instone-Brewer will be speaking.

Here is what David Instone-Brewer has to say about taking a census, and how his god equips his angels with swords.

What does an angel need with a sword, anyway? Can't the Christian god invent laser beams, or any technology that people of 2000 years did not know about? What a puny god - limited to bronze age technology by the people who invented him.

Christian Warfare

I quote from what a grown adult in the 21st century actually believes....

“Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel”
- David wanted to know how big his kingdom was, but this was evil pride
- he insisted, and God punished him by sending a plague killing 70,000 men
- David sees this as an angel with drawn sword, and fell down in repentance
- he asked God to kill himself and his family rather than any more Israelites
- the place where the angel stopped became the place for David’s Tabernacle

Of course, Mr. Instone-Brewer clean forgets to tell his readers that his imaginary god ordered this census to be taken.....

2 Samuel 24 'Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

John Polkinghorne on Japanese tsunamis

2011-03-13T15:11:00.000-07:00

John Polkinghorne explains why Japanese people have to die.

'O.k. you might say, wouldn’t it have been better for God to have created a world with a solid crust, in which there were no tectonic plates. The answer is no it wouldn’t, because not only do tectonic plates slip, but also in the space between the plates mineral resources well up from the interior of the earth and replenish the surface resources of the earth, and that is absolutely essential in the ongoing history of life. If that wasn’t able to happen, life would very soon, in evolutionary terms, die out on the surface of the earth.'

Tsunami

2011-03-11T08:42:00.001-08:00

The Bible, ever divorced from reality, claims this about the god of the Christians.

Psalm 89

Who is like you, LORD God Almighty?
You, LORD, are mighty, and your faithfulness surrounds you.
You rule over the surging sea;
when its waves mount up, you still them.

I think the writer of that Psalm needed to calibrate his reality-o-meter.

When the surging seas mounts up, no god stills the waves.

Was Jesus born 'according to the flesh'?

2011-01-01T03:09:00.001-08:00

Certain Biblical scholars, like James McGrath, proof-text Paul saying Jesus was born.

Anybody can produce proof-texts....

Here is a 'proof' that Jesus was not born 'according to the flsh'.

Galatians 4 ‘Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. ‘

The Nativity on BBC1

2010-12-25T03:37:00.000-08:00

One of the historical consultants explains that her Role was to ignore historical veracity.

'Of course, acting as historical consultant on a retelling of the birth stories is quite a tall order. Like most biblical scholars I’m rather sceptical of the historical veractiy of the stories as they now appear in Matthew and Luke. My brief, though, was to put my uncertainties to one side, to accept a broadly harmonised story-line, and simply to add local detail and colour where I could.'

I suppose this is a bit like getting Sir Richard Attenborough as a consultant on 'Ice Age.

But he is a real scholar,not a Bible scholar,so would not 'put his uncertainties' to one side.

Detroit Lions Missionaries

2010-12-24T02:28:00.002-08:00

If two earnest young men stop you in the street to explain to you that the Detroit Lions are the greatest football team in the NFL, and they know this because they have a burning in their heart that this is so, what should your response be?

What if they then went on to try to get you to believe that the Book of Mormon is true?

Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account of His Life and Teaching

2010-12-03T01:52:00.001-08:00

In this brilliant book, by the brilliant independent historian, Maurice Casey, Professor Casey shows on page 197 that 'Mary Magdalene was particularly important, and other rich women were instrumental in providing for financing and other practical aspects of the ministry in Galilee.'

In this brilliant book, by the brilliant independent historian, Maurice Casey, Professor Casey shows on page 64 that the disciples were so poor that they had to go into cornfields in Galilee and pick grain to eat on the Sabbath to avoid starving.

Truly, Professor Casey has an independent mind.

On page 194,Professor Casey gives unshakeable evidence, obtained simply by reading the Bible, that there were many other relatively rich women whose donations had a cumulative effect that was evidently important.

If only those rich women who were instrumental in providing for financing and other practical aspects of the ministry in Galilee had read Professor Casey's book, they would have realised that the disciples were so poor that they had to eat raw grain to survive.

Teenager arrested for burning Koran

2010-11-25T23:49:00.000-08:00

A teenager was arrested in the West Midlands for burning a copy of the Koran.

Burning Korans is offensive to Muslims.

Here is an extract from the Koran which explains what will happen to people who offend Muslims.

111. The Flame - Al-Masadd
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
111:1 Perdition overtake both hands of Abu Lahab, and he will perish.
111:2 His wealth and what he earns will not avail him.
111:3 He shall soon burn in fire that flames,
111:4 And his wife, the bearer of fuel,
111:5 Upon her neck a halter of strongly twisted rope.

Every week, a minority of Muslims recite how Ahu Lahab is burning in Hell, and think nothing of it other than that he deserves to burn.

Historical Jesus?Just ask for the evidence

2010-11-15T06:27:00.000-08:00

I had an interesting exchange with Professor Larry Hurtado on a blog post written by Helen Bond.

Professor Hurtado was , of course, a bit rude in his replies to me. This is understandable, as he probably is used to dealing with his students and colleagues, who would not dream of asking him for the evidence that Judas existed.

It is interesting that Biblical historians will refuse to give any evidence, even when asked point blank to do so. Instead they will claim that I regard them as 'ignorant' and 'worthless', even when you have as polite to them,as they have been obnoxious about you.

I should point out that all Biblical historians can do is say 'These people are in the Bible, so they must have existed.'

This is bad logic, but what else could Professor Larry Hurtado say? He had no evidence, so all he could say was 'The Bible says so.'

When did Jesus die?

Here is my reply to Professor Hurtado, although I doubt that it will be allowed.

Paul, of course, is a primary source, so letters by him are primary documents. Claims by Paul to have existed and to know of the existence of Apollos,Priscilla etc are valuable primary affidavits.

Mischaracterising my views by pretending I do not know the difference between primary and secondary sources is not nice of you.

The Gospels are secondary anonymous sources. They mention a lot of characters who,like a lot of characters in the Book of Mormon, do not exist outside their pages.

Therefore , the gospels are not evidence of the existence of Judas,Lazarus, Barabbas, Thomas, and the vast cast of Gospel characters who are never mentioned by Christians writing to each other.

‘ You ask for an affidavit signed by first-century Christians, but unfortunately we don’t have any such affidavit for most people from history.’

Is this an explanation of why there is no evidence for Judas? Because no evidence should be expected?

Explaining why there is no evidence of their existence is not producing evidence that they existed.

The difference is the sheer number of people mentioned in the Gospels who vanish into thin air as soon as there is a public church, in precisely the same manner that the Angel Moroni vanished when Joseph Smith went public.

No Christian ever named himself as seeing this vast cast of Gospel characters.

And when Christians write to each other, and tell each other of examples of people who behaved in a certain instructive manner, they almost invariably use Old Testament examples,even if the actions of Judas, John the Baptist, Lazarus, Thomas, Joseph of Arimathea etc would have been far more suitable material to use.

‘you misconstrue Paul’s comment in Romans 10:14-15, if you take it to mean that no Jew had ever heard of Jesus.’

As I already pointed out, Paul is clear that Jews HAD heard of Jesus. People had been sent to preach about him.

Paul asks rhetorically, how can they believe in the one they have never heard of, and how can they hear unless somebody is sent to preach.

