Breaking News: Jesus Did Not Exist (Part II)

Christ and the Rich Young Ruler, by Heinrich Hofmann, 1889. Courtesy Wikipedia.

Paragraph 5

Even if Mark did indeed omit the account of Christ’s resurrection, virtually every book of the New Testament claims this fact. Omission is not disagreement, nor is it relevant to Mr. Sosa’s thesis.

Paragraph 6

Again, the article’s author is merely grasping at straws now. Among the people that discovered Jesus’ empty tomb, Mary Magdalene is mentioned in all four Gospels, and Mary the mother of James was mentioned in three of the four. Since these four accounts were written by four different authors, it’s reasonable to expect different attentions to details. But again, omission is not contradiction.

Paragraph 7

Poor debaters like to throw the dogs off their trail by claiming that their arguments are already “established,” irrefutable facts, regardless the number of holes. This paragraph could have easily been omitted, not that it would have saved the rest of the article’s downward spiral.

Paragraph 8

How many days after His resurrection did Jesus ascend into Heaven? Mr. Sosa is right that, on the surface at least, Luke and Mark claim that Jesus ascended the same day that He rose from the dead (their accounts are nearly identical; Matthew makes no mention of the ascension). But what the article fails to mention is that while the Book of Acts claims that Jesus ascended into Heaven after 40 days, it is widely believed that its author is Luke himself. If that is the case, then I would be more likely to believe that the seemingly rushed endings of the two Gospels were not meant to be taken as a literal timeline of events. This might warrant some more research.

Paragraph 9

In this paragraph, the author again states his opinion that the issues he has brought up are “problematic” to the existence of Jesus. I hope I have shown that that is not necessarily the case. The rest is a side-swipe at Jesus’ moral character and teaching, for which he only refers to a list of Jesus’ supposed self-contradictions, written by “a new convert to Islam.” Most of the items in this list are taken out of context and are easily explained, without any hand-waving or fudging of the text. If you have studied the Bible enough to reconcile God’s commandment to not kill, with His commands to destroy various nations in and around the land of Canaan, you would see right through this list. Perhaps that’s a topic for another post.

Paragraph 10

Unnecessary paragraph, strictly expressing the author’s opinion, without any further . Moving on....

Paragraphs 11 and 12

Dr. Erhman is an avowed agnostic, who is against organized religion, particularly the Big Three monotheistic ones, so he is naturally biased (as are Mr. Sosa and myself). Consider this: Ancient Babylon’s Hanging Gardens are considered one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, despite the lack of documentation on when and where they existed. Jesus has far more supporting evidence, from multiple authors, most of whom happen to be found in a collection of work that we call The Bible.

Paragraph 13

As I quoted at the beginning of my rebuttal, most scholars agree that there is more than enough evidence to prove that Jesus did indeed live and was crucified, in the timeframe described in the Bible. I have not researched the reliability of documents by Justin Martyr, but my reading into Tacitus' and Josephus’ accounts of the one called Jesus confirms that most experts agree that at least some measure of their writing concerning Jesus is genuine.

I will not attempt to read Dan Barker’s books, going under the assumption that if he indeed managed to prove that God and Jesus never existed, I would have read about it on Yahoo News.

Paragraph 14

I was taught in school to always end my persuasive essays with an excellent clinching paragraph. This is not it. Instead, we are presented with more opinion and a reference to an article about Jesus-like copy-cats, none of whom (1) fulfilled dozens of verifiable Old Testament prophecies and (2) influenced an entire globe for nearly two millennia... and still counting.

Like Mr. Sosa, there is so much more that I could write, but my rebuttal is already longer than the original article. If you need more of a convincer, please also see Wikipedia’s “Jesus of Nazareth” article. In the meantime, I will humbly allow the Apostle Paul to conclude my rebuttal and will continue to pray that the Lord will move the hearts of Chris Sosa and atheists/agnostics like him, as He did my own heart.

“Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice” (Philippians 1:15-18).

Breaking News: Jesus Did Not Exist (Part I)

Christ and the Rich Young Ruler, by Heinrich Hofmann, 1889. Courtesy Wikipedia.

