On Creationism

 Many Christians cite the guards on the tomb as good evidence for the resurrection, claiming that they are pretty much a historical fact. In contrast, I hold that the guards were made up. How would this have played out? Jesus was real, and was know to be real to the Jews (i.e., the non-Christian Jews) of the time that Matthew was written. The story of the Empty Tomb was already circulating by then (whether true or not), as Mark had already been written, and so the Jews (some at least) also knew that the Christians were claiming an Empty Tomb as part of their apologetic. As a reaction to the claims of an empty tomb, some Jews were saying that the disciples had stolen the body. So far, I do not think any of this is particularly contentious. In this environment, the author of Matthew wrote his gospel. This would have been a community effort. Probably one person did the writing, but the book represented the collective view of the community, and that community invented the guards on the...

Back in the mid-nineteenth century an eminent lawyer, Simon Greenleaf, published a book with the snappy title: An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists, by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. With an Account of the Trial of Jesus. The book is out of copyright, and so freely available . "Ancient Documents" A major thrust of the work is that the gospels can be considered "ancient documents" in the legal sense. For more on what that means see here . Thus, on page 70: The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writing, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule. He then quotes the "ancient...

The word “apocalypse” originally meant (in Greek) revelation; something unveiled or revealed. It has come to mean the end of the world because the Book of Revelation is about that event. Revelation was the last book added to the canon, and its place there has been disputed at various times, for example by Martin Luther. The Book of Revelation itself claims to be written by an author called John, and while early Christians understood this to be the apostle, modern scholars think it is highly unlikely to be either the apostle or the author of the Gospel of John. John was a very common name, however, so it is quite possible John was his name. The events described seem to date the work fairly exactly to AD 95, but while the Gospel of John is very much a gentile work, distancing itself from the Jews, this is very much a Jewish work (perhaps why it was rejected by Luther). As such, it harkens back to the earliest days of Christianity, and indeed to the apocalyptic genre of Daniel. The ...

This is prompted by a recent post by Ken Ham , making it very clear he is against homosexuality: Why does he hate gays? Or rather, how does he rationalise his hatred of gays? It is in the Bible! What About Greed? Okay, but the Bible is rather more insistent that greed is wrong, but Ham never rails against that. Why is that? For one thing, Answers in Genesis has a net income of $36.8 million dollars in 2017. That is a huge amount. What do they do with all that money? "Executive compensation" was $710,717 that year. That is money that Ken Ham pays himself and the other executives - most of whom are family members. According to here , Ham pocketed $193,361 just for himself in 2012, and I feel confident saying that that figure has only gotten bigger in the years since. It seems pretty sure Ham pays himself around a million dollars every five years, making him a very wealthy man. Of course Ham is not going to rail against his own vice! Far better to point out supposed voice in...

I have been reading Robert Eisenman's "James the Brother of Jesus" recently. He makes the case that James was the leader of the Christian church after Jesus died, until his own death in AD 62. Since that time, however, his role got downplayed, as Jesus became ever more divine. It was awkward for God incarnate to have a brother, so James was redacted from the narrative. Eisenman draws on the Dead Sea Scrolls to a large degree, and this is generally regards as suspect, as he has to ignore the dating of the documents to make it work. Nevertheless, the rest of his argument seems to be well regarded, and I found it pretty convincing. Five years later (Jul/24): I now think Eisenman has it wrong. A better explanation: We have James, the Brother of John, who was an original disciple, and became leader of the church. Then we have James, the Brother of Jesus, a pious man who rejected Jesus claims when Jesus was alive, but became convinced later, perhaps after having a vision, and...

Did the disciples see the risen Jesus? One alternative is they hallucinated. My personal opinion is that whatever they saw, it was in Galilee, probably in the order recounted in 1 Cor 15, and nothing like the events described in the gospels. We cannot say what they saw, and I am certainly not putting this forward as what happened - I do not think we have enough information to even make a reasonable guess. I am just looking at whether it is plausible . Grief Vision It is very common to have a vision of a loved one who has recently passed away. I couple of links here and here . Note that these are personal visions, so arguably not like the mass sighting seen in Galilee. That said, a grief vision by one disciple, Peter perhaps. Willful Belief This paper discusses how people believe what they want to be true. Here is the abstract: This article investigates collective denial and willful blindness in groups, organizations, and markets. Agents with anticipatory preferences, link...

It seems almost certain to me that the various sighting of the resurrected Jesus in and around Jerusalem were made up, and the only actual sights - whatever they actually were - were in Galilee. While Mark makes that clear, he offers absolutely no insight into what was actually seen there. Paul Paul gives us no details on where it happened, but as oyr earliest account, is still very important. This was probably an early creed, so in fact pre-dates the epistle. 1 Corinthians 15:4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, Peter The Gospel of Peter is truncated, and ends just at the important bit. [58] Now it was the final day of the Unleavened Bread; and many w...

Some Christians argue that the Gospel of Luke was written early because (among other things) it is cited by Paul. The labourer is worthy of his reward 1 Tim. 5:17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Here it is in Luke: Luke 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. This argument has a number of issues... The Epistle was not written by Paul Most modern scholars believe 1 Timothy to be pseudographa, written later first century or even second century. This gives it plenty of time to quote Luke. A Compilation The author of Luke makes no claim to be an eye witness, but instead is a compiler. He has collected various texts and accounts and woven them into one ...