He then points out that people have been sent to preach about Jesus, so that Jews do now know about Jesus, and not all have accepted the good news.

The implication is obvious that Paul thinks Jews heard about Jesus by people sent to preach about him.

Mischaracterising my views by pretending I claim Paul says Jews have never heard of Jesus is not nice of you.

Professor Larry Hurtado on 'How on earth did Jesus become a god?'

2010-11-08T07:22:00.000-08:00

Professor Larry Hurtado wrote an excellent book on 'How on earth did Jesus become a god?'

On page 33, Professor Hurtado points out how Jews like Saul would have regarded the killing of Jesus as 'just punishment' for his 'misbehaviour' and that Jesus would have been regarded as having 'fell under God's curse.'

This led Saul to try to destroy the Christian movement. They were committing a 'major offense' in being devoted to Jesus, and this led to Saul's zeal for attacking the Christian movement. For Saul, Jesus had been 'justly executed'.

It is hard to think of modern analogies for people regarded as justly killed and having fallen under God's curse, and then been acclaimed as Lord.

I suppose one analogy would be if people started claiming Lee Harvey Oswald had been vindicated by God and was the True President of the United States. Most people would regard Lee Harvey Oswald as being justly punished, and followers of him as people who should be persecuted.

Or perhaps another analogy would be if somebody started to regard Osama bin Laden as a prophet of God, when he had previously regarded Osama as a wicked person who had fallen under God's curse.

Professor Hurtado does a good job in explaining just how radical a change had come over Paul, who converted to the view of Jesus as Lord, after attacking the Jesus movement for following somebody justly killed, who had fallen under God's curse,somebody who had deserved a sentence of death as surely as many people today think Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden or Lee Harvey Oswald should die.

Should Britain apologise to the Pope?

2010-09-27T01:37:00.000-07:00

Should Britain apologise to the Pope? After all, we were trying to kill him during the war, when he was serving in an anti-aircraft unit, and we were bombing him.

Militant atheism

2010-09-17T07:45:00.001-07:00

A quote today from USA Today '"Despicable outrage," Dawkins howled, describing himself as "incandescent with rage" as he called for a letter writing campaign against the pope to the papers and British Broadcasting Company.'

Militant atheists write letters to the Times.

No wonder the Pope likens Hitler to the worst extremes of atheism.

The Pope , Nazis , Jews and Atheists

2010-09-16T12:48:00.000-07:00

The Pope has recently said the Nazis were against Jews.

I remember the encyclical 1937 'Mit Brennender Sorge' with its veiled references to Jews as the people who crucified Jesus, and its praise of the Old Testament for recording how Jews strayed from God.

'But side by side with innumerable touches of greatness and nobleness, they also record the story of the chosen people, bearers of the Revelation and the Promise, repeatedly straying from God and turning to the world.'

'....he denies his faith in the true Christ, such as He appeared in the flesh, the Christ who took His human nature from a people that was to crucify Him.'

Why did the Vatican order anti-Semitic statements to be read out in all Catholic churches in 1937 Nazi Germany?

Burn a non-Muslim in the Koran Day

2010-09-09T00:10:00.000-07:00

Chapter 111 of tke Koran is about burning a non-Muslim.

The power of Abu Lahab will perish, and he will perish.
Abu Lahab will die and be plunged in flaming Fire. His wife will have on her neck a halter of palm fiber.
His wealth and gains will not exempt him.
He will be plunged in flaming Fire,
And his wife, the wood-carrier,
Will have upon her neck a halter of palm-fibre.

Is it as wrong to burn a person as it is to burn the Quran?

The Gospels as Improving Literature

2010-08-10T18:56:00.001-07:00

Professor Larry Hurtado has another excellent blog entry on the Gospel of Mark.

Here’s a key quote:

“Indeed, it is striking that many of the most notable Markan ‘omissions’ involve matters which are not susceptible of imitation, including the virginal conception and the pre-eschatological resurrection. Mark’s whole story of Jesus can be read as a blueprint for the Christian life: It begins with baptism, proceeds with the vigorous pursuit of ministry in the face of temptation and opposition, and culminates in suffering and death oriented towards an as-yet unseen vindication.”

The whole story was crafted as a blueprint for the Christian life.

Presumably in the same what that the whole story of the Good Samaritan can be read as a blueprint for morality.

Why is there no evidence for Christianity?

2010-08-10T18:21:00.001-07:00

Christians love to explain why there is no evidence for Christianity by saying that people in the Gospels were obscure, so we cannot expect evidence for their existence.

Victor Reppert is a good example of a Christian who rationalises away the lack of evidence for his beliefs by telling himself that he cannot expect to find any.

In Victor's view, we cannot expect people in the first century to confirm the existence of Judas, Lazarus, Thomas, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene, Barabbas, Nicodemus, Bartimaeus, Jairus, Simon of Cyrene, Joanna, Salome, Martha etc etc - people who have no existence in church history outside the Gospels.

As Richard Dawkins points out, this is exactly the sort of behaviour to be expected from people who believe without evidence. They need to find a way of telling themselves that they are being reasonable to believe things for which there is no evidence.

James Dunn and 'Did The First Christians Worship Jesus?'

2010-07-23T02:30:00.000-07:00

James Dunn has written a new book called 'Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament Evidence.'

After over a hundred years of New Testament research, Biblical scholars are still debating whether the first Christians worshipped Jesus.

Clearly , academic Biblical scholarship is a rather ineffective tool for finding out historical facts, if that is as far as scholars have got.

Professor Larry Hurtado has written an excellent review of J.D.G. Dunn's book. It includes the sentence 'But, already in this first chapter, we sense also a concern by Dunn to circumscribe any Jesus-devotion, and particularly to distinguish it from the worship of God.'

It almost seems as though leading Biblical scholars are allowing their private theological beliefs to influence their assessement of evidence, doesn't it?

Another excellent article by Larry Hurtado

2010-07-22T00:43:00.000-07:00

Larry Hurtado has posted another excellent literary analysis of a Gospel. It can be found here

Professor Hurtado writes 'The author’s reason for giving his account of the ministry of Jesus was entirely theological, not to serve some academic modern interest in historical exactitude, but to shape and nurture the faith of the intended readers.'

Of course, the article gives no clue as to how history can be extracted from an 'entirely theological' work.

And no attempt at showing that the disciples existed is attempted in the article. Instead, we get an analysis of how 'John' portrays them , indistinguishable from how somebody would go about analysing how Shakespeare portrayed the characters in Richard III.

Do Biblical historians use exactly the same methods as non-Biblical historians - no more and no less?

Or is one of the main tasks of a Biblical historian to do literary analysis , using the techniques people have developed to analyse novels and plays?

Larry Hurtado and literary analysis

2010-07-21T10:54:00.000-07:00

Professor Larry Hurtado has written an excellent literary analysis of the final chapter of the Gospel according to 'Mark'

But it is all literary analysis. There is no methodology there for extracting any historical data from the Gospel, except trying to find out what the author might have wanted people to believe.

It is treating the Gospels like 'Romeo and Juliet'.

This is how the Gospels should be treated....