Apparently, Jesus never existed... ... or at least that’s what Huffington Post blogger Chris Sosa claims. This is interesting to me, because even as an atheist, I took the historical existence of the man called Jesus of Nazareth as a foregone conclusion. In fact, here is an excerpt from the introduction to Wikipedia’s “Historicity of Jesus” article (copied on 9/4/2014):

“The majority viewpoint among scholars is that Jesus existed, but scholars differ about the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the parts of his life that have been recorded in the Gospels. Scholars who believe that Jesus existed differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4BC and died 30–36 AD, that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, that he was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate and that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere. The theory that Jesus never existed at all has very little scholarly support.”

What I find even more interesting is that Mr. Sosa chose not to attack Jesus’ divinity, which may be easier fodder for an atheist than Jesus’ mere existence. At any rate, for the sake of some who may actually believe his arguments, and as an exercise in apologetics, I would like to spend a little time analyzing the article.

Paragraph 1

Sosa first tries to dismiss the teaching of Jesus by implying that (1) they originate only from Him (yes, my use of capitalization betrays my bias), and (2) their application in moral discussions is a recent development. However, Jesus and His followers made it very clear that the Gospel is really just an extension of the Mosaic Law, found in the Old Testament. Jesus said:

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment...” (Matthew 5:21-22).

“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28).

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:37-40).

And His moral teachings are the basis for our own laws, as evidenced by the writings of our nation’s founding fathers. See William Federer’s “America’s God and Country” for details. In fact, until the last 50 years, there wasn’t really much of a need to invoke Christian morality, because the vast majority of Americans already subscribed to it, even if they weren’t Christian.

Paragraph 2

I assume this is Sosa’s disclaimer that he could be wrong, and that Jesus actually existed? I’m not really sure what he’s trying to say here. Is the difference between a Jesus and the Jesus rooted in the number of followers He garnered?

Paragraph 3

This is a thesis paragraph of sorts. While subsequent paragraphs will be discussed in greater detail below, I wish to address the generalizations that Sosa makes here. He claims that the four Gospels and Paul’s letter’s (others wrote letters, too, so are they included in this generic statement?) depict contradicting portraits of Jesus. But the only contradictions provided regard relatively minor details surrounding His birth, death, and resurrection. None of the New Testament books disagree about the most basic facts: that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified and died, that He physically rose from the dead, and that He ascended back into Heaven. His recorded teachings also contain no contradictions worthy of Mr. Sosa’s explicit mention.

Paragraph 4

The Gospels of Luke and Matthew clearly disagree about key events surrounding Jesus’ birth. Timing issues aside, the two don’t directly contradict one another. Luke records the taxing and the manger scene, but omits any references to the famous Wise Men, Herod’s infamous slaying of children, or the young family’s flight to Egypt. Matthew, on the other hand, recounts the latter three, but does not mention the taxing, the manger scene, or even the Star of Bethlehem. Interesting how popular culture mashed all these elements together, into one seemingly cohesive account.

Reading the Wikipedia article on Quirinius (Cyrenius), I concede that the timing of Herod’s reign and Cyrenius’ taxing appear incompatible, but I think this is the only valid point Mr. Sosa manages to make; hardly a smoking gun for the non-existence of history’s arguably most influential person.
While the Gospels of Mark and John begin at the start of Jesus’ ministry, Luke and Matthew both agree on the essentials of Jesus’ birth, many of which were prophesied in the Old Testament: born in Bethlehem, to a virgin named Mary, who was married to Joseph, both of whom were of the tribe of Judah and descendants of King David.

By the way, there are plenty of historical figures whose exact birthdates (or birth-years, even) are unknown. The ancient world wasn’t nearly as into record-keeping as we are today. Unless you were born into a ruling family, your existence typically went undocumented and unnoticed. Jesus was born the son of a Jewish carpenter, shunned political office and fame, and had followers who were zealously persecuted both by the Jews and the occupying Romans. It’s no wonder that there are few records of Him, outside of the Bible, during the first couple centuries AD (in case you were wondering, AD is short for Anno Domini, which is Latin for Year of Our Lord).

To be concluded...

Change We Can Believe In

Sorry that I haven't kept up with my blogs, recently. With my current job coming to a close in a month, I've been really busy wrapping up my work there and looking for new employment. And since my brain has a hard time staying focused on more than a couple things at a time, blogging has taken a back seat.

You probably recognize this blog's title as one of our current President's campaign slogans. While I'm not here to discuss the recent passing of the health care bill or the way Mr. Obama has been leading this country, I thought his old slogan was quite appropriate for the real subject of this post (and it's not French money, either!).