The Gospel of John is quite different to the other gospels. It is dated to 90 to 130 AD, so is later, but it has been suggested that it had multiple authors, or to put it another way, it got revised several times before it achieved (more or less) its final form. This might suggest it is the work of a community somewhat in isolation, and while mainstream Christianity has the passion narrative, which was edited to became Mark, which was itself edited to become Matthew, in John we only have the final product of a similar development process. In John we see a somewhat different theology, which may be due to the time it was written, or could represent the theology of the isolated community - or a mixture of the two. Either way, in John it was believed that Jesus had existed even before his birth, and perhaps for that reason the author felt a nativity story was not needed. Like Luke, John has Jesus appearing in Jerusalem subsequent to the resurrection, indicating some familiarity wit...

While the Gospel of Matthew might be seeking to redress the loss of Judaism in Christianity, the Gospel of Luke veers the other way. It too is based soundly on Mark, and likely shares another source with Matthew (or draws on Matthew), in particular a book of sayings, called Q. Unlike Matthew it makes no attempt to link the narrative to prophecies of the Old Testament. Traditionally the author is Luke, a physician and traveling companion of Paul, but the evidence is not convincing either for or against. It is, however, pretty much agreed the same author wrote both Luke and Acts. Luke has the virgin birth, but the nativity he tells is quite unlike that of Matthew, and the census puts it about six years later! In Luke we see an elaboration of the Jerusalem appearances , after the very brief appearance in Matthew. He was writing sufficiently long after the event that such stories could start to circulate in the community without the people who were actually there refuting it. Luke di...

The author of the Gospel of Matthew was not the tax collector that Jesus knew. The author probably wanted to create an updated version of the existing gospel, one that included the birth of Jesus among other things that Mark had omitted. He also wanted to show how Jesus' life followed the prophecies of the Old Testament. Thus, he started with the text of Mark, but added much to it, to create what today is considered another gospel. The work is quite Jewish in nature, but reflects how the religion has very much moved away from Judaism. Paul's missionary work had established Christianity in the gentile world, whilst the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD following the Jewish revolt had seriously reduced the Jewish side of Christianity. By the time the Gospel of Matthew was written, many pagan idea had influenced the new religion. Virgin birth One of the most significant of these ideas was the virgin birth . That this is in Luke too indicates it predates Matthew by some se...

The Gospel of Mark is undoubtedly the most important work we have with regards to Jesus life, as it is the earliest gospel (and Paul does not discuss Jesus' life at all). It also gives us a snapshot of the beliefs of that moment in time. It was written around 60 to 80 AD; mention of the fall of the Temple suggests after 70 AD. Even if it was written by St Mark - which is by no means certain - this is not an eye witness account; St Mark joined the movement after the events recorded in the gospel. Jesus was adopted When Mark was written, the early Christians believed Jesus was adopted as the son of God at his baptism, following the precedent of earlier Jewish Kings. This is discussed at length here . Mark's beliefs were very similar to the Ebionites (allowing that we do not know quite what they believed for certain), a group of Jewish Christians considered heretical who survived for some centuries. The Resurrected Jesus The gospel originally ended at verse 8, and even...

The passion narrative was a text that described the last few days of Jesus from his entry to Jerusalem, up to and possibly including the Empty Tomb. It was one of numerous texts used by the very early church that are now lost. Although I have placed this after Paul, it may well have pre-dated Paul's epistles. Although today the gospels are "carved in stone" this was very much not the case back then, and the texts were subject to frequent modification. The Passion Narrative was a text that developed over time, and much of it was devised from scripture rather than history. Why think it changed? We do not know what the original passion narrative was, let alone its version history, so why suppose it changed? We can look at the way other texts have changed. The second half of the last chapter of Mark is absent in the earliest manuscripts. The verses that are in the Bible today were a later addition - and some Bibles even acknowledge this: https://www.biblegateway.com/pa...

Paul was a Pharisee , and as such it was his job to ensure the Jews were diligently following the laws of the oral tradition to bring about the arrival of the messiah. Jesus had rejected the oral tradition, and his followers of course did too, so Paul was involved in putting a stop to them. On the road to Damascus, however, he saw a bright light, and heard a voice in his head. He was looking forward to the arrival of the messiah and for the dead to be resurrected in bodies shining brightly, and so naturally concluded that this was Jesus, the messiah, resurrected! Paul did not think Jesus was God or was a part of the trinity. That is not what the messiah was. To Paul, Jesus was the king of the Jews (thus Paul consistently called Jesus "lord"), and his resurrection indicating the Messianic age was finally on its way. Jesus was but the first of a general resurrection event that Paul was confident would occur in his life time. Paul referred to Jesus as the "first fruits...

Paul's conversion on the Road to Damascus seems pretty certain to have happened. We have an account in Acts probably written by a companion of Paul's, and we have the obvious fact that Paul was a Christian later in life. Both Acts and Paul's letters indicate Paul was originally involved in persecuting Christians. So what did Paul believe before and after that event? The Pharisees http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/pharisees-sadducees-and-essenes http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/jewish-resurrection-of-the-dead/ Paul was a Pharisee originally, charged with rooting out Christians. Curiously the best source of information about the Pharisees is the Christian New Testament, with Josephus (who was probably a Pharisee himself) being the second of two. Neither are exactly objective! The defining feature of the Pharisees was the belief in a set of spoken laws, supposedly given to Moses, to accompany the w...