Protective Anonymity

2010-07-16T00:47:00.000-07:00

On page 200 of 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses', Professor Richard Bauckham makes up a story about the young man in Mark 14 being Lazarus raised from the dead. He also makes up a claim that Mark did not say this young man was Lazarus because Lazarus was a wanted man and so could not be named by Mark.

The anonymous author of Luke had a very clever idea to make sure Lazarus was not killed for the crime of being raised from the dead. He turned Lazarus into a character in a parable, so that any government officials who read his book would think that Lazarus was a fictional character and so not try to kill him.

That was a clever idea by Luke wasn't it?

Luke also turned the fig-tree that Jesus blasted for not bearing fruit into a parable of a fig-tree that did not bear fruit.

Perhaps the fig-tree also needed 'protective anonymity'?

Or perhaps characters and stories about Jesus wandered between real-life and parables depending upon the spin individual Gospel writers wanted to put on them.

Professor Larry Hurtado has no evidence

2010-07-11T09:06:00.001-07:00

I shouldn't really single out that Professor, as he is only one of many New Testament scholars who have built on sand, and have not done their homework to establish the historicity of Gospel stories before they write books on them.

As I put forward arguments why the baptism of Jesus by John only appeared in Mark's Gospel, and asked for a first-century Christian who had ever heard of the vast cast of Gospel characters , Professor Hurtado had no option but to refute my arguments, sorry, tell me to clear off.

He was unable to produce a word of refutation at Larry Hurtado tells it the way it is

To be fair, he didn't attempt to refute me.

I guess he is just not used to people asking him for evidence that the Gospels have some historicity in their tales of Judas, Thomas, Lazarus, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Mary Magdalene, Simon of Cyrene etc etc.

But surely a professional should be able to rub my nose in all the evidence for the existence of these people.

What else does Professor Larry Hurtado do with his time other than gather evidence?

'Evidence' to New Testament scholars like Richard Bauckham is claiming that something must be eyewitness testimony about Jesus if it is in Aramaic :-)

Evidence for the Resurrection

2010-05-15T00:03:00.000-07:00

What evidence is there for the resurrection?

All Paul says is that Jesus 'appeared'. Where could a physically resurrected Jesus have been hiding in between appearances? If Jesus had been physically resurrected, then he would have been *with* the disciples, not just appearing to them.

And we also have anonymous unsourced documents mentioning loads of people that not even Christians in the first century ever mentioned as having existing.

The cast of characters in the Novels is amazing , considering that virtually none of them appear in letters written by Christians to each other, where nobody ever mentions even having heard of an empty tomb, Judas, Thomas, Lazarus, Bartimaeus, Joseph of Arimathea, Joanna, Salome, Barabbas, Nicodemus etc etc.

If there had been an empty tomb, then for decades Christians would have been hammered by (false in that case) accusations of grave-robbery.

Yet the earliest Novel has no hint of any such accusations and naively says Jesus followers knew they could access the tomb if some big strong men (perhaps fishermen) could be found to roll away the stone.

A later Novel had to change all that by making clear that the tomb had been guarded.

Clearly Mark's Novel had caused Christians to be accused of grave-robbing.

Clearly there had never been any charge of grave-robbing levelled against Christians before Mark's Novel, because the first Novel says the body was just there to be taken if somebody could move the stone.

Nobody in a movement that had been hammered for decades with accusations of grave-robbery would have written like that. Matthew's Novel proves that.

And if there had been no (false) charge of grave-robbing before Mark's Novel, then there could not have been any empty tomb.

Aramaic sources of Mark's Gospel By Maurice Casey

2010-04-15T03:37:00.000-07:00

Aramaic sources of Mark's Gospel By Maurice Casey

Does the Gospel of Mark reflect Aramaic sources of genuine material, going back to Jesus himself?

stephanie louise fisher summed it up best when she wrote Here 'no, texts are not authentic because they might have an aramaic background. Not even casey says so.'

Allegations of body-snatching

2010-04-04T09:25:00.000-07:00

The first Gospel was written by somebody who knew that Christians had been battered for decades by allegations of snatching the body of the risen Jesus.

Yet he had the honesty not to mention any guard at the tomb, and to explain that people knew the tomb could be easily accessed if they only had some big strong men (perhaps fishermen?) who could roll away the stone.

You have to admire the honesty of somebody charged with stealing a million dollars and who writes that it was just lying around for anybody to take....

A Bible Reading for Good Friday

2010-04-01T11:47:00.003-07:00

Paul puts some perspective on the killing of Jesus.

Basically, it seems Jesus got what he deserved, at least in Paul's mind.

Romans 13

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.

For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Sir John Polkinghorne on Haiti Earthquakes

2010-01-15T10:58:00.000-08:00

Polkinghorne writes 'Yet if there are tectonic plates, they will also occasionally slip, producing earthquakes and the huge ocean swells that accompany them. You cannot have one without the other. We all tend to think that if we had been in charge of creation we would have kept all the nice things and discarded all the bad ones. The more we learn scientifically how the world works, the more clearly we see that this is just not possible, for fruitfulness and destructiveness, order and chaos, are inextricably intertwined.'

God really couldn't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

People had to die as a result of earthquakes or Polkinghorne's God just wouldn't have been able to make Planet Earth.

What do people think God is, omnipotent or something?

Paul on oral traditions about Jesus

2010-01-09T09:45:00.000-08:00

In 1 Corinthians 3, Paul writes 'Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly — mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.'

As 'infants in Christ' , would these newly converted Christians have wanted to lap up the oral traditions of what their Lord and Saviour had done and preached?

Would converts not have insisted on learning all the stories about the Messiah that they could get?

Clearly there were no early oral traditions about the life and teachings of Jesus. Paul could hardly have described the words of his Lord and Saviour as 'milk', as opposed to the 'solid food' that Christians were told after they had been Christians for a while.

2010 and counting

2010-01-01T05:02:00.000-08:00

Another year has gone by and Jesus has not returned, although he said he was coming 'soon'?

Have Christians been stood up?

Perhaps there is a Christian out there who has a personal relationship with Jesus and could ask why him he never visits.

Perhaps he was washing his hair, and so couldn't make it this year.

Tony Blair on moral relativism

2009-12-13T02:05:00.001-08:00

But what faith gave me in politics, apart from a basic set of beliefs about the world, was simply that when life gets very difficult, it gave me the strength to appreciate the great privilege I have and not to complain and second to do what you think is right in the end.

CARR
In the end, everybody must do what they personally think is right.

Religious people must do what they think is right, not what the voters, society, or Parliament thinks is right.

Personal experiences of God

2009-11-30T05:30:00.002-08:00

Personal experiences of God

Religious people often claim they can personally experience God.

Are such claims justified?

Mark and the guards at the tomb

2009-11-20T09:07:00.000-08:00

If the first reaction of the Jewish authorities was to spread lies that the disciples stole the body, why would 'Mark' make no mention of the fact that the tomb was guarded?

Did he not realise that his Gospel left Christians wide open to claims that the disciples stole the body? Just how dumb was 'Mark' not to mention the fact which refuted the main charge that had been (allegedly) thrown at Christians for decades?

Perhaps 'Mark' was embarrassed by Christians lying about their being guards at the tomb and was compelled to tell the truth?

Or perhaps Christians only made up that lie after somebody read 'Mark' and then attacked Christians by saying that the tomb had been unguarded?