Mainstream Christianity often says that God loves us just as we are. We can be free to be ourselves and know that as long as we believe in Jesus, we are assured a home in Heaven. And no matter what we do, what mistakes we make, or what sins we commit, Jesus will greet us with open arms.

While there is some truth in those statements, it is not the whole truth.

God is not some giddy schoolgirl, infatuated with the hunky guy in the third row; He knows the corrupt hearts of men. When He created Adam, He was not a dreamy-eyed boy, receiving his very first puppy, and utterly unaware of the responsibilities and challenges of taking care of it. He knew full-well what He was in for. He knew all the heartache mankind would bring Him. He knew that one day soon, all too soon, He would have to hang on a blood-stained cross, for His creation. He knew all this, and yet went through with it, because He had a purpose and a plan for us.

The truth is that God is a god of change. He designed us in His image and wants us to be more like Him. He also provided us the catalyst and the power to change, by allowing His Holy Spirit to dwell in the hearts of His children.

Mainstream Christianity says that if we just believe in Christ, we will be saved. But there is so much more implied in that. Jesus said that unless we repent and become as little children, we cannot be saved. In fact, He told Nicodemus that we must be born again; we must be born of the Spirit, in order to gain eternal life. Paul says that if a man is in Christ, he is a new creation, that old things have passed away, and all things become new. I imagine a larva going into its cocoon and coming out a butterfly.

God is a god of change.

This is apparent even in human physiology. Are we born fully grown (as Adam and Eve were), able to walk, talk, and reason? No. We enter this world entirely weak and helpless, utterly dependent on others for our very survival. It then takes us a good couple decades to mature into fully functional members of society, able to bear the responsibilities and challenges of adulthood.

Likewise, Paul says that we must mature in Christ. The life of the saved is one of constant change. We grow not only in the knowledge of the Holy, but also in righteousness, as the Holy Spirit moves in our hearts. We must not remain in the sins of our youth (literal and figurative). We must believe that God has the power to cleanse us from all unrighteousness and form us into His Holy image.

There is more, so much more, to all this. I will address it again, in my upcoming study of Paul's epistle to the Romans.

Detecting Antichrists

(Edited for clarity on 9/3/2009)

Every night (except when I'm so dog-tired that I can barely muster to find the bedroom), I read a few Bible verses to our son. It's a moment of quality father-son time, that I would not trade for anything. Lately, we've been reading 1 John, which I like to call "the opposites letter", on account of all the contrasts that it contains. The start of chapter 4 hit a chord in me, and I'd like to talk about it a bit.

[1] Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

First of all, we must always be on our guard, because false doctrines and false teachers are everywhere, some so cunning that, if it were possible, they could deceive the very elect (paraphrased from the Bible). Like the famous Bereans, we need to be comparing what we see and hear with the Word of God. That means not only having the Bible handy, but internalizing its contents, so that we are walking Bibles. This is especially important, as there seems to be a church on every corner, and religious people all around us.

[2] Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God....

Here's a litmus test that tells you whether or not a person, organization, or doctrine is of God. Sounds a little simplistic, if taken at face value, but when you look at it a bit closer, you'll find so much more.

What does "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" mean? Just that there really was this historical guy named Jesus, who walked around Galilee, 2000 years ago? Even many atheists will agree to that. But the "Christ" is not a last name, but a title. A title reserved for the Messiah, the one that scriptures prophesied that would come and bring salvation. The Holy One of God, God Himself, come in the flesh, to die on the cross for our sins. There's a lot there! And there are so many who deny this truth, try to water it down, or add man's ideas to it. God's not into that; no, He tells it like it is, and so do His people. Those who don't, simply aren't of Him.

[3] ... and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Many Christians are into "The Antichrist" that's supposed to come at the end of the world, only to be defeated by Jesus. I can understand where that idea came from, but there's nothing in the Bible that confirms that any one personage carrying that title will ever come. Only 1 and 2 John even mention the word "antichrist", and he makes it clear that they are already here today (from his time, even) and are very, very common. By his definition, an antichrist is one who denies that Jesus is the Christ (1 John 2:22, 2 John 1:7). Jews are antichrists (how's THAT for political incorrectness???). Muslims are antichrists. Atheists are antichrists. Hindus and Buddhists are antichrists. The various end-times beasts and false prophets mentioned throughout the Bible are antichrists. I think even some "Christian" sects are that way or extremely close. And, of course, there are those (such as the Catholics and Mormons), who although will verbally agree that Jesus is Christ, they have added so many rules, traditions, and doctrines, that Jesus simply gets lost in the shuffle.