William Lane Craig on how to create a Holocaust

2009-11-17T00:28:00.000-08:00

What chain of circumstances led Adolf Hitler to choose not to become a painter, and instead choose to launch a genocidal campaign against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and various groups of disabled people?

William Lane Craig explains who chose that chain of circumstances that led Hitler to making that choice.

CRAIG
'In virtue of His knowledge of counterfactuals of creaturely freedom and His freedom to decree that certain circumstances exist and certain free creatures be placed in those circumstances, God is able to bring about indirectly that events occur which He knew would happen as a direct result of the particular decisions which those creatures would freely make in those circumstances'

CARR
Translation. According to William Lane Craig, his alleged God knew which buttons to press to get Hitler to kill Jews, and then God pressed those buttons.

Paul, Jesus and miracles

2009-10-25T01:45:00.000-07:00

1 Corinthians 1
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

Paul claims that when he preaches , he preaches Christ crucified.

He does not respond to Jewish demands that Christianity be accompanied by miraculous signs.

So did Paul just bite his tongue when he was taunted to explain what sort of miracles proved that this Jesus really was the Christ?

If there had been a resurrection, how could Paul have reacted to Jewish demands for miraculous signs by claiming he was not in the business of preaching about them, he was in the business of preaching the crucifixion?

How to be blessed by the LORD

2009-10-16T00:15:00.001-07:00

Exodus 32
Then he said to them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor.' " The Levites did as Moses commanded, and that day about three thousand of the people died. Then Moses said, "You have been set apart to the LORD today, for you were against your own sons and brothers, and he has blessed you this day."

If the Levites butcher 3000 of their fellow chosen people in one day, the LORD blesses them.

God and unbelievers

2009-10-10T01:13:00.000-07:00

How does God deal with non-believers?

2 Kings 17:25
When they first lived there, they did not worship the LORD; so he sent lions among them and they killed some of the people.

The Bible alleges this god sends lions to kill unbelievers. Why am I somehow not very scared of this god and his lions, which are no more than paper tigers?

God is something of which nothing greater can be thought

2009-10-09T00:22:00.000-07:00

It is clear from the Christian definition of god that our conceptions of this being are how we judge how great a being is. There can be no arguments that our conceptions of greatness are somehow invalid or cannot be used when discussing how great any given being is.

Can we conceive of a being so great that it would not allow its worshippers to be tortured, persecuted and killed for their faith and worship of this being?

I can conceive of a being so great that it would not pass by on the other side while its worshippers are being killed for their faith.

Therefore the Christian god is not a being so great that we can conceive of none greater.

Therefore there is no god.

Government cover-up

2009-10-01T00:26:00.000-07:00

As we all know, the government in 1st century Palestine were perfectly well aware that Jesus had performed miracles.

They knew perfectly well that Jesus had been resurrected.

So they had a cover-up, silencing and threatening people who spoke the truth.

Lots of governments throughout history have done this.

The government covered up the Roswell alien landings.

The government covered up the shooting of JFK by a second gunman.

The government covered up the fake moon landings.

Not much has changed in 2000 years , has it?

Free money

2009-09-28T01:45:00.000-07:00

Matthew 17
When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. "What do you think, Simon?" he asked. "From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes—from their own sons or from others?"

26"From others," Peter answered.

"Then the sons are exempt," Jesus said to him. 27"But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours."

The creator of the universe is incarnated as a man, and tells his friends how to get free money by looking in the mouth of a fish.

What childish nonsense is peddled by Christians.....

Back to Church Sunday

2009-09-27T12:53:00.000-07:00

Today was Back to Church Sunday.

I wonder how much the church raised in extra donations by people returning to church and putting money in the collection plate.

Richard Bauckham - 'Jesus and the Eyewitnesses'

2009-09-20T21:42:00.001-07:00

On pages 132 to 137 of Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, Richard Bauckham shows some of the detailed provenance that can be given for ancient works of literature.

Richard Bauckham tells us about Lucian, when he was born, that he wrote many things, who commissoned one of his works, why it was written.

Bauckham applies the well known Christian principle of trusting his sources, and giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Oh sorry, my mistake, Bauckham writes '... we can hardly put much trust in a biographer determined to damn his subject.'

Bauckham tells us how Lucian knew Publius Mummius Sisenna Rutilianus, a source for much of it.

Of course, Bauckham has doubts , and does not always give his source the benefit of the doubt '... depiction of Rutilianus hardly portrays him as likely to be a very trustworthy witness.'

How different from the Gospels, where the mere suggestion that something came from an eyewitness automatically means that every detail is historically reliable.

Bauckham can see that '(Lucian) is a skeptical historian not taken in by the stories of his credulous informant....'

How different from the Gospels, where if an 'eyewitness' source says the fetus John the Baptist leapt for joy in the womb when the fetus Jesus entered the room, then 'Luke' reports it as sober fact.

It is amazing that this work by Lucian has far greater provenance than the Gospels, which are anonymous works which never name sources, written by authors of whom we have no other works to see how reliable they are.

Compare that with the detailed provenance that Bauckham can give for one of Lucian's works.

And compare Bauckham's credulous acceptance of the Gospels, with his legitimate scholarship when it comes to non-Christian works.

No wonder mainstream Biblical scholarship is a mess.

David Robertson

2009-09-12T06:57:00.001-07:00

Paula Kirby skewers David Robertson's book 'The Dawkins Letters' at Robertson

It is excellent.

Gary Habermas and the conversion of James, brother of Jesus

2009-09-09T23:53:00.001-07:00

Gary Habermas claims it is a fact that James was converted by the resurrection of Jesus and that James was a witness to the resurrection.

Acts 1
14They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15In those days Peter stood up among the believers....Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."

So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias.

So the very brothers of Jesus were believers and they weren't even in consideration to become witnesses to the resurrection?

So how did James make the list in 1 Corinthians 15?

Why did Luke introduce the brothers of Jesus only to immediately disqualify them as even being considered as candidates for witnesses to the resurrection?

How could James have been a witness to the resurrection, when Acts says the entire church discussed the matter and chose between two other people to become witnesses to the resurrection?

If Habermas is convinced of the resurrection by the 'fact' that James, the brother of Jesus was converted by this alleged resurrection, why does Acts rule out every brother of Jesus as a candidate for the position of 'witness to the resurrection'?

Dinesh D'Souza on Christianity and School

2009-08-28T22:50:00.000-07:00

"Children spend the majority of their waking hours in school. Parents invest a good portion of their life savings in college education and entrust their offspring to people who are supposed to educate them. Isn’t it wonderful that educators have figured out a way to make parents the instruments of their own undoing? Isn’t it brilliant that they have persuaded Christian moms and dads to finance the destruction of their own beliefs and values? Who said atheists aren’t clever?"

Dinesh D'Souza

What's So Great About Christianity

------------------------------------
Gosh, aren't atheists clever? Now they want children to go to school. How diabolical!

Alvin Plantinga and Warranted Christian Belief

2009-08-25T15:58:00.000-07:00

The belief that a man called Jesus lived 2000 years ago and was crucified is a Christian belief.

How can such a belief be a properly basic belief - a belief that needs no justification?

This makes no sense.

It is Ramadan

2009-08-25T11:01:00.001-07:00

This means that women will not be beaten with sticks until Ramadan ends.

See Ramadan compassion for details

Jesus as a miracle worker

2009-08-23T09:25:00.000-07:00

Christians , for example James McGrath of Butler University Indiana, will often say things like this '.... it is clear that Jesus was renowned in his own time as a healer and exorcist. '

This statement can be found at Miracles

Of course, not one document can be dated before AD 65 which mentions Jesus in connection with healings and exorcisms.

This includes Christian documents.

Why is mainstream Biblical scholarship in such an appalling state that scholars can say that things are 'clear' , without producing one shred of evidence for their claims?

Can mainstream Biblical scholars say 'rigorous standards'?

If for 30 years after his death, not one member of the Elvis Presley fan club ever hinted at his remarkable tap-dancing feats, would mainstream Biblical scholars even think twice before claiming that it is 'clear' that Elvis Presley was renowned during his life time for his tap dancing?

James the brother of Jesus

2009-08-14T08:26:00.001-07:00

Does any Christian in the first century AD claim a story about Jesus came from his alleged brother , James?

What sort of brother is it when even Christians do not cite him as a source?

The second gunman and Biblical scholarship

2009-08-14T00:51:00.000-07:00

As we all know, a second gunman appeared from nowhere to shoot JFK and Connolly, and then disappeared from history, only to reappear years later in conspiracy theories.

In Mark's Gospel, Joseph of Arimathea appears from nowhere to bury Jesus , and then disappears from history, only to reappear when 'Mark' wrote about him.

The sudden unexplained appearance of Joseph of Arimathea is a useful way of showing that Jesus's body was not left to rot on the cross or be thrown to dogs.

In terms of historicity , how does Joseph of Arimathea differ from the second gunman?

Apart from the obvious fact that mainstream Biblical scholarship accepts the existence of Joseph of Arimathea, while denying that their standards of scholarship differ from those of JFK conspiracy theorists?

Biblical scholars

2009-08-13T15:24:00.000-07:00

Douglas J. Moo is a Biblical scholar, with , I am ashamed to say, a doctorate from a leading British University.

On page 116, of his book on Romans , he writes 'The most we could say is that AIDS may be an additional manifestation of the wrath of God against rebellious and sinful humanity.'

An 'additional' manifestation? Just how many plagues does this God send against rebellious and sinful humanity?

Is Biblical scholarship really scholarship when proponents discuss whether or not AIDS was sent by God to punish mankind?

Richard Dawkins says theology is a non-subject. Is discussing whether or not AIDS was sent by God to punish mankind really a proper subject for British universities to spend their time on?

Obedience to God

2009-08-13T00:16:00.000-07:00

Numbers 31
The LORD said to Moses, "Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people."
So Moses said to the people, "Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD's vengeance on them.

Religious people will kill you if they think their god has commanded you to kill them.

They take their orders from their imaginary friend. And if their imaginary friend tells them to kill people, that is what they will do. It is called being devout.

Is this really anti-Semitic?

2009-08-12T20:51:00.000-07:00

The BBC has posted a video designed to bring Judaism into disrepute. It allegedly depicts Jews warding off swine flu.

Does the BBC bother to think about the reaction this video will cause?

The brothers of the Lord

2009-08-11T11:06:00.000-07:00

1 Corinthians 9:5
Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

Who were the Lord's brothers that Paul mentions? Was Christianity really a family business where the brothers of Jesus knew they could make money for themselves and their wives if they preached Christianity?

Vision or hallucination

2009-08-09T12:22:00.000-07:00

Acts 10 contains a ludicrous story that Christians believe, because it is in the New Testament, although it is clearly nonsense, that no grown up person should take seriously.

He (Peter) became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."

"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."

The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."

This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.

NT Wright would say this was not an hallucination, because Peter knew perfectly well what an hallucination was and what an hallucination was not.

I guess there is nothing that Christians won't believe. If somebody claims to have seen food that was not there, they will say that it was not an hallucination, it was a 'vision'

Wright on the Resurrection Here a Christian explains that this bizarre story was not an hallucination, it was a vision.

A sheet containing all kinds of four-footed animals was not an hallucination, because it was a vision?

You have to laugh at these people....

Anti-discrimination laws

2009-08-06T02:07:00.000-07:00

Religions have long been in the lead to fight against discrimination.

The Bible was one of the first documents to try to limit discrimination. In fact, discrimination was limited only to people in the following categories :-

Leviticus 21
The LORD said to Moses, "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.

There was to be no discrimination against other people, well, against other men at least.

Miracles and the Book of Mormon

2009-08-02T09:38:00.000-07:00

My article Miracles and the Book of Mormon article examines the Book of Mormon and the Koran and the Gospels and examines the parallels between them - the way all three works used the same method to create the fraudulent stories in them.

Atheist camp

2009-07-31T10:32:00.001-07:00

Disproving unicorns

A news story about the atheist indoctrination summer camp - Camp Quest.

Notice the glassy eyes on the children.....

Atheist summer camps

2009-07-30T14:00:00.000-07:00

Summer camp seems a very American idea to me. Some children do enjoy them.

The law in England is that all schoolchildren are compelled to take part in acts of worship of a God.

After a year of compulsory worship of a god they do not believe in, is it surprising that some students want a break?

Is it surprising that there are Christians who mock a secular summer camp, yet see nothing wrong in legislation forcing children to worship God in schools?

British Christians defending genocide

2009-07-27T08:17:00.000-07:00

Christians continue to try to remove the negative assocations with which the word 'genocide' has become encrusted over the course of the past century.

Marcus Honeysett explains why his Holy Book tells him that a whole group of people were so evil, that tney had to be killed, man, woman and child.

Jesus loved these people so much, that His Father decided they all had to be killed.

Isn't Christianity a wonderful religion?

Bishops answer questions from atheists

2009-07-24T01:42:00.000-07:00

Bishop Alan Wilson answers questions from atheists.

CARR
Why did this Good Shepherd allow 250,000 of his sheep to be killed by a tsunami on 26/12/2004?

THE RIGHT REVEREND ALAN WILSON
Steven, dear bloke, you're just trolling. One reason your railing doesn't change anything much is that very few, if any, of the people whose religion you sneer at out of ignorance actually believes anyway in the kind of aunt sally deities you reject.

The problem of pain is very important. But your theory that natural disasters are caused personally by Jesus, or even that anyone would ever think that, is bizarre.

------------------------------------------------------
All I can say is that this answer is pathetic. Who would have thought that somebody who managed to become not just reverend, but 'right reverend' would be so offended by a question that he must surely have asked himself many , many times?

Daniel Dennett at the Darwin Festival in Cambridge

2009-07-16T14:42:00.000-07:00

Daniel Dennett writes 'I've heard two of you talk now, and you keep saying this is an interdisciplinary effort--evolutionary theology--but I am still waiting to be told what theology has to contribute to the effort. You've clearly adjusted your theology considerably in the wake of Darwin, which I applaud, but what traffic, if any, goes in the other direction? Is there something I'm missing?'

Theologians, according to John Polkinghorne, are engaged in a search for truth.

So what progress are they making?

What problems did theology face at the start of the 19th century that theologians say that the know the answers to now, without having used one of the many sciences to arrive at that answer?