But a true Christian is one whose entire being depends on this simple truth: Jesus is Christ.

[4] Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

So need we fear the falsehoods out there? Naaah! Jesus has already overcome it, and through Him, we are overcomers, too! How do we overcome? Not by beating everyone else over the head with a family-sized Bible, but by not being tainted by their lies. By being a shining example, in spite of them and by not failing to teach our children to walk in God's truth.

[5] They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

How true this is! Here is a phrase software engineers like to use: You put garbage in, you get garbage out. For a computer program, this means that if you feed it incorrect data, you will get incorrect results, no matter how well-written the program itself is. Humans work the same way. We were created in God's image, but if we gorge on the sinful things of the world, that's exactly what we'll be spewing back out. But if Jesus and God's Word are what we put in, then that's what will be on our minds and lips.

[6] We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

We have a choice of what we put into our minds. People of the world like to listen to the things of the world, and people of God like to listen to Him. Worldly people will not want to hear what you have to say (even those who claim to be Christian). Here's a funny one for you: will a TV set ever listen to what you have to say (no matter how much you yell at it)? Where does it fall in, according to John?

The rest of the chapter is totally awesome too, but I'll stop here, for now.

A (World)View of "Camelot"

Ted Kennedy died of brain cancer this past Tuesday, leaving behind a tainted legacy. He was the liberals' champion and the conservatives' arch-enemy. But this post is not about his works or where his soul might be resting right now (if it is resting at all). There is something he said at a dinner, more than 20 years ago, that has shed a spotlight on a current issue. The following is an excerpt from Yahoo's biographical article on him.

When a Moral Majority fundraising appeal somehow arrived at his office one day in the early 1980s, word leaked to the public, and the conservative group issued an invitation for him to come to Liberty Baptist College if he was ever in the neighborhood.

Pleased to accept, was the word from Kennedy.

"So I told Jerry (Falwell) and he almost turned white as a sheet," said Cal Thomas, then an aide to the conservative leader.

Dinner at the Falwell home was described as friendly.

Dessert was a political sermon on tolerance, delivered by the liberal from Massachusetts.

"I believe there surely is such a thing as truth, but who among us can claim a monopoly?" Kennedy said from the podium that night. "There are those who do, and their own words testify to their intolerance."

"Tolerance" has a become a buzzword and a banner, used by the secular left, to push an agenda of relativistic morality (or none at all) and gain acceptance of practices and beliefs that have historically been frowned upon by the populace-at-large. Drug use, sexual promiscuity and deviancy, abortion, and entertainment being some of the most obvious examples.

How ironic that Kennedy confessed a belief in (absolute) truth, but in the same breath denied the possibility that anyone could know it. By accusing such people of intolerance, he himself demonstrates a similar intolerance toward those very same folks.

In general, many vocal non-Christians accuse Christians of being intolerant, just because we espouse to the immutable truths found in the Word of God. But God Himself is the very image of tolerance. Anyone who's read the Bible cover-to-cover knows how infinitely patient and forgiving God is. Just look in the Books of Judges and 1 and 2 Kings, how often the Israelites rebelled against Him, and yet He always heard their pleas of repentance. Jesus patiently tolerated not only the doubts and nearsightedness of His own disciples, as well as the humiliation of imprisonment, torture, and the cross. How many sinners does He even today allow to live to a ripe old age?

On the other hand, God told the Israelites, as they were about to enter Canaan, to mercilessly and utterly wipe out the nations around them. He warned them that if they failed to do so, their heathen neighbors would be a stumblingblock to them and lead them astray. Naturally, God's chosen people disobeyed, and we all know the results. Likewise, I think Christians as a whole have been too tolerant of society's moral slipping and sliding, to the point where we have not only become the extremist minority, but we and our children are being assaulted every day by the filth that runs through our streets, like open sewers (paraphrasing from a Carman song).

Is there a way back? Some, looking at Revelation, say that things will just keep getting worse and worse, until He finally makes His triumphant return. But I say, even if the Titanic's sinking, we should not just sit there playing fiddle, but get as many as we can to the liferafts.

So don't let the atheists shoot you down with accusations of intolerance, hatred, and judgmentality, for they are guilty of the very same thing they accuse you of. Invite them to remove the beam out of their own eyes, before they start looking for slivers in yours.

As you can see, I don't tolerate people who call me intolerant. ;)