Paul Copan on why the children must die

2009-07-14T09:57:00.001-07:00

Paul Copan on the wisdom of ordering children to be killed

Yes, Christian apologists continue on their campaign to remove the negative associations that the word 'genocide' has become lumbered with....

Do you believe in Gob?

2009-07-07T11:06:00.000-07:00

Orthodox Jews spit on female reporter on the Sabbath

Christianity - Is it for scum?

2009-07-05T03:41:00.000-07:00

The Christianity Explored course says ''In the next chapter we’ll see exactly how Jesus achieves that rescue, but for now I want to focus on the assumption Jesus makes: that we are all rebels in need of rescue, even if we believe we’re basically good people.'

My friends believe I am basically a good person.

Is Jesus not my friend?

Is this a new Christian slogan? 'Christianity - It's for scum like you.'

Do Christians have any respect for humanity? Are they even capable of saying that atheists are good people?

Another blunder in the Gospel of Mark

2009-07-03T12:21:00.000-07:00

On page 211 of 'Mark for Everyone', the Bishop of Durham , NT Wright, says that 'kings and senior nobles wore purple in the ancient world'.

Mark 15 'They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!" Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him.'

How many kings and senior nobles were there in Jerusalem at the time?

Does anybody seriously expect us to believe that the Roman soldiers took one of Pilate's robes so they could spit on it?

Richard Bauckham on 'Brothers of the Lord'

2009-06-30T13:36:00.000-07:00

Richard Bauckham recently won a prize for his book 'Jesus and the Eyewitness'

The Book of Jude quotes Richard Bauckham as writing :-
'Palestinian Jewish-Christian circles in the early church used the title ‘brother of the Lord’ not simply to identify the brothers, but as ascribing to them an authoritative status, and therefore the brothers themselves, not wishing to claim an authority based on mere blood-relationship to Jesus, avoided the term...'

It is amazing the insight Bauckham has into the minds of the brothers of Jesus.

He can sit down at his desk, think himself into their minds, and tell you their thought-processes regarding the pros and cons of using the phrase 'Brother of the Lord'

Bauckham can tell you , using only his psychic powers, that Jude, the brother of Jesus, would call himself the brother of James, but never mention that he was the brother of Jesus, presumably to avoid charges of 'name-dropping'

How can sceptics compete with the almost superhuman insight of mainstream Biblical scholars who have such gifts as being able to read minds of 2000 years ago?

Sceptics have to work with evidence and data, which puts them at a big disadvantage compared with mainstream Biblical scholars who can pull anything they like out of thin air..... and expect to be taken seriously.

Violation of human rights

2009-06-17T04:12:00.000-07:00

Human rights violation

'A Jewish couple are suing neighbours over motion sensors that turn on the lights in their communal stairwell, which they claim make it impossible for them to leave their flat during the sabbath.

Like many Orthodox Jews, Dena and Gordon Coleman will not use electricity between sundown on Friday and Saturday night, which they regard as a day of rest. But since the sensors were installed at Embassy Court in Bournemouth, the lights come on as soon as the Colemans set foot outside their front door — which they say makes them responsible for switching them on and therefore prohibits them from leaving the building.

The couple are suing their neighbours, saying that their human rights are being breached, and are claiming up to £5,000 damages.'

'But Chanie Alperowitz, the director of Bournemouth Chabad, an Orthodox Jewish group, said: “On the sabbath there are 39 forms of creative activity which are forbidden. Among them is the prohibition of lighting a fire.

“When using electricity, one causes a fire as there are sparks created by the electricity. If the light is switched on by someone stepping outside their door, their actions have caused it to happen.'

Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology

2009-06-14T10:26:00.000-07:00

The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology is a recent book edited by William Lane Craig and JP Moreland.

The Amazon page says 'With the help of in-depth essays from some of the world's leading philosophers, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology explores the nature and existence of God through human reason and evidence from the natural world.'

Despite the world's leading Christian philosophers producing a mighty book of 704 pages on the nature of God, they do not even attempt to produce an argument to show that the god they worship is a Trinity.

I guess Christian philosphers can produce not one single rational argument about the 'nature' of God which supports their dogma that they worship a Trinity.

You couldn't make it up

2009-06-10T14:11:00.000-07:00

Swinburne is an amazing page, where Christian apologist Swinburne claim God does not cure cancer, because that would deprive human beings of the choice of whether or not to fund cancer research.

Honest, I am not making this up.

Swinburne actually did write that page.

No atheist could ever produce a parody of Christian thought that approached that piece of writing.

It has to be seen to be gawped at.

How could any person ever have such thoughts cross their brain?

Jumping the Shark

2009-05-21T02:57:00.000-07:00

In Acts 1, Jesus takes off into the sky and disappears into a cloud , on his way to Heaven.

'After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. "Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.'

This is a classic jumping the shark moment, when it all goes absurd.

MP's expenses - the final solution.

2009-05-14T07:09:00.000-07:00

It is obvious that MP's would not claim so much expenses if they knew they would be burned in Hell by God if they failed God's scrutiny at the Last Judgement.

This is the thesis of somebody invited by the BBC to lecture Britain on morality on Thought for the Day.

You can read the Rev Dr Alan Billings musings on MP's expenses and why MP's no longer feel accountable to God for their use of tax-payer's money.

The extremely religious are always amazing in their unique take on world events.

Feedback on resurrection debate

2009-04-29T04:36:00.000-07:00

I recently had a radio debate with Canon Michael Cole on the Resurrection

Here is some of the feedback the programme received.

From: Nick P.
Sent: 12 April 2009 23:58

Honestly Justin, I was quite disappointed. Stevie should have been a walk in the park as his arguments have been answered a number of times, namely by J.P. Holding. A good scholar of Pauline literature would have demolished him. My main problem was that I thought the Mormon technique was being used. Here we have Stevie saying that all Christians have is there testimony and experience and what do the callers do? Even your Christian on the program did it! They just pointed to personal testimony instead and said that they have experienced God and that Stevie just needs to ask God to reveal the truth to him.

Odd. The Mormons say the exact same thing to me.

If we have an atheist saying all Christians have is their testimony and Christians just give him their testimony, then I believe they have done a disservice to the gospel. Stevie instead has his opinion further cemented that this is all Christians do. His opponent should have used a line of argumentation much like N.T. Wright used in "The Resurrection of the Son of God." (Dang. If you'd had N.T. Wright there, it would have been a massacre.)

Looking forward to next week Justin. I always listen to your show. I was just disappointed with how the Christians did by and large on this one.

In Christ,
Nick Peters

Not one word of refutation of any arguments I used, and an implicit admission that the debate was a victory for me.

Of course, I was prepared for Wright's arguments, nor can Nick Peter say just how Wright would have 'massacred' me.

From: Steps Olu
Posted At: 11 April 2009 16:10

Justin,
Thanks for a brilliant forum for arguments for and against biblical doctrines/beliefs. I believe that Mr. Carr's evidence to disprove the bodily rising of Jesus from the dead from the Scriptures would fail if he looks at the whole evidence that the Bible has to offer, rather than a minute portion about the order of resurrection in different planes. If we start from the premise that there was a resurrection (of Jesus that is), be it spiritual or physical, then we can proceed to identify (from the Scriptures) the actual nature of it.

When Jesus rose, his body was no longer where it was laid. He Himself later stated that He couldn't have been a mere spirit as he had flesh and bones.

Paul said further in 2 Corinthians 5 that our present bodies will be "clothed upon" or superimposed upon by an attribute no longer subject to death. Futher he wrote in 1 Thessalonians that the dead shall rise first and we that are alive and remain will be caught up in the air to meet the Lord (being our futuristic experience of resurection life). The resurrected body is the original physical body but changed through an operation of GOD into an eternal imperishable body. That's why even those dead already will have their decayed bodies reconstituted and turned into one that will withstand eternally.

Even as in Revelation 20, the unsaved dead will have their bodies back!

Having said all that however, it takes a spiritual mind to see and understand that these things are true, but it is unusual (but not impossible) for God to impose spiritual truths about Himself on our wills and minds, especially if we have become predisposed to disbelieve Him. If Mr. Carr is willing to approach GOD with the openess of a child, he might have a life-transforming experience! (or is he a bit afraid that it might actually happen that way?)

Shalom.

Johnson Oluwasegun.

Of course, Paul never says in 2 Corinthians that 'our present bodies' will be clothed upon. Paul says the earthly body is destroyed. 'Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.'

The present body is destroyed, not saved.

It is always good to know Christians can only refute you by making things up , in this case, making up the claim that Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5 that 'our present bodies' are clothed upon.

Revelation might well contradict Paul, but that proves only that Christians contradict each other.

Similarly, Luke 24 does make Jesus say he was not a spirit (pneuma)

But Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that 'the last Adam became a life-giving spirit (pneuma)

It seems Christians think that if they find a bit of the Bible which contradicts another bit, then they have proved the Bible is true....

From: Andy Evans
Posted At: 11 April 2009 19:52

I'm one of your few atheist listeners and normally enjoy your show. This week was an exception. Not only am I surprised that you got Steven Carr on (who as far as I can make out has no credentials whatsoever) but out of all the shows in your archive you chose this one to repeat!

As far as I'm aware Steven Carr has been heavily influenced by Richard Carrier. Now I don't for one moment think that Richard Carrier has the best arguments atheism has to offer (Mike Licona refuted them in his debate with Richard Carrier ages ago and last month William Lane Craig did the same thing. In fact Richard Carrier admitted on his blog that william lane Craig won which for someone liek carrier who is not famous for their modesty is quite astonishing!) Nonetheless if you wanted a debate on this subject why not get someone like Richard Carrier who at least has some credibility. Carrier says on his website that he is more than willing to do debates (http://www.richardcarrier.info/speaking.html)

Nonetheless you could probably do better still. Why not try and get Robert Price onto your show and do a debate? http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

If I hadn't listened to your other shows then I would asusme you got an Internet troll like Steven Carr on to give the Christian an easy target to destroy...I hope this blip in the quality of your guests was a one off.

Mr. Evans is unable to find one word of criticism of what I actually said, or one word of praise for anything Canon Michael Cole said.

He cannot produce one word of these alleged 'refutations', and contents himself with personal abuse, as for some reason known only to him, he is unwilling to tell people what these 'refutations' are.

Guess what? There are no refutations.

Or else Mr. Evans would have produced them, rather than claim that the Emperor has Clothes, even if he cannot say what they look like.

NT Wright on the discontinuous resurrected body

2009-04-23T23:35:00.000-07:00

1 Corinthians 15:51-52
Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.

In my resurrection debate with Canon Michael Cole , I argued that Paul did not believe corpses were resurrected, so did not believe the corpse of Jesus rose from the grave.

Instead, Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 5 that the earthly body is destroyed, and that we get a heavenly body.

But what did Paul believe would happen to Christians of his time? He told them that they would not all die, so how could they get a heavenly body if death did not destroy their earthly body?

Paul answers that question in 1 Corinthians 15:52-52 where he says 'we' (NB not our bodies) will be changed - in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye.

Why does Paul insist this happens 'in a flash'?

It must be to emphasises the discontinuity of the old and new body. Why else emphasise the lightning speed of the change?

There is not to be one nano-second of overlap, where the old body is in a process of transformation to the new body.

Contrast that with Ezekiel 37 where clearly a transformation does not take place 'in a flash'.

In Paul's view ,we make a quantum jump from the old body to the new body, which means there is no intermediate state. One instant we are in the old body. The next instant we are in the new body.

A transformation that takes place in a flash is not a transformation at all. It is a replacement. A transformation is a process, and a process takes a finite time.

But why would Paul emphasise the speed at all if not to impress on the Corinthians the replacement of one body by another, rather than its transformation? There can be no other reason to stress the speed, other than to rub the 'foolish' Corinthians nose in the fact that there is no time for one body to turn into another.

Paul is emphasising the discontinuity between the earthly body and the heavenly body.

This ties in with the fact that he had no stories of corpses leaving tombs. He taught that we left our earthly bodies behind to be destroyed and moved into heavenly bodies.

Which contradicts Gospel stories of a body going into a tomb and a body leaving the tomb.

In 'The Resurrection of the Son of God', NT Wright has a footnote on page 359 on this very verse, where he admits the discontinuous nature of the bodies.

Wright writes 'We may note at this point that those who will be 'changed', here and in Phil. 3:21 will thus , it seems, pass directly from the present bodily life to the future bodily life without any intermediate state.'

This is the very definition of 'discontinuous'. Two states are continuous only if an intermediate state could be found between them. But instant jumps from one state to another are the definition of 'discontinuity'

So even Wright cannot spin away Paul's words entirely to make Paul say that the earthly body turns into the heavenly body, which is what is needed if Paul is not to contradict the Gospels.

Hard evidence for God

2009-04-23T07:40:00.000-07:00

The Bible claims you can get hard evidence for God by simply asking God for sign after sign until He has proved Himself to your satisfaction.

Judges 6
36 Gideon said to God, "If you will save Israel by my hand as you have promised- 37 look, I will place a wool fleece on the threshing floor. If there is dew only on the fleece and all the ground is dry, then I will know that you will save Israel by my hand, as you said." 38 And that is what happened. Gideon rose early the next day; he squeezed the fleece and wrung out the dew—a bowlful of water.

39 Then Gideon said to God, "Do not be angry with me. Let me make just one more request. Allow me one more test with the fleece. This time make the fleece dry and the ground covered with dew." 40 That night God did so. Only the fleece was dry; all the ground was covered with dew.

Guess what?

Christians nowadays know perfectly well that there is no God who will give sign after sign , even though the Bible claims there is.

Faith - Belief without Evidence

2009-04-15T00:02:00.000-07:00

AN Wilson was an atheist, but he has now returned to faith.

He writes 'Of course, only hard evidence will satisfy the secularists, but over time and after repeated readings of the story, I've been convinced without it.'

Faith - belief without evidence.

What resurrection transformed these people?

2009-04-12T05:37:00.001-07:00

In The Gospel of John and Christian Theology By Richard Bauckham, Carl Mosser (2008), Professor Alan Torrance of the University of Saint Andrews writes on page 254 that Mark does not mention Lazarus, because Lazarus was a wanted man and feared for his life.

Of course, there is no evidence given for this amazing claim that the author of Mark did not mention Lazarus , because that would get Lazarus killed. How?

What had transformed these people so that they went from a bunch of frightened people to people who could not even be named in Christians books because they were so scared of being killed?

Resurrection debate

2009-04-11T07:51:00.000-07:00

I also have a debate on the Resurrection with Father John Twisleton

I recently tried to arrange a debate against Geoff Bagley but that did not happen

Debate on the resurrection

2009-04-10T01:20:00.000-07:00

I will be debating Canon Michael Cole on Premier Christian Radio on the subject of the resurrection on Saturday 11th April 2009 at 2.30 pm BST (1.30 GMT)

Listen live at Unbelievable

There is a review of the debate at Review

The answer is not 42

2009-04-09T05:24:00.000-07:00

Some people are under the impression that the answer to the question of the life, the universe and everything is 42

This is not true.

This video will tell you the answer to Everything

The Gospel of Mark as a parable

2009-04-02T13:20:00.000-07:00

Neil Godfrey has an excellent article on how the disciples in Mark's Gospel are literary devices, to be moulded at will to suit the personal agendas of whichever Gospeller was writing about them.

Some nice praise

2009-04-01T02:16:00.000-07:00

I have just received the following email about my Debate with Dr. David Wilkinson

Hello, Steven,

I have just read the exchanges between you and Dr David Wilkinson and have to say with due honesty, he was on thin ice right from the beginning.

Like the comment you gave in your debate with Roger Steer, you have given another superlative plus performance in your debate with Dr Wilkinson. Kudos!

It beats me how anybody who has read the Bible can continue in their belief in the Maniac aka the barbaric, freakish, insane, tyrannical, genocidal God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I was a Catholic for many years [became one chiefly as a result of herd instinct] and, ironically, de-converted after immersing myself in Bible-reading. I have read many postings in the internet of other people’s de-conversion on similar grounds. The hard copy of the Bible in my house is retained by me only for reference purposes; otherwise I would have burnt it or trashed it ages ago. What a book of filth! Evil masquerading as good, immorality as morality etc.

I am keen on reading such debates and look forward to details of other debates involving your participation.

Rgds Richard Woo

Another Biblical absurdity?

2009-03-29T01:44:00.000-07:00

The Bible is a never ending stream of contradictions.

In Acts 3 , Peter makes a lame person walk.

This pales in comparison with Jesus raising the dead, yet apparently this miracle is an utter sensation.

In Acts 4, the opponents of Peter say 'Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name.'

So Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead, many people are raised from their graves and appear to many in the city, Jesus himself is resurected, and yet the priests think that if they can keep the story of a lame person walking quiet, they can stop Christianity spreading any further?

Just how absurd is that?

Just why did not all Jerusalem convert to Christianity when Jesus was allegedly doing miracles 1000 times bigger than Peter's miracle?

Norman Geisler and Frank Turek

2009-03-28T04:49:00.000-07:00

Evangelical Realism has an excellent post on just how bad the arguments of Christian apologetics are.

Alan Segal on Paul and the Resurrection

2009-03-27T07:32:00.000-07:00

Loren Rosson the Third, has an interesting guest post by Alan Segal on Paul's view of the resurrection and the way it was a spiritual body and not the body as portrayed in the Gospels.

I quote from it :-

'Paul, who wrote before the Gospels, never mentions the empty tomb, though he certainly goes out of his way to tell us that Jesus was buried. I suspect that he saw this as a victory over the Roman oppressors because they rarely granted permission for crucified criminals to be buried with honors. It is also clear that the resurrection body is a spiritual body.

But it is nowhere clear that it is the physical body of the Gospels. It may be the same body transformed but that is far from clear in Paul’s 1 Corinthians 15 essay on the subject. It seems out of the question that it is merely the flesh revivified as he says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom (1 Cor. 15:50). But what it is positively is ambiguous.

The metaphor of the grain of wheat suggests two bodies because the ancient world thought that the seed disappeared and was reborn.

Other parts of the passage suggest a single body transformed. What is clear to me is that it does not automatically cohere with the Gospel story. And why should it? He did not know the finished Gospel tradition. The real question is: “Why do the Gospels ignore Paul?”'

10 years jail for praying

2009-03-25T00:42:00.000-07:00

The Irish Times reports of a person persecuted for his faith to such a degree that he has just been sentenced to 10 years in jail.

His crime?

He prayed to his god.

Jail for prayers

Evans and Wright - Jesus , the Final Days

2009-03-19T01:17:00.000-07:00

This is the name of a new book where Christian scholars Craig Evans and NT Wright try to prove the Bible accounts of the resurrection are all true, all four of them.

Matthew 28 says 'The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.'

Notice that there was more than one of them, according to the anonymous author of Matthew's Gospel.

On page 70 of the book, Craig Evans writes 'We probably should assume that the evangelist has referred to the custodian, whose placement in the vicinity of tombs set aside for executed criminals was to see that burial laws were not violated'

So even Christian scholars cannot produce evidence that more than one guard would be posted, or that this guard was something not normally done, and was done only because the Pharisees wanted a guard.

Even Christian scholars implicitly admit the bogosity of Matthew's story....

A church cover up?

2009-03-17T01:27:00.000-07:00

The last 2 letters alleged to have been written by Paul and Peter are 2 Timothy and 2 Peter. Both are regarded as forgeries by huge numbers of New Testament scholars.

There are some remarkable coincidences in these books....

Both letters warn against false teachers.

Both attack and insult those false teachers, and warn about events in the last days.

2 Timothy talks about how useful Mark is , and how Luke is with Paul. Curiously, both are alleged Biblical authors.

2 Peter talks about the writings of Paul and how they are scripture. Curiously, Paul also is a Biblical author. 2 Peter also says this is his second letter. Peter only ever wrote 2 letters in his life , it seems.

If 2 Peter is the second letter by Peter, then perhaps 1 Peter is a genuine letter ?!?

Both have a very high view of scripture. In 2 Timothy, Paul asks for his scrolls, while 2 Peter links Paul's writings in with scripture and calls Paul a 'dear brother'.

Methinks, church leaders tidied up these letters to make the church unified against false leaders, and to validate traditional authorship of Biblical books and to declare them to be scripture.

Questions of Truth

2009-03-16T05:25:00.000-07:00

This is the name of a book by John Polkinhorne , who is regularly touted as one of the best Christian thinkers. Nicholas Beale helped....

Amazingly, page 87 of the book manages to produce 2 of the silliest arguments for the resurrection.

Even according to the New Testament, the disciples are alleged to have waited 6 weeks before going public, yet Polkinghorne's book claims Christianity could have been refuted if the Romans had produced a decayed corpse of Jesus.

Even though it was unthinkable to touch corpses and though Jewish law said corpses could not be identified after 3 days.

And then Polkinghorne's book goes on to claim that the disciples gave their lives for their beliefs in the resurrection.

Although not one Christian was ever charged with preaching a resurrection, and Galatians 6:12 says that Christians were persecuted on the issue of circumcision, not resurrection, and that Christian leaders avoided persecution by compromising their beliefs.

And this book is supposed to be great Christian thinking?

Christians - not fully human?

2009-03-15T11:20:00.001-07:00

Of course Christians are fully human.

However, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor , the Archbishop of Westminster, thinks nothing of saying that atheists are not fully human.

Catholic Bigotry is where you can hear Catholics say things about atheists that would be shocking if they heard themselves speak.

The bigotry starts at 20 minutes.